Early Conquest of Constantinople !!!

Hello All,

I am recently logged in this Forum and I am quite new in alternative history and therefore thanks for your understanding if I made any format or technical mistakes while posting. I scanned the forum and the discussions and I think I am in the right place! :)By way of introduction, I am writing from Istanbul, Turkey and I am an attorney working on international business.

Let me give you an intro prior to posting my ideas on a certain TL and a certain scenario but please consider that I am mentioning briefly main events only in order to keep my first post short.

In the Ottoman Empire History, before Fatih Sultan Mehmed, who conquered Constantinople in 1453, Ottomans actually attacked and besieged Constantinople at the time of I. Bayezid (4th. Padişah (Sultan) of Ottoman Empire who ruled between 1389-1402) periodically and several times in between 1391 and 1400; more than 50 years from the conquest of Fatih Sultan Mehmet.

However, due to various reasons including but not limited to the rising danger in east (Timur who has a vast army coming from the territory of Iran in OT who later won the Ankara (current capital of Turkey) war in 1402 against Ottoman Empire and took I. Bayezid prisoner) and Hungarian and more importantly Crusader threats from west, I. Bayezid raised the siege. In my opinion, such besiege will never be successful since at that time, Ottoman Empire did not possess cannons that may give harm to the walls of Constantinople.

I always wondered, what would change in OT if I. Bayezid somehow invented the great cannons that Fatih Sultan Mehmet used in his conquest by some chance due to arrival (or capture) of an engineer and approached to Timur peacefully and preferred to make a mutual agreement instead of threatening each other. Since it is well known that Timur is not actually looking for domination in Anatolia, certain other facts and aggressive attitude of Ottoman Empire give rise to Ankara war, it may be possible that I. Bayezid may strengthen his back (Anatolia) and focus on west and the problematic Constantinople which will always be a handicap for Ottoman Empire until 1453 due to its location and political importance.

In such case, if Constantinople was conquered in 1391, Ottoman Empire may reach to Vienna earlier and may be Fatih Sultan Mehmet may conquer Vienna (instead of Constantinople) and further strengthen and settle Ottoman Empire in the east Europe and almost nearby the central Europe.

Also, possessing Constantinople as a capital, and Balkans and east Europe as a strong buffer zone earlier than OT may give rise to expansion of Ottoman Empire in North Africa and Middle East earlier, which may lead to better improvement in naval forces and commercial income and cultural development of Ottoman Empire. Whereas, Ottoman Empire may become a tough enemy against Spain in Europe etc.

Such developments may also change South America history due to major wars in Europe, which may prevent Europe to concentrate and finance any explorers etc.


Also, in detail, it was always discussed and accepted that various artists and scientist from Constantinople escaped to Italy during or after the conquest of Ottoman Empire and such migration led to a sharp increase in the exodus of Greek scholars to Italy which give rise to Renaissance. What if I. Bayezid somehow prevented such migration either peacefully by way of granting scholars, artists with incentives and privileges or by way of forcing them to stay in Constantinople and work for Ottoman Empire. In such case maybe Renaissance may not occur but also another kind of renaissance may occur in Ottoman Empire, which may led to various other unexpected and major changes in OT.

I may continue on several other scenarios or ideas which I am not focused on yet but I would be pleased if I could have your ideas and opinions on the above. I would be glad if you could continue above from any of the scenario or by way of adding your input or opposite ideas which may led to another story other than mentioned above.

Many thanks for your attention and it is a pleasure to share my ideas here even though I am quite an amateur.

Regards,

TimeTraveler
 
Constantinople could have been taken earlier - it doesn't require cannon, but it would take longer as the city would most likely have to be taken by siege.

But earlier doesn't necessarily mean that things will be all rosy for the Ottomans. If you can get rid of the conflict with Timur, that would leave the empire more secure in the east, but after Ankara the empire and the military were restructured as a result of defeat that might not have occurred without it, leaving the empire less able to cope with Western threats.

It's still an interesting question - but it's very difficult to project what would occur. It really depends on the situation in the rest of Europe and the Middle East - and beyond, and unfortunately, I don't know enough about this period to have much to say about it.

In England and France, the 100 Year's War would be in progress, so there probably isn't much chance of a large-scale Crusade...
 
But earlier doesn't necessarily mean that things will be all rosy for the Ottomans. If you can get rid of the conflict with Timur, that would leave the empire more secure in the east, but after Ankara the empire and the military were restructured as a result of defeat that might not have occurred without it, leaving the empire less able to cope with Western threats.

Perfect, that is one thing I actually didnt think of, thanks. That is true indeed, that disaster leads to other consequences as you mentioned. Thanks for such comment.:cool:
 
Welcome to the forum!

Well, should the sultan find a way to prevent the exodus of artisans and scholars to Western Europe this would be a hard blow for the scientic developement with interesting long term consequences. Maybe the Ottoman Empire becomes the technological leading power.
Considering the earlier conquest of Vienna after Constantinople: this could lead to an overstretching of the Empire. In OTL, when the Turks attempted to conquer Vienna in 1683 the Ottoman Empire was already larger than it was good for it. Maybe such a development would set in earlier. Hard to say.
Additionally, if the conquest of Vienna succeeds, I'm quite sure the rest of Christian Europe will ally to take it back.
 
Considering the earlier conquest of Vienna after Constantinople: this could lead to an overstretching of the Empire. In OTL, when the Turks attempted to conquer Vienna in 1683 the Ottoman Empire was already larger than it was good for it. Maybe such a development would set in earlier. Hard to say.
Additionally, if the conquest of Vienna succeeds, I'm quite sure the rest of Christian Europe will ally to take it back.

Except that in a scenario where Ottomans manage to acquire Constantinople due to the absence of Timur's invasion there will be enough butterflies to make Vienna to be simply most likely a non-issue. Besides, earlier Ottoman conquest of Constantinople will definitely be a major set back for how the nature of the empire will develop ITTL. Most likely as like any Constantinople-centered entity before them, and like they actuall were IOTL as well, the Ottomans most likely will not be in the position to expand into central Europe. This will be also be quite far before the emergence of the Shia Safavids, and IIRC before the rise of the Safavids IOTL the Ottomans were rather Shia-ish. It was also well far before the time of Portuguese adventure to the Indian Ocean, etc, etc, etc. It's basically just there will be may butterflies so the aftermath results of this scenario is had to predict, but there will be interesting immediate consequences :)
 
If Constantinople were to be conquered by Bayezid I instead of Mehmed II like IOTL, by the aftermath conquest it would be under a very different circumstances compared to OTL :
- In the north, the Khanate of Golden Horde is still intact, and "Rossiya" is still an ethno-cultural region, not yet a unified political entity.
- In the east, the Safavids is still an Azeri Sunni Order and not yet a politico-military entity promoting a heterodox ideology.
- In the south, the Mamelukes in Egypt is still economically thriving due to Portuguese disruption of Indian Ocean trade routes not yet to happen
(But apparently my knowlege about situations in Italy and Hungary during late 14th-dawn of 15th century period is next to none...:eek:)

Also, without Timurid invasion, period of fraticide would be butterflied away most likely, and that will definitely affect the political culture of the empire, and further probably its ability to maintain stability. However IIRC the first Ottoman civil war IOTL was actually indirectly yet heavily due to Timur's invasion. There's no inevitability that instability would be the defining aspect of the empire but a decent chance there is that the empire will be less autocratic ITTL, and that can be able to mean less stability, regardless of to what extent it will be.
 
Welcome to the forum!

Well, should the sultan find a way to prevent the exodus of artisans and scholars to Western Europe this would be a hard blow for the scientic developement with interesting long term consequences. Maybe the Ottoman Empire becomes the technological leading power.
Considering the earlier conquest of Vienna after Constantinople: this could lead to an overstretching of the Empire. In OTL, when the Turks attempted to conquer Vienna in 1683 the Ottoman Empire was already larger than it was good for it. Maybe such a development would set in earlier. Hard to say.
Additionally, if the conquest of Vienna succeeds, I'm quite sure the rest of Christian Europe will ally to take it back.

Whenever these scenarios come up, it's always taken for granted that at any given milestone of Ottoman conquest, all of Europe will unite to fight them. This never happened, ever. You can't come up with a more symbolically important conquest than Constantinople, but nobody in Europe did anything about it at all. If the Ottomans do something to bring down Hapsburg power, then the enemies of the Hapsburgs will look on with glee, not rush to help. But I agree about overextension.

Regarding the intellectuals and artisans, they didn't flee to the West en masse upon conquest of the city, they drifted away gradually over time because the Byzantines were broke and they had no future in Constantinople. Their contribution to the Rennaisance was not scientific and technological, it was artistic, literary, and historical. An earlier Ottoman conquest might see more Greek scholars remaining in Constantinople hoping for jobs with the much wealthier Ottomans.

Also, with John out of the city seeking aid, the city might end up being surrendered instead of defended to the last man as under the more heroic Constantine XI, which resulted in the sack of the neighborhoods that did not surrender in OTL. It wouldn't make any difference with regard to buildings, which weren't harmed, but it would make a difference to the residents of those districts, who would retain their possessions and freedom - that could lead to a somewhat more Byzantine character for the city as a whole.
 
Whenever these scenarios come up, it's always taken for granted that at any given milestone of Ottoman conquest, all of Europe will unite to fight them. This never happened, ever. You can't come up with a more symbolically important conquest than Constantinople, but nobody in Europe did anything about it at all. If the Ottomans do something to bring down Hapsburg power, then the enemies of the Hapsburgs will look on with glee, not rush to help. But I agree about overextension.

Regarding the intellectuals and artisans, they didn't flee to the West en masse upon conquest of the city, they drifted away gradually over time because the Byzantines were broke and they had no future in Constantinople. Their contribution to the Rennaisance was not scientific and technological, it was artistic, literary, and historical. An earlier Ottoman conquest might see more Greek scholars remaining in Constantinople hoping for jobs with the much wealthier Ottomans.

Also, with John out of the city seeking aid, the city might end up being surrendered instead of defended to the last man as under the more heroic Constantine XI, which resulted in the sack of the neighborhoods that did not surrender in OTL. It wouldn't make any difference with regard to buildings, which weren't harmed, but it would make a difference to the residents of those districts, who would retain their possessions and freedom - that could lead to a somewhat more Byzantine character for the city as a whole.

Vienna is much nearer to Central Europe than Constantinople and the nearer a problem is the more important it becomes usually. So I would say the probability of a reaction of Europes christian states is much more likely.
Should such a reaction happen, it is quite sure that the Habsburgs would not get back everything - they would have to pay a price for the help in terms of land and power.
 
Vienna is much nearer to Central Europe than Constantinople and the nearer a problem is the more important it becomes usually. So I would say the probability of a reaction of Europes christian states is much more likely.
Should such a reaction happen, it is quite sure that the Habsburgs would not get back everything - they would have to pay a price for the help in terms of land and power.
A reaction becomes more likely the farther the ottomans get into Europe, but one must remember that the christian states had a rather pathetic history of coordination in the face of the Ottoman Empire.

For instance, the conquest of hungary. The princlings of the HRE debated, and eventually decided that they should investigate the situation more before they made any definitive plans. A few days later the Kingdom of Hungary was broken at the battle of Mohacs. A similar sequence of events surrounded the final siege of Constantinople; several states pledged aid, but the only actual help came from a few italian vessels. Vienna was very nearly left to wither on the vine. The Holy league of OTL was basically habsburgs, clients, and venetians (even Sebastian of Portugal didnt join, prefering to seek his own glory).

A major problem with any sort of unity in the face of the ottomans is that the driving force for that unity is going to be the Habsburgs. And if they push for unity, a lot of others are going to push back.
 
Vienna is much nearer to Central Europe than Constantinople and the nearer a problem is the more important it becomes usually. So I would say the probability of a reaction of Europes christian states is much more likely.
Should such a reaction happen, it is quite sure that the Habsburgs would not get back everything - they would have to pay a price for the help in terms of land and power.

Nobody helped the Hapsburgs in the First Seige of Vienna, and only Poland in the Second. Atreus' analysis is right on target. The only time a league was really successful was at Lepanto, and even that was more the Ottomans defeating themselves. If the Ottoman command hadn't been divided between two admirals who hated each other, there is little question they would have won. When you get into the 17th c, the Ottomans have lost their lead in military technology and doctrine, so there really isn't much mortal danger to Central and Western Europe anymore.
 
Top