No Ottoman Empire: What happens in Germany? The Balkans?

Hermanubis · Jul 9, 2005

Alright, so we’ve seen this before, right? The Byzantines hold out, or the IV Crusade never happens, or the Bulgarians crush the Latin Empire early on (and so the Byzantine Empire pretty much gets a Bulgarian dynasty), or the Christian powers destroy the Ottoman Empire early on, ext… Well, there are lots of ways, but what happens after that?

Mostly looking at the Balkans and Germany here. Seems like the Austrian Empire might not get a chance to form, if not for the Ottomans. Will there be a Hungarian Empire, like the Austrian Empire? Would the Poles and Germans not let that happen?

Yes, seen some TLs with this, but sometimes its glossed over, or is covered by the unlikely central focus of the TL, or the author just picks something. But what do you think is the most likely thing that could happen? Any Ideas?

Dave Bender · Jul 9, 2005

Reduced Ottoman Empire

I do not think the Ottomans will be eliminated. But if Constantinople holds out the Ottomans may not cross over into Thrace and Greece. This leaves the Byzantine empire as a regional power in the Balkans. Could make for some interesting politics in Eastern Europe.

Hermanubis · Jul 9, 2005

Yeah, that’s fine, but what do you think is *MOST* likely to happen?

JimmyJimJam · Jul 9, 2005

Maybe the Balkans end up looking more like Germany and Italy in the 19th century--many different little states sharing a common heritage on some level (Byzantine)--rather than being so "balkanized"?

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Jul 9, 2005

Dave Bender said:
I do not think the Ottomans will be eliminated. But if Constantinople holds out the Ottomans may not cross over into Thrace and Greece. This leaves the Byzantine empire as a regional power in the Balkans. Could make for some interesting politics in Eastern Europe.

If there's no 4th Crusade, there would be no Ottomans.

I would project no Hapsburg major power, and Hungary a much larger player. The "Hapsburg Mission" was to save Europe from the Ottomans, and would not have gained a long-term hold on Hungary without the Muslim threat.

Nicole · Jul 9, 2005

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
If there's no 4th Crusade, there would be no Ottomans.

I would project no Hapsburg major power, and Hungary a much larger player. The "Hapsburg Mission" was to save Europe from the Ottomans, and would not have gained a long-term hold on Hungary without the Muslim threat.

Well, is it possible that Rudolf von Habsburg may be elected Holy Roman Emperor anyway? This still at least gives them Austria and I believe Styria (Assuming he can pull off his OTL battles)... Of course, I agree that Hungary would probably not unite with Austria without the Ottoman threat..

Chengar Qordath · Jul 10, 2005

Imajin said:
Well, is it possible that Rudolf von Habsburg may be elected Holy Roman Emperor anyway? This still at least gives them Austria and I believe Styria (Assuming he can pull off his OTL battles)... Of course, I agree that Hungary would probably not unite with Austria without the Ottoman threat..

It is certainly possible Rudolf could win the election, but with the Hapsburgs only have Austria and Styria they are hardly going to be in a position to domite the HRE as they did in OTL. Without Hungary the Hapsburgs probably never take much of an interest in the Balkans, and focus more on gaining territroy, power, and influence in the Empire.

I have to agree Hungary is probably going to keep it's independence without the Ottomans, barring some other non-Christian power duplicating the Ottoman accomplishments. As I recall there was a fair amount of Protestantism in Hungary in OTL, anyone who knows more on the subject care to comment on the viability of a Protestant Hungary?

htgriffin · Jul 10, 2005

Hermanubis said:
Alright, so we’ve seen this before, right? The Byzantines hold out, or the IV Crusade never happens, or the Bulgarians crush the Latin Empire early on (and so the Byzantine Empire pretty much gets a Bulgarian dynasty), or the Christian powers destroy the Ottoman Empire early on, ext… Well, there are lots of ways, but what happens after that?

Mostly looking at the Balkans and Germany here. Seems like the Austrian Empire might not get a chance to form, if not for the Ottomans. Will there be a Hungarian Empire, like the Austrian Empire? Would the Poles and Germans not let that happen?

Yes, seen some TLs with this, but sometimes its glossed over, or is covered by the unlikely central focus of the TL, or the author just picks something. But what do you think is the most likely thing that could happen? Any Ideas?

Here are a few Thoughts (assuming there is a pre Angeli POD):

Without the whole millet setup providing a barrier between the native communities and ruling classes... we are looking at creeping Hellinisation in the Eastern and Southern Balkans going far faster than OTL's Turkification. By the 19th century (barring any massive disruptions or extreme stupidity) Serbo-Croatian will be the only south-slavic language not on the edge of extinction and Greek will be spoken by most of the populace in OTL Bulgaria.

Hungary... a lot would depend on how strong the cultural links downriver remain and to what degree the Pope tries to pull rank (Autocepahly can be quite a tempting lure). It could well remain an overland bridge between the Germano-Latin East and the Rhomaioi.

That being said, anything as organised as OTL's Mongol Invasion getting that far will smash the Kingdom of Saint Stephen to bits. If the Duke of Austria is ready/willing to take advantage....

HTG

Hermanubis · Jul 10, 2005

Thanks for contributing, guys…

wkwillis · Jul 10, 2005

Creeping Hellenisation of the Balkans. Conflict between Russia and the Ukraine could be modified so that Russia is smaller and the Ukraine is larger. Russia still gets Siberia, though. Poland might have a different size, too, since Russia is no longer the dominant power. They wind up with what is now Belarussia? The big three Slavic powers? Byzantium would like the eastern and northern borders to be stable so they can concentrate on the south.
Do the Ottomans get any part of Anatolia at all? The Turkestanni region may be restricted to the transCaucausus areas if Byzantium survives.

serebryakov · Jul 10, 2005

O-oh... enough's enough.
> Conflict between Russia and the Ukraine
What conflict, pray tell me? If you're speaking about last century -- it's meaningless, because so many things will be butterflied away, and before that there could not be any such conflict because there was no such thing as independent Ukraine. It simply _was not_. (It sort of presupposes independence: "a conflict between Poland and somebody" does presuppose it was going on either before its last partition or after WWI, does it not?)
In fact, if you take the Ottoman Empire out of the equation, things would grow in exactly the opposite way: Muscovy would crush Khanate of Crimea much quicker, and that would give it both another expansion vector -- to the south, to gain hold on Black Sea, and real heap big problems with Poland (strictly saying, Rzeczpospolita -- Poland-Lithuania). I would not bet on the outcome either way. If Poland wins, maybe you will get at some point an authonomous Ruthenia (sort of tripartite monarchy: Poland-Lithuania-Ruthenia

) in place of the Ukraine, but again, I would not place any bets.
But either way that --
>Russia still gets Siberia, though.
does not hold water. Exactly the opposite: most of Siberia will remain an unconquered wilderness up to XIX century. You may expect local states sprouting. Maybe they would still fall into Russian sphere of influence. And maybe not -- it depends on what's going on in Europe.

wkwillis · Jul 10, 2005

You are right. The Russians were just another group of Slavs. So the Russians go straight into the Balkans and become the Serbs, and the Serbs hang a left and go to what is now Kiev, and then some of them go to what is now Moscow and settle Siberia eventually. Or something like that.
But whoever gets the Kiev and Moscow and Warsaw sites is still going to fight it out with each other and Byzantium.

JHPier · Jul 10, 2005

I'm sorry to hijack this thread but I have this very rough outline for a TL based on this very notion

In 1371 there were two battles on the Maritsa river in which the Ottomans defeated their christian Balkan enemies, first the Bulgarians and later in the year a coalition of southern Serbian princes. It was the last occasion at which the Turks could have been stopped and expelled again from Europe. At the time the Turks in Europe had been largely cut off from the Turks in Asia, since a Crusading force under the Duke of Savoy had retaken Gallipolli for the Byzantine Empire.

What would have followed if either battle had gone in favor of the Christians depends on which one. If the Bulgarians had won they would have become the main power on the Balkans again. If it had been the Serbians, given the penchant for division among the successors of Stephen Dushan, it is more probably that Thrace would have rurned in one or more petty kingdoms. This leaves a lot of possibilities: Bulgarians, Serbians, or Albanians gaining an empire under Skanderbeg (or whatever he's called in this TL); or none of these three gaining dominance.
Further south the Greeks of Mystra were getting quite good at capturing Frankish castles, conquering nearly the entire Peloponnese before the Ottomans turned up. No reason why they couldn't conquer the Duchy of Athens as well and persist as a separate state - unless someone unified the Balkans.

Hungary would not have to concentrate on its southern border, meaning it would retain control of the Bohemian Crown. Both the Bohemian lands and Hungary historically favored the Reformation, so there would in time be a Protestant majority in the Electoral College of the Holy Roman Empire, leading to the election of a Protestant Emperor, probably the kong of Bohemia-Hungary. By the end of the 16C Austria (well at least Upper and Lower Austria) also appears to have been in majority Protestant. Possibly there is a war which results in the Crown of Bohemia adding Austria to its dominions.

Further east Tamerlane would still have come and gone. Uzun Hassan of the White Sheep Turks would probably still have risen to prominence, maybe conquering all of Anatolia. There'd still be a Safavid-like Shia reaction in Iran at some point which is probably going to enjoy more success in expanding westward than against the Ottomans, making Baghdad and Diyarbakir Shi'ite cities

Without the Ottomans spreading artillery in the Middle East, Baybars may not have any, preventing the rise of the Mughal Empire.

Algiers would never be a great city but a small Castilian outpost like Oran. Algeria would remain split between Tlemcen and Constantine, periodically subject to the rulers of Morocco and Tunisia resp.

Without the need to fight the ottomans in the Mediterranean, the habsburgs would have been able to devote their financial resources to subduing the Dutch Revolt, thereby avoiding the bankruptcy of 1576, which ruined their position in the Low Countries, requiring them to start again practically from scratch in OTL. Thus the Revolt would be crushed by ca.1590.
There would be no Armada, Elizabeth would not have dared to offend Philip II; the likes of Francis Drale would have found themselves prevented from sailing or clapped in the Tower.
Amsterdam would never acquire the central position in Europe's commerce it got in OTL, but be known as the Faithful City. London would get that position thanks to the Dutch Protestant Diaspora. Dutch refugees would be used to colonize Ireland, giving a quite different meaning to the phrase Ulster Orangeman. Possibly some leaders of the Dutch Diaspora might have an interesting converation with Sir Walter Raleigh concerning the prospects of a colony on the other side of the Atlantic.

Hermanubis · Jul 10, 2005

Interesting… discussion in previous threads seemed to suggest that with out the Ottomans, Protestantism wouldn’t do quite as well, seems you think differently…

serebryakov · Jul 11, 2005

wkwillis said:
You are right. The Russians were just another group of Slavs.... Or something like that.
But whoever gets the Kiev and Moscow and Warsaw sites is still going to fight it out with each other and Byzantium.

No it's not. Here we go again. You seem to think for some unholy reason that Kiev was an independent centre of power at the time -- it was not. In fact, most of the territory we consider Ukrainian today was at the time an empty waste populated by semi-nomad slavers preying on Slavic marchland (that's what Ukraine means, if you do not know -- the March, or Land's end). If anything, Warsaw, Moscow and Constantinople would fight _over_ it.

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Jul 11, 2005

I would agree with this entirely.

htgriffin said:
Here are a few Thoughts (assuming there is a pre Angeli POD):

Without the whole millet setup providing a barrier between the native communities and ruling classes... we are looking at creeping Hellinisation in the Eastern and Southern Balkans going far faster than OTL's Turkification. By the 19th century (barring any massive disruptions or extreme stupidity) Serbo-Croatian will be the only south-slavic language not on the edge of extinction and Greek will be spoken by most of the populace in OTL Bulgaria.

Hungary... a lot would depend on how strong the cultural links downriver remain and to what degree the Pope tries to pull rank (Autocepahly can be quite a tempting lure). It could well remain an overland bridge between the Germano-Latin East and the Rhomaioi.

That being said, anything as organised as OTL's Mongol Invasion getting that far will smash the Kingdom of Saint Stephen to bits. If the Duke of Austria is ready/willing to take advantage....

HTG

Condottiero · Jul 11, 2005

JHPier said:
I'm sorry to hijack this thread but I have this very rough outline for a TL based on this very notion

In 1371 there were two battles on the Maritsa river in which the Ottomans defeated their christian Balkan enemies, first the Bulgarians and later in the year a coalition of southern Serbian princes. It was the last occasion at which the Turks could have been stopped and expelled again from Europe. At the time the Turks in Europe had been largely cut off from the Turks in Asia, since a Crusading force under the Duke of Savoy had retaken Gallipolli for the Byzantine Empire.

What would have followed if either battle had gone in favor of the Christians depends on which one. If the Bulgarians had won they would have become the main power on the Balkans again. If it had been the Serbians, given the penchant for division among the successors of Stephen Dushan, it is more probably that Thrace would have rurned in one or more petty kingdoms. This leaves a lot of possibilities: Bulgarians, Serbians, or Albanians gaining an empire under Skanderbeg (or whatever he's called in this TL); or none of these three gaining dominance.
Further south the Greeks of Mystra were getting quite good at capturing Frankish castles, conquering nearly the entire Peloponnese before the Ottomans turned up. No reason why they couldn't conquer the Duchy of Athens as well and persist as a separate state - unless someone unified the Balkans.

Hungary would not have to concentrate on its southern border, meaning it would retain control of the Bohemian Crown. Both the Bohemian lands and Hungary historically favored the Reformation, so there would in time be a Protestant majority in the Electoral College of the Holy Roman Empire, leading to the election of a Protestant Emperor, probably the kong of Bohemia-Hungary. By the end of the 16C Austria (well at least Upper and Lower Austria) also appears to have been in majority Protestant. Possibly there is a war which results in the Crown of Bohemia adding Austria to its dominions.

Further east Tamerlane would still have come and gone. Uzun Hassan of the White Sheep Turks would probably still have risen to prominence, maybe conquering all of Anatolia. There'd still be a Safavid-like Shia reaction in Iran at some point which is probably going to enjoy more success in expanding westward than against the Ottomans, making Baghdad and Diyarbakir Shi'ite cities

Without the Ottomans spreading artillery in the Middle East, Baybars may not have any, preventing the rise of the Mughal Empire.

Algiers would never be a great city but a small Castilian outpost like Oran. Algeria would remain split between Tlemcen and Constantine, periodically subject to the rulers of Morocco and Tunisia resp.

Without the need to fight the ottomans in the Mediterranean, the habsburgs would have been able to devote their financial resources to subduing the Dutch Revolt, thereby avoiding the bankruptcy of 1576, which ruined their position in the Low Countries, requiring them to start again practically from scratch in OTL. Thus the Revolt would be crushed by ca.1590.
There would be no Armada, Elizabeth would not have dared to offend Philip II; the likes of Francis Drale would have found themselves prevented from sailing or clapped in the Tower.
Amsterdam would never acquire the central position in Europe's commerce it got in OTL, but be known as the Faithful City. London would get that position thanks to the Dutch Protestant Diaspora. Dutch refugees would be used to colonize Ireland, giving a quite different meaning to the phrase Ulster Orangeman. Possibly some leaders of the Dutch Diaspora might have an interesting converation with Sir Walter Raleigh concerning the prospects of a colony on the other side of the Atlantic.

What do you think the Rhodes Knights would have evolved in this scenario?

PD: I'd like to hear your ideas for my "Ogadai lives... " TL.

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Jul 11, 2005

Regarding a southern expansion vector, I'm not so sure - a lasting Byzantium will have a powerful influence on the development of "Russia", which would likely be entirely different from OTL.

serebryakov said:
O-oh... enough's enough.
> Conflict between Russia and the Ukraine
What conflict, pray tell me? If you're speaking about last century -- it's meaningless, because so many things will be butterflied away, and before that there could not be any such conflict because there was no such thing as independent Ukraine. It simply _was not_. (It sort of presupposes independence: "a conflict between Poland and somebody" does presuppose it was going on either before its last partition or after WWI, does it not?)
In fact, if you take the Ottoman Empire out of the equation, things would grow in exactly the opposite way: Muscovy would crush Khanate of Crimea much quicker, and that would give it both another expansion vector -- to the south, to gain hold on Black Sea, and real heap big problems with Poland (strictly saying, Rzeczpospolita -- Poland-Lithuania). I would not bet on the outcome either way. If Poland wins, maybe you will get at some point an authonomous Ruthenia (sort of tripartite monarchy: Poland-Lithuania-Ruthenia ) in place of the Ukraine, but again, I would not place any bets.
But either way that --
>Russia still gets Siberia, though.
does not hold water. Exactly the opposite: most of Siberia will remain an unconquered wilderness up to XIX century. You may expect local states sprouting. Maybe they would still fall into Russian sphere of influence. And maybe not -- it depends on what's going on in Europe.

Wozza · Jul 11, 2005

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
If there's no 4th Crusade, there would be no Ottomans.

I would project no Hapsburg major power, and Hungary a much larger player. The "Hapsburg Mission" was to save Europe from the Ottomans, and would not have gained a long-term hold on Hungary without the Muslim threat.

Are the Byzantines and Balkan powers capable of resisting the Turks? Militarily they crush everything in their wake - the Late Byzantine Empire holds off the west and other Balkan powers (just) but fails utterly against the Turks, as does every other power.
I can see a viable Greek-Byzantine state around the Aegean with no 4th Crusade, it will be in a much stronger position to resist the tide that is coming - at first. However it may be more subject to attack from the West, and less inclined to compromise on liturgical issues (due to a superficially stronger position)
This may mean the inevitable is simply delayed.

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Jul 11, 2005

Hermanubis said:
Interesting… discussion in previous threads seemed to suggest that with out the Ottomans, Protestantism wouldn’t do quite as well, seems you think differently…

I think it really depends upon where. I would think it MORE likely that Hungary would become Protestant without the Ottomans, but on the other hand, the Protestants would be more likely to be crushed in the Netherlands. All this depends upon many things, however; with no Ottomans, dynastic arrangements could be considerably different, and who knows who might end up with the Burgundian territories...