The fall of Constantinople served simultaneously as the deth knell of the Byzantine Empire, and the birth of the Ottoman Empire. Due to the Islamic taboo on creating images depicting real things paintings by Muslims are not exceptionally common. The person who painted this image was a Greek.
Notably in this portrait there does not appear to be any actual depiction of active conquest, instead it appears to be set after Constantinople already fell. The seated figure in green and red is presumably Mehmed the conqueror. The individuals wearing black and red hats coming out of the city are presumably Byzantines surrendering to the Sultan. There are some notable distinctions in dress between the two, with the Byzantines wearing darker colors while the Ottomans are wearing more vibrant greens and reds. The fact that differences in dress were not exagerated in order to highlight differences between the two groups is likely a sign that the artist did not see a great difference between the two.
In the portrait Mehmed is depicted as sitting and smoking whilst presumably receiving the defeated leaders of Constantinople. The fact that they are not kneeling or showing any particular deference indicates that the artist believed that the meeting between these two groups was more of a willing surrender and submission rather than a conquest which forced one group down in order to raise another.
Notably in this portrait there does not appear to be any actual depiction of active conquest, instead it appears to be set after Constantinople already fell. The seated figure in green and red is presumably Mehmed the conqueror. The individuals wearing black and red hats coming out of the city are presumably Byzantines surrendering to the Sultan. There are some notable distinctions in dress between the two, with the Byzantines wearing darker colors while the Ottomans are wearing more vibrant greens and reds. The fact that differences in dress were not exagerated in order to highlight differences between the two groups is likely a sign that the artist did not see a great difference between the two.
In the portrait Mehmed is depicted as sitting and smoking whilst presumably receiving the defeated leaders of Constantinople. The fact that they are not kneeling or showing any particular deference indicates that the artist believed that the meeting between these two groups was more of a willing surrender and submission rather than a conquest which forced one group down in order to raise another.
This painting depicts Mehmed the Conquerer entring Constantinople, in contrast to the painting by Zografos there is a very clear distinction between the conquering people and the conquered. What few defending soldiers there are are laying dead on the ground, with one notably sporting a black shield with a white cross on it.
In the portrait Mehmed is depicted in a position in power, he is in the center of the painting and is higher than everyone else in the scene. He also stands out due to the ornate armor he wears and the white horse he is riding. Unlike in Zografos' painting Mehmed is depicted as a more traditional warlike conquerer subduing a people, rather than someone receiving a diplomatic surrender. This may be due to the fact that the painter of this piece was Italian so unlike the Greek Zografos he was perceiving the Ottoman's from an outside perspective, looking at them as a Muslim empire that conquered a Christian city, and so he chose to paint Mehmed in a more militaristic light, since portraying the surrender of Constantinople as a more diplomatic agreement would grant a level of legitmacy to the Ottoman rule over former Byzantine territories.
In the portrait Mehmed is depicted in a position in power, he is in the center of the painting and is higher than everyone else in the scene. He also stands out due to the ornate armor he wears and the white horse he is riding. Unlike in Zografos' painting Mehmed is depicted as a more traditional warlike conquerer subduing a people, rather than someone receiving a diplomatic surrender. This may be due to the fact that the painter of this piece was Italian so unlike the Greek Zografos he was perceiving the Ottoman's from an outside perspective, looking at them as a Muslim empire that conquered a Christian city, and so he chose to paint Mehmed in a more militaristic light, since portraying the surrender of Constantinople as a more diplomatic agreement would grant a level of legitmacy to the Ottoman rule over former Byzantine territories.