AHC: Safavids or Mamelukes become the Muslim conquerors of Constantinople

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
How could we get it so instead of the Ottoman Turks, it is the Safavid Persians or the Mameluke rulers of Egypt (and the Levant) who become the Muslims to finally conquer Constantinople and presumably other lands in southeastern Europe.

If we find those specific dynasties are just too unable to achieve this feat, any scenario where a Persian-based or Egyptian-based Islamic Empire takes the place of the Ottomans as the vanquisher of Byzantium will be acceptable.
 
Well, the nature of mamluks are that they can be basically any Muslim slave army, so you could have non-Bahri/non-Burji/non-Baghdad mamulks gain control of an Anatolian beylik, and then push into Europe. The Safavids are ASB. But maybe one of the Shia beyliks is a possibility?
 
How could we get it so instead of the Ottoman Turks, it is the Safavid Persians or the Mameluke rulers of Egypt (and the Levant) who become the Muslims to finally conquer Constantinople and presumably other lands in southeastern Europe.

If we find those specific dynasties are just too unable to achieve this feat, any scenario where a Persian-based or Egyptian-based Islamic Empire takes the place of the Ottomans as the vanquisher of Byzantium will be acceptable.


No. Not possible. Especially the Safavids.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Well... By the time the Safavids became a major force, Mehmed II conquered Constantinople already.

Well, that could be dealt with one of two ways -

a) the Ottomans fail to take Constantinople before the rise of the Safavids, (perhaps they even fail to cross into Europe) and the Safavids end up dominating Anatolia as a base for later conquest in Europe.
b) A pre-Safavid Persian Empire takes over Constaninople- To my recollection these were the white and black sheeps Turks, before them, the Timurids and before them, the Ilkhanate
 
Well, that could be dealt with one of two ways -

a) the Ottomans fail to take Constantinople before the rise of the Safavids, (perhaps they even fail to cross into Europe) and the Safavids end up dominating Anatolia as a base for later conquest in Europe.
b) A pre-Safavid Persian Empire takes over Constaninople- To my recollection these were the white and black sheeps Turks, before them, the Timurids and before them, the Ilkhanate

Hmmm... Good luck taking Constantinople with Horse Archer armies with no artillery o_O
 
Muslim dynasties were somewhat fungible. That is they could pop up anywhere in the Islamic world.

So any successor state of the Byzantines were going to be either an Anatolian based, or less likely a Balkan based, entity. The Ottomans started in Anatolia, quite close to Constantinople, and transferred to Thrace. It seems to help getting as close a start to Constantinople as possible, with the state carved out of Byzantine territory.

And yes, there is nothing set in stone for this state to be Muslim.

For the Mamelukes, the Ottomans themselves technically were a Mameluke type state, but pretty much have the historical founders of the Mameluke sultanate be working in Rum or Karaman and overthrow the dynasty there, and take it from there.

The Safavids start as a Shia lodge in Azerbaijan, like OTL. Unlike OTL, the Ottomans for whatever reason are not a factor, they either neither coalesced or were smashed too good by Timur. Instead of expanding into Persia, the Safavids expand west into Anatolia, which they were trying too anyway before the Ottomans stopped them. About 1500 they take over the territory which had been part of the original Ottoman emirate, and keep going west. The Byzantines are still around ITTL, but can't stop the Safavids and the other Christian countries are a mixture of unwilling or unable. You could even start the Shia lodge in Anatolia if needed.
 
None of the groups I listed, even the Timurids, had artillery?

The Safavid Armies in the early beginning consisted of Turkmen tribes, so cavalry or horse archers. The Mamluks, cavalry. It was after their defeat that they came up with artillery.

The Timurids were different, I think they had some exotic weaponry from the East which could be considered as artillery.
 
The Safavid Armies in the early beginning consisted of Turkmen tribes, so cavalry or horse archers. The Mamluks, cavalry. It was after their defeat that they came up with artillery.

The Timurids were different, I think they had some exotic weaponry from the East which could be considered as artillery.

The Timurids had artillery? News to me...

I am of the same boat with Koprulu here with the Safavids. Unless the Safavid state somehow manages to conquer Iran or Anatolia right from the formation of their state around Ardabil in the 14th century with a similar fervor that the Ottomans had when they laid down their state, not to mention adopting gunpowder weaponry from early o'clock, maybe they could pull off a Conquest of Constantinople. But I don't see that happening. The Mamlukes have a better chance, but you would have to change their mentality about gunpowder first.

Personally, without gunpowder (or a Crusader with Venetian support), you ain't winning a siege of Constantinople.
 
Why are Venetians necessary, as opposed to just good old fashioned naval superiority?
They aren't. You could have the Mamluks hang on to the Fatimid navy and you'd be one step closer. You could have gates opened by treachery. You could have someone just build a fleet, like one of the Seljuks was starting to do. You could have a Byzantine Empire reduced to the city-state of Constantinople that eventually depopulates over time to a point where one of these two groups can kick down the doors of a city that doesn't have enough manpower to withstand an extended siege.

There are possibilities for dealing with Constantinople without going full Dandolo.
 
Top