Recently finished a book on the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Or the conquest of Constantinople, depending on how you look at it.
Curious insight from the author of the book (Roger Crowley). He writes, “…the Ottoman perspective often has to be constructed by reading between the lines of Christian accounts: 1453 is unusual in being history largely written by the losers.”
Apparently, most of the stories about the battle for the city were recorded by the losing Christians. Specifically the Greeks and Italians. The Ottoman Empire, which won the battle, wrote very little about the battle. Only later did they write their history, and by that time it was largely secondhand and highly biased. The Christian accounts were equally biased, but they were much closer to the event (some within days) and have become the primary resource for accurate details about the “when & how” questions.
No idea why I’m blogging this. Just found it remarkable that the old adage “history is written by the winners” isn’t always true.