Constantine accepts Mehmeds offer

Just before the beginning of the siege in 1453, Mehmed II made an offer to Constantine XI to hand over the city peacefully and continue to rule in the Peloponessus. OTL, Constantine replied this:

To surrender the city to you is beyond my authority or anyone else's who lives in it, for all of us, after taking the mutual decision, shall die out of free will without sparing our lives.
However, what if Mehmed was actually serious about gaining the city peacefully ? Let's say he offers Constantine the following:

1. to relocate most of the population of the city to southern Greece (cost free)

2. assures him that the Hagia Sophia would remain the seat of the Patriarch

3.that he would offer him support in maintaining their religious independence from Rome (better the sultans turban than the popes tiara)

4. that Constantine would keep all his titles, pass them on to his successors and that they would not be adopted by any future sultan

5. all territories held by westerners in Boetia and the Aegean (including Rhodes and Crete) would be handed over to Constantine once taken (he would only have to pay a fraction of the income he receives from those places)

6. the ottoman empire would guarantee their independence

7. both Constantine and some of the most influential nobles in the city would receive some hefty bribes to influence their decision (surely this would cost Mehmed less than paying for the siege)



Basically, the Ottomans would let the Rhomaioi administrate and defend the territories in which they're a majority anyway, and would also get money for it. Maybe a situation similar to the Danubian principalities, where the Turks refrained from outright annexation and were content with collecting tribute and occasionally meddling in succession affairs ?

Would the Romans accept ? And assuming they did, how would future events turn up ?
 
1. What happens to the people already living there? 50,000 people (the population of Constantinople in 1453) isn't all that many to relocate by modern standards, but Medieval population carrying capacities are much lower than modern ones, and Byzantine Greece in 1453 is pretty small. There were only about 90,000 people counted in Peloponnesos/Morea by the Ottoman census of 1689. To resettle Constantinople there, you'd need to displace a large portion of the existing population.

7. It's not just the cost of the bribes you have to weigh against the cost of the seige. Mehmed would also be forgoing his share of the loot from plundering the city and enslaving the population.
 
20-50 years later, another Ottoman sultan will invade the Peloponnese and conquer it. I don't see any long term gain for the Greeks. Except now the failure to defend Constantinople would demoralize the culture. Sometimes its better to go down fighting to inspire the future generation.
 
2. assures him that the Hagia Sophia would remain the seat of the Patriarch

The Turks would've done better to let Hagia Sophia remain the patriarchal church and the church of the eparchy, akin to St. Peter's and the Lateran in one. This is ASB since both Christian and Muslim conquerors of the period routinely converted a city's most impressive church to a mosque (and back again). Nevertheless, I suspect that the Turks would've had a much easier time assimilating Greece into the Ottoman Empire if they let the Romanoi keep their cathedral. After all, the Turks went on to build equally impressive mosques in Constantinople/Istanbul. It would only be a matter of time before the Turks could "out-do" Justinian, at least in their eyes.
 
1. What happens to the people already living there? 50,000 people (the population of Constantinople in 1453) isn't all that many to relocate by modern standards, but Medieval population carrying capacities are much lower than modern ones, and Byzantine Greece in 1453 is pretty small. There were only about 90,000 people counted in Peloponnesos/Morea by the Ottoman census of 1689. To resettle Constantinople there, you'd need to displace a large portion of the existing population.

7. It's not just the cost of the bribes you have to weigh against the cost of the seige. Mehmed would also be forgoing his share of the loot from plundering the city and enslaving the population.


1. Well I'm guessing of the 50.000, those who were "foreigners" would stay behind, as would the refugees that flooded the city just before the siege (bringing it's numbers to 50.000). Probably around 30.000 people would leave over a period of many years. About 15.000 would go to Mystra, which was somewhat of a booming cultural and economic center while the rest might even end up in Athens assuming the place is swiftly conquered. The boom in construction might do wonders for their shattered economy.

And since they're now on friendly terms, Constantine could well decide to import grain and other foodstuffs from Western Asia Minor, Syria or even Egypt, while acting as a middle-man for the trade heading west, especially if the Venetians loose the upcoming war.

7. But was there anything left worth plundering ? In 1453, the Genoan Quarter on the other side of the Golden Horn had a revenue 7 times larger than the whole Empire combined.

Also, I don't think Mehmed II went as far as enslaving the entire population.

The Turks would've done better to let Hagia Sophia remain the patriarchal church and the church of the eparchy, akin to St. Peter's and the Lateran in one. This is ASB since both Christian and Muslim conquerors of the period routinely converted a city's most impressive church to a mosque (and back again). Nevertheless, I suspect that the Turks would've had a much easier time assimilating Greece into the Ottoman Empire if they let the Romanoi keep their cathedral. After all, the Turks went on to build equally impressive mosques in Constantinople/Istanbul. It would only be a matter of time before the Turks could "out-do" Justinian, at least in their eyes.

Completely agree. In your opinion, if Mehmed thought it was for the best to let them keep the Hagia Sophia (for whatever reason, rational or not), could he push the decision through or would the situation have compelled him to convert it into a mosque regardless ?


20-50 years later, another Ottoman sultan will invade the Peloponnese and conquer it. I don't see any long term gain for the Greeks. Except now the failure to defend Constantinople would demoralize the culture. Sometimes its better to go down fighting to inspire the future generation.

At most, it buys the Byzantines maybe 20-50 years until another Ottoman Sultan decides to conquer them.
I agree that's a possibility, but look at the Ottoman Empire's relationship with Wallachia and Moldova. Both were almost completely Orthodox and at the edge of the empire. Except for a few rare occasions where they truly wanted to annex them (and when the local nobles truly rallied behind their leader in opposition), the Turks were contend with letting them be so long they paid their tribute.


EDIT: could no conquest of Constantinople have an effect on the Italian Renaissance, maybe delaying it for a decade or two ? Would that spark major butterflies or rather not ?
 
Completely agree. In your opinion, if Mehmed thought it was for the best to let them keep the Hagia Sophia (for whatever reason, rational or not), could he push the decision through or would the situation have compelled him to convert it into a mosque regardless ?

Mehmed would probably have no other ideological choice, even if he personally did not care to take Hagia Sophia as a mosque. Conquest in this period almost always meant converting the cathedral/main mosque into the other just to reinforce to the populace the power of the new regime.

Also, according to Muslim jurisprudence the dhimmi were permitted some social freedoms and freedom of worship so long as they paid tax and were disadvantaged in society (i.e. no equality in court, no arms, distinctive clothing etc.) There's no way to regard the Christians as dhimmi and permit them the use of their patriarchal church, especially given the Byzantine imperial symbolism inherent in the vestments and episcopal insignia of Orthodox bishops. Indeed, for centuries the Ottomans officially prohibited the Greeks and Christian Slavs from even erecting bell-towers and repairing their churches. I doubt the Ottomans would allow Orthodox prelates to openly wear imperial vestments and preside from a magnificent cathedral, even if in hindsight this might have eased Ottoman occupation of Greece and the Balkans.

Even after the subjugation of the Balkans and southeastern Europe the Ottomans still converted some churches to mosques for ideological/political purposes. When the Ottomans took Buda and Pest 75 or so years later after the siege of Constantinople, one of the basilicas was converted into a mosque (visitors can still see the intact qibla today.) A group of pious monks smuggled the altarpieces to Vienna during the Ottoman siege. 150 years later at the end of the Ottoman occupation, Hungarians 'repatriated' the church furnishings and reconsecrated the church.
 
Last edited:
Also, I don't think Mehmed II went as far as enslaving the entire population.

Magnum

According to most sources it was sacked, which was pretty much the SOP at that time for a city which was taken by storm. That meant the invaders could do pretty much what they wanted with the contents, including the [former] citizens.

There is the famous story that during the sack he killed one of his soldiers who was trying to dig up one of the marble paving stones. Supposed to have said he had given leave to take slaves, wealth, houses etc but drawing the line at the actual structure of the streets - can't remember the exact wording.

Steve
 
Magnum

According to most sources it was sacked, which was pretty much the SOP at that time for a city which was taken by storm. That meant the invaders could do pretty much what they wanted with the contents, including the [former] citizens.

There is the famous story that during the sack he killed one of his soldiers who was trying to dig up one of the marble paving stones. Supposed to have said he had given leave to take slaves, wealth, houses etc but drawing the line at the actual structure of the streets - can't remember the exact wording.

Steve


Well, first of all, I didn't say that the city wasn't sacked, or that people weren't enslaved. I merely said "as far as enslaving the entire population".

Here are some arguments:

Firstly, this is what George Sphrantzes, a contemporary, wrote:

On the third day after the fall of our city, the Sultan celebrated his victory with a great, joyful triumph. He issued a proclamation: the citizens of all ages who had managed to escape detection were to leave their hiding places throughout the city and come out into the open, as they were remain free and no question would be asked. He further declared the restoration of houses and property to those who had abandoned our city before the siege, if they returned home, they would be treated according to their rank and religion, as if nothing had changed
Secondly, there's the issue of the small walled villages within the city itself who submitted to the Turks and were spared entirely.

Thirdly, there's the existence of the Phanariotes.

And lastly, and I by no means know how accurate this is, there's the account by British historian David Nicolle

(The Fall of Constantinople: The Ottoman Conquest of Byzantium. New York: Osprey Publishing. pp. 237, 238. "In fact ordinary people were treated better by their Ottoman Conquerors than their ancestors had been by Crusaders back in 1204; only about 4,000 Greeks died in the siege." ... "Mehmet also ordered all looting to stop and sent his troops back outside the walls.").

And even if this was utter nonsense, the first three points are valid enough I think.


However, debating whether or not all of Constantinople was enslaved or not is a bit beyond the point IMHO. I thought a discussion about the future of the Rhomaioi, Ottomans and of Europe in general with the above POD would be interesting.
 
Magnum

According to most sources it was sacked, which was pretty much the SOP at that time for a city which was taken by storm. That meant the invaders could do pretty much what they wanted with the contents, including the [former] citizens.

There is the famous story that during the sack he killed one of his soldiers who was trying to dig up one of the marble paving stones. Supposed to have said he had given leave to take slaves, wealth, houses etc but drawing the line at the actual structure of the streets - can't remember the exact wording.

Steve

I was a bit confused reading the section, but I was half asleep. A passage in Karen Barkey's The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective says something about almost 30,000 residents being sold into slavery and marched out of the city, and freed after being distributed throughout the Balkans. I don't know if that's something she said happened, or if she's referring to a view held by someone else that she might disagree with. Caroline Finkel in Osman's Dream states that the customary 3 days were allowed, but all looting afterward was expressely forbidden.

At any rate, in reference to the OP, I fail to see Morea remaining independent. The Ottomans did everything they could to integrate Byzantine elites into the system, even if they eventually wanted said elites replaced. Allowing them their own semi-independant principalities threatened that idea.
 
Magnum

Sorry, missed that point. Also you know more about the siege than me, with points about the walled villages which I didn't know about.

Sounds like a good use of divide and rule, frightening large sections of the population into not resisting and hence making the conquest easier. Also it has the benefit of not slaughtering/enslaving the entire population and hence having people to tax, run services, businesses etc.;)

Steve

Well, first of all, I didn't say that the city wasn't sacked, or that people weren't enslaved. I merely said "as far as enslaving the entire population".

Here are some arguments:

Firstly, this is what George Sphrantzes, a contemporary, wrote:

Secondly, there's the issue of the small walled villages within the city itself who submitted to the Turks and were spared entirely.

Thirdly, there's the existence of the Phanariotes.

And lastly, and I by no means know how accurate this is, there's the account by British historian David Nicolle

(The Fall of Constantinople: The Ottoman Conquest of Byzantium. New York: Osprey Publishing. pp. 237, 238. "In fact ordinary people were treated better by their Ottoman Conquerors than their ancestors had been by Crusaders back in 1204; only about 4,000 Greeks died in the siege." ... "Mehmet also ordered all looting to stop and sent his troops back outside the walls.").

And even if this was utter nonsense, the first three points are valid enough I think.


However, debating whether or not all of Constantinople was enslaved or not is a bit beyond the point IMHO. I thought a discussion about the future of the Rhomaioi, Ottomans and of Europe in general with the above POD would be interesting.
 
I was a bit confused reading the section, but I was half asleep. A passage in Karen Barkey's The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective says something about almost 30,000 residents being sold into slavery and marched out of the city, and freed after being distributed throughout the Balkans. I don't know if that's something she said happened, or if she's referring to a view held by someone else that she might disagree with. Caroline Finkel in Osman's Dream states that the customary 3 days were allowed, but all looting afterward was expressely forbidden.

At any rate, in reference to the OP, I fail to see Morea remaining independent. The Ottomans did everything they could to integrate Byzantine elites into the system, even if they eventually wanted said elites replaced. Allowing them their own semi-independant principalities threatened that idea.

TyranicusMaximus

That sounds rather weird, about so many people being enslaved, scattered across the Balkans then set free? Don't see how that would work at all as how would you keep track of them to free?

I would agree that I can't see the Morea staying free[ish]. Even if one of Mehmed's descendants doesn't deliberately decide to annex it a small state which still has claims to Constantinople and the vast bulk of the entire Ottoman empire would be awkward to say the least even if it's ruler tried to keep a low profile.

Steve
 
Ok, so I guess the general consensus is that Morea plus whatever leftovers they get doesn't stand a chance in hell of surviving long-term. So assume Selim I conquers them in 1513.

Would the fact that there was no conquest of Constantinople have any major butterflies ? Maybe something to do with the Italian renaissance, with no scholars fleeing the city for Italy ? Or something else entirely relating to the diminished empire's low-profile, sixty years extra existence ?
 
Would the fact that there was no conquest of Constantinople have any major butterflies ? Maybe something to do with the Italian renaissance, with no scholars fleeing the city for Italy ?

Without the fall of Constantinople, knowledge of Greek recensions of Attic and Ionic philosophy, as well as knowledge of Greek scriptural and theological texts, would not have reached western Europe. Thomas Aquinas, who lived about two centuries before Constantinople's fall, received his knowledge of Aristotle from Latin translations of Spanish Arabic and Hebrew translations. The flight of Byzantine scholars to Italy brought along more accurate philosophical and theological manuscript recensions.

Without the circulation of the Greek manuscripts in western Europe, the Reformation might not have been able to make the theological impact that it did OTL. Luther's success hinged greatly on his accurate German Bible translation. The advancement of scholarship even in this short period provided him with quality Septuagint and New Testament texts. Early vernacular Bibles relied on the Vulgate, which is a pastiche of early Latin translations of scripture as well as Hebrew and Greek source texts.

Also, the Byzantine refugees in Italy were responsible for creating the Greek miniscule alphabet that is still used today. Actually, today's Greek font is based on the Byzantine cursive, rather than the earlier cursive found in Egyptian papyri dumps, for example.
 
Last edited:
At most, it buys the Byzantines maybe 20-50 years until another Ottoman Sultan decides to conquer them.

Agreed. The Ottomans were all about either absorbing or annihilating the old Byzantine ruling families whenever they could. They represented a grave threat that could be a rallying point for resistance not only by the Orthodox, but Catholic kingdoms in the west at well.
 
TyranicusMaximus

That sounds rather weird, about so many people being enslaved, scattered across the Balkans then set free? Don't see how that would work at all as how would you keep track of them to free?

I would agree that I can't see the Morea staying free[ish]. Even if one of Mehmed's descendants doesn't deliberately decide to annex it a small state which still has claims to Constantinople and the vast bulk of the entire Ottoman empire would be awkward to say the least even if it's ruler tried to keep a low profile.

Steve

It didn't make sense to me either. I thought that the population of Constantinople was about 10,000 during the siege. In fact, before reading that passage (Which I'm sure is in there, I just can't seem to find it), I was well aware that surgun (deportation) was used to populate the city.
 
Top