[171] The tradition of its destructiveness even in England, which it reached in 1348, and the panic-struck words of the Statutes which followed it, have, says J. R. Green, ‘been more than justified by modern researches. Of the three or four millions who then formed the population of England more than half were swept away by its repeated visitations’ (Green’s Short History of the English People), p. 241.
[172] According to one contemporary writer, Murad had to relinquish the siege of Constantinople in 1422 on account of the appearance of plague in his army (Historia Epirotica). Mahomet the Second, however, according to Critobulus, attributed the necessity of raising the siege to hostility within his own family, doubtless alluding to the rising already mentioned in Asia Minor. He says, in substance, ‘The city was almost in the hands of my father, and he would certainly have taken it by assault, if those of his own family in whom he had confidence had not worked secretly against him.’ Crit. xxv.
[173] Travels and Researches in Asia Minor, by Sir Charles Fellows. Professor Ramsay has also the same story to tell, though his own success in identifying lost cities has been exceptionally great.
[174] La Brocquière, 340–7.
[175] Ibid. 337.
[176] Compare this with Villehardouin’s statement that in 1204 Constantinople had ten times as many people as there were in Paris.
[177] Phrantzes, 241.
[178] Another version says from 30,000 to 36,000 men.
[179] P. 23. The ‘not more’ is from the edition of Dethier, p. 896. The version published in the Chronique de Charles VII gives 25,000 to 30,000 armed men. Dethier’s omits ‘armed.’
[180] The Superior of the Franciscans says that 3,000 were killed on May 29 (Dethier’s Documents relating to the Siege, p. 940).