06-05-2021, 04:51 PM
It's been done. Howe and Strauss suggested such with some of the best-known events of history and religion such as the Trojan War (at least as recorded in the Iliad and Odyssey) and the Exodus from Egypt. They notice that the Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad are definitely Idealist types and that Alexander was clearly a Civic type.
The problem is that populations in western Europe were small before the early Renaissance., and most of the achievements are slight. I would guess that the Black Death was a really-nasty Crisis Era. Byzantine cycles? Even at that, just see what I wrote about the demise of the Byzantine Empire in a comment page on the topic in Wikipedia:
Pardon the self-praise, but someone had to write this, and I did.
Not to trivialize the significance of the incorporation of what had been a great city of one civilization into another by force...
Not to trivialize the significance of the incorporation of what had been a great city of one civilization into another by force...
It would seem that toward its last years, the Byzantine Empire was no longer a going concern. Contemporary sources must have seen the fall of Constantinople as a shocking event due to the earlier reputation of the Byzantine Empire as an economic and military power, but by 1453 it was at most a city-state and at that practically a remnant of one. Modern scholarship recognizes the demographic realities of Constantinople in its last days the capital of the Byzantine Empire. Its fall was by then a certainty. In view of the declining population and worsening conditions of its inhabitants its intellectual life could not have sustained what it had.
As an intellectual center it was by then at most a relic. Byzantine culture had been taken to Russia and Italy, among other places. Much of the literature of Byzantium was copies, and a few intellectual refugees could not have brought all of it. Byzantine learning had shaped late-medieval intellectual activity in most of Europe long before 1453.
The fall of Constantinople did not itself so cut off the east-west trade between Europe and the Far East as used to be claimed. Columbus' and later voyages to the New World and voyages of Portuguese sailors around the Cape of Good Hope being caused by the Turks controlling the east-west trade routes shows a post hoc fallacy. First, were the contention true, then east-west trade between the Far East and western Europe would have ended long beforehand. Second, the Turks were themselves avid traders, and a country generally sympathetic to Turkey (like Poland or France) would have never noticed a difference. Already surrounded by the Ottoman Empire, Constantinople would have been an inconvenient way-station for any long-distance trade long before 1453. Third, the Ottoman Empire never controlled the Silk Road that lay far to the north of Turkey, an expensive portage between Europe and China whose cost no matter who controlled it made explorations of the New World and southern seas attractive. Pbrower2a (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The importance of the event that, all things considered, the Fall of Constantinople was also the Fall of the Roman Empire. Granted we call it the "Byzantine" Empire, but in reality, it was the Roman Empire. And Constantinople was the moment that the great world changing Empire ceased to be. I would call it significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.212.149 (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The Turks could not cut off trade through the Bosporus because the Genoese controlled the sea and trade routes. For a hundred years before 1453, most of the trade revenues were going through Pera (87%), rather than Constantinople. The Turks had at that time (1453) a rather poor naval fleet, as shown in the sea battle between a few Genoese supply ships, verses dozens of Turkish warships during the siege. I wasn't until Mehmed built the Rumeli Hisari that he could cut the shipping route through the Bosporus by cannon fire. After the fall, Mehmed did cut the route on occasion, sometimes just to provide the point, but when passage was allowed, a heavy toll was placed greatly increasing the cost of goods. This gave western Europeans the incentive to find an alternate route to the Far East as a large part of their tax revenues were collected from the spice/silk trades. Its all in the economics... Dinkytown talk 08:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
European explorers eventually tried to reach India and China through other means because of their loss of Constantinople and Anatolia. The Conquering of Constantinople had an immense effect. 1907AbsoluTurk (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Oversimplistic explanation. The cheapest means of transportation have typically been by sea, followed by rivers and canals. The more predominantly by sea a trade route is (barring piracy) the less expensive it is. The most economical trade route between India and most of of Europe remains from the eastern Mediterranean, through the Suez isthmus (possibly using the Nile delta), the seas around Arabia (Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, and the Arabian Sea) to India. Any land portage is far more expensive than a sea passage of similar length. Today of course that route includes the Suez Canal. This is a major shipping lane today, and it is likely one that the Romans knew well. In the late 15th century the Turks never controlled any part of the land route. The Mamluks rulers of Egypt did throughout that time. If they stopped the transshipment of goods through their territory, then they and not the Ottoman Turks are to be named as the ones who caused Europeans to seek to go East by going West. Second-best was through what are now Syria and Iraq into the Persian Gulf, then into the Arabian Sea. The Turks at most cut off the Black Sea as an approach to the Silk Road, always an expensive way across a huge land mass, and they did so even when Constantinople was still a tiny Greek city-state. Barring a war, few powers stop a lucrative trade that they can tax or otherwise profit from.
Christopher Columbus sought an all-water route to the rich lands of the Far East, as did Vasco Da Gama, Ferdinand Magellan, and Henry Hudson. Costs dictate the routes used in transportation, and profits drive trade. Columbus simply failed to recognize how far the far East was from Spain and of course that there were two continents were in the way. As an impediment to trade between Christian Europe and either India or China, the Fall of Constantinople is vastly overrated. Constantinople falling or not, the Spanish and Portuguese would have been seeking new trade routes through the Atlantic either around Africa or directly west to China. Pbrower2a (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that populations in western Europe were small before the early Renaissance., and most of the achievements are slight. I would guess that the Black Death was a really-nasty Crisis Era. Byzantine cycles? Even at that, just see what I wrote about the demise of the Byzantine Empire in a comment page on the topic in Wikipedia:
Pardon the self-praise, but someone had to write this, and I did.
Not to trivialize the significance of the incorporation of what had been a great city of one civilization into another by force...
Not to trivialize the significance of the incorporation of what had been a great city of one civilization into another by force...
It would seem that toward its last years, the Byzantine Empire was no longer a going concern. Contemporary sources must have seen the fall of Constantinople as a shocking event due to the earlier reputation of the Byzantine Empire as an economic and military power, but by 1453 it was at most a city-state and at that practically a remnant of one. Modern scholarship recognizes the demographic realities of Constantinople in its last days the capital of the Byzantine Empire. Its fall was by then a certainty. In view of the declining population and worsening conditions of its inhabitants its intellectual life could not have sustained what it had.
As an intellectual center it was by then at most a relic. Byzantine culture had been taken to Russia and Italy, among other places. Much of the literature of Byzantium was copies, and a few intellectual refugees could not have brought all of it. Byzantine learning had shaped late-medieval intellectual activity in most of Europe long before 1453.
The fall of Constantinople did not itself so cut off the east-west trade between Europe and the Far East as used to be claimed. Columbus' and later voyages to the New World and voyages of Portuguese sailors around the Cape of Good Hope being caused by the Turks controlling the east-west trade routes shows a post hoc fallacy. First, were the contention true, then east-west trade between the Far East and western Europe would have ended long beforehand. Second, the Turks were themselves avid traders, and a country generally sympathetic to Turkey (like Poland or France) would have never noticed a difference. Already surrounded by the Ottoman Empire, Constantinople would have been an inconvenient way-station for any long-distance trade long before 1453. Third, the Ottoman Empire never controlled the Silk Road that lay far to the north of Turkey, an expensive portage between Europe and China whose cost no matter who controlled it made explorations of the New World and southern seas attractive. Pbrower2a (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The importance of the event that, all things considered, the Fall of Constantinople was also the Fall of the Roman Empire. Granted we call it the "Byzantine" Empire, but in reality, it was the Roman Empire. And Constantinople was the moment that the great world changing Empire ceased to be. I would call it significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.212.149 (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The Turks could not cut off trade through the Bosporus because the Genoese controlled the sea and trade routes. For a hundred years before 1453, most of the trade revenues were going through Pera (87%), rather than Constantinople. The Turks had at that time (1453) a rather poor naval fleet, as shown in the sea battle between a few Genoese supply ships, verses dozens of Turkish warships during the siege. I wasn't until Mehmed built the Rumeli Hisari that he could cut the shipping route through the Bosporus by cannon fire. After the fall, Mehmed did cut the route on occasion, sometimes just to provide the point, but when passage was allowed, a heavy toll was placed greatly increasing the cost of goods. This gave western Europeans the incentive to find an alternate route to the Far East as a large part of their tax revenues were collected from the spice/silk trades. Its all in the economics... Dinkytown talk 08:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
European explorers eventually tried to reach India and China through other means because of their loss of Constantinople and Anatolia. The Conquering of Constantinople had an immense effect. 1907AbsoluTurk (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Oversimplistic explanation. The cheapest means of transportation have typically been by sea, followed by rivers and canals. The more predominantly by sea a trade route is (barring piracy) the less expensive it is. The most economical trade route between India and most of of Europe remains from the eastern Mediterranean, through the Suez isthmus (possibly using the Nile delta), the seas around Arabia (Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, and the Arabian Sea) to India. Any land portage is far more expensive than a sea passage of similar length. Today of course that route includes the Suez Canal. This is a major shipping lane today, and it is likely one that the Romans knew well. In the late 15th century the Turks never controlled any part of the land route. The Mamluks rulers of Egypt did throughout that time. If they stopped the transshipment of goods through their territory, then they and not the Ottoman Turks are to be named as the ones who caused Europeans to seek to go East by going West. Second-best was through what are now Syria and Iraq into the Persian Gulf, then into the Arabian Sea. The Turks at most cut off the Black Sea as an approach to the Silk Road, always an expensive way across a huge land mass, and they did so even when Constantinople was still a tiny Greek city-state. Barring a war, few powers stop a lucrative trade that they can tax or otherwise profit from.
Christopher Columbus sought an all-water route to the rich lands of the Far East, as did Vasco Da Gama, Ferdinand Magellan, and Henry Hudson. Costs dictate the routes used in transportation, and profits drive trade. Columbus simply failed to recognize how far the far East was from Spain and of course that there were two continents were in the way. As an impediment to trade between Christian Europe and either India or China, the Fall of Constantinople is vastly overrated. Constantinople falling or not, the Spanish and Portuguese would have been seeking new trade routes through the Atlantic either around Africa or directly west to China. Pbrower2a (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
