A longer stronger Byzantium ?

After the establishment of Constantinople, why weren't other cities across the Bosporus as well fortified (Chrysopolis/and or Chalcedon) and incorporated into Constantinople proper ? Would it have made for a longer stronger Byzantium ?
 
For that time in history Constantinople was astonishingly gigantic as far as cities went, and possessed the worlds most effective, expansive series of defenses that remained nearly impossible to effectively penetrate even under the full force of Ottoman canon power (keeping in mind that the Turks stormed the city through an unlocked gate). For the city itself to expand fast enough to incorporate the entirety of the Bosporus or for these other cities to be as well fortified as Constantinople was should be pretty implausible. There are however other, much simpler ways to make the empire last and retain its power, most people tend to agree that it was gipped by a particularly bad string of misfortunes. Avoid the Angeloi dynasty and you should have one that survives that can still muster up considerable force and influence in the area.
 
agree'd

Thank you DaniWani, I absolutely agree Constantinople was a magnificent fortress (for some time). But eventually they were overcome by the Turks, from the "other side" of the Bosporus . The question is ...had they held the Bosporus by having the same fortifications as Constantinople in Chrysopolis/and or Chalcedon would they have better survived these attacks ? ....and agreed the Angeloi dynasty wasn't the best rulers, but let us not dwell on that, had one of the dynasty's decided to fortify the other side of the Bosporus , would it had made a difference?
 

Zlorfik

Banned
The advantage of locating Constantinople on that side of the Bosphorus was that the most powerful invaders would generally come from the asian side.

The romans could lose virtually the entire balkans region, and they still wouldn't have anything to fear from the powers there. The same can't be said for anatolia, as it was much richer, more densely populated, easier to unify, etc.
 
Last edited:
thankyou Zlorfik, I think choosing either side of the Bosporus to establish Constantinople would inflict the same OTL risks ...what Im ATLing is establishing Constantinople on both sides of the Bosporus ...with the same fortifications as Constantinople proper ...thus asking would this might make a difference to the Byzantine warding of the Ottoman attacks ?
 

Zlorfik

Banned
that's what I get for skim-reading

Well, whether it would've helped to have had constantinople and chrysopolis as roughly equal halves isn't all that cut-and-dry.
That leaves a lot more area to defend, and either one serves as an excellent base of operations for any enemy wishing to invade the other.
 
Personally I'm of the opinion that spreading it out that far, and having it split between the straights (a dangerous position at the time, especially if you would like to take into consideration Roman loss of naval superiority when we start worrying about Turks attacking the capital) would have made it much harder to defend.
 
my kingdom for a wall

So opinion is a wall even a kilometre/mile well fortified and well armed would'nt have stopped the Ottoman. Quote: The city had about 20 km of walls (Theodosian Walls: 5.5 km; sea walls along the Golden Horn: 7 km; sea walls along the Sea of Marmara: 7.5 km), one of the strongest sets of fortified walls in existence at the time. The walls had recently been repaired under John VIII) and were in fairly good shape, giving the defenders sufficient reason to believe that they could hold out until help from the West arrived.
So if this sort of build was also present in the Chrysopolis and Chalcedon, it wouldn't have made a difference and Constantinople would have fallen as in OTL ?
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
So opinion is a wall even a kilometre/mile well fortified and well armed would'nt have stopped the Ottoman. Quote: The city had about 20 km of walls (Theodosian Walls: 5.5 km; sea walls along the Golden Horn: 7 km; sea walls along the Sea of Marmara: 7.5 km), one of the strongest sets of fortified walls in existence at the time. The walls had recently been repaired under John VIII) and were in fairly good shape, giving the defenders sufficient reason to believe that they could hold out until help from the West arrived.
So if this sort of build was also present in the Chrysopolis and Chalcedon, it wouldn't have made a difference and Constantinople would have fallen as in OTL ?

The Theodosian Walls were effective, but incredibly expensive - doubling or tripling (or more) the construction work for this Mega-Constantinople is going to need some serious monies, and that'll hurt the Empire elsewhere.

And that wasn't even the issue - Constantinople at the end of the Empire wasn't the city of its past. It was perhaps the same size of Augsburg in Germany, and whilst it could muster troops, they couldn't fully man the entire wall, and the walls weren't designed with cannons in mind - to defend against, or defend WITH.

Now if it was done in stages, you could create impressive fortifications at Chrysopolis and Chalcedon - but they'd need outer fortresses to ensure naval security on the Bosphorus - as that would be the lifeblood of such a metropolis.

Constaintople, Galata, Chrysopolis and Chalcedon considered a single great city would be a terrifying force, but without complete, and utter control of the Sea of Marmara, or control over the Dardanelles to isolate the Sea of Marmara as a Greater Constantinople Lake - a strong naval force could isolate the different parts of the "City" and lead to urban disaster as they'd unintentionally become much more tightly bound - or have lapses in judgement regarding relying on Constantinople for stores, and troops, etc.

Using them all as a larger defense plan for the city is a good idea and I fully expect that contemporary defense plans included them all in some way - but simply put, using them to make a super city is a bad idea - because no other location in the area is as defensible, and I feel that being part of the City would cause complacency in the outer suburbs. (i.e. Chrysopolis & Chalcedon).

Now would those additional defenses make the region stronger. Yes. But each city NEEDS to think of itself as its own city, with its own stores, etc - rather than part of Constantinople, otherwise they'll rely on each other far too much to be self-sufficient in a worst case scenario. This would mean that Osman wouldn't have been able to take the cities as he did OTL with those levels of fortification, without utterly isolating the cities by sea first. But even then, they are strong bastions in their own right.

I would be intrigued to see the designs for these cities designed to rapidly accept friendly troops though, whilst sea-walled up to the back teeth.
 
A terribly good answer GdwnsnHo, and I'm thoroughly convinced with consideration to Byzantium's fights North and South. I can only imagine what Constantinople may have looked like if they were not so expansionist territory wise and more isolatory in terms of a city state (or some middling kind of state) As for a Mega Constantinople, I can only imagine !
 
Top