AH challenge: Longterm coexistence of the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires

Thande

Donor
There are basically two possible scenarios here. Suggesting a means to get to either one is fine. No limit on the POD but obviously it's implausible to have the Ottomans to still rise to prominence amid the other Turks if you set it too far back.

1. Byzantium still holds Constantinople, which is its capital, and Lydia; the rest of Anatolia, and any amount of land in the Caucasus and the Levant etc., is an Ottoman empire ruled from an Anatolian city.

2. The Ottomans hold Constantinople, which is their capital, and any amount of Anatolia etc; the Byzantines, however, still hold all the Balkans as a single unified state with an imperial capital somewhere in Europe.

This overall state of affairs should persist until at least 1600, though this does not preclude wars sending the borders back and forth a bit.

Ideas?
 
No sack of Constantinople. The Romans go through several damaging Mongol attacks though, which, although failing to take Constantinople, break Roman control over Anatolia for good. As the Mongols withdraw, Turkish tribes move in, one of which is led by one Osman. Osman takes several cities, but is repulsed from major conquests in NW Anatolia by some competent Roman Emperor, who establishes a state made up essentially of modern Greece, plus the areas around the Marmara. The Ottomans, meanwhile, focus their attention on conquering Central Anatolia. Attacks on the Romans are repulsed, as the Romans build up their naval strength to dominate the Aegean.
That's a rough idea of how it COULD work out...
 

Kosovic

Banned
You need to butterfly away the 1204 destruction, obviously. If the smart Crusaders could see 100 years after them, they would know what kind of damage they would do and they would abandon the siege. So the strong military of the Roman Empire remains. A few wars between turks and Romans would ensure a balance of power. A long term peace and there u have it. Co-existance.
 
Without 1204 there won't be an Ottoman state.

You really can't do this because the whole idea behind Sogut from the beginning was taking land from the Byzantines.
 

Kosovic

Banned
There are other ways to go as well. Without 1204, the Turks of Rum would find a strong united(ish) Roman Empire, meaning, they would think twice before trying anything stupid.
 
Post-1204 the Latins are stronger. They manage to hold out against the various Byzantium-successors, until they get whalloped by the Ottomans in the 15th C. The Despotate of Epirus, meanwhile, has managed to do fairly well for itself (althought they never retake Constantinople). This probably involves seriously neutering the Serbians and Bulgars. They manage to hold out for a long period of time, although by the end they're being basically propped up by the Venetians in order to distract the Ottomans from Crete and their other possessions.
 

Kosovic

Banned
The Empire was reforged by 1270, but a shadow of her former past....thats why its necessary not to allow the city fall to the Crusaders.
 

Hendryk

Banned
What city would make most sense as an Ottoman capital if the Byzantines manage to hold Lydia and Constantinople? I don't think Ankara was big enough to be suitable back then; Tarsus perhaps? Good communications with the empire's Near Eastern and Mesopotamian possessions.
 
1. I can't think of any way this is possible. Lydia is for the most part indefensible against a power on the Anatolian plateau (which is why the Greeks tried to destroy Turkish power there after WWI), and the coastal valleys are much the richest region of the peninsula.

I can imagine, with a bit of twisting and turning, a symbiotic relationship with Constantinople remaining an autonomous vassal, but even then, it will always be a potential base for a Crusade located in the very heard of the Ottoman domains, and positioned to really dominate the trade routes. The rise of Russia would make the end of any such arrangement inevitable in any case.

2. I don't see this one as possible either; you can't butterfly away the 4th Crusade otherwise there are no Ottomans - your POD has to be after 1300. Once the Byzantines moved back to Constantinople, it's hard to imagine them managing to secure the Balkans and then manage to survive the hit of having their administrative center relocated after an Ottoman conquest. The vert fact that the Ottomans take Constantinople implies aggressive intent, and if they have the capacity to do this it seems unlikely they will be stopped by anything else in the Balkans.

There are basically two possible scenarios here. Suggesting a means to get to either one is fine. No limit on the POD but obviously it's implausible to have the Ottomans to still rise to prominence amid the other Turks if you set it too far back.

1. Byzantium still holds Constantinople, which is its capital, and Lydia; the rest of Anatolia, and any amount of land in the Caucasus and the Levant etc., is an Ottoman empire ruled from an Anatolian city.

2. The Ottomans hold Constantinople, which is their capital, and any amount of Anatolia etc; the Byzantines, however, still hold all the Balkans as a single unified state with an imperial capital somewhere in Europe.

This overall state of affairs should persist until at least 1600, though this does not preclude wars sending the borders back and forth a bit.

Ideas?
 
For scenario #1, I think it is hard, but not impossible. It is only a matter of few things going somewhat differently for both Byzantium and the Ottomans, which is far from impossible. In OTL, everything seemed to go right for the Ottomans from the founding of their state until Tamerlane's invasion, and even then, after the destruction caused by Tamerlane had ceased, the Ottoman history between about 1430s and until about 1600 can be only described as an Ottoman-wank.

Presuming that in order for the Ottomans as we know them to emerge, the POD has to be after Osman's birth (1258, if I recall correctly), an interesting possibility in the Nicaean Empire pretty much presents itself. 1258 was also the year of Theodore II Lascaris' death, which happened in August - meaning that giving Theodore much longer life may not rule out Osman from being born, ascending to power, and being more or less the same person that he was in OTL.

Now, there is a reason Theodore is important. Unlike the Palaiologoi, the Lascaride policies towards the aristocracy were much less lenient, and actually encouraged the creation of a moderately powerful class of small landholders, some of whom were called on to defend the Empire from the outside enemies as the akritai - an institution very similar with the Turkish ghazis of the time. In OTL, death of Theodore (who was about 36 at the time) led to the rise of Michael Palaiologos, who usurped the throne as Michael VIII from Theodore's young son John IV, and founded a dynasty that lasted until the end of the Empire. Given Michael's pro-aristocracy policies, and him allowing the Turks to get strong in order to keep his political enemies more or less divided, a ruler who favored the middle class instead may leave the Empire's eastern frontier much better defended.

This means that providing Osman still rises to power (which he technically should - I doubt different Byzantine Emperor on the throne will change Osman's character very much, especially since the recovery of Constantinople is still the #1 priority for the Empire for the immediate future, and consolidation of territories is not close behind), he will not see the western Anatolia as easy pickings. Instead, ALT-Osman will probably look to the east, as it will simply make more sense.

In a meanwhile, let's presume the recovery of Constantinople is delayed by a few years, if only because the Lascarides are somewhat more careful, and don't have as much of a need to pull a publicity stunt as the usurper Michael VIII did in OTL. This also gives Theodore II more time to consolidate his holdings, and to ensure that when his son John IV does inherit, he is old enough to rule in his own stead. Given that John was born around 1250, let's have Theodore live until 1270 or so, thus giving Theodore 12 more years. This would not be too unreasonable, given that Theodore's premature death was due to his epileptic condition, and with the condition of medicine at the time, he would probably not live a very long life... but if he even manages to make it to 50 or close enough, it could be enough to drastically change the fortunes of the Empire.

So, let's say Constantinople is recovered around 1265, and Theodore spends the next five years consolidating his holdings, and managing to spread the institution of the akritai or similar throughout the Empire, while breaking the power of the aristocracy in a meanwhile. When around 1270 John IV inherits the Empire, he is around 20 years old, and his position on the throne is secure.

Now, John has to contend with the rivals to the west - the Bulgars, the Serbs, and the remains of the Latin ambitions towards Constantinople. As the Empire under Theodore II seemed to be more than capable of dealing with the Bulgars, I see little reason why the Empire under ALT-John IV would not be able to do the same. With the akritai more or less holding the eastern border secure, John IV can at least manage to keep a semblance of order in Thrace and in Greece.

In a meanwhile, by 1280 or so Osman starts building an empire amongst the Turkish tribes of Anatolia. Several attempts at incursions into the Imperial territory are met with heavy resistance, and eventually Osman decides that it is not worth the trouble, with strong Emperor in Constantinople, and with reasonably well-defended frontier. By 1300 Osman carves a sizeable kingdom for himself and his heirs; by 1330s, when Osman himself is gone, his successors are reasonably capable, but not to the level of OTL Osmanli (who had an incredible number of excellent leaders one after another) - remember, until Alaeddin's military reforms under Orhan I, the Ottoman military ascendancy was far from assured. Here, the Ottomans do not manage such reforms until much later in their history, by which time it is more of a standard practice.

So, what we have here by mid-XIVth century is a stronger Byzantine Empire that can hold its own, even if not truly expand... a weaker, but still powerful Ottoman state... both in a relative stalemate. I can imagine the Byzantine ambitions in the Balkans, considering the constant threat to their realms from the Bulgarians and the Serbs. In a meanwhile, the Ottoman ambitions would lie further to the east, as ATL-Ottomans are weaker than OTL without Alaeddin's military reforms, and with different set of leaders, some of whom might be brilliant, but not to the level of OTL Ottoman rulers of the era.

Also, let us presume that the Lascarid dynasty either continues uninterrupted for several centuries without major disasters (I know, it requires a lot of luck, but then again, chaos theory may result in no major, Empire-breaking disasters happening here - since this is the goal of this challenge, we may as well presume that), or gives way to another dynasty that more or less continues their policies, with only a small period of civil strife in between without having to extensively invite foreign involvement. The situation in the Balkans may reach a stalemate - I don't see this weakened Byzantium (although stronger than OTL) taking all of the Balkans (they simply do not have the power to do so without breaking the Empire economically and leaving it open to an incursion from the East), but they can definitely hold their own and keep the Serbs and the Bulgars in check. In the East, several provinces and border towns keep on changing hands, but for the most part, the situation is stable.

The ATL-Ottomans do not conquer as much as they have in OTL, but at the very least they match the old Sultanate of Rum. When Tamerlane or an equivalent shows up around 1400 (and that is a big "if", but let's presume there is someone very similar to him arising about the same time), the Ottomans are knocked back a bit, but not thoroughly destroyed; the Byzantines suffer a few military defeats, but eventually pay ATL-Tamerlane off, and since he dies shortly thereafter (again, a lucky break, but then it is not unheard of), do not suffer permanent damage. Perhaps the Byzantines, being that they are less affected by this invasion, manage to gain some small advantage over the Ottomans, but that advantage is soon reversed as the Ottomans gain strength again.

Now, the only thing remaining is to leave this relative stalemate more or less unchanged for two hundred or so years. The trick is not to let either the Ottomans or the Byzantines to get much more powerful than the other, or not to get any third major power involved that drastically changes the overall power situation. Again, with a lucky set of breaks it may be possible.

So, does this work?
 

Nikephoros

Banned
I like it, but as I am no expert, I would let Abdul be the one to rip it up.

It could work, I would imagine that an alt-Tamerlane would arise sometime around the time as Tamerlane did IOTL. If the Ottomans don't have a foothold in the Balkans in such a situation, I could see them not being able to crack the Byzantines (assuming they survive alt-Tamerlane)
 
I like it, but as I am no expert, I would let Abdul be the one to rip it up.

It could work, I would imagine that an alt-Tamerlane would arise sometime around the time as Tamerlane did IOTL. If the Ottomans don't have a foothold in the Balkans in such a situation, I could see them not being able to crack the Byzantines (assuming they survive alt-Tamerlane)

Then again, given at least a century, and more likely a century and a half before such ALT-Tamerlane arises, it is also possible that he would not have the power he had in OTL, or that he is less successful - strong enough to keep the Ottomans down but not out, but not so strong as to defeat them utterly. Chaos theory makes it seem that any outcome is far from predestined, and that outcome of even smallest events may differ when it is sufficiently far down the line.
 
Without 1204 there won't be an Ottoman state.

You really can't do this because the whole idea behind Sogut from the beginning was taking land from the Byzantines.
The Ottoman dynasty technically began before a POD in 1204, so theoretically an Osmanian or Ottoman dynasty ITTL too, although it would be nothing like the one we know.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Then again, given at least a century, and more likely a century and a half before such ALT-Tamerlane arises, it is also possible that he would not have the power he had in OTL, or that he is less successful - strong enough to keep the Ottomans down but not out, but not so strong as to defeat them utterly. Chaos theory makes it seem that any outcome is far from predestined, and that outcome of even smallest events may differ when it is sufficiently far down the line.

Or allowing for chaos theory, alt-Tamerlane could be even more powerful than before. I guess that an alt-Tamerlane is less likely to be more powerful, but he (hypothetically) could be more powerful.
 
Or allowing for chaos theory, alt-Tamerlane could be even more powerful than before. I guess that an alt-Tamerlane is less likely to be more powerful, but he (hypothetically) could be more powerful.

True, but if the objective is to have recognizably Ottoman (as in, deriving its name from Osman rather than Ergutrul) dynasty coexisting with Byzantium, a few things have to go the right way for it to happen. Which means a TL with more successful alt-Tamerlane is not going to be one of them :)
 
The Ottoman dynasty technically began before a POD in 1204, so theoretically an Osmanian or Ottoman dynasty ITTL too, although it would be nothing like the one we know.

True, but then it would be derived from Ergutrul (Osman's father) rather than from Osman himself, at least as far as name recognition and such go. I went for the idea that it still derives its name and history from Osman's deeds, which ITTL would be sufficiently grandiose, albeit directed more East than West.
 
The Ottoman dynasty technically began before a POD in 1204, so theoretically an Osmanian or Ottoman dynasty ITTL too, although it would be nothing like the one we know.

Well, no, the Ottoman dynasty began with Osman I. His family goes back further and I'm pretty sure they were beys long before him but the Ottomans specifically trace descent back to him. His father founded Sogut, and the earliest ancestor I can find is two generations previous to that.

Regardless, butterflies mean you're just not going to have an Ottoman dynasty with a local PoD prior to the founding of Sogut. I'm being completely honest when I say this just can't be done. Sogut is about a hundred miles from Constantinople. Once it's there, it either falls in the next rising tide of the Romans or it participates in its own rise (or the rise of a nearby Sel'juk state).
 
Well, no, the Ottoman dynasty began with Osman I. His family goes back further and I'm pretty sure they were beys long before him but the Ottomans specifically trace descent back to him. His father founded Sogut, and the earliest ancestor I can find is two generations previous to that.

Regardless, butterflies mean you're just not going to have an Ottoman dynasty with a local PoD prior to the founding of Sogut. I'm being completely honest when I say this just can't be done. Sogut is about a hundred miles from Constantinople. Once it's there, it either falls in the next rising tide of the Romans or it participates in its own rise (or the rise of a nearby Sel'juk state).

That is presuming that they do not end up migrating East, and abandon Sogut at some point, perhaps due to the same stronger Roman presence, which could be the case with what I am postulating.
 
Top