Hey, I just finished reading the book “A Turkish Delight”, and it made me wonder, what if the events in the book actually took happened? I know it sounds ASB, but what if one of the Turkish tribes that migrated to eastern Anatolia managed to unify the rest of them, and take over the Byzantine empire? How would this impact the world? Would it take the place of the Byzantine empire? Depending on the tribe, this empire could either be orthodox or Muslim. If a Muslim tribe unified them, then how would it’s relationship with the Christian world be? Would they be allies with Russia or no? Would it expand into the Middle East? What about the Balkans? How would Constantinople look like if it were Turkish? How would this Turkish Empire interact with Armenia and Persia?
DBWI: The Turks conquered Byzantium?
- Thread starter Legend 27
- Start date
I can't see the Romans allowing a hostile group to hold Anatolia for too long - it and Greece, no matter the fortunes of Constantinople, have always been the heartland of the Empire.
Muslim turks or teengri ones? The concept of the eastern capital of christianity falling to islam would crush europe... from there is just a march until they reach italy and germany
The Arabs sieged Constantinople twice in the 7th century, it’s not quite as far-fetched as it may seem now for the city to have fallen to Muslims at some point in the medieval era.
At any rate; it’s far more likely that it would be Muslim Turks than Tengri Turks—the latter would have to get through the Caucasus and crush the Georgians completely, something that never happened IOTL.
Deleted member 114175
Maybe if Constantinople was first conquered by Crusaders, weakening it so that the Franks either fall to Turkish invasion or decide to convert to Islam themselves and become vassals of the Seljuks?
A lot of the Crusaders, such as Bohemond of Taranto, were only in it to conquer land from Byzantium.
A lot of the Crusaders, such as Bohemond of Taranto, were only in it to conquer land from Byzantium.
CRUSDAERS conquering the capital in my dreams. I only see it happening if the Roman empire is complete focused in Europe and invasion happen in the east is defeats but destroys everything then the Turks come in
It’s ironic that the exact opposite happened when the Crusader kingdoms collapsed.
Not that the renewed Byzantine Syria and Palestine lasted much longer, mind...
Deleted member 114175
Basil III "the Frank-Slayer" wasn't kidding around. But his empire only could have lasted during the Mongol invasion.
So if a Muslim Turkish tribe managed to take Constantinople, would it take the place of Byzantium? Or would we see a reconquista sort of event later on with orthodox Christians taking back land that used to be their’s like what happened in the Iberian Peninsula with the Catholics?
I mean, the man was willing to swear fealty to Kitbuqa just to screw them over, a decision that he must have known would be unpopular in the Empire and did actually end up causing his overthrow. Dude was committed to his hatred.
I undoubtedly think the Christians would try. Of course, if there were no powerful rivals in the immediate area the wealth of Constantinople and environs could be enough to make the Muslim state a lasting menace.
Speaking of the wealth of Constantinople, how would a Muslim Bosporus operate? Would Russia, have to rely on the Baltic Sea? What about Georgia, Armenia, and Bulgaria? What happens to their navies? What about trade? Does less trade with Eastern Europe lead to an earlier trip by Columbus to the New World? If so, which country finances him? Does he land in America? Or does he land in Columbia?
OOC: America=North America, Columbia=South America
Depending on the strength of the Christian nations involved, they could do this. It would take time, but I think it would happen. A Muslim empire dominating over many Christians with strong Christian nations around them wanting to retake the capital of Orthodox Christianity.
Deleted member 114175
If Ireland develops the same way than Columbus Ua Briain probably still makes his voyage from Limerick to Hy-Brazil.
A Muslim Bosporus wouldn't affect Ireland, unless it forces the Varangians to go back to Britain.
This probably. For all that many orthodox have consistently opposed Rhomanoi supremacy, they aren't totally stupid about it. Having the center of the Orthodox world fall to Muslims would be too much of a threat. Not only is Anatolia too crucial as a stronghold to hold the line between Orthodox Christianity and Islam, but if they didn't then the Catholic nations would. Before Basil III killed the Kingdom of Jerusalem and other Crusader states, Catholicism was really into crusading. Afterwards, they never quite forgave Byzantium. Constantinople falling would be interpreted as a sign of weakness that Catholics would use to overrun the Orthodox world.
Badly. Trade in the Black Sea was dominated by Orthodoxy and the Mediterranean by Catholics. Muslim interference in the delicate balance of economic diplomacy between the two would piss everyone off. The turks showed no sign of naval skills that would indicate they would be able to control the naval situation. Constantinople needs a strong navy to flourish. Under the Turks, it would have withered. No doubt.
Why would Russia have focused on the Baltic? Ever since the Mongols, Moscovy has been orientated south. During the Mongol yoke, Novgorod the Great gained too many privileges from excessive tribute and flattery to be influenced by Moscow unlike many. After the Mongols, keeping Novgorod as a buffer zone was a major part of their foreign policy. It ensured the safety of their northern front. Unless the Livonian Order and later the Norse tried to attack Novgorod, something Novgorod did a good job of preventing by only requiring a single port on the Baltic and not keeping a war fleet, Russia would prefer its OTL goal of driving south to the Black Sea.
The Black Sea still would have become a major naval battlefield. How could it not be? Anyone gaining true dominance is stretching belief. Anytime the Rhomanoi and later Russia got close, everyone else would ally.
The Age of Discovery probably remains the same. Egypt was the problem there, when it started focusing on trade between India and the Mediterranean. Venice's economic privileges there produced its Golden Age of Expansion, which led to Spain focusing on developing oceanic trade to reduce the Mediterranean dominance. America would always have come about from the Norse and Hansa seeking to outdo the others in their expanding trade networks, and then it wouldn't take much for other Atlantic powers to follow a similar course of expanding their trade networks to new lands. Venice's growing dominance in the Mediterranean trade was simply the catalyst. While America was better known, it was firmly in the Norse and German spheres of influence. Spain had no interest in fighting them, not like they were Venice. Columbus was sent to round Africa for India. He only discovered Columbia by accident when he went too far west after a storm.
Edit: Woops. Clash with previous post. Maybe the Hanseatic League extended to Limerick, or maybe a competing Norse trading network. Then it just happens North and South America were discovered by two Columbus'.
Last edited:
OOC: I’m sorry, but I don’t see how butterflies can make Ireland become powerful because of the Byzantines surviving.
Probably. I read somewhere that Columbus went to Spain to try and get his voyage financed only to be denied since trade with the east wasn’t too hard. Since columbus’ brother was able to cut out a deal with England, he had to wait a good amount of time before he could set sail. Of course, only a few years later, the Portuguese would unintentionally stumble upon Columbia and establish their first colony in Brazil only 3 years after the English made theirs in Newfoundland.
Edit: Forgot to mention Ireland stumbaling upon New Ireland on accident almost a month after Columbus set sail for England.
OOC: New Ireland is located in Novascotia and put this in since SeaCambrian elaborated on his post
Last edited:
Deleted member 114175
OOC: I was thinking of an exploring Ireland with many Atlantic fishers and whalers, rather than an explicitly powerful Ireland in terms of empire
He wasn’t exactly hugging the coast of a diva to be fair. He went a little far west and that’s where the storm swept him off. He believed the earth was smaller that how it actually his, but after landing in Newfoundland and realizing a storm could t have taken him too far west, he sailed back to London. Of course, the portugese, and Irish would stumble upon their outposts due to exploration and fishing respectively. The Spanish were quick in colonizing what they got, so if they financed Columbus, then you may not see the Byzantines take Florida, and some carabbean islands later on. I don’t think it would be impossible for the Spanish to get all or most of the new world in this scenario actually.
Edit: Would a Turkish Empire be able to take parts of the new world? Or would it not be able to set up outposts in Morocco to base an Atlantic fleet?
That’s kinda far. The Spanish were reluctant in giving up land in North Africa to the Romans, so if there were a more hostile force, you bet they’d try and keep them out of the Atlantic. Besides, Florida, and the Roman islands in the Caribbean were almost portugese. Maybe the Spanish or French could have taken the territory, but a Turkish colony in America seems asb to me at least.