Ottomans without Timur

[CaesarAugusto]

To Bosnia and Hungary, where most of the opposition to their rule over the Balkans came from and to finish the conquest of Anatolia.

South Italy is pretty much a superfluous tbh, it doesn't give the Ottomans a solid return and just opens a new front for their enemies and Spain is way beyond their reach for while (if they even get the means to some conquest of Iberia we're already talking about a monstrous Otto-wank that I did rather avoid)

Bosnia will possibly be vassalised like Serbia. Greece is still not entirely in Ottoman hands. That would be the first target.

 

[avernite]

Butterflies pal. The city falls earlier, prevents the Civil War which slowed down the Ottoman Empire for some decades. If there are no other Timur alike scenario's the Ottomans will be the same strenght 40-50 years earlier (1480->1440). Granada was in trouble after the 1460s. 20 years time to help Granada.

And the threat with the West is one of the most cliche's ever heard. The major christian powers disliked each other more than they disliked the Ottomans. The French allied with the Ottomans against fellow Catholic Austria. If desire overtakes you religion won't stand in the way. The Christian enemies in Italy aren't suddenly going to end their rivalry to stop the Ottomans. Didn't happen in OTL either. In this scenario the French will possibly throw a deal with Northern Italy as French land and Naples.

Well, I think the events like the siege of Vienna show that Christian Europe had a breaking point; push the Ottomans forward too far, and they'll face at least a temporary Christian alliance to repel them.

Especially in Naples, where Spain/Aragon and France both have a good claim to the land, so they're winning it for themselves as much as for Christianity.

 

[Ultima Ratio]

Exactly when are we talking about in term of the Ottomans conquering the Balkans in this scenario? Many of you seem to forget that depending on the exact decade, the Ottomans may be facing a much stronger Hungary. King Sigismund is also Holy Roman Emperor and a direct Ottoman threat might change the Hussite Wars quite a bit.

 

[CaesarAugusto]

Well, I think the events like the siege of Vienna show that Christian Europe had a breaking point; push the Ottomans forward too far, and they'll face at least a temporary Christian alliance to repel them.

Especially in Naples, where Spain/Aragon and France both have a good claim to the land, so they're winning it for themselves as much as for Christianity.

Vienna and Naples are two different scenario's and times. The French did not intervene in 1480 when the Ottomans landed in Otranto, knowing that Mehmet II will keep the area of the Kingdom of Naples if succesful. So why would France help then? They rather let the Aragonese and the Italians fight the Ottomans while getting exhausted. There is no benefit for France to defend Aragonese lands if they know there is a chance they can retake it maybe after an Ottoman victory.

So no, the French would not help to defend the Aragonese to defend Naples against the Ottomans. They didn't do it in 1480 and for good reasons.

 

[CaesarAugusto]

Exactly when are we talking about in term of the Ottomans conquering the Balkans in this scenario? Many of you seem to forget that depending on the exact decade, the Ottomans may be facing a much stronger Hungary. King Sigismund is also Holy Roman Emperor and a direct Ottoman threat might change the Hussite Wars quite a bit.

No Timur means around 1390-1410. Battle of Ankara happened in 1402. If the same scenario before Ankara happens, like the crusade of Nicopolis fails, the Ottomans have nothing to stop taking Constantinople. No Timur means also no civil war between the brothers.

 

[The Undead Martyr]

Spaon doesnt exist and this is still fifry years before the end of the Hundred years war. IOW France and "Spain" wont do diddly when the Ottomans invade Sicily.

 

[Faeelin]

Spaon doesnt exist and this is still fifry years before the end of the Hundred years war. IOW France and "Spain" wont do diddly when the Ottomans invade Sicily.

On the other hand, a substantial number of the galleys at Lepanto came from the Italian states ruled by Spain. So.

 

[The Undead Martyr]

On the other hand, a substantial number of the galleys at Lepanto came from the Italian states ruled by Spain. So.

And the Italian states are much weaker. Venice is still recovering from choggia and the plague. Milan is about to collapse. Thr Church is still in schism. Sicily and Aragon are about to undergo a succession crisis. The Hundred Years war is only halfway through. The Hussite Wars are about to distract Hungary-Bohemia and Poland and Germany. If the Ottomans play their cards right and exploit Europes internal divisions they could be at the Alps by the 1440s.

 

[avernite]

Vienna and Naples are two different scenario's and times. The French did not intervene in 1480 when the Ottomans landed in Otranto, knowing that Mehmet II will keep the area of the Kingdom of Naples if succesful. So why would France help then? They rather let the Aragonese and the Italians fight the Ottomans while getting exhausted. There is no benefit for France to defend Aragonese lands if they know there is a chance they can retake it maybe after an Ottoman victory.

So no, the French would not help to defend the Aragonese to defend Naples against the Ottomans. They didn't do it in 1480 and for good reasons.

The French won't help defend, sure, no debate.

But once the Ottomans have taken Naples, whoever reconquers it will have temporary Papal gratitude and a darn good claim to keeping the land.

 

[CaesarAugusto]

The French won't help defend, sure, no debate.

But once the Ottomans have taken Naples, whoever reconquers it will have temporary Papal gratitude and a darn good claim to keeping the land.

Considering that the Hundred Years War was going on around 1400 the Ottomans have nothing to fear from the French. And the Hussite War about to start. Yeah, Papal gratitude or not, there are more important matters for the claimants.

 

[123456789blaaa]

Really? No other reason why Rome is important? Really? Besides even if that was the only reason why it was important, wouldn't that be enough? The Ottomans are threatening THE Capital of Western Christianity!



You do realize that there is a certain nuance to why they failed right? It should be noted that Constantinople is not that important to Western Christianity and yet between 1261 and 1453 there were multiple attempts to take The City for Western Christianity, both through military means and diplomatic, because it was an effort to EXPAND Western Christianity and the same goes for Jerusalem. Again, in those instances they were trying to Expand their brand of Christianity.

This wouldn't be the case for Southern Italy. It would be a contraction of Western Christianity and any effort to retake it would be seen as similar to the Reconquista in Spain.

Hell, the Kingdom of Naples was traditionally considered a Papal fief! Spain had claim to it, France had claim to it, and Austria had interest in it! The idea that there wouldn't be wars fought to reclaim it is ridiculous!

I'm not saying the Ottomans couldn't conquer it, they could, and after the fact they might even hold it for a while, but they won't do it on the cheap. They'll expend quite a lot of blood and treasure to do so.

It wasn't easy for Spain, France or Austria and it wouldn't be easy for the Ottomans. Italy is a quagmire during this period and it's actually better to stay out.

If you don't believe my statement, why don't you actually post some evidence against it? That would be a lot more productive than just repeating the word "really". Anyways, it's not like the Ottomans couldn't threaten Rome without South Italy. Barbarossa landed in Italy and would have sacked Rome, but the Emperor Solomon ordered him not to in order to avoid embarrassing France.

You should really stop repeating the phrase "you do realize" over and over again. It adds nothing to the argument and makes you sound even more like a douche. In any case, I'm not going to debate with you if you don't even bother to read my posts. I explicitly said that there would probably be a crusade. What I'm arguing against is the idea of constant wars of reconquest.

There was rivalry with the Mamluk sultans. Mostly over the Turkmen beyliks in Southern Anatolia. Eventually the Ottomans will be dragged in to Syria regardless of their interests.

Well yes, that's why I mentioned Anatolia in brackets. I don't see why the Ottomans in this ATL would necessarily be "dragged in" to conquering Syria any sooner than OTL.

Well, I think the events like the siege of Vienna show that Christian Europe had a breaking point; push the Ottomans forward too far, and they'll face at least a temporary Christian alliance to repel them.

Especially in Naples, where Spain/Aragon and France both have a good claim to the land, so they're winning it for themselves as much as for Christianity.

This is a problem for maintaining a coalition.

 

[yournamerandomnumbers]

I think it's also worth noting that the last Avignon antipope was only expelled from the place in 1403. If the Ottomans are more successful earlier and/or can pose a credible threat to Rome or Southern Italy early enough, I wonder if it would be possible for Avignon to become a more permanent residence again, and all that might entail if Rome is not considered a good place to base the Pope anymore.

 

[BellaGerant]

Well, aside from just the western expansion, the Ottomans might have less trouble coming from the east in the long term. Without Timur, the Persian region's remains disunited in the wake of Ilkhanate collapse for at least a good while longer (plus, no Turkomen to revolt from). Without an Iranian power like the Safavids to check Ottoman eastward expansion and the constant expenditures of the Ottoman-Safavid wars, Ottoman dominance over the Middle East is far more secure and its borders perhaps stretching over the Zagros, no?

 

[avernite]

This is a problem for maintaining a coalition.

For maintaining it after victory sure, but the Italian wars show quite well that playing musical chairs with coalitions was a European hobby. The French and Spanish/Aragonese don't need to win together, they have to be consistently interested so at any signs of Ottoman distraction they will pounce (with Venetian support, maybe). That they will (after fighting off the Ottomans) continue to hit eachother isn't too relevant.

Mind, the hundred years war IS an issue, so until that is over it must be the Aragonese, de Anjous and Venetians and other Italians to contest Ottoman control.

 

[avernite]

Hmm, some other thoughts; given that Timur not only smashed the Ottomans but also the Russians, Iranians, and Mesopotamians - what is gonna happen on the Ottoman's eastern borders?

 

[GauchoBadger]

Hmm, some other thoughts; given that Timur not only smashed the Ottomans but also the Russians, Iranians, and Mesopotamians - what is gonna happen on the Ottoman's eastern borders?

IIRC, Timur filled the power vaccuum in Persia. Without him, it's probable that the area between Assyria and Khorasan remains a bit unstable.
Perhaps an ottoman Persia?

 

[123456789blaaa]

For maintaining it after victory sure, but the Italian wars show quite well that playing musical chairs with coalitions was a European hobby. The French and Spanish/Aragonese don't need to win together, they have to be consistently interested so at any signs of Ottoman distraction they will pounce (with Venetian support, maybe). That they will (after fighting off the Ottomans) continue to hit eachother isn't too relevant.

Mind, the hundred years war IS an issue, so until that is over it must be the Aragonese, de Anjous and Venetians and other Italians to contest Ottoman control.

I disagree. Divisions within Christian coalitions were key to the continual Ottoman victories against such coalitions in OTL. Why should it be any different for South Italy?

Hmm, some other thoughts; given that Timur not only smashed the Ottomans but also the Russians, Iranians, and Mesopotamians - what is gonna happen on the Ottoman's eastern borders?

He certainly didn't smash the Russians. He actually gave them a large boost by ravaging the Golden Horde right when they had united under a Chingissid and stopped the continual civil war that had been going on for much of the 14th century. Given that the Golden Horde is a natural ally for the Ottomans, I forsee close connections between the two states ATL. Keeping in mind the OTL effects of Bornu and Aceh gaining Ottoman help, it's entirely possible Moscow could be strangled in the cradle.

Iran was fractured before Timur came in. Given that both the Ottomans and Golden Horde have a strong interest in keeping it that way, I assume they would try to make sure no one state gets too strong. At the very least, the strengthened Golden Horde would maintain control over Azerbaijan, so I don't see how an ATL version of Shah Ismail would have room to unite Iran.

@GauchoBadger Iran is too far away and mountainous to control from Constantinople.

 

[History Learner]

And the Italian states are much weaker. Venice is still recovering from choggia and the plague. Milan is about to collapse. Thr Church is still in schism. Sicily and Aragon are about to undergo a succession crisis. The Hundred Years war is only halfway through. The Hussite Wars are about to distract Hungary-Bohemia and Poland and Germany. If the Ottomans play their cards right and exploit Europes internal divisions they could be at the Alps by the 1440s.

Well, aside from just the western expansion, the Ottomans might have less trouble coming from the east in the long term. Without Timur, the Persian region's remains disunited in the wake of Ilkhanate collapse for at least a good while longer (plus, no Turkomen to revolt from). Without an Iranian power like the Safavids to check Ottoman eastward expansion and the constant expenditures of the Ottoman-Safavid wars, Ottoman dominance over the Middle East is far more secure and its borders perhaps stretching over the Zagros, no?

I think these two posts say it all; Christendom and Persia have Timur (Oddly as that may sound) to thank for preventing an Ottoman Empire stretching from Afghanistan to Granada. An Islamic Empire with the borders of Justinian and the Sadavids, ruled from Constantinople, would be interesting sight to behold.

 

[avernite]

He certainly didn't smash the Russians. He actually gave them a large boost by ravaging the Golden Horde right when they had united under a Chingissid and stopped the continual civil war that had been going on for much of the 14th century. Given that the Golden Horde is a natural ally for the Ottomans, I forsee close connections between the two states ATL. Keeping in mind the OTL effects of Bornu and Aceh gaining Ottoman help, it's entirely possible Moscow could be strangled in the cradle.

It seems this is a bit more uncertain than you're putting it here. Toktamysh, the guy who did the actual burning of Moscow, was exiled to Timur's court and came back to power with his backing, reuniting the Golden Horde and hurting the Russians severely, before going off to fight Timur (unsuccesfully).

So possibly the Golden Horde will be stronger, but you first need a reunifier who comes to power without Timur.

 

[123456789blaaa]

I think these two posts say it all; Christendom and Persia have Timur (Oddly as that may sound) to thank for preventing an Ottoman Empire stretching from Afghanistan to Granada. An Islamic Empire with the borders of Justinian and the Sadavids, ruled from Constantinople, would be interesting sight to behold.

This is outright wank. The only directly ruled territory I see as feasible beyond OTL is South Italy, Sicily, and Malta along with a few more vassal states. How are the Ottomans supposed to hold Iran?

It seems this is a bit more uncertain than you're putting it here. Toktamysh, the guy who did the actual burning of Moscow, was exiled to Timur's court and came back to power with his backing, reuniting the Golden Horde and hurting the Russians severely, before going off to fight Timur (unsuccesfully).

So possibly the Golden Horde will be stronger, but you first need a reunifier who comes to power without Timur.

The Golden Horde will definitely be stronger-Timur deliberately targeted the economy in order to prevent the Horde from becoming a threat to him again. Whether the Horde reunifies is a bit more uncertain but even just the western wing would be much more powerful than the Crimean Khanate of OTL. We also have to take into account the Ottoman factor. With the taking of Constantinople, there's a natural link to Golden Horde territory and I think someone will take advantage of that.