Can anyone name some effects that the Fall of Constantinople had on Europe?
>>325781
It would effectively cripple most of eastern europe (Hungary, Balkans) in the long run
The Greek Empire was already weak for a while, wasn't it?
nothing
>>325781
The Renaissance.
>>325832
Came to post this.
>>325781
Europe was forced to look for other trade routes.
This lead them to discovering the Americas.
The Holy Roman Emperor and the Sultan became enemies, with the Sultan invading Hungary.
Thanks for the answers everybody.
If the Ottomans hadn't taken Constantinople would Spain and Portugal had the necessary incentive to explore alternate routes to India?
+2% cultural tradition per year
-5% technology cost.
+5 prestige
:^)
>>325862
nice meminggggggg
>>325862
xDDDDD
>>325781
Russia became the centre of Eastern Orthodoxy, which would become a defining feature of Russia for the next few centuries.
The Ottomans started to style themselves much more after the Byzantines in just about every way possible.
There was much more interest in new trade routes to India. But that had been going on for some time given that Constantinople wasn't the only gateway between Europe and the silk road.
>>325838
But Venice had a profitable monopoly on trade with the Ottomans.
>>325858
Yes, because the silk road was generally pretty shitty.
>>325995
So, who are the righteous successors of the Romans? Russians? Greeks? Germans? Italians?
>>325781
None, as there was no "Europe" at the time, just many disunited kingdoms and states.
>>326016
But the reason Spain wanted to look for alternate routes is because they were caught up in anti-Muslim fervor after getting rid of, what, the Mores? And they wanted to stick it to the Ottomans.
>>326036
No one and everyone.
There's not a single country in existence with a solid, unbroken and indisputable connection to Rome. But at the same time every culture on the planet can't deny that it is what it is because Rome echoes through it, so everyone who has had contact with a European state succeeds the Romans in some way.
>>326081
Muslims had controlled all silk-road ports to Europe for ages before Constantinople fell. And even then places as far west as Spain would trade for it through Venice anyway.
The real problem was that Portugal controlled the west African trade routes and after conquering Granada the Spanish weren't getting African luxury goods for free anymore. So they wanted to counter Portuguese trade supremacy by having the direct line to South Asia - which also had much coveted resources and luxury goods.
>>326190
Well then why the fuck did they wait that long to look for alternate routes to India?
>>326036
>who are the righteous successors of the Romans
Spiritually, the US.
A strong, federated, imperialistic Europe would have an even bigger claim.
>>326208
Because no one really gave a fuck about buying goods off Muslims.
It's the same reason western states still bought vodka off the USSR.
>>326216
>common law
>spiritual successor to Rome
>>326036
The Vatican.
>>326208
>why the fuck did they wait that long to look for alternate routes to India
Because there needed to be ships strong enough to travel thousands upon thousands of miles without a yard to service them, not an easy feat. Also no real guarantees there would be a viable way around Africa, you might very well be travelling toward certain death by a power of causes. Would you leave Earth right now for a space travel in a ship with limited resources moving ever further from the only known place capable of keeping your ship going without any certainty whatsoever of finding anything in your journey?
>>326221
>no one really gave a fuck about buying goods off Muslims
Also this. Sure it was problematic when they closed the trade during wartime, but really it was not any different from having any other of the inbetweens do the same.
>>326014
Yes, which led West Euros to seek new ways to Eastern markets...
>>326227
Well I'll give you that it's a fairly barbaric system, but aside from that they really fit the bill. They incarnate the "ROME, BITCH!" spirit as well as any nation in history.
>>326272
I like common law.
I just think that civil law is one of the defining features of Rome, and without that, or a Latin language, the only thing Roman about them is that they have a rigid class system. So it's hard to claim that the USA is any more "Roman" than any other western country.
>>326272
Common law is good for an federation, so that separatism doesn't arise.
How come nothing of Byzantine culture features high up in the western canon? (before you protest >>Eastern: Gilgamesh, Holy Bible, etc)
If anything they had more of an advantage than say, Mesopotamians or Abrahamics, since they used Hellenic languages?
>>326249
>Because there needed to be ships strong enough to travel thousands upon thousands of miles without a yard to service them, not an easy feat. Also no real guarantees there would be a viable way around Africa, you might very well be travelling toward certain death by a power of causes. Would you leave Earth right now for a space travel in a ship with limited resources moving ever further from the only known place capable of keeping your ship going without any certainty whatsoever of finding anything in your journey?
I'm going to need you to list off specific naval innovations for that argument to be credible.
>>326036
of the Romans, Moscow. It became the third Rome, with the only surviving blood of Caesar in their royalty. However EVERYONE can dispute EVERYTHING.
>>326446
not the same anon, but the caravel was a uniquely contoured ship that the Portuguese only developed in the 1300s and really took advantage of in the 1400s. They were small and highly maneuverable, but the most important feature was the use of lateen sails, allowing them to "beat" or sail into the wind, and enabling navigation of the more treacherous waters of the Atlantic.
>>326446
1.) Adoption of more advanced navigational techniques, invention of the astrolabe
2.) Adoption and innovation of the lateen sail, probably the most critical part
3.) Advances in hull building, transition from clinker to carvel technique.
>>326036
I would say the ottomans themselves, the people within the empire were the same, most of the institutions were kept and the ottoman royal family had claims due to marriage.
>>326582
between the seljuk, kurdish, bulgar and slav migrations, I wouldn't say that the ottomans were the same peoples as the balkan/anatolian romans tвh
>>326610
Well he seljuks weren't in big enough numbers to alter the genetics of the local populations same with the bulgars but what I meant is that byzantine subjects became ottoman subjects were the majority in the ottoman empire until 1510 when the levant was annexed.
>>326582
I can't recognize the Ottomans as the successors of Rome, it just feels far too foreign
Islamic, which is who Rome lost Egypt and Syria to
Turkish, tribes who came from central asia, the ones who made them lose Anatolia
Literally attacking Constantinople multiple times
It's like saying that if Attila married a Roman noblewoman and started calling himself emperor he'd be legit
Rome died 476, everyone else just tried to live of its glory
>>326746
>It's like saying that if Attila married a Roman noblewoman and started calling himself emperor he'd be legit
If he also inherited the roman institutions and wouldn't dismantle them, he'd be totally legit lad...
>>326746
Well by the time the ottoman empire conquered constantinople the turks had mixed so much that they surely didn't look asian anymore.
Made the Balkans overrun with Muslims.
Byzantine Empire managed to stop the tide of Muslims for over half a millennium.
>>325858
Spain and Portugal had little influence on the trade routes to the eastern Mediterranean.
There were Portuguese expeditions down the western coast of Africa well before the fall of Constantinople.
>>326465
The Princess of the ERE when it fell wasn't a descendant of Caesar.
>>327002
Ottomans had already conquered Bulgaria by the time Constantinople fell
>>326249
>Would you leave Earth right now for a space travel
fucking god damn right i would, how the fuck is that even a question?
>>326558
The following section says that Clinker construction is superior because it can be made lighter than caravel construction.
>>327270
Forgot link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinker_(boat_building)#Comparison_between_clinker_and_carvel
>>327270
>the following section
Which section?
Anyway, I'm no naval engineer, but supposedly:
>In contrast with clinker built hulls, where planked edges overlap, carvel construction gives a stronger hull capable of taking a variety of full-rigged sail plans, albeit one of greater weight. In addition, it enables greater length and breadth of hull and superior sail rigs because of its strong framing, and is one of the critical developments that led to the preeminence of Western European seapower during the Age of Sail and beyond.
I know it's wikipedia, but just google clinker vs carvel and you'll see >9000 links of basically that greentext.
>>327073
Caesar, in the sense anon is using it, is a title rather than actually referring to Julius Caesar.
>>327311
Columbus's caravels weren't big though. They didn't benefit from the large size capabilities.
The head of Eastern orthodoxy went to Russia.
The Byzantine refugees went to Italy bringing their art and technology
Portugal and Spain who were pressured by ottoman control of the eastern Mediterranean, thus giving them control over many of the trade routes from the far east. So the portugese and Spain set out westward in an attempt to get to the far east. Thus leading to the discovery of the Americas.
>>327366
that's just like, your opinion
Santa Maria was a carrack and quite big for a non-galley in those days and the other two were small caravels, but with lateen sails.
Now contrast that with a 14th century cog...
>>327436
>that's just like, your opinion
How is it my opinion? Columbus's ships weren't larger than previously built clinker ships.
>>327436
oh, I forgot the inb4 of you replying with Peter von Danzig or something like that, those vessels were exceptional
>>327455
I think you're focusing too much on size though.
The point of carvel construction, as I understand it, is that it enabled stronger hulls, which were much more capable of surviving oceanic conditions.
It's also just one of the factors.
>>327469
Okay.
>>325832
>>325833
>>325834
