Questions on Constantinople and Trade

You've got a problem then--Bulgaria.Those guys didn't even bother to make excuse that they want to become the ERE's successor state.The Bulgars were pretty much at their heyday during this period.If the ERE fragments completely then the tiny ERR is most likely gonna be overrun by the Bulgars to the north.

But not the city itself. On the one hand, the city is pretty impregnable at this time, withstanding repeated sieges from far superior foes. Plus, the Bulgars actually sided with the Byzantines against the Arabs during the 717 siege.

That said, I see the Bulgars definitely expanding their territory during this.
 
But not the city itself. On the one hand, the city is pretty impregnable at this time, withstanding repeated sieges from far superior foes. Plus, the Bulgars actually sided with the Byzantines against the Arabs during the 717 siege.

That said, I see the Bulgars definitely expanding their territory during this.

Fact:There's no such thing as an impregnable city/fortress.

If the ERE fragments during this period,likely chance is that there's gonna be drastic population changes within the city itself,meaning it's ability to defend itself is going to change quite a bit.Furthermore,the Bulgars will probably be able to conquer large parts of Greece and assimilate East Roman siege technology.

Simply put,the ERR simply doesn't have the time to reorient itself from this disaster.You need time to successfully transit into becoming a thassalocrocy that's wealthy enough to afford mercs like Venice does.
 
Even civil wars never resulted in a successful siege, so a technological boost wouldn't make a difference.

Look at OTL's successful siege, the Turks built two fortresses interdicting all traffic to the city and over the course of two decades weakened the city enough. You can't maintain Constantinople which does not have its own natural farmland nor water supply without constant trade/tribute.
 
Look at OTL's successful siege, the Turks built two fortresses interdicting all traffic to the city and over the course of two decades weakened the city enough. You can't maintain Constantinople which does not have its own natural farmland nor water supply without constant trade/tribute.

And yet, the Venetians were able to.

Plus, you don't need a massive land empire in order to hold the entire length of the straits.
 
And yet, the Venetians were able to.

Plus, you don't need a massive land empire in order to hold the entire length of the straits.

The Venetians had a safer environment.Venice was no where as important strategically,economically and symbolically as Constantinople.
 
And yet, the Venetians were able to.

Plus, you don't need a massive land empire in order to hold the entire length of the straits.

The Venetians had the lagoon which was at the time an impenetrable natural defense and naval supremacy backed by a strong ship building industry so it can keep itself supplied by the Adriatic if the mainland was occupied. Constantinople as OTL showed can be blockaded if a power were to gain control of the surrounding countryside and walls are only good if they can be maintained, manned, and even then bombards can still reduce bastions. Constintanople did not have a native industry like the salt pens of the Venetian lagoon, if it substituted with skilled labor then it would require trade which can be blocked and subdued.
 
Top