WI ottoman state under Osman defeated by Byzantines

So as we all know the ottoman stat under osman established itself after destroying a byzntine army led by George Mouzlan in the late 13th century. So WI Mouzlan is successful in destroying the ottoman army and killing Osman and annexing ottoman state. What would happen to history as we know it with no Ottoman empire. How do events in eastern Europe play out. I do not mean Byzantine survival but the question is wi Ottomans were destroyed what consequences would this leave on the world.
 
A serbo-wank is a possibility in the Balkans, and, even in the 1320s, a Byzantine revival isn't 100% out of the question, though it is most unlikely. The Italian merchant states will likely continue to maintain a strong presence in the Aegean. Anatolia could well end up a mess of competing Christian and Islamic principalities under the vague hegemony of the Serbs, Mamelukes, Mongols or, most fun of all, Trebizond.

In short, there are a lot of powers in the old lands of Rhomania that can theoretically do well at the time the Ottomans began to rise.
 
Presumably, the defeat by Mouzlan indicates that one way or another the ERE hasn't weakened as much as OTL - somehow - so that may have interesting effects on the other states.

Is it too late (assuming the resources exist) for a successful reconquest of Anatolia by the ERE/Trebizond/insert Christian power here?

Too late in the sense "are the Muslim Turks too well established for a Christian power to resecure the area?"

The Turks as a people, not their states.
 
Following the defeat of Osman, his underlings and the fringes of his family are brought into the Palaiologan political circle. They allow Byzantium to maintain and gradually extend its hold on Anatolia, finding equilibrium with the Turkic groups in central and Eastern Anatolia.

After several decades, the Hosmanoi are the premier family in the ERE, owning all of Byzantine Asia Minor. The Hosmanoi not only provide the Empire with a loyal, stubbornly martial infusion of manpower, but also a series of very effective generals. With the absorption of Osman's nascent state, Byzantium gains leadership that is able to better understand and cope with the tactics used so successfully by the Empire's nomad enemies.

The rest can basically write itself.
 
The ERE has been fighting nomads since before the Turks entered Anatolia.

It already has learned (or has texts covering, for those who will read them) how to fight them.

The Empire needs money more than Turkish generals.

Not that I'm objecting to the idea in general or a timeline running with it - I've love to read one - but hopefully this addresses the Empire's financial needs somehow so that the issue that crippled the state OTL doesn't leave the attempt to incorporate the former emirate without meaning.
 
I disagree.

The ERE needs manpower and martial ability. The early Ottoman state was extremely successful in its early military endeavors against Byzantium because it had tactical genius, political flexibility, and a relatively martial population that could support itself by plundering others.

If the ERE co-opts these factors into itself, it can defend itself and absorb Turkic populations more successfully as I mentioned above.

An infusion of cash was not going to turn things around for the ERE. Mercenaries might bring about temporary gains, but hey, just look at the Catalan company for how things turned with that idea.
 
I disagree.

The ERE needs manpower and martial ability. The early Ottoman state was extremely successful in its early military endeavors against Byzantium because it had tactical genius, political flexibility, and a relatively martial population that could support itself by plundering others.

If the ERE co-opts these factors into itself, it can defend itself and absorb Turkic populations more successfully as I mentioned above.

An infusion of cash was not going to turn things around for the ERE. Mercenaries might bring about temporary gains, but hey, just look at the Catalan company for how things turned with that idea.

I'm not saying it wouldn't benefit from co-opting the early Ottoman state, but let's give it some credit for what it can draw on within its own borders in terms of manpower and talent if it can finance the army and navy to a credible level.

Without more money adding the emirate won't do much good. It'll just be one more piece of land the Empire can't hold with manpower it can't pay to equip and supply and train or otherwise make good soldiers out of.

It might be even better to have Michael VIII simply stomp on the Ottomans before they amount to anything, or have Michael IX's expedition (instead of Mouzalan's) earlier in the year prevail.
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying it wouldn't benefit from co-opting the early Ottoman state, but let's give it some credit for what it can draw on within its own borders in terms of manpower and talent if it can finance the army and navy to a credible level.

Without more money adding the emirate won't do much good. It'll just be one more piece of land the Empire can't hold with manpower it can't pay to equip and supply and train or otherwise make good soldiers out of.

It might be even better to have Michael VIII simply stomp on the Ottomans before they amount to anything, or have Michael IX's expedition (instead of Mouzalan's) earlier in the year prevail.

The ERE of this period was politically stagnant and utterly demoralized. Throwing money into the treasury is not going to fix an ancient, crumbling ideological structure. Political and religious defeats only pushed towards a more defensive, conservative political outlook.

The ERE needed new blood and new ideas. The early Ottoman state had everything Byzantium lacked to be a great power on par with any in the West. To co-opt that dynamism would be to begin to reform the system that would lead to recovery.
 
The ERE of this period was politically stagnant and utterly demoralized. Throwing money into the treasury is not going to fix an ancient, crumbling ideological structure. Political and religious defeats only pushed towards a more defensive, conservative political outlook.

The ERE needed new blood and new ideas. The early Ottoman state had everything Byzantium lacked to be a great power on par with any in the West. To co-opt that dynamism would be to begin to reform the system that would lead to recovery.

If it was an "ancient, crumbling ideological structure", I would agree.

Since that's not why the ERE fell, I'm going to repeat: Without money, no army and navy. Without an effective army and navy, anyone like the Ottomans can come along and tear off pieces of what remains of the Empire's territories in Anatolia, anyone like the Catalans can run amok when not paid, Venice and Genoa can demand anything and get it because there's nothing the Empire can do about them.

No matter how inspired or how visionary or how dynamic the basileus or his generals are.

Take Andronicus II, since he's the Emperor at the time of the POD. Why did he cut the army to the bone and just about eliminate the navy? Money.

Restore the Empire's finances and such a move wouldn't be dreamed of.

From Timothy E. Gregory's A History of Byzantium

"Michael VIII died in 1282 in what appeared to be very good condition. To be sure, Byzantium had re-emerged onto the stage as a major player in international affairs. Nonetheless, his successors were completely unable to maintain the political and military power of Michael's empire and it is an open question to what degree his policies were responsible for this decline. On the one hand, Michael had expended enormous energy to restore Byzantium to a position of power, and this had possibly weakened the broader fabric of the Byzantine economy and state. On the other hand, we must be careful when we blame the successful Michael VIII for failures that ook place under the rule of his successors. Ostrogorsky is clear in his assessment of the situation: "In reality there were more deep-seated reasons to account for the rapid decline of Byzantine power . . . the internal weaknesses of the state were incurable and increasingly internal pressure drove Byzantium irretrievably toward catastrophe" (p 479). In Ostrogorsky's view, the rise of the Ottomans and Serbia took place at a time when the state had been weakened by the expenditure of Michael VIII, and he notes that it is 'these momentous factors in foreign and domestic politics, and not the personal qualities of its rulers, which really account for the decline of Byzantium" (ibid.)"

A state not able to take the offense is not likely to be thinking offensively.

Meanwhile the predators (the Ottomans OTL being the best example) can feed on what remains of its resources and as they grow stronger, the ERE grows weaker.

But that doesn't change by having what was the Ottoman state co-opted into the ERE.
 
But that doesn't change by having what was the Ottoman state co-opted into the ERE.

To expand:

At the time of the Battle of Bapheus, what I assume to be the POD, Ottoman territory was pitifully small. It was centered around Eskişehir. Taking it brings nothing besides a royal family who would probably be exiled or sent somewhere away from Constantinopolitan power. Ottoman territory at the time certainly isn't brings little to the financial capabilities of the Greek empire.
 
To expand:

At the time of the Battle of Bapheus, what I assume to be the POD, Ottoman territory was pitifully small. It was centered around Eskişehir. Taking it brings nothing besides a royal family who would probably be exiled or sent somewhere away from Constantinopolitan power. Ottoman territory at the time certainly isn't brings little to the financial capabilities of the Greek empire.

It at best restores a small sliver of specifically pre-Ottoman territory.

Do we assume the followers of said Ottomans add anything?
 
It at best restores a small sliver of specifically pre-Ottoman territory.

Do we assume the followers of said Ottomans add anything?

As far as I can remember, pre-Ottoman demographics of Anatolia are pretty hard to figure out post-Manzikert. There's apparently not a lot of evidence.

Who were the Ottomans? Can we consider every person in Ottoman territory to be "Ottoman"? Certainly the peasant population was the backbone of their economy, but I doubt that Ottoman manpower at that time was extensive. After all, Bithynia isn't under Ottoman control at that time, and there's no dervishime system either. Maybe experts about the early Ottomans could be more enlightening. I only have Osman's Dream, so I'm pretty much a "one book man", not an expert.
 
From Timothy E. Gregory's A History of Byzantium


Your own quote seems to prove my point.The reason Michael promoted his expansion of the ERE was because of an unrealistic, antiquated politic and his rebuilt state was subsequently indefensible as a result. Byzantium had financial resources at its disposal, but these were clearly inadequate to the task to which Michael put them.

To expand:

At the time of the Battle of Bapheus, what I assume to be the POD, Ottoman territory was pitifully small. It was centered around Eskişehir. Taking it brings nothing besides a royal family who would probably be exiled or sent somewhere away from Constantinopolitan power. Ottoman territory at the time certainly isn't brings little to the financial capabilities of the Greek empire.

Ok. With such meager financial resources, why were the Ottomans able to defeat and conquer as they did?

For the very reasons I have already mentioned: their martial ability, their political savvy, their innovative drive. The very things that would allow Byzantium to recover should Ottomans be defeated and brought into the Byzantine state.

I will repeat my main point: lack of money is a symptom of the antiquated mindset that brought about Byzantium's collapse in the 14th century.

If Michael Palaiologos not overextended and overtaxed Byzantium with his conquests, the Byzantine state (arguably) would not have undergone such drastic decline.
 
[/I]Your own quote seems to prove my point.The reason Michael promoted his expansion of the ERE was because of an unrealistic, antiquated politic and his rebuilt state was subsequently indefensible as a result. Byzantium had financial resources at its disposal, but these were clearly inadequate to the task to which Michael put them.

Yeah, defending the empire against Charles of Anjou and retaking Imperial lands so that the empire can regain its lost strength. What a horribly unrealistic plan.

More at the bottom of this post.

Ok. With such meager financial resources, why were the Ottomans able to defeat and conquer as they did?
Taking advantage of the weaknesses of the states around them to loot and raid and build strength at their expense.

For the very reasons I have already mentioned: their martial ability, their political savvy, their innovative drive. The very things that would allow Byzantium to recover should Ottomans be defeated and brought into the Byzantine state.

I will repeat my main point: lack of money is a symptom of the antiquated mindset that brought about Byzantium's collapse in the 14th century.
Which is not backed by the actual realities of the situation or the actual ideology/mindset of the Empire.

If Michael Palaiologos not overextended and overtaxed Byzantium with his conquests, the Byzantine state (arguably) would not have undergone such drastic decline.
We must be looking at a different Michael VIII than the one who was constantly having to face threats to the Empire.

If Sicily had not been such a major threat, the ERE would have a far better chance of avoiding such a drastic decline. It was and it cost the ERE dearly to hold it off.

One might want to keep that in mind rather than painting Michael as a gloryhound.

One might also ask how the empire is expected to recover if it doesn't try to regain its lost lands to the extent that occurred. First its too defensive and demoralized, now Michael is too ambitious. No matter what it does, its doing it wrong, apparently. :rolleyes:
 
First its too defensive and demoralized, now Michael is too ambitious. No matter what it does, its doing it wrong, apparently. :rolleyes:

I stand by my prior point, and I think you're splitting hairs.

One of the main reasons for the Byzantines being evicted from Anatolia was because the Akritai felt alienated and demoralized by ever greater burdens placed upon them.

Michael was overly ambitious, and unrealistic. One need only look at the history books to find additional examples of the same tired, absolutist imperial mindset.
 
I stand by my prior point, and I think you're splitting hairs.

No, I'm pointing out that you fault the Byzantines for being defensive and demoralized and you fault them for attempting to retake Imperial lands so as to strengthen the state.

What was it supposed to do, ask Osman to become Emperor and kick out Michael?

No, this isn't a serious question, other than that I think you're arguing that.

One of the main reasons for the Byzantines being evicted from Anatolia was because the Akritai felt alienated and demoralized by ever greater burdens placed upon them.
Yeah, its not as if the state didn't need the money to fight against Charles or anything else. Michael was just convinced he was Augustus reborn. :rolleyes:

Michael was overly ambitious, and unrealistic. One need only look at the history books to find additional examples of the same tired, absolutist imperial mindset.
Let me ask you this. What books do you have in mind specifically?

Because this is not backed by my reading.

I'm not saying Michael made all the right choices, but one has to acknowledge the obstacles to success from external problems and internal problems he isn't responsible for as of at least some relevance rather than blaming it all on the Byzantines being a bunch of dysfunctional old men with daydreams of past glory as young and beautiful women pass them.

Yeah, my metaphor writing skills suck at four in the morning.
 
I stand by my prior point, and I think you're splitting hairs.

One of the main reasons for the Byzantines being evicted from Anatolia was because the Akritai felt alienated and demoralized by ever greater burdens placed upon them.

Michael was overly ambitious, and unrealistic. One need only look at the history books to find additional examples of the same tired, absolutist imperial mindset.

1.) The Empire's main threats were not from Anatolia, they were from the Balkans and other parts of Europe. Not taking away from the Ottomans, but by the time Ottoman power crossed into Europe, the Empire was a strip of land in the Peloponnese, and Thrace.

2.) The military value of the Akritai was dubious at best, and keep in mind that Byzantine sources tended to exaggerate excessively. Everyone was taxed quite a bit to pay for the state's expenses, not just landholders in Bithynia.
 
Top