WI: No Rout of Nicopolis (1396)

The battle of Nicopolis in September 1396 is regarded as one of the last crusade attempts (according to wikipedia). A piebald army of Europeans(English, French, Burgundian, German, Hungarian, Venetian, Croatian, Bulgarian etc etc) was routed by a far larger Ottoman army.

What if Nicopolis hadn't been such a rout? i.e. the Ottomans are weaker or there is a stronger Europaen contingent (the dukes of Lancaster, Orléans and Burgundy were supposed to go along, but all refused to leave, citing peace negotiations between England-France). It doesn't even have to be a victory for the Crusading army, simply less of a defeat than it was OTL. OTL, there were massive losses on the Crusader side, not so much because of the battle itself, but due to soldiers taken captive (the king of Hungary, Sigmund of Luxemburg very nearly was, for instance). Of these captives, 300-3000 were then executed.

So, what if the battle at Nicopolis is less decisive?
 
The battle of Nicopolis in September 1396 is regarded as one of the last crusade attempts (according to wikipedia). A piebald army of Europeans(English, French, Burgundian, German, Hungarian, Venetian, Croatian, Bulgarian etc etc) was routed by a far larger Ottoman army.

What if Nicopolis hadn't been such a rout? i.e. the Ottomans are weaker or there is a stronger Europaen contingent (the dukes of Lancaster, Orléans and Burgundy were supposed to go along, but all refused to leave, citing peace negotiations between England-France). It doesn't even have to be a victory for the Crusading army, simply less of a defeat than it was OTL. OTL, there were massive losses on the Crusader side, not so much because of the battle itself, but due to soldiers taken captive (the king of Hungary, Sigmund of Luxemburg very nearly was, for instance). Of these captives, 300-3000 were then executed.

So, what if the battle at Nicopolis is less decisive?
Or the French Knights don't act smug and listen to Sigismund...

Less decisive how? No total defeat or a small Crusader victory? If the former, Bulgaria is not saved but the Ottomans don't get ransom for captured nobles. They may just consider a new Crusade later on if the catastrophic defeat was avoided.
If the latter, they form a small Bulgaria as a Bulgaria Vassal in the North West. It won't survive but a victory gives morale.
 
Not as crushing a defeat as it was OTL. I imagine that Ottoman finances (without the injection of the ransom moneys) might be in a worse state than they were OTL?

Essentially, enough to let the Crusaders want to try again.
The ransom is not really necessary what saves the finances. Some military campaigns might not happen though. I can think of facing Timur.

That could happen. Even after defeat, John the fearless wanted a new Crusade. He may get his Crusade this time.
 
The ransom is not really necessary what saves the finances. Some military campaigns might not happen though. I can think of facing Timur.

That could happen. Even after defeat, John the fearless wanted a new Crusade. He may get his Crusade this time.
Both of which in turn could have an interesting result, no? I'll confess to having no knowledge of what would happen if the Ottomans and Timur were to square off, but it sounds like it could be one for the ages.
 
Both of which in turn could have an interesting result, no? I'll confess to having no knowledge of what would happen if the Ottomans and Timur were to square off, but it sounds like it could be one for the ages.
Of course. One slight change, like no battle of Ankara because no finances to pay the army to face Timur butterflies away the rule of Mehmed II, Selim I and Suleiman I. Though I think, no Ankara also ends the existence of Roman Rule in Constantinople. However, with the Crusaders still having motivation they might return. The Crusaders may reach Varna earlier this time, rather than 1444.
 
Of course. One slight change, like no battle of Ankara because no finances to pay the army to face Timur butterflies away the rule of Mehmed II, Selim I and Suleiman I. Though I think, no Ankara also ends the existence of Roman Rule in Constantinople. However, with the Crusaders still having motivation they might return. The Crusaders may reach Varna earlier this time, rather than 1444.
No battle of Ankara = end of Roman rule because the Romans/Byzzies will fall to Timur instead of the Ottomans?
 
Both of which in turn could have an interesting result, no? I'll confess to having no knowledge of what would happen if the Ottomans and Timur were to square off, but it sounds like it could be one for the ages.
Ottomans and Timur did fight OTL. In the Battle of Ankara

No battle of Ankara = end of Roman rule because the Romans/Byzzies will fall to Timur instead of the Ottomans?
No if Timur and Ottomans don't fight Constantinople falls to Ottomans earlier.
 
No battle of Ankara = end of Roman rule because the Romans/Byzzies will fall to Timur instead of the Ottomans?
The Ottomans, because they were besieging Constantinople. No Ankara means not lifting the siege and not losing so many troops. For the Timurids to conquer Constantinople they need to win at Ankara, and then cross the Straits to destroy whatever remains of the Ottomans and then... do what Bayezid I has done. Surround Constantinople and force their surrender.
 
Ottomans and Timur did fight OTL. In the Battle of Ankara
Which will be a vastly different battle here, even if the two sides do clash?

No if Timur and Ottomans don't fight Constantinople falls to Ottomans earlier.
Be interesting to see the effects of that in Europe. Especially with, as @Koprulu Mustafa Pasha points out, no massive debacle at Nicopolis to stimmy the tide of the Crusading spirit.

The Ottomans, because they were besieging Constantinople. No Ankara means not lifting the siege and not losing so many troops. For the Timurids to conquer Constantinople they need to win at Ankara, and then cross the Straits to destroy whatever remains of the Ottomans and then... do what Bayezid I has done. Surround Constantinople and force their surrender.
Would their siege be successful, though? I mean, it wouldn't be the first time (IIRC) that Constantinople's been besieged but not fallen
 
Which will be a vastly different battle here, even if the two sides do clash?



Be interesting to see the effects of that in Europe. Especially with, as @Koprulu Mustafa Pasha points out, no massive debacle at Nicopolis to stimmy the tide of the Crusading spirit.



Would their siege be successful, though? I mean, it wouldn't be the first time (IIRC) that Constantinople's been besieged but not fallen
There is no help coming for Constantinople. No aid. Nicopolis did not help in any sense to relieve it. Without Ankara it would fall soon.
 
So Byzantium falls fifty years earlier TTL. Wonder if there'd still be an Ottoman interregnum as was prompted by Ankara
That was a special case. Bayezid was captured by Timur without leaving a chosen successor. Without his capture, odds are this won't happen. His son Suleiman, if alive might become Sultan. Bayezid I died at age of 43, so him living longer is not impossible and would likely survive some of his sons.
 
That was a special case. Bayezid was captured by Timur without leaving a chosen successor. Without his capture, odds are this won't happen. His son Suleiman, if alive might become Sultan. Bayezid I died at age of 43, so him living longer is not impossible and would likely survive some of his sons.
This would mean that Ottomans would be in a better position to take advantage of Timur's death, right?
 
Interesting. What would results have on the Ottoman empire?
They have Anatolia and do not have to reconquer it, also without Battle of Ankara they wouldn't have to face their long Interregnum/Civil War. As @Koprulu Mustafa Pasha had said before. As such the Ottomans could expand earlier to Egypt for example. And despite the higher possibility of crusades they could focus more on said crusaders.
 
Interesting.

Moving BACK to Europe, what effects might it have there? I imagine if Nicopolis happens differently, the future Emperor Sigmund might not make his OTL oath to marry the count of Celje's daughter in gratitude for him saving sigmund's hide. Which means Siggie might marry differently (to a more fertile bride from a less psychotic family).

@Jan Olbracht @krieger @Fehérvári
 
Massive butterflies given how volatile the situation in Europe is- there's still a schism after all. Hell I wouldn't be surprised to see more Hussite style movements of the Turks are pushing against Hungary sooner than OTL.
 
Interesting.

Moving BACK to Europe, what effects might it have there? I imagine if Nicopolis happens differently, the future Emperor Sigmund might not make his OTL oath to marry the count of Celje's daughter in gratitude for him saving sigmund's hide. Which means Siggie might marry differently (to a more fertile bride from a less psychotic family).

@Jan Olbracht @krieger @Fehérvári
Before Nicopolis, Siggie was engaged to Margaret of Brieg, princess from Silesian branch of Piast dynasty. Most likely, he'll just stick to this engagement and marry her.
 
Top