Timur Lays Waste to the Ottoman Empire--Saves Byzantium

I've become accustomed to seeing TLs promulgate throughout this site with quite overused PODs for keeping the Byzantine Empire alive and a major power, i.e. victory at Manzikert or no blind Doge of Venice with delusions of grandeur. One I haven't seen speculation on yet, however, is whether the campaigns of Timur (Tamerlane) which decapitated the Ottoman Empire for eleven years in our world could have reasonably been so ruinous as to destroy the Ottoman Empire beyond recovery. If Timur had not turned east to settle a rivalry with China but had elected to pursue his enemy up to the Bosporous, what might have happened?
In OTL, Timur defeated Bayezid at Ankara in 1402 and died three years later from fever contracted from his campaign in China (he was considerably aged at this point).
According to my sources Timur stated his intention as reaffirming Seljuk sovereignty in Anatolia. What if Timur had eradicated all remnants of the Ottoman Empire, sweeping across Asia Minor as he did in Persia and the Middle East, and placed a Seljuk state in its wake? Would the Byzantines ally with the Timurids to boot the Ottomans out of the Balkans and regain their former territories in Thrace and Bulgaria?
Or, on the other hand, is the survival of the Ottoman Empire assured regardless of Timur's best efforts, and the fall of Byzantium just as certain?
Thoughts? Should I further pursue this idea?
 
A Byzantine recovery after 1402 will be VERY, VERY slow, the empire was in such bad shape at this time (essentially just Constantinople, Thessalonica and part of the Peleponese). However the Ottomans had already neutralised much of the competition in the Balkans and Aegean so remove them and an Imperial recovery is not impossible.
In answer to your question at the end, yes. Please do :D
 
First, the thing that you should know before anything is :

"During Timur's Era, Ottoman Sultanate was a Balkan nation"

So okay, Timur snatches all of Anatolia, but how they would cross into the Balkans ? Even if Timur would manage it.... welll.... it should be a good news for the Byzantines.... :rolleyes:

Right ?;):D
 

Nikephoros

Banned
By the 1400s a Byzantine restoration is nearly impossible. Ottomans have too great a foothold in the Balkans.
 
First, the thing that you should know before anything is :

"During Timur's Era, Ottoman Sultanate was a Balkan nation"

So okay, Timur snatches all of Anatolia, but how they would cross into the Balkans ? Even if Timur would manage it.... welll.... it should be a good news for the Byzantines.... :rolleyes:

Right ?;):D


Timur captured and killed Bayezid II and heralded the Ottoman interregnum, much of the Ottoman possessions in the Balkans had broken free, and the empire was basically leaderless. They still were dominated by the Timurids, even if Timur did not cross into the Balkans. This would last for more than a decade, until Mehmed's ascension in ~1414. At that point Ottoman control in the Balkans almost did not exist.
So it is sort of possible, if the Byzantines play their cards right (alliance with Serbia and Bulgaria?) they could have benefited from the Timurid invasion.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
By the 1400s a Byzantine restoration is nearly impossible. Ottomans have too great a foothold in the Balkans.

Timur captured and killed Bayezid II and heralded the Ottoman interregnum, much of the Ottoman possessions in the Balkans had broken free, and the empire was basically leaderless. They still were dominated by the Timurids, even if Timur did not cross into the Balkans. This would last for more than a decade, until Mehmed's ascension in ~1414. At that point Ottoman control in the Balkans almost did not exist.
So it is sort of possible, if the Byzantines play their cards right (alliance with Serbia and Bulgaria?) they could have benefited from the Timurid invasion.

I still don't think Byzantine rule can be restored. The other Balkan nations are probably way to strong. Can someone with knowledge of this period please elaborate?
 
I know Serbia did, not sure about Bulgaria.

Possible depends on what you mean by existed. After Kosova in 1389 both powers had little real independence and the Ottoman empire dominated the Balkans south of Hungary. As such the peoples were still there of course but not independent states I believe. In fact one version of the Battle of Ankara I read suggested that most of the predominantly Muslim Ottomans fiefs from Anatolia defected in the face of Tamerlain's army and it was mainly the Christian fiefs that were crushed. [That may not be accurate, something I read briefly a few years back. If so however it further weakened the Christian states of the region].

Furthermore Tamerlain seems to have got significantly more bigotted religiously as he approached death. Seems to have thought that he could escape God's punishment for his massacres of Muslims by killing yet more non-Muslims, so he wouldn't have willingly done anything to help the Christian states.

However his invasion did knock the Ottomans about pretty badly and he tried to restore rival Turkish sultanates in Anatolia. If you presume some military genius arising in one of the Christian states and leading a successful rebellion and also keeping the Hungarians and other Catholic powers off their back you could have something. More likely to be one of the kingdoms rather than what I think was a pretty hide-bound rump empire by this time but could have had something happen. Then a longer period of civil war between the Turks in Anatolia. Still going to have them just across the straits however and very difficult to see a lasting revival for the empire even with 3-4 generations of leaders of genius status.

Steve
 
Timur's piety would certainly be counterproductive to the Byzantines, if it would mean him supporting an Ottoman resurgency rather than a Byzantine one. But if one of his generals convinces him to turn West, and he ravages Anatolia, his lust for conquest and megalomania would far outweigh his religiousness. Byzantium would have been dealt a godsend (ironically, a Muslim). The Balkan holdings of the Ottomans could not have survived much longer. The Bulgarian and Serbian people, though fastidiously subjugated by the Ottomans, would only need to overthrow the local viziers and the Ottoman state cease to exist. Timur, in all likelihood, would not have to cross the Bosporus to deal the coup de grace.
Which would be the second part of Byzantium's miraculous salvation. Timur was incredibly old by this time, so he would not last much longer to endure sustained campaigns. He might cross the Sea of Marmara and assault the Byzantines once he's finished with the Ottomans, but he will certainly not last long. Once he dies, his empire dies. All cohesion and unity it had under him will evaporate. Petty fighting between local warlords will rivet Asia Minor. There is suddenly a power vacuum, where the only immediate powers to fill it are the Byzantine Empire and the Byzantine-friendly Empire of Trebizond.
The Byzantines do not have the military to conquer all of Greece immediately after the Ottomans are gone, of course, but in the resulting power vacuum, they have a chance to reassert their authority, but it will take many generations of prodigial emperors like Steve P said.
I would like to know the state of eastern europe at this time period, in regard to Catholic powers adversarial to the Byzantines.
 
In this period the Ottoman center of gravity is the Balkans, not Anatolia. Timur's aim was to establish a bunch of small principalities in Asia Minor, not a strong state that could challenge him. The Seljuks were totally gone by this time; nothing left to restore.

In OTL the Ottoman prince who was in control of the Balkan possessions used his resources to unite the empire, which is what everyone wanted.

There is no real way for Timur to destroy Ottoman power without ferrying over into the Balkans, which would be just as bad for the Byzantines, if not worse.

In this period, the Byzantine Empire was just too far gone to save. It really consisted of little else but Constantinople itself, which was essentially a few villages amid ruins in the Walls with a total population of 50,000, and a few scattered enclaves here or there.

I've become accustomed to seeing TLs promulgate throughout this site with quite overused PODs for keeping the Byzantine Empire alive and a major power, i.e. victory at Manzikert or no blind Doge of Venice with delusions of grandeur. One I haven't seen speculation on yet, however, is whether the campaigns of Timur (Tamerlane) which decapitated the Ottoman Empire for eleven years in our world could have reasonably been so ruinous as to destroy the Ottoman Empire beyond recovery. If Timur had not turned east to settle a rivalry with China but had elected to pursue his enemy up to the Bosporous, what might have happened?
In OTL, Timur defeated Bayezid at Ankara in 1402 and died three years later from fever contracted from his campaign in China (he was considerably aged at this point).
According to my sources Timur stated his intention as reaffirming Seljuk sovereignty in Anatolia. What if Timur had eradicated all remnants of the Ottoman Empire, sweeping across Asia Minor as he did in Persia and the Middle East, and placed a Seljuk state in its wake? Would the Byzantines ally with the Timurids to boot the Ottomans out of the Balkans and regain their former territories in Thrace and Bulgaria?
Or, on the other hand, is the survival of the Ottoman Empire assured regardless of Timur's best efforts, and the fall of Byzantium just as certain?
Thoughts? Should I further pursue this idea?
 
This is very much not true. There exists this misconception that the only basis for Ottoman power was ever Anatolia. That is not the case. Until the mid 15th century, the Ottoman Empire was fundamentally a Balkan state. You can't really say that the Balkan territories had "broken free". That would be like saying Russia broke free of the Ukraine.

Ottoman control over the Balkans was quite secure after 1402 and it was from here that lost Anatolian territories were reacquired. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Ottoman control over the Balkans "almost did not exist".

Timur captured and killed Bayezid II and heralded the Ottoman interregnum, much of the Ottoman possessions in the Balkans had broken free, and the empire was basically leaderless. They still were dominated by the Timurids, even if Timur did not cross into the Balkans. This would last for more than a decade, until Mehmed's ascension in ~1414. At that point Ottoman control in the Balkans almost did not exist.
So it is sort of possible, if the Byzantines play their cards right (alliance with Serbia and Bulgaria?) they could have benefited from the Timurid invasion.
 
Could the Byzantines ferry Timurid troops across the Straits?

It's in their interest, at least in the short run.

Maybe, but in order to hope to defeat the Ottomans they would have to ferry over a LOT of troops - and supply them as well, which is really beyond Byzantine capabilities at this point. If somehow an army strong enough to destroy the Ottomans were brought over, it could be a worse threat to Byzantium than the Ottomans. You'd also have to wonder what possible reason Timur would ever have for stranding his army in the Balkans. Just moving over would cause his entire domain to collapse.
 
Maybe, but in order to hope to defeat the Ottomans they would have to ferry over a LOT of troops - and supply them as well, which is really beyond Byzantine capabilities at this point. If somehow an army strong enough to destroy the Ottomans were brought over, it could be a worse threat to Byzantium than the Ottomans. You'd also have to wonder what possible reason Timur would ever have for stranding his army in the Balkans. Just moving over would cause his entire domain to collapse.

Perhaps Hungary senses an opportunity and allies with the Timurids to crush the Ottomans from two fronts? I do see your point about Timur's motivation for crossing the straits and leaving his Asian holdings ripe for internal conflict--yet, did not Timur massacre all of those people so he would not have to face a rebellion? And as for infighting between his viziers: why would they risk his retribution when the last time a fellow Mongol fought him he was utterly throttled (Tokhtamysh)?
Speaking of Ottoman control of the Balkans: Edirne is not that far inland. How fortified was it at this time?
 
Perhaps Hungary senses an opportunity and allies with the Timurids to crush the Ottomans from two fronts? I do see your point about Timur's motivation for crossing the straits and leaving his Asian holdings ripe for internal conflict--yet, did not Timur massacre all of those people so he would not have to face a rebellion? And as for infighting between his viziers: why would they risk his retribution when the last time a fellow Mongol fought him he was utterly throttled (Tokhtamysh)?
Speaking of Ottoman control of the Balkans: Edirne is not that far inland. How fortified was it at this time?

Timur also has to defend his status as an Islamic ruler. Siding with the Infidel against another Muslim power is not going to happen and would threaten his control over his empire.
 
Abdul pointed out the biggest problem with a POD this late a couple of post ago Byzantium simply no longer had a population not to mention a tax base large enough to conquer the Ottomans Balkans holdings even if they totally collapsed which is extremely improbable.
Personally I think and this is simply my opinion post Fourth Crusade the Byzantine Empire was dead. Even if someone happens to pull it from the ashes later and builds a successful state that unlike our timeline doesn’t seem to be permanently on life support we’d likely call that state something differently just as we use Byzantium to distinguish said state from the Roman Empire under Augustus even though the name is misnomer.
 
Abdul pointed out the biggest problem with a POD this late a couple of post ago Byzantium simply no longer had a population not to mention a tax base large enough to conquer the Ottomans Balkans holdings even if they totally collapsed which is extremely improbable.
Personally I think and this is simply my opinion post Fourth Crusade the Byzantine Empire was dead. Even if someone happens to pull it from the ashes later and builds a successful state that unlike our timeline doesn’t seem to be permanently on life support we’d likely call that state something differently just as we use Byzantium to distinguish said state from the Roman Empire under Augustus even though the name is misnomer.

One of the things that caused Constantinople to fall into ruins in the period before the Ottoman conquest is that the Byzantines stripped the lead lining (for waterproofing) of the roofs to raise money just to keep operating as a state. All trade was in Venetian and Genovese hands and the entire population of the empire was smaller than that of the Ottoman capital (Edirne/Adrianople) (!). Not a good sign.
 
For Timur to have saved Byzantium you need to speed up his campaign against Bayezid - meaning make Timur undartake it a number of years earlier, preferably before the Kings' Sigismund of Hungary crusade. Imagine: Timur attacks Ottomans, and us he's finishing his campaign in Anatolia crusaders attack Balkan Ottoman possesions...
 
Very well, it seems that Byzantium is beyond salvation.
However, the Timurid Empire is not. If Timur conquers all of Anatolia leaving the Ottomans only with their possessions in the Balkans, then dies and appoints a successor whom his viziers don't despise and assassinate, then the empire Timur established wouldn't collapse into dust, or at least won't for a little while longer. This gives time for the Timurids to consolidate their gains and establish their empire.
Then two rival Islamic empires will be glaring at each other from across the straits. The survival of the Timurid Empire opens up a plethora of possibilities. Constantinople will be the fulcrum of any conflict between the two.
 
Top