DBWI:could a moslim empire conquer Constantinople?

We all know that the capital of the eastern roman empire a few times has been conquered by christian states the fourth crusade the hungaro wallachians the austrian empire and the french imperial army could any moslim state in the past centuries acomplish the same?
 
Sure, but it would have to be well before the 1650 Austrian annexation. Probably at least a century earlier or the Austrians would step in to stop it.
 
Well, if you remember, at one point one of the Turkish Beylikates did push into Europe - the Osmanids IIRC, before being crushed by the alliance of Hunyadi Hungary and Vlad Tepes's Wallachia, with Byzantium serving as an anvil to the hammer of their northern allies.
They even besieged Constantinople in 1453 but failed. Of course, it would take extreme luck on their side and a lot of Byzantine failures at detecting their internal divisions to get an Osmanid Constantinople.
Then again, I don't think the terrible Osmanid artillery could ever have broken the mighty Theodosian walls.
 
I doubt it - any such effort would likely inspire a crusade. Byzantium and the West had their differences, but one point of agreement has always been the same: keeping the Moslems out of Europa.
 
I doubt it - any such effort would likely inspire a crusade. Byzantium and the West had their differences, but one point of agreement has always been the same: keeping the Moslems out of Europa.
If you remember, Crusades proved less effective than good old civil war exploitation against the Osmanids. Varna and Nicopolis were both disasters.
 

Deleted member 97083

If you remember, Crusades proved less effective than good old civil war exploitation against the Osmanids. Varna and Nicopolis were both disasters.
1st Varna was a disaster, but 2nd Varna, 3rd Varna, and 1st Adrianople were great successes.
 
1st Varna was a disaster, but 2nd Varna, 3rd Varna, and 1st Adrianople were great successes.
Well, you they did push back the Osmanids to Anatolia. But they were already on a downwards spiral, just see how easily Trebizond wound up with half of Anatolia in 1527.
Also the use of the term "crusade" for the wars against the Komnenid Trebizondian revendication of the Imperial throne is too much in my opinion. After all, the Komnenids did rechristianize Anatolia and re-romanize it to a certain extent.
 
This is a strange discussion. Arabs besieged Constantinople in the 7th and the 8th centuries and could have taken the city either time.

Then after Mankizert and what could only be described as a Byzantine collapse, the Seljuk Turks established a sultanate across from the Bosphorus and were only pushed back, and only into the interior of Anatolia, by the First Crusade. You could easily either not have the First Crusade or a more complete Byzantine collapse.

Then of course you have the Ottomans holding both Anatolia and the Balkans in 1400, with the Byzantine "empire" basically consisting of a few outposts, and about to take Constantinople when Timur showed up.

Even after the Battle of Ankara, you just need the Ottomans to rally and not split into small emirates, and then for Hungary to do worse than it did. Hungary eliminated every emirate but Edirne, and Edirne was so weakened that they had to sell Gallipoli to Venice.

Even then you need Carlos I/ Charles V not to be persuaded (he had alot on his plate) to send that expedition to the Straights for prestige reasons.

Even have the Council of Florence fail to end the Great Schism would be enough of a POD.
 

Vuru

Banned
After Serbia brutally destroyed the ottomans in 1371 and managed to enter Adrianopol and kill the sultan, the entire ottoman empire broke to pieces back into it's initial situation, and the ottomans lost their hinterland around Prusa (technically Anatolia was still under their control, but the reality was much different), being forced to relocate to Burgas. After it the Ottoman state was a paper tiger mired in eternal revolts by the Bulgarians and Greeks, all funded and supported of course by the numerous Serb states of the Serbian "empire", Hungary and Dacia (known as Romania or Wallachia at the time)
 
After Serbia brutally destroyed the ottomans in 1371 and managed to enter Adrianopol and kill the sultan, the entire ottoman empire broke to pieces back into it's initial situation, and the ottomans lost their hinterland around Prusa (technically Anatolia was still under their control, but the reality was much different), being forced to relocate to Burgas. After it the Ottoman state was a paper tiger mired in eternal revolts by the Bulgarians and Greeks, all funded and supported of course by the numerous Serb states of the Serbian "empire", Hungary and Dacia (known as Romania or Wallachia at the time)
OOC : You're contradicting what others have said. It has been established the Osmanids = Ottomans defeated the 1444 Varna crusade.
 

Vuru

Banned
OOC : You're contradicting what others have said. It has been established the Osmanids = Ottomans defeated the 1444 Varna crusade.

OOC i guess: I was saying that the ottomans were very weakened and internally fractured which allowed the defeat to occur

Maybe i worded it bad tho
 
OOC i guess: I was saying that the ottomans were very weakened and internally fractured which allowed the defeat to occur

Maybe i worded it bad tho
OOC : There likely wouldn't have been a Varna Crusade and even then it wouldn't have been crushed like that if the Ottomans weren't as big as they were IOTL
 
Considering how long they held Rome before being crushed by crusaders and the afformentioned byzantine, the question immediately goes back to why not. Granted 70 years is not a short time but in the history of the world it's meaningless. By the time they even had regained enough strength to challenge for Rome again the encroachment of the Kingdom of Jerusalem on Mecca and Medina forced the entire Islamic world to angle their interests to Arabia.
 
Sure, why not? The city has changed hands numerous times throughout history; I don't see why the religion of the invaders matters.
 
Top