Simplest POD for Venetian dominance, using D. Pedro, Duke of Coimbra?

I'm interested in creating a timeline in which the Republic of Venice, instead of slowly declining over its last centuries, thrives and becomes a dominant power in Europe. To start, three differences seem necessary by the mid-1400s:
  • The power of the Ottoman Empire should be greatly reduced, so Venice can expand its holdings in Dalmatia and Greece, rather than fighting costly and futile wars to defend them. Ideally, they fail to capture Constantinople in 1453, (it might also be interesting if they took Constantinople but still remained only a regional power, destroying Genoese trade while maintaining relations with Venice, but I think this would be less plausible/cause complications to the other two points)
  • The circumnavigation of Africa should be greatly delayed, so there is no alternate route to Asian trade and Venice can retain control over trade from the East.
  • The discovery of America should also be delayed as much as possible, since this would eventually make control over Eastern trade less relevant, and shift power towards Western European nations in a better position to colonize.
I think I've found a historical figure who could plausibly affect all of these: Infante Dom Pedro, middle son of King João I of Portugal. In OTL, D. Pedro traveled extensively through Europe, including (apparently) meeting with Sultan Murad II, a visit to Constantinople in 1424, where he was struck by how inevitable the fall of the surrounded city seemed, and a trip to Venice in 1428, where he was presented gifts of Marco Polo's book and Venetian maps of the world and of trade routes in the East. He then returned home and gave these gifts to his younger brother Henrique, better known as Henry the Navigator. So, with some small changes, we could plausibly see:
  • Henry the Navigator is no longer as inspired or as able to fund explorations around Africa. Portuguese sailors never learn the Volta do Mar.
  • In OTL, interest by the Portuguese in exploration prompted contact between Fernão Martins, a consult of the King, and Florentine astrologer Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli. Toscanelli's reliance on incorrect maps and flawed methodology leads him to believe it is possible to reach the coast of Asia in a reasonable amount of time by sailing West, and he sends this proposal and a map to Portugal. Later, this encouraging letter and map would be acquired by Christopher Columbus; without early Portuguese interest in exploration, Columbus never receives this letter and map, and is quicker to give up his idea for a westward voyage.
  • King João II, grandson of D. Pedro, cited him as his major influence in OTL, and renewed exploration of Africa and Asia; instead, Portugal doesn't round the Cape of Good Hope by 1488, and Pedro Álvares Cabral doesn't attempt a Volta do Mar to round Africa and inadvertently discover Brazil in 1500.
All of which is good fodder for a purely "America isn't discovered" AH, but what about the Ottomans? I've found a couple of sources for facts about D. Pedro's trips, but the mention of his meeting with Murad II is only from Wikipedia, and there's no more info there. An Ottoman failure in 1453 would not only help Venice, but bolster the rest of the scenario (without the fall of Constantinople, there's much less interest in exploration, no Romanus Pontifex bull, etc.)

So: what could Pedro have done or not done at that meeting? Could he have affected Murad II's thinking in such a way that he'd later make a fatal error while besieging the Balkans? Or that he'd be even more firm in his refusal to return and lead the Ottoman armies at Varna? (Or just die at Varna?) And what would be the best way for him to have not ended up with those Venetian maps, and less concerned about the fate of Byzantium? Let me know any ideas/thoughts!
 
I disagree on the first point; indeed, I'd argue a more successful Ottoman expansion to the south and east, if the Republic can maintain good relations, is actually a HUGE benefit in terms of the Med. Trade. A Middle East under a single strong polity, like what the Mongols did with the Silk Road, would go a long way to providing regional security, stability, commerical streamlining ect. to keep the traditional Indian Ocean routes Venice was exploiting more commercialy compedative especially if the Ottomans, having better access to timber and sailors and generally better naval technology, contest European attempts to build a route of regional influences/ trade factories via the Cape Route (Which can't remain hidden forever). If Venice gets capulations that give her lucrative commercial terms (Perhaps in a Franco-Ottoman Alliance style situation) including the right to establish a "double harbor" on the Suez Straits (Perhaps for supporting the Turks in an earlier showdown with the Mamaluks, which would also help serve to shift the Ottoman focus to the south) then she's in a capital position to dominate a trade that's getting a new lease on life.

If you're looking for a POD around the Conquest, perhaps the Byzantine Emperor accepts Mehmed's offer of a tributary kingdom in the Pelaponese? This could lead to a steady greater move to a policy of tributaries in the Balkans while expanding into the Levant. One thing that really cripples Venice's long term thriving prospects is she just doesn't have the population or resource base to stay ahead in the long run; piggybacking off the Ottomans would help them get around that problem by integrating them into a large protected market of a Merchantilist OE, who has the political and military control.
 
Last edited:
I disagree on the first point; indeed, I'd argue a more successful Ottoman expansion to the south and east, if the Republic can maintain good relations, is actually a HUGE benefit in terms of the Med. Trade.

My issue is that I just can't envision a situation in which the Ottomans are a strong, growing empire and they don't set their sights on Greece and the Balkans. In OTL, Venice and the Ottomans really had quite good relations, mutually beneficial economies, exclusive trading deals and all that, and the Ottomans still picked off a Venetian colony every 10-20 years. Something like the Franco-Ottoman alliance could only hold because France and the Ottomans had mutual enemies but were far enough away from each other/strong enough that they couldn't contest the other's lands. There's no amount of gratitude an Ottoman sultan could have towards Venice for some aid against the Mamluks that would prevent his grandson from forgetting their friendship and grabbing Negroponte.

What if it wasn't the Turks, though? In OTL, Venice had a brief alliance with Aq Qoyunlu against the Ottomans, though this was never honored, and was later contacted many times by the Safavids, hoping for a similar arrangement. It seems like at the time, Venice was keeping a strategy of appeasement with the Ottomans, understanding that they were the strongest power in the region and would be relied on for trade for a long time hence. But with a weaker Ottoman Empire, the Venetians might have backed a different player to be the single stable power in the region, one less interested in pushing into Europe. I do like the sound of a Veneto-Persian alliance... how's this for a very rough sketch of events?
  • Due to [BUTTERFLIES], Murad II makes a grave tactical error at the Battle of Varna. He is killed and the Ottoman armies retreat in a disorganized rout. (Maybe Władysław III doesn't die here, but I haven't done enough research on the long-term implications of that yet.) John Hunyadi secures territory down to Edirne, and is proclaimed the new King of Bulgaria; Christendom rejoices, and Constantinople breathes a careful sigh of relief. For now, the great powers of Europe don't see a pressing need to explore alternate paths to trade from the East; the Ottoman advance was definitely concerning, but goods are still flowing easily from Constantinople to Genoa and from Alexandria to Venice.
  • 12-year-old Mehmed II becomes Sultan (again) and has to handle the continuing Karamanid attack with a broken army and a hostile and manipulative Grand Vizier. After a period of chaos, the Karamanids are eventually stopped at Bursa, and the Empire stabilizes to include the Western half and Northern coast of Anatolia and their remaining holdings in Thrace and Northern Greece. Mehmed II is just glad he isn't remembered as the Sultan who destroyed the Ottoman Empire.
I think the Ottomans would still solidify their control over Anatolia, but on a 30-40 year delay compared to OTL. In the meantime, the Safavids would overthrow Aq Qoyunlu and begin pressing in from the East. By ~1500, we'd see a three-way clash in the Middle East between the weakened but still potent Ottomans, a stronger Mamluk Sultanate that retained control over the Eastern Mediterranean coast, and a rising Safavid Empire with control over essential parts of the overland silk trade. Some canny negotiations could lead to the Ottomans being squeezed by Christian powers on one side and Persian on the other, with Venice increasing their control over Epirus, taking some Greek islands, even bits of the coast of Anatolia, crusading Balkan nations led by Bulgaria taking the rest of the Ottoman's European lands, and even the Byzantines getting a chance to take some land back. You could end up in a situation where the major powers in the Middle East are the Safavids and the Mamluks, but they haven't come into direct conflict yet, and Venice maintains friendly trading relations with both of them while playing them off each other. A defeated Ottomans would yield a power vacuum in Anatolia, tempting for the Byzantines to expand into, but also for Genoa to found more colonies and for Venice to try and gain control of the Black Sea trade.

If Venice gets capulations that give her lucrative commercial terms (Perhaps in a Franco-Ottoman Alliance style situation) including the right to establish a "double harbor" on the Suez Straits (Perhaps for supporting the Turks in an earlier showdown with the Mamaluks, which would also help serve to shift the Ottoman focus to the south) then she's in a capital position to dominate a trade that's getting a new lease on life.

The long-term plan is definitely for Venice to gain some kind of control over the Gulf of Suez. I suppose this could be the result of siding with the Safavids in a future war against the Mamluks? In OTL, there were Venetian plans for a Suez canal as early as 1500, which seems implausible, but I can envision that being the grand project of the early 1700s with enough funding, right?

One thing that really cripples Venice's long term thriving prospects is she just doesn't have the population or resource base to stay ahead in the long run; piggybacking off the Ottomans would help them get around that problem by integrating them into a large protected market of a Merchantilist OE, who has the political and military control.

Maybe, but in OTL the Netherlands was able to achieve legitimate world power status on pretty much trade alone; if Venice ended up by the 1700s in a situation where they dominated Indian Ocean trade and could better integrate the Stato da Mar in Dalmatia and Greece, I'd think they'd be strong enough to stand up to lots of major world powers. I just want to make sure they last that long.
 
Top