What if Constantinople had never fallen to the Turks?

[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!

[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.