WI: Timur is never born or never becomes a conqueror ?

So was Francis I of France, nominally, despite his obvious rivalry with Charles of Habsburg. And yet, he still allied with the Turks.
Honestly, we shouldn't be overestimating the willingness of European countries to go on Crusade against the Ottomans when it goes against their interests and possibly leaves their flanks exposed for their enemies to attack. If anything, European political entities of the time would prefer to take advantage of the situation and react accordingly to Ottoman expansion, either allying with them or going into conflict with them depending on how events go. The Hussites would very likely become friends with the Ottomans in their struggle against the papacy and the HRE.

France is a bit different than the Teutonic Order. The main issue for the Latin world in this scenario is that all crusade and mutual defensive mechanisms are hampered by the divided state of the Papacy. This is why Bayezid himself felt it was a golden opportunity to make gains in the Latin world.
 
Depends on which part of Reconquista, After the fall of the Ummayads and before the Almohads is was basically every man for themselves, not a dangerous regional is making itself more of a threat.

This is a major point. It makes sense to align with smaller inconsequential Muslim states than to side with a hegemonic empire with a different civilization narrative. Almost no one in Europe would gain from aligning to the Ottomans in 1400.
 
Well, not quite. Do you really believe the teutonic knights and poland would have kept on fighting, if the ottomans had pushed seriously into europe? At the end of the day, the teutonic knights are still at the service of the church and of christendom. As for the hussites, I don't exactly recall them being overly aggressive, so sigismund may be able to redirect his efforts, though that'd give the hussites time.

The Teutonic Knights and Poland could keep fighting unless there is a direct reason for their participation as was the case with Witold’s campaign of 1399. OTOH, while this enterprise was presented a crusade and even received a Papal blessing, presence of Tokthamish with his troops (all being Muslims) on the crusading side makes anti-Muslim aspect a complete demagoguery. So it probably boils down to how the whole thing is presented and how many people of the military class have nothing else to do in this specific moment. During on of the breaks in the 100YW there was an attempt to send the mercenary bands into a crusade with an explicit purpose of having as many of them as possible killed. IIRC, the “crusaders” did not make it beyond Avignon and after demanding and receiving money from the Pope turned back.
 

Marc

Donor
However even without Timur the OTL or faster Ottoman expansion may not entirely be a sure thing. That it seems unreasonable to assume they will overrun Southern Europe or just become stronger without Timur, there's too much that could happen to make that assumption off hand. Timur was nothing more than a speed bump to the Ottomans in the grand scheme of thing, but by that same token Andronikos III Palaiologos could still live to see his son come of age, and possibly keep the Byzantines on stronger footing. I'm of the opinion unless there are hard systemic issues in a state, or people are noted to have longstanding medical conditions, anything after the POD is up for grabs. So I can see how the Ottomans can benefit, but I do not see the benefits or as being more likely than not unless there's a good reason.

Well, as much as I can on a serious philosophy of history level agree with you that once initial conditions are changed, chaos and complexity theory takes over - for the sake of a friendly discussion, using Occam's razor I think is best.
The Ottomans had already pretty much taken over the Balkans, save Serbia. The Byzantines were about out of manpower and money. The Ottomans have more than plenty of both. Best case scenario for the Byzantines is reverting back to the city-state that they once were. No disgrace in that, the 15th century was a good time for that construct, but retaining any territory outside those grand walls is rather remote. De jure, or de facto, the Empire is toast a half century earlier than in real history
 
Last edited:
When Timur was born the Byzantines still held marginal lands in Anatolia. Serbia had yet to rise to it's short-lived but great imperial heights.

It is true that these processes weren't influenced by Timur, by the time he comes rampaging into Anatolia Serbia was already broken and of Byzantine territory only Morea and a bit of Eastern Thrace were still held. And any observer in 1400 would see that the Ottomans are a rising power and barring miracles would continue.

However this is still a few decades from the birth of Timur, there is plenty of time for other threats to materialize and the Kantacuzene-Palailogos civil war could also be avoided.

Of course even if they can hold off the Ottomans the West is going to remain a large threat to their safety. It was just a few generations earlier that Charles of Anjou prepared his recreated Latin Empire that was only stopped by the Sicilian Vespers. While that threat did amount to nothing it also showed that Western Europe had resources that the Byzantines could only dream of. So if not from the east then surely they'll fall from the west. At this point it's only a matter of when.
 
Last edited:

Kaze

Banned
India's history would also change. Timur is the ancestor of Babur, founding father of the Mughal Empire - so no Taj Mahal.
 

Marc

Donor
Persia could very well stay divided late into the 15th century.
Quite a fractal Middle East in fact.
 
Last edited:
Top