What was the Byzantine army made of

Could the fall of Ostrom have been prevented?

You are here: »Forum» Middle Ages General »Could the fall of Ostrom have been prevented?

Archive topic in the forum: Middle Ages General

On May 29, 1453, the troops of the Ottoman sultan broke through the first ring of the wall of Constantinople and fell in the rear of the troops of Byzantium. The panic that followed ended the more than 2000-year history of the Roman Empire. Since the Ottoman troops obviously fell in the back of the Byzantines, my question is whether something must have gone wrong in the defense of the city and whether the fall of their riches could have been prevented with a better distribution of troops on the part of the Eastern Romans? It would also be interesting to know whether an invasion of the Ottomans could have been preventively prevented by a more skilful policy during the Crusades or at the time of the Macedonian emperors?
Submitted by DieterM on February 24th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Pretty tough question. But interesting what others think about it. Here's my opinion: I think the fall of Constantinople was already predictable at the time of the Crusades, since even the own 'friends' from the West, i.e. the Crusaders, conquered or marched through the city several times. The overwhelming power of the Ottomans had then become too great in the 15th century, the city might have been able to save itself on 29.5.1453 through skillful defense, but the downfall of the city or the capture of the Turks would have only been 'delayed' . But I'm looking forward to other opinions ...
Submitted by Hügl on February 24th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
If you also consider that Constantionople will become a dwarf state shortly before its fall, I can already say that a final fall could not have been prevented. In addition, the city was no longer defensible during the onslaught of the Ottomans, so that the downfall would have happened on the day or the week after, if not on May 29th
Submitted by Lena on February 25th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Constantinople had long been a thorn in the side of the Turks. But they could not take the city because the fortifications were too strong. Paradoxically, in 1453 they shot down the walls with the cannons that Emperor Constantine XI. of Byzantium previously did not want to buy. Overall, the downfall was only a matter of time. After the restoration after the Crusades, Byzantium was always dependent on other powers. Perhaps the downfall is also a consequence of the lack of reforms and the belief that the modern age can still keep up with the outdated military and cultural possibilities, the legacy of the Roman Empire.
Posted by Liberal on 02/27/2008 at 6:30 p.m.
Certainly Byzantium could have been saved from the Turks with the determined support of the Christian 'brothers' of Western Europe. However, due to the internal quarrels in the West, there was no longer any broad support for the Reich, which was already viewed as an outdated obsolete model.
Submitted by woesch on March 5th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
In my opinion, the fall of Byzantium could have been prevented, the only question is when it was too late. One could claim 1453. The Ottomans almost withdrew, but then it was decided to make a final attack. But if the Ottomans had withdrawn, they would probably have come back. Some claim that the empire was already doomed from 1204 onwards. Certainly you were much weaker than before. But if Michael Palaiologos had had a successor who could have continued his politics, then the decay could perhaps have been stopped, and the empire could even have been restored to its old grandeur. In my opinion, the 'turning point' was the civil war after Andronikos III. After this civil war, the empire was so weakened that nothing could be done against the advancing Ottomans.
Submitted by WDPG on March 7th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
The civil war, the conquest of K. by crusaders that had led to the downfall of the East. Constantinople would not have been tenable, just from the troops. The chain prevented the city from being bombarded, but the Turks simply carried their ships across. In addition, there were about 100,000 well-trained, trained troops on the side of the Turks, the majority of which were Janissaries (elite unit of the Ottomans). The Ostrom Army consisted of 4,000 citizens who were ready to fight, 5,000 poorly equipped soldiers and an emperor who died the heroic death. The result remains the same, Constantinople would have fallen one way or another
Submitted by Caesar Sheitan on April 11th, 2008 at 05:27 am
In 1453 there would have been no more rescue, although one has to note that there were Ottoman troop leaders who advised Sultan Mehmed II to break off the operation. Nevertheless, even in this case the Ottomans would have come back and whether the city would have held up there, well who knows. It is difficult to say what the points that really marked the end of the Byzantine Empire were. Mantzikert was certainly important. But the Comnenen had managed to avert impending doom and to make Byzantium a great power again. 1204 was certainly a heavy blow. Probably the most crucial. When Michael Palaiologos retook Constantinople, he had all sorts of problems. The threat in the west made it impossible for him to deal with the east. On the other hand, I think what if at least for a while there would have been a certain quiet period between Western Europe and Byzantium and after Michael Palai
Submitted by WDPG on April 12th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Not quite fitting to the topic but maybe quite interesting: Even after 1453 there were still a few 'nests of resistance' from Byzantium. -The empire of Trebizond: existed since 1204 under the Comnenes, the dynasty that Alexios I Komnenos, etc. produced. This empire existed until 1461, only then did Mehmed II decide to put an end to the empire. I don't know the exact story yet, I will soon start reading a book about it. -The Morea: The 2 brothers of Emperor Constantine were still alive after 1453. Thomas Palaiologos and Demetrios Palaiologos. These two ruled the Morea. But they got into arguments again and again. The Ottomans got in 'arbitrarily' until they finally moved in the Morea (1461 if I'm not mistaken). Demetrios found exile with the Sultan. Thomas was not so friendly to the Ottomans and fled west. -The Palaiologos family: A member of the last imperial family married the Russian ruler, from which he derived claims to Constantinople. The last descendant of Thomas Palaiologos was Andreas Palaiologos. He sold his claims to the French king. The family died out in 1502. -When the Morea was conquered, the fortress of Monemvasia lasted until 1540 with foreign help.
Submitted by WDPG on April 12th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Now I have to ask Scifi (who knows his way around Byzantium very well). What do you think: -Was the fall of Byzantium inevitable? And when was the fate of Byzantium sealed (or when, in your opinion, the downfall could no longer be averted). Hope you read this question, look forward to your answer.
Submitted by WDPG on October 1st, 2008 at 11:32 am
so and now something from my side ..... so, when i talk about the history of byzantium, i almost got hit. it is about a suburb of byzantium called cosmidion. the name is derived from a monastery / fort. my last name is kosmidis. do you think there is something in common there? it is about the fact that my ancestors come from the Trapezunt area. So one after the other - fall of Byzantium - foundation of the empire of Trapezunt (where many fled after the fall of Byzantium) - gain of the empire after the Greco-Turkish war of 1919 - 1922/23, which the greeks lost, expulsion from them territories. (my parents' grandparents were on refugee ships to greece) i still have to read the subject very carefully, but wasn't it the case that last names were chosen based on occupation and origin? When I told my father about it, he couldn't answer me. he himself doesn't know what the name comes from or what it means. What do you think?? google for cosmidion. there is a lot of info. the suburb is now called eyup (b). mfg anesti
Submitted by anesti on October 5th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Hello. Your assumption could be correct, but it doesn't necessarily have to have something to do with the suburb ... If your definition (= Kloser, Kastell) is correct, it could mean other places as well, or maybe. had your ancestors once worked in such a building ...
Submitted by Liberal on October 5th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
I can only say it sounds exciting, I can't judge whether your family name has anything to do with Byzantium. Don't even know where my surname came from. But I would do some research if I were you. As for Trebizond: The Empire of Trebizond was created in 1204 and was under the leadership of the Comnenes (Byzantine imperial dynasty, most famous representative of Alexios I Komnenos). It went under a few years after the fall of Byzantium (1461). By the way, you can find contributions to the empire of Trebizond under the topic 'Empires'.
Submitted by WDPG on October 6th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
thank you I was wrong chronologically. but how I should do research is absolutely unclear to me. mfg anesti
Submitted by anesti on October 6th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
This is a misunderstanding. My main interest is the ancient Roman Empire. Byzantium is interesting to me as its continuing. Basically, I would like to say that at some point every empire will go under, except maybe Japan, which is favored by its island location. Even China and Ethiopia went through phases of disintegration in their long history. In my opinion, the decisive event was Mantzikert. As a result, Anatolia was lost and with it the most important issues and the main population reservoir of the Byzantines. Henceforth, they had to rely heavily on mercenaries, who are more expensive and less reliable. With Myriokephalon, the last promising attempt at recapture then failed, and the empire lost a lot of respect, and in many ways
Submitted by Scifi on October 7th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
As for the misunderstanding: I believe you that your main interest is in ancient Rome rather than Byzantium. But when it comes to Byzantium, you know your way around quite well. As far as my knowledge of ancient Rome is concerned: I find the topic interesting and I deal with it again and again, but I'm not an 'expert', except perhaps the topic of the fall of the Roman Empire or the beginning of the migration of the peoples, I have dealt with this topic many times and it's one of my all-time favorite subjects. As for your view of the fall of Byzantium: On the whole, you are absolutely right, I think similarly here. Mantzikert was a blow from which one never fully recovered and at Mantzikert the Turkic peoples also came to Anatolia. Mysiokephalon then destroyed the attempts of the Comnenes to make good the damage to Mantzikert and also cost the empire a lot in terms of resources. The 4th crusade
Submitted by WDPG on October 7th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I wouldn't rate this civil war that highly. The re-established Byzantine Empire was in a hopeless situation from the start: economically it was completely dependent on Genoa, sometimes on Venice. A crusade to reestablish the Latin Empire could essentially only be avoided by various church attempts at union, which, however, led to internal unrest. The Pronoia teachings had become hereditary and their holders refused to serve in the war. The capital was far too big and expensive for the small empire. Andronikos II dissolved the fleet completely and practically relied only on mercenaries. I wouldn't rate this civil war that highly. The re-established Byzantine Empire was in a hopeless situation from the start: economically it was completely dependent on Genoa, sometimes on Venice. A crusade to reestablish the Latin Empire could essentially only be avoided by various church attempts at union, which, however, led to internal unrest. The Pronoia teachings had become hereditary and their holders refused to serve in the war. The capital was far too big and expensive for the small empire. Andronikos II dissolved the fleet completely and practically relied only on mercenaries. I wouldn't rate this civil war that highly. The re-established Byzantine Empire was in a hopeless situation from the start: economically it was completely dependent on Genoa, sometimes on Venice. A crusade to reestablish the Latin Empire could essentially only be avoided by various church attempts at union, which, however, led to internal unrest. The Pronoia teachings had become hereditary and their holders refused to serve in the war. The capital was far too big and expensive for the small empire. Andronikos II dissolved the fleet completely and practically relied only on mercenaries. I wouldn't rate this civil war that highly. The re-established Byzantine Empire was in a hopeless situation from the start: economically it was completely dependent on Genoa, sometimes on Venice. A crusade to reestablish the Latin Empire could essentially only be avoided by various church attempts at union, which, however, led to internal unrest. The Pronoia teachings had become hereditary and their holders refused to serve in the war. The capital was far too big and expensive for the small empire. Andronikos II dissolved the fleet completely and practically relied only on mercenaries. I wouldn't rate this civil war that highly. The re-established Byzantine Empire was in a hopeless situation from the start: economically it was completely dependent on Genoa, sometimes on Venice. A crusade to reestablish the Latin Empire could essentially only be avoided by various church attempts at union, which, however, led to internal unrest. The Pronoia teachings had become hereditary and their holders refused to serve in the war. The capital was far too big and expensive for the small empire. Andronikos II dissolved the fleet completely and practically relied only on mercenaries. [quote = WDPG; 12084] Of course one can counter this: What would have happened if there had been a successful crusade against the Ottomans? On the one hand, that would have been pretty much the only chance of rescue, but I think it wasn't that realistic. How could the crusaders have been strong enough to control the osm
Submitted by Scifi on 2008-10-07 at 10:57 pm
It's hard to say if you're right that I overestimate the civil war. But one thing is already clear to me: Before the civil war, the area of ​​Byzantium was a lot larger than after it. After the civil war it consisted only of the former province of Thrace, Constantinople, parts of Greece, a few possessions in Anatolia, a few Greek islands and Thessalonica. Even if it had somehow succeeded in mobilizing a large population (militarily) and stimulating the economy, one would not have been able to do much from this small area. Maybe you could have done something beforehand. As I said, it was difficult because you were surrounded by enemies (which you were at other times too). I also think the big turning point was actually in 1204, but I am sticking to it. The train only left after the civil war, because here you really only had a chance with a crusade
Submitted by WDPG on October 7th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
That's right, but you slept through it. Byzantium itself, despite capable leadership, no longer had the strength to negotiate anything except with one of the aspirants to the throne. And Europe apparently suddenly no longer saw the Ottomans as the great threat. Sometimes you almost have the feeling that the European powers were only marginally interested in the Ottoman problem until 1453. In addition, there were hardly any European powers at this time that could have taken them on. In addition, even if the crusade was successful, the question for me would again be: Would one really have given territories to Byzantium afterwards? Because without this there was no hope of long-term survival.
Submitted by WDPG on October 7th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
It doesn't depend on the area, but whether you can do something with this area. Economically, there was not much going on anymore, since trade was entirely in the hands of the Genoese and Venetians. The country could no longer be used as a troop reservoir, as the Pronoia system no longer worked. Agriculture is unlikely to have yielded too much, given the constant Serb, Bulgarian and Turkish incursions. A feudal society had emerged with a powerful aristocracy who neither wanted to pay taxes nor do military service. In my opinion, a reform would only have been possible if the nobility had been forcibly removed from power, that is, with the use of mercenary troops.However, one could not have paid for it, since there were hardly any sources of income. In 1204, in my opinion, the train had long since left. Even the gifted Komnenenkaiser had barely been able to stabilize the empire, but could no longer really expand it.
Submitted by Scifi on October 7th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
I wouldn't say that. But at that time Europe was suffering from the schism. In addition, the European states were primarily concerned with their own advantage, which the parties to the civil war took advantage of by granting the various powers various privileges in order to win them over to their side. Certainly not. But several principalities could have been established in Asia Minor, partly Latin, partly tributary Turkish.
Submitted by Scifi on October 7th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Well, yes, there were enough problems, but they became more acute after the civil war. After all, the empire of Nicaea had succeeded in renewing Byzantium again and that extremely much was no longer missing and the empire would have been back together, at least in terms of area, as it was before 1204. Nevertheless, you are certainly right, 1204 was the point in time when the story of Byzantium was coming to an end. As for the Comnenes: If you look at cards from the empire in the time when Emperor Alexios I Komnenos took over his government and those in the time of Manuel I Komnenos (before his defeat against the Seljuks), you will notice some of the old ones Areas got back. Economically and politically they were in a much better position than in the years after Mantzikert. So in my opinion, an improvement. OK, you couldn't get back to the old status of 1025. But still the empire under the Comnenes (at least until Manuel I) was still an e
Submitted by WDPG on October 7th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
But even the Comnenes only managed to regain small parts of Anatolia. In addition, they were already falling into pernicious dependence on the Venetians. That would not have been necessary if, without the loss of Anatolia, they might have been able to defend themselves from the Normans on their own, and the Crusades might not have got off the ground if Byzantium hadn't turned to the West.
Submitted by Scifi on October 7th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
In its long history, Byzantium (you can see that in the G / history booklet that came out particularly well about Byzantium this year) was always harassed from two sides. On the one hand from the Balkans: here Bulgarians, Slavs, Avars, etc. pushed against the empire and on the other hand from the east, here were the Sassanids, later the Islamic Empire and later the Seljuks as a threat to the empire. With the appearance of the Normans in Sicily and Lower Italy, a third front was added, which later could not be got rid of as quickly (later Karl von Anjou used Lower Italy as a base for attacks on Byzantium). For Alexios I Komnenos it was about the survival of the empire, one was threatened from everywhere. An alliance with Venice seemed to him just right to save his empire, and later John II Komnenos also made an alliance with Venice against the Normans. Overall, you are right: Venice was just as threatened by the Noramans in southern Italy
Submitted by WDPG on 08.10.2008 at 12:11 am
Submitted by Scifi on 08.10.2008 at 12:19 am
The only question is whether that would have helped Byzantium. If the Latin principalities had been strong, they would have been more of a threat; if they had been weak, they would sooner or later have fallen to the Turks. Byzantium would probably not have been strong enough to conquer these weak Latin principalities.
Submitted by WDPG on October 8th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I partly agree with you. OK, basically you're right. Everything has an end, even the great empires of history have all perished at some point. And the powers that be today will probably not all last forever. From this point of view you are right. If you look at it that way, the fall of Byzantium, like the fall of all great empires, was inevitable. Mantzikert was only the first in a long line of severe blows the empire received. Nevertheless, I already believe that after Mantzikert the downfall was not already certain, but the situation became considerably more difficult. In the long history of Byzantium there have always been points at which history could have turned out differently. If that had been the case, one might not have perished in 1453. At some point, of course, Byzantium would have been over, since everything is somehow ephemeral.
Submitted by WDPG on 08.10.2008 at 10:11
I agree with you. But they would have been too weak to conquer Constantinople.
Submitted by Scifi on 08.10.2008 at 14:21
You are absolutely right, but this threat would have had to be dealt with again first and by the time Byzantium had devoted time to the Ottomans again, the Crusader states would have come under the control of the Ottomans again. If you ask me: A crusade was the only hope for Byzantium in the final phase of the empire, but it is rather unrealistic that it would have brought salvation for a long time.
Submitted by WDPG on October 9th, 2008 at 11:32 am
I think the pressure from the emerging religious spur of the Arabs and the dwindling fieriness of Christianity was just too great, but let's wait for the expert
Submitted by CATO on October 9th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
That has nothing to do with it, then the empire should have fallen much earlier. In the 7th century Arab expansion was actually favored by the fact that the only recently Islamic Arabs were still fanatical, while the population of the Byzantine Empire was torn apart by religious divisions. Since Islam was originally understood by many Christians only as a new Christian heresy, there were many, especially the Monophysites, who 'could' better with it than with the direction prevailing at the imperial court. The Ottomans, on the other hand, were not fanatics on the whole.
Submitted by Scifi on October 9th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Submitted by WDPG on October 10th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
By the way, there were even emperors who tried to break the power of the nobility. Emperor Michael V did not come from the nobility. He also made policies that were directed against the nobility. There are people who believe that he only wanted to get rid of Zoe because he wanted to reform the system and disempower the nobility. Whether that is true is difficult to say, in any case he strived to be popular with the people, which was far more important to him than if he was also with the nobility. In the end, he failed and was ousted by a popular uprising. Andronikos I Komnenos. Also tried to break the power of the nobility, but with the methods of murder and manslaughter. He too failed.
Submitted by WDPG on October 12th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
On the barbarized army and the weak economic steadfastness after the fall of Egypt (see above)
Posted by CATO on October 13th, 2008 at 5:30 p.m.
I don't really see that as the reason for the fall of Byzantium. The barbarization of the army, O.K. There were also after Mantzikert, since areas from which the soldiers came earlier (especially Anatolia) were largely omitted. But Egypt fell away as early as the 7th century, Byzantium perished in the middle of the 15th century. In between there was even a period of ascent (under the Macedonian dynasty). So I think to see that as the cause of the fall of Byzantium, somehow, can't be entirely correct.
Submitted by WDPG on October 13th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
I would like to add that the palaeologists also ruled as Margraves of Montferrat from 1305 to 1533. The first of them, Theodor I, was a son of Emperor Andronikos II and the daughter of Margrave Wilhelm IX. There is also a French noble family called 'Paléologue', who claim to be descended from the palaeologists. Although this claim is somewhat questionable, one of them, who served as ambassador to Russia, was treated as an equal by the tsar.
Submitted by Scifi on December 28th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
They did not carry them over, but transported them overland. The number of 100,000 is probably too high, and most of it consisted of dismounted cavalry. The Janissaries were only about 12,000 strong.
Submitted by Scifi on December 28th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Allegedly the Ottomans entered the city through an unlocked gate, but that is unsafe. Of course, if it were true, it would have been a mistake on the part of the defenders not to protect them. But even without this mistake, the Ottomans would have taken the city, because the walls broke under fire and the number of defenders melted away; Relief was not in sight either.
Submitted by Scifi on December 28th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Absolutely great contribution, with important additions. I knew about the Margrave of Montferrat. The French aristocratic family is new to me.
Submitted by WDPG on December 28th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Byzantium perished because of several factors. 1. the crusades and their aftermath 2. enemies on all fronts 3. no reforms 4. ever greater loss of income
Submitted by Fabian on May 16, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Such questions have nothing to do with history, but with reading coffee grounds.
Submitted by oberhaenslir on May 16, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Such questions encourage one to look more closely at the background and causes of certain events in order to be able to judge whether the historical sequence was imperative or whether the story could also have turned out differently. This of course also gives you a lot of insight into real history. In addition, this forum should also be fun. There are also strictly scientific forums anyway. Incidentally, I like these 'what if' questions, even though I have absolutely nothing to do with esoteric stuff like reading coffee brews.
Submitted by Scifi on May 16, 2009 at 14:32
'What if' questions are really useful as they can also help you find out many alternatives and they are also fun.
Submitted by Fabian on May 16, 2009 at 2:38 pm
the problem is that there are too many alternative paths that lead nowhere. one should stick to what has been handed down. the time for downfall had come. Keeping an empire for 1000 years is already a masterpiece. but the downfall began centuries before. the leadership of individual leaders can already be included in this consideration. the system was corrupted from top to bottom. there was a lack of a stable economy and the technological lead no longer existed. enemies everywhere, inside as well as outside. fmg anesti
Submitted by anesti on May 17th, 2009 at 10:11 am
It would have been better to look for a couple of strong allies instead of just bumping into the head.
Submitted by Fabian on May 17th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
The Byzantines were constantly looking for strong allies such as B. the Khazars, the Russians or the horde of white mutton. However, the practical use of these alliances was mostly rather limited. Ultimately, everyone's own shirt is closer than that of their ally ..
Submitted by Scifi on May 17th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
A little speculation doesn't really hurt. Here in particular, historical content is often discussed quite well. In addition, some very good questions are asked here on this topic.
Submitted by WDPG on May 17th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Easier said than done. The Byzantines tried to the end. Emperor Manuel II traveled to Europe to find an ally. Even his predecessor, Emperor Johannes V, tried to forge alliances with powers like Hungary and Venice against the Ottomans. Emperor John VIII also tried to get help from the West, probably the main reason why he was interested in a church union. The last emperor of Byzantium Constantine XI also tried to get help from the West. He tried, for example, to win allies with promises of territorial assignment, but in vain. So you really can't blame Byzantium for not trying to find strong allies against the Ottomans.
Submitted by WDPG on May 17th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
What kind of assignments? The empire consisted only of Constantinople, Morea (which the despots Demetrios II and Thomas would certainly not have given up there) and a few islands, what did he want to cede?
Submitted by Scifi on May 17th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Like many desperate Basileioi before and after him, he offered ecclesiastical union, which the Pope liked, but his own subjects all the less. Because officially the Eastern and Western Churches were united several times, it just couldn't be enforced. And how could Byzantium have offended others, please? The Fourth Crusade was hardly due to a Byzantine provocation. As for the lack of reform, that is the fundamental core of the Byzantine self-image. Byzantium was Rome and tried to orientate itself on the united empire of antiquity. Since every change in the status quo in politics or society meant a departure from the great model, they never lasted for long. There were repeated attempts at liberalization, but these were quickly replaced by restoration phases.
Submitted by Sandrokottos on May 18th, 2009 at 00:53
When Emperor Constantine realized that his city was under siege, he sent envoys to the west with urgent requests for help. He offered land to the powers that wanted to help him: Hungary (under Hunyadi) he wanted to leave either Selymbria or Mesembria on the Black Sea, and he offered the island of Lemnos to Alfonso of Aragon and Naples. He also turned to the Gunese on Chios, Venice, Ragusa and the Pope. Of course also to the despots of Morea. (Source 1453 / Roger Crowley). Of course you were no longer able to cede large territories, but you still had one or the other island. Later, as far as I knew, the emperor wanted to give Lemonos to Giustiniani (a man who played a very important role on the emperor's side in the siege) in the event of a victory against the Ottomans.
Submitted by WDPG on May 18th, 2009 at 10:05 am
But it was not the case that Byzantium had never reformed itself since its inception. The state structure had even changed very significantly over time.
Submitted by WDPG on May 18th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Exactly. Just think of the introduction of the topic order, the Pronoia system, etc.
Submitted by Scifi on May 18th, 2009 at 10:14 am
But these were only pragmatic changes, not social ones.
Submitted by Sandrokottos on May 18th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Society itself was not the problem, nor did it function much differently than in other medieval states.
Submitted by Scifi on May 18th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
At the moment I am dealing with the very interesting topic 'the fall of Ostrom'. I have to honestly say, I cannot see any major deficiencies in the conduct of the city's defense. Everything has been done to hold the city, maybe you would have survived a few more years if you had survived the last attack. But here too the chances were very bad from the start. Do not think that a better distribution of troops or other measures by the leadership in Constantinople would have brought anything. I would even say that not even the greatest generals in history had managed to hold the city. As far as the distribution of troops is concerned, it should be noted that Constantinople and its allies did not have a particularly large number of soldiers. The defenses were very long (19 kilometers of outer perimeter line, at least 6.5 kilometers of land walls) and the number of soldiers clearly outnumbered them (I had
Submitted by WDPG on December 21, 2009 at 11:21 am
No! A simple look at the history atlas shows that Constantinople was like an island in the middle of the huge Islamic-Ottoman territory - cut off from any supply. It is rather surprising that the Turks did not blow out the life of the Christian city much earlier. The end of the Byzantine Empire was practically sealed with the conquest of Constantinople in 1204 by the Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade. The so-called Empire of Nikaia, which emerged as an Orthodox exile, was only a shadow of its former greatness and the reconquest of Constantinople in 1261 did not change that much. It gave Byzantium a considerable grace period, but a resurgence could no longer succeed in the face of the aggressively expanding Ottoman state, in addition, all economically valuable parts of Asia Minor had been lost. So it is idle to speculate whether the city of Constantinople
Submitted by Dietrich on December 21, 2009 at 2:12 pm
They didn't really have reason to. Most of the time the Byzantine Empire was a very good vassal, but above all it was no longer a threat. It was only logical that the Ottomans preferred to take care of fighting the real opponents in the Balkans such as Bulgarians, Serbs and Hungarians. As insignificant as Byzantium was, it was clear that a siege of the capital would still last a long time and tie up considerable capacities.
Submitted by Scifi on December 21, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Yes, the Byzantines had been vassals of the Ottomans for a long time, which is mostly forgotten.The unfortunate Fourth Crusade, however, also damaged its initiators in the long term and the Venetians in particular tripped themselves up and only had the short-term benefit of a hegemony in the eastern Mediterranean in mind, without considering the consequences of their actions. In place of Byzantium, which the Venetians and the Crusaders had ousted in 12404, the Ottomans were a terrifying new opponent who cost Venice incredible financial resources and military efforts and who nevertheless advanced steadily. The Serenissima lost all of the island groups and bases in the Levant, especially Crete and Cyprus. So the cunning and brutal actions of Doge Dandolo, who led the Crusaders to Constantinople instead of Egypt in 1204 and who behind the scenes as the real mastermind, took revenge
Submitted by Dietrich on December 21, 2009 at 6:38 pm
So I don't see it that extreme. It wasn't like that after 1204 a strong Ottoman Empire was there. The Nicaea Empire was by and large an economically sound state, defenses worked, and culture within the state was also promoted. There were countries in Europe that were worse off. But you are not entirely wrong with Byzantium under the Comnen or even under the Macedonian dynasty one could no longer keep up. After the reconquest of Constantinople, it quickly became apparent that the empire's resources were no longer sufficient to maintain its size over the long term. The empire had many burdens to cope with, there were the conquest plans of the west under Baldwin II and Charles of Anjou, there were several fronts that had to be dealt with (a problem that existed for Byzantium throughout history, but hardly possible due to a lack of resources had to cope with) and then there was also the reconstruction of Kons
Submitted by WDPG on December 21, 2009 at 8:16 pm
As for Bulgaria, it was hardly stronger than Byzantium at that time. But it was easier, and therefore probably more grateful, booty than Byzantium.
Submitted by WDPG on December 21, 2009 at 8:19 pm
So I don't find the question all that uninteresting. But if Constantinople hadn't fallen in 1453, it would probably have fallen at a later date anyway. Because Byzantium no longer really had the chance to reach any size.
Submitted by WDPG on December 21, 2009 at 8:21 pm
An interesting question that has already been discussed in the forum is what would have happened if the 4th Crusade hadn't gone to Byzantium? One thing is clear, Byzantium had already lost considerable power before the 4th Crusade.
Submitted by WDPG on December 21, 2009 at 8:25 pm
So encircled, with no free hinterland and no real allies, Byzantium no longer had a chance. In the previous 100 years, they could have done a lot structurally differently. Today's Greece and the Ionian coast should never have fallen into the hands of the Ottomans. They would have had to boost the birth rate of the Greeks and, if necessary, also have to settle settlers from many different European countries as military farmers. There were enough countries with relative overpopulation. With the promise of a piece of land, this would have been easy to attract large crowds and settle on land before the Ottomans conquered it. Strengthened by their own hinterland, they could have recaptured territory. Actually, Byzantium also had enough wealth to recruit enough mercenaries to defend itself.
Submitted by Paul on December 21, 2009 at 11:01 pm
If you look at the begging tours of the last emperors throughout Europe, the financial power of Byzantium looked rather poor ... When John VIII came to the Council of Florence in 1439 to beg for troops (and in return To offer the reunification of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches), the pomp on display was mostly just bluff: many gemstones were made of glass, the gold was often only drawn over a wooden core and the Medici financed the Byzantines' stay in Florence. VG Christian
Submitted by 913Chris on December 21, 2009 at 11:09 pm
So, with Lily the last ruler of the Greek Constantinople doesn't get off so well; I think rightly so. For a long time, until the last day, there was actually the possibility of simply surrendering in a hopeless situation. Although I am not exactly of the opinion that the Ottoman Empire stood in the way of the Greek element; rather the opposite. LG
Submitted by RedScorpion on December 21, 2009 at 11:46 pm
The seed for the fall of the Byzantine Empire was laid at the end of the 12th century with the Battle of Manzikert. The great geographical barrier, which for a long time prevented the invasion of hostile powers into Asia Minor, was always formed by the Taurus Mountains, which the Byzantines had for a long time against the Arabs from the 7th to the 10th centuries. Century defended. In this way they were always able to thwart the breakthrough to Asia Minor despite some Arab advances. However, whoever broke through the Taurus once and stood on the central plateau of Anatolia, was at the mercy of the rest of Asia Minor, as there were no longer any geographical barriers to overcome. After the Rum Seljuks succeeded in the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, they were able to permanently occupy 2/3 of Asia Minor for the first time after around 1000 years of (east) Roman rule and establish the Sultanate of Rum. Byzantium was restricted to the extreme west of Asia Minor, to the west of a line that ran roughly from Ephesus on the Aegean Sea to Sinope on the Black Sea. The fact that the Seljuks did not conquer all of Asia Minor had internal political reasons, and at the same time the military momentum of the immigrant Turkic tribes also weakened. There was no or only insignificant recovery from Byzantium, and Byzantium could not take advantage of the collapse of the Sultanate of Rum, as the expanding Turkish principality of the Ottomans appeared on the scene and in a short time conquered all of Asia Minor except for the Turkic principality of Karaman, which was only occupied by the Ottomans in 1487. With the complete occupation of Asia Minor by the Ottomans in the 14th century and the conquest of Bulgaria, Thrace and large parts of Greece at the end of the same century, the fate of Byzantium was sealed, even if it continued to exist as a small state for 150 years.
Submitted by Dietrich on December 22nd, 2009 at 13:53
In 1453 Greece was not yet completely lost. Large parts of the Peloponnese were owned by Byzantium at that time. The center was the then very important city of Mistra for the empire. The area was under the administration of a despot, sometimes several. In 1453, two despots from the Palaiologos family (i.e. the imperial family) Thomas and Demetrios ruled there. Other parts of Northern Greece were lost much earlier or were not conquered after 1204 (by Byzantium or Nicaea). Thessalonike had been lost to the Ottomans, but at that point they were already far superior. Turning is very difficult or not really possible anymore.
Submitted by WDPG on December 22nd, 2009 at 10:10 pm
As I described above, things looked bleak when it came to wealth. As early as the time of Andronikos II, the army, which mainly consisted of mercenaries, was severely reduced because the money was no longer available. Before that, other things were more important (conquest of Constantinople, threat from Charles of Anjou).
Submitted by WDPG on December 22nd, 2009 at 10:14 pm
That's an interesting question you're bringing up. I've already considered whether I should ask this for heroes of history. The question: Is heroism and heroism really always that good? For example, if the last Abbasid caliph had submitted to the Mongols instead of going the 'heroic path' and fighting against them, if the Caliphate of Baghdad had continued to exist, it went under (almost). The last emperor of Byzantium had chosen to fight for his cause and not to give up. I am not quite so sure whether the city still had the chance to give up in the final phase of the siege (without the population being enslaved and without looting), it is difficult to judge. Both are interesting questions.
Submitted by WDPG on December 22nd, 2009 at 10:20 pm
You mean the end of the 11th century? (sorry for being so opinionated).
Submitted by WDPG on December 22nd, 2009 at 10:22 pm
There weren't any mercenaries back then, but you mean mercenaries in general. But they hadn't always been the best experience with them anyway, see Catalan Company. It had done excellently in Asia Minor, but then couldn't be paid, which is why it began to maraud and became a serious problem.
Submitted by Scifi on December 22nd, 2009 at 10:23 pm
I do not think so. The Mesopotamia was too strategically important to be left in the hands of vassals because it was the key to the advance into Syria, Asia Minor and Egypt. The fate of Trebizond and his last Emperor David, for whom it did not help much that he surrendered, offers a comparison. But these are all ex-post considerations. You are always smarter afterwards. But it should not be forgotten that in Byzantium they still hoped for support from the West, and the caliph may simply underestimate his opponents. Perhaps people in Byzantium also remembered that they had several
Submitted by Scifi on December 22nd, 2009 at 10:31 pm
The Catalans were by no means the only mercenaries they had. In fact, Byzantium had mercenaries at every stage of its history. Up to Heraklaios the army consisted mainly of mercenaries. After that they became fewer, but still there were mercenaries in the army of the Byzantine Empire at all times. Also between 600 and 1071. A famous example was the Varangian Guard. I find this to be of valuable service to the emperor again and again. From Alexios I Komnenos (at the latest) the army again consisted mainly of mercenaries. At the time of Andronikos II, besides the famous Catalans, there were, as far as I know, a great number of Alans in the army.
Submitted by WDPG on December 22nd, 2009 at 10:40 pm
You are right, the Abbasids would probably not have been given large areas. But maybe Baghdad would have been left to them and the caliph could have kept his religious role without having secular rule, which would have fallen to the Mongols.
Submitted by WDPG on December 22nd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
It would be conceivable. At that time he no longer had worldly power anyway.
Submitted by Scifi on December 22nd, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Certainly he did not have as much power as the Abbasids, for example, at the time of Charlemagne or before, but I am not sure whether one still had something to say, at least in Mesopatamia. Surely for years actually for centuries it was others who had worldly power. Buyids, Seljuks or the Khorezm Shah were the secular rulers in the area around Baghdad. But the empire of the Khorezm Shah had already been smashed at the time of the Mongol attack on Baghdad and Jalal ad-Din was not able to rebuild the empire either. However, the Mongols did not take control of all of Persia after the Khorezm Empire had been defeated. A power vacuum was probably the result. It is conceivable that the Abbasids use this to regain control over areas and to regain some worldly power. But precisely because there were times when the worldly power lay with others, I think v
Submitted by WDPG on December 22nd, 2009 at 11:05 pm
The Romans actually had a very successful strategy which the Eastern Romans (Greeks) could have adopted. At first the Romans tried to recruit mercenaries from different ethnic groups. The leadership remained largely in Roman hands. But there was also the chance for immigrants to climb up in the army. The soldiers, some of whom were assimilated in the army, were mixed up as colonists who could be mobilized quickly. Later that didn't work for the Romans either. Germanic mercenaries dominated Germania. Settling them as colonists in Germania did not stabilize Rome's rule. As settlers, these ex-legionaries Germanized even the earlier Celtic areas. It would have been as if Ostrom had recruited Turks to defend them. Ostrom would have had to recruit mercenaries in Italy, Spain, Germany, Serbia ... and settled down as colonists relatively quickly
Submitted by Paul on December 23, 2009 at 12:23 am
Mercenaries are generally not interested in being settled as colonists. Most of them are concerned with pay and booty. Most of the mercenaries came from rather poor regions.
Submitted by Scifi on December 23, 2009 at 12:39 am
This case occurred twice: in 1402 and 1422. There were also relief armies in 1438 and 1444. Both armies were defeated, which is why the West was not exactly eager for a third round. Constantinople already had more luck than sense, but at some point even that had to be used up: Rolleyes:
Submitted by Sandrokottos on December 23, 2009 at 12:40 pm
It did! That was also the reason why the Ottomans were able to establish themselves in Europe at all. :(
Submitted by Sandrokottos on December 23, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Don't you mean 1448?
Submitted by WDPG on December 23, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Especially true in 1402 that was the cause. Timur had defeated the Ottomans, otherwise it could have been easy that Constantinople would have fallen earlier. Allegedly there were already handover negotiations. But it could have happened again in 1453 that a war on another front would have preoccupied the Ottomans too much to maintain the siege. As for 1444, a partial victory over the Ottomans was not that far off. For a while it even looked like the crusaders had won. But you are right that precisely these failed attempts to take action against the Ottomans contributed very much to the fact that no help came in 1453 to save Constantinople. Nevertheless, that was probably the main hope of the emperor in Constantinople. I don't want to deny that you were lucky. Again and again in history. But that was also the case in earlier times. A little luck is usually part of success
Submitted by WDPG on December 23, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Local auxiliary troops and soldiers dominated not only in Germania! The Roman army of the imperial era was a multinational army that united the Illyrians, Thracians, British, Iberians, Gauls, Greeks and numerous other ethnic groups. These ethnic groups were more or less Romanized and ensured the 'barbarization of the army', as historians with a modern feud say. Only officers and senior military personnel came from Rome, which in view of the huge land mass of the Imperium Romanum could not be otherwise. Italy alone could not even have begun to raise the army assembled at the borders of the empire. For financial reasons, Byzantium was no longer able to maintain a large and powerful mercenary army, as the Se
Submitted by Dietrich on December 23, 2009 at 13:53
I wouldn't be so sure about that, Constantinople finally offered enormous resistance again in 1453.
Submitted by WDPG on December 23, 2009 at 14:37
However, Greek culture persisted in modern day Greece and on the Ionian coast. The other non-Turkish Christian minorities also made up a large part of the population in the Ottoman Empire for a long time. So at that time there was even a good starting point for an uprising led by Constantinople to eliminate the rule of the Ottomans. Alexander the Great had already shown how something like this could work.
Submitted by Paul on December 23, 2009 at 2:45 pm
As always, your way of thinking is way too völkisch. It was by no means the case that the Christian Greek population stood united to Byzantium. When the Seljuks overran Asia Minor, some locals weren't too reluctant to see them, as the tax burden was lower among them. (Even when the Byzantines 'liberated' Italy from the Ostrogoths, many Romans were happy when the Ostrogoths countered.) And there were no uprisings in Alexander's favor, on the contrary, even some of the Greek cities of Western Asia Minor had to be taken by force of arms. Not to forget, of course, the numerous Greek mercenaries who fought for the Persians at Granikos and Issus.
Submitted by Scifi on December 23, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Unfortunately, intentionally or unintentionally, this fact is often forgotten. In many cases the Arabs in the once Eastern Roman areas of the Middle East were welcomed as liberators, as the population was almost crushed by the enormous Byzantine tax burden. As a result, there was no particular 'imperial loyalty' to Byzantium in more distant areas.
Submitted by Dietrich on December 23, 2009 at 5:02 pm
. 'What if ...' is not a historical question - it is more like reading coffee grounds. .
Submitted by oberhaenslir on December 23, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Nobody in this forum is obliged to formulate 'historical-scientific questions' alone. And since nobody has a scientific reputation to defend, it is perfectly legitimate to ask the exciting 'what-if-question' and to speculate cheerfully.
Submitted by Dietrich on December 23, 2009 at 8:36 pm
It is interesting that some populations assimilated quickly and others did not. The Greeks experienced Roman rule and Turkish rule and assimilated relatively little. They mostly kept their language and the Christian religion. However, they gave up their old religion relatively quickly. The Celts assimilated into Gaul very quickly, even without any significant immigration of Romans.
Submitted by Paul on December 23rd, 2009 at 11:42 pm
It is very easy to exaggerate; Celtic names e.g. B. were until the 2nd / 3rd Century in use, the religion lasted until late antiquity.
Submitted by Scifi on December 23rd, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Alexander the great had an empire, Constantine XIII. Not. He could be happy that he was the first emperor in a long time to control the capital Constantinople AND the despotate of Morea. Even an uprising should have been accompanied by a military offensive that Byzantium with its 15,000 soldiers could hardly have started.: Rolleyes:
Submitted by Sandrokottos on December 23, 2009 at 11:47 pm
They did not give up their old religion through the Roman invasion, but through the missionary work of the apostles and their successors. In addition, paganism persisted into the Byzantine era.
Submitted by Sandrokottos on December 23, 2009 at 11:49 pm
You're slowly getting on my nerves!: Mad:
Submitted by Sandrokottos on December 23, 2009 at 11:50 pm
This very different willingness to assimilate has often surprised me. For example, after 3000 years (!) Of state independence, the Egyptians gave up their linguistic and cultural identity in just a few decades and assimilated completely to the Arab invaders. The Persians, on the other hand, also converted to Islam after conquering their country, but established their language over Arabic and also retained a completely independent cultural character. I therefore ask myself why the ancient Egyptian culture held up its arms in front of the Arabs, while Persianism, which is also rich in tradition, asserted itself linguistically and culturally against the Arabs. Easily explained is the victory of the Slavic language and culture in the Balkans. The autochthonous Illyrian and Thracian population was severely decimated in the 6th century by wars, epidemics and other catastrophes, leaving the southern Slavs the remains of the old population
Submitted by Dietrich on December 24th, 2009 at 12:33 am
The almost 4000 year old culture of ancient Egypt existed around 600 AD. almost not at all anymore. A Christian-Byzantine culture prevailed in Egypt at the time of the Arab conquest, in which only the language still represented a connection to Pharaonic Egypt (in addition to everyday phenomena, such as the construction of the villages, which still look strikingly similar to the ancient Egyptian villages - as long as they are traditional are built ...). When the Arabs came, everything stayed the same for the time being, with the exception of religion. But even the adoption of the Christian religion had changed relatively little in the life of the peasants. (see above) The great upheaval came with the Mamelukes. They enslaved the peasants to such an extent that revolts broke out, which the Mamelukes put down each time with the greatest cruelty and with great loss of life on the part of the peasants. After several uprisings, the Fellahs were so decimated that they moved to the Minde as an element of the population
Submitted by 913Chris on December 25th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
The despotate had belonged to the Palaiologos family again since 1383. It had (as far as I know) a closer connection to Byzantium and was very often ruled by members of the imperial family. It is understandable that the emperor did not rule the despotate directly, Constantinople and the Morea are a bit apart. To be honest, I don't have the feeling that Constantine had more influence on the Morea than Manuel II, for example. Sure he was a despot before becoming an emperor (and when he was he was very successful) but whether he had more influence as an emperor is doubtful. When he became emperor there were still 2 despots Demetrios and Thomas.
Submitted by WDPG on December 25th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Byzantium would have had a chance to revolt. They had a potential heir to the throne of the Ottoman throne in Constantinople (Orhan), but as you have already mentioned, that would hardly have made any sense, since Byzantium would not have had the resources to position him in such a way that Orhan had a chance or dissuade Mehmed II from a siege. If an uprising would have been a solution, it would have been somewhere else independent of Byzantium.
Submitted by WDPG on December 25th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
In order to start an uprising, you do not need the overall combat strength required. The point is precisely that which many volunteers then join. So the problem is the beginning and overall the motivation for the uprising. The motivation is usually the hope to improve his situation - e.g. that of the Greek farmers. Culturally, this hope was objectively given when there was foreign rule. If the uprising reaches a certain strength, other regions can also draw the hope of using this situation of oppression of the Ottoman Empire for their own independence.
Submitted by Paul on December 25th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
But catchphrases such as 'uprising' between religious or 'people's' groups presuppose the formation of the idea of ​​a nation, which did not even exist at the time (at least not with the meaning of the 19th century). I also dare to note that the Greek element in the Ottoman Empire was not at all bad until the beginning of the 20th century, on the contrary, the overall situation of the population even improved significantly in the 16th century (see population of Istanbul and the percentage of the large population), so that in large parts of the empire, in my opinion, there was no reason for a survey. LG
Submitted by RedScorpion on December 25th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
As soon as foreign troops devastate their own country, foreign officials collect taxes and foreign soldiers appear arrogant or aggressive in the perception of the population (appear at all), nationalism in the modern sense arises, even in such situations in antiquity or in the Middle Ages. In the Balkans in particular, there was a permanent uprising against the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman conquest was never fully accepted. Why parts of the Albanians and Bosnians accepted the Ottoman rule a little more here is rather strange. In the multi-ethnic areas, the populations lived more isolated from the other populations at that time than in the 'modern' times. In my opinion, 'nationalism' was very pronounced there. In Transylvania, the members of the different peoples met, e.g. at the market ... e.g. Szekler, Saxons, Wallachians, Roma, but mostly married in their own group. Through this encounter
Posted by Paul on December 25th, 2009 at 9:00 p.m.
Not at all. In Bosnia the Bogumils lived as an oppressed minority, and they first welcomed the Ottomans as liberators. Many became Muslim and thus assimilated themselves to the new rulers. I don't know whether the Albanians accepted the rule of the Ottomans more than other Balkan peoples. I only know that many Albanian boys were robbed, were brought up Islamic and then a noticeable number of heroes of the Ottoman Empire emerged from the circle of these Albanian boys. VG Christian
Submitted by 913Chris on December 25th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
If there were any uprisings before the modern age, it was mostly from a few nobles, but never from the broad mass of the people! God knows, the farmers had other problems than the question of whom they had to pay their taxes that were far too high. Whether that was a Catholic, Orthodox or Muslim, they could not care less than the question of which part of the world he came from, especially since the simple peasants in the country hardly noticed what was going on in world politics anyway. That only changed with the emergence of newspapers in the early modern period. As long as the new rulers left everything as it was and did not force the peasants into a new belief, for example, they had no problems with the 'people'.
Submitted by Sandrokottos on December 25th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Not necessarily, because your own soldiers weren't any better!: Rolleyes:
Submitted by Sandrokottos on December 25th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
The peasant uprising in Germany still belongs to the Middle Ages and was already a popular movement, even if there were aristocrats on the side of the peasants. The partisan war against the Ottomans in the Balkans was also borne by the peasants. The Cossack movement was also a flight of former serf peasants in Poland / Russia. The long struggle for independence in the countries of the Caucasus against Russian rule was borne by the entire population. Of course, 'educated' people often found themselves in management positions.
Submitted by Paul on December 26th, 2009 at 00:56
I think that the question of whether one surrendered to the Ottomans did not really arise. Some arguments against it: -The people of Constantinople did not see themselves as Greeks, Byzantines or whatever, but rather as descendants of the Romans. The Roman Empire had existed for ages. Not to defend oneself against the downfall would be unthinkable. -Constantinople has survived many sieges over time, the hope that the walls would hold this time too. In retrospect, we see some things a little differently, but it may be that it seemed relatively logical to the people at the time that in the end a relief lord would come and defeat the Ottomans (Mehmed II himself may have been afraid). -I would also see the person of Constantine as the reason why one did not think of giving up. Even as a despot, Constantine fought against the Ottomans, so he was always hostile to them and an indefatigable fighter against the Ottomans
Submitted by WDPG on December 27th, 2009 at 13:54
I can say: You don't have to take notes everywhere, if you don't like the topic you are free to not answer here. What if is not a historical question, you could be right, but firstly, the question creates additional tension and secondly, it often offers a good starting point to shed light on actual historical backgrounds, as can be seen again and again in the forum.
Submitted by WDPG on December 27th, 2009 at 13:58
But to carry out an uprising you need certain conditions that simply weren't there: -First: As Scifi already wrote, an uprising usually happens in anticipation of an improvement in the situation. But what could one have expected. Byzantium had hardly any money, let's say there had been an uprising of areas and they would have joined Byzantium, then they would probably first have felt the higher taxes and the attempts of the Ottoman Empire to get the area back. So what would have been got out of it? Second, who should have made the uprising. Certainly Slavs and other vassals of the Ottoman Empire, that would have been a possibility, but in this case they would not have had a really good chance of success. If anything, they should have gotten help from the West, but that didn't come in 1453. In addition, if Byzantium bailed out in the short term, it would not have really helped in the long term. Another poss
Submitted by WDPG on December 27th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
However, the starting position of Alexander the Great and Byzantium in the 15th century cannot really be compared. In addition, Alexander the Great was a genius, you don't find one like that every day. Apart from the fact that you can't really compare the whole thing, I think Mehmed II is a much better general than Dareios III.
Submitted by WDPG on December 27th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Without the appearance of leaflets and printing in general, this popular uprising would not have been possible. One of the main triggers were Martin Luther's theses, which were partly incorrectly interpreted by the farmers, but partly also very progressively and which could never have spread without Gutenberg's invention. Besides, I don't really count the 16th century as part of the Middle Ages. You already know that the Caucasus only became a Russian sphere of influence in the 18th century, right?
Submitted by Sandrokottos on December 27th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Another reason why you didn't think about giving up. The leadership in Constantinople must have believed in the chance to survive the siege. Around April 20th, Mehmed's troops tried unsuccessfully to storm the city after long bombardments, which failed and then they suffered a defeat. The Ottoman fleet did not succeed in asserting itself in a naval battle against a few enemy ships. After that, the Byzantines made an offer for peace to the Ottomans. They wanted to pay enormous sums of money in triputes to the Ottomans, they should spare the city. The Ottomans even considered accepting the offer, at least some advisers to Mehmed II were in favor. You hadn't even prevailed against a few ships belonging to the enemy's allies, what would it look like against a large fleet? In general, it should have seemed realistic to the Ottomans that a relief lord would sooner or later
Submitted by WDPG on 01.01.2010 at 19:52
OK, the tribute payments could have been paid once, and maybe a 2nd and 3rd time in good years (where I ask myself: which good years?). And then the osman. Troops stood at the door again. And even if not: Where should one live from without significant areas, let alone finance tribute? What I don't understand is why they didn't buckle up, saying that the real enemy wasn't the Ottomans, but the West (apart from Genoa). LG
Submitted by RedScorpion on 01.01.2010 at 21:39 o'clock
It was 'buckled', but the Ottomans were seen as more dangerous and therefore the main enemy. The Genoese (and Pisans and Venetians ...) were 'only' economic competitors and didn't necessarily want to destroy Byzantium ... (Venice also 'only' conquered Byzantium or had it conquered, but it remained a Christian city, after all ...) The Ottomans were expected to rage much worse than the Venetians and Crusaders in 1204. VG Christian
Submitted by 913Chris on 01.01.2010 at 9:58 pm
Hello RS .: When Murad I conquered Saloniki, the ring around Byzantium was closed. From around 1387 Byzantium had to buy grain and other food from the Ottomans. Before the siege, the number of Byzantine fighters was 4973, as well as 2-3,000 foreigners, including many Genoese. On April 20, 1453 there was a small sea battle in which the Byzantines succeeded in piloting Genoese supply ships into the port. The Genoese were never the great opponents of Byzantium. Often it was the Venetians. Luki.
Submitted by Luki on 01.01.2010 at 10:29 pm
... which is why I wrote 'the real enemy was not the Ottomans, but in the west (apart from Genoa).' By this I did not mean that Genoa was the only enemy in the east of Constantinople (I know where Genoa is, approx . one and a half to two hours by car from my doorstep), but that Genoa was not an enemy at the time of the conquest. LG
Submitted by RedScorpion on 01.01.2010 at 10:33 pm
Exactly that is the problem, one would have been able to survive the siege of 1453 with a little more luck and if Mehmed II had not been so stubborn. But after that the prospects were just as bleak as before. The chance of an upswing or areas was not really given. One possibility would have been a defeat of the Ottomans against another enemy, but even here it is questionable whether Byzantium would have been able to get territories. There would have been a bit of a chance if Mehmed II had lost to a relief army. That would certainly have caused him great problems and perhaps cost him the throne. I don't know if there were potential heirs to the throne besides Orhan, but if not one could have made a few promises (perhaps the return of Thesalonike) from him. Orhan would not have held out, perhaps then the Ottoman Empire would slowly fall apart. But the whole thing is very speculative. So the long-term
Posted by WDPG on January 2nd, 2010 at 9:00 p.m.
The danger in the West was not misunderstood. Quite the opposite. If Michael Palaiologos had had the chance to concentrate more on Anatolia, the Ottomans might never have become so strong later. After all, the small empires that arose from the collapse of the Seljuq empire could have been a worthwhile booty (the Catalans later proved that one could have success against them). But the enemies in the west were (probably rightly) taken more seriously than what was emerging in the east. No wonder Karl von Anjou, but the Italian naval powers should not be underestimated either. Already in the time after the reconquest of Constantinople, the Italian sea powers gained more and more influence. After the Civil War, several factors played a role in the politics of Byzantium. Serbia, the Ottomans and also the Italian sea powers threatened the empire and tried to exert their influence. Under John V play
Submitted by WDPG on January 2nd, 2010 at 9:25 pm
In your opinion, what makes Genoa better, or rather, more Byzantine-friendly than Venice or other European powers?
Submitted by WDPG on January 2nd, 2010 at 9:26 pm
During the siege of Constantinople, both of Italy's sea powers behaved relatively similarly, I think. Don't really see the difference.
Posted by WDPG on January 2nd, 2010 at 9:30 p.m.
ServusWDPG: At the time of the siege, a large proportion of the foreign defenders were Genoese. During the siege, the Genoese supplied the trapped with ships. From: The Ottoman Empire. ISBN 3-8289-0336-3 The Genoese Republic was sometimes an opponent, but mainly a trading partner, and never as extreme as the Venezuelans. Greetings from LUKI.
Submitted by Luki on January 2nd, 2010 at 9:42 pm
But also would not underestimate the commitment of the Venetian community in Constantinople. Some of the commanders-in-chief at the wall came from Venice. With the Genoese, the people that Guistiniani had brought with them certainly made a big difference. To my knowledge, however, these were not sent by the government in Genoa. What was the bottom line. Both Venetians and Genoese fought on the side of Byzantium, but neither of the two naval powers finally sent a fleet large enough to liberate the city from the siege.
Submitted by WDPG on January 2nd, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Ultimately, neither of the city-states were really great powers that could compete with the Ottoman Empire. Byzantium would have needed completely different allies. Spain, England, the German Empire, France, Poland, Russia could have been such allies. What could have been the motivation for such support and how would Byzantium have minimized the risk of driving the devil out with the Belzebub? It has often happened that those called have set themselves after their success, e.g. also the crusaders. If it was not about the Greek identity, but only about the preservation of a Christian state, then of course they would have had nothing to lose. A Christian ally who would have taken over the state would have been easy to find. There would certainly have been several applicants. Even the dynasty could have been continued in the female line. As stipulated in the marriage contract, the prince consort would have had to bring 20,000 soldiers as dowry, for example. Byzantium could also have joined the Hanseatic League. That would have been the best alternative for Byzantium. That would have been worthwhile for the Hanseatic League too, because it would have opened up new trading markets for them. The Hanseatic League would have been stronger than Genoa or Venice. The Hanseatic League could have hired a relatively unlimited number of mercenaries. In doing so, they would have got themselves problems out of the way, e.g. against piracy out of poverty and overpopulation.
Submitted by Paul on January 2nd, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Venice and Genoa did not have large territories, but they were rich and with the money they could have recruited and sent mercenaries. They could have helped better than the other states you listed: England and France were exhausted from the Hundred Years War, and Russia was finally shaking off the rule of the Golden Horde. In general, the feudal states all had the problem that their rulers usually had little money and the nobility was reluctant to be called up as a feudal contingent. For example, the Polish king sometimes had to wage wars against the Teutonic Order with mercenaries because the Polish and Lithuanian nobility refused to take part in the army. So they were less capable of military aid than Venice and Genoa. The Hanseatic League had enough to do with the pirates and the other Baltic Sea countries, and the Mediterranean was definitely outside their sphere of interest.
Submitted by Scifi on January 2nd, 2010 at 11:20 pm
-Spain did not yet exist, there was Castile and Aragon. As far as I know, Aragon was even pursuing politics in the direction of Byzantium (I don't know whether it was just a branch line or the rulers themselves, but I would like to deal with that). -England and France: At this time the 100 Years War had just ended, and both Byzantium and the Ottoman Empire were still far away at this time. -German Empire: Something like that only existed in the 19th century. However, the Holy Roman Empire already existed then. At that time, however, this could no longer be compared with the empire of the Hohenstaufen, Ottonian, etc. Emperor Friedrich III was far too weak to really be able to achieve anything. Poland: To be honest, I can't say much about Poland at this time. But why should it have intervened, Hungary was in between. That they tried to contact this country in 1453 would be unknown to me, was probably not the case. -Russia: One Entsa
Submitted by WDPG on January 2nd, 2010 at 11:25 pm
I would also like to remind you that in spite of all the difficulties, Hungary actually intervened in 1444, which was connected with Poland in personal union. It ended in the battle of Varna with total defeat and the death of the king.
Submitted by Scifi on January 2nd, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Besides, it was about something for Venice and Genoa. The threat from the Ottomans threatened them too, which was not the case with Poland, England or France. So these countries would not have had much benefit from intervening.
Submitted by WDPG on January 3rd, 2010 at 12:05 am
Genoa sent a ship to support the emperor, at least more than the hint in Venice that one had to pay off the costs of another campaign first. But all foreign soldiers in Constantinople were volunteers who had rounded up troops on their own.
Submitted by Sandrokottos on January 3rd, 2010 at 02:15 am
Venice and Genoa lived from trade with the Levant and the Black Sea region. A Turkish Byzantium closed the Bosporus and thus also the most important economic area, at least Genoa. But the omnipotence of the Ottomans in the Aegean and the Levant was also dangerous for Venice, as it had colonies on Crete, Cyprus and many other islands that also served as trading bases. Indeed, all of these bases were conquered relatively soon.
Submitted by Sandrokottos on 03.01.2010 at 02:21 o'clock
Aragon inherited the Kingdom of Sicily and at the same time the claim to the Duchy of Morea in the Peloponnese and the Latin imperial crown. For Aragon it was about something, which is why it also supplied Byzantium with food. But you weren't strong enough to be able to achieve something militarily alone.
Submitted by Sandrokottos on 03.01.2010 at 02:23 o'clock
First, there was no Greek identity, but a Roman one, and secondly, there was no question of letting the empire be taken over by barbarians, especially not by Latins. The empire had existed for 2206 years, which brought a certain immunity to such profound changes as a foreign dynasty with it. Quite apart from that, every new ruler would have had exactly the same problem as Constantine, namely a colossal Islamic state around the capital.
Submitted by Sandrokottos on 03.01.2010 at 02:28 o'clock
If the Hanseatic League could have recruited mercenaries so indefinitely, why didn't they do it against the pirates or even against Sweden, Denmark or the Netherlands? In addition, the Hanseatic League would never have been able to hold Byzantium, quite apart from the fact that Byzantium was far too far from any of the Hanseatic trade routes. The Italians controlled the Mediterranean trade, the Hanseatic League bought their goods and sold them their own, so both sides were extremely satisfied.
Submitted by Sandrokottos on 03.01.2010 at 02:33 o'clock
'Relatively soon' is very relative. Cyprus became Ottoman in 1571. Crete only fell in the 17th century. (Kandia 1669, a base not until 1715).
Submitted by Scifi on 03.01.2010 at 02:34 o'clock
Hence the 'relative', which can be inserted relatively flexibly into any sentence structure whose author is too lazy to search for the exact dates at three o'clock in the morning. I already knew the approximate period;)
Submitted by Sandrokottos on January 3rd, 2010 at 3:03 am