Population of the final days of the Byzantine Empire?

[Zardnaar]

Say from 1400 onwards? I can't seem to find a population estimate for the Morea except one from 1600 or so when the turks rules it (200 000).

Constantinople had around 50 000 at the time the Turks captured it. Unless there was some sort of population explosion or retraction between 1453-1600 or so I would guesstimate that the Byzantines likely had a population of no more than 500 000 (and probably less) being generous which would reflect the population loss of the Turks enslaving the Greeks and shipping people from the Morea back to Constantinople. The intervening 150 odd years presumably would have seen the popilation recover somewhat but Mistra and the Morea saw people emigrating from Constantinople in the final years of the Byzantines so I have no idea what the total population was.

 

[Dachs]

Say from 1400 onwards? I can't seem to find a population estimate for the Morea except one from 1600 or so when the turks rules it (200 000).

Constantinople had around 50 000 at the time the Turks captured it. Unless there was some sort of population explosion or retraction between 1453-1600 or so I would guesstimate that the Byzantines likely had a population of no more than 500 000 (and probably less) being generous which would reflect the population loss of the Turks enslaving the Greeks and shipping people from the Morea back to Constantinople. The intervening 150 odd years presumably would have seen the popilation recover somewhat but Mistra and the Morea saw people emigrating from Constantinople in the final years of the Byzantines so I have no idea what the total population was.

Nobody else knows what the total population was either. There is an estimate that Nikephoros II's empire contained two million souls in 1312, but that included pretty much all of the parts of Greece that the empire of Manouel II did not, and omitted the parts that Manouel did control. Of the larger cities of the fifteenth-century Empire, you've already mentioned the fifty thousand Constantinopolitans, to which can be added about forty thousand Thessalonikans and thirty thousand Argives (at least, in 1397; when the Ottomans captured the city in that year, they enslaved that many people). Half a million in total population for Constantinople, the Black Sea ports, the Morea (although to what extent that was even a part of the Byzantine Empire is quite debatable), and Thessalonike in the early fifteenth century is quite reasonable, perhaps a bit high.

 

[Zardnaar]

I deliberately aimed high with that estimate as I doubled the population figures I did have which would represent an probable at the most figure. I did have those city figures but IDK how many citizens would live in the surrounding countryside. In the last years maybe the Byzantines had a high % of urbanisation.

Mistra was definately a Byzantine city and had the last works of art produced in the Empire on any great scale. Last surviving art anyway. Constantine XI was despotate of the Morea before he ascended he throne and Mistra seemed to almost be a defacto capital of the Empire.

 

[Dachs]

Mystras' population was never particularly high, though. I've never seen an estimate more than fifteen to twenty thousand. The place is kind of isolated, not really suitable for large urban development.

The fact that the late Byzantine empire had a high percentage of urbanized population is because virtually all of its territory was urban. The Morea, though, was overwhelmingly agricultural, and if you are including that...

 

[Zardnaar]

Na Mistra was never big but the Morea I would argue is undeniably Byzantine. Mistra was a cultural center-artists, scholars etc. 20 000 population may not be large but thats compared to the capital with 50 000 and I think at one point the low was 35000 although that was earlier when the Nicaens recaptured it from the Latins.

 

[Dachs]

Comparing the population of Mystras to that of Constantinople at a historical low point doesn't exactly mean much. It says much more about Constantinople in the later Byzantine Empire than it does about Mystras.

Greek culture had very little to do with the Byzantine state by the fifteenth century, you know that. Politically, it's not clear that the despotes was ever under the Emperor's orders at any given time in the fifteenth and late fourteenth centuries. That's what really matters, right? Otherwise you end up with absurdities like the Ottoman Empire being, in fact, Byzantine.

 

[Zardnaar]

You might want to reevaluate your point about Greek culture not being a part of the Byzantine state. The language was Greek, the orthodox church was Greek and most of the poulation remaining in the Empire was Greek. The roman empire was still referred to as the Roman Empire despite the majority of the population not being ethnic Romans. The last Emperor was also a Despotate of the Morea so if Morea wasn't part of the empire why would they crown a foreigner?

Constantine XI was crowned at Mistra but I suppose you are going to claim he wasn't Greek either

 

[Dachs]

You might want to reevaluate your point about Greek culture not being a part of the Byzantine state. The language was Greek, the orthodox church was Greek and most of the poulation remaining in the Empire was Greek. The roman empire was still referred to as the Roman Empire despite the majority of the population not being ethnic Romans. The last Emperor was also a Despotate of the Morea so if Morea wasn't part of the empire why would they crown a foreigner?

Constantine XI was crowned at Mistra but I suppose you are going to claim he wasn't Greek either

You seem to be very confused. Greek culture was not even a prerequisite of the Byzantine state, which started out supraethnic and retained that fiction to the end, but that is neither here nor there. The fact is that Greek culture was not a monopoly of the Byzantine Empire. It is not as though Greeks ceased to exist outside its ever-shifting borders; it is not as though Greek symbology and iconography was never used by non-Byzantine governments; it is not as though the Orthodox Church only obeyed the writ of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Meat-puppet of the Byzantine Emperor. Saying that the people of the Morea were Greek does not mean that they were Byzantine, because if one says that, one is forced into the lunacy of stating that the Ottoman Empire was also Byzantine, or that the Empire of Trebizond was, or that Catalan Athens was, or that the Epirote state around Arta was. Rubbish.

I think the Trapezuntine situation may have been very similar to that in the Morea. Both places were Greek-speaking and had a lot of back-and-forth with Constantinople; Constantinople interfered with the affairs of both but controlled neither. The fact that the same dynasty ruled Constantinople and the Morea in the fifteenth century is irrelevant. A Valois prince ruled Poland and later ascended to the French throne; nobody would suggest that Poland and France were the same country. And the fact remains that the Emperors in Constantinople never took the Morea into account when creating foreign policy; its men under arms were not employed to Constantinopolitan ends, and no coordination existed between Constantinopolitan government and Morean government. By the fifteenth century, to all intents and purposes, they were separate states.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think you are splittin hairs there as numerous historians have included the Morea as part of the Byzantine Empire in 15th century maps. The Byzantine Empire was decentralised hence numerous provincial armies marching on the capital throughout its history. They didn't have a strong central government throughout the Empires existence. Byzantines rarely put provincial troops in Constantinople and the Turks cut the Morea off from aiding Constantinople in 1453.

 

[Dachs]

I think you are splittin hairs there as numerous historians have included the Morea as part of the Byzantine Empire in 15th century maps.

That does not mean they are correct. Plenty of maps show the Visigoths as being in control of parts of Iberia before the mid-sixth century, even though they weren't; plenty of maps show Chandragupta's Maurya state in control of Baktria even though it wasn't.

I think it's funny that you claim I'm splitting hairs when you're the one who called me out on a caveat that was irrelevant to the point.

The Byzantine Empire was decentralised hence numerous provincial armies marching on the capital throughout its history. They didn't have a strong central government throughout the Empires existence. Byzantines rarely put provincial troops in Constantinople and the Turks cut the Morea off from aiding Constantinople in 1453.

There is a difference between decentralized government and a lack of any governmental ties at all. (I would disagree that the Byzantine state was meaningfully decentralized before the Komnenoi but that's neither here nor there.) In a decentralized state, there's still theoretically some ties between the central authority, such as it exists, and provincial ones. The only meaningful political connection between Constantinople and the Morea was the dynasty of the Palaiologoi (and it was not always a connection), and that is not necessarily a matter of the state at all. This is on a different scale entirely from governors with wide latitude; the status of the Morea may have been more akin to something like a sub-kingdom of the Indohellenic states of the Euthydemoi and Eukratidai or of Anglo-Saxon England - and can one really say that, for instance, Kent was part of Offa's Mercian state?

 

[Zardnaar]

OK most maps if not all maps of the period show the Morea ruled by the Byzantines, their last Emperor came was sent to the Morea to govern it from the capitol and then was crowned their as well. Of course their were difficulties ruling the Morea based on geography but if the the Byzantine Emperor can do this as well and collect tax from the Morea......

Are you saying you know something that Donald M Nicol or John Norwich doesn't?

 

[Karalysia]

Ottoman sources indicate that when Mehmed Fatih entered the impoverished 'city' of Constantinople it was a series of mere villages, having shrunk within it's walls to become 13 separate villages rather than a cohesive city. Which further indicates that the people were poor and in a degraded condition with the Italian colony of Galata on the opposite shore diverting trade and undermining Constantinople unique position and there were occasional riots and massacres of Italians by the city's residents. The Byzantine navy was said to be practically non-existent though the chain across the Golden Horn remained. The city was so impoverished that it was not even able to retain the services of the Hungarian gun-maker Orban who would go on to offer her services to the Ottomans after the Byzantines failed to pay him and he created the Great Gun and other bombards which would be used to seige the city and arm forts like Rumeli Hisari which would strangle any relief attempts. He now has a street named after him in Istanbul. Apparently the Byzantines were unable to fully man the walls during the siege, may sections were left either undefended or manned by only a handful of men. Many of those manning were mercenaries, usually Italians and most amusingly many from Galata. By day they would fight on the walls to defend the city from the Ottomans and at night they would go to the Ottoman camp and sell the Ottomans the oil needed to cool the gun barrels of the cannons bombarding the city.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the thread but I think it shows that the city was in poor shape around 1453.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't think anyone is disputing the impoverished state of Constantinople by 1453. By comparison the Morea was rich and from the mid 14th century onwardss the cultural centre of the empire shifted to Mistra. What did the cities population peak at? I have seen figures of 200K mentioned.

 

[Karalysia]

Not really, when offered the chance by Mehmed Fatih to abandon Constantinople and move to the Morea as a vassal, Constantine XI refused saying something along the lines of "How can I be an Emperor without an empire?" I think you underestimate just how significant Constantinople remained, it was still very much the center of the entire. The Morea also wasn't as important as you're making it out to be, the Ottomans breached the Hexamilion in 1423 under Murad II after Constantine got uppity and tried to mess with Athens and ravaged the area. They would do it again in 1446 conquering it this time. Also the cultural revival you're talking about happened extremely late.

 

[Zardnaar]

Of course Constantinople remained symbolically important and the Morea was a backwater. It was reasonably prosperous though militarily weak. Constantine XI chose to die with his city but he had good reason to believe he could probably hold out. I'm disputing Dachs comment that the Morea wasn't part of the Byzantine Empire.

 

[bombshoo]

Somewhat related, but I remember reading that the Galata quarter actually had a revenue worth more than ten times the revenue of the remaining part of the Byzantine Empire in 1453. Is this actually close to accurate?

 

[Zardnaar]

Not sure if that was accurate but the Genoese and Venetians essentially controlled the Byzantine economy so the X10 figure IDK but yeah the empire was broke. Constantinople and the Morea still got plundered but the state was broke.

 

[Dachs]

Somewhat related, but I remember reading that the Galata quarter actually had a revenue worth more than ten times the revenue of the remaining part of the Byzantine Empire in 1453. Is this actually close to accurate?

The number's actually three times, not ten. Harbor duties (of ten percent) in Constantinople raised some 150,000 nomismata while those in Galata were worth 450,000.

For what it's worth, this represents a greater volume of trade through Constantinople than it had received before in recorded history.

 

[Karalysia]

But if Galata had not existed, then presumably all of that trade would have gone to Constantinople. At any rate the Ottomans burnt Galata some time after taking Constantinople.

 

[Dachs]

Possibly, but perhaps not. Galata was part and parcel of the Genoese Black Sea empire, which was responsible for a great deal of that volume of trade. Take away Galata and one can hardly imagine the Genoese hanging onto Kaffa for any real length of time; collapse the Genoese Black Sea empire like that, and the trade peters out.