1453/1492

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.

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.

 

 

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.

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.

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.

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.   http://www.sonofthesouth.net/revolutionary-war/explorers/discovering-america-columbus.htm

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

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. 

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.

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.

Edited by pikeshot1600 - 20-Jan-2009 at 22:47

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.