Could Rome Have Fallen Into Ottoman Hands?

[AEGYPTUS]

I have just finished reading Roger Crowleys Constantinople The last siege 1453. Later on in the book the author talked about Mehmet II plans to conquer the other Ancient Roman capital (Rome). From what I have read they got as far as the port of Otranto (unsure if it is correct spelling). The Pope held a council discussing as to whether he should abandon Rome for his own safety!! However Mehmet II died and the Ottoman troops were pulled out of Italy.

 

I know this is a BIG IF. If Mehmet II and his successors had decided to stay/reinforce the lands the held in Italy. Italy may not have been able to make a unified resistance against the Ottomans (With the City States and all that). How do you think Christendom would have reacted had Rome been conquered by Mehmet II? Would they have united under one banner to safe Rome or would they remain separated and eventually get swallowed up?

 

Also how do you think Christianity would have coped had two major religious center had fallen to the Ottomans. Do you think it would have survived?

 

Here is a little background on the Author: Roger Crowley lived in Istanbul for quite a few years. Constantinople the last siege 1453 is his first book a really good one I might add. Well worth consideration for your booklist !!

 

I look forward ot hearing other people opinions?

 

Sorry I am not sure if I posted this in the right place or not?

Edited May 27, 2006 by AEGYPTUS

[Kosmo]

In 1480 ottoman forces landed near Otranto in southern Italy. They were defetead and left. The sultan was not in this campaign. Pirats from N. Africa under ottoman flag attacked constantly all Mediterranean coast line. From this to conquer it's a big way.

 

No, this not the right place and maybe not even the right forum

[AEGYPTUS]

Oh Ok what about my other questions?

Sorry about posting on wrong forum.

Edited May 24, 2006 by AEGYPTUS

[Neos Dionysos]

I have just finished reading Roger Crowleys Constantinople The last siege 1453. Later on in the book the author talked about Mehmet II plans to conquer the other Ancient Roman capital (Rome). From what I have read they got as far as the port of Ostia (unsure if it is correct spelling). The Pope held a council discussing as to whether he should abandon Rome for his own safety!! However Mehmet II died and the Ottoman troops were pulled out of Italy.

 

I know this is a BIG IF. If Mehmet II and his successors had decided to stay/reinforce the lands the held in Italy. Italy may not have been able to make a unified resistance against the Ottomans (With the City States and all that). How do you think Christendom would have reacted had Rome been conquered by Mehmet II? Would they have united under one banner to safe Rome or would they remain separated and eventually get swallowed up?

 

Also how do you think Christianity would have coped had two major religious center had fallen to the Ottomans. Do you think it would have survived?

 

Here is a little background on the Author: Roger Crowley lived in Istanbul for quite a few years. Constantinople the last siege 1453 is his first book a really good one I might add. Well worth consideration for your booklist !!

 

I look forward ot hearing other people opinions?

 

Sorry I am not sure if I posted this in the right place or not?

 

 

A couple points, I wonder how great of a blow to Christianity it would have been, yes Rome was a strong papacy and the seat of the pope, but only cenutry eariler Avignon in France was the seat of the papacy, so it could be argued that the pope could merely transfer to the other location.

 

The Ottomans did try expand into Europe, (once the Byzatines were no longer a good bulwark against them), and men like Vlad Tepes did much to prevent Turks from exploiting holdings in Europe, the failed Serbian Crusade into the lower Balkans, and the battle of Vienna which threw back the Ottomans.

[AEGYPTUS]

Perhaps more of a morale blow to Europe Maybe then? Also what about Constantinople it was a important religous center for Orthodoxy was it not.

Edited May 24, 2006 by AEGYPTUS

[Neos Dionysos]

Perhaps more of a morale blow to Europe Maybe then? Also what about Constantinople it was a important religous center for Orthodoxy was it not.

 

Yes, Orthodoxy, which was pre-dominant in the East and into Russia, not Western Europe. I don't think many of the common people or many of the Roman Catholic church lost much sleep over it mainly because of the sharp division of views b/w each of the churchs.

[Honorius]

I very much doubt that even if the Ottomans did take Rome that they could handle another front... wouldnt you think the Ottoman empire would be a little overstretched?

 

btw, Kosmo do u have any sources that i can read up of that otranto battle?

[AEGYPTUS]

If they had control over Italy they could have attacked Vienna on two fronts is what I am trying to get at but yes I admit they would their forces would be rather stretched. Europe was not united maybe it may not put up to much resistance.

[Kosmo]

@ Honorius- i know no sources online and I don't think romanian books will help you

 

The ottomans were never able to control the Mediterranean so any force in Italy will be sooner or later isoleted and destroyed.

We must remeber that at the time Italy was the most developed part of Europe. Milan, Rome, Venice, Genova, Napoli and Florence were the largest and richest cities in Europe. If Italy will be seriously under threat they could easly defend it with a huge fleet and lots of mercenaries like Sforza or Gattamelata and also get help from France, Germany and Spain that were all to happy to go to Italy.

 

The ottoman empire was very strong, but had serious trubles with the well equiped armies and navies of western Europe.

 

Ottoman expansion was favored by two events. The conquest of Byzantion by cruseders in 1204 and the defeat of the Rum sultanate of the selgiuk turks by mongols.

This created an area from Danube to Taurus mountains where no power was able to establish a strong control, but too many were competing creting instability.

The ottomans created a military sistem that used fanatical holy wariors "ghazi" from the other turkish states to get control of christians and the money, soldiers and alliances from the christians to conquer the other turkish emirs.

After finishing off the orthodox in the Balkans they had lots of problems with Hungary that was their most important foe with the help of the catholics (1396, 1443, 1444, 1448, 1456 - hungarian led crusades).

When they defeated and conquerd most of Hungary they faced the Habsburgs that created a strong union blocking their expansion in the Danube valley and on the sea in a moment when the ottoman feudal military was becaming increasingly obsolete.

Ottomans were attempting to expand in the Indian Ocean, Irak, Galitia and the areas north and east of the Black Sea in the same time.

 

So this "what if ?" it's a long shot.

 

For a nice reading on ottoman military power and political objectives in the Reinassance this internet book it's great:

http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/warso/

(a good book on a brain-washed, lousy propaganda site!)

[AEGYPTUS]

Yeah I suppose your right it would have been stretching Ottmoman resources to the limits. I also did not realise they were expanding above the Black sea. Thanks for answering my question. I feel rather silly now.

[Lex]

I really think the Christian Kingdoms across Europe and the Christians in general would have been forced to unite and expel the Turks from Rome. Imagine what a sacrilege it would be considered for the Turks to be in control of Rome and the Vatican! The Pope would most probably declare a Crusade against the Turks to liberate Italy since I don't ever for a moment believe that the Europeans would become so weak and so incompetent to not see the danger of having the Turks in the heart of Europe!

Edited May 25, 2006 by Lex

[Rameses the Great]

I have just finished reading Roger Crowleys Constantinople The last siege 1453. Later on in the book the author talked about Mehmet II plans to conquer the other Ancient Roman capital (Rome). From what I have read they got as far as the port of Ostia (unsure if it is correct spelling). The Pope held a council discussing as to whether he should abandon Rome for his own safety!! However Mehmet II died and the Ottoman troops were pulled out of Italy.

 

I know this is a BIG IF. If Mehmet II and his successors had decided to stay/reinforce the lands the held in Italy. Italy may not have been able to make a unified resistance against the Ottomans (With the City States and all that). How do you think Christendom would have reacted had Rome been conquered by Mehmet II? Would they have united under one banner to safe Rome or would they remain separated and eventually get swallowed up?

 

Also how do you think Christianity would have coped had two major religious center had fallen to the Ottomans. Do you think it would have survived?

 

Here is a little background on the Author: Roger Crowley lived in Istanbul for quite a few years. Constantinople the last siege 1453 is his first book a really good one I might add. Well worth consideration for your booklist !!

 

I look forward ot hearing other people opinions?

 

Sorry I am not sure if I posted this in the right place or not?

 

Around the 1400's guns were starting to develop, and that is the time when Europe went ahead of the Middle East. Remember the Ottomans were a power, but nothing compared to Western Europe. Germany and France would have done something to crush it immediately. In fact all of Europe would do something to keep out the invaders.

 

Even though Europeans fought each other constantly they knew the importance of staying alive. If they were able to unite under one banner to form the cruscades, who knows what they could have done while beeing invaded.

[Neos Dionysos]

Around the 1400's guns were starting to develop, and that is the time when Europe went ahead of the Middle East. Remember the Ottomans were a power, but nothing compared to Western Europe. Germany and France would have done something to crush it immediately. In fact all of Europe would do something to keep out the invaders.

 

Europe was not ahead of the Ottomans, if you recall Constantinople fell because the Turks had the imployment of thousands of heavy cannon that decimated and destroyed the walls of Constantinople. They were a rich, powerful and large empire they could easily pay for the same weaponry and technology that Europe had, and only a handful of European nations at the time could afford to equip in a large effective scale.

[Kosmo]

The turks depended on Europe for their forces thru out their history.

If we take the siege of Constantinopole as an example the famous great gun was made by an hungarian named Orban and most of the rest of the guns came from France and Germany. The ottoman admiral was a bulgarian renegated prince.

 

Europe was seriously ahead of them in tehnology and resources, but we should not believe that the states of S-E Europe were the same with those of W Europe.

 

When Constantinopole was defending with some conscripts and mercenaries France was expelling the english at the end of the 100 Years War using a permanent force of 10.000 heavy cavalry and a large siege artillery besides levies and swiss and other mercenaries.

As time went the difference became even greater.

 

I don't say that the ottoman empire was not very strong, because it was the most powerful state of Europe and West Asia, but I doubt their capacity to extend in W Europe which had larger resources then S-E Europe had after a long crisis.

At that time European states would have helped more then they did after the Reform.

 

The ottomans were helped in their expansion in the Balkans by the conflict between ortodox and catholics.

For example the first major antiottoman crusade, that of 1396 was defeated at Nicopole largely by the charge of serbian cavalry in the service of Bayazid while the french refused the advices of Mircea the Elder the ruler of Valachia.

 

@Aegyptus- no need for that. It's a nice topic.

[AEGYPTUS]

Could you explain one thing to me Kosmo I do not quite understand. Two question to ask of you. First I think that to say the turks did not have many resources is slightly underestimating them. They had control over Constantinople the Silk and Gold roads pass right through this city to get to Europe. Also they have control over sea trade in the Black Sea region due ot the cities (Constantinople) position on the Hellespont. So I would have thought they would have had much resources at their disposal would they not? Also my second question would be you said you dougth their capability to expand in to western Europe. Did they not get to the walls of Vienna I would consider that Western Europe. Even if they were defeated their this still proves that they had resources enough to launch the campaign in the first place would it not?