WI: Timur is never born or never becomes a conqueror ?

[Timeline Junkie]

The question is in the title. What if Timur also known as Timur-i-Lang or Tamerlane never became the brutal conqueror he was in OTL. His wake on Asia fundamentally changed Eurasian and all of World history. He was infamous for his brutality and known for his patronage of Persian and Islamic culture. His claimed the mantle of Genghis Khan as a Turko-Mongol.

I would assume that the Ottoman Empire would fare much better, the Tughlaq dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate would fare much better, and that many Genghisid states would last much longer. Most of all, 5% of the world population would not be killed.

But what major cultural, social, economic, and cultural differences do you see in this potential TL in the long term?

 

[GauchoBadger]

The Golden Horde, despite its internal troubles, could get some breathing space without Timur's invasion. This could break the momentum of Muscovy's expansion and result in a more divided Russia, with the Tatars, Lithuanians, and Novgorod probably playing a major part.
Georgia and the Caucasus could also end up in better shape after being spared from Timur's wrath, although exactly how well they'd do against the Ottomans is debatable.

 

[Marc]

An earlier end to the Byzantine empire.

 

[AltoRegnant]

An earlier end to the Byzantine empire.

By the same measure- the ottomans being freed up in the east- could we see an ottoman Persia or even stronger hold in southern Europe?

 

[Marc]

By the same measure- the ottomans being freed up in the east- could we see an ottoman Persia or even stronger hold in southern Europe?

Well, there are people here who are far more knowledgeable about conditions in Southern Europe circa 1400. But from what I do know, it's clear that the Ottomans had already conquered most of the Balkans. In this supposing, they are moving some decades earlier.
Ultimately, I think that they run into the same limits of expansion in Europe that they did later on, but one could see Hungary being fully conquered by the 1420's since they are attacking while John Hunyadi is still a boy.

 

[GauchoBadger]

Well, there are people here who are far more knowledgeable about conditions in Southern Europe circa 1400. But from what I do know, it's clear that the Ottomans had already conquered most of the Balkans. In this supposing, they are moving some decades earlier.
Ultimately, I think that they run into the same limits of expansion in Europe that they did later on, but one could see Hungary being fully conquered by the 1420's since they are attacking while John Hunyadi is still a boy.

Note that the period in which the Ottomans are expanding into Europe is concurrent with the Hussite rebellions, while Poland is also distracted fighting against the Teutonic Knights. Could be a golden opportunity for the Ottomans.

 

[Superninja76]

Note that the period in which the Ottomans are expanding into Europe is concurrent with the Hussite rebellions, while Poland is also distracted fighting against the Teutonic Knights. Could be a golden opportunity for the Ottomans.

Well, not quite. Do you really believe the teutonic knights and poland would have kept on fighting, if the ottomans had pushed seriously into europe? At the end of the day, the teutonic knights are still at the service of the church and of christendom. As for the hussites, I don't exactly recall them being overly aggressive, so sigismund may be able to redirect his efforts, though that'd give the hussites time.

 

[GauchoBadger]

Well, not quite. Do you really believe the teutonic knights and poland would have kept on fighting, if the ottomans had pushed seriously into europe? At the end of the day, the teutonic knights are still at the service of the church and of christendom.

So was Francis I of France, nominally, despite his obvious rivalry with Charles of Habsburg. And yet, he still allied with the Turks.
Honestly, we shouldn't be overestimating the willingness of European countries to go on Crusade against the Ottomans when it goes against their interests and possibly leaves their flanks exposed for their enemies to attack. If anything, European political entities of the time would prefer to take advantage of the situation and react accordingly to Ottoman expansion, either allying with them or going into conflict with them depending on how events go. The Hussites would very likely become friends with the Ottomans in their struggle against the papacy and the HRE.

 

[BBadolato]

The question is in the title. What if Timur also known as Timur-i-Lang or Tamerlane never became the brutal conqueror he was in OTL. His wake on Asia fundamentally changed Eurasian and all of World history. He was infamous for his brutality and known for his patronage of Persian and Islamic culture. His claimed the mantle of Genghis Khan as a Turko-Mongol.

I would assume that the Ottoman Empire would fare much better, the Tughlaq dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate would fare much better, and that many Genghisid states would last much longer. Most of all, 5% of the world population would not be killed.

But what major cultural, social, economic, and cultural differences do you see in this potential TL in the long term?

Where are you starting your POD from exactly? A pod from 1336, the Ottomans are up in the air as far as how much "better" they fare, you could OTL an Ottoman wank, even with the Battle of Ankara. The Delhi Sultanate was at its unsustainable height, it may survive but it still going to be anywhere near the dominant power that it was. The Yuan Dynasty is already suffering from the Red Turban Rebellion who takes power in the aftermath is anyone's guess, The Illkhanate was gone by Timur's birth not that it was really stable. That only leaves the Golden Horde, and Chagatai Khanate, both were nations that were quite unstable, with plenty of puppet khans and civil wars, OTL and Muscovy benefited immensely from being the main tax collector for the Golden Horde.

Note that the period in which the Ottomans are expanding into Europe is concurrent with the Hussite rebellions, while Poland is also distracted fighting against the Teutonic Knights. Could be a golden opportunity for the Ottomans.

The Ottomans had the nasty problem of a very fratricidal succession, the Ottoman Interregnum was precisely what would happen in the worst case scenario, if succession wasn't careful managed, and the Ottomans could only advance so far into Europe. Remember the Ottomans are by no means invincible even in the early period, they faced setbacks before the interregnum.

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

By the same measure- the ottomans being freed up in the east- could we see an ottoman Persia or even stronger hold in southern Europe?

There is some issues with the Ottomans being better off. While the odds of Constantinople falling would be high, the Ottoman Military reorganisation after Ankara is what made it even more effective, beimg more infantry focussed Army. I can't tell how that would go but OTL might be little more different.

A stronger Ottoman Empire in the Balkans and Anatolia, 50 years earlier. Ottoman Persia is not really an option yet as the Ottomans were largely focussed on the West.

 

[GauchoBadger]

The Ottomans had the nasty problem of a very fratricidal succession, the Ottoman Interregnum was precisely what would happen in the worst case scenario, if succession wasn't careful managed, and the Ottomans could advance so far into Europe. Remember the Ottomans are by no means invincible even in the early period, they faced setbacks before interregnum.

I did not claim the Ottomans were invincible, only that they were, before Timur came, in a winning streak, that could have kept going had they exploited the large-scale conflicts and rebellions that were occurring at the turn of the 15th century.
You do make a good point about the dynastic succession, however. Could the sultans sort out the inherent problems with it before getting overextended? Nevertheless, if an Ottoman civil war happens while they're consolidating their hold on the Balkans, i could see a lot of factions (both inside and outside the empire) get involved in the mess, which could have interesting implications of its own.

 

[BBadolato]

I did not claim the Ottomans were invincible, only that they were, before Timur came, in a winning streak, that could have kept going had they exploited the large-scale conflicts and rebellions that were occurring at the turn of the 15th century.
You do make a good point about the dynastic succession, however. Could the sultans sort out the inherent problems with it before getting overextended? Nevertheless, if an Ottoman civil war happens while they're consolidating their hold on the Balkans, i could see a lot of factions (both inside and outside the empire) get involved in the mess, which could have interesting implications of its own.

I'm just skeptical of the ability of the Ottomans to either manipulate internal affairs, or how on "divided" Europe might be. The Hussites where largely confined to Bohemia, and their were negotiations, so it would not be anything close a Protestant Reformation situation. Especially since the example of Francis I was during a time when the Hapsburgs had France surrounded, and was essentially a Renaissance superpower. I'm only bringing this up because the POD is broad enough that what happens depends on what assumptions one makes in the first place, when from 1338/9 who really knows what is going to happen.

Ottoman fratricide was actually a product of the interregnum from the looks of things. All of Murad II's brothers died at different dates, but Mehmed II actually instituted the fratricide law. Then I guess a potential problem for the Ottomans, outside of military defeats could be succession disputes like the Interregnum.

 

[Marc]

I assumed that the departure from history point was clearly indicated by the original poster - Timur doesn't exist, imagine a time and place without him. Timur's life spans from 1336 to 1405.
The impact on Southern Europe can really be said to begin in 1402 - when the battle of Ankara doesn't happen (prior to that, the non-existence of Timur likely has little direct impact on the Ottomans). The Ottoman expansions, East into Anatolia, West along the Danube are at least a decade earlier than in real history.
Now the effect on the Middle East is even vaster...

 

[Jan Olbracht]

King of Hungary Sigismund of Luxembourg was enemy of Poland so if he is in worse troubles due to stronger Ottomans Poland would not care about this. Not having to keep eye on Sigismund Poland could win the war against Teutonic Order more decisively.

 

[BBadolato]

I assumed that the departure from history point was clearly indicated by the original poster - Timur doesn't exist, imagine a time and place without him. Timur's life spans from 1336 to 1405.
The impact on Southern Europe can really be said to begin in 1402 - when the battle of Ankara doesn't happen (prior to that, the non-existence of Timur likely has little direct impact on the Ottomans). The Ottoman expansions, East into Anatolia, West along the Danube are at least a decade earlier than in real history.
Now the effect on the Middle East is even vaster...

However even without Timur the OTL or faster Ottoman expansion may not entirely be a sure thing. That it seems unreasonable to assume they will overrun Southern Europe or just become stronger without Timur, there's too much that could happen to make that assumption off hand. Timur was nothing more than a speed bump to the Ottomans in the grand scheme of thing, but by that same token Andronikos III Palaiologos could still live to see his son come of age, and possibly keep the Byzantines on stronger footing. I'm of the opinion unless there are hard systemic issues in a state, or people are noted to have longstanding medical conditions, anything after the POD is up for grabs. So I can see how the Ottomans can benefit, but I do not see the benefits or as being more likely than not unless there's a good reason.

 

[Superninja76]

So was Francis I of France, nominally, despite his obvious rivalry with Charles of Habsburg. And yet, he still allied with the Turks.
Honestly, we shouldn't be overestimating the willingness of European countries to go on Crusade against the Ottomans when it goes against their interests and possibly leaves their flanks exposed for their enemies to attack. If anything, European political entities of the time would prefer to take advantage of the situation and react accordingly to Ottoman expansion, either allying with them or going into conflict with them depending on how events go. The Hussites would very likely become friends with the Ottomans in their struggle against the papacy and the HRE.

The difference between france and the teutonic knights is that france was not made explicitly for the purpose of the conversion & military conquest of heathens and heretics. And why would the hussites, easily some of the most devout christians in europe at the time, support the turk?

 

[GauchoBadger]

The difference between france and the teutonic knights is that france was not made explicitly for the purpose of the conversion & military conquest of heathens and heretics. And why would the hussites, easily some of the most devout christians in europe at the time, support the turk?

If the Teutonic Knights were indeed keen on being exclusively employed for fighting heretics, then why did they so frequently wage war against Poland and Lithuania, who were already de jure Christianized?

 

[BBadolato]

If the Teutonic Knights were indeed keen on being exclusively employed for fighting heretics, then why did they so frequently wage war against Poland and Lithuania, who were already de jure Christianized?

If I remember correctly the Order was sent in on behalf of the Polish king, but they overstayed their welcome, Lithuania was complicated because they were pagans, and then Catholics who managed to rule a lot of eastern orthodox Christians. For some factions there's nothing stopping political fights between brothers in the faith, but siding with invading heathen or heretics depending on how they interpreted Islam was something else.

 

[Mort the Reaper]

If I remember correctly the Order was sent in on behalf of the Polish king, but they overstayed their welcome, Lithuania was complicated because they were pagans, and then Catholics who managed to rule a lot of eastern orthodox Christians. For some factions there's nothing stopping political fights between brothers in the faith, but siding with invading heathen or heretics depending on how they interpreted Islam was something else.

Well, IIRC, Christians sided with Muslims on multiple occasions during the Reconquista.

 

[BBadolato]

Well, IIRC, Christians sided with Muslims on multiple occasions during the Reconquista.

Depends on which part of Reconquista, After the fall of the Ummayads and before the Almohads is was basically every man for themselves, not a dangerous regional power making itself more of a threat.