Only for the Timurids to crush the Byzzies, and overrun Anatolia and the Balkans. All hail Timur Lenk, emperor of Rome!!![]()
And a Timurid dynasty lasting in Europe to the present day![]()
Constantinople is nothing without the Anatolian manpower base. If Timur gets his hands on it, despite him not crossing into Europe, The Byzzies will be devastated.Two problems:
1) Ships.
2) Constantinople, next-to-untakeable.
How the hey is Timur entering "Europe", let alone having any meaningful conquest, with those two obstacles?
And of course, #3: The Byzantines are going to use all their time honored tricks and tactics of the nonmilitary sort to deal with Timur - up to and including paying him tribute to go away and fight someone else if that seems viable.
This is assuming the worst scenario for speculation's sake.
Timur WON'T go after Constantinople. His descendents might. Depending on their situation, this could be a very bad thing.
For them.
Seriously, look at how much trouble even the Ottomans had taking the city - with it worn down to a nub and with the Ottomans having naval superiority and cannon.
Timur WON'T go after Constantinople. His descendents might. Depending on their situation, this could be a very bad thing.
The same Constantinople that spent four decades of the thirteenth century under the control of ragtag crusaders of dubious allegiance?
The capture of COnstantinople was very ASB. The crusaders got lucky because a major gate had been "accidentely" left open allowing the crusaders to pour in and due to incompetance he sea walls were breached. Pray tell me where Timur would get some 100s of ships. Had Byzantium been completly fortified the battle could have easily gone the other way. Please it took the Ottomans 80000 troops, cannons, 200 ships just to take the flea bitten villagelike COnstantinople 1453 defended by 8000 men. Please dont sput you nonsense hereAs I said before crusaders were lucky. They spent 4 decades under control of crusaders because the Bulgarian empire, two greek empires, squabbled with each other so they had no time to focus that much on the Latins.
Nicaea spent quite a bit of time focusing on Constantinople and Thrace...
True but they also fought with Trebizond, Epirus, and Bulgaria.
The Crusaders were fighting others too. Had they not been, then keeping the city would have been easier. That does not speak well to the strength of the East Roman Empire before or after the city fell and was reacquired.
Yes look what hapapened the latins lost balkans to Bulgaria and Epirus, while Nikea took Anatolia. What you think the byzantines could reconquer Constantinople in just a couple years after its capture. Yes Latin empire held for four decades as a weak insignificant little nation. It only survived due to its control of Constantinople. According to Ostrogorsky the reason it held out for so long was due to the impentrable defenses of Constantinople and warfare beetween epirus, Nicea, and Bulgaria, as well as the good graces of the Italian city states and Hungary.
Yes but even though latin empire conquered COnstantinople the defenses of Cosntantinople prevented an assault. OTL Michael Paleologos got very lucky.It was not going to lose the good graces of its allies, but the fact that the Greeks were fighting one another is not an excuse because the Latin Empire was always paralyzed by many of its fighters and defenders being engaged elsewhere when the Greeks and/or Bulgarians attacked.
Yes but even though latin empire conquered COnstantinople the defenses of Cosntantinople prevented an assault. OTL Michael Paleologos got very lucky.
So you concede that the fact that Epirus, Bulgaria, and Nicaea were as interested in fighting the Latin Empire as one another had little to do with the failings of the Byzantine Empire either prior to or following its restoration in Constantinople?
No the failings of the Byzantine empire Prior to its sack were caused by the wretched Angelii, the power of the aristocracy, Italian hold on the economy, and that retarded Andronikos screwing things over led to its inevitable collapseThose buffaoons should have never taken power nor such a feudal system be place in Byzantium. I concede that Epirus, Nikea, and Bulgaria fighting each other had anything to do with Byzantium, but what I am saying is that the 4th crusade was god damm lucky for the Crusaders. Also after Nikea took the capitol they could do little because of the turks migrating into Anatolia, the wars against Charles D Anjou which exausted and bankrupted the empire, followed by mass persecutions and inept emperors follwing various civil war with the rise of powerful neibhors in both the east and west. Well after Michael VIII death the byzzies were screwed badly.