To both of these, the same muscle that enabled them to expand into Achea and Attica in the 1420s and 302s OTL (though Attica proved ephemeral thanks to Ottoman intervention).
So very little.
Why would what have what effect?Honestly, I've never seen decent estimates for what forces the Despotate of Morea had in this period, but as to why they were not at the siege of Constantinople, it was because Mehmed II controlled all the land between Morea and Constantinople and sent forces to prevent the Moreans from reenforcing the capital, which they were attempting to do, with apparrently enough men to warrent Mehmed dealing with them despite the factthathedid not want to conquer the region at the time.
Why would it have that effect?
And maybe it's just me, but if I was in Constantine XI's shoes, and I had men that could be spared from Morea, I would bring them with me to prepare for trouble instead of waiting until the siege had started.
To make an analogy.I don't understand your point here. I'm suggesting that if for some reason, take your pick because there are many, Greece was more populous at the time, they may have been able to cause more problems for the Ottomans with regards to holding them down, and thus allowed more expansion opportunities for Byzantium. I could see how you could disagree and say that it would not make a difference, but not acceptable AH I really don't get, nor do I understand why you don't consider it an attempt to find a reasonable way for Byzantium to recover post 1400.
The question seems to be - to me at least - "At what point did the Byzantines reach the point of no return?"
And scenarios like the utter Ottomanscrew Daztur mentions or what you seem to be going for verge on "Well, if they were flying a different plane with bigger fuel tanks . . ." type answers.
Or to use another analogy: "How far off would the iceberg have to be for the Titanic to turn in time?" getting answered with "Well, if the Titanic was made of super reinforced materials so it could hit it head on . . ."
Last edited: