Butterflies of a missing Timur or Tamerlane

What if Timur, sometimes referred to as The Lame, who conquered vast regions of Central Asia and Persia and even laid waste to the ottoman turks, had never been born or was killed in one of his earliest campaigns?
What are the effects on...
Ottoman Turkey, Anatolia, and the Byzantine Empire?
The Ilkhanate and Persia overall?
India?
China?
Tibet?
Central Asia as a whole?
Georgia and Armenia?
Iraq/Mesopotamia?
The Golden Horde and Russia?
Any other country that could have been affected by a lack of Timur?
 
Biggest effect is that Persia, Armenia etc have a lot more people.

Second biggest effect is that Ottomans get a fifty year head start on snowballing. The post Tamerlane collapse in Anatolian and civil war set them back for decades.
 
Vijayanagar brothers stayed as hoysala generals
India wont be united, But some big states will rise and further dividing india
Colonization of india will be done by proxy war between india states
China would be much roughly the same, Maybe with stronger turko-nomads threats
Arab sphere(include iran) would be more richer and populous
Golden Hordes and russia stay the same, Russia gradually eating up GH's land
Central Asia will be engulfed in succession cricis and warlord clans
Ottoman would destroyed europe earlier
Burmar would find less rival on the west and expanded there instead of invading thailand propers like OTL
Tibet? Same
 
What are the effects on Hungary? Will they be conquered by the turks just as OTL, as they were embroiled with hussite troubles in the time the ottomans would expand into the northern balkans ITTL?
 
I mean, butterflies could do a lot of things. Maybe the Ottomans decide to expand east at the same time as west. Maybe the Mamluks decide to attack the Ottomans. It's tough to say
 
Stronger Ottomans would also have indeterminate effects on European politics. The Luxemburgs are at this time kings of Bohemia and Hungary... yet you also have the Hundred Years War, the Hussite Crisis, the schism...

Maybe Gian Galeazzo survives longer and leads a united North Italy? Italy, Poland, Hungary and Germany would be the ones to feel the pressure first and IMHO that would lead to greater calls for unity and a strong leader. Especially if the Turks take a bite out of Naples and take Constantinople first.
 
Oh woah, what if the Ottomans take Southern Italy? If they're coming into conflict with Naples it seems possible, especially since the earlier Ottoman sultans took the Kayser-i-Rûm thing more seriously (unless that was just Mehmed II?) and could wish to take Rome itself
 
The Ottomans had a brief attempt at Otranto which they held for a year in 1481 IIRC, but they were forced to withdraw due to domestic troubles and it was quickly retaken.

Without Tamerlane, and with the west in shambles... Venice is much weaker here due to lack of a hinterland (though also less distracted)... there is also a succession crisis brewing in Naples IIRC.
 
One important question would probably be whether Timur as a nomad leader was 'unique' or whether, given the circumstances of the period (political vacuum in Iran, the dynamics of nomadic power struggles [more militarily successful -> more booty to attract followers -> snowballing strength]) would have generated a similar person in his place. I suppose Timur's position as a military leader + man of culture is probably rather unique, and perhaps his adoption of gunpowder and other innovations, far ahead of his contemporaries, could have made the difference against more organized states such as Delhi or the Ottomans.
 

ben0628

Banned
Does no Ottoman Civil War mean we get the same sultans afterwards? You might butterfly away Memhed and Suleiman.
 
One important question would probably be whether Timur as a nomad leader was 'unique' or whether, given the circumstances of the period (political vacuum in Iran, the dynamics of nomadic power struggles [more militarily successful -> more booty to attract followers -> snowballing strength]) would have generated a similar person in his place. I suppose Timur's position as a military leader + man of culture is probably rather unique, and perhaps his adoption of gunpowder and other innovations, far ahead of his contemporaries, could have made the difference against more organized states such as Delhi or the Ottomans.

That's a very good point. I mean, a lesser Timur would lead to yet another completely different history than nobody taking his place or the timeline that lead to ours of Timur being Timur.

Even if they didn't conquer and damage as much as Timur did, the effects of conquering some but not the rest, or even just savaging a few armies before falling apart could be immense. Depending on whose armies and who feels that the land currently held could be useful could lead to chaos to a greater or lesser degree than ours.
 
Does no Ottoman Civil War mean we get the same sultans afterwards? You might butterfly away Memhed and Suleiman.

Since they were born long after Timur, they would surely be butterflied away. There might however still be a smilar expansion, but at an earlier stage than in OTL. Some interesting questions as relates to Europe: What effect would this have on a less technologically advanced Europe? How would it effect intraeuropean affairs like the Renaissance and the Reformation? I assume that those would still likely happen, although maybe differently (and with other persons, as Martin Luther and Jean Calvin would never be born). If the Reformation happened at about the same time, would a more religiously unified Europe mean that Europe would be more unified in opposition to the Ottomans?
 
What if Timur, sometimes referred to as The Lame, who conquered vast regions of Central Asia and Persia and even laid waste to the ottoman turks, had never been born or was killed in one of his earliest campaigns?
What are the effects on...
Ottoman Turkey, Anatolia, and the Byzantine Empire?
The Ilkhanate and Persia overall?
India?
China?
Tibet?
Central Asia as a whole?
Georgia and Armenia?
Iraq/Mesopotamia?
The Golden Horde and Russia?
Any other country that could have been affected by a lack of Timur?
It may seem strange but the consequences of "no-Chengiz-Khan" are easier to predict as opposed to the consequences of 'no Tamerlane'.
Chengiz-Khan was much greater but he visited this world at the time, when nearly in all the corners of the Earth, touched (scorched) by him or by his sons/grandsons/successors, there was some semblance of order with visible hegemon with explicit trends and tendencies.

But when Tamerlane appeared as a political/military figure it was the time of turmoil. In the main sphere of his activities - in Persia there was a power vacuum after the fall of the Hulaguid (Il-khan) dynasty; the Jouchy Ulus (the Golden Horde) was going through its 'Time of Troubles'; even the Northern India was not a quiet lake.
Ironically Timur brought some (facade of) order to this mess only for the period when he was alive. Unlike Chengizz Khan he didn't care too much about what would happen after he was dead, here he was more like Alexander the Great, more concerned with his own personal grander, the legend he would leave after he was no more.
And that makes it even more complicated - to say what would happen with lack of Tamerlane.

One thing for certain - (in my opinion) Timur was in the top five of the greatest generals and conquerors in the history of the human kind; so his disappearance would have made huge difference.
Those leaders he annihilated might have been the founders of the great empires and dynasties for centuries.

It's getting late and I'm sure I won't be able to finish this till morning, but one thing the overwhelming majority of the historians agree on is Tamerlane was the one who finished off the Golden Horde.
The Jouchy Ulus (as opposed to other successor states of the Mongol World Empire) had good chances to survive it's temporary troubles and live for a century or so longer as a Great Power. That alone would produce a swarm of elephant-sized butterflies.
The prominence of the North-East Rus, Moscow, seems like an inevitability in OTL; but even in our time line Moscow made it by the skin of it's teeth. In ATL (without Tamerlane) 'Russia' might have stayed a footnote in history books.

Well, I am falling asleep, but if I have more time I'll continue with less obvious consequences tomorrow...
 
Top