WI : Constantinople resisting and early fall of the Crimean khanate

[galileo-034]

So, I was thinking of a backstory for a modern byzantine version of Constantinople I could possibly work in Cities Skylines (if I get time for it) and I got thinking on the consequences it could have on Russia, and what these developments would entail for Constantinople.

The pod remains very basic, but doesn't matter much. Be it Varna or the relief expedition making it on time to Constantinople in 1453 (after all, the Ottomans were on verge of abandonning the siege), there is no much surprise in my view for Constantinople, no miracle resurgence. Constantinople is going to remain for the time being a de facto city state even if it hold sway over Morea and Attica, while the Italian and latin potentates of the region are here for long. The only divergences of note I might see in the short run would be a Venitian takeover of Gallipoli (that already happened for a time in the Savoyard crusade), cutting the Ottoman empire in two and eventually leading to a progressive reconquista of the European side over the next decades (I'd much like to see what Vlad III Tepes would be capable of here).

Among the potential long term consequences, and I'm focusing narrowly on southeastern Europe here, the most interesting for Constantinople itself and potentially both Genoa and Venice, is the fate of the Crimean Khanate. OTL, when a Russian onslaught destroyed the khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan in short succession in the 1550s, Crimea held on and even went on to sack Moscow in 1571, supported by the Turks and had relied on their protection afterwards. I wonder if the Turks hadn't been in position to help the Crimean Khanate in the second half of the 16th century, could it have been possible for Russians to then topple the Khanate and gain an access on the Black Sea at this time.
Having read a quite interesting book on Russian conquest of Siberia, I know at the time, Muscovy and then Russia craved for metals, a severe lack of which had prevented the monetarization of the Russian economy, instead often using furs as a form of currency (at least in the 16th and 17th centuries as far as the book spoke of). Thus, they tried hard getting access to the European markets, but were locked out from them by Poland-Lithuania and Sweden which controlled the coastline on the Baltic sea, leading to a 25 years long Livonian war. I'd imagine at that point, if the Crimean khanate had been far more vulnerable than it was OTL, the Russians would have focused their energies south instead of battling over Livonia. I imagine the Lithuanians would have tried too to take advantage of the situation, but even if the Russians did take over the Don basin and got a port over the Azov Sea, connecting them to the Genoese ports in Crimea (provided they held on so far) and by extension Constantinople, that would give the Russians a direct access to the European markets through Venetian and Genoese intermediaries. With the conquest of the Khanate of Sibir close in time and the flood of Siberian furs and zibelines at hand, that would make the new trade route very important.
For Constantinople, that could potentially mean increased revenues and a renewed population growth within the city walls.
Overall, perhaps a renewed interest in the Mediterranean trade routes. The Dutch and English traders had gone at lengths to establish a trade route in the Arctic to Arkhangelsk to get access to the Russian market; how would they react here with a much easier and less risky route?

 

[alexmilman]

So, I was thinking of a backstory for a modern byzantine version of Constantinople I could possibly work in Cities Skylines (if I get time for it) and I got thinking on the consequences it could have on Russia, and what these developments would entail for Constantinople.

The pod remains very basic, but doesn't matter much. Be it Varna or the relief expedition making it on time to Constantinople in 1453 (after all, the Ottomans were on verge of abandonning the siege), there is no much surprise in my view for Constantinople, no miracle resurgence. Constantinople is going to remain for the time being a de facto city state even if it hold sway over Morea and Attica, while the Italian and latin potentates of the region are here for long. The only divergences of note I might see in the short run would be a Venitian takeover of Gallipoli (that already happened for a time in the Savoyard crusade), cutting the Ottoman empire in two and eventually leading to a progressive reconquista of the European side over the next decades (I'd much like to see what Vlad III Tepes would be capable of here).

Among the potential long term consequences, and I'm focusing narrowly on southeastern Europe here, the most interesting for Constantinople itself and potentially both Genoa and Venice, is the fate of the Crimean Khanate. OTL, when a Russian onslaught destroyed the khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan in short succession in the 1550s, Crimea held on and even went on to sack Moscow in 1571, supported by the Turks and had relied on their protection afterwards. I wonder if the Turks hadn't been in position to help the Crimean Khanate in the second half of the 16th century, could it have been possible for Russians to then topple the Khanate and gain an access on the Black Sea at this time.
Having read a quite interesting book on Russian conquest of Siberia, I know at the time, Muscovy and then Russia craved for metals, a severe lack of which had prevented the monetarization of the Russian economy, instead often using furs as a form of currency (at least in the 16th and 17th centuries as far as the book spoke of). Thus, they tried hard getting access to the European markets, but were locked out from them by Poland-Lithuania and Sweden which controlled the coastline on the Baltic sea, leading to a 25 years long Livonian war. I'd imagine at that point, if the Crimean khanate had been far more vulnerable than it was OTL, the Russians would have focused their energies south instead of battling over Livonia. I imagine the Lithuanians would have tried too to take advantage of the situation, but even if the Russians did take over the Don basin and got a port over the Azov Sea, connecting them to the Genoese ports in Crimea (provided they held on so far) and by extension Constantinople, that would give the Russians a direct access to the European markets through Venetian and Genoese intermediaries. With the conquest of the Khanate of Sibir close in time and the flood of Siberian furs and zibelines at hand, that would make the new trade route very important.
For Constantinople, that could potentially mean increased revenues and a renewed population growth within the city walls.
Overall, perhaps a renewed interest in the Mediterranean trade routes. The Dutch and English traders had gone at lengths to establish a trade route in the Arctic to Arkhangelsk to get access to the Russian market; how would they react here with a much easier and less risky route?

Even without the Ottoman backing, Tsardom could not conquer the Crimean Khanate in the XVI century (could not do this even in the late XVII): its armies simply did not posses the needed mobility and the numbers and you have to eliminate the Livonian War to allow a complete concentration of the resources on the Southern direction.

Now, if the Genovese colonies in the Crimea still exist and if "the Russians did take over the Don basin and got a port over the Azov Sea", which is a very big "IF" in the terms of a physical possibility, you still have a century gap between survival of Constantinople and the Russian conquest of the Western Siberia during which the trade should go on. The obvious question is a nomenclature of the items (in OTL the by far #1 export item from the Crimea were slaves). Actually, the Russian states had been major fur suppliers well before the conquest of Siberia so why wait? Of course, this schema would not provide Tsardom with a direct access to the European markets because, just as in the cases of the Northern and Baltic routes, the cargo would be carried by the foreign ships. Anyway, an issue of the shortage of the precious metals was not resolved even in the 1740s when the Russian Empire had ports on the Baltic and White Sea and trade agreement with China made Russia exporter of the Chinese goods (from rhubarb to silk and porcelain). Only by the late XVIII it changed because nomenclature of the Russian exports was expanded to include materials needed for the naval usage (timber, hemp, flax and products made out of them), fat, iron, high quality leather and, growing in importance, grain.

Now, about the alternatives. In OTL, Ivan III and then Ivan IV did everything in their power to destroy the Novgorod-based Baltic trade with the Hanseatic League but they were not 100% successful: some trade was going on though Novgorod and Pskov with the interruption for the wars. From that perspective the Livonian War was counter-productive for the Tsardom and even capture of Narva was pointless. Tsardom did not have any sea-going traditions and its merchant class did not have capitals or experience of the overseas trade and could not compete with the Hanseatic League so at best Tsardom would get a lousy port for the coming and going foreign ships.

The Northern trade started picking up during the reign of Ivan IV (well, he did need some outlet with Novgorod being practically out of business) but again, it was handled by the British and Dutch merchants and the Russians did not have a direct access to the European markets.

An issue of an easier route is tricky. Why the trade through Azov, Black, and Mediterranean seas would be easier and less risky for the English and Dutch? The route would be longer and, while the Ottomans are prevented from taking Constantinople, the Med is infested by the pirates of the Barbary Coast and the Eastern Med is a permanently contested area between the Genoa, Venice and the Ottomans. And the route would be passing uncomfortably close to the Spanish coast. In other words, the risk is much higher that in the case of a Northern route. BTW, there was no "Archangelsk": In 1584 Ivan IV ordered the founding of New Kholmogory settlement, name Archangelsk officially appeared only in 1613.

 

[Silver01]

If mehmed II failed at Constantinople he mostly likely tries again in 1456 or 1461 etc etc how ever the time he waste there would mean skandarbeg and hunyadi and vlad more oprtunities especially hunyadi with maybe another attack maybe this time joining with skandarbeg
Also if the Byzantines the sultan from 1450s to 1470s would deal with albania , hungary , wallachia , Moldova and the aq quoyunlu so Constantinople migth survive due to more important matters in the west and east .

How ever unless a series of military disaster happens say hunyadi and skandarbeg team up and destroy a ottoman army and killing the sultan combined with an invasion of Bulgaria with an eastern attack ( highly unlikely for them to take place in short time ) i don't see Constantinople surviving past 1500.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

@Goldensilver81 - by the sources I've read regarding the siege, it was considered a monumental expenditure that was very much putting Mehmed II's reputation and political power on the line. It was pivotal in the balance between the European and Conservative elements of the Ottoman Court. If they can't take a city guarded by 3000 after leveraging all that - note, after reinstating his father as Sultan to fight his wars, it would brutally harm his appearance as a military leader. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a period of political shenanigans if not outright civil war.

There is the potential for Orhan Celebi in Constantinople to be declared the true Sultan, as part of a deal with Constantine for his release, in exchange for some token. There is also the potential of demanding his abdication in favour of his infant son, so that whoever comes out on top of the Viziers is defacto Sultan. Mehmed put a LOT of his political power and resources into taking Constantinople.

That's ignoring some of the other options - like the Candarli Halil Pasha who IOTL was killed after Constantinople (if I recall rightly) opposed the plan could prove a rallying point - and that's ignoring the Karamanids and other Anatolian neighbours.

Further - are we assuming an instant peace? Fleets were on their way to Constantinople to assist. There are a LOT of people at this point in time that would be happy to try their hand at a "weak" sultan vs the Mehmed II we see AFTER Constantinople falls.

 

[galileo-034]

Instant peace, I don't know. I don't see Mehmed II taking the initiative of asking for a truce. Meanwhile, I could see hot tempered commanders in the relief fleet trying to seize the momentum of the Turks' departure from Constantinople to seize the strategically important Gallipoli and the peninsula to lock up the Dardanelles.

What happens in the Balkans afterwards, I imagine, would depend on the dynamic between Hunyadi and Vlad III Tepes, whether these two fight each other or try pushing their luck south of the Danube. Of course, internal strife in the Ottoman court might help.

As for piracy in the Mediterranean, I surmise that in the long run, lack of Ottoman support would prove critical in tipping the balance in North Africa, considering Spanish efforts of conquest here IOTL. That's not to mention the Latins and Greeks keep control of the Aegean sea for a much longer while.
Anyway, it would be difficult for the English and Dutch to get a presence in the Mediterranean trade yet, it being dominated by Spaniards and Italians.

On the Crimeans, I can see this would be difficult and perhaps out of reach for Russian. But we also get to count among the neighbors of the Crimean Khanate, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Moldavians, and even the Genoa in defense of its colonies; not necessarily all hostile to it, but that makes things a lot less simple than the Ottomans having pacified the rears and flanks of the Tatars.

 

[Silver01]

@Goldensilver81 - by the sources I've read regarding the siege, it was considered a monumental expenditure that was very much putting Mehmed II's reputation and political power on the line. It was pivotal in the balance between the European and Conservative elements of the Ottoman Court. If they can't take a city guarded by 3000 after leveraging all that - note, after reinstating his father as Sultan to fight his wars, it would brutally harm his appearance as a military leader. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a period of political shenanigans if not outright civil war.

There is the potential for Orhan Celebi in Constantinople to be declared the true Sultan, as part of a deal with Constantine for his release, in exchange for some token. There is also the potential of demanding his abdication in favour of his infant son, so that whoever comes out on top of the Viziers is defacto Sultan. Mehmed put a LOT of his political power and resources into taking Constantinople.

That's ignoring some of the other options - like the Candarli Halil Pasha who IOTL was killed after Constantinople (if I recall rightly) opposed the plan could prove a rallying point - and that's ignoring the Karamanids and other Anatolian neighbours.

Further - are we assuming an instant peace? Fleets were on their way to Constantinople to assist. There are a LOT of people at this point in time that would be happy to try their hand at a "weak" sultan vs the Mehmed II we see AFTER Constantinople falls.

7000 from what I know also mehemed was competent enough like we saw in the olt to deal with civil wars in fact him been seen as the soft might in some way do some good as people would understimate him ( but i doubt skandarbeg would ) the possible civil wars do make it so skandarbeg can defend albania better and strike to raid

And the turmoil might convince hunyadi to take another turn at going south but even with all of this i still stands that this buys Constantinople time and I still think it's chances to get to 1500 are low .