What if Constantinople had never fallen to the Turks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

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:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yaseikhaan

(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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

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:

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

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....

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadesWolf

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.

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.....

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

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)

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.

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!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

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...

[
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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Welcome to the Org, that is truly fascinating.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.