What if Constantinople had never fallen to the Turks?

[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.

[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?