@@nuutti8974 Ottoman sultan Selim I and Shah Ismail, the founder of the Safavids, fought in the battle of Çaldıran. Shah Ismail's army consisted of Turkmen. Not from the Persians. Moreover, Iran was in the hands of the Turks for a very long time.
Another major change is to see Russian expansion focused more on Central Europe, Central Asia, Persia and the Eastern Siberia instead of a Russian focus South hoping to reconquer Constantinople from the Ottomans.
Its unknown whether there be life and death situations but likely East Rome would make the black sea it's own lake for eternity. The fact the the two will still be on same branch of Christianity could mean less clashes but definately not endless peace.
@@ivokantarski6220 religion wont do much idk why people put this as a factor russia will need a warm port this includes byzantine controled black sea i can see them allying with the bulgaria-serbia to try to take down the byzantines.
@@ivokantarski6220 as if being of the same religion changed people. Russia fought all its fellow orthodox nations. France fought all its Catholic neighbors. And so on. The only real reason wars were fought is for greed, everything else is a secondary priority.
@@yoghurtmaster1688 true it would resemble the Swedish danish reletionship more than being allies it didn't matter that much that they are on the same branch of Christianity. Sweden and Danmark had like 10+ wars against each other. So russia or the eastern romans would most likely declare wars and even multiply wars. It would just be like an orthodox Christian ottoman empire with mostly greek speakers.
Fr no Turkish raging kids would come,no 1453 spamming people, no people with ottoman march, no people who think ottoman empire is the chad. Everything would be good
I would love a sequel Edit: I just realized this would have large ramifications for Sudan and Ethiopia. The Nubian kingdoms were christian, but collapsed in 1504 leading to Muslim rule. Sudan would interact with the Romans again before its death if the byzantines reconquered Egypt. Ethiopia would also be closer to the rest of the Christian world, which might allow them to do more than simply not be colonized.
Nubia (Makuria at least) mostly collapsed after Baibars invasions in the 13th century. The Nubian Kingdoms became weak rump states until completely dissappearing by the earth 16th century. Maybe they could have had a resurgence IDK. It would definitely be cool to see a stronger Ethiopia (not that Christian Europeans would never invade another Christian nation LOL). Hopefully the Islamic slave trade and displacement of Nubians by Arab settlers in Sudan would not have been as bad too.
Their decline started in like 1300s but significant Christian populations remained till 1600s. I still feel that Christianity would still die and have to be reintroduced either way because the Saffavids would control Egypt for a long time
@@gequitz I am not saying Nubia would be conquered by Persia. I am saying Persia would block any outside Christian aid while the already occuring process of Islamization and Arabization in Nubia would continue.
The Big problems with this that I see is that stopping the Ottomans doesn't mean stopping all the other small Beyliks establishing themselves in the Roman borderlands which could just replace them. Reconquering Anatolia would be super difficult as it was ERE's manpower reserve and a plurality of the population had been turkified. Without sufficient manpower reserves, the Romans focusing on the West(to avoid a second 4th crusade kind of thing) and the frequent civil wars of this era instead of successfully, succesfully conquering a culturally and religiously foreign group would be ridiculous. I could instead see the remaining Greeks of Central Anatolia migrating into Western Anatolia to escape the turks, fully Turkifying Central and much of eastern Anatolia (tho Armenians will remain in the Eastern mountains of Anatoila and Cilicia). I think the question now would be who Trezibond would fall to, Turks or Eastern Romans. Timur would certainly ravage the region and genocide the population when he comes and we might Turks conquer it or who knows maybe if the Eastern Romans can avoid a civil war and regain sufficient legitimacy in the throne to stop the constant civil wars they might be able to conquer it. In my reading either Constantinople falls to the Safavids or Constantinople is puppeted by a Western power that rescues it from Saffavid conquest. (This is because they won't be able to regain Anatolia as I see it). Edit One possibility that came to mind is that of the rise of Albania/Epirus not being something tied heavily to the Ottomans so instead, soon after the Eastern Romans face Timur Albania or Epirus takes over much of its European lands and you'll just need only someone half as skilled as Skanderberg for that.
There is large Alevi population in central and eastern Turkey even today. Despite all the purges and expulsions. The Saffavids can absolutely use them to control Anatolia and convert the region.
The Saffavids would have their lines overstretched beyond belief. I don't see them conquering Constantinopole aka Tsarigrad teh city of the Tsars from Bulgarian. The Ottomans gained enough buffer zone before they could deal with the city itself. The Saffavids I dunno their navy and I would assume it probadly wasnt a supreme commander of anything. I assume East Rome wont be able to conquer enough. It couldnt continue to exist as an empire. Conquering Anatolia huh yeah you are right where they getting the man power to do it? Not that they were great at handling nomadic warriors. The First Bulgarian empire pushed them around for 3 centuries before East Rome became enough lucky. If not for Kievan Rus I dont think East Rome wouldve had such bright days in the coming 11th and 12th century in the Balkans. So yeah. The legions wouldnt be enough numerous or fast to deal with the Turkik hordes. Let's not forget the Balkans either. Whether Bulgaria and Serbia unify or not there is always the chance that Aegean Thrace and ancient Greece be invaded and looted badly. Seriously. Unless East Rome can find a proper Orthosox Christian allie the empire is over. Bulgaria wont stop its aim to expand against East Rome and its ambitions regarding the Tsarigrad capturing will continue. Not one or two Bulgarian emperors have tried their luck outside that city. It had been besieged 4 times and a half considering 1 time it had been together with another power. Plus th Bulgarian emperors had invited some Muslim powers to come with their navy and the Bulgarian land army would close it from land so city fully besieged. East Rome was way out of its prime. The Ottomans found no empire there. It was a multi cultural city, few cities in Thrace and maybe much of the Greek heartland. When the strongest muslim advance had happent the East Roman empire had much more territory, when Bulgaria fell upon it and conquered almost everything on the balkans possessed by East Rome there were still the man power reserves in Anatolia. If not for Anatolia there wouldve been no legions existent. I've just realised this. East Rome as an empire was finished. Maybe it could continue as a Greek empire and hold some lands but if not for the capital all else can be on the hook.
@@ivokantarski6220 Me saying the Saffavids would have conquered it is more me assuming the weakness of Bulgaria would continue maybe indefinately in the timeline as well, which may be wrong. It is also me remembering the 4th Crusade which if it didn't happen OTL most would say it was impossible and ridicioulous to think a few geographically displaced Latin Barbarians be able to take the most fortified city in the world. But a combination of ERE decline, incompetence and corruption and a Venician navy allowed the Crusaders to take Constantinople. The decline of Eastern Rome would certainly continue and if Bulgaria or some other European power don't vassalize or conquer Constantinople first I think a similar combination of ERE decline and incompetence and Safavid Canons would lead to them taking Constantinople, certainly they'll be able to take all of Eastern Roman Anatolia as Timur would have made that easy for them.
This isnt entirely true, as the Romans still had a strong fleet and army initially under the Palailogos, before they moved to mercenaries, and disbanded the whole thing. Really, preventing the Ottomans is entirely up to them on the military front, something they very well could have done by changing only a couple events around. Really, its a shame. They fell effectively the moment before the Islamic and Catholic worlds became more vulnerable than ever for them to exploit.
Its a great episode indeed a timeline where the Ottoman's disappear the Byzantine Empire will be able to recover it's lost provinces and preserve the golden Greco-Roman era in the East..which could even last to this day if adapted with time the ideas of liberalism and which is highly possible as we all know how adoptable the Romans were
It was certainly a good video, I enjoyed watching it. There is one mistake though. The city on your map that is called Amsterdam is actually Antwerp or Gent. Amsterdam lies more to the North.
In my opinion most anatolian turks would convert to christianity as changing religion used to be more like getting a new citizenship back then. Since the main advantage turks(not just turks but other centeral asian tribes) had over other communities were their military prowess due to their nomadic traditions and their flexibility on adopting new cultures and integrating parts of these cultures in to their own culture, they would slowly rise to the rulling class as christian central asians. In this reality the word turk might not even mean anything since it was the german linguists and historians who created the whole idea of turkic people.
I disagree. Given the political landscape, if a beylik did apostatize, its Muslim rivals would start isolating and targeting it. The beyliks would probably use propaganda about restoring Islam to that nation, and support their forces by recruiting the Muslim Turkic clans who were moving into Anatolia. Byzantium would be busy with the Serbs, so the apostatized state would be alone. The dominant power in Anatolia would likely remain Muslim, and so the Anatolians would ultimately be fully Islamized. There is no reason to believe that multiple beyliks would suddenly apostatize at once. Even if Byzantium revitalized itself and started to challenge Muslim power in Anatolia, the beyliks would likely see this as a continuation of the old Muslim-Christian (Seljuk-Byzantium) rivalry. The beyliks (including the Ottomans) drew their legitimacy from the Seljuk Sultans of Rûm. In this alternate timeline, I suspect another (Muslim) beylik would take the place of the Ottomans. Maybe this replacement would not have conquered as much in the Balkans, and maybe it would not have lasted for over 600 years, but the conditions were practically perfect for an ambitious Anatolian power. If the Ottomans failed, a different beylik could rise and topple the declining and exhausted Byzantine state. It might not have been as glorious, but it would have happened all the same.
Persia beat Mamluk is unlikely because: -Geography reason -Sunni resistance -Mamluk had same military strength(15,000-60,000). compare to persia(7,000-40,000)
Persia should have more man power tbh. I think they wont be able to hold it for long even if they could conquer it despite geographical issues with distance. The Medditerean will also be a problem. If the Persians cant properly allie themselves with the population in egypt then naval defences might be compromised.
@@whoisjoe5610 Maybe Persia can expand into Mashriqi or Baghdad but not further. Maybe they will accept Mamluk offer to be their vassal. Chinese empire is also a gunpowder empire. But their military still not strong enough. They still rely on manpower.
I think people underestimate the Ottoman Empire too much, they were too lucky in their rise. Like the death of Esteban Uroš IV Dušan, to somehow manage to cross into the Balkans, the completely Balkanized Balkans, etc.
You mean overestimate. Yeah it was in a sense a bit lucky. Its amidiate neighbours were all out of their prime. The East Roman empire I've come to the conclusion it wasnt an empire at the time. Too small and probadly full of Greeks and not multiethnic ruling over other peoples to call it an empire. Nvm that. We gotta admit it. The Ottomans were blessed and had great qualities. Even if my country Bulgaria was fractured we still had far more population than the Ottomans. Most of us had more population than them. So their worrior mentality must have helped them so much to rise into greatness. Their way of incorporating new allies reminds me almost to the situation of the first Bulgarian empire. It also had to incorporate other tribes and ethnicities in order to sustain its expansion vs the very numerous East Roman legions. Through I dont believe my ancestors needed other ethnic groups as much to fight East Rome. The first Bulgarian empire didnt make its wins due to the Slavic troops. Rather to the elite light and heavy cavalry of the country. The Slavic tribes couldnt beat a Roman army.
@@ivokantarski6220 In fact, Greek culture was still so powerful at that time that a second Bulgarian or Serbian empire conquering Constantinople would likely become a Byzantine empire in a few generations, due to the prestige of the Greek language. As partially happened with the Ottomans when they adopted Greek as the language of the state and also claimed to be the successor of Rome.
@@vragolander Didn't he have influence? It was the main bastion against the Muslims, it expanded orthodoxy to the Balkans and the Kievan Rus, it was for a long time the undisputed leader of the Christians, from its lands all kinds of invents and art came out, each enemy that managed to defeat it proclaimed itself a Roman successor to obtain prestige and influence, and its fall meant the largest cultural explosion in Europe in the Renaissance. And that's just talking about Byzantium, if we talk about Greek culture in its entirety we would be at another level. Edit: I forgot to mention that it is also the oldest empire in history, despite having fought endless wars on all fronts against; Persians, Huns, Turks, Slavs, Vikings, Russians, Germans, Avars, Arabs, and even Christians. Although he did not stand out at all for being powerful since Justiniano, he is for his contribution to history and his tenacity to stand firm.
@@lord_quasar It depends on the period. The influence began to disappear at certain times when the country was shrinking. The Serbian Empire actually managed make the Greeks loyal by keeping their GREEK Orthodox faith around the corner but also suppressing local ethnic influence of the populations living in Byzantine strongholds such as Epirus and Thessaly.
Here's a chaos suggestion: What if the ottomans or the sultanate of Rum embraced orthodox Christendom? To better legitimize themselves as a successor to Rome? While the slavic nations generally don't like ANY conquerors, they were still subjugated (in the balkans at least) for a few centuries despite religious differences. If there were none, perhaps there'd have been greater integration? Maybe even, cursed as it sounds, cooperation between the Russian Empire and the Turks?
Maybe not Orthodox,but Nestoranism Christianty because It was more likelly to happen if Turks were didnt embraced the Islam.Nestoranism was a branch of Christianty that have plan to spread China and Central Asian.Even some small Turkic Beyliks were Nestorian in Central Asia
To be honest if the Ottomans didn't exist we would still see a fractured Bulgaria and Serbia. The Eastern Roman empire would have to focus it's attention in Anatolia, so it's expansion in the Balkans wouldn't happen. Therefore it would be a matter between Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian warlords to determine who the next great empire in the Balkans would be.
A very great & well informed narrator & documentary ; well done ! I'd say everything ( 99% ) of what you said is right ! With one minor detail that : Safavids Persia fell because of a betrayal & a backstabbing Afghan rebellious small army that didn't conquer anything, but simply surrounded the capital in a particular time of chaos & murdered the ruling dynasty in the capital , ending the empire ! If Safavids Persia was stronger in this timeline that time of chaos might have never happened & no betrayal could've caused the fall of the empire ! So they might have moved on further to Anatolia & perhaps constantinople itself ! But if not, *another major point to mention is that since no one really conquered Persia with the fall of the Safavids, Nader Shah Afshar almost immediately took the lead & created the Afsharids Persia which itself was a very strong power to be reckoned with ! *Nader is referred to as the Napoleon of Persia & the last conqueror of the east ! He was a very talented & genius conqueror* ! Even if the Safavids fell in this timeline, At least during the region of Nader Shah in Afsharids Persia, I doubt that byzantium would have conquered anything in Anatolia or the middle east & Egypt ! But that's just my opinion :) Great job again !
@@masculineman123 it was due to the ottoman conquest of Constantinople that forced the Western Europeans to go west which gave us immense wealth prosperity and most importantly technological progress
@@plexusGD I mean, that's fair. But if it WAS like Austria-Hungary's flag, I really wouldn't want to blame people for wanting to conquer Serbo-Bulgaria, I'd want that atrocity gone too.
Hungary would play a mayor roll in the european wars of religion, confronting Austria and the Habsburg. If the magyar king is wise, he can ally with the Bohemians to defeat the Habsburgs. Even though, Spain controlled large portions of Italy and could send an army to help their cousins against the protestants in the Danube, the main focus of the spanish monarchs was on the Rhine and the power of Madrid will collapse in the XVII Century. To seize the opportunity, it is likely that the French Kings converted to protestantism, likely to adopt a Gallian Church instead of embrazing a germanic denomination as a way to centralize the power to the crown. Spain and Italy will remained the only bastions of Catholicism in Western Europe and could theoretically ally with the Polish to defeat the Hungarian Protestant but that is unlikely. If Spain is defeated in Northern Europe sooner than in the current timeline, they could focus on the Mediterranian Sea and the Indies. Perhaps they could transform their colonies in havens for persecuted catholics of Germany, France and Central Europe, greatly improving the economy of the America. In this case, they would have more resources and strenght to prevent the portuguese indepedence, cementing their position as the ultimate catholic protectors of southern europe. They would go to war with the French over Navarre, Catalonia and the Po Valley in Italy. With an stronger naval focus, they could rival the Netherlands and the British in the seas, preventing the expansion of the latter powers in the Caribbean, Africa (using the portuguese strongholds in their favour) and maybe SouthEast Asia.
As nice as the timeline is, it's unlikely. The Eastern Romans would still lose Anatolia (except for the coast of Marmara). The Serbian conquest of Thessaly/Epirus, the Black Death, and many civil wars would greatly weaken the Eastern Romans beyond repair. But it would remain an independent state. The Serbian Empire and Bulgarian Empire would both be mortal enemies to Eastern Rome. The East would continue to weaken, with alternate civil wars we can't relianly predict. The Safavids come and unify Anatolia (including Byzantine territories) as well as the Mamluk Sultanate. The Christian states, terrified of Ismail, finally ally to stop the Safavids from a push into Europe. The fate of the Safavids is uncertain following Ismail's later death (early 1540s). But no real Muslim threat exists in the Balkans. The rest... would take more time for me to write.
Mmmm, I feel like the Romans would lose less of Anatolia, (keeping Smyrna, previously under the Aydinids), However the Byzantines realistically wouldn't be toppled until the Safavids.
That's weird in my last eu4 game as Byzantium when I restored the eastern empire borders I found out that spain conquered italy Maghreb region and half of france
@@ikengaspirit3063 they blocked the Silk Road that cause Portugal to explore around Africa and then later discovering Southeast Asia. But it's also backfire because without the Ottomans, Southeast Asia wouldn't acquired the Arquebus by trading and triggering the Natives making Indigenous Arquebus on their own like the Javanese Arquebus, Astinggal and Jiaozhi arquebus. I think there's more.
Without the Ottoman threat, the kings of Hungary would be free to pursue their goals of uniting with Poland and/or becoming emperor of the HRE. IRL, despite constant bickering, heavy taxes and at least two recent major "civil" wars, Hungary in 1526 (just before the battle of Mohács) was doing well economically and culturally. More importantly, Louis II of Hungary was also king of Bohemia. He was naive and inexperienced but also very young, there is no way he would not have had children. There is no way Hungary-Bohemia would've "just collapsed".
It seems unlikely that the karamanids wouldnt have tried to exploit the weakness of the eastern roman empire. They probably would have even been able to gain a significant amount of power in europe as long as they are able to invade gallipoli in 1354 as an earthquake struck the fort there in 1354 making it easier to conquer and thats how the ottomans conquered gallipoli. It also seems likely that they would have conquered the parts of Serbia that the ottomans did in our timeline and bring the eastern roman empire to its knees,like the ottomans. Although if they would have shattered after the timurids defeated them is dependent on the stablility of their nation beforehand otherwise a civil war could have happened that could have the potential of unravelling everything they already gained up until that point. The karamanids (or the eretnids if they managed to defeat the karamanids) could have become this timeline's version of the ottoman empire. Its impossible to say if they would have been more or less or just as successful as the ottoman empire. Even if none of this happens or maybe the karamanids never cross into europe and collapse after the timurid invasion, its hard to see the eastern roman empire bouncing back. During this period, they had very little money to work with which cascades into deficiencies in the military so its still likely they would have fallen. The Bulgarians would have loved to finally have Constantinople in their hands after many centuries of rivalry.
You underestimated Serbia here.There was really powerfull faction,with family two brothets Vukasin and Ugljesa as its leaders.Serbian Emperor Uros offered Vukasin to be co ruler because he was really powerfull.Otherwise,really well made video.
@@thoughtshewasaryan2591 You have no knowledge about this matter, i recommend you dont talk about this. Serbia was the biggest Balkan power in 14th century, owning all of Bosnia, Moravian Serbia, Macedonia, Albania, Epirus and having Bulgaria as a vassal. Later rulers of Mrnjavcevic dynasty died at the battle of Maritsa while suffering massive casualities. Without ottomans, Serbia remains a strong balkan power that could potentialy wipe Eastern Rome from the map and later embrace it like the Emperor Dusan wanted. Also the fact that the city of Novo Brdo had more inhabitants than the Constantinople just shows how weak the Romans were at the time.
Rly ? You missed Wallachia and Moldavia. They would have changed radically without the ottomans. In our timeline, when the turks conquered the balkans, the vlachs and moldavians accepted their suzerainty. However from 1500-1800, the principalities would suffer economic debts as they had to pay their ever growing tribute to the sultans, political instability as the sultans would keep changing the voievodes in both states with loyalists and opportunists and loss of land due to the wars with Russia. I think in this universe, things would be different. Tho they would at first have to submit to Hungary, Wallachia and Moldavia would most likely use the help of other kingdoms to maintain their indepedence. Wallachia would keep the city of Chilia which was an important port on the Damube and Moldavia would have Akkerman , resulting in these countries haaving better economies. They would probably use it to modernise their armies and defenses like how Mircea the elder did in our timeline. But i think the most guaranteed change would be that the Romanian states would see progress like in the West, unlike in our universe where the region would be frozen in time because of ottoman presence
I have got a suggestion: Can you do a video which shows the alternative reality of the Ottomans becoming orthodox or embracing orthodoxy as a state religion. There was also a request from the Pope to Sultan Mehmet the Second about recognizing his title of the holy roman emperor if he embraced Catholicism
Goold Video but its pretty inacurate that the Byzantine empire would conquer half of the middle east and egypt especialy in the 18th centure maybe they would be able to conquer syria but nothing more
They be lucky to stay alive. If Bulgaria rises up again and ain't a friend there be no legions available to defend Anarolian conquests. The legions struggled way too much with nomadic armies anyways so dunno if they would be able to reconquer land even if there is no trouble in Balkans. An Orthodox Christian union would make dreams come true through. Otherwise that capital seems like the best gold mine to ever capture.
I certainly think that The Eastern Romans were far more defensive in their position in comparison to the Ottomans, so they would probably conquer and christianize the Turks in Anatolia maybe making the eastern borders similar to Basil the 2nd’s borders, the west borders would probably look bigger but not crazily so, also the conquering of the levant and Egypt, whether by the Romans or Persians, seems a little bit of a stretch. But I can definitely see how The Nubians or Levantine Christians would be emboldened by the enduring and fighting Roman Empire. Great video, man!
So the resume of the Roman-Persian Empires would happen. Empire of Spain, vs Byzantine Empire vs Persian Empires, seems a glorious alternative timeline!
Do you believe power is retained so easily then and that for some reason the dynasty would bring strong leaders? The period was such for every Balkan state then, expecting genius and logical rule and order from Serbia only is madness.
Not on it's own. Serbia couldnt probadly hold Bulgaria at the time. A union or unification would allow great strengthening but conquest of whole East Rome wasnt possible. Bulgaria tried its luck on the Byzantine capital 4 times but without a navy it wasnt possible. Without navy the enemy could focus all its troops on defending the land and could bring new reinforcements and supplies. That city had endured sieges out of proportions. Bulgaria and Serbia together after some peace may be able to bring enough troops but not as numerous as the Ottoman hordes which besieged it the second time. If East Rome and we decide to be allies then Anatolia can be retaken. Otherwise East Rome wont have the necessary man power to retake it. Plus they werent great against nomads. The first Bulgarian empire was pushing them hard for 3 centuries and above. If not for Kievan Rus then East Rome may have been unable to reconquer the Balkans. Tsar Samuil very likely wouldnt have been a Tsar in such scenario where Kievan Rus doesnt successfully beat Bulgaria after which East Rome took the eastern part.
What about Crimea in this timeline? How would Byzantium expand borders to the whole of Crimea and beyond? I ask because i think that Lithuania (or Poland-Lithuania) could take more territories.
I am writing an alternate history where a minor detail is the continuance of the Eastern Roman Empire into the 20th century. Thankyou History Rhymes for giving me an idea of how to bring this about.
I like your approach, but especially the Balkans feel a bit off from my perspective, having a bit more knowledge on the pre-Ottoman conquest era and politics at the time. (ex. some nobility in newly conquered Serb territories didn’t support Dušan’s approach to solving the Byzantine crisis - conquest and creation of a Justinian-like Third Roman Empire, Balkanic ->>> Slavic before all; which created a division that would eventually lead to the shattering of the empire after his death)
You all so forgot about the Kingdom of Kush which is a powerful Christian Kingdom in North Africa modern day Sudan 🇸🇩 this would all so have major impact on the North African/Sahara region being we may see more Christian influence and may be a more advancement with Europe then in are time-line
Their decline started in like 1300s now, significant Christian populations remained till 1600s but we are talking of Northern and coastal Sudan already Arabized by the 1500s. Christianity would still die and have to be reintroduced either way because the Saffavids would control Egypt for a long time
it started well, then you had to give the plot armor to the Byzantines. the Byzantine Empire would have collapsed anyway despite the Ottomans, far too radical reforms would have been needed to save an empire torn apart by continuous civil wars and economically subjected to the Italian maritime republics. already before the arrival of the Ottomans the Venetians and Genoese had taken control of numerous Greek islands and even some ports in mainland Greece, making their rebirth from nothing even more unlikely
Although, I am curious what happens around the time of Napoleon and WW2. As the Eastern Romans never fallen. As well as having many former lands back. It seems likely during at least WW1 rather then the Ottomans being part of the centeral powers, but Rome being part of it trying to recapture Rome itself.
East Rome couldnt possibly reconquer so many lands at the time. I doupt it would be able to take back much in Anatolia. Unless it finally comes to terms with Bulgaria it really wont have any legions to spare for expansion. I mean there wouldnt be many forces available any ways. If Serbia or Bulgaria attack their man power will soon prove superior and I dont think East Rome would become an empire again. It had shrank way too much. Its capital city on both sides was about 200 or 300km from enemy powers. Greece proper couldnt supply enough troops. If Bulgaria and Serbia unite then forget it. No hopes of that empire ever coming back to reality. Only in name. At best. Simply cause even by mid 15th century I dont see any single power able to besiege it the way the Ottomans did. Bulgaria even with Serbia wouldnt have the navy. We never fancied naval endeavours dunno why. We love to be on land I guess. So from north it wouldnt happen and it cant happen from south simply because Bulgaria helwthy and rdy for war wouldnt allow some Anatolian or middle eastern power to come and take that city. Would rather love if we could conquer it instead. Through the Bulgarian emperors used to invite Muslim powers to besiege city from water while Bulgaria does it from land. If such deal finally is agreed upon then that city may be forced to finally give up. No1 will save it. No1 did anyways.
@@ivokantarski6220 The one thing we have to take from Bulgaria is the Muslim armies at this point based on alt history he set up. However, for the video to fully work you must take out the fact of the ERE had so many plagues. It lost so many due to disease. If they don't lose so much population. It makes it possible to happen based on the video. If the Romans get hit with a mass disease issue it makes it perfect for Bulgaria to take a massive chunk. I wouldn't expect anyone to come to help. The west wanted to bury the east since the Pope was supposed to be the crowning the HRE emperor. If Rome got on its feet. The pope would always have been in fear that one day they would take back Italy once and for all.
@@goattier7728 If the ottomans didn't exist there might of been a colony somewhere. You never know with these alt history scenarios. But yes, I would. Call me a hippocrat but in real life the strong take what they get and the weak suffer what they must, and if you aren't suffering than you take.
Very good video but I disagree on Persia. Without the Ottomans, Ismail wouldn't have forced the population to become Shia. Because the necessity to make them Shia was to have a religious counterweight as the Ottomans were Turkic and Sunni as well, as the majority of the ruling and military class in Persia.
@@cynfaelalek-walker7003 The region around Eastern Ukraine and the Caucassus was the last "Asian" state of what is Bulgaria and it was called Old Great Bulgaria. As to original place as it was agreed from our historians, the group of tribes comes from the area around Iran, Afghanistan as far as Tajikistan and first stopped around modern Armenia.
@@cynfaelalek-walker7003 Probably, the theory is such : The bulgar tribes were either with iranic origin or turkic, it can't be for certain as both had very big influence. Bulgarians don't like the idea of being similar to turks who are turkic and because recently turks being "leaders" of the turkic family, swarm over bulgarian history like is turkic when they didn't have any part of the achievements we made. Iranians are more polite and mannered and just mention the connections as we feel the same and like being connected with people but not for the glorification of something foreign. Khazars as turkic peoples were the reason we were pushed from modern Ukraine and so much for the whole "turkic family" thing.
i feel like most of this is (fairly?) accurate besides persian conquests and the spanish north africa thing. i think morocco would take such an absence of power to invade algeria, which held nearly no power at this point, and the mamluks were a strong sultanate, and i could definitely see them contesting the persians for middle eastern hedgemoney
half of the comments are just romaboos talking about how its a perfect reality that will never be achieved and the other half are people willing to discuss about what will actually happen if ottomans didnt exist if ottomans didnt exist then anatolia would either be balkanised and divided until a period of time comes when a tiny kingdom decides to unite the peninsula through diplomatic means or bloodsheds also greeks would own constantinople and maybe some anatolian lands and western anatolia would be christian while north-east would be a little bit more orthodox christianity while south-eastern will be muslim, also there will either be a kurdish nation or it will be unified into turkey or it will be syrian territory
As another Bulgarian I love the videos and content, but would it have really been possible for the Bulgarians and Serbians to u ite in one state, I would've thought they would collapse before the Bulgarians would allow it
At the time, Serbia was more powerful than bulgaria (which would mean that the Serbs would dominate the union). Bulgaria would also probably accept union with Serbia due to their shared enemy becoming extremely powerful The bulgarians would probably rebel eventually, but it would be much later in the timeline
They would definitely unite in one state, but after or if the Ottomans were stopped/Constantinople was conquered by the “Serbian League”. Stating the obvious, the Bulgarians and Serbs are evened out and as people in the period and only divided by different dialects (Western Balkan Slavic (mostly Shtokavian) and Eastern Balkan Slavic. They share the same blood, so if they ever united, there would be no “Bulgarians”, but collectively 'Serbs' or 'Sclavonians' which was the historical name for Moesian [Serbs and Bulgarians].
There is noway Byzantium or Spain to get parts of the Muslim world. Levant even at weakneed state is still stronger than Byzantium especially when you add Egypt. Ottoman got easy one because the people wanted them and they are fllow Muslim. Thus even if Byzantium defeated the Mamluks which is also debatable the general public clans and figares would raise up nobles and warlords to fight against Byzantium. Same against Savid Persia when they start doing crapy weird stuff. Spain can't take noth Africa because of Morocco and Malay. That also not going to happen. If Ottoman Empire Sultanate didn't exist something else would replace it.
I don't think there is a scenario where the ERE would ever retake Anatolia at the time of Osman. Perhaps solidify Trebizond and the southern coast, retake Smyrna and Bithynia plus the borders of modern Greece
My Newest video: ruclips.net/video/5JIJLOVgjzY/видео.html
How do you edit your videos??
Turkophiles be like: the cursed timeline
Byzantophiles be like: the best timeline
*Romanophiles/Philhellenes
What "turkophiles" 😂😂
So, in this timeline the Greeks and Persians would still be rivals, making it one of the oldest rivalries in history.
Even now the longest lasting rivalry is between Persians and Romans
Nah still Greeks vs Turks. Safavid was a Turkish country
@@nuutti8974 Ottoman sultan Selim I and Shah Ismail, the founder of the Safavids, fought in the battle of Çaldıran. Shah Ismail's army consisted of Turkmen. Not from the Persians. Moreover, Iran was in the hands of the Turks for a very long time.
@@Ryuo_1if you think safavid Iran is turkic you're pretty dumb
@@Ryuo_1
Especially since the Ottomans claimed that they were heirs to Romans, while the Safavids portrayed themselves as heirs to ancient Iran.
Another major change is to see Russian expansion focused more on Central Europe, Central Asia, Persia and the Eastern Siberia instead of a Russian focus South hoping to reconquer Constantinople from the Ottomans.
Its unknown whether there be life and death situations but likely East Rome would make the black sea it's own lake for eternity. The fact the the two will still be on same branch of Christianity could mean less clashes but definately not endless peace.
@@ivokantarski6220 religion wont do much idk why people put this as a factor russia will need a warm port this includes byzantine controled black sea i can see them allying with the bulgaria-serbia to try to take down the byzantines.
@@ivokantarski6220 as if being of the same religion changed people.
Russia fought all its fellow orthodox nations. France fought all its Catholic neighbors. And so on. The only real reason wars were fought is for greed, everything else is a secondary priority.
@@yoghurtmaster1688 true it would resemble the Swedish danish reletionship more than being allies it didn't matter that much that they are on the same branch of Christianity. Sweden and Danmark had like 10+ wars against each other.
So russia or the eastern romans would most likely declare wars and even multiply wars.
It would just be like an orthodox Christian ottoman empire with mostly greek speakers.
The Polish-Russian-Swedish clusterfuck of the 17th century would certainly be even more interesting if Eastern Rome joined the fray.
*Finally, inner peace.*
Indeed my roman brother.
Ave!
Fr no Turkish raging kids would come,no 1453 spamming people, no people with ottoman march, no people who think ottoman empire is the chad. Everything would be good
Agreed my friend
@@Monarchist_greek42891 no greeks crying for Istanbul would be good and other ultra-nationalists hating Turks like most Balkan europeans
I would love a sequel
Edit: I just realized this would have large ramifications for Sudan and Ethiopia. The Nubian kingdoms were christian, but collapsed in 1504 leading to Muslim rule. Sudan would interact with the Romans again before its death if the byzantines reconquered Egypt. Ethiopia would also be closer to the rest of the Christian world, which might allow them to do more than simply not be colonized.
Nubia (Makuria at least) mostly collapsed after Baibars invasions in the 13th century. The Nubian Kingdoms became weak rump states until completely dissappearing by the earth 16th century. Maybe they could have had a resurgence IDK.
It would definitely be cool to see a stronger Ethiopia (not that Christian Europeans would never invade another Christian nation LOL).
Hopefully the Islamic slave trade and displacement of Nubians by Arab settlers in Sudan would not have been as bad too.
Their decline started in like 1300s but significant Christian populations remained till 1600s. I still feel that Christianity would still die and have to be reintroduced either way because the Saffavids would control Egypt for a long time
@@ikengaspirit3063 True, although Nubia did defeat Persian Invasion in the past 🤞
@@gequitz I am not saying Nubia would be conquered by Persia. I am saying Persia would block any outside Christian aid while the already occuring process of Islamization and Arabization in Nubia would continue.
@@ikengaspirit3063 Oh OK 👍
So,
Greece=Eastern Rome
Spain=Western Rome
Always has been 🔫
Eastern Rome=Eastern Rome
Spain=Looks a lot like Western Rome.
France = Western Rome
greece lost a war against Romans. Greece does not mean that Eastern Roman.
Eastern rome= rome
My God this is beautiful... a man can dream...
Before you wake up to the sounds of the Ottoman cannons
@@kayrannkanal2026 actually in this timeline the byzantines will be like france, dominating
Dream on , Turkey here yo stay baby
@@theunbeatable6598 Unbeatable, may Byzantium rise again
@@Cecilia-ky3uw Nope, they ain't getting back
The Big problems with this that I see is that stopping the Ottomans doesn't mean stopping all the other small Beyliks establishing themselves in the Roman borderlands which could just replace them.
Reconquering Anatolia would be super difficult as it was ERE's manpower reserve and a plurality of the population had been turkified. Without sufficient manpower reserves, the Romans focusing on the West(to avoid a second 4th crusade kind of thing) and the frequent civil wars of this era instead of successfully, succesfully conquering a culturally and religiously foreign group would be ridiculous. I could instead see the remaining Greeks of Central Anatolia migrating into Western Anatolia to escape the turks, fully Turkifying Central and much of eastern Anatolia (tho Armenians will remain in the Eastern mountains of Anatoila and Cilicia).
I think the question now would be who Trezibond would fall to, Turks or Eastern Romans. Timur would certainly ravage the region and genocide the population when he comes and we might Turks conquer it or who knows maybe if the Eastern Romans can avoid a civil war and regain sufficient legitimacy in the throne to stop the constant civil wars they might be able to conquer it.
In my reading either Constantinople falls to the Safavids or Constantinople is puppeted by a Western power that rescues it from Saffavid conquest. (This is because they won't be able to regain Anatolia as I see it).
Edit
One possibility that came to mind is that of the rise of Albania/Epirus not being something tied heavily to the Ottomans so instead, soon after the Eastern Romans face Timur Albania or Epirus takes over much of its European lands and you'll just need only someone half as skilled as Skanderberg for that.
There is large Alevi population in central and eastern Turkey even today. Despite all the purges and expulsions. The Saffavids can absolutely use them to control Anatolia and convert the region.
The Saffavids would have their lines overstretched beyond belief. I don't see them conquering Constantinopole aka Tsarigrad teh city of the Tsars from Bulgarian. The Ottomans gained enough buffer zone before they could deal with the city itself. The Saffavids I dunno their navy and I would assume it probadly wasnt a supreme commander of anything. I assume East Rome wont be able to conquer enough. It couldnt continue to exist as an empire. Conquering Anatolia huh yeah you are right where they getting the man power to do it? Not that they were great at handling nomadic warriors. The First Bulgarian empire pushed them around for 3 centuries before East Rome became enough lucky. If not for Kievan Rus I dont think East Rome wouldve had such bright days in the coming 11th and 12th century in the Balkans. So yeah. The legions wouldnt be enough numerous or fast to deal with the Turkik hordes. Let's not forget the Balkans either. Whether Bulgaria and Serbia unify or not there is always the chance that Aegean Thrace and ancient Greece be invaded and looted badly. Seriously. Unless East Rome can find a proper Orthosox Christian allie the empire is over. Bulgaria wont stop its aim to expand against East Rome and its ambitions regarding the Tsarigrad capturing will continue. Not one or two Bulgarian emperors have tried their luck outside that city. It had been besieged 4 times and a half considering 1 time it had been together with another power. Plus th Bulgarian emperors had invited some Muslim powers to come with their navy and the Bulgarian land army would close it from land so city fully besieged. East Rome was way out of its prime. The Ottomans found no empire there. It was a multi cultural city, few cities in Thrace and maybe much of the Greek heartland. When the strongest muslim advance had happent the East Roman empire had much more territory, when Bulgaria fell upon it and conquered almost everything on the balkans possessed by East Rome there were still the man power reserves in Anatolia. If not for Anatolia there wouldve been no legions existent. I've just realised this. East Rome as an empire was finished. Maybe it could continue as a Greek empire and hold some lands but if not for the capital all else can be on the hook.
@@ivokantarski6220 Me saying the Saffavids would have conquered it is more me assuming the weakness of Bulgaria would continue maybe indefinately in the timeline as well, which may be wrong.
It is also me remembering the 4th Crusade which if it didn't happen OTL most would say it was impossible and ridicioulous to think a few geographically displaced Latin Barbarians be able to take the most fortified city in the world. But a combination of ERE decline, incompetence and corruption and a Venician navy allowed the Crusaders to take Constantinople. The decline of Eastern Rome would certainly continue and if Bulgaria or some other European power don't vassalize or conquer Constantinople first I think a similar combination of ERE decline and incompetence and Safavid Canons would lead to them taking Constantinople, certainly they'll be able to take all of Eastern Roman Anatolia as Timur would have made that easy for them.
This isnt entirely true, as the Romans still had a strong fleet and army initially under the Palailogos, before they moved to mercenaries, and disbanded the whole thing. Really, preventing the Ottomans is entirely up to them on the military front, something they very well could have done by changing only a couple events around. Really, its a shame. They fell effectively the moment before the Islamic and Catholic worlds became more vulnerable than ever for them to exploit.
@cromancer 321 I mean, that wasn't exactly his OTL track record.
Had to rush this one because of the Holidays guys, so sorry if it isn't perfect. Enjoy the video!
Its a great episode indeed a timeline where the Ottoman's disappear the Byzantine Empire will be able to recover it's lost provinces and preserve the golden Greco-Roman era in the East..which could even last to this day if adapted with time the ideas of liberalism and which is highly possible as we all know how adoptable the Romans were
It was certainly a good video, I enjoyed watching it. There is one mistake though. The city on your map that is called Amsterdam is actually Antwerp or Gent. Amsterdam lies more to the North.
Will you do what would have happened if the Sasanians had won the Byzantine Sasanid war? (602 - 628), Anyway, Merry Christmas!
@@lord_quasar I actually plan on doing a video on what if the 626 sieges of Constantinople succeeded in the future. Merry Christmas!
i would expect the bulgarians to rebel from their union with serbia, kind of like how sweden did in the kalmar union
In my opinion most anatolian turks would convert to christianity as changing religion used to be more like getting a new citizenship back then. Since the main advantage turks(not just turks but other centeral asian tribes) had over other communities were their military prowess due to their nomadic traditions and their flexibility on adopting new cultures and integrating parts of these cultures in to their own culture, they would slowly rise to the rulling class as christian central asians. In this reality the word turk might not even mean anything since it was the german linguists and historians who created the whole idea of turkic people.
Can you explain how the word turk would not mean anything? Cause even in ottomans turkic people called themselves, turk/turkmen.
I disagree. Given the political landscape, if a beylik did apostatize, its Muslim rivals would start isolating and targeting it. The beyliks would probably use propaganda about restoring Islam to that nation, and support their forces by recruiting the Muslim Turkic clans who were moving into Anatolia. Byzantium would be busy with the Serbs, so the apostatized state would be alone. The dominant power in Anatolia would likely remain Muslim, and so the Anatolians would ultimately be fully Islamized.
There is no reason to believe that multiple beyliks would suddenly apostatize at once. Even if Byzantium revitalized itself and started to challenge Muslim power in Anatolia, the beyliks would likely see this as a continuation of the old Muslim-Christian (Seljuk-Byzantium) rivalry. The beyliks (including the Ottomans) drew their legitimacy from the Seljuk Sultans of Rûm.
In this alternate timeline, I suspect another (Muslim) beylik would take the place of the Ottomans. Maybe this replacement would not have conquered as much in the Balkans, and maybe it would not have lasted for over 600 years, but the conditions were practically perfect for an ambitious Anatolian power. If the Ottomans failed, a different beylik could rise and topple the declining and exhausted Byzantine state. It might not have been as glorious, but it would have happened all the same.
*Anatolian Greeks loved that*
as an Armenian whos family used to live in Western Armenia before the genocide, I would have loved this
@@theveryproudmoroccan2834 again, could you delete those comments, I don't want people to discover my identity. Understand?
@@flemishnationalist-prayfor9809 Well shit guess I know your name.
@@Goofy-G at least you don't know my surname, and that's what matters.
@@flemishnationalist-prayfor9809 Victor Orban? I may guess right the second time 🤣🤠
Byzantines: “this is an idea I can get behind”
Persia beat Mamluk is unlikely because:
-Geography reason
-Sunni resistance
-Mamluk had same military strength(15,000-60,000). compare to persia(7,000-40,000)
I still say Persia would beat Mamluks cuz of how easily Mamluks fell to Ottomans and Persia also had gunpowder in this time period.
@@ikengaspirit3063 I agree
Persia should have more man power tbh. I think they wont be able to hold it for long even if they could conquer it despite geographical issues with distance. The Medditerean will also be a problem. If the Persians cant properly allie themselves with the population in egypt then naval defences might be compromised.
Mamluks were incredibly incompetent for that period of time, plus Persia was a gunpowder empire
@@whoisjoe5610 Maybe Persia can expand into Mashriqi or Baghdad but not further. Maybe they will accept Mamluk offer to be their vassal.
Chinese empire is also a gunpowder empire. But their military still not strong enough. They still rely on manpower.
I think people underestimate the Ottoman Empire too much, they were too lucky in their rise. Like the death of Esteban Uroš IV Dušan, to somehow manage to cross into the Balkans, the completely Balkanized Balkans, etc.
You mean overestimate. Yeah it was in a sense a bit lucky. Its amidiate neighbours were all out of their prime. The East Roman empire I've come to the conclusion it wasnt an empire at the time. Too small and probadly full of Greeks and not multiethnic ruling over other peoples to call it an empire. Nvm that. We gotta admit it. The Ottomans were blessed and had great qualities. Even if my country Bulgaria was fractured we still had far more population than the Ottomans. Most of us had more population than them. So their worrior mentality must have helped them so much to rise into greatness. Their way of incorporating new allies reminds me almost to the situation of the first Bulgarian empire. It also had to incorporate other tribes and ethnicities in order to sustain its expansion vs the very numerous East Roman legions. Through I dont believe my ancestors needed other ethnic groups as much to fight East Rome. The first Bulgarian empire didnt make its wins due to the Slavic troops. Rather to the elite light and heavy cavalry of the country. The Slavic tribes couldnt beat a Roman army.
@@ivokantarski6220 In fact, Greek culture was still so powerful at that time that a second Bulgarian or Serbian empire conquering Constantinople would likely become a Byzantine empire in a few generations, due to the prestige of the Greek language. As partially happened with the Ottomans when they adopted Greek as the language of the state and also claimed to be the successor of Rome.
@@lord_quasar It wasn’t powerful. It’s presence was the only indicator of it’s dispersion. It had no influence.
@@vragolander Didn't he have influence? It was the main bastion against the Muslims, it expanded orthodoxy to the Balkans and the Kievan Rus, it was for a long time the undisputed leader of the Christians, from its lands all kinds of invents and art came out, each enemy that managed to defeat it proclaimed itself a Roman successor to obtain prestige and influence, and its fall meant the largest cultural explosion in Europe in the Renaissance. And that's just talking about Byzantium, if we talk about Greek culture in its entirety we would be at another level.
Edit: I forgot to mention that it is also the oldest empire in history, despite having fought endless wars on all fronts against; Persians, Huns, Turks, Slavs, Vikings, Russians, Germans, Avars, Arabs, and even Christians. Although he did not stand out at all for being powerful since Justiniano, he is for his contribution to history and his tenacity to stand firm.
@@lord_quasar It depends on the period. The influence began to disappear at certain times when the country was shrinking. The Serbian Empire actually managed make the Greeks loyal by keeping their GREEK Orthodox faith around the corner but also suppressing local ethnic influence of the populations living in Byzantine strongholds such as Epirus and Thessaly.
Here's a chaos suggestion: What if the ottomans or the sultanate of Rum embraced orthodox Christendom? To better legitimize themselves as a successor to Rome?
While the slavic nations generally don't like ANY conquerors, they were still subjugated (in the balkans at least) for a few centuries despite religious differences. If there were none, perhaps there'd have been greater integration? Maybe even, cursed as it sounds, cooperation between the Russian Empire and the Turks?
Maybe the Orthodox Karamanlides Turks formed a mighty state that could have happened but they remained ultimately minor in political power.
Maybe not Orthodox,but Nestoranism Christianty because It was more likelly to happen if Turks were didnt embraced the Islam.Nestoranism was a branch of Christianty that have plan to spread China and Central Asian.Even some small Turkic Beyliks were Nestorian in Central Asia
@@glassman1130 nestorian turks sounds like eu4
To be honest if the Ottomans didn't exist we would still see a fractured Bulgaria and Serbia. The Eastern Roman empire would have to focus it's attention in Anatolia, so it's expansion in the Balkans wouldn't happen. Therefore it would be a matter between Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian warlords to determine who the next great empire in the Balkans would be.
"... and Romanian warlords to determine who the next empire in the Balkans would be." I see this as an absolute win!
@@newromanianmappernrm4420 I dunno about that one... why don't you just take Bulgaria and we'll expand west?
The problem is the Byzantines of this era were focused on Europe basically fearing a 4th Crusade part 2 and largely Ignored Anatolia
@@ikengaspirit3063 yeah, but for this simulation we assume that they actually cared about Anatolia
If the Ottomans didnt happen, the strongest Kingdom in the balkan region would be Hungary without question.
A very great & well informed narrator & documentary ; well done !
I'd say everything ( 99% ) of what you said is right !
With one minor detail that : Safavids Persia fell because of a betrayal & a backstabbing Afghan rebellious small army that didn't conquer anything, but simply surrounded the capital in a particular time of chaos & murdered the ruling dynasty in the capital , ending the empire !
If Safavids Persia was stronger in this timeline that time of chaos might have never happened & no betrayal could've caused the fall of the empire ! So they might have moved on further to Anatolia & perhaps constantinople itself !
But if not, *another major point to mention is that since no one really conquered Persia with the fall of the Safavids, Nader Shah Afshar almost immediately took the lead & created the Afsharids Persia which itself was a very strong power to be reckoned with ! *Nader is referred to as the Napoleon of Persia & the last conqueror of the east ! He was a very talented & genius conqueror* !
Even if the Safavids fell in this timeline, At least during the region of Nader Shah in Afsharids Persia, I doubt that byzantium would have conquered anything in Anatolia or the middle east & Egypt !
But that's just my opinion :)
Great job again !
This alternative history looks very, very optimistic to me.
The best ending. A peacefull world.
?
That’s makes no logical sense lol
So you blame Turkey for all the wars?
@@turkishmapper07 you literally slowed down world advancement with all your conquests and genocides
@@masculineman123 it was due to the ottoman conquest of Constantinople that forced the Western Europeans to go west which gave us immense wealth prosperity and most importantly technological progress
The world would have been BASED
Based on Bulgarian Empire Mapper's theories
The Austrians would’ve taken all of Europe before you know it.
@@guywithacreativename5134 nah
@@weirdguylol Habsburgs would'nt hesitate to marry everyone
@@guywithacreativename5134 you got a point
Suggestion: what if the Seljuks never existed
Well I think the Abbasids will be f**ked
and the Fatimids will be much stronger
The Samanids, Ghaznavids would be in a much better shape.
An early Yugoslavia in the end, interesting.
It would be less of a Yugoslavia but more of an Austria-Hungary
Serbo-Bulgaria is both kinda cool, and kinda freaking me out due to our flags not really looking well together. The flag alone would be an atrocity.
@@markokrstic8795 well it doesnt have to be like austria-hungary's flag, it could just be something different
@@plexusGD I mean, that's fair. But if it WAS like Austria-Hungary's flag, I really wouldn't want to blame people for wanting to conquer Serbo-Bulgaria, I'd want that atrocity gone too.
Serbo-Bulgarian empire sounds good
Yea
What a wonderful version of the world
Finally a good timeline
Hungary would play a mayor roll in the european wars of religion, confronting Austria and the Habsburg. If the magyar king is wise, he can ally with the Bohemians to defeat the Habsburgs. Even though, Spain controlled large portions of Italy and could send an army to help their cousins against the protestants in the Danube, the main focus of the spanish monarchs was on the Rhine and the power of Madrid will collapse in the XVII Century. To seize the opportunity, it is likely that the French Kings converted to protestantism, likely to adopt a Gallian Church instead of embrazing a germanic denomination as a way to centralize the power to the crown. Spain and Italy will remained the only bastions of Catholicism in Western Europe and could theoretically ally with the Polish to defeat the Hungarian Protestant but that is unlikely. If Spain is defeated in Northern Europe sooner than in the current timeline, they could focus on the Mediterranian Sea and the Indies. Perhaps they could transform their colonies in havens for persecuted catholics of Germany, France and Central Europe, greatly improving the economy of the America. In this case, they would have more resources and strenght to prevent the portuguese indepedence, cementing their position as the ultimate catholic protectors of southern europe. They would go to war with the French over Navarre, Catalonia and the Po Valley in Italy. With an stronger naval focus, they could rival the Netherlands and the British in the seas, preventing the expansion of the latter powers in the Caribbean, Africa (using the portuguese strongholds in their favour) and maybe SouthEast Asia.
As nice as the timeline is, it's unlikely. The Eastern Romans would still lose Anatolia (except for the coast of Marmara). The Serbian conquest of Thessaly/Epirus, the Black Death, and many civil wars would greatly weaken the Eastern Romans beyond repair. But it would remain an independent state. The Serbian Empire and Bulgarian Empire would both be mortal enemies to Eastern Rome. The East would continue to weaken, with alternate civil wars we can't relianly predict. The Safavids come and unify Anatolia (including Byzantine territories) as well as the Mamluk Sultanate. The Christian states, terrified of Ismail, finally ally to stop the Safavids from a push into Europe. The fate of the Safavids is uncertain following Ismail's later death (early 1540s). But no real Muslim threat exists in the Balkans. The rest... would take more time for me to write.
Mmmm, I feel like the Romans would lose less of Anatolia, (keeping Smyrna, previously under the Aydinids), However the Byzantines realistically wouldn't be toppled until the Safavids.
This Chanel is underated
That's weird in my last eu4 game as Byzantium when I restored the eastern empire borders I found out that spain conquered italy Maghreb region and half of france
"What if the Ottoman Never exist"
*Happy South East Asian Noises*
What did the Ottomans do there?
@@ikengaspirit3063 they blocked the Silk Road that cause Portugal to explore around Africa and then later discovering Southeast Asia.
But it's also backfire because without the Ottomans, Southeast Asia wouldn't acquired the Arquebus by trading and triggering the Natives making Indigenous Arquebus on their own like the Javanese Arquebus, Astinggal and Jiaozhi arquebus.
I think there's more.
I'm south east asian but I wouldn't be happy if the ottomans dint existed
Osman lived in the 13th century not 15th.
Without the Ottoman threat, the kings of Hungary would be free to pursue their goals of uniting with Poland and/or becoming emperor of the HRE.
IRL, despite constant bickering, heavy taxes and at least two recent major "civil" wars, Hungary in 1526 (just before the battle of Mohács) was doing well economically and culturally.
More importantly, Louis II of Hungary was also king of Bohemia. He was naive and inexperienced but also very young, there is no way he would not have had children. There is no way Hungary-Bohemia would've "just collapsed".
It seems unlikely that the karamanids wouldnt have tried to exploit the weakness of the eastern roman empire. They probably would have even been able to gain a significant amount of power in europe as long as they are able to invade gallipoli in 1354 as an earthquake struck the fort there in 1354 making it easier to conquer and thats how the ottomans conquered gallipoli. It also seems likely that they would have conquered the parts of Serbia that the ottomans did in our timeline and bring the eastern roman empire to its knees,like the ottomans. Although if they would have shattered after the timurids defeated them is dependent on the stablility of their nation beforehand otherwise a civil war could have happened that could have the potential of unravelling everything they already gained up until that point. The karamanids (or the eretnids if they managed to defeat the karamanids) could have become this timeline's version of the ottoman empire. Its impossible to say if they would have been more or less or just as successful as the ottoman empire. Even if none of this happens or maybe the karamanids never cross into europe and collapse after the timurid invasion, its hard to see the eastern roman empire bouncing back. During this period, they had very little money to work with which cascades into deficiencies in the military so its still likely they would have fallen. The Bulgarians would have loved to finally have Constantinople in their hands after many centuries of rivalry.
You underestimated Serbia here.There was really powerfull faction,with family two brothets Vukasin and Ugljesa as its leaders.Serbian Emperor Uros offered Vukasin to be co ruler because he was really powerfull.Otherwise,really well made video.
no your just overestimating them
@@ahmetozkan438 im not saying they were weak im just saying how this dude thinks the serbs were gods in comparison to there neighbors
@@thoughtshewasaryan2591 You have no knowledge about this matter, i recommend you dont talk about this. Serbia was the biggest Balkan power in 14th century, owning all of Bosnia, Moravian Serbia, Macedonia, Albania, Epirus and having Bulgaria as a vassal. Later rulers of Mrnjavcevic dynasty died at the battle of Maritsa while suffering massive casualities. Without ottomans, Serbia remains a strong balkan power that could potentialy wipe Eastern Rome from the map and later embrace it like the Emperor Dusan wanted. Also the fact that the city of Novo Brdo had more inhabitants than the Constantinople just shows how weak the Romans were at the time.
@@ozegovich3649 stay....... mad
Rly ? You missed Wallachia and Moldavia. They would have changed radically without the ottomans. In our timeline, when the turks conquered the balkans, the vlachs and moldavians accepted their suzerainty. However from 1500-1800, the principalities would suffer economic debts as they had to pay their ever growing tribute to the sultans, political instability as the sultans would keep changing the voievodes in both states with loyalists and opportunists and loss of land due to the wars with Russia.
I think in this universe, things would be different. Tho they would at first have to submit to Hungary, Wallachia and Moldavia would most likely use the help of other kingdoms to maintain their indepedence. Wallachia would keep the city of Chilia which was an important port on the Damube and Moldavia would have Akkerman , resulting in these countries haaving better economies. They would probably use it to modernise their armies and defenses like how Mircea the elder did in our timeline.
But i think the most guaranteed change would be that the Romanian states would see progress like in the West, unlike in our universe where the region would be frozen in time because of ottoman presence
I have got a suggestion: Can you do a video which shows the alternative reality of the Ottomans becoming orthodox or embracing orthodoxy as a state religion.
There was also a request from the Pope to Sultan Mehmet the Second about recognizing his title of the holy roman emperor if he embraced Catholicism
But he didn't, he read both the Bible and quran (his mother was serbian), yet he still defended islam and refused the pope's request.
@@victorien3704 yeah I know
Goold Video but its pretty inacurate that the Byzantine empire would conquer half of the middle east and egypt especialy in the 18th centure maybe they would be able to conquer syria but nothing more
They be lucky to stay alive. If Bulgaria rises up again and ain't a friend there be no legions available to defend Anarolian conquests. The legions struggled way too much with nomadic armies anyways so dunno if they would be able to reconquer land even if there is no trouble in Balkans. An Orthodox Christian union would make dreams come true through. Otherwise that capital seems like the best gold mine to ever capture.
Another great video! Keep up the good work
thank you, i will use that history on my alternative universe were byzantium lives till today
Hey! Make sure to include Alania (Pontic-Caspian Steppe) and Taurica (Crimea) as provinces of the Byzantine Empire as it makes sense
@@iSyriux I did, but i think Russia want's them too, that could lead them to a war or a diplomatic crisis
The good ending
I certainly think that The Eastern Romans were far more defensive in their position in comparison to the Ottomans, so they would probably conquer and christianize the Turks in Anatolia maybe making the eastern borders similar to Basil the 2nd’s borders, the west borders would probably look bigger but not crazily so, also the conquering of the levant and Egypt, whether by the Romans or Persians, seems a little bit of a stretch. But I can definitely see how The Nubians or Levantine Christians would be emboldened by the enduring and fighting Roman Empire. Great video, man!
if The OTTOMAN Empire NEVER Existed Greece would have area and population like France
Out of all the conquered areas, only Thessaly, Pindus and parts of Epirus would become Byzantine again.
This..... is a good history
Great video, l love it when you go further in the timeline
Ottoman is that one annoying rival telling how its gonna be big and powerful one day but it actually did.
So the resume of the Roman-Persian Empires would happen.
Empire of Spain, vs Byzantine Empire vs Persian Empires, seems a glorious alternative timeline!
Why isn't this cannon in our time line. 😞
part 2 please lol.
Because that one Byzantine Emperor thought it was a good idea to give a huge chunk of land to the Ottomans in Europe as a thanks
Lmao cry
I think that the Serbian empire conquering Byzantium and establishing a Serbian dinasty that reconquer anatolia is more probable
Do you believe power is retained so easily then and that for some reason the dynasty would bring strong leaders? The period was such for every Balkan state then, expecting genius and logical rule and order from Serbia only is madness.
OTL it was highly unstable with it collapsing because the Ottomans got there and I see no reason for it not to be the same here.
Not on it's own. Serbia couldnt probadly hold Bulgaria at the time. A union or unification would allow great strengthening but conquest of whole East Rome wasnt possible. Bulgaria tried its luck on the Byzantine capital 4 times but without a navy it wasnt possible. Without navy the enemy could focus all its troops on defending the land and could bring new reinforcements and supplies. That city had endured sieges out of proportions. Bulgaria and Serbia together after some peace may be able to bring enough troops but not as numerous as the Ottoman hordes which besieged it the second time. If East Rome and we decide to be allies then Anatolia can be retaken. Otherwise East Rome wont have the necessary man power to retake it. Plus they werent great against nomads. The first Bulgarian empire was pushing them hard for 3 centuries and above. If not for Kievan Rus then East Rome may have been unable to reconquer the Balkans. Tsar Samuil very likely wouldnt have been a Tsar in such scenario where Kievan Rus doesnt successfully beat Bulgaria after which East Rome took the eastern part.
@@ikengaspirit3063 "because the ottomans got there" but there aren't ottomans in this timeline
What about Crimea in this timeline? How would Byzantium expand borders to the whole of Crimea and beyond? I ask because i think that Lithuania (or Poland-Lithuania) could take more territories.
Best timeline
I am writing an alternate history where a minor detail is the continuance of the Eastern Roman Empire into the 20th century. Thankyou History Rhymes for giving me an idea of how to bring this about.
Spain - Western Roman Empire
Greece - Eastern Roman Empire
I like your approach, but especially the Balkans feel a bit off from my perspective, having a bit more knowledge on the pre-Ottoman conquest era and politics at the time.
(ex. some nobility in newly conquered Serb territories didn’t support Dušan’s approach to solving the Byzantine crisis - conquest and creation of a Justinian-like Third Roman Empire, Balkanic ->>> Slavic before all; which created a division that would eventually lead to the shattering of the empire after his death)
Great video I hope to see you continue the growth of your channel
Thanks for deleting my comment, that pointed out racism against turks in this comment section.
Its probably RUclips that deleted it.
Ah yes, the good ending
Agreed
The ottomans doesn't exist. All suffering in the world has just ended
If Europe didn't exist
If the multiverse is real I would chose to live on that one
Any world where east rome survives is a dub in my books.
You all so forgot about the Kingdom of Kush which is a powerful Christian Kingdom in North Africa modern day Sudan 🇸🇩 this would all so have major impact on the North African/Sahara region being we may see more Christian influence and may be a more advancement with Europe then in are time-line
Their decline started in like 1300s now, significant Christian populations remained till 1600s but we are talking of Northern and coastal Sudan already Arabized by the 1500s. Christianity would still die and have to be reintroduced either way because the Saffavids would control Egypt for a long time
Imagine if the Osman dynasty usurped power in Byzantium, and then converted to orthodoxy
it started well, then you had to give the plot armor to the Byzantines. the Byzantine Empire would have collapsed anyway despite the Ottomans, far too radical reforms would have been needed to save an empire torn apart by continuous civil wars and economically subjected to the Italian maritime republics.
already before the arrival of the Ottomans the Venetians and Genoese had taken control of numerous Greek islands and even some ports in mainland Greece, making their rebirth from nothing even more unlikely
Serbs and bulgarians would be happier and more close to their original slavic attributes.
Although, I am curious what happens around the time of Napoleon and WW2. As the Eastern Romans never fallen. As well as having many former lands back. It seems likely during at least WW1 rather then the Ottomans being part of the centeral powers, but Rome being part of it trying to recapture Rome itself.
East Rome couldnt possibly reconquer so many lands at the time. I doupt it would be able to take back much in Anatolia. Unless it finally comes to terms with Bulgaria it really wont have any legions to spare for expansion. I mean there wouldnt be many forces available any ways. If Serbia or Bulgaria attack their man power will soon prove superior and I dont think East Rome would become an empire again. It had shrank way too much. Its capital city on both sides was about 200 or 300km from enemy powers. Greece proper couldnt supply enough troops. If Bulgaria and Serbia unite then forget it. No hopes of that empire ever coming back to reality. Only in name. At best. Simply cause even by mid 15th century I dont see any single power able to besiege it the way the Ottomans did. Bulgaria even with Serbia wouldnt have the navy. We never fancied naval endeavours dunno why. We love to be on land I guess. So from north it wouldnt happen and it cant happen from south simply because Bulgaria helwthy and rdy for war wouldnt allow some Anatolian or middle eastern power to come and take that city. Would rather love if we could conquer it instead. Through the Bulgarian emperors used to invite Muslim powers to besiege city from water while Bulgaria does it from land. If such deal finally is agreed upon then that city may be forced to finally give up. No1 will save it. No1 did anyways.
@@ivokantarski6220 The one thing we have to take from Bulgaria is the Muslim armies at this point based on alt history he set up. However, for the video to fully work you must take out the fact of the ERE had so many plagues. It lost so many due to disease. If they don't lose so much population. It makes it possible to happen based on the video. If the Romans get hit with a mass disease issue it makes it perfect for Bulgaria to take a massive chunk.
I wouldn't expect anyone to come to help. The west wanted to bury the east since the Pope was supposed to be the crowning the HRE emperor. If Rome got on its feet. The pope would always have been in fear that one day they would take back Italy once and for all.
@@ivokantarski6220 Also, nice comment. Great response.
Napeolonic wars or world wars wouldnt happen without the conquest of constantinapole
I love this Its amazing video
Average bulgarian video
Jk lol
Ако Не бяхме под Робство на Османската Империя можеше България да има колонии в Африка можеше да изпредварим Другите Държави
No balkan country could have colonies in africa, we didnt have any navy.
@@gaja9092 Eh, you never know.
So after you escape ottoman slavery you would want to enslave others?
@@goattier7728 If the ottomans didn't exist there might of been a colony somewhere. You never know with these alt history scenarios. But yes, I would. Call me a hippocrat but in real life the strong take what they get and the weak suffer what they must, and if you aren't suffering than you take.
@@gaja9092 the Dobruja kingdom in the late 14th century had one that beat the Italian Navy in the black sea
Balkan would be much better an richer place! ❤️
Very good video but I disagree on Persia. Without the Ottomans, Ismail wouldn't have forced the population to become Shia. Because the necessity to make them Shia was to have a religious counterweight as the Ottomans were Turkic and Sunni as well, as the majority of the ruling and military class in Persia.
Strange question, do the Bulgars consider their current country as their home or the old Bulgarian country that existed around the Volga River?
Volga wasn't the home country, it was more to the south and some bulgars moved and created Volga so no in either situation.
@@vasil.kamdzhalov where do they consider their original homeland?
@@cynfaelalek-walker7003 The region around Eastern Ukraine and the Caucassus was the last "Asian" state of what is Bulgaria and it was called Old Great Bulgaria. As to original place as it was agreed from our historians, the group of tribes comes from the area around Iran, Afghanistan as far as Tajikistan and first stopped around modern Armenia.
@@vasil.kamdzhalov Wait, so Bulgarians and Iranians are related?
@@cynfaelalek-walker7003 Probably, the theory is such : The bulgar tribes were either with iranic origin or turkic, it can't be for certain as both had very big influence. Bulgarians don't like the idea of being similar to turks who are turkic and because recently turks being "leaders" of the turkic family, swarm over bulgarian history like is turkic when they didn't have any part of the achievements we made. Iranians are more polite and mannered and just mention the connections as we feel the same and like being connected with people but not for the glorification of something foreign. Khazars as turkic peoples were the reason we were pushed from modern Ukraine and so much for the whole "turkic family" thing.
Iberia looking at Eastern Rome be like, "I thought you died"
Eastern Rome: sadly yes, but i lived!!!!!!1111!
can't wait to see Timur kicking Byzantine ass
i feel like most of this is (fairly?) accurate besides persian conquests and the spanish north africa thing. i think morocco would take such an absence of power to invade algeria, which held nearly no power at this point, and the mamluks were a strong sultanate, and i could definitely see them contesting the persians for middle eastern hedgemoney
half of the comments are just romaboos talking about how its a perfect reality that will never be achieved and the other half are people willing to discuss about what will actually happen if ottomans didnt exist
if ottomans didnt exist then anatolia would either be balkanised and divided until a period of time comes when a tiny kingdom decides to unite the peninsula through diplomatic means or bloodsheds also greeks would own constantinople and maybe some anatolian lands and western anatolia would be christian while north-east would be a little bit more orthodox christianity while south-eastern will be muslim, also there will either be a kurdish nation or it will be unified into turkey or it will be syrian territory
Man you are amazing
Please do one where the badass Baudouin IV king of Jerusalem did not get leprosy and due at 24 and made a stable Christian state and dynasty…
As another Bulgarian I love the videos and content, but would it have really been possible for the Bulgarians and Serbians to u ite in one state, I would've thought they would collapse before the Bulgarians would allow it
At the time, Serbia was more powerful than bulgaria (which would mean that the Serbs would dominate the union). Bulgaria would also probably accept union with Serbia due to their shared enemy becoming extremely powerful
The bulgarians would probably rebel eventually, but it would be much later in the timeline
@@plexusGD good point
@@plexusGD not at all
They would definitely unite in one state, but after or if the Ottomans were stopped/Constantinople was conquered by the “Serbian League”.
Stating the obvious, the Bulgarians and Serbs are evened out and as people in the period and only divided by different dialects (Western Balkan Slavic (mostly Shtokavian) and Eastern Balkan Slavic. They share the same blood, so if they ever united, there would be no “Bulgarians”, but collectively 'Serbs' or 'Sclavonians' which was the historical name for Moesian [Serbs and Bulgarians].
germany wouldn't have any cockroaches
What if ideas
Hungarians never came on Hungary
South slavs established in Dacia instead of Balkans
Mongols conquer Europe
Turkic East Asia
How I can to make good map ? I want name of app to make good map
Beautiful
Short answer. Everything would be better.
What a dream... ❤️
Ah, the good timeline.
333 comments and I just want to say, I always fantasize about completely destroying the Ottomans in my mind.
@علي ياسر ya, Christian ones are a special lot aren't they!?!
@علي ياسر and power and control yes
Man you should totally make a discord server
If there is an infinite number of universes, then this timeline has occurred an infinite number of times.
These are better universes than this one.
There is noway Byzantium or Spain to get parts of the Muslim world. Levant even at weakneed state is still stronger than Byzantium especially when you add Egypt. Ottoman got easy one because the people wanted them and they are fllow Muslim. Thus even if Byzantium defeated the Mamluks which is also debatable the general public clans and figares would raise up nobles and warlords to fight against Byzantium. Same against Savid Persia when they start doing crapy weird stuff. Spain can't take noth Africa because of Morocco and Malay. That also not going to happen. If Ottoman Empire Sultanate didn't exist something else would replace it.
if ottoman did not exist probably anatolia gonna be ruled by akkoyunlu beyliks shah ismail's grandfather uzun hasan
I'm from the Papal States and i will simp for Spain. 🇻🇦🇪🇸
Always fascinating, the flapping of the butterfly wings.
Imagine byzantines fighting ww1 instead of ottomans 💀
I don't think there is a scenario where the ERE would ever retake Anatolia at the time of Osman. Perhaps solidify Trebizond and the southern coast, retake Smyrna and Bithynia plus the borders of modern Greece
The good timeline
Timur would have sacked Constantinapole
Bulgarian: what if Turkey didnt exist
A better world
I love this time line :D