WI the Ottomans never enter the Balkans?

Assuming the Ottoman Turks never manage to cross the Straits and conquer the Balkans (I'm not sure what POD to use, so any suggestion would be appreciated), how would Europe be affected by this?

By Europe I mean the entirety of it, not just the immedite non-conquered Balkans territory.
 
Assuming the Ottoman Turks never manage to cross the Straits and conquer the Balkans (I'm not sure what POD to use, so any suggestion would be appreciated), how would Europe be affected by this?

By Europe I mean the entirety of it, not just the immedite non-conquered Balkans territory.

Less influence of Turkish culture on South Slavian culture, spread of Bogomilism religion in Bosnia ?
 
Assuming the Ottoman Turks never manage to cross the Straits and conquer the Balkans (I'm not sure what POD to use, so any suggestion would be appreciated), how would Europe be affected by this?

By Europe I mean the entirety of it, not just the immedite non-conquered Balkans territory.

The Turks need to have lesser resources and not within the striking distance of Constantinople. This means Anatolia and the Balkans should be under the Romans. If the Turks do have Anatolia, they will always attempt to go Europe due to the attraction of Constantinople.

It's a byzantine wank. Common around these forums.
 
Less influence of Turkish culture on South Slavian culture, spread of Bogomilism religion in Bosnia ?

I wouldn't think Bogumilism would be able to survive on its own surrounded by Catholic and Orthodox countries. OTL didn't really see such Christian sects survive.

The Turks need to have lesser resources and not within the striking distance of Constantinople. This means Anatolia and the Balkans should be under the Romans. If the Turks do have Anatolia, they will always attempt to go Europe due to the attraction of Constantinople.

It's a byzantine wank. Common around these forums.

Yeah, but how much of Anatolia do the Byzantines have to hold to avoid Turkish conquest? Everything west of Galatia or all the way east to Cilicia?
 
Yeah, but how much of Anatolia do the Byzantines have to hold to avoid Turkish conquest? Everything west of Galatia or all the way east to Cilicia?

Depends on your timeline aim. If you want the Romans to become superpower in 15th/16th century again you need the whole Anatolia just like the otl resource base of the ottomans.

If you want it to survive with sufficient resources to resist turkish invasion, western Anatolia is a must.
 
No Great Serb Migration, and, in effect, the South Slavic dialect continuum will continue as such before the OTL Ottoman invasions
 

John Farson

Banned
Depends on your timeline aim. If you want the Romans to become superpower in 15th/16th century again you need the whole Anatolia just like the otl resource base of the ottomans.

If you want it to survive with sufficient resources to resist turkish invasion, western Anatolia is a must.

Yes. As an example, the Empire of Nicaea was able to police its eastern border quite well and hold off the Seljuks. Ironically, it was only when they took back Constantinople and Epirus that this changed, as Michael VIII was forced to pull troops away from there to deal with the Latins.

In my opinion, the best way to meet the OP's requirement is to butterfly away the Sack of Constantinople.
 

Deleted member 67076

To do this you need to avoid any of the pre 1341 Byzantine Civil Wars. They were incredibly destructive and drained the states resources to the point where the Byzantines had to give up land in order to pay for mercenaries, defense and for all intents disband the army, in one such scenario John Cantacazenus was forced to give up a town in Galipoli to the Ottomans, giving them a foothold Murad would later exploit to conquer most of the Balkans. We prevent this and the Byzantines would logically fortify their sea border and thus prevent any large scale incursions (the Ottomans had a crappy navy at this time).

Now what this obviously means there will be a greater Greek Presence in the Balkans (the Romans likely survive albeit as a minor power unless they reform), and because of that a slightly larger Italian presence. You are unlikely to see any large Muslim community form in the Balkans due to the lack of Ottoman Policies.

If you want it to survive with sufficient resources to resist turkish invasion, western Anatolia is a must.
It would be better but not necessary IMO; without the Balkan resources the Ottomans are still pressed against the multitude of Beyliks that control Anatolia and are while they have the most disciplined and advanced army at the time that doesn't mean they can't repeat the same mistakes the Byzantines made against more nomadic and less organized enemies.

Frankly either, Saruhan, Karaman, Aydin, and Candar can probbaly hold off the Ottomans by themselves. If they do a coalition against the Ottomans and ally with the Byzantines, the latter is screwed.
 
All of you seem focused on Byzantine survival, but how about instead...

A Serbian empire lasting, holding the western side of the Bosporus against the Ottomans (tricky, if they have Anatolia).

A new Bulgarian Empire doing much the same as the Serbs.

A Venice that manages to swallow more of the Greek islands sooner, then extends influence over the Bosporus to cut off the Genoese in Kaffa before the Ottomans can cross (and, from there, starts to make inroads into the Balkan and Anatolia coming into conflict with who knows what).
 

Deleted member 67076

All of you seem focused on Byzantine survival, but how about instead...

A Serbian empire lasting, holding the western side of the Bosporus against the Ottomans (tricky, if they have Anatolia).

A new Bulgarian Empire doing much the same as the Serbs.

A Venice that manages to swallow more of the Greek islands sooner, then extends influence over the Bosporus to cut off the Genoese in Kaffa before the Ottomans can cross (and, from there, starts to make inroads into the Balkan and Anatolia coming into conflict with who knows what).

The only plausible one that I see is the first to be honest. Stefan Dusan being crowned Roman Emperor (which was a suggestion floating around at the time) would have reinvigorated the Balkans enough to block off the Ottomans. You'd probably also see some inroads into Anatolia once the Greek Crusader states were dealt with.

The Bulgarians under Ivan Alexander at the time were under decline and while he himself was an excellent ruler, I doubt the Bulgarians have the resources to take Constantinople nor would they be crowned as Roman Emperor and let in due to the historical feud between the two powers.

Venice was not interested in land aside from a few strategic positions so its unlikely they'd grab enough territory to block the Ottomans from crossing. That and the Ottomans probably have the resources to beat Venice if they ally with Genoa, which is a possibility.
 
Assuming the Ottoman Turks never manage to cross the Straits and conquer the Balkans (I'm not sure what POD to use, so any suggestion would be appreciated), how would Europe be affected by this?

By Europe I mean the entirety of it, not just the immedite non-conquered Balkans territory.

No major migrations in the Balkans, reducing both the probability and the scale of ethnic conflicts in the future. No third ethno-religious body, with much the same effect. Depending on how things play out in the future, Yugoslavism might never happen (no Illyrian heraldry -> no Illyrianism and proto-Yugoslavism -> no Serbo-Croatian linguistic convergence and so on).

The Balkans remain considerably more populated and somewhat more economically prosperous.

Hungary is not trashed and occupied. Instead, it will remain a regional power indefinitely. The Habsburg monarchy as we know will never exist.

Russia's and/or Poland's subjugation of the Crimean Khanate will proceed faster than in OTL without their Ottoman ally. I wonder if that would slow down the Russian push into Siberia?

Less influence of Turkish culture on South Slavian culture, spread of Bogomilism religion in Bosnia ?

Bogomilism was kind of a dead religion walking. The Ottoman invasion made the kings try to stamp it out a bit more urgently in favor of Catholicism (since they needed a display of piety to try to go for a crusade), but in any case it's not going to survive for much longer.
 
Depends on your timeline aim. If you want the Romans to become superpower in 15th/16th century again you need the whole Anatolia just like the otl resource base of the ottomans.

If you want it to survive with sufficient resources to resist turkish invasion, western Anatolia is a must.

I was more interested in seeing what would happen without the Ottomans invasions rather than keeping the Byzantine Empire alive. So then West Anatolia is enough to achieve that.

As for the second option, could a surviving Byzantine Empire replace the Ottomans in invading the Balkans and the Middle East if they keep the whole of Anatolia?
 
OTL, the Ottomans took a sizable chunk of the Balkans BEFORE they took Constantinople, yes?

As for 'what if Byzantium invaded the Balkans', well they owned most of the Balkans once. Getting Bulgaria back isn't terribly unlikely, I don't suppose, although Serbia is further away...

Actually, if you want to keep the Ottomans out of the Balkans, your best bet is to have Bulgaria, or better, Serbia take over the ERE, which would be preferable (for Constantinople) to the Turks taking them over. With a serious power base in the Balkans, and with Constantinople blocking the straits, it's at least possible that they could keep the Turks on the Asian side.
 
Getting the Bulgarians to take over would require a PoD that doesn't result in a Bulgarian edition of the Three Warring States (with the Tsardoms of Vidin, Tarnovo and the Despotate of Dobruzha.

Getting the Serbs to take over on the other hand, may require more than just one PoD centered around Stefan Dusan being crowned Roman Emperor. There's also the Byzantine successor 'Despotates' like Morea and Trebizond to consider, and they might help delay the Ottoman incursion into the Balkans through forcing the Turks to divert their troops instead of having them focus on the Balkans.

Or another possible candidate to take over the ERE (or rather, dominate the Balkans) would be Hungary, but they're Catholic so that might not work.
 

John Farson

Banned
As for the second option, could a surviving Byzantine Empire replace the Ottomans in invading the Balkans and the Middle East if they keep the whole of Anatolia?

I have the impression that between 950 or so and 1050 the Byzantines were quite capable of taking over large chunks of the Middle East had they wanted so, as during that time they were the strongest military power in the Eastern Mediterranean while the Islamic powers were weaker and divided.

It's just that the Byzantines didn't want to go through the hassle of having to rule over large numbers of non-Christians. The Ottomans, of course, didn't have that problem vis-a-vis the Balkans.
 
Assuming the Ottoman Turks never manage to cross the Straits and conquer the Balkans (I'm not sure what POD to use, so any suggestion would be appreciated), how would Europe be affected by this?

By Europe I mean the entirety of it, not just the immedite non-conquered Balkans territory.

I don't think the Balkans would come under domination of any one native power. The region is just too geographically complicated, and the power base of the indigenous kingdoms too small, for Serbia/Bulgaria or any other contender to establish a dominant presence over the whole of the Balkans. Good leaders like Stefan Dusan might be able to exercise control over a comparatively larger area over time, but this would only be temporary.

In the long run, without a Balkan Ottomans the peninsula will likely fall under the influence of Hungary, which has a vested interest in maintaining control over the Danube valley for economic reasons, at the very least, though struggles with Poland and Austria will dilute the power it can exercise. Venice also has a stake in the coastal regions, but its actual control will be small. The Balkans really are a geopolitical vacuum in this scenario, and it's not unreasonable to suppose that even if the Ottomans don't do it, some Anatolia-based power will try and fill the void.

Can't imagine a scenario here where Byzantium becomes resurgent. I guess even without Ottoman disruption the Emperors will be hard-pressed by the Bulgarians and move the capital away from Constantinople to Morea.

The Ottomans never become a European power, and thus France will be hard-pressed to find something to counterbalance the Habsburg encirclement of Spain + Austria. Maybe the Jagellonians can be a substitute?

Without Ottoman invasion Byzantium likely survives, or at least its title is unlikely to be usurped by Muscovy. Given the 'looseness' of the Orthodox Patriarchical system I don't doubt that we'd see a Russian autocephalous church at some point; but with more fellow Orthodox coreligionists around in the world maybe the Russian outlook will be more cosmopolitan and less defensive than OTL.
 
The Byzantines were on their last legs by the 1440s. Even without the Ottomans, there was no way that they could still survive....unless if I could suggest another plausible candidate that could have gotten the "Third Rome" status sans the Turks: Wallachia. The Serbian Despotate was already a Turkish vassal and Bulgaria was already conquered, and thus we have Wallachia as the only plausible candidate left.
 

Deleted member 67076

As for the second option, could a surviving Byzantine Empire replace the Ottomans in invading the Balkans and the Middle East if they keep the whole of Anatolia?
Its likely they'll never lose control of the Balkans (well, for long anyway) if they the

Getting the Bulgarians to take over would require a PoD that doesn't result in a Bulgarian edition of the Three Warring States (with the Tsardoms of Vidin, Tarnovo and the Despotate of Dobruzha.

Getting the Serbs to take over on the other hand, may require more than just one PoD centered around Stefan Dusan being crowned Roman Emperor. There's also the Byzantine successor 'Despotates' like Morea and Trebizond to consider, and they might help delay the Ottoman incursion into the Balkans through forcing the Turks to divert their troops instead of having them focus on the Balkans.

Or another possible candidate to take over the ERE (or rather, dominate the Balkans) would be Hungary, but they're Catholic so that might not work.
You need to go before Ivar Alexander to ensure the Bulgarians are strong enough to deal with the Hungarians, Serbians and prevent the state's fracturing (it was his idea to split the place up).

I don't think the Balkans would come under domination of any one native power. The region is just too geographically complicated, and the power base of the indigenous kingdoms too small, for Serbia/Bulgaria or any other contender to establish a dominant presence over the whole of the Balkans. Good leaders like Stefan Dusan might be able to exercise control over a comparatively larger area over time, but this would only be temporary.
The Romans managed to hold the Balkans together for over 600 years straight. Its not impossible to think otherwise.

The Balkans really are a geopolitical vacuum in this scenario, and it's not unreasonable to suppose that even if the Ottomans don't do it, some Anatolia-based power will try and fill the void.
Doubtful. No other beylik in Anatolia at the time had the resources, technology, military power and organization to do what they did. And the ones that could match the Ottomans in logistical prowess (Aydin and Candar) were not interested in Europe.

Can't imagine a scenario here where Byzantium becomes resurgent. I guess even without Ottoman disruption the Emperors will be hard-pressed by the Bulgarians and move the capital away from Constantinople to Morea.
There are quite a few actually, especially if we prevent the Civil war of 1341-47. Bulgaria was undergoing (comparative) decline at the time, and none of Ivar Alexander's successors are as brilliant as he is.

Stefan Dusan's realm fractured the instant he died with nobles vying for power. All these things basically undermine the position of the empire's enemies, and the growing reformists in the empire are beginning to attempt to copy the Italians in their naval and logistical skill. Give them more influence, and the Byzantines will be bouncing back simply due to the state having more money and the enemies growing weaker.
 
Have we forgotten the Karamanids that still existed? They could have easily taken over most of Anatolia as much as the Ottomans or conquer most of the Turkic beyliks.
 
Top