Would Constatinople have been captured without artillery?

Constantinople had been besieged by Persians, Arabs, and Turks, but neither were able to take the city until the cannon was invented.

Would Constatinople have fallen if the cannon wasnt invented, or if the Turks didnt have the cannon?

I do not think so.  Walls and castles then were not built to with stand cannon fire, and the Turks, using cannons, easily destroyed the walls.

Yes, the cannon of that was very inferior, but it was still more powerful than trebutchets or catapults.

Later on, after the invention of the cannon, castles and walls were not only built stronger, but were built to absorb the impact of cannon balls, so that they would do less damage.

I dont believe that Constantinople would have fallen had it not been for the cannons.

Many people had tried in the past but were unsuccessful. Even Turks could not take Constatinople without the cannon the first time.

Even artillery is not enough by itself, naval dominance is needed for such a conquest either

When the Turks besieged Constantinople in 1453, the city didn't fall till the Ottoman navy entered into Golden Horn, which was protected from foreign ships' entrance with thick chains.

Constantinople had been besieged many times, by Huns, Bulgars, Avars, Umayyads and Ottoman Sultan Y�ld�r�m Bayezid, none was able to achieve the success of conquest of this wondrous city,which had huge fortified walls, without roaring artillery and naval power.

Well what Komnenos meant was, it was gonna fall sooner or later... If it wasn't in 1453, it would be in 1525 or 1614 for example

Byzantine Empire at that time had been reduced just to a city state of Constantinople. And at that time Ottomans came and ordered huge cannons to be built by the Hungarian artillery master Urban, and constructed a navy and passed it to Golden Horn by sliding it with the help of wet woods, from the land...And as technology was developing, it was gonna fall sooner or later.

it has nothing to do with cannons.

first Arabs were able to take constantinople in the 9th centurey and there was peace treaty between the Queen and the Caliph that the Queen to pay a sum of gold every year to keep the Caliphs army away from attacking Constantinople.

then the Crusaders did conquere Constantinople in the 11th century and there were no cannons.

the turks couldve taken constantinople at earlier time but again there were peace treaties that made them away from it.

look at these maps and see how easly it was for the turk to take it but they didnt.

the above map is when the Ottoman started rising and you can see under Sultan Mehmet the first they already took the lands after constantinople. its like a city in the middle of the empire. this is 1382 AD.

1430, the ottomans got bigger and stronger, why do you think they left constantinople in the middle free like that?

1470

Are you suggesting that at this point in history, if the Latin Empire of Constantinople was still in existance, it would have been in a better political position to recieve aid that would have ensured its survival?