Constantinople Saved?

[Emperor Goblinus]

If the major powers of the West had rallied big time to save Constantinople, as Constantine XI wanted, do you think that the Byzantine Empire could have been saved from the Turks? I think that it's possible, although it would have taken a major effort.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

If the Catholic Europe united to fight for Constantinople, undoubtedly they would definitely save Constantinople. But you know from history, there's got to be material incentives and the offer you can't refuse for any army to travel

30,000 miles to defend some distant country. Plus, the quarreling between the 2 denominations sure didn't help the Byzantines out.

[Honorius]

Constantinople wouldve been saved for sure, but as flavius said you needed incentives and the religious relations between the Byzantines and the Westerners

[Tobias]

Constantinople would have been saved. I have no doubt, however, that even if the Byzantines could have brought about an incentive for the Crusaders to go east, it would ultimately have been the Byzantines that sufferered (further). The Byzantines just didn't have the funds or resources to reclaim much of it's territory, and the armies from the West may have re-established another Latin Empire in the City. Once the western armies left, the Turks or another faction would fight their way back against Byzantium. It would definetly have fallen eventually, even if it had been saved by the West.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Which is why incentives are given for the Crusaders to stay, but then somehow it would just make the Byzantine Empire into possibly a feudal state with a mercenary army by giving the Crusaders land in return for protection. The same thing with the Normans in France. Really, all the Crusaders needed was territory which trade routes run through.

[Spurius]

To save Constantinople you would have had to first kick the Ottomans out of Europe and back into Asia Minor (Turkey). They had a strangle hold from the straits to the Danube (thanks to the reconquests of Murad II and Muhammad II) and the Byzantines would have withered even if the city was safe. The Ottomans had suffered several set backs earlier, but had proven their tenacity in wanting the southeast of Europe and the city.

 

That would necessitate a prolonged campaign in an area well known not to like ANYONE not native to the area (and quite a few of their neighbors who were). So the costs would have been high for the crusade. The optimal time to try this would have been when the Ottomans were subjucating the other turks or the one campaign against the Mamluks, but difficult to do since military intelligence was at a minimum (unless you bribed Venice well enough).

 

Also, since only France really had a standing army and a small one at that, the crusaders would have had to be promised a sacking of the whole area. That would have made Venice really paranoid. Not a good thing.

 

And that whole Hundred Years War thing only recent ending probably would have meant that the English and French would have to be kept seperate and out of each other's country...

 

So I don't know what incentive would have been enough.

[Sextus Roscius]

Constantinople could've been saved, but it would've taken a large combined effort of many nations and a good religious cause. If the catholics seriously considered saving the city then it could've been done. But no matter what happened the Turks were going to take it eventually no matter how many troops were poured into the defense. Eventually the western armies would get battle weary and give up.

[Tobias]

Eventually the western armies would get battle weary and give up.

 

Exactly. The Crusading army would be operating totally surrounded by enemies (The Ottomans and the various other tribes etc.), as well as being potentially divided within. The English and French Soldiers would definetly not be happy together, and all the other Western states were extremely paranoid and distrusting of each other. These dangers, multiplied with potential defeat almost anywhere in Ottoman territory, the lack of incentive for being there beyond "God's will" and a more hypothetical (then anything else) payment for being there, coupled with the terrain, the lack of good food and water that they didn't steal, disease etc. would be so extremely discouraging that a crusading army would soon be discouraged. The Ottomans had too strong a grip on Anatolia, and they knew that they had to hold it. They could sustain more damage than the Crusaders could.

And of course even if the crusaders managed to set up states similar to those in the holy land, once the crusaders leave or settle down, they would be revolted against by the turks and other tribes almost continually and on all sides. That coupled with the continuing troubles between the Christian states (i.e. France and England) would cause heavy losses from both withdrawn and killed soldiers. My projected course of a united crusade to save Byzantium; Terrible slaughter on all sides, destruction, theft, rape, loot on christians and muslims alike, Turks eventually causing the Crusaders to be kicked out of the area, and Byzantium falls anyway. Another united crusade would give at least 50 years more for Constantinople to somehow accumulate enough resources to reclaim it's territories, hold them, inspire complete faith in a Byzantine Emperor again and beat back the muslims. Not likely, i think

[Andrew Dalby]

If the major powers of the West had rallied big time to save Constantinople, as Constantine XI wanted, do you think that the Byzantine Empire could have been saved from the Turks? I think that it's possible, although it would have taken a major effort.

 

I think, in the long run, 1204 (the Crusader conquest) spelt the end of the Byzantine Empire. They got the Latins out agin in 1261, but the Empire never really recovered.

[Ursus]

I think, in the long run, 1204 (the Crusader conquest) spelt the end of the Byzantine Empire. They got the Latins out agin in 1261, but the Empire never really recovered.

 

 

Ave, Mr. Dalby.

 

 

While this is not my area of expertise, I also believe this is the case. Professor Eugene Weber made a convincing case for it in his "Western Tradition" lecture. It seems Romans have always been their own worst enemies. Christians too, for that matter.

[Andrew Dalby]

Ave, Mr. Dalby.

 

That's a very polite way to address a slave ...

[Ursus]

Educated Greek slaves are worth more than illiterate freemen in my book. :-)