ABSTRACT

Sultan Murad II died at Adrianople (Edirne) on February 3, 1451 (New Year’s Day, 855 H.), but his death remained a state secret while Porte officials dispatched messengers with a sealed envelope to summon his son Mehmed II1 from his palace at Manisa. Mehmed hastened to Europe and assumed power fifteen days later on the sixteenth of Muharrem, 855 H. (February 18, 1451). This transition of power in the Ottoman state was generally greeted with relief but was also interpreted differently in various quarters. Most European courts expressed pleasure, as their diplomats had formed the distinct impression that Murad’s son presented no military threat; thus far he had expressed no interest in military matters and remained inexperienced in state politics. By contrast, Murad had routed Christian armies a number of times in the Balkans. The Christian disaster at Varna, whose objective had been to rid Eastern Europe of the Ottoman menace, and the subsequent rout of John Corvinus Hunyadi at Kosovo were still painful memories. Thus the succession of the young Mehmed created hopes and wishful expectations that the Turk could finally be brought under control and the recent Christian setbacks would be reversed. It was even whispered that Murad’s empire would soon be dismantled. George Sphrantzes, one of the active diplomats on the imperial staff of Constantinople and a close friend of Emperor Constantine XI, was, at the time of Mehmed’s enthronement, absent from Constantinople and was involved in official negotiations at the court of the Greek emperor of Trebizond. Sphrantzes notes that his host was delighted with the news of Murad’s death and predicted that the Greek world stood to profit by this change of the guard at the Porte. Sphrantzes was certainly in the minority when he disagreed with his host and interpreted the ascent of Mehmed as a bad omen. In his view Constantinople and the Porte had reached a modus vivendi during the last years of Murad’s long reign because the sultan had by then abandoned his plans of conquering the Greek capital. By contrast, Sphrantzes reckoned Mehmed was ambitious, young, and energetic:2 1 On the early life and rise to power of Mehmed II, cf. H. ‹nalcik, “Mehmed II,” ‹A, 7 (1957): 506510; idem, Fatih Devri üzerinde tetkikler ve vesikalar, passim. 2 Georgii Sphrantzae Chronicon, ed. Maisano (that is, the authentic Chronicon Minus), 30.5. For an English translation, cf. Philippides, The Fall of the Byzantine Empire, p. 59. Slightly different is the version elaborated by Makarios Melissourgos-Melissenos in the Maius 3.1, but his alterations are linguistic and not substantive: Kajgw;ajkouvsaı ou{twı ejgenovmhn a[fwnoı kai;tosouvth ojduvnh moi perieivceto, wJı eijperi;qanavtou tw`n filtavtwn hjkouvkein. Kai;mikro;n kathfiavsaı levgw:

Kai;ajkouvsa" tou'to ejgenovmhn a[fwno" kai;ou{tw" ojdunhqeivv", w{sper na;me;e[legen qavnaton tw'n ejmw'n filtavtwn: kai;mevcri tino;" katafiavsa" levgw: ÆDevspotavmou, tou'to oujcariven mantavton, ajlla;kai;ojduno;n livan.Æ Kai;levgei: ÆPw'" kalev…Æ Kai; ei\pon: ÆDiovti ejkei'no" h\n gevrwn kai;th'" Povlew" ajpepeiravsqh aujtw'/kai;plevon oujde;n h[qelen ejpiceirisqei'n toiou'tovn ti, ajll jh[qele movnon th;n ajgavphn kai; eijrhvnhn: ajmh;ou|to", oJpou'ejgevneto nu'n aujqevnth", e[ni nevo" kai;paidiovqen ejcqro;" tw'n Cristianw'n, na;uJbrivzh/kai;na;ejpapeilh'tai, o{ti qevlei poihvsein ta;kai;ta; kata;tw'n Cristianw'n.Æ Overcome by grief, as if I had been told of the death of those dearest to me, I stood speechless. Finally, with considerable loss of spirit, I said: “Lord, this news brings no joy. On the contrary, it is a cause for grief.” “How so, my friend?” he asked. And I responded: “The late sultan was an old man, had given up the conquest of our City, and had no desire of attempting anything like it again. He only wished for friendship and peace. This man, who just became sultan, is young and an enemy of the Christians since childhood. He threatens with proud spirit that he will put in operation certain plans against Christians.”