Battle of Ankara - Ottomans wiped out

[trajen777]

After Battle of Ankara (1400)

What if instead of taking bribes from the Ottomans the Genose had kept their end of the bargin with Tammerlame and had cut off all transport of the Ottomans across to Europe. Tammerlame would have finished the destruction of the Ottomans and then who would have ended on top.

1. A rebirthed Byzantium
2. A New Serbian - Byzantium
3. A new Bulgarian - Byzantium
4. Endless mini states

Battle of Ankara
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2007)

Battle of AnkaraPart of the Ottoman-Timurid warsDateJuly 20, 1402LocationÇubuk field, near AnkaraResultDecisive Timurid victoryCombatants Timurid Empire Ottoman Empire
SerbiaCommandersTimurBeyazid I#
Stefan LazarevićStrength140,000 Turco-Mongols65,000 Turks, 20,000 Serbs[1]Casualties15,000-25,000 killed and wounded[citation needed]15,000-40,000 killed and wounded[citation needed]The Battle of Ankara or Battle of Angora, fought on July 20, 1402, took place at the field of Çubuk (near Ankara) between the forces of the Ottoman sultan Bayezid I and the Turko-Mongol forces of Timur, ruler of the Timurid Empire.
Contents

[hide]

• <LI class=toclevel-1>1 Background <LI class=toclevel-1>2 Forces <LI class=toclevel-1>3 The battle <LI class=toclevel-1>4 Aftermath <LI class=toclevel-1>5 Notes
• 6 External links

//
[edit] Background

As the Turko-Mongol leader, Timur was the most powerful Central Asian ruler since Genghis Khan's time[citation needed]. He came from a branch of a minor Turkish noble family in Turkestan and by long and relentless fighting he sought to rehabilitate the Mongol Empire.
Timur had conquered Georgia and Armenia in 1390, expanding his empire to the borders of the Ottoman Empire. The two powers soon came into direct conflict. Beyazid demanded tribute from one of the Turkish emirates who had pledged loyalty to Timur and threatened to invade. Timur interpreted this action as an insult to himself and in 1400 sacked the Ottoman city of Sebaste (modern Sivas). Beyazid was stung into furious action and when Timur invaded Anatolia from the east, Beyazid summoned his forces and confronted Timur's forces near Ankara. The conflict, overall, was the culmination of years of insulting letters exchanged between Timur and Beyazid.

[edit] Forces

This short section requires expansion.
The armies were about equal in size. Even though some eyewitnesses reported over one million troops in Timur's horde, the real number is probably closer to 200,000. While Bayezid's army was approximately equal to Timur's, it was mainly infantry and 20,000 Serbian knights led by Despot Stefan Lazarevic.Timur's forces were almost entirely mounted with a few Indian war elephants.[1]

[edit] The battle

This short section requires expansion.

Painting by Stanisław Chlebowski, Sultan Bayezid prisoned by Timur, 1878, depicting the capture of Bayezid by Timur.


The battle began with a large-scale attack from the Ottomans, countered by swarms of arrows from the Timurid horse archers. Several thousands were killed and many surrendered to Timur. During the battle, the main water supply of both armies, Cubuk Creek was diverted to an off-stream reservoir near the town of Cubuk by Timur, which left the Ottoman army with no water. The final battle took place at Catal hill, dominating the Cubuk valley. The Ottoman army, both thirsty and tired, was defeated, though Bayezid managed to escape to the nearby mountains with a few hundred horsemen. However, Timur had the mountains surrounded and, heavily outnumbering Bayezid, soon captured him.Ottoman army was powerful enough at the start,but then the Tatar men and the Sipahis from Anatolian Beyliks left Bayezid alone and joined Timur's forces,disrupting Ottoman flanks.

[edit] Aftermath

European nations had, at first, encouraged the Timurid invasion and the Genoese were said to be flying the Mongol standard from the walls of Galata in support of Timur. However, after a few months following his destruction of the Ottoman power in Anatolia, fear of being the next target had gripped the European people.[citation needed]
The Battle of Ankara had a temporary effect on the political ground of the Balkans, where at the time the Ottomans had the initiative. Because of the Timurid invasion, the siege of Constantinople was lifted and Ottoman troops were withdrawn from the Balkans to counter the new threat.
This event had split the Ottomans into factions since Bayezid's sons were still alive and free after he himself was captured. Most of the Ottoman Turks had fled into Europe. The result was a civil war among Bayezid's four sons. This temporary weakening of the Ottomans resulted in delaying the end of the Byzantine Empire and the eventual Ottoman conquest of Balkans.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Apologies for thread necromancy, but I decided to search out this topic rather than start a new thread. Let's say Timur does indeed do lasting damage to the Ottoman state, but dies in 1405 on schedule. Who is best able to pick up the pieces? I imagine that by this time, Constantinople is going to fall to someone sooner or later; but in 1405, who is best placed to do this? Will Serbia and Bulgaria be too exhausted from throwing off Ottoman rule in following the Battle of Ankara to attempt an effective conquest of the City? Would it perhaps be "captured" by the form of a marital alliance? Could it become a Venetian or Genoese colony, or maybe a city state under Italian protection? Or will it be taken by an Islamic power regardless? Who in the Islamic world is best placed to do this?

Please discuss.

 

[Alexandru H.]

In 1405? I would say the Black or White Sheep would dominate Asia Minor in the next century, but with no naval experience or interests, the Eastern Mediteranean Sea will remain a Venetian-Genoese battleground.

The Balkans are harder to predict. I see Morea jumping on Athens and maybe Thessalia but the turks maintaining a hold onto Thrace, Makedonia and Bulgaria. Walachia might play an important role, as it played historically in the 1402-1413 period...

 

[Ridwan Asher]

Just want to remind everyone that during Timurid invasion of Anatolia, Ottoman Empire was a Balkan-centered state. Even if Timur managed to gain all of Anatolia it doesn't spell the end of the Ottomans for there will still be the remnants centered in Adrianople that either Serbia or Bulgaria would have to deal with first if they want to have Constantinople.

EDIT : Apparently Alexandru. H has already beaten me there....

 

[robmel]

Complete Timur's conquest of Anatolia would lead to full rise of Karamanid power after his death. Karamanids would likely control whole Anatolia, and Aegean Sea will become the border between Christian and Muslim world for some time, because the Karamanids won't be too interested in conquest of Balkans, because their power seat was in the middle of Anatolia. More likely they would be interested to expand in Syria to capture the coastal towns and trade roads.

Ottomans might survive in European side, but a crusade like Varna in 1444 to relieve Turkish pressure of Constantinople would finish them finally off. A numerous small Christian (Serbian, Albanian, Greek, Bulgarian) states will sprung up in south Balcan power vacuum after European Ottomans are gone. The north ones would be under Hungarian influence, the coastal ones - under Venetian influence. Without Ottoman naval challenge - Venetians would completely rule the whole eastern Mediterranean Sea, because Karamanid state would be more "land focused" and under influence of Semi-nomadic inland Turkic tribes.

 

[MNP]

I have to agree that Karaman is the winner here, splitting Anatolia with the Black or White Turkmen.

As for the Ottomans, I'd say Suleymain ends up the winner since his brothers will probably be killed in the fight against Timur and he was based in Edirne. Note: Byzantium was allied with him at this time I think. Be interesting to find out what would be come of Musa. He would probably still be detained by Karaman or some other power, but what would they do with him? Use him as a figure head to conquer Anatolia? Quietly kill him?

Finally, why would there be a crusade to "finish" off the Ottomans? If they are in the position of being "finished off" then there will be no crusade because Byzantium won't be threatened with extinction by a rising muslim superpower. They'll just be another one of the peoples in the Balkans struggling to survive, and both will probably continue on until Karaman crosses the Agean. Remember it's not like there weren't restless former-beyliks in western Anatolia.

I suppose it might be possible we might see some sort of fusion of Ottomans/Byzantines to survive but it's more likely they will stab each other in the back the instant they think they can get away with that.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

I've just started making a map showing what I think could happen. I've only done a bit of the Balkans so far, mostly covering the Christian powers. I've had the Romans experience a mini-revival by expelling the Catholics from the Peloponese and taking a couple of outposts on the Marmara, as well as Galipoli. The Ottomans have stabilised-ish into a new state, the Sultanate of Macedonia. In Greece, the Despotate of Epirus, based at Arta, is expanding into Thessaly and squabbling with the Venetians over Attica. The Knights of Rhodes have established themselves in south western Anatolia in the absence of any credible Turkish force to expel them, though their presence is much resented by the local Romans/Greeks. To the north, the Third Bulgarian Empire prevents the Macedonian Sultanate from gaining access to the Danube, or securing its hold on the Black Sea, but lacks the strength to defeat the Muslims altogether. Any ideas of how to fill in the rest of this map?

 

[Alexandru H.]

This is my conservative map of 1452 Europe, 50 years after Ankara...

Wallachia had taken Dobrudja in 1389. As you can see, I don't trust the Byzantine ability to do anything than conquering Attica. I still think the Ottomans would retain Bursa. Oh, and I maintained the Principality of Lemnos on the map...

​

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

This is a Christian-wank scenario, which ignores a few key points.

- The Ottomans are a Balkan state in this period. Loss of Anatolian possessions doesn't really dent their power. The Battle of Ankara did effectively destroy the army in OTL, yet they were just fine in Europe.

- The Ottomans didn't need anyone to transport their army across the Straits. They controlled all the key fortresses allowing them to do this whenever they wanted. You can't really stop them from crossing.

- Despite modern Balkan nationalist historiography, the Ottoman Empire wasn't a thin veneer of Turks over subdued-but-still-existing-and-waiting-for-glorious-reemergence Balkan nations. Large proportions of the population, including majorities in large portions of the Balkans, were Muslims. Muslims firmly controlled the land, and the Ottomans had a robust and centralized bureaucracy controlling the region. You don't just casually throw that off and suddenly have insto-states. It wouldn't be thrown off, and I don't think anyone in the surrounding area, even in combination, has the power to force the issue. As I said, the Ottomans are a Balkan power in this period (actually in just about any period up to 1878); the basis of their power is there.

- Due to the above, even if every single last member of the army at Ankara is killed, that does nothing about the significant forces that are in the Balkans. The Ottomans didn't just totally strip the Balkans of troops and send them all to Anatolia, you know. They had equal or greater forces remaining at home.

In OTL, the loss at Ankara was about as bad as it could be - there's not really any way to make it worse, unless you manage to have every single adult make of the House of Osman present.

 

[Alexandru H.]

This is a Christian-wank scenario, which ignores a few key points.

- The Ottomans are a Balkan state in this period. Loss of Anatolian possessions doesn't really dent their power. The Battle of Ankara did effectively destroy the army in OTL, yet they were just fine in Europe.

- The Ottomans didn't need anyone to transport their army across the Straits. They controlled all the key fortresses allowing them to do this whenever they wanted. You can't really stop them from crossing.

In OTL, the loss at Ankara was about as bad as it could be - there's not really any way to make it worse, unless you manage to have every single adult make of the House of Osman present.

My map agrees with you.

Really, most people don't understand how important was the Balkanic Peninsula for the Ottos.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

My map agrees with you.

Really, most people don't understand how important was the Balkanic Peninsula for the Ottos.

I'm not sure why it is, but Romanians always seem to have a more realistic sense of Balkan history. Maybe it's because ultimately Romania has been the most successful state in the region, or because the core of it remained largely independent as vassals, or because they got the best "deal" in modern times due to the ability to play the Russians, Ottomans, and Hapsburgs off each other. Still, it seems to me that in the modern period, Romania had the Phanariot period, which was really bad, whereas Bulgaria benefitted immensely from Ottoman reform.

Anyway, everyone else seems to view the Ottomans as like four or five people inhabiting and oppressing the Balkans, which were 99.9999% Balkan Slavs and Greeks struggling day and night to free themselves from security, lack of military service, and low taxes.

 

[Alexandru H.]

I'm not sure why it is, but Romanians always seem to have a more realistic sense of Balkan history. Maybe it's because ultimately Romania has been the most successful state in the region, or because the core of it remained largely independent as vassals, or because they got the best "deal" in modern times due to the ability to play the Russians, Ottomans, and Hapsburgs off each other. Still, it seems to me that in the modern period, Romania had the Phanariot period, which was really bad, whereas Bulgaria benefitted immensely from Ottoman reform.

Anyway, everyone else seems to view the Ottomans as like four or five people inhabiting and oppressing the Balkans, which were 99.9999% Balkan Slavs and Greeks struggling day and night to free themselves from security, lack of military service, and low taxes.

Well, Ottomans were the best sovereigns one could ask for in this part of the world. They were not allowed to own property here, to live, to receive nobility titles, to build mosques. Every time we got angry, we'd start a small war; winning or losing it was completely unimportant: after the peace talks, we would go back to the same old deal as before.

The equilibrium was destroyed by the Austrians and the Russians; when Wallachia and Moldavia became battlegrounds, the Ottomans decided to appoint the Greek phanariots as rulers, disregarding the old customs and understandings between the vassal and sovereign.

Returning to the topic on-hand, yeah, Serbs and Bulgarians actually benefited from the Ottoman rule, since their financial and economical obligations were lower than during the Serbian/Bulgarian/Byzantine rule. The Ottomans had no interest to convert them; but the few converts managed to rise to high-offices (I think albanians and caucasians are the two top ethnic backgrounds in the history of Ottoman vezirs, if I'm not mistaken).

 

[Valdemar II]

I was thinking of a interesting thing, with the Ottomans reduced to the Balkans, we could see them adopt some version of South Slavish as the common language, with that, maybe we could see a more sucesfull spread of Islam among the South Slavs, creating a centralised Slavish Muslim state in the Balkans, while Anatolia end up a mess of Christian and Muslims sects and statelets, while speaking a mess of Turkish, Greek, Arabic, Armenian and Kurdish, like a alt. Balkan or Caucasus.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Well, Ottomans were the best sovereigns one could ask for in this part of the world. They were not allowed to own property here, to live, to receive nobility titles, to build mosques. Every time we got angry, we'd start a small war; winning or losing it was completely unimportant: after the peace talks, we would go back to the same old deal as before.

The equilibrium was destroyed by the Austrians and the Russians; when Wallachia and Moldavia became battlegrounds, the Ottomans decided to appoint the Greek phanariots as rulers, disregarding the old customs and understandings between the vassal and sovereign.

Returning to the topic on-hand, yeah, Serbs and Bulgarians actually benefited from the Ottoman rule, since their financial and economical obligations were lower than during the Serbian/Bulgarian/Byzantine rule. The Ottomans had no interest to convert them; but the few converts managed to rise to high-offices (I think albanians and caucasians are the two top ethnic backgrounds in the history of Ottoman vezirs, if I'm not mistaken).

Bosnians were highly represented especially in the earlier period when the Devshirme was still in effect. Later on, Albanians and Caucasians became fairly strongly represented - the latter because they often entered the households of notables as slaves, but also in the later 19th c because giant numbers of them fled Russia into the Ottoman domains.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I was thinking of a interesting thing, with the Ottomans reduced to the Balkans, we could see them adopt some version of South Slavish as the common language, with that, maybe we could see a more sucesfull spread of Islam among the South Slavs, creating a centralised Slavish Muslim state in the Balkans, while Anatolia end up a mess of Christian and Muslims sects and statelets, while speaking a mess of Turkish, Greek, Arabic, Armenian and Kurdish, like a alt. Balkan or Caucasus.

That's actually a pretty interesting thought.

I think if it's this early, though, the Greek element will predominate, as the Greeks are the only really literate Christian group, and predominate in ecclesiastical positions.

What you would probably end up with is a Muslim Byzantine Empire, and the Balkans Hellenized in language and culture, but not religion.

 

[Valdemar II]

That's actually a pretty interesting thought.

I think if it's this early, though, the Greek element will predominate, as the Greeks are the only really literate Christian group, and predominate in ecclesiastical positions.

What you would probably end up with is a Muslim Byzantine Empire, and the Balkans Hellenized in language and culture, but not religion.

It just seem to be that even through the Ottoman Empire prefered the use of Greek and Arabic, Turkish still ended up dominant, in the Balkans the Slavs and Albanians would be the primary converts to Islam, the Greeks always seem more stubborn in their Christianity than the Slavs, likely because of their higher prestigial position in the Empire. So while Greek would be used as adminstrative language, the common Muslim outside (and among the lower classer in) the capital and major cities would likely speaking either Albanian or some Slavish dialect, so when the Ottomans begin to modernise they will likely go away from Greek and Arabic and adopt some version of Ottomanish Slavish. Plus the effect on pan-Slavism would be hilarious. Of course with a stronger Ottomanish presence on the Balkans their dealings with the West is going to be interesting.

 

[MNP]

This is a Christian-wank scenario, which ignores a few key points.

- The Ottomans are a Balkan state in this period. Loss of Anatolian possessions doesn't really dent their power. The Battle of Ankara did effectively destroy the army in OTL, yet they were just fine in Europe.

- The Ottomans didn't need anyone to transport their army across the Straits. They controlled all the key fortresses allowing them to do this whenever they wanted. You can't really stop them from crossing.

- Despite modern Balkan nationalist historiography, the Ottoman Empire wasn't a thin veneer of Turks over subdued-but-still-existing-and-waiting-for-glorious-reemergence Balkan nations. Large proportions of the population, including majorities in large portions of the Balkans, were Muslims. Muslims firmly controlled the land, and the Ottomans had a robust and centralized bureaucracy controlling the region. You don't just casually throw that off and suddenly have insto-states. It wouldn't be thrown off, and I don't think anyone in the surrounding area, even in combination, has the power to force the issue. As I said, the Ottomans are a Balkan power in this period (actually in just about any period up to 1878); the basis of their power is there.

- Due to the above, even if every single last member of the army at Ankara is killed, that does nothing about the significant forces that are in the Balkans. The Ottomans didn't just totally strip the Balkans of troops and send them all to Anatolia, you know. They had equal or greater forces remaining at home.

In OTL, the loss at Ankara was about as bad as it could be - there's not really any way to make it worse, unless you manage to have every single adult make of the House of Osman present.

Only 1 person in the revived thread proposed destroying the Ottomans outright. But also the PoD is that the Ottomans are stopped crossing for whatever reason so that's the starting point. Say there are storms, etc. that delays them enough for Timur to cut them off from the fotresses.

The point is they are trapped in Anatolia so Timur is probably able to kill all Ottoman military forces that are in Anatolia. So none of them ever get back which hurts them more. Wiki says that Prince Suleymain commanded the right wing so he goes down as well leaving Musa, Isa and Mehmed. Mehmed's power base is in Bursa so if Timur gives chase, he's probably going to ravage that too.

So I'd see principle claimants for European OE as Musa and Isa. But Musa was captured and released after Timur died and Isa had estates in western Anatolia which get ravaged by Timur.

This might prevent the civil war giving them a good chance to strike back, but how good was Isa at ruling?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Only 1 person in the revived thread proposed destroying the Ottomans outright. But also the PoD is that the Ottomans are stopped crossing for whatever reason so that's the starting point. Say there are storms, etc. that delays them enough for Timur to cut them off from the fotresses.

The point is they are trapped in Anatolia so Timur is probably able to kill all Ottoman military forces that are in Anatolia. So none of them ever get back which hurts them more. Wiki says that Prince Suleymain commanded the right wing so he goes down as well leaving Musa, Isa and Mehmed. Mehmed's power base is in Bursa so if Timur gives chase, he's probably going to ravage that too.

So I'd see principle claimants for European OE as Musa and Isa. But Musa was captured and released after Timur died and Isa had estates in western Anatolia which get ravaged by Timur.

This might prevent the civil war giving them a good chance to strike back, but how good was Isa at ruling?

I think there's a bit of overestimating of Timur's ability to strike that far into Ottoman territory. He's got really, really badly overextended supply lines, and in a battle like this, where everyone is using light cavalry, you're just not going to have battles leading to total destruction.

If Beyazid had not been such an arrogant prick, he might have just employed a scorched-earth policy and forced Timur to withdraw. The region in question is not capable of supporting large armies for more than very brief periods.

The power base of all the princes was based not at all on estates. There is a misunderstanding here. Princes were given government responsibility to train them for eventual rule. Their power base is the government and the support of its various functions. If all the Ottoman princes are killed, that would be a total disaster, but it's pretty unrealistic. The fewer left, the easier for one to consolidate control.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

It just seem to be that even through the Ottoman Empire prefered the use of Greek and Arabic, Turkish still ended up dominant, in the Balkans the Slavs and Albanians would be the primary converts to Islam, the Greeks always seem more stubborn in their Christianity than the Slavs, likely because of their higher prestigial position in the Empire. So while Greek would be used as adminstrative language, the common Muslim outside (and among the lower classer in) the capital and major cities would likely speaking either Albanian or some Slavish dialect, so when the Ottomans begin to modernise they will likely go away from Greek and Arabic and adopt some version of Ottomanish Slavish. Plus the effect on pan-Slavism would be hilarious. Of course with a stronger Ottomanish presence on the Balkans their dealings with the West is going to be interesting.

That's possible. But if the Ottomans were to adopt Greek, it seems to me the Albanians at least are going to Hellenize. They did in very large numbers even in OTL, let alone where the Ottomans are Greek-speaking.