For once we see the manipulative underhandness of the Greeks

Rating: 9/10 (12 January 2018)

I absolutely loved this movie. My mother is Greek and I was raised more Greek than my German father's heritage. I know the Greek mindset and the subtle and not so subtle ways of manipulation and political intrigue. This movie in the first hour exactly portrays the clever manipulation of all parties concerned to achieve their respective goals. I am also an independent scholar of everything Byzantine. Too often a battle movie only centers on the war strategy, the action scenes and the political statement the writers which to convey. The Eastern Roman empire after their defeat at Manzikert in 1071 was in severe decline thereafter. The only manner, therefore, in which the "Byzantine" empire was able to continue for so long afterwards was by political manipulation and payoffs. The ending obviously shows the writers' intent on being a pro-Turkish movie at the expense of some minor points in its historical portrayal. But, there is nothing of historical discrepancy I found that was fatal to the story. In fact, the story does not go far enough in showing how Mehmet II rebuilt the city by rebuilding the population with Christians and even Jews. He showed religious tolerance and even re-established the Greek Orthodox Patriarchy. I could go on and on about the wonderful manner in which Mehmet governed Constantinople after the conquest, and it shows his unique genius. Therefore, I understand why the Turks emulate him so much. Regarding some of the historical discrepancies some viewers point out in their reviews, there is much about the battle we simply do not have a definitive account: Was a gate left open on purpose or by mistake? And was this gate the reason why the city fell? Did Constantine XI die in battle or did he commit suicide? How many men did Mehmet actually have? How many men did Constantine XI have? One thing is sure, many of us have been wrongfully assuming Constantinople was a weak city which was easy to conquer. There is no evidence of this. The empire was non-existent. Yet, in fact the walls of the city were in good repair having been strengthened before the siege. Therefore, I believe the director took what pieces of discrepant history he thought important to adapt to his theme of the movie. I have no historical problem with the director's approach. The set pieces and art direction were superb. The battle scenes wonderfully done. The acting breathless.