Fall of Constantinople question!

Hi all,

I have a question: time and time again I have seen that after Constantinople fell, the italian tradepost in the Eastern Mediterranean were closed, and it's presented as a direct consequence.

However, I see in other articles that the Venitian stayed in the mamluk empire until 1517 and b, at that point the Ottamns don't even control the Eastern Mediterranean!

Can somebody please explain? Thanks a lot!
 

Don Quijote

Banned
Venice's possessions on Crete were attacked by the Ottomans in 1645, and most of the island had fallen by 1648. Candia remarkably held out until 1669, the 21 year siege being the longest in history. Cyprus had already fallen in 1571.

However, the Italian states of Venice and Genoa were able to hold onto their territories in the Eastern Mediterranean for 200 years after Constantinople fell to the Ottomans, so it wasn't really a direct consequence.
 
I think you're looking at a simplification. In the conflict between the Ottomans and the rump Byzantine Empire in 1453, Genoa was allied with the Byzantines. This alliance goes back to the fourth crusade, establishing Venice as Not Really Popular with the emperors. They didn't overly exert themselves, but the defeat still meant that the Genoese could no longer trade in Ottoman ports. The Venetians were not affected by this since they had not fought the Ottomans. They retained their presence there. Venetian possessions in the Easterm Med were not finally taken over until the seventeenth century, and even after that defeat, Venetian ships still traded in Ottoman ports. There was never a period of long-term exclusion, only temporary bans as the Ottomans went to war with the various Italian states, usually won, and made new peace treaties.
 
Thank you both for the explanation!

Yeah, I ahd a feeling my sources were bullshitting me. Looking at it further, it seems the Genoese were extremely present in the Black Sea, so the fall of Constantinople could have cut them off from there, no?

Basically, I'm asking regarding the spice trade. At this point I see two major roads: through Trebizond and the Black Sea in the North and through Alexandria with a Venetian monopoly. So the fall of Constantinople would have closed off the Black Sea and transformed the Venetian trade from monopoly on Alexandria to monopoly on the spice trade for Europe, is that correct?

I'm sorry to ask, it's just I find many conflicting information about it :/
 
Thank you both for the explanation!

Yeah, I ahd a feeling my sources were bullshitting me. Looking at it further, it seems the Genoese were extremely present in the Black Sea, so the fall of Constantinople could have cut them off from there, no?

Basically, I'm asking regarding the spice trade. At this point I see two major roads: through Trebizond and the Black Sea in the North and through Alexandria with a Venetian monopoly. So the fall of Constantinople would have closed off the Black Sea and transformed the Venetian trade from monopoly on Alexandria to monopoly on the spice trade for Europe, is that correct?

I'm sorry to ask, it's just I find many conflicting information about it :/
If I am not mistaken, the Genoese were in Galata around the time of the siege of Constantinople. After that I would imagine that they were cut off.
 
Thank you both for the explanation!

Yeah, I ahd a feeling my sources were bullshitting me. Looking at it further, it seems the Genoese were extremely present in the Black Sea, so the fall of Constantinople could have cut them off from there, no?

Basically, I'm asking regarding the spice trade. At this point I see two major roads: through Trebizond and the Black Sea in the North and through Alexandria with a Venetian monopoly. So the fall of Constantinople would have closed off the Black Sea and transformed the Venetian trade from monopoly on Alexandria to monopoly on the spice trade for Europe, is that correct?

I'm sorry to ask, it's just I find many conflicting information about it :/

A very brief monopoly. For all the historical significance attributed to the 'Islamic dominance of the spice route', the Ottomans and the Mamluks were pragmatic. They understood that they could play Venice and Genoa off against each other, they had an interest in not dealing with a monopsony, and they were happy to see traders from other European countries enter their ports. Most cargoes went through these two routes, but a century after the fall, traders from both cities and other European states were present in ports throughout the Empire. Even the English were in on it.
 
Most cargoes went through these two routes, but a century after the fall, traders from both cities and other European states were present in ports throughout the Empire. Even the English were in on it.

Also, a century after the fall, the road through the Atlantic would have been opened and well travelled so I imagine the Ottomans would have been happy to get some business through them. Force of competition ^^
 
Yeah, I ahd a feeling my sources were bullshitting me. Looking at it further, it seems the Genoese were extremely present in the Black Sea, so the fall of Constantinople could have cut them off from there, no?/
The Genoese lost their last Black Sea colonies in 1475, when the Turks (aided by the Crimean Tatars) took the city of Caffa. However, these colonies had been cut off since 1453, and, their only link with Genoa being the land route through the Romanian principalities and Poland after the fall of Constantinople (and even that was highly unreliable), their trade declined, the local government went bankrupt, and the colonies were on life support. So, even though the fall of Constantinople was not the killing blow for the Genoese Black Sea presence, it made this presence unprofitable and thus probably doomed in the long run.
 
Top