Taking Over

a Foreign
Culture
A Study of the Theory and Practice of
Conquerors Through Art and Architecture

Filippos Rempoutzakos

Filippos Rempoutzakos
ARH 376
Filippos Rempoutzakos
Dr. Evan Gatti
ARH 376
12/05/2014

When the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople in 1453, the sultan Mehmed II made
it the seat of power for his entire empire. This decision brought about many changes in the city,
which had a large Greek Orthodox population1 and was filled with churches and monuments to
Christ. Some of the most important churches were converted to mosques (Hagia Sophia for
example), some were turned into storage buildings and some were left as-is. Why was this done?
What was the reason behind the decision to convert parts of the culture and ignore others? Was
this based on the culture of the conqueror or the conquered? How did the Ottomans change
Byzantine churches, and why? Through this case study I will try to explore the various reasons
behind this decision and link it to monuments to facilitate my thesis. This papers goal is to
discern the underlying reason behind the conversion of the Hagia Sophia and the reason behind
the lack of conversion for the Church of St. George. Their cases will be examined in light of
several theories which may explain their treatment, then compared for differences and
similarities in order to better understand the art of conversion.
The first problem that arises from this papers thesis is the question of culture and cultural
identity. What does it mean to have a culture, visual or otherwise? Michael Browns book Who
Owns Native Culture2 presents this question in a very interesting light; it exposits that different
places hold their individual understanding of what it means to have a culture. One example is
1 Cigdem Kafescioglu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial
Vision, and the Construction of the Ottoman Capital (China: Everbest Printing Co.,
2009), 179
2 Michael F. Brown, Who Owns Native Culture? (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press, 2003)
Page 1

Filippos Rempoutzakos
ARH 376

that of the Aboriginal Australians who tried to retain intellectual ownership of tribal art because
of its ties to their religious beliefs3. The extent to which the believers are willing to go for their
beliefs and the fervor with which they try to justify and reclaim their own culture is inspiring.
However, it also makes the entire matter of Culture murky, making it harder to explain and truly
own their culture. From this, one can take the importance of culture to the people who have lost
theirs, which in this paper refers to Constantinople and its populace. If one was to consider why
the people mentioned in Browns book care so deeply about this issue, the answer appears;
because it means something to them. So the focus shifts: what does culture mean to the papers
subject, and how do their respective ideas of what culture is influence their actions?
When discussing the cultures in question, Ottoman and Byzantine, it becomes necessary to
underline some key differences between them. According to Oleg Grabar, the early Islamic
attitudes towards the Arts (the Ottomans being comprised by a mostly Muslim population) were
not very supportive. Instead, it could be said that it was, kindly said, unfavorable4. This attitude
towards ones own visual culture does not exist in a vacuum however. It was developed with a
culture of splendor and grandiose imagery, one seemingly looming over you (the Byzantine
Empire). This results in a very deep sense of discouragement and unhappiness towards art, unless
it serves a functional purpose5. Clearly, since meaningless art is frowned upon and the power of
art as a tool has been exalted, the only use art can or should have is one of function6. With this in
mind, how is the Byzantine approach different?
3 Brown, Who Owns Native Culture, 44-47
4 Oleg Grabar. The Formation of Islamic Art (New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 1987), 78-79
5 Ibid., 84-5
6 Ibid., 76
Page 2

Filippos Rempoutzakos
ARH 376

While the Ottoman Empire was predominantly Muslim, the Byzantine was likewise Christian
in nature. Unlike Grabars assessment of early Islamic art, the basis for Christian art is very
different. A deeply ingrained use of imagery and iconography marks this religion, a connection to
both the culture of the time and the people who compose it. In his book Byzantine Art and
Archaeology, O.M. Dalton presses the importance of Constantinoples position and its
development of cultural character; saying that it had no basis and formed around a melting pot of
influences from the area7. Thus, instead of developing a disdain for non-functional art, Byzantine
tendencies seem to be to use art as an integral part of their society. A good example to showcase
this difference in opinions between Byzantine and Ottoman attitudes towards art is the example
set forth by Grabar; that of the Christian statue getting accidentally defaced8. The ruler, a
Muslim, decided that the Christians should be recompensed for the damages caused. Instead, the
local populace demanded that similar damage was caused to a statue of equal importance for the
Muslim faith. The administrator saw no fault in that and accepted readily. The value that
Christians place on holy images is much greater when compared to that of the Muslims in the
above case. This highlights the difference between the two cultures approaches towards art and
the difference in the importance that art holds for them in the period studied here (15th century
CE).
Finally, before discussing the examples that the case study will focus on, it becomes
necessary to take a look into the historical context of the conquest of Constantinople, in order to
better understand the circumstances under which the Hagia Sophia was converted, and St.
George was not. According to Cigdem Kafescioglu in her book Cultural Encounter, Imperial
7 O.M. Dalton Byzantine Art and Archaeology (New York: Dover Publications, 1961),
10
8 Grabar, The Formation of Islamic Art, 85
Page 3

Filippos Rempoutzakos
ARH 376

Vision and the Construction of the Ottoman Capital, the city was in very bad condition following
the long siege9. The first priority was thus to respond to concerns and needs that were of vital
importance to the smooth function of the city10. This coincides with the way that Mehmed II is
portrayed in other sources as well, trying to salvage the city and claiming it as his property to
protect it11. He knew that in order to transform Constantinople, the capital of Byzantium, into
Istanbul, the capital of the Ottoman Empire, it would need to function as a city first and
foremost.
With this context in mind, let us examine our first case: a church turned into a mosque, the
Hagia Sophia. A church built to celebrate the power of the new capital and the might of Jesus
Christ, this church was the largest of its kind a unique achievement, never again repeated either
in terms of its size or its design12. The vast interior, the incredible dome to Christians both
within and without the city it must have symbolized Heaven and the power of God and man
alike. According to Roger Crowley, Hagia Sophia summed up everything that was the Orthodox

9 Kafescioglu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and

the Construction of the Ottoman Capital, 17
10 Ibid., 17
11 Halil Inalcik, The Policy of Mehmed Toward the Greek Population of Istanbul and
the Byzantine Buildings of the City, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23/24 (1969/1970):
232-233.
12 Slobodan Curcic, Architecture in the Balkans: From Diocletian to Suleyman the
Magnificent (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010), 194.
Page 4

Filippos Rempoutzakos
ARH 376

religion13. The Byzantines saw it as the center of their world and religion, and the Ottomans
clearly had respect for it. However, it was converted into a mosque; why was this done?
We must begin this discussion by contemplating the importance of the church to the
Byzantine culture. But what is contained within a church in the first place? Why is it important?
Apart from being a place of worship for reasons of faith, it also serves as the best place to convey
messages and the philosophy of the architect. The image of Christ, from his dress to his stance
and his placement; all of these factor into the message being promoted and at the same time
impact and shape the architecture itself14. After all, the church was the prime architectural
building of importance to Byzantine Art. However the importance of it changed over time in the
Byzantine Empire. According to Slobodan Curcic, in its inception the Byzantine emperors had
very low standards for the construction of their religious buildings, and gradually increased the
wealth that was poured into their construction15. This may be explained in two ways: either
religion became a stabilizing agent for the emerging culture, which as mentioned above was
struggling to grow and become unique, or there was a need to promote the message of a fresh
start. The first case results from the emperors need to further steady his control over the city;
though initially doubtful about spending resources on churches, by placing more importance on
them, they may grow to symbolize the new capital of his empire. The other case comes into play

13 Bordewich, Fergus M., A Monumental Struggle to Preserve Hagia Sophia, Smithsonian

Magazine, December (2008): 1. Accessed May 10, 2014, URL:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/a-monumental-struggle-to-preserve-hagia-sophia92038218/?no-ist

14 Otto Georg Von Simson, Sacred Fortress; Byzantine Art and Statecraft in
Ravenna (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1948), 113-115
15 Curcic, Architecture in the Balkans: From Diocletian to Suleyman the
Magnificent, 66-67
Page 5

Filippos Rempoutzakos
ARH 376

due to the recent nature of Constantinople. In the years following its establishment, the
acceptance of the new religion was still a new idea, and the theme a new religion for a new era
could have been perfect for the city. The importance of the church in founding the new culture
thus becomes apparent, and the connection it has with the city and its culture is highlighted.
The passage of time and the increasing affluence of Constantinople also coincide with a
Christianization of the city16. This develops a culture which nourishes and promotes religious
importance, blending the inhabitants beliefs to their architecture and developing a unique
identity, which blends the city into the culture. This is an important point: Constantinople
becomes linked to the Christian religion and to the people living within it. This way the church
becomes a palette of ideas and messages. A link between Constantinople, and thus any church as
a structure, and the sociocultural fabric of Byzantium, one which holds great importance for the
populace. The church thus becomes an integral part of the city; a monument both engrained in
the popular unconsciousness and bearer of its ideology.
Did this ideology have something to do with its conversion? In the East and West in Ravenna
chapter of his book, Hidden Fortress, Otto Von Simson claims that the architecture of the church
was directly influenced by the political and religious peculiarities of its builders17. The reason for
the conversion may have been an incompatibility between the message originally set forth by the
church and what sultan Mehmed had in mind for it. Considering how the Hagia Sophia was the
crown jewel of the city of Constantinople, and that Mehmed made it the capital of his empire, it
only stands to reason that such an intricate architecture, one which holds both political and
religious symbolism, must change if its message is different from that of its new ruler.
16 Ibid., 77
17 Simson, Sacred Fortress; Byzantine Art and Statecraft in Ravenna, 113-115
Page 6

Filippos Rempoutzakos
ARH 376

Keeping this in mind, from an importance standpoint it comes as no surprise that the building
was converted. If the church as a structure itself represents Byzantium, then surely Hagia Sophia,
the greatest church, must be converted in order to facilitate change within the city itself. Two
examples best illustrate this importance. The first concerns a Byzantine emperor, Justinian. It
was under him that Hagia Sophia was completed, and when he first beheld it in all of its glory,
his first words were Solomon I have surpassed you18, referencing the legendary king if Israel
who built the First Temple and claiming superiority over him19. The second example concerns
sultan Mehmed II, conqueror of Constantinople. When in 1453 he entered the conquered city, he
made his way to the church. There, he poured earth over his head before entering it proper; his
subjugation to God complete before his first step inside20. Such was its importance to even those
of other faiths. Of course this was converted, it was too important not to be.
Another explanation is to reinforce the power of the new order. The greatest church of the
past is helpless to change and must be transformed into an important part of the future. If the new
order can thus easily change the Hagia Sophia, then there is no limit to what it can influence. To
fully grasp what this means, it becomes necessary to ask what changing a public space truly
denotes. In their collection of essays Memory and the Impact of Political Transformation in
Public Space21, Walkowitz and Knauer explore this issue at great length. A key point of theirs is
18 Geore Scheja Hagia Sophia und Templum Salomonis Istanbul Releases 12
(1962): 44-58
19 Ironically, the Ottoman empire would go on to make the same attempt at
surpassing Hagia Sophia and invoking Solomons memory in order to do so with the
Suleymaniye complex according to Necipoglus The Suleymaniye Complex in
Istanbul: An Interpretation.
20 Bordewich A Monumental Struggle to Preserve Hagia Sophia, 2
21 Daniel J. Walkowitz and Lisa Maya Knauer, ed., Memory and the Impact of
Political Transformation in Public Space (Durham and London: Duke University Press,
Page 7

Filippos Rempoutzakos
ARH 376

the immediate effect on the previous status quo by any change, and the emotions that a populace
will develop for a public space which was, until changed, unnoticed22. For them, the past is
contested and represented in public space23. This shows that for the editors of this publication,
public space is an arena of conflict; something to be fought over for meaning and importance.
With this in mind, the conversion of the Hagia Sophia once more seems like the prudent thing to
do for the conqueror of Constantinople. It is a war of importance, and this is a battle Mehmed
could not have ignored or lost. As mentioned, it was the greatest church in scope; its conversion
into a mosque could be a call to Christians that there was a new culture with a new religion that
held administrative powers. This created an entirely new dynamic within the city; a contest
between the rejected past and the triumphantly imposed new order24.
Unlike the prominence of the Hagia Sophia, there is no single church within Istanbul which
is well known for its non-conversion. The best example for this type of church however, is the
Church of St. George. This church serves as the seat of power for the Greek Orthodox Patriarch
even to this day, and has remained a Christian building since its construction, never being altered
to a museum, supply building or mosque. Why was this ignored, when the Hagia Sophia was so
decidedly converted?
One reason that comes up is cultural overlap. As mentioned, Culture is a hazy issue,
especially if the traditions have developed side by side (which these two have). Byzantine culture
2004).
22 Ibid., 1-2
23 Ibid., 3
24 Curcic Architecture in the Balkans: From Diocletian to Suleyman the Magnificent,
708
Page 8

Filippos Rempoutzakos
ARH 376

was influenced from the East, while Ottoman was influenced by the West. As such, there are
some traditions which bridge over. Oya Pancaroglus article The Itinerant Dragon Slayer:
Forging Paths of Image and Identity in Medieval Anatolia proposes that the two aforementioned
cultures had just a century after the conquest become intertwined and were, in practice,
theoretically and historically similar on many levels25. But the subject of the article is even more
significant here; the Dragon Slayer in Christian tradition is St. George. Perhaps the monastery,
for St. George was a mere monastery when Constantinople fell to the Ottomans, was not changed
because there were enough similarities between the two traditions so as to respect it and allow it
to continue its function unmolested.
From a cultural perspective, what is the explanation? It was a Christian property in what used
to be a mostly Christian populated city, now conquered and dominated by Muslims both in
administration and population26. In his book Architecture in the Balkans, Curcic claims that
ecclesiastical architecture was instrumental in the development of Constantinople27. As such, it
cannot be that this covenant had no cultural importance. But when placed alongside Hagia
Sophia, even with its modern day improvements it is very far away from it in scope, imagery and
meaning. As such, one might argue that it was not worth anything culturally to transform. On the
other hand, the reason for the buildings overlooking in terms of conversion could be as a nod to
the Christian inhabitants. Perhaps the message was meant to convey their desire for a new culture
of cohabitation, one where the Byzantine culture was allowed to survive near intact, except
25 Oya Pancaroglu, The Itinerant Dragon-Slayer: Forging Paths of Image and
Identity in Medieval Anatolia Gesta 43 (2004): 151.
26 Kafescioglu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and
the Construction of the Ottoman Capital, 179.
27 Curcic Architecture in the Balkans: From Diocletian to Suleyman the Magnificent,
271.
Page 9

Filippos Rempoutzakos
ARH 376

subservient to that of the Ottomans. Eventually, the monastery turned into a church, which
became the seat of the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1600. This could be seen as a cultural
comment by the Ottomans, that the most important religious architecture of the city belonged to
them, whereas the Byzantine people of the city had to make due with something which, at the
peak of their influence and importance, was a simple monastery, unfit for conversion.
The importance of this non-conversion is also significant. It was almost non-existent.
According to Curcic, many monasteries retained their property following the Ottoman
conquest28. This could be seen in one of two ways. The first is to consider that this was done
because the Hagia Sophia was a cultural monument which couldnt be ignored, whereas the
monasteries were considered harmless and unworthy of attention. The second way to understand
this non-conversion is that it was important for the conquerors to retain locations of worship
within the city so as to smooth over the transition.
With regards to the question of power, the Church of St. George has a hidden meaning which
the Hagia Sophias conversion lacks. That something is the possibility that this lack of
conversion was meant to inspire hope and acceptance in the remaining Christians. When the city
was taken over, the populace must have been in intense fear as to their religious future. The
conversion of Hagia Sophia, the dominant Muslim character of their conquerors and the sense of
defeat must have seemed an insurmountable task. However, by leaving the monasteries alone, the
message which the populace understood could perhaps be likened to a relief and a sense of
accepting rule. Taking over the citys symbol for hope and God doesnt do that, but leaving
monasteries alone could be an indicator of the life to come post-conquest for those who wanted
to remain Christian within an Ottoman capital.
28 Ibid., 711.
Page 10

Filippos Rempoutzakos
ARH 376

Having studied the two cases, how are they different? Well, in terms of culture, the
monuments themselves are too far apart to be studied together. One is the cornerstone of
contemporary Greek Orthodoxy, a prize to be won by Ottomans and of immense importance to
the Byzantine culture itself. The other one is a monastery, something which has limited cultural
meaning or connections29. The importance of the conversion is a slightly different matter. The
Hagia Sophia was something which could not be ignored, unlike the Church of St. George. The
message is entirely opposite; the Hagia Sophias conversion symbolizes the change that the
Ottomans bring with them. It can be deconstructed from a cultural, social or religious standpoint.
St. George however has almost no importance at the time of conquest, and it is precisely due to
this that it was ignored.
There are some similarities between the two however. When pondering why one was
converted and the other not, the answer appears if you think about the issue in terms of power.
Both buildings promote the idea of an external conqueror. The Hagia Sophias conversion has a
clear meaning in terms of power; someone new is in charge of the city now, and the population is
under his rule. Similarly, the lack of conversion for the St. George church illustrates a theme of
power; the rulers have the city under their control, but they magnanimously allow you to live
and continue your religious practices.
In thinking about this comparison between the two examples brought about here, some things
appear clear. There is a significant importance between the church and the culture of Byzantium,
which is why the conversion of the church into a mosque had such an importance. The reason
may have been political, for the sake of power or because of culture, however the result remains

29 Though, as mentioned above, it does hold some importance to the development

of the culture and to the Christians of the city.
Page 11

Filippos Rempoutzakos
ARH 376

the same; what was important enough to be converted was converted, whereas what was not
important enough, or had a role to play by remaining as-is, was left unchanged.

Page 12

Filippos Rempoutzakos
ARH 376
Bibliography
Bordewich, Fergus M., A Monumental Struggle to Preserve Hagia Sophia,
Smithsonian Magazine, December (2008): 1. URL:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/a-monumental-struggle-to-preservehagia-sophia-92038218/?no-ist
Brown, Michael F. Who Owns Native Culture? Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press, 2003.

Curcic, Slobodan. Architecture in the Balkans: From Diocletian to Suleyman the

Magnificent. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010.
Dalton, O.M. Byzantine Art and Archaeology. New York: Dover Publications, 1961.
Edited by Daniel J. Walkowitz and Lisa Maya Knauer. Memory and the Impact of
Political Transformation in Public Space. Durham and London: Duke University
Press, 2004.
Grabar. Oleg. The Formation of Islamic Art. New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 1987.
Inalcik, Halil. The Policy of Mehmed Toward the Greek Population of Istanbul and
the Byzantine Buildings of the City, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23/24
(1969/1970): 232-233.
Kafescioglu, Cigdem. Constantinopolis/Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the
Construction of the Ottoman Capital. China: Everbest Printing Co., 2009.

Pancaroglu, Oya. The Itinerant Dragon-Slayer: Forging Paths of Image and Identity
in Medieval Anatolia, Gesta 43 (2004).
Scheja, Geore. Hagia Sophia und Templum Salomonis Istanbul Releases 12 (1962).
Simson, Otto Georg Von. Sacred Fortress; Byzantine Art and Statecraft in Ravenna.
Chicago: University of Chicago, 1948.

Page 13