Cantemir (p. 101-105) insists on the unanimous
consent of the Turkish historians, ancient as well as
modern, and argues that they would not have violated the
truth to diminish their national glory, since it is esteemed
more honourable to take a city by force than by composition.
1. I doubt this consent, since he quotes no particular historian; and the Turkish Annals of Leunclavius affirm, without exception, that Mohammed took Constantinople 'per vim' (p., 329).
2. The same argument may be turned in favour of the Greeks of the times, who would not have forgotten this honourable and salutary treaty.
Voltaire, as usual, prefers the Turks to the Christians.