Osman I fought to leadership at the top of his clan, but what if he never did reach his goal? A true spark for his participation in the revolts over the Eastern Romans was due to an alleged dream, one of which gave his clan godly authority over the planet. This was quite arbitrary, and this dream could have never happened. If this dream hadn't even occurred, the Osman clan would be cast back into insignificance, and Osman I never reaching the height of his clan, as he had to valid reason to do so. It was the dream that convinced Osman and his followers that their god had bestowed them the strength to acquire sovereignty. Now, Osman I actually did have a valid reason to fight, considering that his uncle had performed an assassination attempt on Osman I's nephew, causing Osman I to bring up his sword against his uncle. But this was an execution, not a duel. Considering it was a rivalry, it could have sparked retaliation from Osman's uncle, Dundar Bey. Once again, the sovereignty of the Ottomans was also sparked by ethnicity and religious belief as well. If there was some outlier that prevented their greatest leader to rise to power, what would be the coolest outcome (other thn a
Ottoman Empire Never Exists: Failure of Osman I and a longer-lasting Byzantium
- Thread starter Swordraider60
- Start date
History is cool precisely because it doesn't do rule of cool, I'd say. Which year would be the outcome based at?
Without the ottomans, honestly the Karamanids would simply conquer Anatolia. The situation of the former Byzantine elite had given way too much to the Turkic Sultans in Anatolia following the 1250 AD. Whether or not the Karamanids would actually cross into Europe like the Ottomans did is too unpredictable to predict, but Anatolia was a lock-in for them if the Ottomans hadn't intervened so fast and furiously as they did otl. Even the Trapuzentines were sending envoys to Karaman with offers of vassalge and protectorates.
By the point in time Osman came to power, Byzantium is a spent force and it's only a matter of time before they're destroyed. Andronikos II is among the most inept rulers in history for his multitude of bad decisions. During Osman's era they really lucked out on things like managing to assassinate the Catalan Company leader (and thus eventually drive them from the empire) and a planned crusade against them led by French prince Charles of Valois who wished to assert his wife's claim as Latin Empress never getting off the ground. At the same time, Bulgaria went downhill too once Theodore Svetoslav died which leaves the only real option Serbia on the European side. But I don't think they could do much in Anatolia beside the status quo where the Genoese hold a few ports and islands in the name of the Byzantine Emperor.
Let's keep in mind that Byzantine rule was unpopular in much of Anatolia and the majority of it was very much Islamic and Turkish. In any case, the Catalan Company expedition was probably the last real chance to hold down Anatolia, and the Catalans would have likely reduced the Empire into their puppet while also having the problem of being notoriously rapacious and being Latins--which might not be a bad thing since they would've uprooted the unpopular Byzantine ruling class but probably not have been much better or more popular.
So realistically in the Balkans you either have a more successful Theodore Svetoslav creating a stable Bulgaria long-term, or most likely the Serbian Empire as OTL taking power after the end of Byzantium. In Anatolia you have one beylik winning as OTL, or maybe an outside power like the rebel Ilkhanate general Timurtash is successful at making his own state (and he did quite a good job as it was OTL) or the Mamluks take over the place. As time passes more and more different alternatives will arise, like maybe the Ak Koyunlu/Qara Qoyunlu Turkmens aim for Anatolia instead of Persia or a Persian empire conquering the beyliks. But pretty much no chance of a Christian state doing well there.
Let's keep in mind that Byzantine rule was unpopular in much of Anatolia and the majority of it was very much Islamic and Turkish. In any case, the Catalan Company expedition was probably the last real chance to hold down Anatolia, and the Catalans would have likely reduced the Empire into their puppet while also having the problem of being notoriously rapacious and being Latins--which might not be a bad thing since they would've uprooted the unpopular Byzantine ruling class but probably not have been much better or more popular.
So realistically in the Balkans you either have a more successful Theodore Svetoslav creating a stable Bulgaria long-term, or most likely the Serbian Empire as OTL taking power after the end of Byzantium. In Anatolia you have one beylik winning as OTL, or maybe an outside power like the rebel Ilkhanate general Timurtash is successful at making his own state (and he did quite a good job as it was OTL) or the Mamluks take over the place. As time passes more and more different alternatives will arise, like maybe the Ak Koyunlu/Qara Qoyunlu Turkmens aim for Anatolia instead of Persia or a Persian empire conquering the beyliks. But pretty much no chance of a Christian state doing well there.
Why them and not another beylik? The Karamanids were even divided into two separate lines and didn't always get along, plus their interference with the Sultanate of Rum possibly could have invited the Ilkhanate to invade them (although IIRC they submitted peacefully during one invasion).
Because despite their internal issues the Karamanids were generally stable and also commanded the strongest army and force outside of the Ottomans and we're arguably better trained and equipped than the Ottomans as well before the advent of the Jannissaries. They had the support of the Mamluks and also had the support of the Trapuzentines and Georgians.
The region of western Anatolia and the Balkans by the time of the Ottoman rise was a bloodied, fragmented mess. Without them, anything could happen..
Hungary can as well expand in the Balkans.
Hungary can as well expand in the Balkans.
As Sarthak said, the Karamanids would have replaced the Ottomans. But they were militarily weaker, and not in a logic of all-out imperial expansion like the Ottomans. But Serbia, Bulgaria and Hungary were in the throes of decadence, and therefore unable to vassalize Constantinople. In the end, the Karamanids, after having unified Anatolia, would surely have plucked Constantinople like a ripe fruit around 1500, to fulfill the prophet's wish, but they would have gone in Europe no further than Thrace, and the Karamanid empire would therefore have the borders of present-day OTL Turkey.
perhaps, in OTL the Ottomans suffered a lot to be able to conquer the city. The Karamanids may succeed, but it is equally possible for them to fail. And the Balkans remain in a bizarre standby state until someone breaks this balance. Maybe Vlad is the impaler of ITTL or maybe Poland will create a kingdom in the region.
Constantinople was essentially a ruin in the 1450's. There were only a few tens of thousands of inhabitants left, and scattered villages were springing up within the walls. Wait a few decades and there'll be no resistance left.
Constantinople was basically a city state and while it was not an empire like the Byzantine one once was, the city was gigantic. With a population of between 100 to 500 thousands inhabitants (in 1453). This idea that Constantinople will fall by itself is wish fulfillment. The Ottomans suffered in both attempts to conquer the city. Karamanids can conquer the city, but they will face a lot of pain. The Ottmans were a beast without equal and the Karamanids will have to work hard to match them. The Ottomans were more organized and centralized. This allowed them to consolidate their military forces and resources more effectively compared to the decentralized Karamanid state. Also the Ottomans had a remarkable adaptability and innovation in military tactics and technology. They incorporated new developments such as gunpowder artillery and Janissary infantry into their forces. Furthermore, the geographical position of the Ottoman Empire provided strategic advantages. They were situated in a central location in Anatolia, which allowed them to control key trade routes and mobilize their forces more efficiently. The Karamanids may unify Anatolia, and attempt to attack Constantinople. They can also fail and Anatolia+ Balkans is a mess. Or they can unify Anatolia and stay in that region.
I don't like any of the options.
Greece could disentangle itself from the Rhomaic empire due to a severe case of Frankokratia creating a new kingdom. Morea could secede or the area immediately around Constantinope might end up like the Papal states in the far off case that the Emperor dies without any succession and the Patriarch is left in charge (this would require an external attack however). The Karamanids might take over the city, as some have stated and go as far as conquer Bulgaria and little else in Europe - too bad the Karamanlides or even the Armenians aren't an option. If the Hungarians were more fortunate, I would assume they would take over the Ottoman role. Venice might decide to take Constantinople (they might even be the ones to force the Patriarch scenario I mentioned above).
Greece could disentangle itself from the Rhomaic empire due to a severe case of Frankokratia creating a new kingdom. Morea could secede or the area immediately around Constantinope might end up like the Papal states in the far off case that the Emperor dies without any succession and the Patriarch is left in charge (this would require an external attack however). The Karamanids might take over the city, as some have stated and go as far as conquer Bulgaria and little else in Europe - too bad the Karamanlides or even the Armenians aren't an option. If the Hungarians were more fortunate, I would assume they would take over the Ottoman role. Venice might decide to take Constantinople (they might even be the ones to force the Patriarch scenario I mentioned above).
By the time the Ottomans were founded in 1299, Byzantium had long passed the years of peak personal power. The battle of Manzikert in 1071, and the Fourth Crusade of 1204 as well as the resulting invasions of the Byzantine Empire helped put the nail in the coffin. If the Ottomans are not founded, it is likely that states like Trezibond come to existence in Anatolia.
Assuming the point of divergence is no Turkish entry into Gallipoli? Some other Muslim power, most likely another beylik, unites Asia Minor. Trebizond may or may not survive this. The Byzantines continue picking off or subordinating the remaining crusader states in southern Greece, and work on pushing Bulgaria back over the Balkans. What they can do beyond this depends on whether a longer lived King Vukasin is able to restabilize Serbia or if Serbia continues to be plagued by infighting among the high lords
This would be interesting, if they only owned the area around Constantinople its quite possible it would have been taken back by Christendom once the Balkan natinos regained their strength, perahps Muslim rule could only last a 100 years ending in the 1600s. I suppose the Bulgarians are best postioned to retake it but a Greek state (maybe a Roman remenant) also has a chance, if a Greek state conquered it they have a higher chance of calling themselves the Roman empire but if they Bulgarians conquer it it may just be the largest city of Bulgaria. Either way conquering the city will be a great source of pride for whoever conquers it.
I'd put a coin on perpetual Turkish domination of Constantinople. The Balkan nations would remain poor and without the support of Western Europe (totally disinterested in Constantinople's fate since the late Middle Ages), while the Karamanids would be a little richer thanks to the Silk Road and could rely on their good diplomatic relations with the Mamluks and Timurids to defend Constantinople in the event of Christian aggression.
You saying that if whichever Turks take Constantinople stayed away from Catholic countries, e.g. Hungary, they wouldn't stir up the hive the way the Ottomans did?
Honestly, I disagree. Yes, the Empire was in a bad way in the closing years of the 13th century (very bad in fact), however, given enough breathing space, which the lack of the Ottomans would offer, the Empire could enact some necessary reforms and recover something of their old strength.
Heck, Andronikos III would go on to prove that there was at least some gas left in the tank to glean some victories during his reign and that was with the Ottomans at the gates in Anatolia. Heck, he nearly reunified Mainland Greece before his death. Had he lived longer, which he could have (he only died at 44) he could've done more to secure Greece and avoid leaving the Empire in the hands of a child who's regency was fought over, wrecking the Empire in the process.
Without the Ottomans there's a pretty good chance the Empire would retain some of their Anatolian holdings for at least a bit longer than OTL, giving them the opportunity to accomplish something. Is it guaranteed? Heck no! But it's not zero. And the best part? Over the course of the 14th and 15th centuries OTL the general trend was toward a general warming of relations with the West and there's no sign that the PoD in the OP would change that general trend, so more attempts at a Latin take over of Constantinople are going to be increasingly unlikely moving forward, so this means there's more of a chance that the Empire would be far less distracted by the West and could focus their efforts on Anatolia.
Also, for those pushing the notion that another Turkish dynasty would be able to be able to recreate the Ottoman's success in the Balkans (even a little bit), remember, the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans was predicated on an Earthquake in 1354 and being in a position to take advantage of it while the Empire was in a state to be taken advantage of. I think that's rather unlikely to happen.
Also, a Turkish state that couldn't take out the weakened Bulgarians and Serbians and the weakling Greek Statelets probably isn't taking Constantinople, which even the Ottomans found difficult to take in 1453.
Again, is the Empire guaranteed to have a resurgence without the Ottomans around? No. But are they guaranteed to fall like OTL, just to a different Turkish dynasty? Heck no! The 14th century was seriously bad for the Empire, but it required specific events to take place that if they didn't, the Empire would probably limp through the 14th century, seriously weakened with the loss of Anatolia, but still existent and able to affect its own fate.