Historical issues I have noticed

I'll try to note things I notice as I watch along.

1. Istanbul. It's a misconception that the Ottomans renamed Constantinople as shown here. They had no reason to do that. Their entire concept that the were putting out to the world was that they were continuing the fabled Roman empire. "Same empire, new management". That was their whole thing. No way would they have renamed it. In fact Istanbul did not become the official name until after the Ottomans had fallen and Ataturk was leading.

2. Greek fire. There is no definitive evidence that the Byzantines (Romans) employed Greek fire during the Siege of Constantinople in 1453. By that time, the formula and techniques for using Greek fire, a potent incendiary weapon that had been a key factor in earlier Byzantine naval victories, were likely lost or had fallen out of use.

Historical records from the siege do not mention the use of Greek fire, which suggests that if it was used, it was not significant enough to impact the course of events. Instead, the Byzantines relied on more conventional weapons and tactics, such as using fire ships in an attempt to destroy the Ottoman fleet in the Golden Horn. However, these efforts were not successful, and there is no record of Greek fire being a part of these attacks.

The absence of Greek fire during the siege is one of the many signs of the declining military and technological capabilities of the Byzantine Empire by the mid-15th century.