What if Constantinople had never fallen to the Turks?

[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.