Still, throwing the Turks out of Europe is not really possible at this point.
The Southern fortified border was actually a thing of OTL:Might delay the fall of Constantinople and Hungary stays in the game as a regional power that can mount offensives against the Turks, instead of staying on the defensive. On the long run? Hungary will probably still have to fall back on the defensive, but it might give a chance for them to better fortify the Southern border. If they have their defensive line in the south and not in the north as OTL, it could save much of the country from devastation and the population from slaughter (Serbia, Croatia and Wallachia will become marches and be devastated accordingly).
How many years this gives them is a good question. Maybe if Murad dies in the battle, it could throw the Ottomans into disarray for quite a while.
Still, throwing the Turks out of Europe is not really possible at this point.
The Ottoman Empire was a fairly well organised state for its era, so one defeat wouldn't crush them that bad if you ask me, but maybe a long stagnation could ensue.Why?
I agree that OTL post the 4th Crusade was pretty much an uninterrupted series of Muslim advances until the Siege of Vienna however there is nothing that intrinsically dooms the Balkan and Eastern European's to getting steamrollered by the Ottoman who could have gone the way of the Sejuks, Mameluks, Fatimids, Umayyads etc.
As to the OP a sufficiently decisive victory at a crucial battle like Kosovo could see the Hungarians push the Ottomans south of the Danube and considering that the Ottomans had only recently rebuilt themselves after the Interregnum they could have entered into a downward spiral. What's the Hungarian for Constantinople? Equally it could be a Pyrrhic victory for the Christians and the Ottomans could have their OTL succession of capable Sultans and their OTL advance could proceed on schedule.
The Ottoman Empire was a fairly well organised state for its era, so one defeat wouldn't crush them that bad if you ask me, but maybe a long stagnation could ensue.
Yes, but one must note that, that under the leadership of John Hunyadi, Hungary started to recentralise itself (not around the king, but Hunyadi though), so the strenghtening of the country is under way.Yeah the Ottomans under Murad have enough depth and structure that they aren't vulnerable to a Mohacs however that doesn't mean it's impossible for them to go into a downward spiral of battlefield defeat leading to loss of territory and decentralisation weakening the central government and leading to further defeats and further decentralisation. But yeah the Ottomans are bigger and more sophisticated than the Hungarians and absent major support from the rest of Christendom the odds aren't in their favour.
The Ottoman Empire was a fairly well organised state for its era, so one defeat wouldn't crush them that bad if you ask me, but maybe a long stagnation could ensue.
In Hungarian, it's Konstantinápoly by the way.
An interesting thing is however, that this battle would most probably avert the (unsuccesful) Turkish siege of Nándorfehérvár (Belgrade), which means, that Hunyadi won't die in 1456 by pest, but lives longer, than OTL (favourably much longer).
The examples of these two governments in our time are the Turk and the King of France. The entire monarchy of the Turk is governed by one lord, the others are his servants; and, dividing his kingdom into sanjaks, he sends there different administrators, and shifts and changes them as he chooses. But the King of France is placed in the midst of an ancient body of lords, acknowledged by their own subjects, and beloved by them; they have their own prerogatives, nor can the king take these away except at his peril. Therefore, he who considers both of these states will recognize great difficulties in seizing the state of the Turk, but, once it is conquered, great ease in holding it. The causes of the difficulties in seizing the kingdom of the Turk are that the usurper cannot be called in by the princes of the kingdom, nor can he hope to be assisted in his designs by the revolt of those whom the lord has around him. This arises from the reasons given above; for his ministers, being all slaves and bondmen, can only be corrupted with great difficulty, and one can expect little advantage from them when they have been corrupted, as they cannot carry the people with them, for the reasons assigned. Hence, he who attacks the Turk must bear in mind that he will find him united, and he will have to rely more on his own strength than on the revolt of others; but, if once the Turk has been conquered, and routed in the field in such a way that he cannot replace his armies, there is nothing to fear but the family of this prince, and, this being exterminated, there remains no one to fear, the others having no credit with the people; and as the conqueror did not rely on them before his victory, so he ought not to fear them after it.
Sounds very interesting, I might read it in the future.In my own timeline for instance a Visconti led crusade defeats Sultan Murad, annihilating his army and killing him, then seizes Adrianople and kills his heirs. They then go on to crush the remnants of the Beyliks in Anatolia (who were, in the past three decades, subject first to Tamerlane and then to the Ottoman Civil War), so the Ottoman state is pretty much dead and gone within a year.
Yes, what I meant was that a single victory is not enough to throw them out of Europe at this point, but it's a good start.Yeah the Ottomans under Murad have enough depth and structure that they aren't vulnerable to a Mohacs however that doesn't mean it's impossible for them to go into a downward spiral of battlefield defeat leading to loss of territory and decentralisation weakening the central government and leading to further defeats and further decentralisation.
How about Murad actually dying in the battle? I have no idea of his succession, but I remember that succession in this era of the Ottoman Empire was usually a messy affair with lot of strangling with bowstrings.Depends on the scale of the defeat.