Ottomans without Timur

[GauchoBadger]

I'd like to ask,
How different would the history of the Ottoman Empire play out had Timur never been born?
Having captured Constantinople fifty years earlier than OTL, where would they expand to next?

 

[Russian]

I'd like to ask,
How different would the history of the Ottoman Empire play out had Timur never been born?
Having captured Constantinople fifty years earlier than OTL, where would they expand to next?

Italy, most probably.
Spain, to help the Muslims there, I guess.
The rest is close to OTL...

 

[Malta]

I'd like to ask,
How different would the history of the Ottoman Empire play out had Timur never been born?
Having captured Constantinople fifty years earlier than OTL, where would they expand to next?

Hmm, it is possible considering the Byzantines were on the back foot but that depends how. Especially considering it took until the advancement of artillery to make a direct approach on the city workable.

More likely they would have expanded their holdings in Europe earlier then moved South against the Middle East.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

Spain, to help the Muslims there, I guess.

Unlikely. The Ottomans never had any real interest in doing so and wouldn't have the power projection to do so until well after Granada had fallen OTL.

Besides, if they did go after Italy (most likely only Southern Italy) they'd be constantly distracted by constant wars of reconquest from the West.

The only relatively sure thing is that Constantinople falls in the 1410s and 1420s. Hell, this might change quite a bit anyway, depending on the character of the EREmperor of the time, the Emperor might just take the Ottomans up on the offer to evac Constantinople and move to the Morea. That's a whole other can of worms.

 

[Monter]

To Bosnia and Hungary, where most of the opposition to their rule over the Balkans came from and to finish the conquest of Anatolia.

South Italy is pretty much a superfluous tbh, it doesn't give the Ottomans a solid return and just opens a new front for their enemies and Spain is way beyond their reach for while (if they even get the means to some conquest of Iberia we're already talking about a monstrous Otto-wank that I did rather avoid)

 

[GauchoBadger]

Considering that the tech gap against the ottomans will be smaller, how will the mamluks of Egypt and the Sham fare ITTL?

 

[ben0628]

Keep in mind this pod butterflies away all of the Ottomans Great leaders post Timur.

No Sulemein the magnificent or Mehmed (I butchered their names) means the Ottomans could do worse

 

[123456789blaaa]

Unlikely. The Ottomans never had any real interest in doing so and wouldn't have the power projection to do so until well after Granada had fallen OTL.

Besides, if they did go after Italy (most likely only Southern Italy) they'd be constantly distracted by constant wars of reconquest from the West.

The only relatively sure thing is that Constantinople falls in the 1410s and 1420s. Hell, this might change quite a bit anyway, depending on the character of the EREmperor of the time, the Emperor might just take the Ottomans up on the offer to evac Constantinople and move to the Morea. That's a whole other can of worms.

If we look at the article

The Moriscos: An Ottoman Fifth Column in Sixteenth-Century Spain
Andrew C. Hess
The American Historical Review
Vol. 74, No. 1 (Oct., 1968)

We see that according to documents from the Ottoman government, Selim II was involved in Morisco conspiracies and even planned to send a fleet to aid a Morisco rebellion. They had to abandon the plan when more pressing issues suddenly came up but I see no reason why even earlier plans couldn't succeed given a better Ottoman position ITTL. Having a 50 year head start certainly speeds up gaining power-projection after all.

I'm also not sure where the "constant wars of reconquest" thing comes in if we're talking South italy.

To Bosnia and Hungary, where most of the opposition to their rule over the Balkans came from and to finish the conquest of Anatolia.

South Italy is pretty much a superfluous tbh, it doesn't give the Ottomans a solid return and just opens a new front for their enemies and Spain is way beyond their reach for while (if they even get the means to some conquest of Iberia we're already talking about a monstrous Otto-wank that I did rather avoid)

South Italy is quite rich-Naples was one of the largest cities in Europe up to the 19th century. Even just denying its use for enemies like Spain would be a great asset.

Conquest of all Iberia is ASB but even just supporting/creating a Muslim state in southeastern Iberia would be an excellent asset against the Iberian kingdoms.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

We see that according to documents from the Ottoman government, Selim II was involved in Morisco conspiracies and even planned to send a fleet to aid a Morisco rebellion. They had to abandon the plan when more pressing issues suddenly came up but I see no reason why even earlier plans couldn't succeed given a better Ottoman position ITTL. Having a 50 year head start certainly speeds up gaining power-projection after all.

I'm also not sure where the "constant wars of reconquest" thing comes in if we're talking South italy.

You do realize that Southern Italy is right next door to one of the most holy cities of Western Christianity right?

They're not going to let the Moslem Ottoman Turks be in a position to threaten Rome. The Ottomans are going to need to work hard to hold Southern Italy.

So how are the Ottomans going to deal with, in no particular order, the Knights of Rhodes, Hungary, Poland, plus what ever Christian power decides to join them to fight the Turk, and Conquer and hold Southern Italy, all the while desiring to conquer lands in the Mideast. That might be doable... might. But it would be difficult and Italy would likely be a constant resource sink.

And on top of that you want a Spanish expedition? *sigh* Fine. Two boats and a few hundred men.

Don't spend it all on one place.

 

[The Undead Martyr]

I think they can definitely take sicily- Aragon and Anjou are scheduled for a dynastic squabble. Note that the Schism is still ongoing and that Venice is still recovering from choggia while the Hussite Wars will break out in 1414 and the HYW is still ongoing, and of course Spain doesn't exist and probably won't for several decades.


You're effectively giving the Ottomans fifty years head start, and they are expanding at a a time where Europe is completely fractured and so much is up in the air....

Basically it's not impossible that the Ottomans could reach Justinians borders by TTLs 16th century. And at the very least they will have southern Italy plus everything they did OTL.

 

[123456789blaaa]

You do realize that Southern Italy is right next door to one of the most holy cities of Western Christianity right?

They're not going to let the Moslem Ottoman Turks be in a position to threaten Rome. The Ottomans are going to need to work hard to hold Southern Italy.

So how are the Ottomans going to deal with, in no particular order, the Knights of Rhodes, Hungary, Poland, plus what ever Christian power decides to join them to fight the Turk, and Conquer and hold Southern Italy, all the while desiring to conquer lands in the Mideast. That might be doable... might. But it would be difficult and Italy would likely be a constant resource sink.

And on top of that you want a Spanish expedition? *sigh* Fine. Two boats and a few hundred men.

Don't spend it all on one place.

I like how you can't think of any other reason besides a misunderstanding of basic geography for me to disagree with you. To answer your question, yes I know that Rome is next to south Italy. However, Rome is important primarily as the seat of the Pope. It certainly isn't "one of the most holy cities in Western Christianity". Jerusalem far outstrips Rome in spiritual significance and and Christendom didn't constantly war to regain it. They gave up after they tried and failed. If south Italy is taken, there will probably be a crusade headed by states with territorial interests there. Like the Crusades to retake Constantinople, they could very conceivably fail and settle.

Those states you list will be an impediment to conquest yes. You'll notice though, that they were all either conquered or repelled by the Ottomans of OTL. With the 50 year head start provided by the PoD, I see no reason why they couldn't be taken care of earlier. You also don't mention that states with overlapping territorial desires are beneficial for the Ottomans because they can be played against each other. Like in OTL, the christian coalitions will be fragile and unstable.

In terms of Mid-eastern conquests, Ottoman interests did not lie in that direction (besides Anatolia to ensure territorial security). Christian European conquests were the priority because Mideastern conquests would strengthen the Muslim aristocracy of the Empire. Selim only invaded the Mamluks because they were so incredibly weak (at the time) that he could sweep in there with virtually no effort.

You may want to consider posting with a mite less condescension. You sound like a douche.

 

[avernite]

I imagine an Ottoman Naples will result in the plethora of Italian wars (fought mostly over the Napolitan inheritance, but also over the strength of Venice and Milanese succession) being cut down significantly, and all those rich Italians can go fight Turks instead of eachother.

Mind, they don't have to, and may decide otherwise - but it'd provide a nice amount of surplus European power to be redirected against the Ottomans.

 

[Eivind]

I think they would have gone in the same directions that they did OTL, but now half a century earlier. Of course, the interesting question would be how the different international circumstances would have influenced the conquests. Would Europe be more or less well prepared? I assume that Europe would have been, relatively speaking, weaker compared to the Ottomans when it comes to technology. On the other hand, if the reformation still happens, and at about the same time, Europe would be less divided when it comes to religion.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

However, Rome is important primarily as the seat of the Pope.

Really? No other reason why Rome is important? Really? Besides even if that was the only reason why it was important, wouldn't that be enough? The Ottomans are threatening THE Capital of Western Christianity!

Like the Crusades to retake Constantinople, they could very conceivably fail and settle.

You do realize that there is a certain nuance to why they failed right? It should be noted that Constantinople is not that important to Western Christianity and yet between 1261 and 1453 there were multiple attempts to take The City for Western Christianity, both through military means and diplomatic, because it was an effort to EXPAND Western Christianity and the same goes for Jerusalem. Again, in those instances they were trying to Expand their brand of Christianity.

This wouldn't be the case for Southern Italy. It would be a contraction of Western Christianity and any effort to retake it would be seen as similar to the Reconquista in Spain.

Hell, the Kingdom of Naples was traditionally considered a Papal fief! Spain had claim to it, France had claim to it, and Austria had interest in it! The idea that there wouldn't be wars fought to reclaim it is ridiculous!

I'm not saying the Ottomans couldn't conquer it, they could, and after the fact they might even hold it for a while, but they won't do it on the cheap. They'll expend quite a lot of blood and treasure to do so.

It wasn't easy for Spain, France or Austria and it wouldn't be easy for the Ottomans. Italy is a quagmire during this period and it's actually better to stay out.

 

[CaesarAugusto]

I'd like to ask,
How different would the history of the Ottoman Empire play out had Timur never been born?
Having captured Constantinople fifty years earlier than OTL, where would they expand to next?

The same thing that happened with Mehmet II. More campaigns in the Balkans with Bosnia vassalised as well. Greece, Aegean and Trebizond Empire are major targets. War with the Mamluks are also an option.

 

[CaesarAugusto]

Unlikely. The Ottomans never had any real interest in doing so and wouldn't have the power projection to do so until well after Granada had fallen OTL.

Besides, if they did go after Italy (most likely only Southern Italy) they'd be constantly distracted by constant wars of reconquest from the West.

The only relatively sure thing is that Constantinople falls in the 1410s and 1420s. Hell, this might change quite a bit anyway, depending on the character of the EREmperor of the time, the Emperor might just take the Ottomans up on the offer to evac Constantinople and move to the Morea. That's a whole other can of worms.

The start of bigger Mediterranean adventures happened mostly after the conquest of Constantinople. If Bayezid I succeeded in his goal he would have the option to move more to the Mediterranean theatre. And there is no need to save Granada from whom so ever. Granada was still paying tribute to Castille.

And Byzantium surviving the siege, completely surrounded by the Ottomans with no relief... how are they suppose to hold out until the 1410s let alone 1420s. The city would be under siege for more than 20 years. If Timur wasn't active in Anatolia or simply didn't exists Constantinople would fall not longer than 1400.

I personally would secure Anatolia and the Balkans first. There was no need to help Granada in 1390s and there still is the Marinids in Morocco who can help them.

 

[CaesarAugusto]

Really? No other reason why Rome is important? Really? Besides even if that was the only reason why it was important, wouldn't that be enough? The Ottomans are threatening THE Capital of Western Christianity!



You do realize that there is a certain nuance to why they failed right? It should be noted that Constantinople is not that important to Western Christianity and yet between 1261 and 1453 there were multiple attempts to take The City for Western Christianity, both through military means and diplomatic, because it was an effort to EXPAND Western Christianity and the same goes for Jerusalem. Again, in those instances they were trying to Expand their brand of Christianity.

This wouldn't be the case for Southern Italy. It would be a contraction of Western Christianity and any effort to retake it would be seen as similar to the Reconquista in Spain.

Hell, the Kingdom of Naples was traditionally considered a Papal fief! Spain had claim to it, France had claim to it, and Austria had interest in it! The idea that there wouldn't be wars fought to reclaim it is ridiculous!

I'm not saying the Ottomans couldn't conquer it, they could, and after the fact they might even hold it for a while, but they won't do it on the cheap. They'll expend quite a lot of blood and treasure to do so.

It wasn't easy for Spain, France or Austria and it wouldn't be easy for the Ottomans. Italy is a quagmire during this period and it's actually better to stay out.

There is no 'Spain' in the time of Timur. Aragon would be the right name.

 

[CaesarAugusto]

You do realize that Southern Italy is right next door to one of the most holy cities of Western Christianity right?

They're not going to let the Moslem Ottoman Turks be in a position to threaten Rome. The Ottomans are going to need to work hard to hold Southern Italy.

So how are the Ottomans going to deal with, in no particular order, the Knights of Rhodes, Hungary, Poland, plus what ever Christian power decides to join them to fight the Turk, and Conquer and hold Southern Italy, all the while desiring to conquer lands in the Mideast. That might be doable... might. But it would be difficult and Italy would likely be a constant resource sink.

And on top of that you want a Spanish expedition? *sigh* Fine. Two boats and a few hundred men.

Don't spend it all on one place.

You do realise that Mehmet II landed a force in Otranto and the Pope already made plans to evacuate Rome. Mehmet II sudden death prevented such evacuation. This means that even Rome is not worth defending considering the Papal evacuation plans of the city. Holy city of Western Christianity doesn't change anything.

And Ottomans already dealt with a crusader force in Nicopolis. There is no crusade from at least two of the three nations whom you mentioned.

The Spanish expedition in 1400 is not an interest of the Ottomans. The only muslim lands remaining in Iberia is Granada and they're already save for the time being.

 

[CaesarAugusto]

I like how you can't think of any other reason besides a misunderstanding of basic geography for me to disagree with you. To answer your question, yes I know that Rome is next to south Italy. However, Rome is important primarily as the seat of the Pope. It certainly isn't "one of the most holy cities in Western Christianity". Jerusalem far outstrips Rome in spiritual significance and and Christendom didn't constantly war to regain it. They gave up after they tried and failed. If south Italy is taken, there will probably be a crusade headed by states with territorial interests there. Like the Crusades to retake Constantinople, they could very conceivably fail and settle.

Those states you list will be an impediment to conquest yes. You'll notice though, that they were all either conquered or repelled by the Ottomans of OTL. With the 50 year head start provided by the PoD, I see no reason why they couldn't be taken care of earlier. You also don't mention that states with overlapping territorial desires are beneficial for the Ottomans because they can be played against each other. Like in OTL, the christian coalitions will be fragile and unstable.

In terms of Mid-eastern conquests, Ottoman interests did not lie in that direction (besides Anatolia to ensure territorial security). Christian European conquests were the priority because Mideastern conquests would strengthen the Muslim aristocracy of the Empire. Selim only invaded the Mamluks because they were so incredibly weak (at the time) that he could sweep in there with virtually no effort.

You may want to consider posting with a mite less condescension. You sound like a douche.

There was rivalry with the Mamluk sultans. Mostly over the Turkmen beyliks in Southern Anatolia. Eventually the Ottomans will be dragged in to Syria regardless of their interests.

 

[CaesarAugusto]

Unlikely. The Ottomans never had any real interest in doing so and wouldn't have the power projection to do so until well after Granada had fallen OTL.

Besides, if they did go after Italy (most likely only Southern Italy) they'd be constantly distracted by constant wars of reconquest from the West.

The only relatively sure thing is that Constantinople falls in the 1410s and 1420s. Hell, this might change quite a bit anyway, depending on the character of the EREmperor of the time, the Emperor might just take the Ottomans up on the offer to evac Constantinople and move to the Morea. That's a whole other can of worms.

Butterflies pal. The city falls earlier, prevents the Civil War which slowed down the Ottoman Empire for some decades. If there are no other Timur alike scenario's the Ottomans will be the same strenght 40-50 years earlier (1480->1440). Granada was in trouble after the 1460s. 20 years time to help Granada.

And the threat with the West is one of the most cliche's ever heard. The major christian powers disliked each other more than they disliked the Ottomans. The French allied with the Ottomans against fellow Catholic Austria. If desire overtakes you religion won't stand in the way. The Christian enemies in Italy aren't suddenly going to end their rivalry to stop the Ottomans. Didn't happen in OTL either. In this scenario the French will possibly throw a deal with Northern Italy as French land and Naples.