WI Murad dies and Şehzade Halil osmanlii becomes bey of ottomans

So here is my question as we know John kantakouzenos married of his daughter Theodora Maria Kantakouzene to Orhan and they had a son named Khalil or Halil Osmanli. My question is that he was technicallt the second or third son after suleyman and murad or he came before murad not sure. Anyway wi Murad dies due to some accident and so with Murad gone and his older brother Suleyman dead Khalil becomes Bey of the ottomans. He was also engaged to Irene Paleologina the teny year old daughter of John V paleologs. So with him in charge could we see a different ottoman policy towards the byzantines. How different would history be with Khalil not Murad as Bey of the ottomans. THe most interesting point is that Khalil technically is directly related and tied by blood and marraige to the imperial rhoman family. Thoughts
 
Conversion to Christianity becomes a lot more viable, as does closer ties with Kiev-Rus and Christendom.
 
Conversion to Christianity becomes a lot more viable, as does closer ties with Kiev-Rus and Christendom.
cool, how monumental are these changes we are seeing. It seems like a pretty important POD that seems to be missed. Seriously this could alter eastern european history ocompletly
 
hmm personal union between the byz and the ottomans seems like a bit of a stretch. most plausible scenario is no centralized dominant power in anatolia & the balkans but bickering statelets.

but if somehow mass conversion of turks to orthodoxy (including the little beys of Karaman Candar et al) and the personal union happens, the ramifications for future ottoman lands & vassals are quite interesting. I can see orthodox tatars in crimea, orthodox 'crusades'to liberate aleppo lebanon and the holy and, cultural & religious integration of the balkans (which butterflies balkanization).

Also, orthodoxy itself would be altered, with the turks' expansionism instigating the said 'crusades', the relationship between the church & state (ottomans were big on centralization and dominant state), cultural intermingling a la andulus mudejar architecture, interesting relationships between the byz church & the armenians, copts, syrians (heretics or cousins in religion?).

Oh, we can see two russias with the muscovites in the north and the Kievan Rus & orthodox tatars in the south. As for the stability of the turco-byz emire, i'm sure the ottoman dynasty (Osmanoi??) will waste no time in eradicating influential byz families (doukas etc) and bring a centralized state instead of the themata.

If an orthodox schism can be avoided, this orthodox state can persevere in the face of future nationalism (thanks to religious & ethnic unity). Venice is screwed big time (dalmatia, crete & and all your greek islands are belong to us) & no Genoa in the black sea. not sure about the status of jews & catholics within the empire. Turkish identity could be assimilated. The Crescent and star would remain the symbol of constantinople. The empire would keep its claims of being the new rome (the turks already called it Rum) against HRE and the Russians. bonus points for orthodox (southern) hungary & sicily.

And who knows how many possible philosophers, artists and inventors were killed/exiled in the fall of constinople? No steampunk but at least renaissance can arrive in eastern med as well.
 
Top