Ottoman Empire Never Exists: Failure of Osman I and a longer-lasting Byzantium

[Arkenfolm]

There's also the matter of the Genoese and Venetians. Why wouldn't eventually one of them just cut a deal with whatever Turkish power is dominant in Anatolia and officially or unofficially help them to take Constantinople in exchange for protecting their merchant communities and trading rights? Genoa in particular had a lot of enclaves in Anatolia like Phocaea which eventually fell to Turkish capture, and they'd benefit from getting the Turks to clamp down on their pirates. If we're assuming that Karaman or whoever has little chance at creating the same sort of structure the 15th century Ottomans had, they certainly have the incentive to leave the Italian trading posts alone and help them take Constantinople.

Once Constantinople falls, then Europe is open to Turkish attack. It would be necessary to expand the borders deeper into Europe as a buffer because the Bulgarians and Serbs and any Byzantine remnants i.e. Morea will be tenacious about retaking Constantinople while Western Crusaders also see it as a wonderful goal and for the Italian cities it's valuable for their economic prospects. But a lot of different things determine how far they might go into Europe (including affairs with Persia, the Mamluks, etc.), but all of modern Greece and Bulgaria plus perhaps a frontier on the Danube (maybe as far as mid-19th century Ottoman borders even) seems plenty doable given the disunity of that area.

 

[Mars aeternum]

Constantinople was essentially a ruin in the 1450's.

You're right, but it was only after two consecutive civil wars in the early 1300 that the Roman power collapsed. They were still relevant until then.

 

[Fatt Shea]

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.

Its possible that they'd keep it perpetually but considering how close it is to the border and the fact that they cant rely on the walls in the same way the Romans did in similar situations so if we consider that there will be a 500 year period between then and now I think it's likely that some point the christians could take it back, it could even end up in a situation where it goes back and forth between them, though the Balkan powers would have an easier time defending it due to not having to cross the sea to access it. Also witb the Karamanids controlling borders similar to modern Turkey they would probably end up at war with the Persians and Egyptians so there would be plenty of oppurtunities to attack of course the Balkan nations would be at war with eachother but if we assume the Karamanids don't expand into them then this wouldn't be the end of them.
As for the Balkan nations being poorer this would be a factor at first but who knows how rich they could have ended up without Ottoman rule for centuries. As for western involvement its true it would be less but stronger nations like Hungary or Poland have potential for involvement as they were involved with the crusade of Varna. Later when Russia rises to prominence they would also have interest in the region because of the importance of the straits to their economy, they could support a Bulgarian or Greek conquest of it if the Karamanids get on their bad side

 

[Wendell]

This comes down in part to the exact POD.

 

[HyperMuscularDemon]

If the Ottomans fail to arise, the Duchy of Athens might expand more in to Greece, more specifically the Peloponnesus region. I can also see Bulgarian expanding more into Thrace.

 

[Silver01]

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.

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).

Heavy disagree to quote Daniel roman historian and the face of eastern roman channel

"Indeed, the irony is that most of the Palaiologoi were very competent and conscientious emperors it is just that the between Andronikos II and John V you had two of easily the weakest and incompetent emperors who, between them ruled for around 90 years."

Also the Catalan company wasn't the last time I would say Pelekanon was but while andronikos III was responsible he was inheriting a mess while andronikos III would be still inheriting a mess it's likely he is not suffering pressure immediately from a belik as he was in 1320s I can actually see andronikos III doing well in at least holding Anatolia now if the byzantine enter a civil war as bad the otl when he died that means Anatolia now is very vulnerable and likely falls in the following years.
You also mentioned the Genoese andronikos III actually beat the Genoese and took back chios later he would gain Phocaea also with idea to rebuild the navy so imo if no Turkic power rose to start gobbling byzantine Anatolia by 1320s or is just staring out like the ottomans back in 1290s then I say andronikos III would have a much better time since he doesn't have to deal with the ottomans that leaves time for reforms and other lesser enemies

 

[Rommel1941]

I disagree that the byzantine empire could not have survived.

An excellent example would have been having Alexios Doukas Philanthropenos overthrow and become emperor. He repeatedly defeated the various Turkish tribes. A constant reconquest could have recovered much of anatolia.

 

[Elfwine]

Achieving a constant reconquest is the tricky part. "With what money and what manpower?" is going to be a thing even with an Emperor Alexios (or Philanthropenos backed to the hilt by Andronikos) - the state is very weak financially in this period when it comes to any sort of offensive campaigns.

 

[holycookie]

Where is this figure from, if I may ask?

sure, There are some different authors, for example we have websites talking about a population of 50 thousand for the city ( https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/c...he fourth to fifth,the conqueror Mehmet II (r. ), Steven Runciman in his book "The Fall of Constantinople 1453," estimates a population of approximately 100,000 at the time of its fall. Nicol, in his book "The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453," suggests that population range from 100,000 to 150,000 for Constantinople in 1453.

 

[Putnam]

I gave my general take on the Empire on my previous post in this thread, so let me look through the options on the poll... The problem with some of these is that they're kind of confusing...

Formation of a Byzantine-Slavic Imperial Sultanate with a Bulgarian Protectorate

This is one of the options that I don't fully understand. "Sultanate" was generally a term ascribed to Arabs and Muslims, neither of which applies to the Empire or the Slavs... Either way, I don't see any sort of unity between the Bulgarians and the Romans outside of direct conquest. Too much bad blood. I could see a Bulgarian puppet state being formed north of the Haemus Mountains if the Romans successfully reconquered to the Danube, but that wouldn't be much different to what happened in past centuries since Basil II.

Full Greek Anatolia

If the Romans were able remove the rot that set in during Michael VIII's and Andronikos II's reigns and without an expressly imperialistic expansionist state like the Ottomans proactively not only pushing against the Empire's remaining holdings in Anatolia it's not an absolutely impossible scenario that the Romans reconquer all of Anatolia in the long term. However, would that lead to a full Hellenization of the Plateau? I dunno. It's possible that the Turks would remain a distinct cultural entity on the Plateau up until the Modern Day, though probably Christianizing along the way (though maybe following a different branch of Christianity just to spite Constantinople?). It isn't impossible that the Romans could Hellenize the region, however, though there would probably be some cultural distinctiveness there.

Kingdom of Greece = Kingdom of Byzantium | Anatolian-Only Islamic Protectorate

Another one I don't get. Why would the Romans downgrade to a kingdom when they're an Empire? And what does "Anatolian-Only Islamic Protectorate" mean?

Serbian Constantinople

No. The Serbians were too weak. They were never going to take The City.

Bulgarian West Anatolia and Constantinople | Serbia takes Greece

No. The Bulgarians were too weak, same as the Serbians. Also, the Serbians did try to take Greece and it fell apart once their ruler died.

Anatolia gets Holy Roman Empire'd, with different ethnic groups all revolting against Byzantium

I don't understand this one at all.

Byzantine Empire Full Victory | Imperial Greek State | Modern Holy Wars for Anatolia

Again, basically the same as "Full Greek Anatolia", but I don't understand "Modern Holy Wars for Anatolia". The Romans didn't wage Holy Wars and the only Muslims who would wage Jihad for Anatolia would be the Turks who lived in Anatolia. Outside of the region Muslims generally don't care that much about Anatolia.

Trabzon Bulgarian Protectorate

Uh, what?

Kingdom of Rum Independence

Sultanate of Rum was already dead at this point.

Just Modern Day

Troll option is troll.

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

As people have said here, the Byzantines were already on dire straits when the Ottomans came to wreck shit up, as a healthy Empire would've defeated the Turks and kept Anatolia safe. What you need is a early POD where the Byzantines are able to "clear house" as in, really fucking reform stuff was run because it showed it wasn't viable and from then on, go on to get back the core provinces and keep them safe and consolidate, a state like that actually has a nice chance of being able to kick the Turks out and keep the empire trucking along.

 

[Silver01]

As people have said here, the Byzantines were already on dire straits when the Ottomans came to wreck shit up, as a healthy Empire would've defeated the Turks and kept Anatolia safe. What you need is a early POD where the Byzantines are able to "clear house" as in, really fucking reform stuff was run because it showed it wasn't viable and from then on, go on to get back the core provinces and keep them safe and consolidate, a state like that actually has a nice chance of being able to kick the Turks out and keep the empire trucking along.

The byzantines just came out a pretty good time after 1204 it had systemic issues but it was on a road to limited recovery the ottomans showed up in a bad time And as mentioned by Daniel the Romans had the bad luck that two of their most terrible emperor ruled for 90 years while the more competent of the dynasty didn't even with a late scenario like 1280, as even after adronikos II terrible rule the byzantine civil war of 1321 -1328, andronikos III did good in the west and we saw the last attempt to hold back the Turks In Anatolia who by that point were a regional power if the Romans don't have to deal with that and good leadership like andronikos III with less pressure are more successful the slow recovery imo would continue

 

[Putnam]

The byzantines just came out a pretty good time after 1204 it had systemic issues but it was on a road to limited recovery the ottomans showed up in a bad time And as mentioned by Daniel the Romans had the bad luck that two of their most terrible emperor ruled for 90 years while the more competent of the dynasty didn't even with a late scenario like 1280, as even after adronikos II terrible rule the byzantine civil war of 1321 -1328, andronikos III did good in the west and we saw the last attempt to hold back the Turks In Anatolia who by that point were a regional power if the Romans don't have to deal with that and good leadership like andronikos III with less pressure are more successful the slow recovery imo would continue

Honestly, I'm a little bit softer on Andronikos II (though not to the point of totally forgiving him, his reign rightly was a disaster). Many of the problems Andronikos II faced were a direct result of Michael VIII's policies and actions. They are the following (in chronological order):

1) Disposing of the Laskarids. The Laskarids were relatively popular in Anatolia, whereas the Palaiologoi were not. Getting rid of John Laskaris, while good for the Palaiologos Dynasty, was disastrous for Imperial Unity. This could have been overcome, however.

2) Focusing on the West to the detriment of the East. While this certainly didn't lack merit (at least during Michael's reign), as there was one last attempt at restoring the Latin Empire from the West. However, this had the effect of draining Anatolia of resources that, in hindsight were desperately needed to hold back the Turkish Deluge that came during Andronikos II's reign.

3) The forced Church Reunion. This basically took the damage to Imperial Unity from point one and made it far worse. Removing the Laskarids alone could have been dealt with (plenty of Dynasties had). The Church Reunion basically divided not only the Empire (solidifying Anatolia's distaste of the Palaiologos Dynasty in the process), but it also divided the Imperial family as well.

These three points combined helped leave the Empire impoverished, divided, and left with a paralyzed administration upon the ascension of Andronikos II. It shouldn't be all that surprising that most of Anatolia was lost during the man's reign. The man didn't have a chance from the very start.

 

[Silver01]

Honestly, I'm a little bit softer on Andronikos II (though not to the point of totally forgiving him, his reign rightly was a disaster). Many of the problems Andronikos II faced were a direct result of Michael VIII's policies and actions. They are the following (in chronological order):

1) Disposing of the Laskarids. The Laskarids were relatively popular in Anatolia, whereas the Palaiologoi were not. Getting rid of John Laskaris, while good for the Palaiologos Dynasty, was disastrous for Imperial Unity. This could have been overcome, however.

2) Focusing on the West to the detriment of the East. While this certainly didn't lack merit (at least during Michael's reign), as there was one last attempt at restoring the Latin Empire from the West. However, this had the effect of draining Anatolia of resources that, in hindsight were desperately needed to hold back the Turkish Deluge that came during Andronikos II's reign.

3) The forced Church Reunion. This basically took the damage to Imperial Unity from point one and made it far worse. Removing the Laskarids alone could have been dealt with (plenty of Dynasties had). The Church Reunion basically divided not only the Empire (solidifying Anatolia's distaste of the Palaiologos Dynasty in the process), but it also divided the Imperial family as well.

These three points combined helped leave the Empire impoverished, divided, and left with a paralyzed administration upon the ascension of Andronikos II. It shouldn't be all that surprising that most of Anatolia was lost during the man's reign. The man didn't have a chance from the very start.

i kinda of agree hence why i say if the ottomans do not take power Andronikos II would be not seen that much as disaster he would still be bad its just no one is there to take advantage of it for a while

 

[Putnam]

Achieving a constant reconquest is the tricky part. "With what money and what manpower?" is going to be a thing even with an Emperor Alexius (or one backed to the hilt by Andronikos) - the state is very weak financially in this period when it comes to any sort of offensive campaigns.

Honestly, you're right. Certainly during Andronikos II's reign any substantive reconquests aren't happening simply due to the paralysis his court suffered from. In terms of what Roman Anatolia looks like at the end of his reign and the start of Andronikos III's reign...

Of course these are only rough borders. A quick and dirty job with a map lacking in resolution. Ignore borders outside of the Empire.

The blue line represents the lands most likely to be held throughout Andronikos II's reign. Not that far off from the historical reality. The yellow line represents the second most likely and red the third most likely. I personally think all three are at least semi-reasonable given the only change is the lack of the Ottomans.

The dark red line represents the possibility of if Alexios Philanthropenos' rebellion were avoided somehow you could maintain more of the Thracesion theme while also maintaining a semi-reliable land route to Philadelphia. Do with this one as you see fit.

Green represents the maintenance of control over Rhodes and surrounding islands from the Knights Who Say Ni. This could help with any potential reconquest of Southwest Anatolia.

 

[Wendell]

The idea od competing states of varied size and composition competing and cooperating in Anatolia appeals, and it is certainly one possibility.

 

[walmart]

Plz no Greek Anatolia or Roman Empire at 600 borders.

 

[walmart]

The idea od competing states of varied size and composition competing and cooperating in Anatolia appeals, and it is certainly one possibility.

Throw in back and forth fighting over the Aegean coast between the various Turkish and European states, this sounds prefect.

 

[Wendell]

Throw in back and forth fighting over the Aegean coast between the various Turkish and European states, this sounds prefect.

Certainly a possibility, but things would stabilize eventually.