I wasn’t saying if the battle wouldn’t have been won if the French knights didn’t charge towards the Ottomans it was more of a question on what would it take for the crusaders but I guess not having the French knights charge could increase their chances of victory in the battle
Yea it would be difficult for Sigismund to convince the French to follow his plan since their whole thing was to just recklessly charge and this battle was no different for them. This didn’t really help the crusader’s cause since it had caused disunity among them
For the crusaders it would take to act as an army, which they weren’t. 😉
It was a little bit more complicated than just “charge”: by that time the French knights already fully adopted themselves to an idea of fighting on foot (not that it did not help them too much in the major battle(s). There was, AFAIK, a problem of attitude. For a knight the main thing was a personal glory, not outcome of a battle in general. Look at Poitiers. King John clearly screwed up as a general but he was praised by his individual behavior in that battle by both sides because as an individual warrior he performed bravely. Look at Crecy. Who ended up as the main hero? The blind King of Bohemia: of course, he got himself killed in an absolutely meaningless way but it still was heroic and Prince of Wales adopted his three ostrich feathers as his coat of arms. Sigismund’s plan would deprive the French/Burgundian guests of a glory by allowing some lowborn troops to attack ahead of them.
My bad on there, I guess that word was too simple to use there but that from I mentioned was usually the tactics the French did based on what they did at Nicopolis right?
Hm that could actually work out for the crusaders in order for them to win at Nicopolis
I like this! Maybe not enough to persuade them, but worth of a try.
Sad, as they aftercall suffered greatly from the Ottomans. To be fair to the French (or rather Burgundians), the older leaders supported Sigismund’s plan but they were present at the crusade mostly in an advisory capacity. The real power was in the hands of the younger, higher ranking personages with more idiotic bravery than brains. And the ordinary nobles were not asked at all.
I could see that succeeding maybe more than in 1396, could the Ottomans be potentially expelled from the Balkans if that happened instead?
A single victory might not be enough. Bayezid had another army in anatolia to strike back and multiple adult sons to succeed him
Indeed, so a winning streak against the Ottomans is necessary for a successful crusade of Nicopolis?
Well yes that problem wouldn’t be solved by a successful crusade of Nicopolis however I could see the Balkans not being under Turkish rule for longer than in otl. Combining the crusaders kicking the Ottomans out of the Balkans with Timur still coming after the Ottomans, the Ottomans could potentially collapse early on and Anatolia being split again would delay any Turkish invasions into the Balkans. I think that it would be another beylik that would go after the Balkans (unless the Ottomans can somehow survive the two invasions I mentioned earlier)
It could also be a Christian Polity. Turkish domination of southeastern Europe was far from inevitable even in the 15th century
I doubt it. The Roman realm was plagued by structural weaknesses which made it prone to internal struggles, civil wars even. Bulgaria was also a constant threat, while the question of Latin/Frank duchies in Greece would be a constant source of tension with Western realms.
Since it lost? Lost what? The War of Chioggia? Why would that matter? Genoa was still a strong and wealthy mercantile republic. Venice had an edge over it, but that's all. It can serve its required purpose.