What if the Osman (Ottoman) beylik is destroyed before 1350- most likely alternatives?

What is more likely to happen in Anatolia, the Middle East and Balkans over succeeding centuries?

  • a) Anatolia perpetually divided among petty Turkish states

    Votes: 15 16.9%
  • b) Middle East divided between small and medium states

    Votes: 18 20.2%
  • c) A Persian state eventually takes over Turkic Anatolia

    Votes: 12 13.5%
  • d) A Persian state eventually takes over the Levant and Egypt

    Votes: 10 11.2%
  • e) A different Turkish beylik simply takes over the straits, Balkans and Middle East

    Votes: 37 41.6%
  • f) Christian European conquest of much of Anatolia

    Votes: 28 31.5%
  • g) Christian European conquest of Middle East-North Africa earlier than OTL

    Votes: 10 11.2%
  • h) Mamluk state takes over all Anatolia if not more

    Votes: 9 10.1%

  • Total voters
    89
I think its too antiquarian to call them the "Romans", and not even the "Byzantines" is appropriate, so I referred to it as Palaiologoi, thought the spelling is a nightmare. Maybe Constantinople -Morea.

But towards the end of the fourteenth century they got a run of good Emperors, which had always been the key to any Byzantine revival. They were making territorial gains, despite being bankrupt. The problem was that they were bankrupt. But they had a shot of continuing to recover if everyone else in the region collapsed. The Ottomans didn't collapse IOTL. Another way would have been to find a reliable Western ally, and this was tried, for which they could have acted as the local regional power, with Aragon/ Apain the best candidate. IOTL Genoa wound up this arrangement, And some of the Emperors tried to do this. But they have to survive long enough to do this.
 
I think its too antiquarian to call them the "Romans", and not even the "Byzantines" is appropriate, so I referred to it as Palaiologoi, thought the spelling is a nightmare. Maybe Constantinople -Morea.
I call them what they call themselves, but even in my TLs draft notes I'm talking about a Post-Byzantine period. (The Dragasene period, I'll give you a cookie if you can guess where that comes from)

But towards the end of the fourteenth century they got a run of good Emperors, which had always been the key to any Byzantine revival. They were making territorial gains, despite being bankrupt. The problem was that they were bankrupt. But they had a shot of continuing to recover if everyone else in the region collapsed. The Ottomans didn't collapse IOTL. Another way would have been to find a reliable Western ally, and this was tried, for which they could have acted as the local regional power, with Aragon/ Apain the best candidate. IOTL Genoa wound up this arrangement, And some of the Emperors tried to do this. But they have to survive long enough to do this.

Frankly, a Genovese-Roman (forgive me) partnership would work well against Venice, mainly because together they could just about cut Venice off from trade in the Black Sea if they worked together - but Genoa would want to take it over, meaning any future would involve discussions about how Venetian possessions in the Aegean are split - likely with the Romans getting the land, and Genoa getting a few ports and trade freedom. Plus, Genoa would be deeply aware about how vulnerable to the Romans they would be as the Romans recovered. Is messy. However, Roman control of the straits almost instantly resolves their bankruptcy issue.
 

Pellaeon

Banned
Might their be a chance the Byzantines could link up with the empire of Trebizond and retake Athens from the Latins?
 
Might their be a chance the Byzantines could link up with the empire of Trebizond and retake Athens from the Latins?

I hate to say it, but The P's were having enough of their own family issues to invite the K's into the mix. The did recognise them as Emperors in the East, so a partnership isn't impossible - but you'd have to see them as the Empire in the East, in practical terms - and likely would mean that the P's would have to assist in an invasion of ?Candar? with Trebizond and Georgia before Trebizond is in a position to help in Europe. - However, that does secure one of their borders. Whether that leads to Trebizond ruling in Anatolia, and Constantinople in Europe is up for debate (I mean, a possibility is that the EitE might form around the Black Sea and become a force in the Steppe. A fun TL idea, tbh).
 

Pellaeon

Banned
I hate to say it, but The P's were having enough of their own family issues to invite the K's into the mix. The did recognise them as Emperors in the East, so a partnership isn't impossible - but you'd have to see them as the Empire in the East, in practical terms - and likely would mean that the P's would have to assist in an invasion of ?Candar? with Trebizond and Georgia before Trebizond is in a position to help in Europe. - However, that does secure one of their borders. Whether that leads to Trebizond ruling in Anatolia, and Constantinople in Europe is up for debate (I mean, a possibility is that the EitE might form around the Black Sea and become a force in the Steppe. A fun TL idea, tbh).
Personally if I were one the Nicean emperors of want to bring Trebizond back into the fold-it would give the Byzantines a greater hold in Anatolia and would remove a threat of a competing dynasty.

I'd also want to retake Athens and break the last of the crusader states in the region.

If the Turkish Beyliks are in chaos this might be the best and only time the Byzantines have to recuperate.
 
Personally if I were one the Nicean emperors of want to bring Trebizond back into the fold-it would give the Byzantines a greater hold in Anatolia and would remove a threat of a competing dynasty.

I'd also want to retake Athens and break the last of the crusader states in the region.

If the Turkish Beyliks are in chaos this might be the best and only time the Byzantines have to recuperate.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the idea - I think they'd want to as well - but I think at this point they've recognised them - and it'd be easier to have them help, at least for now, rather than hinder them. The Romans have few allies - it would be foolhardy, IMO, to wipe out one of the few they could have.
 
The first author the comes to mind is Roger Crowley - and pieces on the potential of the 2nd Palaiologoi Renaissance. I'll try and find other pieces.

To paraphrase, it pointed to how the Despotate of Morea was even in the closing days, recapturing territory from Venice - and even invaded the Duchy of Athens to take Thebes and Athens before the Ottomans came and crushed them. Recapturing Thessalonica and other successes - and was nearly the heart of a new Byzantine cultural flourishing.

I read this as well, but what struck me was how small their ambitions were. They are pretty much offstage throughout the Varna Crusade, for instance.
 
I read this as well, but what struck me was how small their ambitions were. They are pretty much offstage throughout the Varna Crusade, for instance.

It makes sense to me - the Varna Crusade wouldn't be vastly helped by 2000 men, but if it failed - the Romans were DONE. Meanwhile, Morea can survive a punishment, Constantinople couldn't, and it wouldn't allowed to survive it either. The Ottomans had too much incentive anyway to take it.

If Varna succeeded however? I can see the Romans making every effort to try and keep the Crusade together and ensure their limited forces get control over the straits.

The Romans were capable of surviving - but without a window to take advantage of (like a Ottoman civil war/Varna successful), the chances of obliteration were too high. I think that if the Despotate was more stable, and the Imperial family less at war with itself, the Romans could have flourished as Ottoman vassals, and then caused some major damage.

Heck, a TL with somewhat perfectly timed die-offs of 'random' family members in the last 20 years of the Romans would likely be an interesting one.
 
My inner Byzantine-basher suspects you'd just see whichever Turkish beylik gets the biggest slice of the Ottomans become the new Ottomans.
 
I think its too antiquarian to call them the "Romans", and not even the "Byzantines" is appropriate, so I referred to it as Palaiologoi, thought the spelling is a nightmare. Maybe Constantinople -Morea.

But towards the end of the fourteenth century they got a run of good Emperors, which had always been the key to any Byzantine revival. They were making territorial gains, despite being bankrupt. The problem was that they were bankrupt. But they had a shot of continuing to recover if everyone else in the region collapsed. The Ottomans didn't collapse IOTL. Another way would have been to find a reliable Western ally, and this was tried, for which they could have acted as the local regional power, with Aragon/ Apain the best candidate. IOTL Genoa wound up this arrangement, And some of the Emperors tried to do this. But they have to survive long enough to do this.

I'd love to see a Palaiologos/Aragonese marriage partnership thus cockblocking the Aragon/Castile union
 
I'd love to see a Palaiologos/Aragonese marriage partnership thus cockblocking the Aragon/Castile union

If they did a Castille-Aragon/Isabelle-Ferdinand that'd be amazing. The Aragonese fleet being expanded to support the Romans - even settling some Catalans in Constantinople? - The only issue I see with starting a TL like that is that I'm not convinced that it has much to convince the Aragonese. They get a.... potential titular claim? I think you'd have to have a rare circumstance. Perhaps a symbolic wedding? It could be between Blanche II of Navarre for example - during the Council of Florence - either a wedding or a betrothal between her and Constantine XI. Mostly symbolic, but if we assuming the deaths of OTL, it essentially marries two of the most important figures in their respective politics.

Oh god - Imagine if the Palaiologoi managed to inherit the throne to boot!

But the two sides of the Med working together could be impressive - even if it only means there are strong forces to try and relieve Constantinople.
 
Top