Dracula, the Scourge of God defeats the Ottomans

Don Grey

Banned
1. Greeks. You talk about how lthe OTtoman rule was in the interests of hte Greeks (especially their merchant class) but people often act against their own interests. The precieved burden of that light tax might suddenly seem more if there is a real chance of zero tax (that tax zero).

2. Perhaps instead of a initial attack on Constantanople, Vlad goes on a more limited rampage, further enraging the Ottomans, then defeats the hastely assembled (poorly lead?) counter attack.

Two victories is more impressive than one. Could this lead to weakness somewhere? Perhaps not C-Town but the Balkans?

Maybe after the second victory the Venitians start talking alliance, and maybe the more sensible Ventians suggest/lead on sweet talking the Greeks. Even if their case is weak, it might still be believed.

(I'm still liking the end game;))

1. You have a fair point here. But i doubt it will hold. We need some one more knowladgable on greece at the time. Since abdul isnt hear now do we have a greeks on the board that could comment or byzantine experts that might know the conditions of greece before ottoman conquest and after?

2. Seems FAR more reasonable. But we have to make sure the grand vezir is a complet idiot because normaly they were very compitant generals and statesmen plus the councile of rulling elites must be funtionaly retarded for a time being because they had quite a bit of forces under there command.

3. It will most certainly weakened in the balkans. It might even hinder the expansion of ottomans into the balkans for a short time or maybe even long term. But like what happend in the battle in ankara against timur the ottomans learn more from there defeats then there victories. Also how to deal with the loss of a sultan. So they might think we underestimated the balkans and focuse there entire might on it which might be even worse for the balkans in long term. But either way vlad walachia and the proto-romainian states are seriously screwed.

4.The last part is also possible and smart might i add but it will take time the more time it takes the bigger the ottoman offensive gets. Time money and manpower is something vlad doesnt have and the ottomans have more then they need of that. If vlad accomplishes this he will go down in history as a great man (maybe even Vlad the Great turks slayer or something that extent) that almost took down the ottos(propaganda ofcourse) but in truth it will be the guy that really pissed of the ottomans and most likely his great legacy will be forshadowed buy the horror of ottoman revenge as how they made walachia howl for its arrogance which will echo through the pages of history.


Sidenote:Not to mention the venatians and greeks will be put on a black list. The ottomans might get so mad that the successor thats not so nice to the christians might destroy the patriarchy and forcefully try to convert greece which wont be pretty. Even If the successor doesnt do that if there is a mass revolt punishment will be quite harsh and bloody. They might even increass the jizye tax to a point where people will be forced to restort to subsistance farming.

Morea(venetian holding at the time) will be taken out much early.When the ottomans buil up there navy like they did in the otl they may hunt down venetian shipping with more fervour.Venice fighting the ottomans on occasions almost bankrupted them now whats going to happen when they focuse on it. In the otl when the ottomans get up to vienna (if they ever do in this TL) they might not go for vienna and head just west to venice. I dont think they can hold it but that wouldnt be the point. They would just want to sack that big fat jucie lightly defended (compaird to the fortress city of vienna) city venice instead of vienna for revenge.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Even if it's only a short lived Empire Vlad establish, he may succed at making Northen Bulgaria a permanent part of Vallachia even after his death, and the Ottoman Empire may collapse in warring succesor states, especially if several of Mehmets son survive and establish their control over different part of the Empire (Maybe one in Greece and one in Anatolia), we could also see the reestablish of Serbia. The Ottomans may return to the top after a a some decades or a century. But even that would radical change history, if their invasion of Hungary are in the 17th century rather than the 16th. Plus we may see demographic changes, large settlement of Vlachs in Northen Bulgaria, may result in lower Donau dominated by Romanians on both sides. Plus a later invasion of Hungary may result in Hungary going succesful Calvinist and the Habsburg doesn't inheriated Bohemia. Those thing would change Europe.
 
1. You have a fair point here. But i doubt it will hold. We need some one more knowladgable on greece at the time. Since abdul isnt hear now do we have a greeks on the board that could comment or byzantine experts that might know the conditions of greece before ottoman conquest and after?

I have been lightly reading a book about Greece before/under the Ottoman Empire.

Before the Ottomans conquered the Balkans and the Greek peninsula things were rather chaotic and unstable. You had a lot of different states within the region, such as the Byzantines, different Latin states, other Balkan nations, or even just countries looking to conquer some extra territory. This led to a lot of warfare, raiding, and territorial changes between these different states. This, of course, didn't do anything to help the wealth of the land itself, or the people living and working off of the land.

On the other hand, when the Ottomans conquered the region they brought with them stability and an efficient administrative system. They didn't tax the Greeks anymore than they had been previously taxed, and if anything it might have been even less in some cases. Of course, there were some issues, however until the development of Greek nationalism in the 18th century, things were not that bad.
 
Last edited:
Even if it's only a short lived Empire Vlad establish, he may succed at making Northen Bulgaria a permanent part of Vallachia even after his death, and the Ottoman Empire may collapse in warring succesor states, especially if several of Mehmets son survive and establish their control over different part of the Empire (Maybe one in Greece and one in Anatolia), we could also see the reestablish of Serbia. The Ottomans may return to the top after a a some decades or a century. But even that would radical change history, if their invasion of Hungary are in the 17th century rather than the 16th. Plus we may see demographic changes, large settlement of Vlachs in Northen Bulgaria, may result in lower Donau dominated by Romanians on both sides. Plus a later invasion of Hungary may result in Hungary going succesful Calvinist and the Habsburg doesn't inheriated Bohemia. Those thing would change Europe.

We might see a more rapid Islamization of Greece if it's still under an Ottoman successor state. Muslim Greeks. :D
 

Don Grey

Banned
I have been lightly reading a book about Greece before/under the Ottoman Empire.

Before the Ottomans conquered the Balkans and the Greek peninsula things were rather chaotic and unstable. You had a lot of different states within the region, such as the Byzantines, different Latin states, other Balkan nations, or even just countries looking to conquer some extra territory. This led to a lot of warfare, raiding, and territorial changes between these different states. This, of course, didn't do anything to help the wealth of the land itself, or the people living and working off of the land.

On the other hand, when the Ottomans conquered the region they brought with them stability and an efficient administrative system. They didn't tax the Greeks anymore than they had been previously taxed, and if anything it might have been even less in some cases. Of course, there were some issues, however until the development of Greek nationalism in the 18th century, things were not that bad.

Good to hear so the mass revolt is a no then.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
We might see a more rapid Islamization of Greece if it's still under an Ottoman successor state. Muslim Greeks. :D

Maybe, more likely we would see a split between a Muslim Greek speaking upperclass/nobility, a Christian and Jewish Greek middleclass and peasantry split between Christian Greeks and Vlachs, and a mix of Muslim and Christian Slavs and Albanians, maybe with a few Muslim Romanis around. Normal I would say it wasn't viable, but with the Janissary system, it may be more viable than the Anatolian state. and even if it doesn't reconquer the Empire it could last at the very least to the 19th century.
 
Why assume Vlad’s empire will last? Alexander’s and Tamerlane’s did last long after their death’s I think Vlad’s would be the same. He can annex Greece and Bulgaria. C-Town acts as a perfect chokepoint vis-à-vis the Ottoman’s. After these epic win's I dont think his holding on to power is a problem. Besides if any nobles get uppty to the impaling stake they go.:eek:

With garrisons in place and the occasional punitive expedition to crush rebellions in the south. Vlad can turn north and try to unite the rest of the Romanian principalities under his rule. (I’m sure there were other proto-Romanian states). Vlad pulls this off and is able to keep holding off Ottoman counter attacks. When he dies his southern empire is lost. However ‘’Romania’’ remains united and is ruled by his decedents.

So now we have a much more powerful Wallachia/Romainia and the Ottomans are in some disarray, Greece and Bulgaria’s future is uncertain but they’ve likely been devastated by Vlad anyway…

This is more along the lines of my thinking. With the luck of Alexander, Vlad manages a short-term sack of C-town, but lacks the staying power to claim the city. Instead he uses the ill-gotten gains and fame to expand Wallachia and found a regional power.

His successors, the House of Dracul, build a powerful player in the region, perhaps eventually becoming a contender for the Christian "Third Rome" rather than, say, the Muscovites. Tsar Vlad VI, anyone? :D
 
This is more along the lines of my thinking. With the luck of Alexander, Vlad manages a short-term sack of C-town, but lacks the staying power to claim the city. Instead he uses the ill-gotten gains and fame to expand Wallachia and found a regional power.

His successors, the House of Dracul, build a powerful player in the region, perhaps eventually becoming a contender for the Christian "Third Rome" rather than, say, the Muscovites. Tsar Vlad VI, anyone? :D

His successors if not Vlad would have to set up a network of client states and protectorates over whatever Balkan lands stolen from the Ottomans that he is unable to administer on his own or ally himself with as many other Christian powers willing to partner with him and take some of the spoils for himself. He can perhaps revive the old Despotate of the Morea as a client state and install a distant relative of the Byzantine empire as the local ruler there. Same applies to the Despotate of Epirus as another client state of this resurgent Wallachian regional powerhouse. Serbia is also a contender to be rebuilt and allied to Vlad.

 
Top