DBWI Constantinople falls

Since the battle of Ankara the Ottomans were divided in two States: 1 in the Balkans and 1 in Anatolia. Mehmed I of Edirne never attacked Constantinople nor did his successors except for Mehmed II but died during the siege ending it. However, Constantine XI was deposed by a popular Orthodox mob led by Gennadius to prevent a union with Rome and ever since 1459 the Town is being ruled by the Patriarch rather than the Emperor.

What if the Ottomans conquered it in 1453 or earlier? Would the Greek Orthodox Church still be dominating public life in Eastern Europe? Would Constantinople have a population in the millions instead of 100,000 now in 2018?
 
Constantinople was too hotly contested by the Venetians and the Genoans let alone Gennadius's fanatics. Which is why the predominant trading port of the East/Old Ottoman sultanate was Üsküdar. Later, the earthquake of 1469 ruined the Golden Horn for some time.

If Mehmed II succeeded at conquering Constantinople in 1453, it would've united the two Ottoman sultanates. What became the Balkan or Janissary Sultanate, instead of becoming the center of a new Bulgarian Empire, this time Muslim, would instead be the periphery of a Turkish empire. The ramifications would be vast. Would this new empire expand Islam beyond the Danube, rather than consolidating its territory in the Balkans proper?
 
and ever since 1459 the Town is being ruled by the Patriarch rather than the Emperor.
I think you're being generous here. The city was ruled by whoever filled enough pockets to have their puppet patriarch named.
I mean, when the "Venetian" candidate tried to strike an independent trade deal and have direct contacts with Portugal, he was found guilty of heresy on unrelated terms by a council of his peers and paraded naked through the streets.
The Emperor is paraded once a year and kept well imbibed, so he doesn't cause any troubles either
 
That is not completely true. They have been several patriarch Who were virtually independent from foreign influence. Patriarch Joseph The fifth also known as the beloved is a prime example.
 
That is not completely true. They have been several patriarch Who were virtually independent from foreign influence. Patriarch Joseph The fifth also known as the beloved is a prime example.
The one who died of a heart attack?

It's worth noting this happened when the Venetians had been severely weakened by the Balkanic Ottomans. It's especially worth noting the riots in the Venetian quarter that ran out many top merchants from Constantinople were suspiciously timed, and the rioters quite well armed. Wasn't he elected in triumph by the populace like three days after?
 
No that was Joseph the 6 Who died of a heart attack and Mastermind the attack on the Venetian quarter. Joseph the fifth was chosen to be patriarch after A nine month deadlock between the Venetians and Portuguese factions of the church. Before his election he was a monk. Because he was the compromise candidate he focused on taking care of the poor and sick. His tenure was marked massive increase in the amount of charity given by the church to poor. He lived a very austere life while being the patriarch. He sold numerous pieces of art to fund his charity efforts. After his death he was succeeded by Anthony the fifth. Anthony was to followed by Joseph sixth because of his massive decadence and disgraced to the church. He cut the funding to the church’s charity efforts so he could build a palatial palace for himself. This as you can imagine made the poor and numerous members of the clergy despise for his decadence. He was also almost completely controlled by the Venetians. these factors are what allowed Joseph the sixth to take the patriarchy. He promised to demolish partially belt palace and increase the funding to charity effort to match what they were before they were slashed.
 
Last edited:
No that was Joseph the 6 Who died of a heart attack and Mastermind the attack on the Venetian quarter. Joseph the fifth was chosen to be patriarch after A nine month deadlock between the Venetians and Portuguese factions of the church. Before his election he was a monk. Because he was the compromise candidate he focused on taking care of the poor and sick. His tenure was marked massive increase in the amount of charity given by the church to poor. He lived a very austere life while being the patriarch. He sold numerous pieces of art to fund his charity efforts. After his death he was succeeded by Anthony the fifth. Anthony was to followed by Joseph sixth because of his massive decadence and disgraced to the church. He cut the funding to the church’s charity efforts so he could build a palatial palace for himself. This as you can imagine made the poor and numerous members of the clergy despise for his decadence. He was also almost completely controlled by the Venetians. these factors are what allowed Joseph the sixth to take the patriarchy. He promised to demolish partially belt palace and increase the funding to charity effort to match what they were before they were slashed.
You're right of course! I got confused, like half of the patriarchs are named Joseph.
Aren't we at Joseph XXXI or something now? I get confused sometimes.

I guess they can't be called Peter, it wouldn't send the right signal after all
 
This topic has been debated on this forum in the past, and the conclusion was that if you prevent Ankara or have Bayezid win, the Ottoman Turks take Constantinople. If they reunite after Ankara, they also take Constantinople. Really it survived as an Orthodox enclave because the various countries in the region prevented each other from taking it, and the place was too insignificant to pose a threat but useful as a neutral zone and a windo for trade.

The POD would be that one of the Turkish states is strong enough to overcome the opposition of the others and the Venetians and Spanish and just take the place, and presumably if that had happened they would have made it their capital. Constantinople would have a much larger population, would be Muslim and Turkish speaking, and frankly be a less interesting place. Our alternative powerful Ottoman Sultanate would have been able to expand into the same areas the Byzantines were interested in, namely Italy and Syria. The Spanish Hapsburgs have been criticized for going through much expense and trouble to keep a garrison there but it probably kept them form having to worry about the defense of southern Italy.
 
What became the Balkan or Janissary Sultanate, instead of becoming the center of a new Bulgarian Empire, this time Muslim, would instead be the periphery of a Turkish empire.

The Turks would be more successful in Europe ITTL. IOTL the Kavarna Crusade nearly succeeded in destroying the Bulgarian Sultanate altogether and they permanently lost their western regions to the Serbs. With a unified Anatolian support base, as opposed to the volunteer ghazis from Anatolia that came IOTL, the Sultanate’s defense could have been organized much more quickly.
 
I remember reading this alt history where “Russia” or something became a “third Rome”. The author’s reasoning was that Byzantium was the “second Rome”. Who would’ve become the third Rome if Byzantium had fallen? Would there be a third Rome?
 
I remember reading this alt history where “Russia” or something became a “third Rome”. The author’s reasoning was that Byzantium was the “second Rome”. Who would’ve become the third Rome if Byzantium had fallen? Would there be a third Rome?
There were some historical ties of minor Byzantine nobles with Scottish nobility I seem to remember, so maybe Edinburgh?
It'd be interesting to see a Byzantine America rather than the first Dutch settlements of OTL

OOC: no fall of Constantinople means no breakdown of the Levant spice route so no Iberian explorations
 
I remember reading this alt history where “Russia” or something became a “third Rome”. The author’s reasoning was that Byzantium was the “second Rome”. Who would’ve become the third Rome if Byzantium had fallen? Would there be a third Rome?

Muscovy called itself “Protector of all the Rus’ “ before Lithuania forced them to abandon those claims in the Treaty of Smolensk. Maybe that’s who it was supposed to be?
 
Muscovy called itself “Protector of all the Rus’ “ before Lithuania forced them to abandon those claims in the Treaty of Smolensk. Maybe that’s who it was supposed to be?

Yeah. I think it could have been, though I don’t know much about that period. I looked back at the TL, it says that Muscovy somehow reunited the Rus’ principalities, then charges east all the way to the ocean. Space filling empire if you ask me. If it somehow managed to come about, could such a state claim the legacy of Rome?
 
OOC: no fall of Constantinople means no breakdown of the Levant spice route so no Iberian explorations

The Portuguese were exploring the Atlantic islands (Madeira, Açores) and coasts of Africa in the first half of the XV century, before this happened. I think they still cross the ocean at some point.
 
Well, the word “Byzantine” nowadays is used to describe extreme stubbornness, even in the face of impossible odds, and sometimes is used to describe stubbornness to the point of losing everything (as the Byzantines almost did). It’s generally used to describe someone so self-righteous that they don’t give up their belief in a cause, even when it is clear it’s futile or detrimental. I don’t think that it would’ve acquired that meaning if the Byzantines had been swallowed by the Ottomans, or even some other power, and become a city populated by millions. Maybe it would’ve meant something more like “losing the battle, winning the war”. Just a random thought.
 
The Portuguese were exploring the Atlantic islands (Madeira, Açores) and coasts of Africa in the first half of the XV century, before this happened. I think they still cross the ocean at some point.
[OOC] : yeah but it was still limited and Morocco wasn't secured. It might happen, but it might need more time[/OOC]

Well, the word “Byzantine” nowadays is used to describe extreme stubbornness, even in the face of impossible odds, and sometimes is used to describe stubbornness to the point of losing everything (as the Byzantines almost did). It’s generally used to describe someone so self-righteous that they don’t give up their belief in a cause, even when it is clear it’s futile or detrimental. I don’t think that it would’ve acquired that meaning if the Byzantines had been swallowed by the Ottomans, or even some other power, and become a city populated by millions. Maybe it would’ve meant something more like “losing the battle, winning the war”. Just a random thought.
I was checking Byzantine on UrbanDictionary. You do NOT wanna know.
The Byzantine push through has a very graphic description
 
Yeah. I think it could have been, though I don’t know much about that period. I looked back at the TL, it says that Muscovy somehow reunited the Rus’ principalities, then charges east all the way to the ocean. Space filling empire if you ask me. If it somehow managed to come about, could such a state claim the legacy of Rome?

IOTL the legitimacy of “claiming Rome” ended up coming down to whoever was in the Papacy’s best graces. The Spanish Empire certainly claimed to be it when they garrisoned Constantinople and ruled half of the Mediterranean, for instance.
 
Yeah. I think it could have been, though I don’t know much about that period. I looked back at the TL, it says that Muscovy somehow reunited the Rus’ principalities, then charges east all the way to the ocean. Space filling empire if you ask me. If it somehow managed to come about, could such a state claim the legacy of Rome?
The Prince of Novgorod, Peter the Great, did claim to be Roman Emperor for a while when he built the abortive Greco-Roman-styled city "St. Petersburg" on the Black Sea. However, that obviously didn't pan out.
 
Top