Could Constantinople have held out in 1453?

This question occurred to me while I was reading Andrew Wheatcroft's (spelling) account of the siege of Constantinople, as excerpted in John Keegan's 'The Book of War'. I'll admit that I'm not exactly up on this time period, but Wheatcroft points out that, for all they outnumbered and were logistically in a far better position than the defenders, the Ottomans actually took Constantinople largely by luck. Apparently, a small postern gate had been left open, which was noted by alert members of the Ottoman army. Also, a lucky musket shot killed the Genoan commander of Byzantine forces named Justignani.
My question: what if the gate had been closed and Justignani had ducked?
From that, three questions seem relevant.
1. Could Constantinople itself have held out? I suspect that it might have done, this time, but that it was going to go at some point. I believe the Ottomans had the city virtually surrounded.
2. If Constantinople held out in 1453, what effects would this have held? My guess is that the most dramatic would have been within the Ottoman Empire. Sulimon likely would not have survived a defeat by such a numerically inferior force. Could there have been a protracted power struggle within the Ottoman Empire? Would this in turn have given Constantinople a new leese on life? Doubtless the people of Constantinople would have regarded this as a miracle; God's divine hand protecting their city. Would this religiosity--through the Christian Europeans already defending Constantinople--have reached back to Europe? What effect would it have there?
3. Dovetailing off the last subquestion to 2, what would the effect have been in Europe, if any?
Eagerly awaiting comments.

A. J.

Brief adendum:

One thing I forgot to mention, please, please, please feel free to correct my spelling. I'm blind, and so I read via a screen-reader. This makes spelling...interesting.

hi.

welcome to the forum.

AJNolte said:

the Ottomans actually took Constantinople largely by luck.

Click to expand...

giant cannons help.

1. Could Constantinople itself have held out?

Click to expand...

for how long? by 1453, the Byzantine Empire was the size of Rhode Island.

2. If Constantinople held out in 1453, what effects would this have held? My guess is that the most dramatic would have been within the Ottoman Empire. Sulimon likely would not have survived a defeat by such a numerically inferior force.

Click to expand...

Mehmed II survived, after failing to conquer Constantinople in the last years of the 1390s.

Could there have been a protracted power struggle within the Ottoman Empire?

Click to expand...

the Ottoman Civil War had killed off anyone who would've been able to struggle for power with Emperor Solomon. (that's what Suleiman means)

Would this in turn have given Constantinople a new leese on life? Doubtless the people of Constantinople would have regarded this as a miracle; God's divine hand protecting their city.

Click to expand...

then they would have to ask themselves "why didn't God save the rest of our Empire?"

Would this religiosity--through the Christian Europeans already defending Constantinople--have reached back to Europe? What effect would it have there?

Click to expand...

None. For one reason: the rest of Europe was Catholic. Byzantium was not.

Hey, thanks for the welcome.
Again, these questions are raised based on a single source which may well be inaccurate (part of the reason for asking the questions is to assess the practicability of the idea before even thinking about a thread).
1. For how long? Answer: Not very; say perhaps another 20 to 50 years. I'm not interested in a desperate "save-the-empire" timeline necessarily, just curious about possibly interesting butterflies from a delay in it's fall.
2. Large cannons; definitely. This goes back to the question of whether they could have survived Suleiman's siege, even with luck. I think it's possible.
3. Catholic Europe; of course. /However a fair number of the city's defenders were in fact Catholic Europeans, most notably Justignani himself. Would their success in defending Constantinople lead them to gain greater confidence against the Muslims earlier, as the siege of Malta did in the next century?
Again, it's hard to imagine such a small POD making a huge difference, but it is interesting to speculate.

A. J.

AJNolte said:

Hey, thanks for the welcome.

Click to expand...

you're very welcome.

1. For how long? Answer: Not very; say perhaps another 20 to 50 years. I'm not interested in a desperate "save-the-empire" timeline necessarily,

Click to expand...

you are a breath of fresh air, offering a welcome change of pace. most people assume that if the Byzantines aren't conquered in 1453, they'll never be conquered.

just curious about possibly interesting butterflies from a delay in it's fall.

Click to expand...

the Byzantines might be able to get better terms from the Ottomans when the Ottomans try again in 1507.
(they seemed to like trying in intervals of 50-some)

2. Large cannons; definitely.

Click to expand...

Ironically, the cannons were provided by a Christian who had offered the cannons to the Emperor of Byzantium, who had refused to buy the cannons.

3. Catholic Europe; of course. /However a fair number of the city's defenders were in fact Catholic Europeans, most notably Justignani himself.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that individuals would swarm to help Constantinople, but nations would probably not.

G. Garibaldi, famed hero and uniter of Italy (in OTL) also joined the fight in Brazil (and Ireland, I think), and offered his services to US President Lincoln.

Would their success in defending Constantinople lead them to gain greater confidence against the Muslims earlier, as the siege of Malta did in the next century?

Click to expand...

It *is* possible, but I imagine not.....most Catholic European nations at the time were busy doing other things.

Yes, the nation of Aragon prepare to offer Timur Lenk (Timur the Lame) an alliance against the Ottomans in 1402. Yes, some Balkan potentates plotted against Ottoman presence in the Balkans in the early 1400s.

But would any European power send their armada to rescue a single city? (the City being Byzantium). I doubt it...though if they did, they'd be in a position to force Byzantine conversion to Catholocism, offer any Byzantine princesses in marriage, and so on.

(but its a very good question that youve posed)

Again, it's hard to imagine such a small POD making a huge difference, but it is interesting to speculate.

Click to expand...

very true.

Alright, just for fun, suppose they hold off the Ottomans in 1453, and the Ottomans try again in 1507. Here are the butterflies I would expect.
1. Byzantium draws closer to Genoa. As it was a Genoan who bailed them out the last time, Genoa may claim (and get) some of the credit. Does this lead to Genoa bailing them out in 1507? I don't know much about the Genoans but I doubt they've got the muscle. But let's at least assume that Constantinople is brought into the Genoan trading influence.
2. No sege of Rhodes in 1483. This isn't a given, but I think it's possible. Assume that the Ottomans regard securing control of Anitolia as more important. Will this change things greatly? Hmm, I think it may delay Rhodes' eventual fall until later in the century or even prevent it altogether. Assume that Constantinople falls in 1507. The Ottomans next turn on Rhodes. However, after having almost a century to build up their island fortress, the Hospitalers repulse them utterly in, say, 1525 (date pretty much selected at random). Rhodes is a serious thorn in the side of Ottoman mediterranean interests and keeps the action farther east in this sea. Spain and it's ally Genoa (same as in OTL; can't see any reason for this to change) grow considerably stronger and start battling the Ottomans. In the 1550s or 1560s, the Ottomans try again. However, the Hospitalers have once again upgraded their defenses, receiving considerable help from Spain and Genoa. The Pope (possibly Pius; he might be the only one with the pure cussedness to pull this off) calls for a "holy league" of Venice, Genoa and Spain to "defend the brave knights of Saint John against heathen Mohammedan aggression". The idea, of course, being a Lepanto-style battle.
Is this plausible?
Not sure, but if so, and if this timeline's Lepanto goes badly for the Turks they're going to have all kinds of problems in the Med.
3. New Byzantium; a colony in the new world? This is frankly the most outlandish scenario, yet it strikes me as fun so I'll proceed. Byzantium falls, but the emperor and large numbers of the Byzantines are allowed to go into exile in Spain. The Emperor offers to sponsor one of the colonial expeditions. Spain, seeing little harm in such an excentric request, agrees. The Byzantines hire captains and ships from Genoa and set sail and reach Florida, which is claimed for "The Byzantine Empire". Thinking the swampy peninsula to be of little value and preoccupied with Germany anyway, King Charles agrees, so long as the Byzantines pay him a certain sum in gold for it. The Emperor negotiates with the Ottomans, who see this as a nice way of getting rid of the Orthodox population of Anetolia. Thus the colony of New Byzantium is established.
A little outlandish and extremely speculative, but I welcome your input nonetheless.

I don't see how the city could have held out. The postern gate was not really "lucky" so much as "inevitable", and with a bit more bombardment, gates would have been irrelevant.

The problem was the total population of the city was smaller than the size of the beseiging army, and the Byzantines could only field 7,000 troops to man the enormous extent of the walls.

If they had held out a bit longer, it's possible that the Halil Pasha's faction could have stopped the seige, but at that time, Mehmed was the only viable occupant of the throne, so a resumption would have been inevitable.

I think Keener was joking about the 50-year interval thing - by 1453 the Byzantines were running on fumes, and even the Genovese were starting to see where the wind was turning. After all, trade priviledges in the Ottoman Empire were worth a whole lot more than anything the Byzantines had to offer. Remember that Giustiani was a volunteer - the Genovese community at Galata maintained neutrality during the seige.

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:

I think Keener was joking about the 50-year interval thing

Click to expand...

for the most part, yes, it was said in jest....but a jest based on how it really had been a little over 50 years since the last seige of Constantinople by the Ottomans.

I remember reading in Erik Durschmeid's The Hinges of Battle: How Chance and Incompetence Changed the Face of History (not exactly non-partisan in its description of the Ottomans, I must admit) that there was a Hungarian bellmaker who fashioned a large cannon. He first took it to Byzantines and they did not want it. He then took it to the Ottomans, who gladly employed him and he cast several monster cannons which played a role in making considerable dents in the Byzantine defenses (well, on the off chance that it hit). Unfortunately, the fellow died when one of his cannons exploded. Perhaps the Byzantines accept the services of the erstwhile bellmaker? I don't know if this would have aided the Byzantines overly much, but perhaps their resistance could have been stronger, especially without exceptionally giant cannons hammering away at the walls and the ears of the defenders.

If I remember correctly, there had only just finished a round of infighting for the succession to the Ottoman throne, so another round after a failed siege would fit without too much trouble into this pattern. Such a civil war could well see a permanent split (in so far as such things can be considered permanent) between the Asiatic empire based at Bursa, and the Ottoman holdings in Europe, with Constantinople sandwiched in between. The question is whether the city-as-empire could ever regain independent power of action would always be subject to one or other nominal overlord or outside protector. It would be an intriguing take on European history if the city had become an inconsequential backwater by-passed by History, which focused instead perhaps on an Ottoman empire based in Thessalonica ?

Grey Wolf

Welcome to the forum!

Yes, the Ottoman cannons... IIRC they could be fired only a few times a day, and couldn't hit a smaller target than the city.

Constantinople would have to be very lucky to survive longer. Better don't have the siege of 1453 happen at all, maybe because of a prolonged struggle for the throne.

There probably won't be a colony in the new world. The Byzantines hadn't the right ships (galleys aren't good to cross an ocean) and needed their money for other things than investing in caravels. And Italy is nuch closer and more civilized.

Lucky the Byzantines refused the cannon. The shock from their firing would bring down the walls they were mounted on. In any case, they only refused because they could not afford it. The Crown Jewels by this time were glass imitations as the originals had long since been sold off to the Genoese or Venetians or anyone else who would pay in gold.

Could the City hold out? Maybe for a time but as others have posted the Empire was in effect no more. Too bad Constantine the Last was not in power a couple of centuries earlier, he may have saved the empire for a bit longer.

By the way, welcome AJNolte. From your first post it seems we have an intelligent and toughtful contributer. Much rarer than you might think! Have fun and do not be afraid to put your point of view.

Urban the cannon-maker. The Ottomans had plenty of their own firepower - but Mehmed was attracted to the idea of a monster cannon so he employed Urban, whose guns were a waste of manpower and resources, which were hard to move, aim, and fire, and were not very durable. They would have been totally useless to the Byzantines, who had a number of small guns more appropriate to their needs.

Most histories of the seige seem attracted to the bizarre aspects of it and ignore the substantial history. Most, eschewing any research, just ape contemporary sources and credit all Ottoman successes to "Christian advisors".

Grand_Panjandrum said:

I remember reading in Erik Durschmeid's The Hinges of Battle: How Chance and Incompetence Changed the Face of History (not exactly non-partisan in its description of the Ottomans, I must admit) that there was a Hungarian bellmaker who fashioned a large cannon. He first took it to Byzantines and they did not want it. He then took it to the Ottomans, who gladly employed him and he cast several monster cannons which played a role in making considerable dents in the Byzantine defenses (well, on the off chance that it hit). Unfortunately, the fellow died when one of his cannons exploded. Perhaps the Byzantines accept the services of the erstwhile bellmaker? I don't know if this would have aided the Byzantines overly much, but perhaps their resistance could have been stronger, especially without exceptionally giant cannons hammering away at the walls and the ears of the defenders.

Click to expand...

That is not exactly the case. The first seige had to be abandoned due to Timur's invasion; some time was consumed recovering from the aftermath of this. Later, Mehmed's father, Murad, being tired, tried to abdicate in Mehmed's favor, but in 1444 he was only 12, and the oncoming Crusade prompted the recall of Murad to take command.

A split in the empire is extremely unlikely. After the Battle of Ankara, when the empire was in a long period of dynastic struggle, this more or less happened, with one prince established in Europe, and another in Asia - but this didn't last long as the government picked one and backed him. Decades later, the central mechanisms are only more established.

Also, there is no alternative to Mehmed - he had no male relatives other than his infant sons.

Grey Wolf said:

If I remember correctly, there had only just finished a round of infighting for the succession to the Ottoman throne, so another round after a failed siege would fit without too much trouble into this pattern. Such a civil war could well see a permanent split (in so far as such things can be considered permanent) between the Asiatic empire based at Bursa, and the Ottoman holdings in Europe, with Constantinople sandwiched in between. The question is whether the city-as-empire could ever regain independent power of action would always be subject to one or other nominal overlord or outside protector. It would be an intriguing take on European history if the city had become an inconsequential backwater by-passed by History, which focused instead perhaps on an Ottoman empire based in Thessalonica ?

Grey Wolf

Click to expand...

"with one prince established in Europe, and another in Asia - but this didn't last long as the government picked one and backed him"

Which government? Weren't the princes part of it? Do you mean the administrative bureaucracy, or the vizier?

Max Sinister said:

"with one prince established in Europe, and another in Asia - but this didn't last long as the government picked one and backed him"

Which government? Weren't the princes part of it? Do you mean the administrative bureaucracy, or the vizier?

Click to expand...

By that point there was a central government with a bureaucracy; there were also nobles, the Janissaries, ulema, etc. All the powers of the empire had a strong interest in imperial unity.

Histories tend to focus on the rulers, but there wasmuch more to Ottoman society than that, and Sultans were not so all-powerful as they might seem.

Any thoughts on the effect of a delayed fall of Constantinople on the Knights of Rhodes? Is the scenario I posted above plausible, or would they still have been roled around 1523?

Keenir said:

for how long? by 1453, the Byzantine Empire was the size of Rhode Island.

Click to expand...

Not really , because the despotate of Moreea was actually a part of the empire.

Keenir said:

Mehmed II survived, after failing to conquer Constantinople in the last years of the 1390s.

Click to expand...

Beyazit was sultan back then.

Keenir said:

the Ottoman Civil War had killed off anyone who would've been able to struggle for power with Emperor Solomon. (that's what Suleiman means)

Click to expand...

You mean Mehmet ? Suleiman reigned during the 16th century.

Keenir said:

None. For one reason: the rest of Europe was Catholic. Byzantium was not.

Click to expand...

But Constantine XI accepted the union of the Western and Eastern churches in 1452. Could this forced union have lead to the conversion of the Greeks from Constantinople and Moreea to catholicism if Constantinople hadn't been conquered in 1453?

While I agree that Constantinople would have fallen later if it hadn't fallen in 1453 , Moreea might have survived , perhaps as an Ottoman vassal.
It seems that Mehmet would have allowed Constantine to reign in Mystra if he had accepted to give Constantinople to the Ottomans. If Constantinople hadn't been conquered during Constantine's reign , another emperor might have accepted the sultan's offer.
This would have had interesting efects IMO: less Greek imigration to Italy , maybe fewer Greeks in the Ottoman administration , and a rather different Greek state.

IOTL they only had to hold out an extra two days for the knights templar special dragon knight brigade to reinforce them...


What?

Is there any possibility of disease, Typhus or something similar, striking the Ottoman camps? A bit of a cop out but it doesn't seem impossible and if significant enough wouldn't the seige potentially have to be abandoned, atleast for a time?