What if Constantinople had never fallen to the Turks?

[seireikhaan]

Well, in this sense, I do agree with you, TinCow, in that any considerable delay would have thrown history at least a touch off kilter. However, at that point, the question of "what if Constantinople had never fallen" becomes somewhat of an absurd question. Changing any part of history is bound to have some ramifications. I think we're all fairly familiar with the ideas regarding the changing of history, but I'll just summarize the point: If Europe discovers the America's 50 years later, that means all sorts of bizarre shinanigans that are pretty much impossible to predict. Least of which the impact the Protestant Revolution would have had on colonization(indeed, assuming it even happens when it does ) We can look at all the bad things that have happened and say "hey, that might not have happened!" However, we must also look at the good things and come to the same conclusion, while also acknowledging the general can of worms that is opened up. Much of history is a continuation of one tragedy to another, and its impossible to say what new, terrible things also could have occurred.

I'm not going to stand here and say that there was no impact from the Turkish conquest of Constantinople. My general view is the impact is usually overestimated. From my perspective, the simple, unbalanced economics of the flow of goods from east to west was going to break things loose sooner rather than later. The Atlantic states had little to lose, and technology was rapidly giving them the capability of accomplishing a direct link. And, one last thing, I guess. Columbus' initial voyage included rather few ships. I've never found a reliable source on the actual amount of capital invested in the initial journey, but, judging by the fact that his second voyage from Europe consisted of over five times the number of ships as the first, the amount of capital required for the initial thrust of the journey was not stupendous. Thus, any initial thrust to find the new world was not, I believe, as difficult or expensive(at least, for a large kingdom such as Portugal, Spain, France, etc...) as people tend to make it out to be.

Of course, as you pointed out, its basically conjecture to try an say when it would have happened. Basically, it comes down to my conjecture being less deviant from history than yours.

[Subotan]

This is as silly as question as asking "What would have happened if Berlin had not fallen to the Russians in 1945?". However, the theme is quite interesting, and the roots go back much further than 1453.
Had Manziker, Myriocephalum and 1204 not happened, then maybe we would have had a longer lasting Byzantine Empire.

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.

Not nessecarily. It weakened their ability to resist, but it wasn't the cause. Politics had been happening for centuries before the Turks, and the Avars, Pechengs, Magyars, Bulgars, Arabs, Rus etc. had all failed to defeat "Romania".

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.
.

This.

One of the most important developments, had Byzantium somehow survivied a few more years, is that the Battle of the Mohacs would probably not have happened, leading to an independent Hungary/Bohemia in Europe....

[ShadesWolf]

An intersting concept?

What might the results have been. Possibly a city state like Venice etc.,

Could a crumbled state have lasted? the intersting point is that constantinople was the seat of the Greek church, so might it have ended up like the vatican?

What effects would this have had on the spread of Islam and on Greece as a whole?

[Ibrahim]

An intersting concept?

What might the results have been. Possibly a city state like Venice etc.,

Could a crumbled state have lasted? the intersting point is that constantinople was the seat of the Greek church, so might it have ended up like the vatican?

What effects would this have had on the spread of Islam and on Greece as a whole?

well, I can answer the last question:

1-wouldn't have made that much of a difference. the Ottomans already had a considerable part of the Balkans in their hands by 1450, and in fact the capital at the time iirc was in Edirne (Adrianopolis).

what the fall of Constantinople did more than anything was add great prestiege to the Ottoman rulers.

[Fragony]

Possibly a city state like Venice etc.,

It kinda was at that point, the Byzantines had become more culturally inward and didn't really bother where borders overstretched anymore, been taken apart piecemeal.

[Cute Wolf]

If Byzantium never fall to the Turks, that city will play a role as "Buffer State" between the Turks and Hungarians, so, because the Turkish skirmishes and raids in Hungarian Borders are eventually fewer, the Hungarians will then become strong and start to push back... (Imagine M2TW campaign in my head) then starting to sent their Hungarian Nobles and Magyar Horse Archers to doom their neighbours, and finally become the "western mongol empire" on their own.....

[A Very Super Market]

What about the Balkans? Constantinople was an enclave in the middle of Ottoman hegemony.

[G. Septimus]

The Balkans, will either revolt, or be captured by the Turks, well, the Fall of Constantinople
could'nt be stopped (except if the earlier Ottoman campaigns could be halted, and the Crusader lands at
Palestine would'nt be taken, it would'nt happen)