DBWI: Constantinople falls in 1453?

I've been reading a book lately about the rise of the Turkish Empire; and its first dynasty, the Ottomans. The Ottomans were removed in 1455 of course and ultimately replaced by a dynasty of Graeco-Turkish Muslims, but this book wonders if the Ottomans could have survived had Mehmet II's scheme to take Constantinople succeeded in 1453? Apparently, by the time the Turks were broken in their last assault, the Byzantines were also very close to snapping.

So would we have seen a Turkish Empire that retained the Ottomans as the ruling family up to the present day, or would dynastic takeover be as common as it proved to be? (IIRC, different ruling familes took over in 1455, 1608, 1769 and most recently in 1938). Would Orthodox Christian citizens be granted equal status with Muslims in the Empire, as happened when Constantinople really surrendered in OTL in 1478? Are there any other butterflies? :confused:
 
This is ASB. Constantinople was never in danger of falling in 1453, simply because Genoa was never going to let that happen. To have the Ottomans take Constantinople in 1453, you'd need a much earlier POD. My suggestion: Maybe if Genoa had lost the Chioggia War then they wouldn't have been in a such a dominant position, and wouldn't have been able to pour in the men and ships like they did IOTL.
 
This is ASB. Constantinople was never in danger of falling in 1453, simply because Genoa was never going to let that happen. To have the Ottomans take Constantinople in 1453, you'd need a much earlier POD. My suggestion: Maybe if Genoa had lost the Chioggia War then they wouldn't have been in a such a dominant position, and wouldn't have been able to pour in the men and ships like they did IOTL.

Eh? Constantinople was undergoing a massive and sustained siege in 1453, and the Ottomans appeared unstoppable. True, the Genoese defence led by Giustiniani was heroic, but the book argues that had anything happened to this one commander, the Turks would have broken through and siezed Constantinople without any further problem.
 

Keenir

Banned
Eh? Constantinople was undergoing a massive and sustained siege in 1453, and the Ottomans appeared unstoppable. True, the Genoese defence led by Giustiniani was heroic, but the book argues that had anything happened to this one commander, the Turks would have broken through and siezed Constantinople without any further problem.

It wasn't just physical defense that let Genoa preserve Byzantium:

The trick is figuring out how to stop Genoa from paying that cannonmaker - you know, the one who was so pissed at never being paid by his fellow Byzantines or the Emperor himself that he was about to sell his cannons to the Ottomans.
 
It wasn't just physical defense that let Genoa preserve Byzantium:

The trick is figuring out how to stop Genoa from paying that cannonmaker - you know, the one who was so pissed at never being paid by his fellow Byzantines or the Emperor himself that he was about to sell his cannons to the Ottomans.

Hmm, that's true. Anyway, I'm more interested in the long term effects of Constantinople being captured and sacked in 1453 by the Ottomans, rather than relatively peacefully surrendering in 1478 to their successor dynasty. Keenir, you're a Turkish expert, what do you think would be missing from our history if this had happened?
 

Keenir

Banned
Hmm, that's true. Anyway, I'm more interested in the long term effects of Constantinople being captured and sacked in 1453 by the Ottomans, rather than relatively peacefully surrendering in 1478 to their successor dynasty. Keenir, you're a Turkish expert, what do you think would be missing from our history if this had happened?

hm. that's a tough one, actually. the Ottomans didn't object to picking up traditions from places they expanded to*, but in those early years (1450s), they weren't as integrationalist as their Anatolian successors {the Michaelid Dynasty}, who continued Byzantine traditions as varied as scarring the faces of deposed Kings (both Byzantine and conquered), harems, janissaries, and so on.

I think the Ottomans might keep one or two things, but I don't think they'd turn themselves into "Byzantines with a different hat" as some call the Michaelids.

sorry I couldn't be of more help.


* = look at the Memet Dynasty in Hungaro-Serbia, for example.
 

Burakius

Banned
I've been reading a book lately about the rise of the Turkish Empire; and its first dynasty, the Ottomans. The Ottomans were removed in 1455 of course and ultimately replaced by a dynasty of Graeco-Turkish Muslims, but this book wonders if the Ottomans could have survived had Mehmet II's scheme to take Constantinople succeeded in 1453? Apparently, by the time the Turks were broken in their last assault, the Byzantines were also very close to snapping.

So would we have seen a Turkish Empire that retained the Ottomans as the ruling family up to the present day, or would dynastic takeover be as common as it proved to be? (IIRC, different ruling familes took over in 1455, 1608, 1769 and most recently in 1938). Would Orthodox Christian citizens be granted equal status with Muslims in the Empire, as happened when Constantinople really surrendered in OTL in 1478? Are there any other butterflies? :confused:

I don't understand. The Ottomans took over Constantinople in 1453. So what do you mean with the Ottomans being replaced and OTL captured in 1478?? It was captured OTL 1453 somewhere in May I think????

Or am I confused?
 
I don't understand. The Ottomans took over Constantinople in 1453. So what do you mean with the Ottomans being replaced and OTL captured in 1478?? It was captured OTL 1453 somewhere in May I think????

Or am I confused?

You're confused. ;)
A DBWI is a WI from another timeline, as a bit of light relief. For example, a DBWI could what if Hitler was never assasinated in 1938. Get me now?
 

The Vulture

Banned
The Byzantine Empire might very well have fallen if they took the city. In that case, some bloody wars might be prevented, that's for sure. The 1938 Turkish Civil War was pretty terrible.

And of course, the Turks did get big bites taken out of their empire in 1756 and again in 1894 when the Byzantines (and Muscovy, of course) went on the warpath.

It's interesting to think of a Tricontinental War without the Byzantine-led alliance against the Turks, Abyssinian Empire, and France.
 
The Byzantine Empire might very well have fallen if they took the city. In that case, some bloody wars might be prevented, that's for sure. The 1938 Turkish Civil War was pretty terrible.

And of course, the Turks did get big bites taken out of their empire in 1756 and again in 1894 when the Byzantines (and Muscovy, of course) went on the warpath.

It's interesting to think of a Tricontinental War without the Byzantine-led alliance against the Turks, Abyssinian Empire, and France.

What are you smoking? Constantinople surrendered peacefully in 1478 to the Greco-Turks, and the last stronghold at Trebizond surrendered in 1500.
 
Top