Can Istanbul be reconquered?

The Ottomans were the superpower of the Mediterranean world and skill and good fortune were really the only things that kept them from spreading further into Europe. Is there any point from 1500 to around 1850 that the city could realistically be reconquered by a European force and if not what POD do you think would work? My initial thought is that a less severe Reformation leads to a more politically united Europe and further crusades.
 
Certainly feasible in theory during the 19th Century except Britain was very keen on propping the Ottoman Empire up. Nevertheless Russia came very close in the Russo Turkish War 1877 - 8 being prevented from doing so by a British war threat including deployment of the Royal Navy to defend the city.
 
Certainly feasible in theory during the 19th Century except Britain was very keen on propping the Ottoman Empire up. Nevertheless Russia came very close in the Russo Turkish War 1877 - 8 being prevented from doing so by a British war threat including deployment of the Royal Navy to defend the city.

Pretty much. The only way I see Istanbul becoming Constantinople once more is in the 18th-19th century and the great power decides it wants to knock down the Ottomans
 
Napoleon goes east: instead of attacking Russia takes the Balkans, frees Greece and conquers Constantinople.

A bit tongue-in-cheek but the man who sailed to Egypt could give it a try :D
 
The Ottomans were the superpower of the Mediterranean world and skill and good fortune were really the only things that kept them from spreading further into Europe. Is there any point from 1500 to around 1850 that the city could realistically be reconquered by a European force and if not what POD do you think would work? My initial thought is that a less severe Reformation leads to a more politically united Europe and further crusades.

There's no point in OTL when Christian reconquest was "near-plausible", but there are points where the general current could have switched direction, such that it could have happened.

For instance: suppose better leadership for Hungary at Mohacs, leading to a decisive Hungarian victory, with the Turkish army annihilated and Suleiman dead. Then if Hungary has some more good leaders, a series of campaigns leading to the City doesn't seem out of the question.

This does invite a question, though. The Ottoman state was enormous, far larger than any in Europe except possibly Muscovy or Poland. Despite several grossly incompetent rulers like Selim the Sot, Turkey maintained control over Asia Minor, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Bosnia, Serbia, Wallachia, Moldavia, Crimea, Transcaucasia, and Hejaz. How did they do it? How did the Ottomans twice lay siege to Vienna, while no European army came near Istanbul for centuries?
 
Certainly feasible in theory during the 19th Century except Britain was very keen on propping the Ottoman Empire up. Nevertheless Russia came very close in the Russo Turkish War 1877 - 8 being prevented from doing so by a British war threat including deployment of the Royal Navy to defend the city.

What about Russia makes liberation of Constantinople a fait accompli in 1829, before Britain manages to rally public opinion and Royal Navy to reverse it?
 
Warfare on the northern and eastern marches like against the Persians or a bloody rebellion would help any such scenarios if at least by distraction and weakening of the western provinces forces...
 
Certainly by the 19th Century and onward calling any European occupation of Istanbul a "reconquest" is stretching it, given how the vast majority of the the city's inhabitants would view it as a conquest plain and simple.
 
How did the Ottomans twice lay siege to Vienna, while no European army came near Istanbul for centuries?

Because there was no real effort made in that direction until (debateably) the 19th century. This isn't saying that it could have been done at any time; but the fact is that conquering Constantinopole (the city wasn't named Istambul until after the fall of the Ottoman Empire) was very low on everyone's priority list except maybe Russia's.
 
Maybe Vlad the Impaler succeeds in killing Mehmed II, leading to the Turks havign a leadership crisis, leaving the rest of Europe an advantage.
 
By Russia in the 19th century? Other than that, doesn't sound like it. But some kind of an initially smaller divergence in the 1500s which wrecks the Ottoman campaigns in central Europe could force them on the defensive, then have them lose chunk after chunk of territory until, decades and probably centuries later, the capital itself is taken.
Certainly by the 19th Century and onward calling any European occupation of Istanbul a "reconquest" is stretching it, given how the vast majority of the the city's inhabitants would view it as a conquest plain and simple.

Sort of. Even as late as 1914, Istanbul/Kostantiniyye/Constantinople/whatever was about 24% Greek and 10% Armenian.
 
Top