The Nicopolis Crusade was a failed effort in 1396 to stop the expansion of the Ottoman Empire. Lack of competent leadership, numbers, and supplies was what doomed the expedition and allowed Bayezid of the Ottoman Empire to mop them up. Assuming the crusade was able to get more numbers (England and France were supposed to contribute more but tensions between the two nations prevented that, so there needs to be a way to resolve that problem) which could mean more supplies as well, could the crusade get better success? Could the crusade get better leadership too?

Assuming the Nicopolis Crusade occurs does it allow the Byzantine Empire more time to survive? Is it still doomed in the end? I read that the goal of the Nicopolis Crusade was to break the siege at Constantinople so assuming the battle at Nicopolis succeeds the crusaders can definitely relieve Constantinople. How far could the crusade goal and how it the history of the Ottomans impacted? Could the crusaders even set up crusader states in western Anatolia? Do the Byzantines get back Rumelia? What other effects could we see?
 
Depends upon how complete the victory is- does bayezid die? Does the Ottoman army manage to retreat or is it decimated? Does Timur still come as OTl or does he strike earlier sensing weakness?

As for the Byzantines I feel they'll be lucky if they manage to get the european Aegean littoral. In any case they hardly have any army themselves to occupy or defend any territory they gain.
 
Constantinople will not be saved by the west. The Latin Christians were too polarized -- they couldn't even agree on who was pope. Even if they did win in battle here, the Ottomans had the resources to shake it off and try another siege of Constantinople in the near future. Its fall was inevitable if all Constantinople had going for it was crusade.

The only reason the city lasted another half-century past Nicropolis is the appearance of Timur from the east. Allow him to live longer and wreak even greater damage on the Ottomans than he did in OTL and perhaps the Byzantines can last long enough for Charles the Bold and others to fulfill their pledges to crusade in the second half of the 15th century? Then maybe they could make into the 16th century? (I mean, not likely, but who knows.)
 
Depends upon how complete the victory is- does bayezid die? Does the Ottoman army manage to retreat or is it decimated? Does Timur still come as OTl or does he strike earlier sensing weakness?

As for the Byzantines I feel they'll be lucky if they manage to get the european Aegean littoral. In any case they hardly have any army themselves to occupy or defend any territory they gain.

Constantinople will not be saved by the west. The Latin Christians were too polarized -- they couldn't even agree on who was pope. Even if they did win in battle here, the Ottomans had the resources to shake it off and try another siege of Constantinople in the near future. Its fall was inevitable if all Constantinople had going for it was crusade.

The only reason the city lasted another half-century past Nicropolis is the appearance of Timur from the east. Allow him to live longer and wreak even greater damage on the Ottomans than he did in OTL and perhaps the Byzantines can last long enough for Charles the Bold and others to fulfill their pledges to crusade in the second half of the 15th century? Then maybe they could make into the 16th century? (I mean, not likely, but who knows.)
If the crusaders can get more men (it wasn't that hard to get more men if countries like England and France got their act together), there could be a chance that Bayezid gets captured/killed assuming it goes like Ankara where Bayezid died. In that scenario, the interregnum occurs like OTL and is enough for the crusaders to carve out territory in western Anatolia like they did to the Levant in OTL whilst the Byzantines can try to cement control back in Rumelia (though Bulgaria is more likely to control the territory so I can see the Bulgarians and Byzantine duking it out, but it won't be a contest for Bulgaria).

Timur could definitely take advantage of the interregnum in Anatolia to assert his power. Though I am under now illusions that when Timur dies the Ottomans will try to get their act together somehow. And when gunpowder comes along their way I can only imagine the Ottomans will be very happy to repay the favor. Whether the crusaders can get gunpowder weapons in time to counter it, well that depends. But with some buffer states I can see the Byzantines surviving past 1453 before the inevitable downfall. Because only another successful crusade can buy the Byzantines time.

On the other hand, if Bayezid does survive, I highly doubt the crusaders would enjoy the same success the second time.
 
Last edited:
Well if the ottomans are decimated and Bayezid killed you’d probably see an earlier interregnum. If Timur still invades (maybe earlier) you might see the ottomans collapse. But the ERE is still screwed. They’re way past the point of no return by now. Their best bet to “survive” is to be taken over by whoever fills the void in Europe. Be it the Bulgarians, Serbians, or local Greeks take the city and claim the title of Emperor.
 
Well if the ottomans are decimated and Bayezid killed you’d probably see an earlier interregnum. If Timur still invades (maybe earlier) you might see the ottomans collapse. But the ERE is still screwed. They’re way past the point of no return by now. Their best bet to “survive” is to be taken over by whoever fills the void in Europe. Be it the Bulgarians, Serbians, or local Greeks take the city and claim the title of Emperor.
I can see Timur invading since the region is weak enough for conquest. But that also puts Constantinople and the crusaders in general. Ideally they'd be smart enough to submit to Timur as tributary states. If Timur is gone though I don't think it'd be long before a new Turkic faction takes control in Turkic Anatolia (though I could see an Ottoman restoration). But considering how much damage they're dealt with it'll be a long while before they're in a state to threaten anyone.

As for Constantinople, yeah at this point I won't be surprised if someone forces Constantinople to crown themselves emperor of the Romans. Most likely a Bulgarian. Could this mean the end of the Byzantine/Roman Empire as we know it? That depends on what angle you look at it. But then again foreigners becoming monarchs of different kingdoms/empires/countries is nothing new.

Highly doubt the Latins will try anything stupid this time considering their position.
 
You probably can't get a better result from a successful Nicopolis then that which came from Timur's invasion just a few years later.

An interesting result, if not one that would likely save the Balkans in the long run, would be if the crusade was successful enough to spark off a bit more crusading fervour in the west.
 
You probably can't get a better result from a successful Nicopolis then that which came from Timur's invasion just a few years later.

An interesting result, if not one that would likely save the Balkans in the long run, would be if the crusade was successful enough to spark off a bit more crusading fervour in the west.
I have to say the Byzantines were lucky Bayezid pissed off the wrong person. Bayezid demanded tribute from a tributary state of Timur’s and it resulted in the Ottomans almost being screwed over permanently.

An earlier Bayezid death and interregnum would without a doubt definitely lead to a revival in crusader activity especially now that a bunch of crusader states are set up in western Anatolia. The Byzantines would wish to get that land back but sadly there’s not much they can do at this point. Ideally the crusaders would try to Christianized the Muslims but won’t try to force convert the Orthodox Greeks into Catholicism. Pissing off the latter population would be a bad move and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Latins try to cooperate with them. Though I highly doubt the legacy of 1204 is leaving the Latins no matter how much they try to make up for it.
 
One thing to consider back in the west, is that Jean the Fearless, Count of Nevers took part in this crusade,

Depending on the outcome this could butterfly away his assassination of the Duke of Orleans and, therefore the Burgundian, Armagnac civil war in France*, which might have further downstream impacts on the renewal of the Hundred Years War under Henry V. If you can actually get a period of peace in there**, then you might actually have an opportunity for some kind of follow up crusade.

*Although given the madness of Charles VI it's not unlikely there would still be some kind of struggle for power.

** Although maybe not - there's good arguments to be made that a lot of the wars in the 15th century were partly the result of big structural issues.
 
One thing to consider back in the west, is that Jean the Fearless, Count of Nevers took part in this crusade,

Depending on the outcome this could butterfly away his assassination of the Duke of Orleans and, therefore the Burgundian, Armagnac civil war in France*, which might have further downstream impacts on the renewal of the Hundred Years War under Henry V. If you can actually get a period of peace in there**, then you might actually have an opportunity for some kind of follow up crusade.

*Although given the madness of Charles VI it's not unlikely there would still be some kind of struggle for power.

** Although maybe not - there's good arguments to be made that a lot of the wars in the 15th century were partly the result of big structural issues.
Also people like John of Gaunt, Louis of Orleans, and Philip of Burgundy were supposed to come but peace negotiations between England and France made sure they never came. So something has to happen during the Carolinian Phase of the Hundred Years’ War so that all three men would be in a position to come over; which would mean far more men would join the crusade.

I’m thinking about a TL where a pro-English Castile is able to send more men too as well as Portugal but I’d be digressing. But the point is that far more men would’ve made this crusade far more successful.
 
can see Timur invading since the region is weak enough for conquest. But that also puts Constantinople and the crusaders in general. Ideally they'd be smart enough to submit to Timur as tributary states
Timur can't cross to do anything unless the crusaders are Brain dead and decide to cross in to Anatolia to get their armies murdered Timur most likely does what he did in the olt destroy any united remnant of Anatolia and try to restore beylik rule there with a smaller ottoman remant
 
Timur can't cross to do anything unless the crusaders are Brain dead and decide to cross in to Anatolia to get their armies murdered Timur most likely does what he did in the olt destroy any united remnant of Anatolia and try to restore beylik rule there with a smaller ottoman remant
The whole of Ottoman Anatolia would be under civil war by Bayezid’s sons so it wouldn’t be hard for Timur to steamroll. That and the Latin crusaders picking up any easy pieces.

As for the crusaders if they hear about how Timur steamrolled any Turkic opposition they’ll be far more likely to compromise to him by becoming tributary states. I can’t see them going across Anatolia either especially with the Karamanids out there. I see one battle almost going wrong for the crusaders to realize that they’ll be far better off establishing independent crusader states in western Anatolia.

Overall I could see the Karamanids getting stronger, the Ottomans destroyed, most of Anatolia under Timur’s control, the Latins occupying western Anatolia, and the Byzantines buying themselves a little bit more time. What happens after Timur dies? Well that’s anyone’s guess. And expect gunpowder to wreck havoc.
 
If Bayzeid dies in 1396, how many of his sons are of age?

If we go by this:
Suleyman (21), Ertughrul (20), Isa (18), Mustafa (16)
Wikipedia gives different dates. Any other sources would be appreciated.

But I'm not sure we can guarantee a Ottoman civil war entirely like OTL and Timur smashing things to bits, or that the crusaders - pumped up on how they've done so fantastically versus the Ottomans - seeing Timur as a foe beyond their ability to beat (and as such, I very much doubt they're getting off with only "almost going wrong").

Latin states in Anatolia do not sound like they're in the cards, IMO. Either Latin armies recognizing to stop before they overcommit, which means not crossing into Anatolia in the first place (and largely returning home - they've won, after all - or setting up in territories they could return to the Byzantines "but why do that?"), or facing that the (over)confidence that marked the start of the crusade is not likely to be dampened by winning.
 
Last edited:
Considering that the 1453 Ottoman siege almost ended in complete failure and the final assault only succeeded due to dumb luck (a unguarded gate), I find it unlikely that any 1396 crusade could take the city after years of campaigning in the Balkans (The 4th Crusade was the exception, not the rule).

The Byzantines will survive if the Ottomans are driven out of Europe, at least until a European power develops large amounts of gunpowder weapons nessecary for taking the city.
 
If Bayzeid dies in 1396, how many of his sons are of age?

If we go by this:
Suleyman (21), Ertughrul (20), Isa (18), Mustafa (16)
Wikipedia gives different dates. Any other sources would be appreciated.

But I'm not sure we can guarantee a Ottoman civil war entirely like OTL and Timur smashing things to bits, or that the crusaders - pumped up on how they've done so fantastically versus the Ottomans - seeing Timur as a foe beyond their ability to beat (and as such, I very much doubt they're getting off with only "almost going wrong").

Latin states in Anatolia do not sound like they're in the cards, IMO. Either Latin armies recognizing to stop before they overcommit, which means not crossing into Anatolia in the first place (and largely returning home - they've won, after all - or setting up in territories they could return to the Byzantines "but why do that?"), or facing that the (over)confidence that marked the start of the crusade is not likely to be dampened by winning.
There’s going to be a lot of fighting in Anatolia between Bayezid’s sons, Timur, and other Turkic factions like the Karamanids who are going to take advantage and seize what they can. I’d say it’ll take at least one battle between one of the factions that isn’t Timur for the crusades to realize that crossing through Anatolia isn’t going to be a bad idea.

The Latin states in western Anatolia are going to be there because the crusaders will at least ask for some material reward. Also not to mention that the Turks aren’t leaving that easily and they have to at least make sure that they’re not crossing into Europe again.
Considering that the 1453 Ottoman siege almost ended in complete failure and the final assault only succeeded due to dumb luck (a unguarded gate), I find it unlikely that any 1396 crusade could take the city after years of campaigning in the Balkans (The 4th Crusade was the exception, not the rule).

The Byzantines will survive if the Ottomans are driven out of Europe, at least until a European power develops large amounts of gunpowder weapons nessecary for taking the city.
The crusaders aren’t trying to take the city they’re trying to stop the Ottoman siege of it. Hope that makes it clear.
 
Top