What if Constantinople had never fallen to the Turks?

[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!

[Prussian to the Iron]

Please continue, it's amusing stuff to a mostly uninformed bystander!

it is absolutely! i crave, nay NEED more!

[Sarmatian]

Might be easier if there's a specific topic to discuss. What if Constantinople never fallen to the Turks, what does that mean? What would it be if Byzantine empire survived to this? That's as pointless as discussing what if Aztec empire have never fallen...

Do you mean what if the siege of 1453 failed? Is that what you're asking?

[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.

[al Roumi]

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?