No Ottomans, consequences?

These two don't belong together. And religious tolerance would hardly be an advantage compared to the Byzantines in conquering the Balkans, since it had mostly the same religion as them.

Well, they did. In separate ways.
The Ottomans were in the beginning tolerant towards other religions, accepting Christians and Jews. it's not for nothing the expression "better the Turk's turban than Pope's mitra".

The Jannisary corp was very important in the Ottoman military establishment, as well (or more) as the Timariot system. Yes, the were recruited among the Christian children population (taken by force in the first centuries) but this was a mean to terrorise them and social control them. It was a stick while the religious tolerance was the carrot. Nevertheless, this tolerance shall not be understood as a modern one... still was better than the alternative: convert or die.
 
Being Younger
Religious tolerance
Religious fervour and a steadily suply of Holly warriors
Plunder and constant conquest are highly motivating factors
Balkans infighting and political stupidity among the Christian rulers
Saizing oportunities
Acceptances and Cooptation of the defeated enemy
Janissaries
Lighter taxation (in the beginning only)
A succession of good and very good leaders
Luck
Other

Yep, gotta love that additional tax and Devshirme. That's very religiously tolerant. I'd say before the Crusades the Byzantines were much better at religious toleration than most states at the time. Considering atleast the Jews were better treated.
 
Last edited:
I'd say that the Ottomans were less tolerant and more pragmatic in terms of religion. Unlike, say, the Spanish kingdoms of the Reconquista, they could afford to be so.

And keep in mind that they were on the ropes even post Osman I, after all, Timur gave them a major blow that they fortunately recovered from.
 
Well, they did. In separate ways.
The Ottomans were in the beginning tolerant towards other religions, accepting Christians and Jews. it's not for nothing the expression "better the Turk's turban than Pope's mitra".

This is a very interesting expression; interesting for many reasons, but chiefly because of how misleading it is.
The man who allegedly said it (Loukas Notaras) was actually a supporter of the Catholic-Orthodox church union; in other words, a huge fan of the "Pope's mitre". And, incidentally, he and his entire family were murdered by the Sultan.
Which suggests the whole expression was a misunderstanding or a slander. In any case: that it was definitely exaggerated and probably straight-up false.

That's not to say that there were no Byzantines who really did think like that. They definitely existed, but there is nothing to suggest that they were in the majority (or even that they were a large minority). In practice, a lot of Orthodox (both rulers and self-managed communities) chose to ally with Catholic powers against the Ottomans.

It would also be fair to note that few or none of the Catholic powers operating in the Balkans were really of a "convert or die" sort. They also had at least some religious flexibility.

And Byzantium itself was reasonably tolerant back in the day. IIRC Constantinople had a Muslim community and a mosque at least until 1204.
 
These two don't belong together. And religious tolerance would hardly be an advantage compared to the Byzantines in conquering the Balkans, since it had mostly the same religion as them.

But since they had lost Anatolia it would have been useful there.

Did the Byzantines ever rule a large Muslim population? Not really.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
Byzantium was already dead

On the other hand, what if HRE 2.0 in the form of Serbia?

We're assuming a PoD that gets rid of the Ottomans. That pushes it to before the 1290s and the Empire was far from dead at that point and even had significant successes against the Turks at certain points.
 
I would argue that the two civil wars between John V Palaiologos and John VI Kantakouzenos are really what killed the Byzantine Empire as it exhausted an already drained state and it allowed the Ottomans to enter the Balkans basically unopposed. It’s possible that without those two civil wars the Empire could have lingered on as a regional power that consolidated into modern day Greece plus Eastern Thrace and some other territories if it was lucky or somehow fixed its many problems.

By the time of our POD around 1280/1290 with no Ottomans the Byzantines were most certainly still alive and could have recovered moderately well. Granted they were weaker than they had ever been before, but they were arguably the most powerful state in the Balkans and Anatolia at that time. They just happened to have really bad luck in addition to poor policies and leadership at really crucial times. They also had the misfortune of needing to fight on two fronts at the same time when they could really only afford to fight on one by this point. With no Ottomans they could focus on Europe for a time provided whatever filled their place isn't as hyper aggressive as the Ottomans were in OTL.
 
I think one of the big winners would be Venice. With a weaken Byzatine and Balkan states separate they can become King makers in the Region. Byzantine not being helpful? Help serbia to declare war and gain some of the Aegean islands or more.
 
Hey. One weird notion. It's not a wank, but it's like a wank.

Basically, with no Ottomans, the coughing remnants of the Byzantine Empire are just sitting there like an underutilized factory with a recognized brand. I say the Hungarians and the Venetians and Genoese basically buy it up, on the cheap, and put it back to work...

Let's say we get a World War around 1900. Which side does a resurgent Byzantine Empire choose? The German Empire (Hollenzern-Habsburg, including Italy) and Spanish Empire (including North Africa and Egypt and the Suez Canal) or the Allies (Russian Republic, French Republic, and the British/North American Empire) ?

Tough choice.
 
How were they younger? Weren't all nations "young" back then, given life expectancy?

Or do you mean that their state itself was younger, so less likely to become corrupted?

I was refering to young as a state/political organisation. They were new comers, very flexible and pragmatics but in the mean time enthusiasts. They were not yet plagued by coruption. Their state structure was still souple and not crowded on top, being capable to mobilize massive resources without high taxation. Having a steadily access to the holly warriors was tremendously usefull and no other state inregion could match it.
Morover, their logistic was superior to their enemies.
 
Top