What if Constantinople had never fallen to the Turks?

[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.

[G. Septimus]

It's fall could'nt be stopped. It's the will of God !!! nobody can stop the will of god!!!!!!!!!

[TinCow]

It's fall could'nt be stopped. It's the will of God !!! nobody can stop the will of god!!!!!!!!!

God must be fickle then, as the Ottomans failed to take the city in 1394 and 1422. Ascribing it to something as ephemeral as the "will of God" also does a disservice to the Ottomans. Their gradual ascent to power and slow crumbling of the Byzantine Empire was the result of stupendous efforts in governmental and military organization. Considering that they began as a nomadic, tribal culture, this is worthy of note. The Ottomans were simply able to field much larger armies than their opponents on a very regular basis, and were able to sustain them in the field for extremely long sieges. They learned well from their defeats and compensated for weaknesses by investing heavily in fortifications, gunpowder siege engines, and eventually a navy. The won their Empire by skill, determination, and superb managerial skills, and they deserve to be recognized for these achievements.

[al Roumi]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

That's an interesting analysis, especially the correlation between the fall of Constantinople and the "beginning of the end" for Genoese/Venetian power. However, I have to question a couple of things:

1 Why the Ottomans would have cut trade off any more so than the Byzantines? As you said, trade was more of a constant reality than a negotiable and infrequent fancy. The Venetians traded extensivley with the Ottomans, it was their continued wealth and influence in the eastern mediterranean that eventualy lead to conflcits between Ottoman and Venetian. Furthermore, trade with the east depended as much on the states in between Asia minor and China/India as those at the extremities of the caravans. If continental overland trade was risky or obstructed, it was surely as likely to have been so due to situations in Persia, Afghanistan etc?

2 Wasn't there enough going on in Italy which had a more immediate effect? i.e. Spanish control of the peninsula -absorbtion of Genoa into the Spanish sphere of influence and economy? The vast majority of Spain's New World ventures were financed by non-Iberian bankers/traders, eg Genoese, other Italian, Flemish, Dutch, German. Especially the Genoese.

Ultimately, Yaseikhaan is right that the strategic worth of Constantinople/Istanbul was compromised by the Western european powers seizing the economic initiative and trading directly in Asia, as well as acquiring New world wealth. So really, it's the Portugese, Dutch and Spanish who sabotaged either occupier of Constantinople/Istanbul's hopes of trade derived wealth.

In fact, for the agrandized Ottoman empire, the strategic focus of trade switched to that passing along the Arabian coast, as the Portuguese held island forts off Yemen and Oman. I think there was even an abortive attempt by the Ottomans to invade India at one stage -to secure control of resources at their source.

[TinCow]

Both of you essentially present the same questions, so I'll try and answer them together.

First: Why did the fall of Constantinople matter if the Ottomans were open to trade?

The key is the control of the actual city itself, because that is the hub of trade. Large-scale trade requires markets, warehouses, harbors, banks, etc. That can only be done inside a city large enough to support the resources and provide security for them. In the East, Constantinople was the undisputed champion trade hub for obvious reasons: it lies at an immensely strategic spot. All traffic from the Black Sea to the Med must go past it. In addition, it also stood astride the shortest land route from Europe to the Middle East. It is simply a superb location, both strategically and economically... and that's why there's been a major city there for so much of human history.

Prior to the Ottoman conquest of the city, the Ottomans did not have easy access to such a major trade hub of their own. Keep in mind that the pre-1453 Ottomans were much different from the post-1453 Ottomans. Until the capture of Nicea in 1331, the Ottomans did not even control any city of significant size, let alone a major trade hub... that's 250 years after Manzikert. There was simply no way for them to restrict trade at that point because they had no ability to influence any trade hub of significance.

The 120 years that span the period between the Capture of Nicea and Constantinople include the capture of numerous Byzantine cities in Greece and the Balkans, but that accomplished little more than to choke off the land-routes to Constantinople. One of the main reasons the Ottomans failed in their attempts to take Constantinople prior to 1453 is that they had absolutely no naval power worth mentioning. In any siege, the city was easily supplied by the water and the Ottomans could do nothing about it. They simply did not understand naval warfare. This same aspect prevented them from choking trade into Constantinople.

At the same time, without a major trade hub of their own they continued to be forced to do business through Constantinople, even before the Byzantines became a vassal state. Nations require wealth to operate, and the Ottomans were no different. Most Ottoman merchants chose to take their goods into Constantinople to export them, even though the Byzantines were often at odds with them, because it was more profitable than using lesser trade hubs. At the same time, the Byzantines were happy to accept this business, as it's what kept them clinging to power.

All that changed when the Ottomans took over the city, for a few reasons. First, the Ottomans finally, and for the first time, had complete control over that trade route. No one could trade through Constantinople without their permission, and with the aid of Rumelian Castle (built in 1452) and its twin on the other side of the Bosphorus, no one could even trade from the Black Sea to the Med without their permission. Thus, the shift in trade access in the region changed radically in the space of a single year. Where once trade freely flowed by sea whether the Ottomans wanted it or not, now no one went anywhere without paying taxes and duties.

These payments were not the same as those exacted by the Byzantines. I admit it's hard to find an accurate way of making a comparison here, simply because the situations were not comparable. Post-Manzikert Byzantium was constantly in need of western military aid. This put them is a weaker bargaining position and resulted in diplomatic and economic concessions to the Europeans that the Ottomans never had to give. So, in order to make a proper comparison, we really have to compare post-1453 trade costs with pre-Manzikert trade costs. Anything I said about that would be total guesswork. However, the fact remains that the price of doing business through Constantinople went up after the Ottomans took the city, which made that trade route less profitable.

Second, the Ottomans were Muslim. While Orthodoxy was not palatable to Catholic Europe, it was still Christianity and many Catholic leaders had very real beliefs that the Schism could be overcome and the Christian world united. There was an affinity between the Catholic West and the Orthodox East that was sufficient to keep at least minimal bonds between those peoples. That ended with the Ottoman conquest. The Ottomans regularly milked the concept of Holy War to build the massive armies they threw against Europe every so often. I don't think I need to explain how the Ottoman expansion throughout the Med over the 200 years after the fall of Constantinople engendered bad blood between the religions. The Catholics did not make themselves palatable to the Ottomans either with the long history of the Crusades and the numerous Hapsburg/Ottoman wars. The Christian/Muslim relationship was simply far, far worse than the relationship between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The impact the cost of trade through the area, as it vastly increased the risk of sudden cuts in the trade route and confiscation of goods that were already on-site.

Second: The overland trade route was not cheaper/Italians funded the voyages of discovery.

In this, I agree with 'khaan. Cheaper is a relative term and it depends on who we're talking about. Yes, it was much cheaper for the Italians, but it was not cheaper for France, Spain, England, Portugal, etc. I very much agree with that. There is no doubt whatsoever that the western powers were going to eventually discover the sea routes to Asia and the Americas, and when that happened the land route would have been less attractive (though shipping through Egypt via portage to the Red Sea would have remained cost-effective if it had not been taken over by the Ottomans).

However, I do believe that the western powers would not have made these discoveries when they did if the same level of profit had been maintained through Constantinople via Italy. Italian money and trade skills became very much focused on finding a way around the Ottoman obstacles after 1453. It was their initiative that resulted in the first voyages of exploration that awakened the rest of Europe. The Spanish money that funded Columbus would have been irrelevant if the Genoese weren't trying to find another route to Asia.

I agree that eventually the western powers would have accomplished this on their own, but not on the same time frame. Before the discoveries of the first explorers, there was very little interest in funding those journeys because the route was thought to be too long and too difficult... it just wasn't worth it for the less prosperous western powers to invest in it. Even after the fall of Constantinople it took 50 years before the new economic situation was sufficiently bad to warrant the first attempts. If the Constantinople route had remained prosperous, the cost-benefit analysis would have been such that it would have taken much longer for it to be a worthwhile investment to take the risk of funding explorations for new sea routes.

How much longer? I have no idea. Any number I pick will be arbitrary... but just imagine how much different the world would be if the Americas had been colonized only 50 years later. Just think of US history. How different would this country be today if the American Revolution hadn't occurred until 1826? By that time, the slave trade had been completely abolished in the British Empire. If the US had not had slavery at the time of its independence, would the Civil War have still occurred? If the American Revolution doesn't end until 1833, when does the French Revolution occur? Would the Napoleonic Wars have been fought in the 1860s with ironclads and repeating rifles? Just thinking about all the ramifications of a delay in colonization makes my head spin.

[seireikhaan]

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.

I disagree with the premise. If the Ottomans were as open to trade as you claim, then why was the fall of the city itself such a thrust to the new world? The Ottomans already controlled all the routes to the east far before they conquered the actual city itself. Further, the more powerful Italian states had actual outpost very close to Constantinople itself. Again, if the Ottomans were so willing to trade with their neighbors, why did they not simply keep funneling goods from India and China into the Genoese and Venetians after taking Constantinople? It is not as though it was unprofitable. Yes, the two defied the Ottomans in their siege of Constantinople. Yet, that is no different then the Ottoman's difficulties with Byzantium. If the Ottomans were not going to sustain the trade with enemies in Italy, where is the evidence they sustained trade with their enemies in Greece?


As for the new world- the issue at hand, I believe, is not the Byzantines or the Ottomans, though both certainly played roles. My view is that the bigger thrust to the Atlantic was the collapse of political stability over the course of the silk road, following Timurlane's campaigns and the collapse of his own empire. Whether or not Byzantium could exert influence over its Anatolian territories and maintain strong government is only one small piece of the east-west trade puzzle. Simply put, a land route the size of the east/west route needs stability, peace, and proper authority, which did not exist following Timur's wake.


Lastly, on the routes themselves. You claimed that the overland route was cheaper. I, again, disagree. It was cheaper for some, notably the Italian states who, by virtue of their location, got to be middlemen. For the Atlantic states, this trade was not cheap. Even with political stability, there would be at least a dozen middlemen on a land based trade route from India to western Europe, each of which is looking to enrich themselves. When one can trade directly with India, they "cut out the middleman", as the biz likes to say nowadays. Even without the fall of Constantinople, the Atlantic states would have looked for alternative ways of obtaining this trade. Both to help their own pocketbooks and to strike political blows at the wealthy Venetians, Genoese, and other trade states. You pointed out that the "mega-traders of the day" came to Constantinople's rescue. I would also point out who didn't come. The French, the English, the Aragonese, the Castillans. They had little reason to go out of their way to support the Italians or Greeks. Not coincidentally, they would be the ones who would have rendered the old Byzantine order defunct anyways by finding a better route.

Basicallly, to summarize: The Atlantic powers had numerous reasons to find a water route to India and China. The land route had issues with stability, they had to go through numerous middlemen, which raised prices substantially, finding a way to offset the wealth of the Italian states, a land based route takes much longer than a water based route, and advances in ocean faring technology(see Henry the Navigator and Azores) were enabling much longer voyages. (and as a possible, though, IIRC, unconfirmable explanation, the search for Prestor John's gold )

[Fragony]

(and as a possible, though, IIRC, unconfirmable explanation, the search for Prestor John's gold )

They didn't have the technoligy to get that far at the time, they used the currents, to cross the cape they had to go as far as South America. They had already established trading empire all around the west-African coast for while before getting at the cape.

[gio]

[
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."

Well Ottomans actually paraphrased the Byzantine Greek epxression Eis tin Polin (Είς τήν Πόλιν) which means rougly In the City, which is the answer to the question of the Ottomans: Where am I? Answer: Eis tin Polin. That answer sounded in the Ottoman ears something like (Eis) Is- (tin) tan- (Poli) bul.


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.
agree with this since everyhting around Constantinople was considered rural area so the only urban area which could called City was Constantinople. Even nowadays Greeks call Constaninople Polis which means city

[CountArach]

[
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."

Well Ottomans actually paraphrased the Byzantine Greek epxression Eis tin Polin (Είς τήν Πόλιν) which means rougly In the City, which is the answer to the question of the Ottomans: Where am I? Answer: Eis tin Polin. That answer sounded in the Ottoman ears something like (Eis) Is- (tin) tan- (Poli) bul.

Welcome to the Org, that is truly fascinating.

[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).