Could Rome Have Fallen Into Ottoman Hands?

[Rameses the Great]

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.

 

Exactly, if you recall the Moroccans attacking the Sanghai dynasty in Africa the only reason they were successful for buying guns from Europe. The Ottomans could not have built guns by themselves, they had to have hired European engineers and at the siege of Constantinople their guns barely did anything. The strongest guns were in England and France. The European Union could easily expel any European nation to give them weapons, massively curtailing their conquest.

 

Sure they had money but if they do not have adequate weaponry they do not stand a chance. Southeast Europe could easily fall because they did not have the weapons like those of Western Europe they were like the Middle East. However Western Europe is a completely different story.

[AEGYPTUS]

Sure but with money comes the ability to buy better weaponry from place such as England and France as you said. So what if it was European engineers. The Ottomans were smart enough to exploit this knowledge to use it in the Siege of Constantinople. The Europeans were stupid enough to aid the Ottomans though some did not have a choice if the lived in Ottoman occupied Europe. It is important to remember that they indeed won at Constantinople so they had to be fairly advanced to take on the allegedly up till that point unconquerable walls of the city.

Edited May 26, 2006 by AEGYPTUS

[Neos Dionysos]

As has been pointed out, sure the engineers and technology comes from Western Europe but so long as you have the money you can acquire the best there is... because I would not say the Europeans helping them were "stupid" for it, it's just that everyone has a price.

[AEGYPTUS]

I wonder how much that was? It may not have been as high as one would think perhaps jealousy of Constantinople may also have been a factor do you think just wondering? It may not be the case at all but I was just interested. Do you think due to the schisms in the Christian church would Catholics have been willing to help destroy a city of Constantinople? If I recall correctly there were some German engineers in the European mercenary section of Ottoman army!!

Edited May 26, 2006 by AEGYPTUS

[Romulus Sicanus]

Well this Turkish(or whatever he was) leader is a bit outve character in some ways, from what I understand he laid claim to the title of Caesar after the fall of Constantinople but couldn't hold onto his coastal possession in Italy. But did load his court with Italian and Greek scholars,artists and other intellectuals. He was dead-set on uniting/reforming the Roman Empire..tad strange.

 

 

Major problem with the Turks they where never able to stop or defeat the Venetian, Genoese and Sicilian fleets(The most powerful in the world at that time) which usually raided and won most naval battles against the Turkish forces.

Edited May 26, 2006 by Romulus Sicanus

[PerfectimusPrime]

I think it could've been highly feasible. Ottoman army was better than anything the western Europeans could throw at them, and despite the lack of control over the mediterranean, the ottoman armies in italy would not be isolated. Europeans didn't fully control the seas either and the ottomans, IIRC did have quite formidable fleets.

 

Anyway, if Turks would have landed to italy with sizable armies, I think Ottomans could have reached and conquered Rome, but probably would have not controlled it for long.

 

This is not really my speciality in history, however.

Edited May 26, 2006 by PerfectimusPrime

[AEGYPTUS]

Well this Turkish(or whatever he was) leader is a bit outve character in some ways, from what I understand he laid claim to the title of Caesar after the fall of Constantinople but couldn't hold onto his coastal possession in Italy. But did load his court with Italian and Greek scholars,artists and other intellectuals. He was dead-set on uniting/reforming the Roman Empire..tad strange.

 

Mehmet grew up in Edrine (Adrinanople) he grew up very familiar with Greek and Roman works. He was absolutely fascinated by their cultures. Yes he also claim the title of Caesar. His dieing ambition was to conquer Rome. Also after the siege all the slaves he got (Greeks) he forced them to resettle in Constantinople (Istanbul) which is rather strange as these people would despise him for destroying their city!! However according to the book I just read by Roger Crowley during the looting Mehmet had troops posted outside the church of the Holy Apostle to prevent soldiers from looting it. Bizarre considering he worshiped an opposing religion. He kept many Greeks inside the city and believe it or not persevered to keep Istanbul as multi cultural as physically possible. However his successor did not agree and imposed heavy taxes on Christians through out the city.

[Neos Dionysos]

However according to the book I just read by Roger Crowley during the looting Mehmet had troops posted outside the church of the Holy Apostle to prevent soldiers from looting it. Bizarre considering he worshiped an opposing religion.

 

I doubt there was much to take anyway, all of the riches and relics were plundered when the Crusaders sacked the city in 1204.

[AEGYPTUS]

Very true. Mehmet gave them three days of looting but the city was effectively sacked in one. All the riches as you said had been taken 1204. Material that is. Citizens were the major form of wealth left in the city as in Slaves!!! The Churches and monasteries had the most of Constantinople's expensive items Chalices etc... So they were all marked out as major targets when little or nothing was found in the houses. The Relic Hodegetria depicting Mary and infant the most sacred of Constantinople relics was hacked into four pieces to be melted down. Which is rather sad really as this Relic had been marched along the city walls on many occasions previous to 1453 and is said to have been the reason why the city had never fallen. So a major part of the city history was lost in a sense.

Edited May 27, 2006 by AEGYPTUS

[Kosmo]

The most important trade roads were not thru the ottoman teritory when he took Byzantium, but thru the mameluk holdings in Egipt and Siria. When they conquered this regions the portuguese were already established in the Indian Ocean. The ottomans tried to expand in that area, but were defetead on the indian west coast and their allies in Ethiopia (Galla) and Sumatera (Aceh).

They also had troubles in Irak with the shia persians that kept them out of the Persian Golf (where the portuguese were already strong)

They had control on the trade routes in the Black Sea and Aegean, but slowly this trade moved westward with the opening of atlantic routes.

For example Genoa that had many cities, islands and a lot of trade in this areas started to trade a lot with the portugues and the spanish in the West. The northern route that connected Tana and Caffa north of the Black Sea with India and China was closed as the portuguse opened the more efficient sea routes.

 

Metternich said "Asia begins at Landstrasse" the road from Viena to Buda. It's impossible to point to a eastern border for Europe, but Hungary and Poland were peripheric to the Western civilisation.

[AEGYPTUS]

I thought the city was important for trade reasons that is how it accumalate all of it riches in the first place. I am not disagreeing with you but when did trade start to move further west?

[Basil II Bulgaroctonus]

This "What if" is a long shot. War never turns out the way it's "supposed" to. We'll never know if Western Europe would have unified and faced the common threat, or if they would have fallen piece by piece.

 

If the Ottomans wanted to attack Rome, they would have had to face the Genoan and Venitian navies. At the Battle of Otranto they were clearly defeated. They were also repulsed at the Siege of Vienna. Does that mean they wouln't have been able to take Rome if they had persisted? Not necessarily, but the fact that they chose to abandon the Western European campaign says something of their ability to strike deep into the heart of the West.

Edited August 21, 2006 by Basil II Bulgaroctonus

[AEGYPTUS]

However I think it is important to mention that the Ottomans must have had a relatively good fleet as the did conquer many islands belonging to the Venetians throughout the eastern Mediterranean having said that many of their sailors were eastern Europeans. I would say I would have to agree it is a long shot but I thought it would make an interesting topic that would spark some form of debate.

Edited September 2, 2006 by AEGYPTUS