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.

[Samurai Waki]

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

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.