book 1, chapter 3, section 3.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043. Repeated attacks by the Russians.

Notwithstanding an active and increasing commercial intercourse between the Greeks and the Russians, Constantinople was exposed, during the tenth century and part of the eleventh, to repeated attacks from the masterful Varangians and their subjects. In the year 907, a fleet of 2,000 Russian vessels or boats swarmed into the Bosphorus, and laid waste the shores in the neighborhood of Constantinople. "It is not improbable that the expedition was undertaken to obtain indemnity for some commercial losses sustained by imperial negligence, monopoly or oppression. The subjects of the emperor were murdered, and the Russians amused themselves with torturing their captives in the most barbarous manner. {508} At length Leo [VI.] purchased their retreat by the payment of a large sum of money. ... These hostilities were terminated by a commercial treaty in 912." There was peace under this treaty until 941, when a third attack on Constantinople was led by Igor, the son of Rurik. But it ended most disastrously for the Russians and Igor escaped with only a few boats. The result was another important treaty, negotiated in 945. In 970 the Byzantine Empire was more seriously threatened by an attempt on the part of the Russians to subdue the kingdom of Bulgaria; which would have brought them into the same dangerous neighborhood to Constantinople that the Russia of our own day has labored so hard to reach. But the able soldier John Zimisces happened to occupy the Byzantine throne; the Russian invasion of Bulgaria was repelled and Bulgaria, itself, was reannexed to the Empire, which pushed its boundaries to the Danube, once more. For more than half a century, Constantinople was undisturbed by the covetous ambition of her Russian fellow Christians. Then they invaded the Bosphorus again with a formidable armament; but the expedition was wholly disastrous and they retreated with a loss of 15,000 men. "Three years elapsed before peace was re-established; but a treaty was then concluded and the trade at Constantinople placed on the old footing. From this period the alliance of the Russians with the Byzantine Empire was long uninterrupted; and as the Greeks became more deeply imbued with ecclesiastical prejudices, and more hostile to the Latin nations, the Eastern Church became, in their eyes, the symbol of their nationality, and the bigoted attachment of the Russians to the same religious formalities obtained for them from the Byzantine Greeks the appellation of the most Christian nation."

_G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057, book 2, chapter 3, section 2._

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1081. Sacked by the rebel army of Alexius Comnenus.

Alexius Comnenus, the emperor who occupied the Byzantine throne at the time of the First Crusade, and who became historically prominent in that connection, acquired his crown by a successful rebellion. He was collaterally of the family of Isaac Comnenus, (Isaac I.) who had reigned briefly in 1057-1059,--he, too, having been, in his imperial office, the product of a revolution. But the interval of twenty-two years had seen four emperors come and go--two to the grave and two into monastic seclusion. It was the last of these--Nicephorus III. (Botaneites) that Alexius displaced, with the support of an army which he had previously commanded. One of the gates of the capital was betrayed to him by a German mercenary, and he gained the city almost without a blow. "The old Emperor consented to resign his crown and retire into a monastery. Alexius entered the imperial palace, and the rebel army commenced plundering every quarter of the city. Natives and mercenaries vied with one another in license and rapine. No class of society was sacred from their lust and avarice, and the inmates of monasteries, churches, and palaces were alike plundered and insulted. This sack of Constantinople by the Sclavonians, Bulgarians, and Greeks in the service of the families of Comnenus, Ducas, and Paleologos, who crept treacherously into the city, was a fit prologue to its sufferings when it was stormed by the Crusaders in 1204. From this disgraceful conquest of Constantinople by Alexius Comnenus, we must date the decay of its wealth and civic supremacy, both as a capital and a commercial city. ... The power which was thus established in rapine terminated about a century later in a bloody vengeance inflicted by an infuriated populace on the last Emperor of the Comnenian family, Andronicus I. Constantinople was taken on the 1st of April, 1081, and Alexius was crowned in St. Sophia's next day."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453, book 3, chapter 1.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1204. Conquest and brutal sack by Crusaders and Venetians.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203; and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1203-1204.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1204-1261. The Latin Empire and its fall. Recovery by the Greeks.

See ROMANIA, THE EMPIRE OF, and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261. Great privileges conceded to the Genoese. Pera and its citadel Galata given up to them.

See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453. The restored Greek Empire.

On the 25th of July, A. D. 1261. Constantinople was surprised and the last Latin emperor expelled by the fortunate arms of Michael Palæologus, the Greek usurper at Nicæa. (See GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA.) Twenty days later Michael made his triumphal entry into the ancient capital. "But after the first transport of devotion and pride, he sighed at the dreary prospect of solitude and ruin. The palace was defiled with smoke and dirt and the gross intemperance of the Franks; whole streets had been consumed by fire, or were decayed by the injuries of time; the sacred and profane edifices were stripped of their ornaments; and, as if they were conscious of their approaching exile, the industry of the Latins had been confined to the work of pillage and destruction. Trade had expired under the pressure of anarchy and distress, and the numbers of inhabitants had decreased with the opulence of the city. It was the first care of the Greek monarch to reinstate the nobles in the palaces of their fathers. ... He repeopled Constantinople by a liberal invitation to the provinces, and the brave 'volunteers' were seated in the capital which had been recovered by their arms. Instead of banishing the factories of the Pisans, Venetians, and Genoese, the prudent conqueror 'accepted their oaths of allegiance, encouraged their industry, confirmed their privileges and allowed them to live under the jurisdiction of their proper magistrates. Of these nations the Pisans and Venetians preserved their respective quarters in the city; but the services and power of the Genoese [who had assisted in the reconquest of Constantinople] deserved at the same time the gratitude and the jealousy of the Greeks. Their independent colony was first planted at the seaport town of Heraclea in Thrace. They were speedily recalled, and settled in the exclusive possession of the suburb of Galata, an advantageous post, in which they revived the commerce and insulted the majesty of the Byzantine Empire. The recovery of Constantinople was celebrated as the era of a new Empire." {509} The new empire thus established in the ancient Roman capital of the east made some show of vigor at first. Michael Palæologus "wrested from the Franks several of the noblest islands of the Archipelago--Lesbos, Chios, and Rhodes. His brother Constantine was sent to command in Malvasia and Sparta; and the Eastern side of the Morea, from Argos and Napoli to Cape Tænarus, was repossessed by the Greeks. ... But in the prosecution of these Western conquests the countries beyond the Hellespont were left naked to the Turks; and their depredations verified the prophecy of a dying senator, that the recovery of Constantinople would be the ruin of Asia." Not only was Asia Minor abandoned to the new race of Turkish conquerors--the Ottomans--but those most aggressive of the proselytes of Islam were invited in the next generation to cross the Bosphorus, and to enter Thrace as partisans in a Greek civil war. Their footing in Europe once gained, they devoured the distracted and feeble empire piece by piece, until little remained to it beyond the capital itself. Long before the latter fell, the empire was a shadow and a name. In the very suburbs of Constantinople, the Genoese podesta, at Pera or Galata, had more power than the Greek Emperor; and the rival Italian traders, of Genoa, Venice and Pisa, fought their battles under the eyes of the Byzantines with indifference, almost, to the will or wishes, the opposition or the help of the latter. "The weight of the Roman Empire was scarcely felt in the balance of these opulent and powerful republics. ... The Roman Empire (I smile in transcribing the name) might soon have sunk into a province of Genoa, if the ambition of the republic had not been checked by the ruin of her freedom and naval power. A long contest of 130 years was determined by the triumph of Venice. ... Yet the spirit of commerce survived that of conquest; and the colony of Pera still awed the capital and navigated the Euxine, till it was involved by the Turks in the final servitude of Constantinople itself."

_E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 62-63. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ALSO IN: G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, book 4, chapter 2.

See, also, TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326; 1326-1359; 1360-1389; 1389-1403, &c.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355. War with the Genoese. Alliance with Venice and Aragon.

John Cantacuzenos, who usurped the throne in 1347, "had not reigned a year before he was involved in hostilities with the Genoese colony of Galata, which had always contained many warm partisans of the house of Paleologos [displaced by Cantacuzenos]. This factory had grown into a flourishing town, and commanded a large portion of the Golden Horn. During the civil war, the Genoese capitalists had supplied the regency with money, and they now formed almost every branch of the revenue which the imperial government derived from the port. ... The financial measures of the new emperor reduced their profits. ... The increased industry of the Greeks, and the jealousy of the Genoese, led to open hostilities. The colonists of Galata commenced the war in a treacherous manner, without any authority from the republic of Genoa (1348). With a fleet of only eight large and some small galleys they attacked Constantinople while Cantacuzenos was absent from the capital, and burned several buildings and the greater part of the fleet he was then constructing. The Empress Irene, who administered the government in the absence of her husband, behaved with great prudence and courage and repulsed a bold attack of the Genoese. Cantacuzenos hastened to the capital, where he spent the winter in repairing the loss his fleet had sustained. As soon as it was ready for action, he engaged the Genoese in the port, where he hoped that their naval skill would be of no avail, and where the numerical superiority of his ships would insure him a victory. He expected, moreover, to gain possession of Galata itself by an attack on the land side while the Genoese were occupied at sea. The cowardly conduct of the Greeks, both by sea and land, rendered his plans abortive. The greater part of his ships were taken, and his army retreated without making a serious attack. Fortunately for Cantacuzenos, the colonists of Galata received an order from the Senate of Genoa to conclude peace. ... Their victory enabled them to obtain favourable terms, and to keep possession of some land they had seized, and on which they soon completed the construction of a new citadel. The friendly disposition manifested by the government of Genoa induced Cantacuzenos to send ambassadors to the Senate to demand the restoration of the island of Chios, which had been conquered by a band of Genoese exiles in 1346. A treaty was concluded, by which the Genoese were to restore the island to the Emperor of Constantinople in ten years. ... But this treaty was never carried into execution, for the exiles at Chios set both the republic of Genoa and the Greek Empire at defiance, and retained their conquest." The peace with Genoa was of short duration. Cantacuzenos was bent upon expelling the Genoese from Galata, and as they were now involved in the war with the Venetians which is known as the war of Caffa he hoped to accomplish his purpose by joining the latter. "The Genoese had drawn into their hands the greater part of the commerce of the Black Sea. The town of Tana or Azof was then a place of great commercial importance, as many of the productions of India and China found their way to western Europe from its warehouses. The Genoese, in consequence of a quarrel with the Tartars, had been compelled to suspend their intercourse with Tana, and the Venetians, availing themselves of the opportunity, had extended their trade and increased their profits. The envy of the Genoese led them to obstruct the Venetian trade and capture Venetian ships, until at length the disputes of the two republics broke out in open war in 1348. In the year 1351, Cantacuzenos entered into an alliance with Venice, and joined his forces to those of the Venetians, who had also concluded an alliance with Peter the Ceremonious, king of Aragon. Nicholas Pisani, one of the ablest admirals of the age, appeared before Constantinople with the Venetian fleet; but his ships had suffered severely from a storm, and his principal object was attained when he had convoyed the merchantmen of Venice safely into the Black Sea. Cantacuzenos, however, had no object but to take Galata; and, expecting to receive important aid from Pisani, he attacked the Genoese colony by sea and land. His assault was defeated in consequence of the weakness of the Greeks and the lukewarmness of the Venetians. {510} Pisani retired to Negropont, to effect a junction with the Catalan fleet; and Pagano Doria, who had pursued him with a superior force, in returning to Galata to pass the winter, stormed the town of Heracleia on the Sea of Marmora, where Cantacuzenos had collected large magazines of provisions, and carried off a rich booty, with many wealthy Greeks, who were compelled to ransom themselves by paying large sums to these captors. Cantacuzenos was now besieged in Constantinople, ... The Genoese, unable to make any impression on the city, indemnified themselves by ravaging the Greek territory on the Black Sea. ... Early in the year 1352, Pisani returned to Constantinople with the Catalan fleet, under Ponzio da Santapace, and a great battle was fought between the allies and the Genoese, in full view of Constantinople and Galata. The scene of the combat was off the island of Prote, and it received the name of Vrachophagos from some sunken rocks, of which the Genoese availed themselves in their manœuvres. The honour of a doubtful and bloody day rested with the Genoese. ... Pisani soon quitted the neighbourhood of Constantinople, and Cantacuzenos, having nothing more to hope from the Venetian alliance ... concluded a peace with the republic of Genoa. In this war he had exposed the weakness of the Greek empire, and the decline of the maritime force of Greece, to all the states of Europe. The treaty confirmed all the previous privileges and encroachments of the colony of Galata and other Genoese establishments in the Empire."

_G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, 716-1453, book 4, chapter 2, section 4._

The retirement of the Greeks from the contest did not check the war between Genoa and Venice and the other allies of the latter, which was continued until 1355. The Genoese were defeated, August 29, 1353, by the Venetians and Catalans, in a great battle fought near Lojera, on the northern coast of Sardinia, losing 41 galleys and 4,500 or 5,000 men. They obtained their revenge the next year, on the 4th of November, when Paganino Doria surprised the Venetian admiral, Pisani, at Portolongo, opposite the island of Sapienzu, as he was preparing to go into winter-quarters. "The Venetians sustained not so much a defeat as a total discomfiture; 450 were killed; an enormous number of prisoners, loosely calculated at 6,000, and a highly valuable booty in prizes and stores, were taken." In June, 1355, the war was ended by a treaty which excluded Venice from all Black Sea ports except Caffa.

_W. C. Hazlitt, History of the Venetian Republic, chapter 18-19 (volume 3)._

ALSO IN: _F. A. Parker, The Fleets of the World, pages 88-94._

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453. Conquest by the Turks.

Mahomet II., son of Amurath II. came to the Ottoman throne, at the age of twenty-one, in 1451. "The conquest of Constantinople was the first object on which his thoughts were fixed at the opening of his reign. The resolution with which he had formed this purpose expressed itself in his stern reply to the ambassadors of the Emperor, offering him tribute if he would renounce the project of building a fort on the European shore of the Bosporus, which, at the distance of only five miles from the capital, would give him the command of the Black Sea. He ordered the envoys to retire, and threatened to flay alive any who should dare to bring him a similar message again. The fort was finished in three months and garrisoned with 400 janizaries; a tribute was exacted of all vessels that passed, and war was formally declared by the Sultan. Constantine [Constantine Palæologus, the last Greek Emperor] made the best preparations in his power for defence; but he could muster only 600 Greek soldiers." In order to secure aid from the Pope and the Italians, Constantine united himself with the Roman Church. A few hundred troops were then sent to his assistance; but, at the most, he had only succeeded in manning the many miles of the city wall with 9,000 men, when, in April, 1453, the Sultan invested it. The Turkish army was said to number 250,000 men, and 420 vessels were counted in the accompanying fleet. A summons to surrender was answered with indignant refusal by Constantine, "who had calmly resolved not to survive the fall of the city," and the final assault of the furious Turks was made on the 29th of May, 1453. The heroic Emperor was slain among the last defenders of the gate of St. Romanos, and the janizaries rode over his dead body as they charged into the streets of the fallen Roman capital. "The despairing people--senators, priests, monks, nuns, husbands, wives and children--sought safety in the church of St. Sophia. A prophecy had been circulated that here the Turks would be arrested by an angel from heaven, with a drawn sword; and hither the miserable multitude crowded, in the expectation of supernatural help. The conquerors followed, sword in hand, slaughtering those whom they encountered in the street. They broke down the doors of the church with axes, and, rushing in, committed every act of atrocity that a frantic thirst for blood and the inflamed passions of demons could suggest. All the unhappy victims were divided as slaves among the soldiers, without regard to blood or rank, and hurried off to the camp; and the mighty cathedral, so long the glory of the Christian world, soon presented only traces of the orgies of hell. The other quarters of the city were plundered by other divisions of the army. ... About noon the Sultan made his triumphal entry by the gate of St. Romanos, passing by the body of the Emperor, which lay concealed among the slain. Entering the church, he ordered a moolah to ascend the bema and announce to the Mussulmans that St. Sophia was now a mosque, consecrated to the prayers of the true believers. He ordered the body of the Emperor to be sought, his head to be exposed to the people, and afterwards to be sent as a trophy, to be seen by the Greeks, in the principal cities of the Ottoman Empire. For three days the city was given up to the indescribable horrors of pillage and the license of the Mussulman soldiery. Forty thousand perished during the sack of the city and fifty thousand were reduced to slavery."

_C. C. Felton, Greece, Ancient and Modern: Fourth course, lecture 6._

ALSO IN: _G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires from 716 to 1453, book 4, chapter 2._

_E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 68. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453-1481. The city repopulated and rebuilt. Creation of the Turkish Stamboul.

{511}

"It was necessary for Mohammed II. to repeople Constantinople, in order to render it the capital of the Ottoman Empire. The installation of an orthodox Patriarch calmed the minds of the Greeks, and many who had emigrated before the siege gradually returned, and were allowed to claim a portion of their property. But the slow increase of population, caused by a sense of security and the hope of gain, did not satisfy the Sultan, who was determined to see his capital one of the greatest cities of the East, and who knew that it had formerly exceeded Damascus, Bagdad and Cairo, in wealth, extent and population. From most of his subsequent conquests Mohammed compelled the wealthiest of the inhabitants to emigrate to Constantinople, where he granted them plots of land to build their houses. ... Turks, Greeks, Servians, Bulgarians, Albanians, and Lazes, followed one another in quick succession, and long before the end of his reign Constantinople was crowded by a numerous and active population, and presented a more flourishing aspect than it had done during the preceding century. The embellishment of his capital was also the object of the Sultan's attention. ... Mosques, minarets, fountains and tombs, the great objects of architectural magnificence among the Mussulmans, were constructed in every quarter of the city. ... The picturesque beauty of the Stamboul of the present day owes most of its artificial features to the Othoman conquest, and wears a Turkish aspect. The Constantinople of the Byzantine Empire disappeared with the last relics of the Greek Empire. The traveller who now desires to view the vestiges of a Byzantine capital, and examine the last relics of Byzantine architecture, must continue his travels eastward to Trebizond."

_G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453, book 4, chapter 2, section 7._

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1807. Threatened by a British fleet.

See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

CONSTANTINOPLE: End----------

CONSTANTINOPLE, Conference of (1877).

See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.

CONSTANTIUS I., Roman Emperor, A. D. 305-306.

Constantius II., A. D. 337-361.

CONSTITUTION, The battles of the frigate.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813, and 1814.

CONSTITUTION OF ARAGON AND CASTILE (the old monarchy).

See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

CONSTITUTION OF ARAGON AND CASTILE: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.

The subjoined text of the Constitution of the Argentine Republic is a translation "from the official edition of 1868," taken from R. Napp's work on "The Argentine Republic," prepared for the Central Argentine Commission on the Centenary Exhibition at Philadelphia, 1876. According to the "Statesman's Year-Book" of 1893, there have been no modifications since 1860: