cdeane61's review against another edition
5.0
Absolutely fabulous. Nothing like a good historical novel to make the past come alive.
Have not read Humphrey before but will be looking up his other works.
For me this book was so balanced, so well laid out, that I found myself rooting for both sides, and knowing nothing about the final outcome, was pleased to have the tension of it going either way, right up to the very end.
Highly recommended.
Have not read Humphrey before but will be looking up his other works.
For me this book was so balanced, so well laid out, that I found myself rooting for both sides, and knowing nothing about the final outcome, was pleased to have the tension of it going either way, right up to the very end.
Highly recommended.
patremagne's review against another edition
4.0
“I am Constantine Palaiologos, emperor, son of Caesars. I am a baker, a ropewright, a fisherman, a monk, a merchant. I am a soldier. I am Roman. I am Greek. I am two thousand years old. I was born in freedom only yesterday. This is my city, Turk. Take it if you can.”
It’s 1453, and the Byzantine Empire is an empire only in name. Its last bastion is Constantinople and the brilliant, arrogant young sultan of the Ottoman Empire, Mehmet II, has his sights set on it, set on completing his father Murad’s work in eliminating his Greco-Christian foes once and for all. Murad was everything his son was not – statesman, soldier, commander – and Mehmet’s accession to the throne saw him immediately shadowed by his father’s legacy. Mehmet, however, was exceedingly arrogant and fancied himself akin to Caesar and Alexander, and he set his eyes upon the walls of Constantinople to prove himself worthy of the title Fatih, conqueror – the walls his ancestors had dashed themselves upon siege after siege for a millennium to no success.
Gregoras Lascaris is a man betrayed and exiled from Constantinople. His face is disfigured and missing a nose, and he has no desire to ever return to the city he once called home. Travelling and selling his sword under different names, fate ends up calling him back to Constantinople, where he discovers his twin brother Theon, his betrayer, married to his lover Sofia. Fictional characters from a historical family stand alongside many historical characters that Humphreys portrays exceptionally well. The aging Constantine, emperor of but one city, who sees his people facing their doom, the heroic Genoan Giovanni Giustiniani Longo leading the defense of Constantinople, the innovative German/Scottish engineer Johannes Grant, the aforementioned Sultan Mehmet, as well as some more minor characters fighting for reasons beyond plunder.
Mehmet was truly brilliant (historically as well) despite his somewhat childlike tantrums when he didn’t get his way. For a taste: can’t get your ships through the chain blockading the Golden Horn? Try laying a bunch of greased logs along the shore and rolling the ships to the side! Yes, he actually did these things.
Humphreys nails the blend of historical accuracy and fiction, from the thunder of Basilica, the 27-foot long cannon that launched massive 600lb cannonballs more than a mile to the fierce fighting on the walls, the citizens of Constantinople fighting for their very livelihoods. What follows is a heartbreaking story which, despite knowing its historical end, was still gut-wrenching, down to Constantine’s final charge.
Do yourself a favor if you enjoy historical fiction as deftly written as Christian Cameron and Paul Kearney.
"Oh my lords, my brothers, my sons, the everlasting honour of Christians is in your hands."
Κωνσταντῖνος ΙΑ’ Παλαιολόγος
It’s 1453, and the Byzantine Empire is an empire only in name. Its last bastion is Constantinople and the brilliant, arrogant young sultan of the Ottoman Empire, Mehmet II, has his sights set on it, set on completing his father Murad’s work in eliminating his Greco-Christian foes once and for all. Murad was everything his son was not – statesman, soldier, commander – and Mehmet’s accession to the throne saw him immediately shadowed by his father’s legacy. Mehmet, however, was exceedingly arrogant and fancied himself akin to Caesar and Alexander, and he set his eyes upon the walls of Constantinople to prove himself worthy of the title Fatih, conqueror – the walls his ancestors had dashed themselves upon siege after siege for a millennium to no success.
Gregoras Lascaris is a man betrayed and exiled from Constantinople. His face is disfigured and missing a nose, and he has no desire to ever return to the city he once called home. Travelling and selling his sword under different names, fate ends up calling him back to Constantinople, where he discovers his twin brother Theon, his betrayer, married to his lover Sofia. Fictional characters from a historical family stand alongside many historical characters that Humphreys portrays exceptionally well. The aging Constantine, emperor of but one city, who sees his people facing their doom, the heroic Genoan Giovanni Giustiniani Longo leading the defense of Constantinople, the innovative German/Scottish engineer Johannes Grant, the aforementioned Sultan Mehmet, as well as some more minor characters fighting for reasons beyond plunder.
Mehmet was truly brilliant (historically as well) despite his somewhat childlike tantrums when he didn’t get his way. For a taste: can’t get your ships through the chain blockading the Golden Horn? Try laying a bunch of greased logs along the shore and rolling the ships to the side! Yes, he actually did these things.
Humphreys nails the blend of historical accuracy and fiction, from the thunder of Basilica, the 27-foot long cannon that launched massive 600lb cannonballs more than a mile to the fierce fighting on the walls, the citizens of Constantinople fighting for their very livelihoods. What follows is a heartbreaking story which, despite knowing its historical end, was still gut-wrenching, down to Constantine’s final charge.
Do yourself a favor if you enjoy historical fiction as deftly written as Christian Cameron and Paul Kearney.
"Oh my lords, my brothers, my sons, the everlasting honour of Christians is in your hands."
Κωνσταντῖνος ΙΑ’ Παλαιολόγος
tasmanian_bibliophile's review
4.0
‘And I am here to take your city.’
By 1453, the walled city of Constantinople is all that remains of the once magnificent Byzantine Empire. One hundred thousand Ottoman (Turkish) soldiers, led by Sultan Mehmet II, want to take Constantinople from the Byzantines. Possession of the city the Ottomans refer to as the Red Apple will serve as a sign of supremacy over the Christian infidels.
As the Byzantine Empire has crumbled, so have Constantinople’s walls. Defending the city will not be easy for the small force of ten thousand led by the Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos. And, as history tells us, Mehmet triumphed.
While Mehmet and Constantine are central, the story of the siege is told through the lives and struggles of other characters. On the Byzantine (Greek) side, the primary characters are twin brothers Gregoras and Theon Lascaris. Gregoras, now a mercenary, has been disgraced, and returns to Constantinople from exile. Theon is in favour as a member of Constantine’s court. The brothers are very different in a number of ways, and there are reasons for the distrust between them. On the Ottoman side, the key characters include Hamza Bey, an adviser to Mehmet, and Achmed, a peasant farmer who is part of the first group of men to attack the walls.
Another of the strengths of this novel is its descriptions of the battles (both on land and at sea), and of the people involved. The Scotsman John Grant (Johannes le Grant), is an engineer on the Byzantine side who is tasked with the rediscovery of Greek fire. The Ottomans have their huge siege cannon, with a formidable destructive capacity. And among the weapons, the blood and the dirt are people on both sides who are fighting for a variety of reasons. The alternating views which tell the story enable a more complete view of the conduct of the siege and its consequences. It isn’t just a story about the fighting: there is political intrigue; family and romantic drama and (sometimes) some humour. There is an abundance of characters: Genoans and Venetians are also involved in the struggle and while it’s hard at times to remember what part each person played each has a role in either the actual history or the dramatic development of the story.
Mr Humphreys also provides a bibliography which will be of interest to those wanting to learn more about the historical basis of the novel.
I enjoyed the way that Mr Humphreys brought the events of the siege to life: in keeping with the times, there are fortune tellers and prophecies, alchemy and superstition. Both sides have their heroes and villains; each has its elements of tragedy. And for some of our characters, the future held happiness.
‘It was over. Constantinople had fallen.’
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
By 1453, the walled city of Constantinople is all that remains of the once magnificent Byzantine Empire. One hundred thousand Ottoman (Turkish) soldiers, led by Sultan Mehmet II, want to take Constantinople from the Byzantines. Possession of the city the Ottomans refer to as the Red Apple will serve as a sign of supremacy over the Christian infidels.
As the Byzantine Empire has crumbled, so have Constantinople’s walls. Defending the city will not be easy for the small force of ten thousand led by the Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos. And, as history tells us, Mehmet triumphed.
While Mehmet and Constantine are central, the story of the siege is told through the lives and struggles of other characters. On the Byzantine (Greek) side, the primary characters are twin brothers Gregoras and Theon Lascaris. Gregoras, now a mercenary, has been disgraced, and returns to Constantinople from exile. Theon is in favour as a member of Constantine’s court. The brothers are very different in a number of ways, and there are reasons for the distrust between them. On the Ottoman side, the key characters include Hamza Bey, an adviser to Mehmet, and Achmed, a peasant farmer who is part of the first group of men to attack the walls.
Another of the strengths of this novel is its descriptions of the battles (both on land and at sea), and of the people involved. The Scotsman John Grant (Johannes le Grant), is an engineer on the Byzantine side who is tasked with the rediscovery of Greek fire. The Ottomans have their huge siege cannon, with a formidable destructive capacity. And among the weapons, the blood and the dirt are people on both sides who are fighting for a variety of reasons. The alternating views which tell the story enable a more complete view of the conduct of the siege and its consequences. It isn’t just a story about the fighting: there is political intrigue; family and romantic drama and (sometimes) some humour. There is an abundance of characters: Genoans and Venetians are also involved in the struggle and while it’s hard at times to remember what part each person played each has a role in either the actual history or the dramatic development of the story.
Mr Humphreys also provides a bibliography which will be of interest to those wanting to learn more about the historical basis of the novel.
I enjoyed the way that Mr Humphreys brought the events of the siege to life: in keeping with the times, there are fortune tellers and prophecies, alchemy and superstition. Both sides have their heroes and villains; each has its elements of tragedy. And for some of our characters, the future held happiness.
‘It was over. Constantinople had fallen.’
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
jgolomb's review against another edition
4.0
"For I am the Turk. I come on the bare feet of the farmer, the armored boot of the Anatolian...I clutch scimitar, scythe, and spear, my fingers pull back bowstring and trigger, I have a glowing match to lower into a monster's belly and make it spit out hell. I am the Turk. There are a hundred thousand of me. And I am here to take your city."
...And so begins C.C. Humphreys' take on the Turk siege of the (mostly) Greek-held Constantinople in 1453.
This is actually a very good book. The attractive, war-oriented cover belies the true nature of author C.C. Humphrey's ability to blend historical fact and exuberantly descriptive narrative, into a well-conceived and terrifically executed piece of historical fiction. There's plenty of action, but the battles are set-pieces built around a foundation of historical world building.
It's not perfect. While Humphreys spends a good amount of ink to paint flesh on the bones of his key characters, they never truly come to life. Some elements of the interpersonal conflicts muddy, rather than enhance, the plot. If I had the choice, I'd give this 3.5 stars, but because I've enjoyed the book so much, and feel more enlightened about the famous siege of Constantinople in the mid 15th century, I'll edge up 'A Place Called Armageddon' to 4 stars.
In 1453, the Greeks had already found themselves an island surrounded rivals; Constantinople's enormous walls on one side, the waters of the Bosporus protecting the other three. Attacked throughout the years, Constantinople had managed to survive as a Christian outpost at this continental crossroads; this unique location had been the primary reason for their remaining semblance of autonomy and independence. But Sultan Mehmet brought to bear an overwhelming army that forced the leaders of Constantinople to rally christians from across the Mediterranean. Friends and foes alike.
Conflicts abound within the walls of Constantinople, as Humphreys exposes the cross-Christian rivals as well as the expected enmity between Christian and Turk. The differences and similarities across the people who come together to fight for and against each other is one of the staple themes threaded throughout the story. Humphreys interweaves this theme within the narrative, but exposes it a little too heavy-handedly at times. I found a similar trend in how he deals with the obligatory 'love-connection' between two long-lost lovers thrust together in this time of world-changing events.
In a terrifically written naval battle in the Bosporus under the great walls of Constantinople, Humphreys skillfully shifts between viewpoints to effectively evoke the multiplicity of action, it's impact on civilians, the warriors themselves, as well as the running political ramifications.
C.C. Humphreys has created a worthy entry into the world of historical fiction...and he's covered a specific time and place without much competition. I strongly recommend 'A Place Called Armageddon'.
...And so begins C.C. Humphreys' take on the Turk siege of the (mostly) Greek-held Constantinople in 1453.
This is actually a very good book. The attractive, war-oriented cover belies the true nature of author C.C. Humphrey's ability to blend historical fact and exuberantly descriptive narrative, into a well-conceived and terrifically executed piece of historical fiction. There's plenty of action, but the battles are set-pieces built around a foundation of historical world building.
It's not perfect. While Humphreys spends a good amount of ink to paint flesh on the bones of his key characters, they never truly come to life. Some elements of the interpersonal conflicts muddy, rather than enhance, the plot. If I had the choice, I'd give this 3.5 stars, but because I've enjoyed the book so much, and feel more enlightened about the famous siege of Constantinople in the mid 15th century, I'll edge up 'A Place Called Armageddon' to 4 stars.
In 1453, the Greeks had already found themselves an island surrounded rivals; Constantinople's enormous walls on one side, the waters of the Bosporus protecting the other three. Attacked throughout the years, Constantinople had managed to survive as a Christian outpost at this continental crossroads; this unique location had been the primary reason for their remaining semblance of autonomy and independence. But Sultan Mehmet brought to bear an overwhelming army that forced the leaders of Constantinople to rally christians from across the Mediterranean. Friends and foes alike.
Conflicts abound within the walls of Constantinople, as Humphreys exposes the cross-Christian rivals as well as the expected enmity between Christian and Turk. The differences and similarities across the people who come together to fight for and against each other is one of the staple themes threaded throughout the story. Humphreys interweaves this theme within the narrative, but exposes it a little too heavy-handedly at times. I found a similar trend in how he deals with the obligatory 'love-connection' between two long-lost lovers thrust together in this time of world-changing events.
In a terrifically written naval battle in the Bosporus under the great walls of Constantinople, Humphreys skillfully shifts between viewpoints to effectively evoke the multiplicity of action, it's impact on civilians, the warriors themselves, as well as the running political ramifications.
C.C. Humphreys has created a worthy entry into the world of historical fiction...and he's covered a specific time and place without much competition. I strongly recommend 'A Place Called Armageddon'.
wellington299's review against another edition
3.0
This should be a book that I love. The fall of Constantinople was a pivotal part of history killing off the final vestiges of the Roman Empire This was an epic but essentially mediocre book.
The hero of the story was Greogas who had his nose cut off as punishment for being suspected of betraying the Constantinople before. He could have been a much more interesting character and I grew weary of his adventures. His ex-wife Sofia had the inner fire of a water bubble for most of the story and annoyed me to no end.
I do appreciate the story not painted as a story of good vs bad ... Turk vs Greek. And the author took to great lengths in the descriptions of crossbows and bows. The prologue was epic in a great way.
So it's an OK book about the fall of Constantinople .. but in the end, I much just prefer the They Might be Giants song about Constantinople.
phantom_eos's review against another edition
4.0
Actual Rating : 3,5 ⭐
A beautiful narrative of the fall of great Constantinople. Watching each side , not separating them as the "bad" and the "good" . We see two forces ,their strengths and weaknesses and how politics define the outcome. Two civilizations collide in one of the greatest battles in history, that changed the known world.
A beautiful narrative of the fall of great Constantinople. Watching each side , not separating them as the "bad" and the "good" . We see two forces ,their strengths and weaknesses and how politics define the outcome. Two civilizations collide in one of the greatest battles in history, that changed the known world.
carolhoggart's review
3.0
Really, such a well-researched tale replete with so many interesting characters should get a rating of at least 4 stars. But I didn't finish this book. I made myself keep reading until exactly halfway, and then I gave up in relief. Why? The problem was not of the author's devising - it was the topic itself! Good fiction makes you care about its characters, or at least some of them. Humphreys made me care, and that was the very root of the problem. I knew full well that, after an epic siege and great loss of life, Constantinople would fall. I really couldn't bear to read on and 'witness' the horror through these characters' eyes. Silly me. It's only fiction, but I really should have thought before I picked up the book.
Just a tiny little historical grumble: p.73 shook my readerly trust in Humphreys as a historical novelist for two reasons 1) a character makes reference to a plant by means of its scientific Latin name, Pinus halepensis (the system of double-barreled Latin names wasn't invented until the 1700s!); and 2) he concludes the page by having the hero say, ominously for us readers with historical hindsight, "Welcome to 1453." This immediately rang a discordant note for me as the speaker of these words is Byzantine-educated and thus would think in an entirely different dating system! "Welcome to 6961 AM" definitely doesn't have the same dramatic effect ...
That said, historical novelists face an enormous challenge - providing a myriad of minute but historically accurate details to create verisimilitude. It's the rare historical novelist indeed who manages to avoid such pitfalls, and an impossible task entirely to evoke the past with absolute accuracy. Humphreys does a fine job in the main.
Just a tiny little historical grumble: p.73 shook my readerly trust in Humphreys as a historical novelist for two reasons 1) a character makes reference to a plant by means of its scientific Latin name, Pinus halepensis (the system of double-barreled Latin names wasn't invented until the 1700s!); and 2) he concludes the page by having the hero say, ominously for us readers with historical hindsight, "Welcome to 1453." This immediately rang a discordant note for me as the speaker of these words is Byzantine-educated and thus would think in an entirely different dating system! "Welcome to 6961 AM" definitely doesn't have the same dramatic effect ...
That said, historical novelists face an enormous challenge - providing a myriad of minute but historically accurate details to create verisimilitude. It's the rare historical novelist indeed who manages to avoid such pitfalls, and an impossible task entirely to evoke the past with absolute accuracy. Humphreys does a fine job in the main.
abookishaffair's review against another edition
4.0
This story takes place in the 1400s during the siege of Contantinople, where the Turks invaded the city in order to wrestle away power. Constantinople (now Istanbul, Turkey) was at the crossroads of the world at that time. It was where the East and West met and therefore, there were a lot of different groups that wanted to control it. You had the Italians, Turkish, and Greeks all vying for dominance in the city.
Yes, this is a war story but there is so much more to it than that. As the book synopsis points out, the story of the city and the siege cannot be separated from the people who lived there and the people who invaded. The story is mostly told through stories (a mix of fictional and non-fictional characters)of the people who witnessed the siege. I really liked this touch. I'm not really into long, drawn out scenes of battles but you definitely don't get that here. Yes, there are some battles and some fighting in the book (as to be expected in a book about a siege) but the main story is really about the characters and how they deal with the events. I think that using the characters to tell about this historical event helped to make the book really accessible to someone like me who really doesn't like just straight war novels.
The characters are all good and all add something to the story. I don't think that I really had a favorite (although I had a soft spot for Gregoras) as all of the characters really needed to be in the book in order to make it work. One thing I will say is that there are a lot of characters in the book and I had some trouble keeping track of them so if you're easily confused by huge casts of characters, this may not be for you. Luckily for me, there was an easily accessible guide to the characters in the front of the book, which made life much easier for me.
This was a historical event that I really was not familiar with before this book. Humphreys writes in a way that allows people unfamiliar with this event to understand what's going on but I think that even those who know a lot about this historical event will get something new out of the book.
Bottom line: A great historical fiction for those that like seeing history through those that were there!
Yes, this is a war story but there is so much more to it than that. As the book synopsis points out, the story of the city and the siege cannot be separated from the people who lived there and the people who invaded. The story is mostly told through stories (a mix of fictional and non-fictional characters)of the people who witnessed the siege. I really liked this touch. I'm not really into long, drawn out scenes of battles but you definitely don't get that here. Yes, there are some battles and some fighting in the book (as to be expected in a book about a siege) but the main story is really about the characters and how they deal with the events. I think that using the characters to tell about this historical event helped to make the book really accessible to someone like me who really doesn't like just straight war novels.
The characters are all good and all add something to the story. I don't think that I really had a favorite (although I had a soft spot for Gregoras) as all of the characters really needed to be in the book in order to make it work. One thing I will say is that there are a lot of characters in the book and I had some trouble keeping track of them so if you're easily confused by huge casts of characters, this may not be for you. Luckily for me, there was an easily accessible guide to the characters in the front of the book, which made life much easier for me.
This was a historical event that I really was not familiar with before this book. Humphreys writes in a way that allows people unfamiliar with this event to understand what's going on but I think that even those who know a lot about this historical event will get something new out of the book.
Bottom line: A great historical fiction for those that like seeing history through those that were there!
megankass's review against another edition
3.0
A long, dense read. A good story, though not told by the best storyteller. The two starring brothers are totally Thor and Loki, straight out of the Marvel movies, and you'll never convince me otherwise.
It's nice to read a book about lesser covered regions that have tremendous history.
It's nice to read a book about lesser covered regions that have tremendous history.
More...