WI Sultan Mehmed II is killed during the siege in 1453? Is Constantinople saved?

There isn't a much population to revolt by the 1450s to be honest...

I mean literally Constaniople had only 100, 000 people and there were parts within the walls that looked like they were in the open country the city was so neglected.

50,000 people by 1453 actually but you're right about everything else.
 
50,000 people by 1453 actually but you're right about everything else.

Oh really? How embarrassing.:eek: It actually supports my argument anyway.

And also shows how far gone the empire was by 1453; you can't build an empire on 50 000 people at that time. Especially when a huge empire breathing down your neck can marshalmore men in a single army than you have in your entire city...
 
Yeah, Constantinople in 1453 was doomed. Even if the 1453 siege failed, the 1459 one, or the 1465 one, or the 1474 one, or so on would have taken the city eventually.

I personally put Byzantium's point of no return where they're doomed at 1354 when the Turks get their first foothold in Europe, with a chance reemerging in 1402-1410 during the interregnum, albeit a small one.
 

Don Grey

Banned
It doesnt work its beyond ASB. Byzantium wasnt even an empire by 53 there were a crumbling city state with only 50.000 people living in squaler inside the walls not to mention they were broke. Civil war doesnt work the ottomans had them and still came back stronger and curbstomped there rivals.Even if mehmed dies and fails to take it another person does in his place. And the romans have no proper allies to speak of. The only ones that could help and that is if mehmed dies and civil war happends would be the latins and they would conqour C-town all but in name not to mention the rest of greece. With the latins you would be forced into catholosicim.The ottomans were the greeks best option at this time atleast they got to keep there religion culture and langauge not to mention paid less taxes then before.


Fat chance. This is the Sealion of pre-1900, no matter how many times its beat down it rear its head again and again.

I thought that was the megala idea?

If Mehmed was killed during the Siege of Constantinople, wouldn't it be more likely that his officers may want to play down reports of their leader's death, so they could proceed with the conquest of the city? They were already close enough to victory anyway to just call it off.

Yes they would continue as the ottoman military and goverment sturcter didnt solely rely on the sultan there were pasha beys councils grand vezirs and other vezirs. Plus theres still some loot involved why not continue.
 
I think the only way for the Romans (or better said the government - the Palaiologos dynasty) to survive for at least a few decades more, two hundred years at most with borderline-ASB luck and skill, would be as a minor vassal to the Ottomans based in Morea, and may also gain bits of Attica or the odd island in the Aegean at the expense of the Latins.

They would have to play the Venetians and the Ottomans against each other and have all the right stars align correctly, but I think it could be done.

POD would be Constantine accepting Mehmed's offer in 1453 or an analogous one a decade or two later should the often-discussed defeat-at-the-walls-of-Constantinople + extremely-bloody-civil-war (maybe with a marginally successful Hungarian campaign/crusade against the Ottomans thrown in the mix) take place.
 
If the Venetian forces arrived in time, and then the Ottomans temporarily withdrew due to civil war, even then Constantinople has not the slightest chance of standing on it's own two feet. But if the Venetians occupy it permanently and invest in repopulating, rebuilding and defending the city then it might be able to hold on. Of course this is still a de facto conquest, but it's as close as you can get to survival. Venice might be able to sustain Trezibond as well.
 
Last edited:
Top