The fall of Constantinople is often considered to be one of the biggest blows to Christendom in history. However, the remaining Christian Kingdoms did not attempt to reclaim the ancient city. What if the Pope decided to declare a crusade to reclaim the Balkans and Anatolia around 1470 against the Ottomans? How would the Orthodox Christians react? How would things be different if the new crusade succeeded or failed?
What if the Pope declared a Crusade against the Ottomans in 1470?
- Thread starter JustinianTheGrand
- Start date
Keep in mind that there was a crusade in 1443-44, but it failed. Then there was an attempt to call a new crusade in 1454 although the crusade did not happen.
The death of the Roman Empire was a very slow process, and it was basically on life support for its last century. By 1453, the city of Constantinople was only a shell of its former self, with a much reduced population. It contained one of the great churches of Christendom (Hagia Sophia) but otherwise was no longer a great city.
It seems that other European states got tired of trying to keep the empire alive, especially considering how powerful the Ottomans had demonstrated to be. If the Pope calls still another crusade in 1470, I think most probably will not answer the call and it fails.
The death of the Roman Empire was a very slow process, and it was basically on life support for its last century. By 1453, the city of Constantinople was only a shell of its former self, with a much reduced population. It contained one of the great churches of Christendom (Hagia Sophia) but otherwise was no longer a great city.
It seems that other European states got tired of trying to keep the empire alive, especially considering how powerful the Ottomans had demonstrated to be. If the Pope calls still another crusade in 1470, I think most probably will not answer the call and it fails.
Kaze
Banned
The only one that I would bet money on joining would be John Hunyadi and Vlad II Dracul (Vlad the Dragon), father of Vlad the Impaler. They had already participated in the Crusade of Varna in 1444. They would go, but watch it fail and history would go as it did in IRL - Vlad the Dragon's son would be abused as a prisoner by the Turks, he would be sent home and start impaling his enemies.
Also, ever since the Fourth Crusade, which sacked Constantinople and imposed the Catholic Church by force, the Orthodox have been really, really, really suspicious of Western 'help'. Being able to worship as you please under an infidel regime certainly sucks. But for many it was better than living under a heretical regime that tried to impose their beliefs on you.
Heretical, from the then Orthodox point of view, of course.
Heretical, from the then Orthodox point of view, of course.
True. You would definitely need a promise that the Catholics wouldnt force catholicism but i doubt the orthdox folk would beleive it
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
Hungary thinks otherwise. They never liked the Eastern Orthodox and forced the Tsardom of Vidin to convert to Catholicism in the late 14th century. They won't forget that...
The best time for an anti-Ottoman crusade in the 15th century would have been some time between 1402 and 1413 after the Ottomans got wrecked by the Timurids and fell into a nasty Civil War. By 1470 they were far too wealthy and powerful for a crusade of the Nicopolis/Smyrna form to work.
1470 is also a really bad time for a Crusade because the latter 15th century in general was a period of enormous internal conflict and hyper focus on localized interests among most European states. The Holy Roman Empire & Castile were led by comparative weaklings in Frederick III & Enrique IV who would be unable to muster support for the effort. Burgundy had no real interests in sending forces from their overstretched situation as things stood. England in 1470 had more interesting things going on with the return of Henry VI and a full blown hot phase of the War of the Roses. France under Louis XI was not signing up for anything that didn't guarantee it the lion's share of the spoils, and even then, they had no real desire to sink a ton of money into a dubious venture.
Who might be interested? Aragon, perhaps, if someone else paid, because they were extremely poor. They would have loved a chance to regain control over Athens. The Italian States like Venice and Genoa might have had an interest, and their naval support would have been crucial. Hungary, without a doubt, and they would have been the main player and the main beneficiary. Poland and perhaps Bohemia if the Catholic Party takes control a bit earlier than in OTL. Other than that, its hard to see anyone signing up.
1470 is also a really bad time for a Crusade because the latter 15th century in general was a period of enormous internal conflict and hyper focus on localized interests among most European states. The Holy Roman Empire & Castile were led by comparative weaklings in Frederick III & Enrique IV who would be unable to muster support for the effort. Burgundy had no real interests in sending forces from their overstretched situation as things stood. England in 1470 had more interesting things going on with the return of Henry VI and a full blown hot phase of the War of the Roses. France under Louis XI was not signing up for anything that didn't guarantee it the lion's share of the spoils, and even then, they had no real desire to sink a ton of money into a dubious venture.
Who might be interested? Aragon, perhaps, if someone else paid, because they were extremely poor. They would have loved a chance to regain control over Athens. The Italian States like Venice and Genoa might have had an interest, and their naval support would have been crucial. Hungary, without a doubt, and they would have been the main player and the main beneficiary. Poland and perhaps Bohemia if the Catholic Party takes control a bit earlier than in OTL. Other than that, its hard to see anyone signing up.
Last edited:
Regarding Aragon, they don't have the best reputation among the greeks or the rest of the balkans for that matter.
Unfortunately this article isn't in english https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venganza_catalana
But apparently a company of catalan mercenaries hired by the byzantines got into a discussion with their employers that ended with them sacking a good portion of greece and bulgaria, to the point that even nowadays catalan remains a grave insult in some parts of both nations.
Here found a bit in english "The memory of this devastation would last in the memory of the towns of the area for centuries, just as the monks of Mount Athoswould prohibit the entrance of Catalan citizens until the year 2000."
I'm not going to disagree with the rest of what you say, but I have a book here - The Lost Kingdom of Burgundy, by Christopher Cope - that suggests that part of the 1473 meeting at Trier between Frederick III and Charles the Bold was that Charles would lead a crusade against the Turks as part of the exchange for the crown of Burgundy. Of course, Frederick ended up fleeing and that deal never materialized, but my understanding is that it was a very close thing - a matter of hours.
So there might be a bit more potential for support there than you thought.
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
The Pope made many attempts to call a Crusads but failed. Nobody felt going for it. The Eastern Orthodox won't be enthousiastic. The Serbs and Bulgarians are sure as hell that Hungary won't tolerate it and considering the past interactions, they're right to do so. And the Greeks... it was their phrase: "rather a Turks tulband than a Cardinals cap".
The Crusade would be as big as 1-3 battles maybe. Whether victorious or defeated is up to assumptions but the Crusade won't capitalize on the victory. The Ottomans won't either as they are in the midst of a war against Venice. Worst case scenario is more ravaged Bosnia and Serbia (In a Crusader victory) or Croatia and Banat (in an Ottoman Victory). Ottoman defeat will only create more desire to conquer Belgrade, Zemun and Petrovaradin to safeguard the Balkans by the Ottomans.
Dementor
Banned
Considering that Ivan Sratsimir who had actually had his kingdom temporarily conquered by Hungary and himself being kidnapped by the Hungarians, supported the Nikopol crusade, I would say that you're substantially exaggerating the Eastern Orthodox opposition to Crusades.
This is an incorrect assessment of the situation of Byzantine history, aside from a short period around the 4th crusade and the Nicaean successor state. In 1438, many of the issues regarding the schism were mended during the Council of Florence excluding the issue of the filioque and Hesychasm. The Byzantine Emperor himself was the one who alongside the Papacy sought reconciliation with the Papacy and the Latin west. Should Latins come to rule the region again, the Papacy will use the Council of Florence as its justification to rule prudently over said Hellenic populace and also keep in line some aspects of proto-nationalism among the Hellenes (which may be totally devoid by 1470 anyhow). It is also important to note that anti-Latin sentiment is not necessarily representative of the entirety of the Hellenic populace and said resentment is often exaggerated by later chronicles and prior to 1054 and after 1054, there were still some measure of discussion between the Papacy and the Eastern Empire and to a degree, fair relations.
After the Council of Florence, the Papacy declared the issue of the schism solved. However, the Ottoman empire who captured Constantinople, placed in power and forced existing prelates to abrogate their prior motions at Florence. Thus, it is the Ottoman Empire who ushered in the continued situation between the Latins and Hellenes, precisely because the Ottomans, like the prior Islamic states, sought as part of their policy to subjugate Christian prelates to their government and isolate them from the Papacy and exterior church congregations outside their realm.
From which period does that quote derive? It seems a modern quotation to say the least.... Surely modern Greeks in the 16th century would say such, after the Ottoman Empire has like prior Islamic states controlled the local Christian religious groups in ways not that dissimilar to how prior Byzantine rulers did. However, in 1470, such was not the situation, rather only 32 years prior, the Byzantine Emperor was sacrificing an arm and leg just to appease the Papacy and Latins so as to end the schism and send protection for him and his dead Empire and did so other than the issue of the fillioque. It was the Ottoman Empire which intervened as was common practice in Islam, to disrupt this activity between the local Church and exterior dar al-harb opponents...
IIRC, the quote was popular during the Dutch Revolution but it may have the earlier roots: always hard to tell with the popular slogans.
As for the similarities with the Byzantines, yes, the Ottomans kept Bulgarian diocese completely subordinated to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. OTOH, IIRC, Russians suspected the Greeks to be the secret Papists (which did not prevent them from using services of the Greek patriarchs, when needed). Can’t tell up to which degree this assumption was correct but candidacy of Sophia Paleolog had been, indeed, pushed by the Papacy.
But, this being said, who in practical terms could provide an effective military help to the crusading cause circa 1470? Matthias Corvinus had limited resources, even if he is joined by Vlad Tepesh. Anyway, he made peace with the Ottomans to be free to fight against Bohemia and Hapsburgs. If we change that, would the Hungarian-Bohemian-Hapsburg military alliance against the Ottomans realistic and sustainable? After all, there were mutually-contradicting interests.
Burgundy? Charles the Bold seems to be a suitable type but he would probably demand a royal title as a compensation and his generalship was not of a highest quality. Not to mention that he would need to get there and somehow communicate with the personages of a higher rank.
This is basically my point, that the Papacy had won the issue of the schism in most grounds at Florence. However, the Ottomans had stopped such a reconciliation from taking effect by their own actions and admissions.
As to the other point, that’s where the real issue is. The issue is not ruling over a Hellenic church already having agreed to most of the Papal points, but in who can actually defeat the Ottomans. The Ottomans simply were stronger than the lords of Catholic Europe, especially when they were divided so greatly. Hence why the Papal position since at least the 12th century, was a unification of Europe and an end to wars in Europe so that said states found wage crusades effectively. Sigismund of Luxembourg understood this point even, seeking to give large concessions to France and England to end their wars, which failed at the treaty of Armagnac, 1415.
The Ottomans and the Islamic states understood this situation. The true threat was never France, the Empire or England but it was the Papacy. Papacy which possessed the potential to unite Europe in crusades and in goals/missions. This is the exact reason, Bayezid said clearly that he has no quarrel with France, but he will let his horse eat from the throne of Saint-Peter, the Papacy was always the goal. Likewise, Abbasid thought was the exact, that the Latin/Frank world was most dangerous due to its ruler, the Papacy.
However, the days of Innocent III are mostly gone. Any crusade would be taken by lone European rulers, who will be defeated almost inevitably by the more aggressive and offensive Ottomans.