The comemoration of the Fall of Constantinople

[edyzmedieval]

556 years ago, the Ottoman Turks would capture the last great bastion of Christianity in the Middle Ages. Created by Emperor Constantine as his new capital, Constantinople became a symbol of Eastern Christianity, education, power, and diplomacy.

On the eve of the comemoration, I invite you all to a debate - do you think the Fall of Constantinople could have been avoided, and if so, for how long? Present your arguments. :book:

My personal opinion - impossible. Given the factors that caused the fall of the capital, and subsequently the empire, it was impossible for Constantinople not to be conquered, sooner or later.

Have a good debate gentlemen. :book: :balloon2:

[Uesugi Kenshin]

The Empire was lost long before Constantinople fell, and as I understand it the capital was a mere shadow of its former glory, so no I don't think the fall could have been avoided. I'd be more interested to see what effects people think the fall had.

[Xiahou]

I guess it depends how far back we're turning back the clock. By the time the empire was down to Constantinople and a few pieces of Greece, nothing short of divine intervention could have saved it.

I think the Fourth Crusade is what dealt a mortal wound to the Byzantine Empire, it was never the same after that. If that had never happened, who knows?

[Prince Cobra]

It is a question of speculation if the fall of the Laskaris dynsasty and the huge privilleges given by Michael VIII (1259-1282) were those who prepared the Turkish invasion on the Balkans.

About whether a city-state can survive very long. I am afraid it was doomed.

[Martok]

I guess it depends how far back we're turning back the clock. By the time the empire was down to Constantinople and a few pieces of Greece, nothing short of divine intervention could have saved it.

I think the Fourth Crusade is what dealt a mortal wound to the Byzantine Empire, it was never the same after that. If that had never happened, who knows?
I largely concur. From just about everything I've ever read, the 4th Crusade was simply too devastating a blow for the Empire to recover from. While earlier events like Manzikert obviously hurt the Byzantines badly as well -- to say nothing of their general internal/political weakness(es) which had been dogging them for centuries -- I think the Crusaders' sacking of the city was what really marked the beginning of the end.

[Sarmatian]

In many ways Ottoman conquest was beneficial to the city itself. By 1453, the city was only a shadow of its former glory. In Ottoman hands, it got back some of the prestige and glory associated with it. It was again in the hands of an organized and efficient empire. It could never achieve the status it had in the early middle ages. It was not even dominant trading hub in the Mediterranean and trade were slowly moving to the Atlantic...

For what it's worth, I think the Ottomans did everything they could to restore the city...

[Ibrahim]

For what it's worth, I think the Ottomans did everything they could to restore the city...

they pretty much did succeed-that you have to admit.:yes:

as to whether the byzantines in constantinople could have resurged:

after the 4th crusade, they had about as much chance of success as a camel going through the eye of a needle.

so basically I agree with everyone else here. after that trauma, the "empire" no longer had the administrative, financial, or manpower resources to maintain any real empire in the balkans and asia minor. the Ottomans simply moved in on a carcass TBH.



besides, sultan Muhammad II is considered a hero where I come from, as he did something no other muslim commander did: take that city. that's a feat when you consider the previous attempts. that is not to say that he's a saint by myself.

[Conqueror]

If I may be allowed to use a fighting metaphor, I'd term the decline of the Thematic system and the political intrigue in Constantinople as fumbles that threw the empire on a bad footing, leaving it vulnerable. The Manzikert incident was the first bloody punch that exploited this opening. The 4th crusade struck the critical blow that sealed it's fate, though failed to kill. The Ottoman occupation of the city delivered the coup de grace, finishing off the dying empire.

[anweRU]

By 1453, the fall of the city was a forgone conclusion. Which I consider a good thing, as it is the city I was born and raised in - and love more than any other city I've lived in. It could have fallen to prior Turkish sieges, such as Beyazit I's siege - except for Western intervention. Some could argue that a Western crusade in 1453 could have resulted in the same - but the political climate was different at this time.

Could Byzantium have survived without the 4th Crusade? May be a little longer. The great population movements from Central Asia that swamped it would have taken place regardless. And the internal factors - infighting among the upper class, religious disturbances, etc. - would have continued just as before. The question is - would it have the Turks, or a Western or Northern power that ended its days?