No, I'm not talking about a ISOT, I'm asking what could have happened if the Sultanate of Rum had defeated the byzantines instead of the ottomans, and as the time passed they unified anatolia and greece and invaded europe earlier than the ottomans did OTL, what would have changed? Could they create their own janissary system? And about the roman title, Rum meant rome, could they really claim to the sucessors of Rome to the muslim world (since the christian world would never accept that)? Could this also sparks a early fourth crusade, but this time against the sultanate that holds constantinople (if they already captured the city by 1204), and if not (if the byzzie empire still is alive in 1204 in this scenario), the crusaders looting of the city allow the Sultanate of Rum to conquer it from the latim empire?

hg_d_selj_d1map.jpg
 
IMO, the easiest way for them to capture Constantinople and part of the balkans would be having the mongols prop them up as vassals after aiding in a campaign against the byzantines.
Other than that, i don't have enough info on them to tell you if they can create an earlier Ottoman Empire.
 

Schnozzberry

Gone Fishin'
Donor
If the Sultanate of Rum had managed to defeat the Eastern Roman Empire, it probably wouldn't have been able to do as much as the Ottoman Turks. In this time period, Christendom was far more crusadery than it would be when the Ottomans were coming to power. By the time Rum had captured Constantinople, a crusade would be forming, and it is likely that there could be some actual success on the crusaders part, as there wouldn't be the shock of having crusaders sacking Constantinople as there was in the 4th crusade. If Rum won, there would likely have been other crusades to follow, and crusades may not have shifted to the north as they did in OTL.
 
If the Sultanate of Rum had managed to defeat the Eastern Roman Empire, it probably wouldn't have been able to do as much as the Ottoman Turks. In this time period, Christendom was far more crusadery than it would be when the Ottomans were coming to power. By the time Rum had captured Constantinople, a crusade would be forming, and it is likely that there could be some actual success on the crusaders part, as there wouldn't be the shock of having crusaders sacking Constantinople as there was in the 4th crusade. If Rum won, there would likely have been other crusades to follow, and crusades may not have shifted to the north as they did in OTL.

If they defeat the crusades, but also decide to not advance into europe as OTL and conquer the middle east as the ottomans did, what would have happened?
 
Well how well they do depend on their succession and their armies. The Janissary was pretty efficient military model, and a surprisingly stable one, as for the main strength of the Ottoman, have there been a single Muslim dynasty which lasted as long as the Ottomans with as few succession civil wars?
 
Depending on when the Seljuks conquer Constantinople, you'd likely see Byzantium leave a much greater imprint on TTL Turkish language and culture as opposed to them lifting much off the Perso-Islamic tradition in the arts, literature, etc. The idea of taking children and raising them as soldiers already has precedent in the Ghilman - predominately recruited from the steppe peoples in Central Asia and the Caucasians.
 

Schnozzberry

Gone Fishin'
Donor
If they defeat the crusades, but also decide to not advance into europe as OTL and conquer the middle east as the ottomans did, what would have happened?
It would depend on when they started conquering. Before the Mongol invasion, Rum would be stuck between the Ayyubid Dynasty in Egypt and the Levant, the Abbasid Caliphate in Mesopotamia, and the Persian sultanate, so they would have little room to expand. After the Mongol invasion, if Rum didn't get the tar beaten out of them as they did OTL, they probably could push in the Levant and Mesopotamia. I don't know how far they realistically could go, but without a system as the Janissary, I don't think they could have gone as far or be as stable as OTL's Ottoman Turks.

BUT: What might be most interesting would be the impact of Rum being a less expansive empire. The Ottoman Empire really served as a massive threat in Central and Southern Europe through the 15th-17th centuries. Without the Ottoman threat, the Holy Roman Emperors would have been able to deal with Protestantism more effectively, and kingdoms such as Hungary would have survived as independent states, and not have been absorbed into larger empires due to the Ottoman invasions.
 
It would depend on when they started conquering. Before the Mongol invasion, Rum would be stuck between the Ayyubid Dynasty in Egypt and the Levant, the Abbasid Caliphate in Mesopotamia, and the Persian sultanate, so they would have little room to expand. After the Mongol invasion, if Rum didn't get the tar beaten out of them as they did OTL, they probably could push in the Levant and Mesopotamia. I don't know how far they realistically could go, but without a system as the Janissary, I don't think they could have gone as far or be as stable as OTL's Ottoman Turks.

OK, what if the PoD is that the Persians and the Abbasids get crushed by the mongols as OTL, but they also deliver so much damage that the Mongols are not able to reach Anatolia, and so the sultanate of rum is left unscated, what happens after that?
 

Schnozzberry

Gone Fishin'
Donor
OK, what if the PoD is that the Persians and the Abbasids get crushed by the mongols as OTL, but they also deliver so much damage that the Mongols are not able to reach Anatolia, and so the sultanate of rum is left unscated, what happens after that?

Rum could probably take the remains of the Abbasids, as well as the numerous smaller states north of the Abassids. I don't think they could take much of Persia, due to the rise of the Ilkhanate, but after taking out the Abbasids, the Ayyubid dynasty was imploding, so the Levant likely could be taken as well by Rum. Egypt, however, was seeing the rise of the Mamluks, and would be hard for Rum to take. After that, Arabia and the Caucasus region would be the only places where Rum could realistically expand, until the situation changes in Europe, or the Ilkhanate/Mamluks collapse. But, even with just the Levant and Mesopotamia, Rum would be in bit of a tight spot. There would be lots of Arabs, and not quite as many Turks, which could lead to the rise of a new Arabian dynasty to replace the Turkic Rum.

The biggest question would be of the Caliph. In OTL, after the fall of the Abbasids, the Mamluks claimed the Caliphate, but if Rum conquered the Levant and Mesopotamia, they could claim it as well, and that could trigger a rift in the Islamic world.
 
Well how well they do depend on their succession and their armies. The Janissary was pretty efficient military model, and a surprisingly stable one, as for the main strength of the Ottoman, have there been a single Muslim dynasty which lasted as long as the Ottomans with as few succession civil wars?

The Mamluks, probably. I'd say the Mughals, but they tended to break out into civil war with the death of every padshah.
 
The Mamluks, probably. I'd say the Mughals, but they tended to break out into civil war with the death of every padshah.

The Ottomans lasted longer than both. The Mamluks seem to have avoided civil wars, but they had coups instead. The Ottomans was unusual stable dynasty, of course if they hadn't been that, they would likely have been beaten back by the European earlier.
 
Rum could probably take the remains of the Abbasids, as well as the numerous smaller states north of the Abassids. I don't think they could take much of Persia, due to the rise of the Ilkhanate, but after taking out the Abbasids, the Ayyubid dynasty was imploding, so the Levant likely could be taken as well by Rum. Egypt, however, was seeing the rise of the Mamluks, and would be hard for Rum to take. After that, Arabia and the Caucasus region would be the only places where Rum could realistically expand, until the situation changes in Europe, or the Ilkhanate/Mamluks collapse. But, even with just the Levant and Mesopotamia, Rum would be in bit of a tight spot. There would be lots of Arabs, and not quite as many Turks, which could lead to the rise of a new Arabian dynasty to replace the Turkic Rum.

So, here my bet, this is the middle east on 1650:
zvqODHv.png

The map I used doesn't me so much freedom of making the borders, but this is the basic

The republic of Venice controls crete and morea, and Rum is too afraid from attacking them and causing a holy war to push them from europe. They expanded into the Caucasus and in the south, but didn't took over mecca yet, their main enemy at the moment is the mamluks, what do you think?
 

Schnozzberry

Gone Fishin'
Donor
So, here my bet, this is the middle east on 1650:

The map I used doesn't me so much freedom of making the borders, but this is the basic

The republic of Venice controls crete and morea, and Rum is too afraid from attacking them and causing a holy war to push them from europe. They expanded into the Caucasus and in the south, but didn't took over mecca yet, their main enemy at the moment is the mamluks, what do you think?

It seems pretty good, from what I know. The only changes I would suggest would be that Rum would probably have a bit less of Greece, and a bit more Iraq.
 
It seems pretty good, from what I know. The only changes I would suggest would be that Rum would probably have a bit less of Greece, and a bit more Iraq.

EDVzt4H.png

Done, I also made the arabian desert a uncharted land, added a Bulgarian empire and a Hungary in the balkans and colored the Venetian holdings in the adriatic

What about africa? Any suggestions? And Cyprus? It still remains under crusader control like Malta?
 

Schnozzberry

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Cyprus would probably have ended up under Venetian (or another naval power) control. What could be seen on the map of Africa would mostly either be desert, or under Mamluk control. The Mamluks controlled Coastal Africa, to Benghazi I believe but that would need double checking, and most of the Red Sea coast in Africa. Inland north Sudan was under the control of miscellaneous tribes, while the Sahara was pretty much uninhabited, not unlike Arabia.
 
Ottomans did have civil wars and during late times there were deposings and coups. After Timur and Bayazid "the thunderbolt" fought there was an interregnum before Mehmed the first consolidated himself. After the death of Mehmed the conquerer there was a civil war between militant Cem and more peaceful Bayazid. After which Cem lived in European countries and Bayazid paid the Europeans. Because of his peacefulness his son Selim (who conquered Egypt) deposed him.
The Ottomans lasted longer than both. The Mamluks seem to have avoided civil wars, but they had coups instead. The Ottomans was unusual stable dynasty, of course if they hadn't been that, they would likely have been beaten back by the European earlier.
Ottomans (Mehmet II. specifically) created a law which legalised fraticide to avoid having civil wars every generation. Or just splitting up like almost every turkic state did. See: Gokturks and Asian Huns.
 
Last edited:
Top