Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
eaglecap
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
|
Quote Reply
Topic: 1453/1492 Posted: 15-Jan-2009 at 19:44 |
I wonder if 1453 had not happened, the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire, if 1492 would either had been delayed or never happened??
The Ottoman cut of the trade routes for the west so they started to look for other ways to reach the Orient. I tend to believe it would have been delayed. I know the Vikings were there earlier but if 1492 had been delayed then who would be taking the credit today for the discovery of the Americas?
This would make a good study
|
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jan-2009 at 19:59 |
1492 would likely have happened anyway. It was not the capture of Constantinople which restricted trade, but the erection of forts by the Bosphorus and Dardenelles straits in 1452. And that was only trade to the Black Sea.
In the Levant we have both Turks and Mamelukes already established and continuing to expand at the expense of the Italian cities and their colonies (especially in the case of the Turks).
The incentive to find a new route to the East already existed, and I doubt the survival of a moribund Greek citadel in the Marmara would have removed the incentive the Iberians had to set sail.
|
|
eaglecap
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jan-2009 at 20:09 |
straits in 1452. And that was only trade to the Black Sea.
Thanks Constantine- I know what your are talking about- Rumeli Hisari and the other castle built by Mehmed's grandfather on the Asis minor side. Rumeli Hisari was built prior to the siege for both cutting off grain supplies to Contantinople and cutting the Italian trade into the Black Sea region. I think Mehmed built this castle as a precursor for the siege. I also know that the slaughter of Greeks by the Turks when this castle was built angered Constantine XI.
It would take a much deeper study to really come to a good standing theory.
For anyone in a medieval grad program this could make a nice thesis paper. I wish I had the time!!
|
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jan-2009 at 23:22 |
I agree that the maritime nations would have found their alternative routes for securing eastern trade regardless of 1453. The fall of Constantinople was only an exclamation point on what had already occurred, as Constantine observed.
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jan-2009 at 23:39 |
The Ottomans get too much credit for Spanish explorations. Truth of the matter is that it was Columbus' curiosity and determination that set sails in motion. The Genoese colonies and the Comnene kingdom of Trebizond and Moldavia , in the Black Sea regions, were not important trade centers for the Portugese or the Spaniards and by the time of 1492 the Black Sea was in Ottoman administration. As was the case in the late 1490's Europeans were not above seeking Ottoman aide against there own enemies. Milan and Naples against the Venetians for instance. Yet not much of a bearing on Queen Isabella.
Ottoman forts had been built by Beyazit 1 and Mehmed the Conqueror. This was necessary to secure transport and passage to and from Asian and European shores. Gallipoli was the other sea route. Lest we forget, it was the opportunist Byzantines, Serbians and Anatolian Kingdoms that took advantage of the Ottomans during the interregnum after the latter's defeat at the hands of Timur. The Byzantines routinely instigated sedition against Ottoman resurgence by supporting the one brother against another for their own purposes. Came down to an Ottoman victory over the Crusaders at the Battle of Varna in 1444 that sealed the fate of the Balkans and the instigative Byzantines of Constantinople. The power struggle between Ottoman veziers and beylerbeyis also had a prominant role in the following years. Hawks versus doves.
More on Columbus.
Edited by Seko - 15-Jan-2009 at 23:41
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 00:42 |
In 1453 the main eastern trade routes ran through Mamluke Egypt. So the fall of Constantinople is hardly applicable to the routes that later made the Portuguese rich. Finding new trade routes would still have been favourable to the Iberians in order to break the Egypt-Italian control of the routes.
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 00:51 |
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim
In 1453 the main eastern trade routes ran through Mamluke Egypt. So the fall of Constantinople is hardly applicable to the routes that later made the Portuguese rich. Finding new trade routes would still have been favourable to the Iberians in order to break the Egypt-Italian control of the routes. |
Perhaps Egypt-Venetian control. Once the Portuguese got into the Indian Ocean, the Venetians did their best to damage their interests, and frequently with the assistance of Moslem trading and shipping interests.
|
|
Akolouthos
Sultan
Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 01:50 |
As it has already been noted, I'll simply chime in with a bit of agreement. There were already exploration efforts underway before the fall of Constantinople, and they accelerated as much to get around the decaying Italian monopoly on trade with the Far East as for any other reason.
-Akolouthos
|
|
Beylerbeyi
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 12:23 |
The Ottoman cut of the trade routes for the west so they started to look for other ways to reach the Orient. |
Another shining example of eaglecrap. Ottomans did not cut any trade routes for 'the West'. Ottomans did all they could for centuries to keep the East-West trade routes open through the Mediterranean, because they made a lot of money from it. Of course they replaced Venice and Genoa in the Black Sea trade, but tell me which new trade routes did Venice discover?
Countries that did have no access or limited access to the Mediterranean trade were the ones who wanted to cut the traditional trade routes. Portugal, England, Holland were the main ones. Spain, also being in the Western end of the sea had limited access to the Eastern trade, as it came through the Ottoman Empire and went through Ragusa, Venice and Genoa.
In earlier times the Portuguese were the worst offenders (or the most successful depending on your profits from Med trade) in this aspect. They even blockaded the Hurmuz strait and Ottomans had to attack them all the way to India to re-open the East-West trade routes... Whoever came up with this 'Ottomans cut the trade routes' has intestines in his skull instead of brains to portray this as a war between religions. The Portuguese would have founded the new trade routes even if the old trade routes were controlled by the Kingdom of Heaven ruled by Jesus himself.
|
|
Reginmund
Arch Duke
Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 13:03 |
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi
Whoever came up with this 'Ottomans cut the trade routes' has intestines in his skull instead of brains to portray this as a war between religions.
|
I believe it's simply an exaggeration of the fact that the Ottomans, like anyone else, placed certain demands on ships that passed through their seas, and these are never popular. It wouldn't make sense for them to cut off the trade route unless they pursued an isolationist policy, which as far as I know the Ottomans never did.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 18:12 |
Of course neither the Ottomans nor the Mamelukes nor the Italians had any interest in "cutting" trade. The point is though, they were all middlemen. States which made the process of delivery that bit more expensive by levying charges on it going through their land or waterways.
The Ottomans weren't cutting trade, but they were expanding the bureaucratic and naval means to levy charges on it. The middleman was getting better at taking his share of the pie, so the West Europeans (who were at almost the very end of the delivery chain) naturally wanted to cut the middlemen (including the Italians and Egyptians, not to mention the increased costs resulting from Barbary pirates) out of that. I am not saying this was even a primary reason for finding a new route east, but it was certainly a considerable incentive in its own right.
Edited by Constantine XI - 16-Jan-2009 at 18:15
|
|
eaglecap
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 18:25 |
Originally posted by Seko
The Ottomans get too much credit for Spanish explorations. Truth of the matter is that it was Columbus' curiosity and determination that set sails in motion. The Genoese colonies and the Comnene kingdom of Trebizond and Moldavia , in the Black Sea regions, were not important trade centers for the Portugese or the Spaniards and by the time of 1492 the Black Sea was in Ottoman administration. As was the case in the late 1490's Europeans were not above seeking Ottoman aide against there own enemies. Milan and Naples against the Venetians for instance. Yet not much of a bearing on Queen Isabella.
Ottoman forts had been built by Beyazit 1 and Mehmed the Conqueror. This was necessary to secure transport and passage to and from Asian and European shores. Gallipoli was the other sea route. Lest we forget, it was the opportunist Byzantines, Serbians and Anatolian Kingdoms that took advantage of the Ottomans during the interregnum after the latter's defeat at the hands of Timur. The Byzantines routinely instigated sedition against Ottoman resurgence by supporting the one brother against another for their own purposes. Came down to an Ottoman victory over the Crusaders at the Battle of Varna in 1444 that sealed the fate of the Balkans and the instigative Byzantines of Constantinople. The power struggle between Ottoman veziers and beylerbeyis also had a prominant role in the following years. Hawks versus doves.
More on Columbus.
|
This is good info Seko- will read it more carefully later. I think it would still take a lot more research to come to a conclusion but maybe the conclusion of such a thesis would state that it did not cbhange things, 1492 still would have happened. I know much of the trade from the east came through the Dardenelles via the Black Sea and after the fall the Ottoman Empire controlled that trade and were not in peacful relations with much of the Christian west but many of the European powers were also at odds with each other. I need to find the time to read each post and thanks to all of you.
I wonder what the primary sources for this perioda are? Since it is after the Ottoman period.
I am still working on the fictional account of the fall of Constantinople 1453 and after that I am formulating a fictional account about the Cycladic period and early Meso American history. hmmm lead to another question???
I copied, pasted and saved all of your comments so I can review later on my home computer.
Edited by eaglecap - 16-Jan-2009 at 19:41
|
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
|
|
erkut
General
Persona non Grata
Joined: 18-Feb-2006
Location: T.R.N.C.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 965
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2009 at 14:43 |
Originally posted by eaglecap
I know the Vikings were there earlier but if 1492 had been delayed then who would be taking the credit today for the discovery of the Americas?
|
|
|
Reginmund
Arch Duke
Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2009 at 21:51 |
Just rewatched Ridley Scott's movie 1492 starring Depardieu. In it Columbus explicitly says one of the reasons for finding a western route to India is because the Turks are blocking all Christian vessels.
|
|
eaglecap
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 20:35 |
Originally posted by Reginmund
Just rewatched Ridley Scott's movie 1492 starring Depardieu. In it Columbus explicitly says one of the reasons for finding a western route to India is because the Turks are blocking all Christian vessels.
|
I read an article that supported this premise but I am not sure if I can find it again but I have yet to try. I cannot remember the exact dates of Mehmed's life or when he died but he was not on peaceful terms with the west. I still say it would take a lot of research to really come to a good theory either way. It could become A&E's first joint book- !!
Such a thesis would have to span the 14th, 15th centries and include both Ottoman, late Byzantine, and western European history, Genoa, Venice, Spain,Portugal etc.
Thanks for all the opinions
|
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
|
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned
Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 20:48 |
1492 may not have happened ... however ... 1497, the discovery of the mainland by John Cabot, probably would have been unimpacted. Cabot wasn't looking for a route to India or even land to colonize; he was just looking for new fishing grounds.
|
|
eaglecap
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 22:29 |
Originally posted by edgewaters
1492 may not have happened ... however ... 1497, the discovery of the mainland by John Cabot, probably would have been unimpacted. Cabot wasn't looking for a route to India or even land to colonize; he was just looking for new fishing grounds. |
I never heard of him before- hmmm
I should look him up- any links???
|
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 22:42 |
Giovan Caboto, a Genoese (or maybe Venetian) mariner, was hired by English interests (not sure if they were merchant or royal) to explore west of Greenland. I was not aware that he was looking specifically for new fishing grounds, but perhaps he accomplished that.
He has been referred to as John Cabot in English texts. He was hardly Columbus or Magellan, and I think he was lost at sea just a few years after the 1497 voyage.
Edited by pikeshot1600 - 20-Jan-2009 at 22:47
|
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned
Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 23:11 |
Both private merchants and royal. He was commissioned by Henry VII but had additional funding from Bristol fishing fleets.
He was the first to discover the mainland of the Americas ... and did find rich new fishing grounds, the Grand Banks, probably the richest fishery on the planet.
|
|
Maharbbal
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jan-2009 at 02:36 |
I agree that if it hadn't been Columbus Cabot and Cabral would have found the Americas anyway.
More importantly, 1453 changed next to nothing in the spice trade since most of the goods the Venetians brought to Europe came from Mameluk-controlled Alexandria and Syria.
The influence 1453 may have had on Columbus is to convince him that a crusade should be launch to regain Constantinople and for that a lot of money was needed, diverting the spice trade was a good way to get it.
|
I am a free donkey!
|
|