Serbian Empire takes Constantinople in 1355 - then what?

[Mr_Fanboy]

In 1355, Serbian emperor Stefan Dušan began a war against the late-era Byzantine Empire, seizing Adrianople and preparing his massive army to march on nearby Constantinople. However, he died of an unexpected illness, his planned conquests were aborted, and his empire started fragmenting not long after his death. More info can be found here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Empire

And, for reference, here's what the Serbian Empire looked like at its height:

So, let's say we delay Dušan's death for at least a few years, just long enough to capture Constantinople and perhaps consolidate some of his gains. What happens next, for the Serbians, Greeks, and all involved parties? Particularly, how would this enlarged Serbian Empire (which would surely be very insistent on referring to itself as the legitimate current iteration of the Roman Empire) hold up against the Ottomans?

 

[stevej713]

I definitely like the idea of a Serbian Byzantine Empire but somehow, I doubt it could hold off the Ottomans for very long. One bad ruler caused the Serbian Empire to fall apart while the Ottomans were remarkably stable from Sultan to Sultan.

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

In 1355, Serbian emperor Stefan Dušan began a war against the late-era Byzantine Empire, seizing Adrianople and preparing his massive army to march on nearby Constantinople. However, he died of an unexpected illness, his planned conquests were aborted, and his empire started fragmenting not long after his death. More info can be found here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Empire

And, for reference, here's what the Serbian Empire looked like at its height:

View attachment 391701

So, let's say we delay Dušan's death for at least a few years, just long enough to capture Constantinople and perhaps consolidate some of his gains. What happens next, for the Serbians, Greeks, and all involved parties? Particularly, how would this enlarged Serbian Empire (which would surely be very insistent on referring to itself as the legitimate current iteration of the Roman Empire) hold up against the Ottomans?

For the time being Serbia is the most powerful Balkans. The Ottomans return back to Anatolia as they own no land yet. Bulgaria might turn out better if Serbia turns weak later.

Byzantines gone. Ottomans focussed on their Anatolian lands. Maybe more Serb-Hungarian wars in Bosnia.

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

Byzantines gone. Ottomans focussed on their Anatolian lands. Maybe more Serb-Hungarian wars in Bosnia.

If Serbia is truly pushing the "rightful Roman Empire" angle, and especially considering that Dušan styled himself the Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks, might he eventually try to cross over into Anatolia to try and annex old Byzantine lands still largely populated by Greeks?

 

[Urcea]

Well, the Nemanjić dynasty takes over the Roman State and I would imagine rules from Constantinople surrounded by a Greek bureaucracy. The Ottomans don't have an in in Europe. Hard to say what happens next - the Roman State didn't tend to fracture because of how powerful the Emperor was, and presumably Stefan will continue that, meaning his Empire may persist for a time.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Serbia eventually turns to Crusader Greece and the fracturing Bulgaria.

But before that, what would happen is the Byzantine administrative apparatus, starved of funds and with many unemployed but educated people are going to be relocated all over the Balkans. From what I recall, Dusan tried to present himself to the Greeks as equitable and a potential benefit, so it stands to reason he would have no problem using the Byzantine bureaucracy and government to staff parts of Serbia where his rule isn't as strong. The result is a win-win for him, the Greeks are employed and have to rely on him and the empire benefits from a strong class of literate men, while strong local nobles are never too far from the eyes of the Emperor.

I suspect the Serbians might also be interested in taking Anatolia after digesting and securing the Balkans, but that won't be for several years. Dusan would have his work cut out taking his continental rivals, crushing Frankish resistance, rebuilding Constantinople and Thrace, and securing the independence of the Serbian church.

 

[Halagaz]

The wiki article has a lot of flaws. Dušan never captured Adrianople; in fact, there was no 1355 campaign against the Byzantines. At the time, he was busy with affairs in the west, and some of his most trusted generals were engaged there. Also, Bulgaria was a junior partner - but not a vassal - of the Serbian Empire. Neither was Bosnia. There was no major persecution against Catholics, the Pope didn't run a conspiracy against Dušan, and so on.

However, this is still a very interesting idea. Capturing Constantinople was known to be one of Dušan's biggest ambitions, and it was definitely possible at certain times.

So, let's say Stefan Dušan launches a successful campaign against the Byzantine faction of Kanktakouzenos and takes Constantinople around 1354-55. What does this mean?

-It's important to note that Dušan's conquest of the Byzantine Empire wouldn't be a total foreign takeover. Dušan was technically allied to one of the Byzantine factions (the faction of John V Palaiologos), and there were even some Byzantines who wanted to invite Dušan into Constantinople and make him their Emperor.

So what probably happens is that Dušan proclaims himself Emperor in Constantinople, merging the Serbian and Byzantine Empires...but John V Palaiologos also keeps his title (for the time being, anyway). John is forced to acknowledge Dušan as his equal and co-ruler of Byzantium. Well, they'd be equal in theory - in practice, Dušan would be the one calling all the shots, and John would be a fancy regional governor. Or a totally helpless puppet.

In time, the Palaiologos dynasty might be deposed, leaving the Nemanjić as the only ruling dynasty of the Serbian-Byzantine Empire. Or the two dynasties might peacefully merge into one.

-The Serbian-Byzantine Empire will not break-up like in OTL. This break-up was linked to some highly specific circumstances - circumstances which probably won't be repeated here. Also, the prestige of the Nemanjić dynasty would be through the roof after capturing of Constantinople; the Byzantine state machinery will open up new possibilities for centralization; and the troublesome magnates will be too busy digesting new honors, offices and duties to screw anything up (much).

-The Ottomans are no joke, but in this particular scenario they don't stand a chance. Dušan would be able to attack them with the might of the entire Serbian Empire and the resources of the re-unified Byzantines and call in Bulgaria as an ally, if needed. Total overkill. The Ottomans will be thrown back across the straits. Gallipoli will be rebuilt and fortified, possibly with a permanent garrison of German knights.

However, I don't think the Serbian-Byzantine Empire would cross into Anatolia. Those lands are lost to the Turkish beyliks - maybe for some time, maybe forever.

-It's springtime for Venice, and not a great time for Genoa. The Serbian Empire and Venice were very friendly and Dušan's takeover of Byzantium means Genoa's privileges and influence are largely replaced by Venice's. Dušan even promised to transfer some towns in Epirus to Venice if they help him take Constantinople. Venice's rise could present a problem in the long run, but in the short run it's nothing to worry about.

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

However, I don't think the Serbian-Byzantine Empire would cross into Anatolia. Those lands are lost to the Turkish beyliks - maybe for some time, maybe forever.

Okay, but what would happen with Trebizond in this scenario?

 

[Gloss]

The wiki article has a lot of flaws. Dušan never captured Adrianople; in fact, there was no 1355 campaign against the Byzantines. At the time, he was busy with affairs in the west, and some of his most trusted generals were engaged there. Also, Bulgaria was a junior partner - but not a vassal - of the Serbian Empire. Neither was Bosnia. There was no major persecution against Catholics, the Pope didn't run a conspiracy against Dušan, and so on.

However, this is still a very interesting idea. Capturing Constantinople was known to be one of Dušan's biggest ambitions, and it was definitely possible at certain times.

So, let's say Stefan Dušan launches a successful campaign against the Byzantine faction of Kanktakouzenos and takes Constantinople around 1354-55. What does this mean?

-It's important to note that Dušan's conquest of the Byzantine Empire wouldn't be a total foreign takeover. Dušan was technically allied to one of the Byzantine factions (the faction of John V Palaiologos), and there were even some Byzantines who wanted to invite Dušan into Constantinople and make him their Emperor.

So what probably happens is that Dušan proclaims himself Emperor in Constantinople, merging the Serbian and Byzantine Empires...but John V Palaiologos also keeps his title (for the time being, anyway). John is forced to acknowledge Dušan as his equal and co-ruler of Byzantium. Well, they'd be equal in theory - in practice, Dušan would be the one calling all the shots, and John would be a fancy regional governor. Or a totally helpless puppet.

In time, the Palaiologos dynasty might be deposed, leaving the Nemanjić as the only ruling dynasty of the Serbian-Byzantine Empire. Or the two dynasties might peacefully merge into one.

-The Serbian-Byzantine Empire will not break-up like in OTL. This break-up was linked to some highly specific circumstances - circumstances which probably won't be repeated here. Also, the prestige of the Nemanjić dynasty would be through the roof after capturing of Constantinople; the Byzantine state machinery will open up new possibilities for centralization; and the troublesome magnates will be too busy digesting new honors, offices and duties to screw anything up (much).

-The Ottomans are no joke, but in this particular scenario they don't stand a chance. Dušan would be able to attack them with the might of the entire Serbian Empire and the resources of the re-unified Byzantines and call in Bulgaria as an ally, if needed. Total overkill. The Ottomans will be thrown back across the straits. Gallipoli will be rebuilt and fortified, possibly with a permanent garrison of German knights.

However, I don't think the Serbian-Byzantine Empire would cross into Anatolia. Those lands are lost to the Turkish beyliks - maybe for some time, maybe forever.

-It's springtime for Venice, and not a great time for Genoa. The Serbian Empire and Venice were very friendly and Dušan's takeover of Byzantium means Genoa's privileges and influence are largely replaced by Venice's. Dušan even promised to transfer some towns in Epirus to Venice if they help him take Constantinople. Venice's rise could present a problem in the long run, but in the short run it's nothing to worry about.

Why not Anatolia? It's divided and for the taking, barring some speedy unification or consolidation of any of the Beyliks the Serbian would have easier time expanding there than elsewhere I would argue.

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

If Serbia is truly pushing the "rightful Roman Empire" angle, and especially considering that Dušan styled himself the Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks, might he eventually try to cross over into Anatolia to try and annex old Byzantine lands still largely populated by Greeks?

I doubt it. There is Greece there to take from small duchies. It seems easier than crossing into hostile territory by sea and no chance of fleeing if failed.

...

But then again... someone insane enough to attack Constantinople (and take it) might even go for Nicea. I personally would secure Greece and Bosnia first.

 

[flyingbat]

Most likely he will focus on securing the rest of the Balkans. If he or his successors manage that and maintain the empires stability then they might move on Anatolia at that point

 

[Halagaz]

Why not Anatolia? It's divided and for the taking, barring some speedy unification or consolidation of any of the Beyliks the Serbian would have easier time expanding there than elsewhere I would argue.

Dušan would need even more help from Venice in order to launch a proper campaign into Anatolia. And I think Venice would politely refuse that; refuse, or ask for some huge favors in exchange. Favors Dušan would not be willing to agree on.

Also, I don't believe Anatolia would be conquered immediately. 14th century Serbia had a pretty powerful army - especially after Stefan Dušan's reforms and under his capable leadership. It could smack around all sorts of enemies...but, it still showed a mixed record against Turkish-style light cavalry. The hypothetical Anatolian campaign could be a victory, but it would not be an instant or easy victory.

 

[Halagaz]

Okay, but what would happen with Trebizond in this scenario?

Not much at first. Later, Trebizond might form some dynastic connections with the Serbian-Byzantine Empire and receive its help in preserving and expanding.

There is also one more interesting side-effect: the principality of Theodoro will become a bit stronger due to the collapse of Genoese power in Crimea. This could pave the way for a lasting ~Greek state in Crimea. Which might later be absorbed into the Serbian empire or the empire of Trebizond.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Why not Anatolia? It's divided and for the taking, barring some speedy unification or consolidation of any of the Beyliks the Serbian would have easier time expanding there than elsewhere I would argue.

Crusader Greece is easier as a target, and the Serbs lack a proper navy at this point. Piracy is still a major issue after all.

Now, after those things are checked off does it make sense for coastal raids and invasions to be launched into Anatolia.

 

[Gloss]

Crusader Greece is easier as a target, and the Serbs lack a proper navy at this point. Piracy is still a major issue after all.

Now, after those things are checked off does it make sense for coastal raids and invasions to be launched into Anatolia.

Serbia already owned most of Greece, the rest would be side dishes which could be taken in a decade or so, I don't think Serbia would be interest in taking the isles anyway.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Serbia already owned most of Greece, the rest would be side dishes which could be taken in a decade or so, I don't think Serbia would be interest in taking the isles anyway.

Taking the Frankish held lands is necessary for propaganda and security puposes so I wouldnt call it a side campaign.

That said a navy and dominance of the isles is necessary; Beylik raids were growing increasingly frequent to the point crusades were called upon them. Dusan cant just ignore that, and control of Anatolia would be greatly eased through nabal supply lines.

 

[DanMcCollum]

Taking the Frankish held lands is necessary for propaganda and security puposes so I wouldnt call it a side campaign.

That said a navy and dominance of the isles is necessary; Beylik raids were growing increasingly frequent to the point crusades were called upon them. Dusan cant just ignore that, and control of Anatolia would be greatly eased through nabal supply lines.

So (and let me be frank, this isn't an era of history which I know particularly well, so take my thoughts with a large grain of salt), might be we Dusan spending the rest of his reign (how many years would be reasonable? A decade?) strengthening his reign, building a navy, and securing the rest of Greece. This leads his hypothetical successor in a position to move into disunited Anatolia.

Could Anatolia be conquered in a single campaign, or would it be more likely that it would be digested over the course of several decades. Also, assuming that the Serbian-Roman Empire is able to conquer the entirety of Anatolia, what to do with the Turks? I would assume that efforts to convert them to Orthodoxy would be a must and, if the wars/rebellions are bad enough, we might be parts of Anatolia resettled by either Greeks or Slavs (or maybe even Germans, at least in the cities).

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

Also, assuming that the Serbian-Roman Empire is able to conquer the entirety of Anatolia, what to do with the Turks? I would assume that efforts to convert them to Orthodoxy would be a must and, if the wars/rebellions are bad enough, we might be parts of Anatolia resettled by either Greeks or Slavs (or maybe even Germans, at least in the cities).

Is there any consensus on what Anatolia looked like ethnically at this time? Was it still largely ethnically Greek and Orthodox with a Turkish ruling class, or had the general population already Turkified/converted to Islam in large numbers? If the former is the case, incorporating those areas into a Serbian-Roman Empire would likely be easier.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

So (and let me be frank, this isn't an era of history which I know particularly well, so take my thoughts with a large grain of salt), might be we Dusan spending the rest of his reign (how many years would be reasonable? A decade?) strengthening his reign, building a navy, and securing the rest of Greece. This leads his hypothetical successor in a position to move into disunited Anatolia.

Could Anatolia be conquered in a single campaign, or would it be more likely that it would be digested over the course of several decades. Also, assuming that the Serbian-Roman Empire is able to conquer the entirety of Anatolia, what to do with the Turks? I would assume that efforts to convert them to Orthodoxy would be a must and, if the wars/rebellions are bad enough, we might be parts of Anatolia resettled by either Greeks or Slavs (or maybe even Germans, at least in the cities).

A few years would be my guess to secure the balkans. Could be 2 or 5 or even 10- this is a big undertaking not so much militarily but structurally.

As for taking Anatolia, that would take years. Its too big and too fractured for a single campaigning season. Better to play sides off, strike at the weakest, heavily fortify your frontier and train your army to avoid the risky gambles in fighting light cavalry that loves to feign retreat. Instead as weve seen with the Komnenids, short, limited campaigns over many years grinds them into dust because enemy leaders cannot rally resistance and their prestige is frequently undermined. And its more likely to destroy their manpower that was as Ghazis lose interest in fighting through demoralization.

 

[Fehérvári]

At this point, Hungary under Louis I is at the height of its power though, and I really doubt, that they would tolerate such a huge power to form right next to them. Bosnia will certainly remain under loose Hungarian authority as well. If not else, Macva and Branicevo will be taken from the Serbs, that's for sure.
On the top of that, if Louis allies with the Bulgarians and the Genoans, maybe even allies with John V, that could very easily mean the demise of the Serbian Empire.