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

I don't think the Ottomans were a tide - they appeared in the wake of another tide (Seljuk) which had already hit, and developed into a huge power because of the synergies of being on the Byzantine frontier in the final stages of the empire's decreptitude. If the Byzantines are at pre-4th Crusade level, I don't thing there is any question of a petty emirate like the Ottomans chewing them up to become a major power.

Wozza said:
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.
 
serebryakov said:
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.

I think you could stand to calm down. This is a discussion. If you know a lot about something, help everyone else understand, don't yell at them.

In any case, all this depends upon WHEN we're talking about. Before the Mongols, Kiev was a pretty substantial center of a pretty substantial (but the standards of the time) principality. I don't see how anything is going to save them from the Mongols, but with no Ottomans it's hard to predict how everything else will develop - will Lithuania develop the same way, and hold the city for so long? Will the Crimeans be in a position to destroy the city in the 15th c without Ottoman backing? How would a strong Byzantine Empire affect the religious development of Eastern Europe? You can really go in any number of directions.
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
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.
Of course! Especially I agree with that "entirely different" bit :) But: I can imagine that reborn Byzantium could have some interests on northern shores of Black Sea... maybe. But if Khanate of Crimea is wilting on the wine without Ottoman support and slave-market, then territory north of it, what's basically our Eastern Ukraine -- it's for grabs, IMHO, since I cannot imagine why Byzantium would want it and how it would hold it. And that... could be a beautiful beginning. :rolleyes: For a tale of woe. :eek:
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
I don't think the Ottomans were a tide - they appeared in the wake of another tide (Seljuk) which had already hit, and developed into a huge power because of the synergies of being on the Byzantine frontier in the final stages of the empire's decreptitude. If the Byzantines are at pre-4th Crusade level, I don't thing there is any question of a petty emirate like the Ottomans chewing them up to become a major power.

I was thinking of the Turks as a whole. I suppose I am postulating that Turkish political unity is not a pre-condition for their military success.
By the reign of Andronicus the border seems to have been porous with no-one willing to man it the Greeks increasingly unwilling to live in Asia as the Turks as a whole advanced.
Or do the sources exaggerate? Could a politically and economically more powerful Empire hold the Turks off? How could it if it cannot hold onto its economic base though?
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
I think you could stand to calm down. This is a discussion. If you know a lot about something, help everyone else understand, don't yell at them.

In any case, all this depends upon WHEN we're talking about. Before the Mongols, Kiev was a pretty substantial center of a pretty substantial (but the standards of the time) principality. I don't see how anything is going to save them from the Mongols, but with no Ottomans it's hard to predict how everything else will develop - will Lithuania develop the same way, and hold the city for so long? Will the Crimeans be in a position to destroy the city in the 15th c without Ottoman backing? How would a strong Byzantine Empire affect the religious development of Eastern Europe? You can really go in any number of directions.
I'm calming, I'm calming... :eek: I don't know a lot, but I do know _something_. _And_ I'm _sorry_ if my not-very-fluent English seems rude.
Of course, if we butterfly Mongols away we _can_ get "mother of Russian cities" as a regional power centre... but I thought POD is much later. Maybe I was wrong. But if we keep Mongols in equation, Kiev goes down as an independent player.
As for interesting questions, I could find some more: e.g., what's going on in the north? Will Moscow still grab Novgorod (depends on POD time)? Will Poland and Lithuania unite? What will become of Livonia -- if Russia goes south, who'll get these lands: Lithuania? Poland? Sweden? Some other player? (And that's only for the places and times I actualy have some understanding of).
But to get an answer for any of them, we have to find an actual POD and grow a full scenario from it. Which I'm simply not qualified to do. :( I know enough to ask quesions, but not to answer them.
 
Wozza said:
I was thinking of the Turks as a whole. I suppose I am postulating that Turkish political unity is not a pre-condition for their military success.
By the reign of Andronicus the border seems to have been porous with no-one willing to man it the Greeks increasingly unwilling to live in Asia as the Turks as a whole advanced.
Or do the sources exaggerate? Could a politically and economically more powerful Empire hold the Turks off? How could it if it cannot hold onto its economic base though?

Which Andronicus?

I think if no fourth Crusade happens, then the Byzantines are in good shape, although they will never be the huge power they were before Manzikert, certainly strong enough to survive. The Ottomans were a unique case - being on the Byzantine frontier, they were able to maintain a much more powerful military establishment than would otherwise be the case because they could "pay" troops with booty. Also, they were able to borrow from Byzantine institutions and coopt Greek lords who could no longer depend upon the Empire for protection, and as a result developed a formidable tactical system as well.

If the Byzantines avoid the catastrophe of the 4th Crusade (which they should have, easily), then little statelets like the Ottomans will be nothing more than a nuisance, barring more political unity, which the Byzantines were generally perfectly adept at preventing. Even then, though, they still control the Balkans, so they're not going anywhere.
 
Which Andronicus

Michael VIII's son, the second I think

I think if no fourth Crusade happens, then the Byzantines are in good shape, although they will never be the huge power they were before Manzikert, certainly strong enough to survive. The Ottomans were a unique case - being on the Byzantine frontier, they were able to maintain a much more powerful military establishment than would otherwise be the case because they could "pay" troops with booty. Also, they were able to borrow from Byzantine institutions and coopt Greek lords who could no longer depend upon the Empire for protection, and as a result developed a formidable tactical system as well.

I had read that the border was crumblind by 1280 onwards, there was not much Byzantine Asia by 1320 ( I will check dates tonight)
 
I had read that the border was crumblind by 1280 onwards, there was not much Byzantine Asia by 1320 ( I will check dates tonight)[/QUOTE]

Further to this what is your take on the level of Byzantine control of Asia Minor in the 12th Century?
The maps tend to show an eat horseshoe of Byzantine territory, but on the soutrh coast this presents a very inaccurate picture. Accounts from the second crusade suggests that travel arround the coast of Asia minor is not an easy business
 
Your dates are good, but this is after the Fourth Crusade, and I was talking about what would happen if this didn't happen.

Here is the situation just before the 4th Crusade:



Wozza said:
Which Andronicus

Michael VIII's son, the second I think

I think if no fourth Crusade happens, then the Byzantines are in good shape, although they will never be the huge power they were before Manzikert, certainly strong enough to survive. The Ottomans were a unique case - being on the Byzantine frontier, they were able to maintain a much more powerful military establishment than would otherwise be the case because they could "pay" troops with booty. Also, they were able to borrow from Byzantine institutions and coopt Greek lords who could no longer depend upon the Empire for protection, and as a result developed a formidable tactical system as well.

I had read that the border was crumblind by 1280 onwards, there was not much Byzantine Asia by 1320 ( I will check dates tonight)

1200big.jpg
 
It is the first map I wonder about - particularly the south west corner of Asia Minor. I have seen maps where the Byzantines do not control the Meander valley - and I just wonder where else their writ really ran.
Under these circumstances the second map is less of a discontinuity - big problems were building in the 1180-1204 period.

If there were no Ottomans how much interest would the west take in this region? What effect would that have?
 
Wozza said:
It is the first map I wonder about - particularly the south west corner of Asia Minor. I have seen maps where the Byzantines do not control the Meander valley - and I just wonder where else their writ really ran.
Under these circumstances the second map is less of a discontinuity - big problems were building in the 1180-1204 period.

If there were no Ottomans how much interest would the west take in this region? What effect would that have?

Well, the West certainly took it's time devloping any interest in the area WITH the Ottomans - no help was sent to save Constantinople itself other than 700 troops sent by Genoa, and it was only in 1396, far, far too late, that a Crusade (Nicopolis) was sent in a fairly hopeless effort to push the Ottomans out of Europe.
 
IMO there are several different periods in which the Ottoman Empire could be stillborn, and depending on when and how, the ripple effects could be very different.

First scenario: IVth Crusade does not happen, or is a failure.

Byzantium eventually gets a competent ruler or two within the next decade or so, and manages to hang on to everyone's surprise. The Mongols show up on schedule, and eliminate the Seljuk sultanate, creating a power vacuum in Anatolia; the Byzantines buy the Mongols off, and once they are gone, quietly pick up the pieces. The remaining independent Turkish principalities in Anatolia survive on the Byzantine sufferance, as buffer states, or as local powers, protected mainly by the fact that Byzantium does not have the resources or the manpower to truly retake Anatolia.

IMO this kind of scenario would result in Byzantine, or, rather, extremely Hellenized Balkans... the main powers would be Serbia, Bulgaria (if the POD is after Bulgarian independence), and Byzantium, with the latter being the most influential in terms of social structure, religion, etc. Hungary could be thrown into the mix as well with its own territorial designs, especially on the Dalmatian coast, although given that the Mongols are still coming West, Hungarian designs could be severely hampered, giving the Byzantines a chance to pick up some of the pieces while no one is looking.

In Western Europe, it is likely that any sort of long-range military expeditions ("crusades" that would have been directed against the Turks in OTL) would be sent in Spain and North Africa, resulting in faster reconquista, and possibly a greater mess in North Africa - however, since the Great Schism of 1054 would be constantly reinforced with no real attempts by either side to come to reconciliation (as there is no direct threat to Byzantium, it does not feel threatened enough to really care), there will be stronger Orthodoxy, and potentially stronger secular authorities in XIIIth-XVth century Europe. In this manner, chances are the Protestantism is either incorporated into one of the main doctrines (thus either an Orthodox or Catholic church would end up with many of eventual ideas thereof), or would not even rise at all.


Second scenario: No Othman

Presuming that in the chaos of XIVth century Anatolia, House of Othman fails to rise to prominence, and no other Ghazi state manages to do that either. By then, the moribund Byzantium has somewhat bleak prospects, however, better than in OTL, as it does not face major threat from the East, only having to deal with Serbian, Bulgarian, and Latin (Western European) threats. Chances are, Byzantium would be able to hang on to most of OTL Greece, along with the coast of Smyrna, while the principal conflict in the Balkans would be between Orthodox and Catholic branches of Christians. There might be several empires of relatively similar strength competing, these being the Serbs, the Bulgarians, and the Byzantines - possibly with the former two laying some kind of a claim to Byzantine throne from time to time. It would be hard to tell who would realistically come out on top, depending on circumstances it could be either of the three, or even all three coexisting in some shape or form.

Western Europe would generally try to meddle here and there, trying to keep whoever is on top weak, but it is also likely to concentrate more on internal problems - thus a Hundred Year War, if it still happens, could end up being a larger conflict, involving many other nations; the Middle Ages might end up lasting just a bit longer, since there would be much less of an idea of European unity (which, as ephemeral as it was, was generally used when Europeans had to combat an outside threat - the idea was that better a rival Catholic than a Muslim, especially the Muslim who had the desire and the means to crush the armies of European rivals and to expand his territory), and less means for outward expansion. At some point something akin to another IVth Crusade might arise, simply in case Byzantium cannot adequately protect the trade routes, or is being beaten down too badly.

On the other hand, the Middle Ages might end up being shorter if Byzantium/Balkan powers hold on, and block a potential trade route to the Far East. Then, the age of exploration could start earlier, with more resources put into it.


Third scenario: Ottoman Empire is stillborn

There are several potential PODs here, one being the previously mentioned one that in late XIVth century, the Ottomans lose the battles they won in OTL against the Serbs and the Bulgars, and as such are confined to Anatolia, where they end up devolving into series of internecine conflicts that leave them easy prey for just about every European adventurer wanting to set up his own private kingdom.

Another POD is that the civil war between Bayezid's sons after his defeat by Tamerlane has a different outcome, and results in permanent splintering of the Ottoman domain, with resulting kingdoms exerting nowhere near the power and influence of the united Ottomans. Considering by then the Ottoman presence in Europe was IMO somewhat hard to reverse, we might end up with a moderately sized (predominantly Muslim) Ottoman successor statelet in Greece and Bulgaria, which would compete against similar statelets in Smyrna and the interior of Anatolia.

This would give Byzantium just the chance it needed to play these Ottoman remnants against each other, and possibly pick up the pieces here and there - however by then, there is next to no chance Byzantium could ever regain its former prominence as anything other than a regional power at the very best. Within a generation or two, the European Ottoman successor states are likely to be reduced by everyone who attempts to carve them up, just as the Asian Ottoman successors would fall prey to endless attacks by the Latins, Byzantines, other successor states, other Turkish statelets, and just about everyone else.

IMO this might result in greater (Western) European presence in Anatolia, simply because there is a large amount of what essentially would be no-man's land, free-for-all where the population pressures are still fairly low. Thus, instead of directing their energies into the New World exploration, most European countries would simply end up sizing up chunks of Anatolia as much as they can do so - although OTOH it might give even more of an impetus to Portugal and Spain to colonize.
 
midgardmetal said:
IMO there are several different periods in which the Ottoman Empire could be stillborn, and depending on when and how, the ripple effects could be very different.

I think your first scenario is doable.

In the second, while it is certainly possible for there to be no House of Osman, or for it to develop differently, I think it's too late for the Byzantines. They don't actually control Greece, just a piece of the Morea. While Constantine XI regained most of the Morea in the 1440s prior to becoming Emperor, it was a tenuous hold and the central part of Greece including Athens was under a Latin ruler, and attempts to retake these would bring in Italian powers. Meanwhile, the Balkan powers were just too great for the Byzantines to hope to stand up to. I think that without the Ottomans, the Byzantines would have fallen much sooner.

The third scenario I don't find very possible. Historically, the Ottoman army was destroyed by Timur - a long internal struggle failed to fracture the empire, and it was the resources of Ottoman EUROPE that tipped the scale in favor of the eventual victor. By the time of your scenario, the Ottoman presence in Europe was too solid for a lost battle or two to expunge it. You could certainly RETARD the empire's development, but keep in mind that the more mobile Ottoman armies would be very difficult to destroy when defeated. This is just too late a POD.
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
I think your first scenario is doable.

In the second, while it is certainly possible for there to be no House of Osman, or for it to develop differently, I think it's too late for the Byzantines. They don't actually control Greece, just a piece of the Morea. While Constantine XI regained most of the Morea in the 1440s prior to becoming Emperor, it was a tenuous hold and the central part of Greece including Athens was under a Latin ruler, and attempts to retake these would bring in Italian powers. Meanwhile, the Balkan powers were just too great for the Byzantines to hope to stand up to. I think that without the Ottomans, the Byzantines would have fallen much sooner.

I think we disagree on when Byzantium was done for; from an earlier argument we had several months ago on the topic we debated whether the IVth Crusade was really what ended Byzantium proper, or if they could manage a comeback afterwards (which is the POV I still hold - IMO for Byzantium to remain at least a regional power a POD as late as mid-XIVth century would still be possible, albeit requiring significant luck).

While it would be harder for the Byzantines to regain mainland Greece, it is not impossible IMO - with less Turkish threat in mid-XIVth century, and potentially more capable series of Emperors (maybe if John Cantacuzenus had a little more mettle, and deposed the Paleologi once and for all, or if Andronicus III lived on for another twenty years, which is not too unimaginable), they would stand a fighting chance of concentrating their power on remaining Latin duchies and kingdoms, picking them off one by one. This would require very favorable set of circumstances, and might result in either the Bulgars or the Serbs capturing Constantinople and thus ending Byzantine Empire proper instead - although in such case we might simply end up with Byzantium with Bulgarian or Serbian dynasty on the throne.

IMO the best way to keep Byzantium alive this late in the game is to somehow remove the civil wars and succession crises of the XIVth century, or to minimize their effect - which could still happen if, say, someone other than Andronicus II comes to the throne, or if Andronicus reigns for short period of time, and thus does not get involved with the Catalans, and the subsequent dismemberment of whatever was left of his empire.

The third scenario I don't find very possible. Historically, the Ottoman army was destroyed by Timur - a long internal struggle failed to fracture the empire, and it was the resources of Ottoman EUROPE that tipped the scale in favor of the eventual victor. By the time of your scenario, the Ottoman presence in Europe was too solid for a lost battle or two to expunge it. You could certainly RETARD the empire's development, but keep in mind that the more mobile Ottoman armies would be very difficult to destroy when defeated. This is just too late a POD.

What I was thinking of is more of a stalemated war of succession, with none of the sides able to gain advantage over the others, thus creating several splinter Ottoman dynasties, each just strong enough to ward off all but the most determined attackers, but not strong enough to gain a decisive edge... think Diadochi scenario with the sons of Bayezid. If there were even more claimants, and all having relatively equal resources and abilities, the struggle could end up with some sort of treaty where they all end up recognizing each other's right to exist, but do not give up their claims to the Ottoman throne. If such scenario could last for, say, at least a century, it might give the Serbs, the Byzantines, the Hungarians, and just about everyone else involved enough time to regain strength necessary to start carving up these remains (the Byzantines, at this point, are very questionable to survive for much longer, but stranger things happened in OTL, so who knows).
 
Hey, I know this is way out there, but some of the ideas in this thread got me thinking, and well, I made this map…

A map of.PNG
 
Hermanubis said:
Hey, I know this is way out there, but some of the ideas in this thread got me thinking, and well, I made this map…

One point of criticism - Byzantine borders seem not only very overstretched, but also to exist in the areas they had little interest in in OTL, such as Wallachia, Southern Ukraine, Georgia, and Kouban. Well, Georgia is debatable, but Northern expansion for Byzantium is just not what they would be likely to go for. Southern Italy, on the other hand, is more likely, although, ironically, harder, and less viable as far as maintaining it goes in the long run.
 
midgardmetal said:
One point of criticism - Byzantine borders seem not only very overstretched, but also to exist in the areas they had little interest in in OTL, such as Wallachia, Southern Ukraine, Georgia, and Kouban. Well, Georgia is debatable, but Northern expansion for Byzantium is just not what they would be likely to go for. Southern Italy, on the other hand, is more likely, although, ironically, harder, and less viable as far as maintaining it goes in the long run.
Yes, that’s why I mentioned that it was way out there… (But could you imagine if some Emperor got it into his head that this would be a good idea?)
 
Hermanubis said:
Yes, that’s why I mentioned that it was way out there… (But could you imagine if some Emperor got it into his head that this would be a good idea?)

I wonder how long they would be able to sustain this kind of a border... it is much longer than the one the Comneni struggled with in OTL, and bordering the Turk and Mongol tribes settled in the interior of Anatolia and elsewhere, I'd imagine it would be pretty porous, as post-1071 Byzzies did not seem to have the manpower or resources to protect their borders adequately.

In the scenario you mention, I'd say within 50 years of it the Byzantine Asia collapses almost completely, maybe with few small enclaves left on the coast of Smyrna and in Trebizond, although they would have a better chance holding the northern portion of their empire in TTL. All it would take is one incompetent Emperor... but then again, I am just being nitpicky :eek:
 
When you say "albeit requiring significant luck", I would have to interpret "luck" as every Serb, Bulgarian, and Venetian simultaneously nick themselves shaving and die of gangrene. It would require the rest of the world to stand still while the Byzantines picked off everyone around them, and that just won't happen. The remaining territories were too devastated, the military too weak due to too small a recruiting base, the ruling elite too divided, etc, etc. I think the VERY latest POD would have to be in the later 1200s and would require a lot of fortunate things to happen. By the civil wars of the 14th c do little was left that there was just not enough to fend off the inevitable. All the trade was in the hands of Galata, and the remaining lands were scattered and indefensible, with the exception of the capital itself, soon to be vulnerable to cannon.

The issue I have with your Ottoman succession struggle is that the empire is not a fuedal state where claimants can carve niches for themselves - it's a centralized state with a central military command and an established bureaucracy - they ALWAYS line up behind one candidate. The longest struggle was in 1402, and despite the terrible defeat at the hands of Timur, and despite having most of the Asiatic territories stripped away by Timur, the State was still able to line up behind the strongest contender. Just suggesting the empire be divided would set all these forces against you, which is what happened historically.

midgardmetal said:
I think we disagree on when Byzantium was done for; from an earlier argument we had several months ago on the topic we debated whether the IVth Crusade was really what ended Byzantium proper, or if they could manage a comeback afterwards (which is the POV I still hold - IMO for Byzantium to remain at least a regional power a POD as late as mid-XIVth century would still be possible, albeit requiring significant luck).

While it would be harder for the Byzantines to regain mainland Greece, it is not impossible IMO - with less Turkish threat in mid-XIVth century, and potentially more capable series of Emperors (maybe if John Cantacuzenus had a little more mettle, and deposed the Paleologi once and for all, or if Andronicus III lived on for another twenty years, which is not too unimaginable), they would stand a fighting chance of concentrating their power on remaining Latin duchies and kingdoms, picking them off one by one. This would require very favorable set of circumstances, and might result in either the Bulgars or the Serbs capturing Constantinople and thus ending Byzantine Empire proper instead - although in such case we might simply end up with Byzantium with Bulgarian or Serbian dynasty on the throne.

IMO the best way to keep Byzantium alive this late in the game is to somehow remove the civil wars and succession crises of the XIVth century, or to minimize their effect - which could still happen if, say, someone other than Andronicus II comes to the throne, or if Andronicus reigns for short period of time, and thus does not get involved with the Catalans, and the subsequent dismemberment of whatever was left of his empire.



What I was thinking of is more of a stalemated war of succession, with none of the sides able to gain advantage over the others, thus creating several splinter Ottoman dynasties, each just strong enough to ward off all but the most determined attackers, but not strong enough to gain a decisive edge... think Diadochi scenario with the sons of Bayezid. If there were even more claimants, and all having relatively equal resources and abilities, the struggle could end up with some sort of treaty where they all end up recognizing each other's right to exist, but do not give up their claims to the Ottoman throne. If such scenario could last for, say, at least a century, it might give the Serbs, the Byzantines, the Hungarians, and just about everyone else involved enough time to regain strength necessary to start carving up these remains (the Byzantines, at this point, are very questionable to survive for much longer, but stranger things happened in OTL, so who knows).
 
Top