What if Constantinople had never fallen to the Turks?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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).