What if Constantinople had never fallen to the Turks?

[Prussian to the Iron]

What if? Would the Byzantine Empire have ever fallen? What kinds of threats were present that could have posed a threat to its survival after a failed Turkish siege? What could have gone wrong for the Turks to make such a siege fail?

[TinCow]

If you're just talking about maintaining the same borders between the Ottomans and the Byzantines as in 1453, I wouldn't say that much changed at all. By that point, Constantinople had ceased to be a major trading hub and the Venetians and Genoese were happily trading with the Ottomans through Galata and other ports. In addition, the Byzantines were essentially vassals of the Ottomans by that point anyway. The lands that were still Byzantine in 1453 never really contributed a huge amount to the Ottoman war effort even after 1453; most of their power came from the bulk of the Balkans that had already been conquered, Anatolia, and the various Ottoman vassal states in the Balkans, Crimea, and North Africa. Constantinople was little more than a trophy for the Ottomans.

In order for a sustained Byzantine Empire to have had much impact on history, I would say we'd have to freeze the borders either pre-Manzikert or post-First Crusade. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, it was already too far decayed to be saved.

[Jolt]

Well, provided the Byzantine Empire survived into the 19th Century, they'd probably have to surrender the Greek enclaves in the Peloponnesus and be content to be some sort of City-State, albeit with a strong religious influence over the region. Such influence would obviously be subject to Ottoman control.

[al Roumi]

In order for a sustained Byzantine Empire to have had much impact on history, I would say we'd have to freeze the borders either pre-Manzikert or post-First Crusade. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, it was already too far decayed to be saved.

I would agree that manzikert was the fulcrum around which power transfered from Byzantium to the Ottomans. So it's from here that the (anything like plausible) discussion should start.

In many ways the Ottoman state replaced the Byzantine one. In fact, the Ottoman's considered themselves inheritors of the Byzantine state. I'm sure the first Sultans to live in Istanbul gave themselves the title of Basileus too.

Arguably this aspiration to Byzantine "inheritance" helped ensure a smoother transition to Ottoman rule in the Southern Balkans.

In a wider sense, I very much doubt the Ottomans and Byzantines could have co-existed for long, it strikes me as more of an either-or. Stuff that i've read points to the almost inexorable westward push for land of central asian Turkic people. The Ottomans at times harnessed these movements, but were not always in control of them -they certainly didn't instigate them.

I guess only if manzikert had been a resounding victory for the Byzantines would they have had the momentum to hold off, never mind and push back the movement of peoples looking for land.

Then of course you'd have to think about how Tamerlane would have reacted to Byzantium and its Christian empire. I'm guessing things would have been worse for a Christian ruler of Constantinople/Istanbul with land in Asia minor than and Islamic one. AFAIK it was Bayezid's rivalry with Tamerlane that ultimately lead to conflict and his eventual defeat. Tamerlane doesn't seem to have been bothered about absorbing the Ottoman state into his own empire, more about humiliating Bayezid.

What made the Ottoman Empire strong (when it was) was its effective rule and economic solvency, both of which were dependent on gifted rulers and sound policies. Was the ruling class of Byzantium up to that? I don't know enough about Byzantium to comment with any authority, but my perception of them is that they were perhaps too introspective and traditionalist to keep the initiative in changing times. Thats not a very great judgement and is certainly coloured by what actually happened, so maybe if manzikert had gone the Byzantine way, things would have been different?

[TinCow]

A strong Byzantine Empire based on sustained pre-Manzikert levels would have some interesting repercussions. alh_p is correct that the Ottomans simply replaced the Byzantines in many ways. I think this would particularly remain true in the Balkans. The Byzantines would likely have managed their territories in much the same was as the Ottomans did, and I see Balkan/Hungarian/Austrian politics evolving much along the lines as they did historically, but with the Byzantines playing the role of the Ottomans. The same applies to the French/Hapsburg conflicts, substituting Byzantium as a French ally instead of the Ottomans. However, there are several very important differences:

The Great Schism - By the time of Manzikert, the schism had already occurred. Byzantium staunchly refused to reconcile with Rome until 1453, and at even then it was only a desperation move to keep the Ottomans out of the city. If the Byzantine Empire had remained strong, no such attempt at reconciliation would have occurred. This has a significant impact on religious history. In addition to Islam never penetrating the Balkans (and much of Anatolia), Europe may have evolved very differently if there had been a strong Orthodox power in the east for the last 1000 years. A strong and meddling Orthodox power would likely have impacted the Reformation and perhaps changed the outcome of the Thirty Years War.

Egypt and North Africa - The Byzantines did not control these areas, and likely would not have regained them. Without an Ottoman rise to power, they would have remained independent nations. The Mamluks likely would have survived as an independent Egypt, and without Ottoman support the Barbary Pirates likely would not have posed a serious threat to Europe. This has major implications on the orientation of European politics. The Barbary threat constantly drew attention southwards, and made the Med the center of Europe for many centuries. Without the pirates, more resources and attention would have been focused on strictly European affairs. More wars? Different wars? Different outcomes? Hard to tell. Certainly the Spanish would have been able to bring far more might to bear against the French without the need to always keep an eye on their coast.

[al Roumi]

A strong Byzantine Empire based on sustained pre-Manzikert levels would have some interesting repercussions. alh_p is correct that the Ottomans simply replaced the Byzantines in many ways. I think this would particularly remain true in the Balkans. The Byzantines would likely have managed their territories in much the same was as the Ottomans did, and I see Balkan/Hungarian/Austrian politics evolving much along the lines as they did historically, but with the Byzantines playing the role of the Ottomans.

On a Balkan macro level (i.e. relations with Hungary/Austria/Serbia), maybe there would be similarity between Ottoman and Byzantium. The lives of the people living under the rulers would have been different though, for one there might have resulted in greater religious homogeneity. The Ottoman system of Rayas and exemption from military service for (free) non Muslims gave the Ottoman empire unique advantages in its heyday -and arguably led to greater problems later on. Would there have been a greater sense of patriotism for Byzantium than the Ottoman Empire? Would Greece as it is now have appeared -unlikely I think?

I think that with an eastern flank secured -although that in itself would mean the same recurring conflicts with Persia that the Ottomans experienced, wouldn't the focus of Byzantium have more directly included Italy? Conflict over trade would certainly have lead to meddling with the politics of the Italian peninsula. Whether a Byzantine state would be able to project its power to Italy (or further into central Europe) where the Ottomans couldn't (Suleiman realised that Vienna was simply too far from Istanbul for an effective campaign) is a very interesting question as this would certainly have lead to more rivalry with the HRE than just over the borders of Austria.


Egypt and North Africa - The Byzantines did not control these areas, and likely would not have regained them. Without an Ottoman rise to power, they would have remained independent nations. The Mamluks likely would have survived as an independent Egypt, and without Ottoman support the Barbary Pirates likely would not have posed a serious threat to Europe. This has major implications on the orientation of European politics. The Barbary threat constantly drew attention southwards, and made the Med the center of Europe for many centuries. Without the pirates, more resources and attention would have been focused on strictly European affairs. More wars? Different wars? Different outcomes? Hard to tell. Certainly the Spanish would have been able to bring far more might to bear against the French without the need to always keep an eye on their coast.

Here I'm sure that if Egypt remained "in the game", her power and reach would have expanded westward -the ambition to form a western pan-muslim empire (as opposed to the eastern/Persian) would still exist. The ethnic/religious fault-line between the straights of gibraltar would certainly have still existed.

[TinCow]

I think that with an eastern flank secured -although that in itself would mean the same recurring conflicts with Persia that the Ottomans experienced, wouldn't the focus of Byzantium have more directly included Italy? Conflict over trade would certainly have lead to meddling with the politics of the Italian peninsula. Whether a Byzantine state would be able to project its power to Italy (or further into central Europe) where the Ottomans couldn't (Suleiman realised that Vienna was simply too far from Istanbul for an effective campaign) is a very interesting question as this would certainly have lead to more rivalry with the HRE than just over the borders of Austria.

Yes, the relations between the Byzantines and the Italian trading states, especially Venice and Genoa, would be particularly interesting. A strong Byzantine Empire would have greatly reduced their profits and their position as the trade-hub of Europe. Would they have fought wars against the Byzantines over this? Probably, and that in itself has repercussions.

Victory for the Italian states, likely backed by the Hapsburgs, would have destabilized the Empire, possibly resulting in some fragmentation and erosion from the west. Victory for the Byzantines would likely have changed the historical trade routes such that Constantinople likely would have become the gateway to the east, instead of Venice. What then happens to the Renaissance? Without the wealth and cultural influences of eastern trade in Italy, does the Renaissance begin in Constantinople? What implications does this have for Christianity? Could Catholicism have emerged stronger in the long run? Would Orthodoxy have split apart instead?


Here I'm sure that if Egypt remained "in the game", her power and reach would have expanded westward -the ambition to form a western pan-muslim empire (as opposed to the eastern/Persian) would still exist. The ethnic/religious fault-line between the straights of gibraltar would certainly have still existed.

I agree that the Egyptian rulers would have tried this, but I question whether they had the strength to do so. The Ottomans were able to assert control over all of North Africa because of the huge military and naval might they commanded. The pre-Ottoman rulers of Egypt never had close to that kind of power at their disposal, nor did they have the wealth to fund the pirates and local warlords who kept the pressure up on the Christians. For example, the Barbarossa brothers would have been only a minor nuisance if they had not received massive funding and huge fleets from the Ottomans. I doubt Egypt alone could have generated the resources to mimic what the Ottomans did.

At the same time, Spain never seemed particularly interested in North Africa for its own sake. The place was very poor and the efforts spent there were largely to suppress the pirates, not to conquer for profit or religion. I would expect low-level piracy to have continued, but not on a level sufficient to draw the attention of Spain and the Italian states, as it did historically. They would have gone about their normal business, seeking trade and colonization in the Americas and Asia, as they did historically, with their political noses turned towards Europe instead of the Med.

[al Roumi]

This is like trying to extrapolate reality from an EU3 game :D

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Please continue, it's amusing stuff to a mostly uninformed bystander!

[Prussian to the Iron]

Please continue, it's amusing stuff to a mostly uninformed bystander!

it is absolutely! i crave, nay NEED more!

[Sarmatian]

Might be easier if there's a specific topic to discuss. What if Constantinople never fallen to the Turks, what does that mean? What would it be if Byzantine empire survived to this? That's as pointless as discussing what if Aztec empire have never fallen...

Do you mean what if the siege of 1453 failed? Is that what you're asking?

[al Roumi]

What this thread needs IMO is someone who knows about Byzantine society to comment on how that might have affected it's external policy -assuming Byzantium was victorious at Manzikert and resisited other threats.

Would it have been a centre for learning and enlightenment? Would it have sunk into depravity and ignorance?

Would its corruption have rotted the empire from the core if so, what could have happened without the Ottomans to mop up the mess?

I guess really what the OP is about is: would Byzantium have been able to emulate/re-form the Roman empire?

My view is that the odds would have been stacked against it happening. With the extrenal threats, from Catholic central Europe (Austria, Hungary, Poland) and the Islamic East/South, Byzantium would have had its hands full with possible enemies.

Furthermore, in the long run the agricultural wealth of the Balkans and Asia minor would not have been enough to ensure continued wealth throughout the medieval age, renaissance and on. Trade -and a navy- would obviously have been vital for Constantinople's wealth and protection. As mentioned above, this would mean more revenue, but also more squables for them -this time with italian states.

Could Byzantium continue to defend itself? Assert its authority overseas and compete economicaly?

[Vladimir]

Do you mean what if the siege of 1453 failed? Is that what you're asking?

Easy. It would have succeeded in a subsequent year. Byzantium was doomed. They chose their own fate.

[Sarmatian]

What this thread needs IMO is someone who knows about Byzantine society to comment on how that might have affected it's external policy -assuming Byzantium was victorious at Manzikert and resisited other threats.

Would it have been a centre for learning and enlightenment? Would it have sunk into depravity and ignorance?

Would its corruption have rotted the empire from the core if so, what could have happened without the Ottomans to mop up the mess?

I guess really what the OP is about is: would Byzantium have been able to emulate/re-form the Roman empire?

My view is that the odds would have been stacked against it happening. With the extrenal threats, from Catholic central Europe (Austria, Hungary, Poland) and the Islamic East/South, Byzantium would have had its hands full with possible enemies.

Furthermore, in the long run the agricultural wealth of the Balkans and Asia minor would not have been enough to ensure continued wealth throughout the medieval age, renaissance and on. Trade -and a navy- would obviously have been vital for Constantinople's wealth and protection. As mentioned above, this would mean more revenue, but also more squables for them -this time with italian states.

Could Byzantium continue to defend itself? Assert its authority overseas and compete economicaly?

The problem with this is that it covers too broad issues. You're asking someone to predict what would happen with Byzantium during next several centuries. During that time a village in central Italy managed to conquer the known world and create one of the biggest empires the world have ever seen. Small barbaric tribe from the northern Balkans adopted hellenic culture, conquered the rest of greece and reached India. It's quite impossible to tell what would happen with Byzantine empire.

If the question is what would happen if the siege in 1453 failed, the answer is that the Ottomans would return within the next few years and conquer the city then.


Easy. It would have succeeded in a subsequent year. Byzantium was doomed. They chose their own fate.

I agree with the first part, but what do you mean with "they chose their own fate"?

[Vladimir]

I agree with the first part, but what do you mean with "they chose their own fate"?

The answer is in this thread. They rested on their dying laurels.

[Prussian to the Iron]

I agree with the first part, but what do you mean with "they chose their own fate"?


The answer is in this thread. They rested on their dying laurels.

let me clear up what i think Vladimir is saying:

the Byzantines, like the original Romans before them, screwed themselves with all the murderous politics, constant rebellions, over-reaching their boundaries, etc. So in a way, you could say that they caused their own downfall with internal turmoil, and the Turks were simply that little extra tip in the wrong direction needed to destroy it.

[Decker]

let me clear up what i think Vladimir is saying:

the Byzantines, like the original Romans before them, screwed themselves with all the murderous politics, constant rebellions, over-reaching their boundaries, etc. So in a way, you could say that they caused their own downfall with internal turmoil, and the Turks were simply that little extra tip in the wrong direction needed to destroy it.
So basically you are saying it was a replay of the fall of the Western Roman Empire? Internal conflicts and external threats.

[Xiahou]

I would agree that manzikert was the fulcrum around which power transfered from Byzantium to the Ottomans. In this armchair historian's opinion, Manzikert wasn't fatal. I think it was the fourth crusade that really doomed them. :yes:

[Samurai Waki]

In this armchair historian's opinion, Manzikert wasn't fatal. I think it was the fourth crusade that really doomed them. :yes:

I agree, in a sense. the 4th Crusade was indeed like punching a geriatric in the head, the death wasn't immediate, but it pretty much sealed Byzantium's fate two and half centuries down the road.

There are far too many what-ifs in this scenario, states very easily could have risen that did not, or could not within our time line. However, in my opinion, had Byzantium not fallen to the Turks in 1453, Anatolia would still have remained very much Muslim, and very much a threat some short time down the road.

[Prussian to the Iron]

So basically you are saying it was a replay of the fall of the Western Roman Empire? Internal conflicts and external threats.

well, rome kinda had a decline starting with bad emperors, and ending due to bad timing with the invading goths, huns, etc.

whereas byzantium slowly wore itself down financially and politically due to internal squabbles less than bad emperors (though these of course weren't uncommon, as in any state/country/empire/nation) and trying to overstretch themselves. of course the crusaders sacking of constantinople was a huge loss.

[Decker]

well, Rome kinda had a decline starting with bad emperors, and ending due to bad timing with the invading goths, huns, etc.

whereas Byzantium slowly wore itself down financially and politically due to internal squabbles less than bad emperors (though these of course weren't uncommon, as in any state/country/empire/nation) and trying to overstretch themselves. of course the crusaders sacking of Constantinople was a huge loss.

True it was bad timing to a degree. As for the crusades, did not earlier crusades already cause problems before the eventual sacking of Constantinople?

[A1_Unit]

If Constantinople didn't fall after a first siege it would last a little longer before eventually falling. The Byzantine Empire was very instable for a long time and it wouldn't be able to win in the long run without support from the European countries so the Empire could focus on one front. The Venetians and other peoples saw the trends and switched their trading partner to the Turks - providing them with even more funds to wage war with.

[Prussian to the Iron]

True it was bad timing to a degree. As for the crusades, did not earlier crusades already cause problems before the eventual sacking of Constantinople?

I think (and if you know more, please correct me) that the 1st crusade was due, in part, to byzantium requesting help from the turks. there were several other causes, but byzantium i think called to the pope for help.

[Decker]

I think (and if you know more, please correct me) that the 1st crusade was due, in part, to Byzantium requesting help from the Turks. there were several other causes, but Byzantium i think called to the pope for help.
(I could be a little wrong in the statement below as my timeline could be a little off)
Yeah as far as I know, Byzantium did ask the Pope and Catholic Europe for help which, in my opinion, made Byzantium look weak. If it somehow did stabilize and last a lot longer, or little while longer anyways, I would suspect it would be under the thumb of Catholic Europe for sometime or that of the Ottomans.

[seireikhaan]

There's an elephant in the room that I don't think people are pointing out. Let's say that Byzantium won the battle of Manzikert. Let's say Byzantium wasn't ruled by feckless aristocrats and doomed emperors. Where did the wealth of Constantinople originally come from? From being a link of east to west. The Ottomans were clearly not on good terms with Byzantium, and trade through them was unlikely. The Mongol Khanates, which had, for a time, revitalized east to west trade, were falling. And, just 39 years after the actual fall of Constantinople, a Genoan sailed all the way west to find the east. Even if Byzantium had survived in a modicum of what it had been, even if it had been more stable and united than it had been, it would have never seen a return to the glory days. Trade and power were shifting from the Mediterranean and land routes to the Atlantic. Byzantium's one great strength, it's strategic position on trade routes, would be rendered far less significant than it used to be. Further, the rise of Austria would have actually made their position quite compromising- they would have had a large, aggressive, heretical power competing for the Balkans, and a large, aggressive, heathen power competing for Anatolia and Byzantium itself. The odds of Byzantium returning to its former glory were nearly zero.

[Fragony]

Would probably have fallen anyway, to the Magyars.

[Ironside]

I think (and if you know more, please correct me) that the 1st crusade was due, in part, to byzantium requesting help from the turks. there were several other causes, but byzantium i think called to the pope for help.

They did request help in the form of money and mercs though, not a bunch of unwashed barbarians (byzantine opinion).
Anyway, the first crusade did recapture territories that were given to he Byzantine emperor, who then quarreled with the feudal lords that didn't surrrender those lands as promised.
The first crusade was very beneficial for the Byzantines while the following ones less so.

But generally the internal strength were gone, so any bad emperor had profound negative effects at this point (like weakening the empire enough for the 1204 sacking to be possible).

[TinCow]

There's an elephant in the room that I don't think people are pointing out. Let's say that Byzantium won the battle of Manzikert. Let's say Byzantium wasn't ruled by feckless aristocrats and doomed emperors. Where did the wealth of Constantinople originally come from? From being a link of east to west. The Ottomans were clearly not on good terms with Byzantium, and trade through them was unlikely. The Mongol Khanates, which had, for a time, revitalized east to west trade, were falling. And, just 39 years after the actual fall of Constantinople, a Genoan sailed all the way west to find the east. Even if Byzantium had survived in a modicum of what it had been, even if it had been more stable and united than it had been, it would have never seen a return to the glory days. Trade and power were shifting from the Mediterranean and land routes to the Atlantic. Byzantium's one great strength, it's strategic position on trade routes, would be rendered far less significant than it used to be. Further, the rise of Austria would have actually made their position quite compromising- they would have had a large, aggressive, heretical power competing for the Balkans, and a large, aggressive, heathen power competing for Anatolia and Byzantium itself. The odds of Byzantium returning to its former glory were nearly zero.

I disagree with this, particularly the part about the Ottomans not trading with the Byzantines. Trade in the medieval era is not like modern trade: it was essentially impossible to regulate for most nations. The were too few products, too few trade routes, and too primitive transportation systems to allow shifting from one market to another. The Ottomans would always have traded with the Byzantines because they had no choice, there simply wasn't another market available to them at that time. The only choice available was not trading at all, which was only ever used as a short-term political weapon by a nation that needed the trade less than their trade partners did (e.g. the English wool trade with Flanders throughout the medieval period).

Indeed, the Turkish name for the city (Istanbul) is itself emblematic of the huge significance of the place for trade purposes even when the Byzantines and Ottomans were at each others' throats. Istanbul is derived from a Turkish phrase which roughly translates as "into the city." When people asked each other where they were going, if the destination was Constantinople they would simply say "into the city." That was because Constantinople was so massively important to the region, that you didn't need to even name it. Just calling it "the city" was enough to let everyone know what you meant.

You've mentioned Columbus sailing west as proof that it wasn't important. That actually proves the exact opposite. The entire reason that another route to India was needed was because the fall of Constantinople itself was what closed off the old routes eastward. Without the fall of the city to the Ottomans, Columbus would never have gotten funding for his voyage and the Americas would not have been re-discovered until much later. Indeed, the Genoese thought that Constantinople was so important as a trade hub, that they founded an entire city there (Galata) on the north shore of the Horn. The mega-traders of the era, the Genoese and the Venetians, were pretty much the only people that showed up to aid Constantinople in 1453 during the final siege. They appeared because they knew the city was so utterly important to their own trade that it was worth an open war with the Ottomans to prevent its fall.

It is worth noting that the fall of Constantinople actually marks the beginning of the end of the Italian trading empires. After that point, trade shifted to the overseas trade routes, to the Americas, India, and East Asia. Those routes were monopolized by western European powers who were the only ones capable of sustaining regular trade across huge bodies of open water. Again, this was only done because the much cheaper overland route to the East was closed. If that closure never happened, the venture capital for the initial voyages of exploration would not have emerged until much, much later. Italy would have remained prosperous for far longer, and Spain and Portugal in particular would have had a much more stunted economic growth.

[G. Septimus]

It's fall could'nt be stopped. It's the will of God !!! nobody can stop the will of god!!!!!!!!!

[TinCow]

It's fall could'nt be stopped. It's the will of God !!! nobody can stop the will of god!!!!!!!!!

God must be fickle then, as the Ottomans failed to take the city in 1394 and 1422. Ascribing it to something as ephemeral as the "will of God" also does a disservice to the Ottomans. Their gradual ascent to power and slow crumbling of the Byzantine Empire was the result of stupendous efforts in governmental and military organization. Considering that they began as a nomadic, tribal culture, this is worthy of note. The Ottomans were simply able to field much larger armies than their opponents on a very regular basis, and were able to sustain them in the field for extremely long sieges. They learned well from their defeats and compensated for weaknesses by investing heavily in fortifications, gunpowder siege engines, and eventually a navy. The won their Empire by skill, determination, and superb managerial skills, and they deserve to be recognized for these achievements.

[al Roumi]

I disagree with this, particularly the part about the Ottomans not trading with the Byzantines. Trade in the medieval era is not like modern trade: it was essentially impossible to regulate for most nations. The were too few products, too few trade routes, and too primitive transportation systems to allow shifting from one market to another. The Ottomans would always have traded with the Byzantines because they had no choice, there simply wasn't another market available to them at that time. The only choice available was not trading at all, which was only ever used as a short-term political weapon by a nation that needed the trade less than their trade partners did (e.g. the English wool trade with Flanders throughout the medieval period).

Indeed, the Turkish name for the city (Istanbul) is itself emblematic of the huge significance of the place for trade purposes even when the Byzantines and Ottomans were at each others' throats. Istanbul is derived from a Turkish phrase which roughly translates as "into the city." When people asked each other where they were going, if the destination was Constantinople they would simply say "into the city." That was because Constantinople was so massively important to the region, that you didn't need to even name it. Just calling it "the city" was enough to let everyone know what you meant.

You've mentioned Columbus sailing west as proof that it wasn't important. That actually proves the exact opposite. The entire reason that another route to India was needed was because the fall of Constantinople itself was what closed off the old routes eastward. Without the fall of the city to the Ottomans, Columbus would never have gotten funding for his voyage and the Americas would not have been re-discovered until much later. Indeed, the Genoese thought that Constantinople was so important as a trade hub, that they founded an entire city there (Galata) on the north shore of the Horn. The mega-traders of the era, the Genoese and the Venetians, were pretty much the only people that showed up to aid Constantinople in 1453 during the final siege. They appeared because they knew the city was so utterly important to their own trade that it was worth an open war with the Ottomans to prevent its fall.

It is worth noting that the fall of Constantinople actually marks the beginning of the end of the Italian trading empires. After that point, trade shifted to the overseas trade routes, to the Americas, India, and East Asia. Those routes were monopolized by western European powers who were the only ones capable of sustaining regular trade across huge bodies of open water. Again, this was only done because the much cheaper overland route to the East was closed. If that closure never happened, the venture capital for the initial voyages of exploration would not have emerged until much, much later. Italy would have remained prosperous for far longer, and Spain and Portugal in particular would have had a much more stunted economic growth.

That's an interesting analysis, especially the correlation between the fall of Constantinople and the "beginning of the end" for Genoese/Venetian power. However, I have to question a couple of things:

1 Why the Ottomans would have cut trade off any more so than the Byzantines? As you said, trade was more of a constant reality than a negotiable and infrequent fancy. The Venetians traded extensivley with the Ottomans, it was their continued wealth and influence in the eastern mediterranean that eventualy lead to conflcits between Ottoman and Venetian. Furthermore, trade with the east depended as much on the states in between Asia minor and China/India as those at the extremities of the caravans. If continental overland trade was risky or obstructed, it was surely as likely to have been so due to situations in Persia, Afghanistan etc?

2 Wasn't there enough going on in Italy which had a more immediate effect? i.e. Spanish control of the peninsula -absorbtion of Genoa into the Spanish sphere of influence and economy? The vast majority of Spain's New World ventures were financed by non-Iberian bankers/traders, eg Genoese, other Italian, Flemish, Dutch, German. Especially the Genoese.

Ultimately, Yaseikhaan is right that the strategic worth of Constantinople/Istanbul was compromised by the Western european powers seizing the economic initiative and trading directly in Asia, as well as acquiring New world wealth. So really, it's the Portugese, Dutch and Spanish who sabotaged either occupier of Constantinople/Istanbul's hopes of trade derived wealth.

In fact, for the agrandized Ottoman empire, the strategic focus of trade switched to that passing along the Arabian coast, as the Portuguese held island forts off Yemen and Oman. I think there was even an abortive attempt by the Ottomans to invade India at one stage -to secure control of resources at their source.

[seireikhaan]

I disagree with this, particularly the part about the Ottomans not trading with the Byzantines. Trade in the medieval era is not like modern trade: it was essentially impossible to regulate for most nations. The were too few products, too few trade routes, and too primitive transportation systems to allow shifting from one market to another. The Ottomans would always have traded with the Byzantines because they had no choice, there simply wasn't another market available to them at that time. The only choice available was not trading at all, which was only ever used as a short-term political weapon by a nation that needed the trade less than their trade partners did (e.g. the English wool trade with Flanders throughout the medieval period).

Indeed, the Turkish name for the city (Istanbul) is itself emblematic of the huge significance of the place for trade purposes even when the Byzantines and Ottomans were at each others' throats. Istanbul is derived from a Turkish phrase which roughly translates as "into the city." When people asked each other where they were going, if the destination was Constantinople they would simply say "into the city." That was because Constantinople was so massively important to the region, that you didn't need to even name it. Just calling it "the city" was enough to let everyone know what you meant.

You've mentioned Columbus sailing west as proof that it wasn't important. That actually proves the exact opposite. The entire reason that another route to India was needed was because the fall of Constantinople itself was what closed off the old routes eastward. Without the fall of the city to the Ottomans, Columbus would never have gotten funding for his voyage and the Americas would not have been re-discovered until much later. Indeed, the Genoese thought that Constantinople was so important as a trade hub, that they founded an entire city there (Galata) on the north shore of the Horn. The mega-traders of the era, the Genoese and the Venetians, were pretty much the only people that showed up to aid Constantinople in 1453 during the final siege. They appeared because they knew the city was so utterly important to their own trade that it was worth an open war with the Ottomans to prevent its fall.

It is worth noting that the fall of Constantinople actually marks the beginning of the end of the Italian trading empires. After that point, trade shifted to the overseas trade routes, to the Americas, India, and East Asia. Those routes were monopolized by western European powers who were the only ones capable of sustaining regular trade across huge bodies of open water. Again, this was only done because the much cheaper overland route to the East was closed. If that closure never happened, the venture capital for the initial voyages of exploration would not have emerged until much, much later. Italy would have remained prosperous for far longer, and Spain and Portugal in particular would have had a much more stunted economic growth.
I disagree with the premise. If the Ottomans were as open to trade as you claim, then why was the fall of the city itself such a thrust to the new world? The Ottomans already controlled all the routes to the east far before they conquered the actual city itself. Further, the more powerful Italian states had actual outpost very close to Constantinople itself. Again, if the Ottomans were so willing to trade with their neighbors, why did they not simply keep funneling goods from India and China into the Genoese and Venetians after taking Constantinople? It is not as though it was unprofitable. Yes, the two defied the Ottomans in their siege of Constantinople. Yet, that is no different then the Ottoman's difficulties with Byzantium. If the Ottomans were not going to sustain the trade with enemies in Italy, where is the evidence they sustained trade with their enemies in Greece?


As for the new world- the issue at hand, I believe, is not the Byzantines or the Ottomans, though both certainly played roles. My view is that the bigger thrust to the Atlantic was the collapse of political stability over the course of the silk road, following Timurlane's campaigns and the collapse of his own empire. Whether or not Byzantium could exert influence over its Anatolian territories and maintain strong government is only one small piece of the east-west trade puzzle. Simply put, a land route the size of the east/west route needs stability, peace, and proper authority, which did not exist following Timur's wake.


Lastly, on the routes themselves. You claimed that the overland route was cheaper. I, again, disagree. It was cheaper for some, notably the Italian states who, by virtue of their location, got to be middlemen. For the Atlantic states, this trade was not cheap. Even with political stability, there would be at least a dozen middlemen on a land based trade route from India to western Europe, each of which is looking to enrich themselves. When one can trade directly with India, they "cut out the middleman", as the biz likes to say nowadays. Even without the fall of Constantinople, the Atlantic states would have looked for alternative ways of obtaining this trade. Both to help their own pocketbooks and to strike political blows at the wealthy Venetians, Genoese, and other trade states. You pointed out that the "mega-traders of the day" came to Constantinople's rescue. I would also point out who didn't come. The French, the English, the Aragonese, the Castillans. They had little reason to go out of their way to support the Italians or Greeks. Not coincidentally, they would be the ones who would have rendered the old Byzantine order defunct anyways by finding a better route.

Basicallly, to summarize: The Atlantic powers had numerous reasons to find a water route to India and China. The land route had issues with stability, they had to go through numerous middlemen, which raised prices substantially, finding a way to offset the wealth of the Italian states, a land based route takes much longer than a water based route, and advances in ocean faring technology(see Henry the Navigator and Azores) were enabling much longer voyages. (and as a possible, though, IIRC, unconfirmable explanation, the search for Prestor John's gold :shrug:)

[Fragony]

(and as a possible, though, IIRC, unconfirmable explanation, the search for Prestor John's gold :shrug:)

They didn't have the technoligy to get that far at the time, they used the currents, to cross the cape they had to go as far as South America. They had already established trading empire all around the west-African coast for while before getting at the cape.

[TinCow]

Both of you essentially present the same questions, so I'll try and answer them together.

First: Why did the fall of Constantinople matter if the Ottomans were open to trade?

The key is the control of the actual city itself, because that is the hub of trade. Large-scale trade requires markets, warehouses, harbors, banks, etc. That can only be done inside a city large enough to support the resources and provide security for them. In the East, Constantinople was the undisputed champion trade hub for obvious reasons: it lies at an immensely strategic spot. All traffic from the Black Sea to the Med must go past it. In addition, it also stood astride the shortest land route from Europe to the Middle East. It is simply a superb location, both strategically and economically... and that's why there's been a major city there for so much of human history.

Prior to the Ottoman conquest of the city, the Ottomans did not have easy access to such a major trade hub of their own. Keep in mind that the pre-1453 Ottomans were much different from the post-1453 Ottomans. Until the capture of Nicea in 1331, the Ottomans did not even control any city of significant size, let alone a major trade hub... that's 250 years after Manzikert. There was simply no way for them to restrict trade at that point because they had no ability to influence any trade hub of significance.

The 120 years that span the period between the Capture of Nicea and Constantinople include the capture of numerous Byzantine cities in Greece and the Balkans, but that accomplished little more than to choke off the land-routes to Constantinople. One of the main reasons the Ottomans failed in their attempts to take Constantinople prior to 1453 is that they had absolutely no naval power worth mentioning. In any siege, the city was easily supplied by the water and the Ottomans could do nothing about it. They simply did not understand naval warfare. This same aspect prevented them from choking trade into Constantinople.

At the same time, without a major trade hub of their own they continued to be forced to do business through Constantinople, even before the Byzantines became a vassal state. Nations require wealth to operate, and the Ottomans were no different. Most Ottoman merchants chose to take their goods into Constantinople to export them, even though the Byzantines were often at odds with them, because it was more profitable than using lesser trade hubs. At the same time, the Byzantines were happy to accept this business, as it's what kept them clinging to power.

All that changed when the Ottomans took over the city, for a few reasons. First, the Ottomans finally, and for the first time, had complete control over that trade route. No one could trade through Constantinople without their permission, and with the aid of Rumelian Castle (built in 1452) and its twin on the other side of the Bosphorus, no one could even trade from the Black Sea to the Med without their permission. Thus, the shift in trade access in the region changed radically in the space of a single year. Where once trade freely flowed by sea whether the Ottomans wanted it or not, now no one went anywhere without paying taxes and duties.

These payments were not the same as those exacted by the Byzantines. I admit it's hard to find an accurate way of making a comparison here, simply because the situations were not comparable. Post-Manzikert Byzantium was constantly in need of western military aid. This put them is a weaker bargaining position and resulted in diplomatic and economic concessions to the Europeans that the Ottomans never had to give. So, in order to make a proper comparison, we really have to compare post-1453 trade costs with pre-Manzikert trade costs. Anything I said about that would be total guesswork. However, the fact remains that the price of doing business through Constantinople went up after the Ottomans took the city, which made that trade route less profitable.

Second, the Ottomans were Muslim. While Orthodoxy was not palatable to Catholic Europe, it was still Christianity and many Catholic leaders had very real beliefs that the Schism could be overcome and the Christian world united. There was an affinity between the Catholic West and the Orthodox East that was sufficient to keep at least minimal bonds between those peoples. That ended with the Ottoman conquest. The Ottomans regularly milked the concept of Holy War to build the massive armies they threw against Europe every so often. I don't think I need to explain how the Ottoman expansion throughout the Med over the 200 years after the fall of Constantinople engendered bad blood between the religions. The Catholics did not make themselves palatable to the Ottomans either with the long history of the Crusades and the numerous Hapsburg/Ottoman wars. The Christian/Muslim relationship was simply far, far worse than the relationship between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The impact the cost of trade through the area, as it vastly increased the risk of sudden cuts in the trade route and confiscation of goods that were already on-site.

Second: The overland trade route was not cheaper/Italians funded the voyages of discovery.

In this, I agree with 'khaan. Cheaper is a relative term and it depends on who we're talking about. Yes, it was much cheaper for the Italians, but it was not cheaper for France, Spain, England, Portugal, etc. I very much agree with that. There is no doubt whatsoever that the western powers were going to eventually discover the sea routes to Asia and the Americas, and when that happened the land route would have been less attractive (though shipping through Egypt via portage to the Red Sea would have remained cost-effective if it had not been taken over by the Ottomans).

However, I do believe that the western powers would not have made these discoveries when they did if the same level of profit had been maintained through Constantinople via Italy. Italian money and trade skills became very much focused on finding a way around the Ottoman obstacles after 1453. It was their initiative that resulted in the first voyages of exploration that awakened the rest of Europe. The Spanish money that funded Columbus would have been irrelevant if the Genoese weren't trying to find another route to Asia.

I agree that eventually the western powers would have accomplished this on their own, but not on the same time frame. Before the discoveries of the first explorers, there was very little interest in funding those journeys because the route was thought to be too long and too difficult... it just wasn't worth it for the less prosperous western powers to invest in it. Even after the fall of Constantinople it took 50 years before the new economic situation was sufficiently bad to warrant the first attempts. If the Constantinople route had remained prosperous, the cost-benefit analysis would have been such that it would have taken much longer for it to be a worthwhile investment to take the risk of funding explorations for new sea routes.

How much longer? I have no idea. Any number I pick will be arbitrary... but just imagine how much different the world would be if the Americas had been colonized only 50 years later. Just think of US history. How different would this country be today if the American Revolution hadn't occurred until 1826? By that time, the slave trade had been completely abolished in the British Empire. If the US had not had slavery at the time of its independence, would the Civil War have still occurred? If the American Revolution doesn't end until 1833, when does the French Revolution occur? Would the Napoleonic Wars have been fought in the 1860s with ironclads and repeating rifles? Just thinking about all the ramifications of a delay in colonization makes my head spin.

[al Roumi]

Second: The overland trade route was not cheaper/Italians funded the voyages of discovery.

In this, I agree with 'khaan. Cheaper is a relative term and it depends on who we're talking about. Yes, it was much cheaper for the Italians, but it was not cheaper for France, Spain, England, Portugal, etc. I very much agree with that. There is no doubt whatsoever that the western powers were going to eventually discover the sea routes to Asia and the Americas, and when that happened the land route would have been less attractive (though shipping through Egypt via portage to the Red Sea would have remained cost-effective if it had not been taken over by the Ottomans).

However, I do believe that the western powers would not have made these discoveries when they did if the same level of profit had been maintained through Constantinople via Italy. Italian money and trade skills became very much focused on finding a way around the Ottoman obstacles after 1453. It was their initiative that resulted in the first voyages of exploration that awakened the rest of Europe. The Spanish money that funded Columbus would have been irrelevant if the Genoese weren't trying to find another route to Asia.

I agree that eventually the western powers would have accomplished this on their own, but not on the same time frame. Before the discoveries of the first explorers, there was very little interest in funding those journeys because the route was thought to be too long and too difficult... it just wasn't worth it for the less prosperous western powers to invest in it. Even after the fall of Constantinople it took 50 years before the new economic situation was sufficiently bad to warrant the first attempts. If the Constantinople route had remained prosperous, the cost-benefit analysis would have been such that it would have taken much longer for it to be a worthwhile investment to take the risk of funding explorations for new sea routes.

I had been going to say that the one sticking point in this for me is Portugal, which had the greatest and earliest drive to find an alternate route to the Indies. I thought (until a minute ago) that the Portugese had aspirations of usurping the Italian east/west mediterranean trading hegemony -irrespective of rising commodity costs.

What I'd say now (having checked up on Henry the Navigator) is that Portugal was primarily interested in bypassing Saharan overland trade -to the eventual detriment of Moroccan trade. I guess, as Fragony says, that Portugese aspirations expanded eastwards later, closer to a date which is harder to disaggregate from Ottoman tarif increases.

So in essence I agree with Signore TinCow :yes:




How much long? I have no idea. Any number I pick will be arbitrary... but just imagine how much different the world would be if the Americas had been colonized only 50 years later. Just think of US history. How different would this country be today if the American Revolution hadn't occurred until 1826? By that time, the slave trade had been completely abolished in the British Empire. If the US had not had slavery at the time of its independence, would the Civil War have still occurred? Just thinking about all the ramifications of a delay in colonization makes my head spin.

:) For one, there may never have been a war of independance in the US! You could still have Queeny's head on your money... :laugh4:

[seireikhaan]

Well, in this sense, I do agree with you, TinCow, in that any considerable delay would have thrown history at least a touch off kilter. However, at that point, the question of "what if Constantinople had never fallen" becomes somewhat of an absurd question. Changing any part of history is bound to have some ramifications. I think we're all fairly familiar with the ideas regarding the changing of history, but I'll just summarize the point: If Europe discovers the America's 50 years later, that means all sorts of bizarre shinanigans that are pretty much impossible to predict. Least of which the impact the Protestant Revolution would have had on colonization(indeed, assuming it even happens when it does :dizzy2:) We can look at all the bad things that have happened and say "hey, that might not have happened!" However, we must also look at the good things and come to the same conclusion, while also acknowledging the general can of worms that is opened up. Much of history is a continuation of one tragedy to another, and its impossible to say what new, terrible things also could have occurred.

I'm not going to stand here and say that there was no impact from the Turkish conquest of Constantinople. My general view is the impact is usually overestimated. From my perspective, the simple, unbalanced economics of the flow of goods from east to west was going to break things loose sooner rather than later. The Atlantic states had little to lose, and technology was rapidly giving them the capability of accomplishing a direct link. And, one last thing, I guess. Columbus' initial voyage included rather few ships. I've never found a reliable source on the actual amount of capital invested in the initial journey, but, judging by the fact that his second voyage from Europe consisted of over five times the number of ships as the first, the amount of capital required for the initial thrust of the journey was not stupendous. Thus, any initial thrust to find the new world was not, I believe, as difficult or expensive(at least, for a large kingdom such as Portugal, Spain, France, etc...) as people tend to make it out to be.

Of course, as you pointed out, its basically conjecture to try an say when it would have happened. Basically, it comes down to my conjecture being less deviant from history than yours. :shrug:

[Subotan]

This is as silly as question as asking "What would have happened if Berlin had not fallen to the Russians in 1945?". However, the theme is quite interesting, and the roots go back much further than 1453.
Had Manziker, Myriocephalum and 1204 not happened, then maybe we would have had a longer lasting Byzantine Empire.

let me clear up what i think Vladimir is saying:

the Byzantines, like the original Romans before them, screwed themselves with all the murderous politics, constant rebellions, over-reaching their boundaries, etc. So in a way, you could say that they caused their own downfall with internal turmoil, and the Turks were simply that little extra tip in the wrong direction needed to destroy it.
Not nessecarily. It weakened their ability to resist, but it wasn't the cause. Politics had been happening for centuries before the Turks, and the Avars, Pechengs, Magyars, Bulgars, Arabs, Rus etc. had all failed to defeat "Romania".

I agree, in a sense. the 4th Crusade was indeed like punching a geriatric in the head, the death wasn't immediate, but it pretty much sealed Byzantium's fate two and half centuries down the road.
.

This.

One of the most important developments, had Byzantium somehow survivied a few more years, is that the Battle of the Mohacs would probably not have happened, leading to an independent Hungary/Bohemia in Europe....

[ShadesWolf]

An intersting concept?

What might the results have been. Possibly a city state like Venice etc.,

Could a crumbled state have lasted? the intersting point is that constantinople was the seat of the Greek church, so might it have ended up like the vatican?

What effects would this have had on the spread of Islam and on Greece as a whole?

[Ibrahim]

An intersting concept?

What might the results have been. Possibly a city state like Venice etc.,

Could a crumbled state have lasted? the intersting point is that constantinople was the seat of the Greek church, so might it have ended up like the vatican?

What effects would this have had on the spread of Islam and on Greece as a whole?

well, I can answer the last question:

1-wouldn't have made that much of a difference. the Ottomans already had a considerable part of the Balkans in their hands by 1450, and in fact the capital at the time iirc was in Edirne (Adrianopolis).

what the fall of Constantinople did more than anything was add great prestiege to the Ottoman rulers.

[Fragony]

Possibly a city state like Venice etc.,


It kinda was at that point, the Byzantines had become more culturally inward and didn't really bother where borders overstretched anymore, been taken apart piecemeal.

[Cute Wolf]

If Byzantium never fall to the Turks, that city will play a role as "Buffer State" between the Turks and Hungarians, so, because the Turkish skirmishes and raids in Hungarian Borders are eventually fewer, the Hungarians will then become strong and start to push back... (Imagine M2TW campaign in my head) then starting to sent their Hungarian Nobles and Magyar Horse Archers to doom their neighbours, and finally become the "western mongol empire" on their own.....

[A Very Super Market]

What about the Balkans? Constantinople was an enclave in the middle of Ottoman hegemony.

[G. Septimus]

The Balkans, will either revolt, or be captured by the Turks, well, the Fall of Constantinople
could'nt be stopped (except if the earlier Ottoman campaigns could be halted, and the Crusader lands at
Palestine would'nt be taken, it would'nt happen)

[A Very Super Market]

You don't get it, in 1543, the Byzantine Empire was reduced to only Constantinople. The Ottomans already took the lands East and West of them, Bulgaria and Anatolia.

[G. Septimus]

So, if only Constantinople, we can only stop the fall of the Empire almost 160 years before(1291)
when the Crusader states fallen, and been taken by the Muslims, the Simple truth is:
THE FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE CAN'T BE PREVENTED!!!!!!!

[TinCow]

You don't get it, in 1543, the Byzantine Empire was reduced to only Constantinople. The Ottomans already took the lands East and West of them, Bulgaria and Anatolia.

That's not quite right. Most of Morea (Peloponnese) was still under Byzantine control in 1453. Some of Constantine XI's advisers urged him to flee to that province to escape the fall of the city and continue the fight, but he refused.

[Prussian to the Iron]

Some of Constantine XI's advisers urged him to flee to that province to escape the fall of the city and continue the fight, but he refused.


someone is trying to copy Justinian...

[gio]

[
Indeed, the Turkish name for the city (Istanbul) is itself emblematic of the huge significance of the place for trade purposes even when the Byzantines and Ottomans were at each others' throats. Istanbul is derived from a Turkish phrase which roughly translates as "into the city." When people asked each other where they were going, if the destination was Constantinople they would simply say "into the city."

Well Ottomans actually paraphrased the Byzantine Greek epxression Eis tin Polin (Είς τήν Πόλιν) which means rougly In the City, which is the answer to the question of the Ottomans: Where am I? Answer: Eis tin Polin. That answer sounded in the Ottoman ears something like (Eis) Is- (tin) tan- (Poli) bul.


That was because Constantinople was so massively important to the region, that you didn't need to even name it. Just calling it "the city" was enough to let everyone know what you meant.
agree with this since everyhting around Constantinople was considered rural area so the only urban area which could called City was Constantinople. Even nowadays Greeks call Constaninople Polis which means city

[CountArach]

[
Indeed, the Turkish name for the city (Istanbul) is itself emblematic of the huge significance of the place for trade purposes even when the Byzantines and Ottomans were at each others' throats. Istanbul is derived from a Turkish phrase which roughly translates as "into the city." When people asked each other where they were going, if the destination was Constantinople they would simply say "into the city."

Well Ottomans actually paraphrased the Byzantine Greek epxression Eis tin Polin (Είς τήν Πόλιν) which means rougly In the City, which is the answer to the question of the Ottomans: Where am I? Answer: Eis tin Polin. That answer sounded in the Ottoman ears something like (Eis) Is- (tin) tan- (Poli) bul.
Welcome to the Org, that is truly fascinating.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Interesting stuff, sorry I had missed this until the resurrect.

For the most part, as has been addressed above in this thread, the Byzantine Empire was laughably weak at this point in history and a safe Constantinople post-1453 would not have reversed their centuries-long decay. However, they did have one chance at a reprieve: Mehmet II. The Sultan's grip on the throne was not really solidified at this point. First of all, keep in mind that Mehmet was still only 21 at the time and had only ruled for a little over two years. Second of all, his father, Murad II, had actually abdicated in favor of Mehmet back in 1444 and had to un-abdicate shortly afterwards because his son was not up to handling the running of the empire. Third of all, there was serious dissent in the Ottoman camp about whether or not to proceed with the attack on Constantinople right up until the final assault. Fourth of all, the Byzantines had access to at least one Ottoman pretender to the throne.

In a hypothetical repulse of the Ottoman assault in the early hours of May 29th, 1453, it could be very possible that the "peace party" in the Ottoman camp wins out. Mehmet and his army, now with a big chunk torn out of it, has to return to Edirne. The common soldiers go back to their homes, some in far-off parts of the empire. The questions about Mehmet's capabilities as a ruler pop up once again. After all, in the previous two sieges of Constantinople, 1394 and 1422, the Ottomans pulled back both times because of outside factors. However, in 1453, if they had to pull back because they simply failed to take the city, with the odds so greatly stacked in their favor, with a controversial Sultan... things would not go so well. Add in Constantine - who survived the battle - unleashing his pretender (Osman, if I remember the name correctly), and chances are good that the Ottomans have to leave Constantinople alone to clean up their own affairs for a while.

I do not consider the above a best-case scenario for the Byzantines. I consider it a plausible outcome. The next paragraph, however, is probably wishful thinking on Byzantium's part.

What does this mean for Constantinople? It buys them time and breathing room. Everyone had known for decades that the city's best chance of survival was aid from the West. The Greeks had submitted and agreed to reunification at the Council of Florence precisely because of this. Officially, it was well on its way to happening. Unofficially, it had been stalled for quite some time because many of the Orthodox clergy and their congregations would not accept it. The Hagia Sophia actually was unused for the last year or so of Byzantine Constantinople. However, it finally saw a service again on the night of May 28th, in a final vigil before the Ottoman assault. It is written that everyone present in the city - no matter whether they were Catholic or Orthodox, Greek or Genoan or Venetian - put aside their differences and all prayed together in the face of such adversity. Constantinople was always a city that was in touch with religion and prophecy. It's possible that the people of the city could have remembered the good feeling generated by that final vigil in the wake of their deliverance and would have finally accepted reunification. The time bought by the Ottoman chaos could have been used to securing greater bond with the West, and by the time the Ottomans got their house in order, they could now face an enemy that, while weak, now had real friends in the West.

This is the best-case scenario for Constantinople. The more likely one is variations on the theme that had been established for the past century or so: The Ottomans have their own issues from time to time, but the Byzantines never get stronger. The Greeks had played the game of thrones with Ottoman pretenders in the past, and it had never really served much of a purpose outside of pissing the eventual Sultan off. Even if the current Byzantine-sponsored pretender did manage to win the throne, he would not rule forever. The lure of Constantinople was too great. It had been the Red Apple for Islam for nearly a thousand years by that point. While Constantinople still stood, it had taken severe damage in the assault and most of Byzantium's efforts would be in rebuilding it and preparing it for the next inevitable attack. The city's defenders in that assault numbered about 7,000. Factor in casualties and the Byzantines still had nearly zero offensive capability, even when you count the men in Morea. There would be no reconquista of the Balkan Peninsula. The notoriously fickle Orthodox clergy would still refuse to accept reunification, leaving Constantinople once again isolated. And eventually, the Ottomans would be back. Whether they had always occupied Rumeli Hisar or would retake it wouldn't matter. Yes, the Greeks had beaten the odds in 1453, but the chances of a repeat would be even lower. At this point, mathematics take over. The Ottomans have significant advantages in every area, and with the advances in gunpowder technology, the famed Theodosian Walls become more and more obsolete.

[TinCow]

IMO, the main obstacle for any 15th century Byzantine revival is that by that time Anatolia was unrecoverable. Byzantine power was always dependent upon their control of the Middle Eastern territories and trade routes. Anatolia was the key to that control, as the western side had large populations and great prosperity. It also acted as a buffer zone which kept the central Byzantine territories safe from disruption by foreign armies. Various pieces of Anatolia were temporarily lost by Byzantium (and Rome before it) throughout almost all of their history. However, these were only temporary setbacks that did not do significant permanent damage, because the population in the lost areas remained Byzantine in culture and religion. This can be seen as late as the First Crusade, when the Byzantines were welcomed back into many of the population centers, and simply re-established the old governmental and administrative systems that had existed before they left. However, by the 15th century, Anatolia had undergone a total population change. Due to immigration of Turks, migration of Byzantine Christians, deaths from war, conversions, and intermarriages, the Anatolian population in the 15th century had no affinity to Byzantium at all. That made it, essentially, unrecoverable. Without Anatolia, Byzantium was doomed to be, at best, a third rate power. It was just a question of who they would eventually be conquered by and when, not if.

So, as I see it, any alternate history of Byzantine survival only really alters the sequence of events which were impacted by European and Ottoman interactions over the next several hundred years. In order for Byzantium itself to actually emerge as a going concern, the clock has to be rolled back really, really far.

To build on what GH said though, even if the Ottomans were only delayed by a few decades with leadership chaos, it would have significantly impacted their development. If Suleiman rose to power while Byzantium was still around, his reign would never have achieved what it did historically. European and North African expansion was not realistic until Byzantium was gone. Would the Ottomons ever have been able to achieve that kind of domination if they only got started on it when the Hapsburgs were at the height of their power? Sure, Mamluk Egypt may have fallen regardless, but I think the Ottomans would have had significant difficulties with Balkan and North African expansion (not to mention Mediterranean sea power) if they hadn't started on it before the Hapsburg superpower emerged. Things could actually have been far worse for them, in fact. If Constantinople had fallen to Venice instead of the Ottomans, it probably would have been much harder to conquer.

[Martok]

So, as I see it, any alternate history of Byzantine survival only really alters the sequence of events which were impacted by European and Ottoman interactions over the next several hundred years. In order for Byzantium itself to actually emerge as a going concern, the clock has to be rolled back really, really far.
Out of curiosity, how far back are you thinking? The Fourth Crusade? Manzikert?

[GeneralHankerchief]

Judging by TC's above comments regarding Anatolia, probably Manzikert. That battle and the loss of territory crippled the Byzantines. The Fourth Crusade and all the future events was simply a bully beating on a cripple.

[TinCow]

I think recovery was still possible after the First Crusade. The population was still largely Byzantine then, and the administrative structures were still intact and were welcomed back by the territories the Byzantines regained. Had the Crusader States been less antagonistic against their Muslim neighbors, the Byzantines might have had enough time to consolidate their hold on Anatolia and rebuild their strength. However, I think the First Crusade was the last real opportunity. By the time of the Fourth, the behavior of the Crusader States had sufficiently antagonized the rest of the region to make prolonged peace unlikely. The Byzantines survived and thrived by aiding in-fighting amongst their regional competitors. The Crusader States caused the exact thing that Byzantine diplomacy had been working to prevent so several hundred years: consolidation of Muslim power in the hands of a few large states.

[Madae]

An obvious argument, but I think the Byzantine Empire would have survived if it was Roman Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox. It definitely would not have held a grip on its eastern and southern territories, but it could have easily kept Constantinople and anything west of it.

[rickinator9]

I doubt it, religion wasn't a factor in the 4th crusade, the last blow to the Byzantines. From 1300 on, there was little interest in crusades anymore. The only ones who came to the empire's help were the Italian citystates. The empire briefly reunited with the catholic church, but it only brought unrest to the orthodox population.

[Madae]

The city would have never been sacked if it was a Catholic kingdom. That was the whole point of the crusades; for Christian's to come together and fight a common enemy. Anyone who wasn't Christian was fair game. The west would also have been a lot more eager to defend it should it have come under attack. The Turks may not have even tried to invade.

The Italian's also recognized that Constantinople was the key to eastern trade and beyond, and they were very interested in keeping that prospect open. The door was practically shut on eastern trade for the western kingdoms when Constantinople fell, which is partially the reason why Columbus sailed west into the Atlantic to find a trade route that bypassed the Muslim kingdoms altogether.

Ultimately, we'll never know the answer and what would really happen if Constantinople never fell. This is all just speculation. To say anyone and their opinion is wrong, or even doubtful, is kind of silly. You can argue it, but don't assume to know what is and isn't. A better way to word that would have been to just leave out the "I doubt it" part. Just a thought.