How might history have changed if Constantinople didn't

It would have fallen in 1454 instead. Seriously after 1204 the empire was already doomed.

>>3218529
Rome was the miry clay

Psalm 40:2 He brought me up also out of a horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock and established my goings.

They built the roads for the establishment of the good news.

>>3218529
I don't think you have any idea how much done the Byzantine Empire was in the 1400s.

This was literally all that was left.

File: Byzantine Empire 1450.png (310KB, 1024x970px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1024x970px

>>3218562
Forgot my picture

The fall of constantinople was just the Ott*mans hammering the nail in the coffin

>>3218529
it would've fallen eventually, the fall in 1453 was the Ottoman's third time trying to take the city, with two failed attempts in 1411 and 1422. There just would've been a 4th, 5th, 6th try and so on until it finally cracked.

You better add "if the fourth crusade didn't happen" or the empire would've fell shortly anyway

>>3218749
>if the fourth crusade didn't happen..
..The venetians and normans would still have eventually come to rek the empire.
Seriously, the ERE spent most of the 12th century losing wars to italians and normans, yet kept alienating them. A reckoning would have happened regardless of the 4th crusade.
Then again, maybe a veneto-norman conquest might have meant a far more stable latin empire, given the close proximity to the peninsula. That could have led to a stronger aegean region by the time the ottomans came around.

>>3218529
Probably would've sold it to the Venetians so it wouldn't be taking by Turks.

>>3218529
>Greeks in charge of the """""Roman Empire"""""
>gets anally violated by Turks
Nothing of value was lost.

I think a better question would be, "What if the Byzantines had capitalized more on Timur's destruction of the Ottomans." In that immediate aftermath, the Byzantines had a real chance to bounce back and at least re-establish themselves as a local power.

>>3218551
That's absolutely incorrect. The empire was pretty much recoverable until 1341.

>>3219252
How do you expect a depopulated, destitute, and destroyed empire to come back after the destruction of the fourth crusade? By the time the ottomans were knocking, the empire was primarily fighting with catalan mercenaries, there was no professional armies left, the byzantines were a shadow of a shadow of their former selves.

>>3219267
>depopulated, destitute, and destroyed empire
The empire was fielding armies in the 50k men range in the 13th century against the bulgars, destroyed my arse.
The 4th crusade only ravaged Constantinople itself, the rest of the empire was untouched.

No renaissance and therefore no enlightenment meaning us being buttfucking farmers for eternity.
Also no reason to look for a new world

>>3218529
Not much. Like maybe Mehmet decides that a siege is just too costly and just puts up with a tiny Greek enclave in the middle of his expanding empire. He keeps them penned in with threats of "You fuck with me, and I'll kill you all" and just conquers the rest of Greece and the islands. The trend of depopulation would continue by the boatload. Eventually what's left of Constantinople would become a vassal state out of sheer necessity, and the Ottomans get Istanbul, just 30 to 50 years later.

File: Byzantium1204.jpg (12KB, 431x300px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 431x300px

>>3219290
>The 4th crusade only ravaged Constantinople itself, the rest of the empire was untouched.
The "Rest of the Empire" saw local leaders carving up private fiefdoms that after the demise of the Latin Empire, the Byzantines went around to put down/convince to join back to the empire. It was a mess *mike bump.*