What If The Ottomans Were Destroyed At Varna?
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 03. 2023
- Watch next: "Every Significant Mongol Successor State; How The Mongols Fell in 1857"
• Every Significant Mong... -~-
#possiblehistory #alternatehistory #alternatehistoryofeurope #ottoman #ottomans #jagiellon #wladyslawIII
What if - in an alternate history - the Crusaders of Varna managed to defeat the Ottoman Empire. Following the death of the Ottoman Sultan, the Ottoman power over the entire Balkan Peninsula collapsed, and the crusaders were left to divide the area as they saw fit.
If you like the content please like, comment and subscribe, it helps smaller channels like mine to get noticed!
If you want to support the channel you can go to my Patreon or become a member! You will get early access to video's and will be allowed to suggest priority video subjects!
/ possiblehistory
/ @possiblehistory
www.buymeacoffee.com/Possible...
Possible Extra's a channel where we do not necessarily history related stuff, like podcasts and more!
/ @theobserverph
Gaming Channel:
/ @deletedchannel1010
Feel free to follow or join our social media platforms:
/ possiblehistory
/ possiblehistor1
/ discord
/ possible_history0
Most of our music by Beta Records. He's great, check him out!
Link: goo.gl/peHHCX
A lot of other music by Kevin McLoad. The Copyrightfree Music Creator
/ kevinmacleodarchive
Thank you for watching! My voice is not entirely as it should be thanks to a slight illness, but I hope you enjoyed the video nontheless. As always, to support the content consider leaving a like and a comment to help the video against the algorithm, and subscribe for at least 1 (alternate) history video every single week.
Please consider making a video on what if Latin America was rich and developed like the Anglosphere...
2 replies
@@xianxiaemperor1438imposible with anglo interference
@@ffls775 Okay, though Spain in particular could have set up the Right conditions for that but oh well....
Habsburgs. You missed the Habsburgs.
Jagiellons were competing with Habsburgs for a dynastic influence over Central Europe. They even had an agreement that Władysław can be king of Hungary, but if he dies without an heir, a Habsburg will replace him. And that's exactly what happened.
Władysław III doesn't need to create a Polish-Hungarian-Lithuanian kingdom. That wasn't even the strategy of the dynasty at that point. By surviving he ensured the Hungarian throne for his heirs.
Keeping the Polish and Hungarian crowns separate would be part of the reason the Hungarian nobility would cooperate with the Jagiellons. They weren't Polish and it was very important to them not to become part of a Polish kingdom. There's a difference between having a foreign king and being part of a foreign kingdom and they were acutely aware of it.
With this strategy proving successful, the Jagiellons would continue to position their family members in influentian positions in Central Europe and in the Balkans. Possibly later into Bohemia and maybe into the Holy Roman Empire as well.
Even just gaining Bohemia could allow them to crown one of their own as Holy Roman Emperor, seeing as one already came from there.
Don't tell me the Jagiellons had no interest in gaining influence in the West, because even gaining Hungary for Władysław was a move to the West.
I imagine there could be a possibility that the dynasty would gain both a Holy Roman Emperor and a regular Roman (byzantine) Emperor. At that point it would probably spark an European war comparable to the War of the Spanish Succession.
I would like to watch part 2 of this video, because what you said would change everything, without a strong Habsburg dynasty they would not that charge of spain(and not going bankrupt for all the wars). Maybe france would conquer the Netherlands?
Nah the Netherlands would be protected so they can place their dynasty there
In fact, the Jagellonians had a king in bohemia in 1444 as it was.
Well, I think it would go same as it did originally. After a couple of good Jagiellons, the dynasty would end, but all 3 aristocracies would get so used to having open borders and mutual policies, that they would just agree on same union as originally, where they elect a common king. Perhaps, this time a Habsburg would win instead of a Vasa because hungarians would vote for them and overhaul the original election?
@@DeusEversor jagiellons ended because only line that lives on after varna was kaziemierz's one, and only one of his sons actually got an heir, who in turn didn't had any. In this timeline this line would still die out, but wladislaws one would probably live on, especially if they play their dynastic game right, and marry every son the second suitable bride came of age
With the reunification of the church with the west (Rome), it's possible the Nicean Church could make a comeback and prevent protestantism. This could also be problematic to the Russians, as after Byzantium's fall it led to Russia being declared as the protector of Orthodox Christianity.
I'd see Russia reuniting as well at this point
The orthodox would never submit
@@thebalkanhistorian.3205 They mainly did so because they were culturally Byzantine, only Russia had a real issue of them being enemies with Poland
You may be confused a bit. Russia probadly had nothing to do with protection of orthodox Christianity for most of the time. At this point in history they still be dealing with the Mongol-Tatar khanates and other opponents.
@@TheRatOnFire_ no, it’s because they had different beliefs. And culturally Roman. The “Byzantines” were east rome and Greek
I believe that the Jagellions would also inherit the Kingdom of Bohemia as well, because at one point Bohemia fell into interregnum and a Jagellion heir was chosen, expanding PLC influence in Central Europe.
Ironically, Bohemia lost it's Jagellion ruler in the battle with the Ottomans as well. It led to the Habsburg ruler and integration with Austria.
Greetings from Bulgaria! Fruzhin from the House of Shishman would have probably been a candidate for the Bulgarian crown as he was an heir to the last tsars of the divided bulgarian tsardoms and he also participated in the crusade of Varna. After he had escaped the conquered bulgarian lands, he went to the western royal courts to petition help against the Ottomans. Great video overall, but Fruzhin shouldnot be left out in a video about this topic.
Did he had any heirs tho?
@@anonymous-hz2un I am not entirely sure. Not so long ago, a book covering the heirs of the House of Shishman up until the twentieth century was published, but I have not obtained nor read it yet.
@@juliankillsgoats9859 Dont be silly, you are a Turkic. Bulgarians, Hungarians and Fins are Turkic Nations..
Finns are not and Hungarians no. Bulgarians had some bulgar’s settle.
@@muratsahin2246 As far as I know from my university classes in ethnology, finns and hungarians are Finno-Ugric nations (I think I spelled it correctly but I could be wrong. The bulgarian ethnogenesis is a pretty difficult subject but bulgarians are a mix of predominantly bulgar, slavic and thracian people and other minor ethnic parts.
Idk if the Balkans would truly be safe so long as Mehmed II was still alive. He just does not come off as the kind of guy who would meekly watch as his father's empire crumbles into ruin, even in the most dire circumstances (such as the one he potentially faced during his siege of constantinople). Obviously the success of an empire depends on more complex factors than just the rulership of one guy. But considering the monumental feats he was able to accomplish in our timeline and undeterred by his father's shortcomings, a defeat of this scale for the empire would only strengthen Mehmed II's conviction that he was destined by god to turn it all around.
True
We might not even see the decadence of the later ottoman period if the Christian put up a a proper threat to the Ottomans.
The jannisary would never have the same power they had yet therefore driving the ottomans to constantly to improve which was the one thing that made them such a military juggernaut in the past.
Yeah he was a great guy. I agree with you.
least nationalist turk(İ am türkısh)
@@EvoVerse2 you dont have to be a turk to recognize that mehmed II was balling
The big benefit they had was securing greece as a beach head. With how things are in the scenario he's gonna have to add a naval invasion onto any invasion into europe.
The biggest change would be people complaining on forums about "Ottoboos" due to everyone posting their "unrealistic and ahistorical" big green blobs since the Ottomans would be the underdog in the 1444 Europa Universalis start date.
The Holy Roman Empire would have been victorious over the Ottomans, but in a battle the army of the Holy Roman Empire fought itself and the Ottomans laughed at them
I doubt EU4 would have the same start year
One of the biggest side effects of byzantine survival / delayed fall would be diminished push for colonialism since ottoman trade restrictions were one of the big reasons for that.
I doubt that, all of Europe wanted spices, you control the spice trade, you make the big money, most likely even with the Byzantine Empire surviving, colonialization would go pretty much the same, just with events happening slightly later, and another thing, even before the Byzantine Empire fell, there was exploration out into the Atlantic already with the Azores and Canary Islands being discovered by Europeans before the fall of the Byzantine Empire.
Regarding Bulgaria,
Fruzhin Shisman, the son of the last Tzar and successor for the crown was an Hungarian noble who fought in the campaign.
He had to become Tzar under Vladislav influence of course.
I’m an ubereats driver and was ubering to your videos all night into the morning (american here) and it made my day to finish my shift and see that you uploaded. Keep going bro
It’s an extreme understatement to say that the balkans were important to the ottomans, the territories not only were about as rich and taxable as england but also were the main source of the Ottoman elite force the Jannissaries and their main source of bureaucrats, if they don’t regain their losses within a few decades, their influence would’ve been negligible at best given just how poor the interior anatolian countryside was at this point in time, with only the thin coastline providing decent tax source and with the anatolian nobles becoming far more powerful compared to our timeline, the ottomans likely would get rid of the smaller beyliks and then stop once it reaches the eastern mountains or tries to invade Syria, same for the west, where the absence of a weak ruler would be quite enough to prevent another incursion into the balkans
In the VIIth-Xth centuries Byzantium had almost all of Anatolia and negligible parts of the Balkans and were fine, while after Manzikert nothing was the same, that's why Alexios I is viewed so positively. Anatolia was the heartland of the empire and Anatolian empires are ones of the most longevive. I'd argue no amount of European Greek land would make Byzantium more powerful than a state that controls even just two thirds of Anatolia.
@@genovayork2468 You underestimate how devastating the previous centuries had been for Anatolia. It's conquest and the process of Turkification was slow and brutal. Compare that to the relatively rapid conquest of the Balkans and it's easier to see why these regions might be considerably less devastated.
@@SuperCrow021071: Manzikert.
1077: Rûm has more than 95% of Anatolia. How is this long? It's one of the fastest in history!
About the Balkans:
1) Byzantium regained the south Balkans from the South Slavs gradually, over the course of the last 20 years of the VIIIth and the first half of the IXth centuries. Slowly.
2) Byzantium recovered the north Balkans from Bulgaria from 968 to 1018, 50 years, so slowly as well.
3) The Ottomans conquered the eastern ones 1359-1396 and the rest in the middle of the XVth century. Surely slowlier than 6 years, am I right?
I don't know what fairy tales you are talking about. If you want to showcase Anatolian low development, don't use this as argument.
@@genovayork2468 The conquest of western Anatolia was only completed after decades of systematic pillaging and weakening of the territories. When the population of a territory is all dead it cant exactly be very rich.
@@SuperCrow02 So you retract.
Yes! Kind of alt histories are my favorite! thank you!
Yup
“What if the Russian Revolution failed”, is probably my favorite
I have waited years for this, thank you
THANK YOU THANK YOU I have been wanting to see this scenario for ages
pls make a second part, this timeline is sooooo interesting
Love how far your videos have come. Keep up the good work 👍
Lots of cities in Anatolia were dominated by Christians. I think a reconquista or Christianization would be possible. Also Mehmed had a Serbian mother (some even say he was not a Muslim) that is why he took the Roman crown and tried to Romanize before he died from posioning by his zealot son. So if the Ottomans were to be humiliated, he would've tried to join the Christians.
Would the Byzantines, much like Spain, be left bankrupt by this Anatolian reconquista?
@@NovikNikolovicSpain did not become bankrupt after the reconquista, but rather from vast internal issues spanning from their colonial possessions to the napoleonic wars and the dutch war of independence
@@DalmatianGeo ok, and the Byzantines also would have some internal issues, as is the tradition of any Roman empire.
That’ll cause more division in the kingdom which is something he definitely doesn’t want during their darkest hour
In Poland we pronounce "J" (Jagiellonian) as "Y". If I would write your prononciation in polish it will be Dżadżelon.
Polish people..
The emperor of the Byzantine Empire was willing to rejoin the Orthodox, and Catholic churches in order for aid. But the people of the Byzantine empire, and those outside of it, were heavily opposed to the reunification. There would have been much infighting about this, to the point of rebellion in the Balkans against reunification.
Very nice video. You earned a new fan!
Thank you I've been looking for an althist on this since the start of time
Very nice vid man !
Also, speaking of the Ottomans, even if they became an Anatolian regional power, I believe they would fall to the Safavids. You see, during the first Safavid emperor's reign (Ismail I) , many revolts against the Ottoman Empire were funded by the Safavids in order to conquer Anatolia. This was because Ismail I allegedly had more legitimacy to rule Anatolia than his Ottoman counterparts (Bayezid II and Selim I) . If the Ottomans were weaker and only in charge of Anatolia, I doubt they would manage to fend off all of the revolts, meaning that eventually it would fall to the Safavids, therefore drastically re-shaping Islamic history. If I said something horribly wrong, though, don't hesitate to correct me.
The power doea not come with the conquered land. Ottomans are not strong because they counquered europe or middle east. I just dont get the part where safavids more eligible to rule anatolia than ottomans like... Ottomans defeated every enemy feom east to west how an empire that sits on where it was for years are more eligible than ottomans. Like Safavids were Turkic empire and ottomans did many wars with it and they only manage to defeat (well not much of a defeat) 1 time.
I would geniunely be suprised if safavids decided to face Ottomans head on. They werent as good on all out warfare as Ottomans in any part of their history. İn fact, only reason they even survived as a empire was because they'd simply run with their light cavalry the moment Ottoman army would arrive in their territory.
not saying you are wrong mate it is likely as you said it but another point of view is that if Ottomans were once again ruling in Anatolia not in the Balkans I doubt revolts against them would be as successful as it was in the past. Because they would be closer to the place of revolt and they would have a much tighter grip over Anatolia then they did. Their capital would likely be Bursa (Prousa) and through the trade from the Aegean and Marmara seas they would still acquire gunpowder weapons (they were amongst the earliest users of it in Middle east and Europe) so they probably still would have had cannons against Safavids. If gates of Europe were closed and Ottomans turned eastwards it is also possible that through the combined efforts of Ottomans and Sheybanids (Uzbeks) in the central Asia, they could destroy Safavids before Shanshah Ismail really took things over as in his time Iran was still a tumultuous place because of all the different dynasties and empires forming and crumbling in a short time frame. In our past Ottomans only cared about Azerbaijan and Northern parts of Iran but in this timeline with the conquests of Europe out of the picture, they might even try to acquire whole of Iran or at least try to vassalize it. In both cases history would be entirely different we see now.
Something I'd point out is that around the time of the crusade of Varna the future Constantine XI launched incursions into Attica and Thessaly, potentially providing more help for the crusaders alongside your idea of an expanded crusade. Thus a greater degree of communication might have helped a little too.
Alongside that Ibrahim Bey of the Karamanids in Anatolia was launching attacks on the Ottomans, even destroying Ankara and Kütahya.
been waiting for this
The idea of a properly organized power in eastern Europe thats not russia is probably the most interesting aspect to this. Maybe Theyd support novgorodians against muscovites or as the saviros of byzantium they end up pulling in many of the classical scholars and create an eastern renaissance to go along with the southern and northern renaissance that happened in OTL
Neat alt history video. Never once thought about this one.
The thing about Crusades is that a successful Crusade tends to spur on further crusading in the same general direction, i.e. Anatolia within a few years. While such a follow up crusade is not certain to succeed, I think it's likely to (unless someone fucks up, which is always a possibility; humans be humans after all). Assuming it's launched in the late 1440s, the Ottomans would still be dealing with aftermath of the Varna Crusade.
The Ottomans would still have a child on the throne (or at least someone who's entirely unproven), would be lacking prestige and legitimacy (people would be questioning the Ottomans' right to rule at this moment, where victory can justify one's rule defeat would do the opposite) and they would be dealing with the still independent Turkish tribes in Anatolia.
On top of that the Ottomans were not quite so unified as it would seem. Within Anatolia you still have recently reconquered Turkish tribes, reconquered after being lost due to the Ottomans' defeat at the hands of Timur, that would likely be agitating for independence. On top of that Western Anatolia is still quite heavily populated by Greek Christians and would likely be quite lukewarm to the idea of their continued dominance by the Muslim Ottoman Turks and be at least neutral, but most likely positive, towards the return of Christian rule to the area.
The thing is, historically the Ottomans were not nearly as secure in their position in 1444 as they would be roughly 50 years later. The mid-15th century was full of possibilities in this region of the world, if only the Christians were capable of coming together and exploiting them.
As for the Post-Varna Balkans...
I have to question the notion of a Jagiellon ruled Bulgaria. Why spread your dynasty out further when you still need to secure your pre-existing lands? Ruling the lands south of the Danube is difficult work for lands that are relatively impoverished.
Better to engender friendly relations with the Romans and hand over the region to Constantinople and let them deal with it. They'd probably also through Serbia under the bus as well. Neither a friendly Serbia nor Bulgaria put together hold a candle to a friendly, Christian Constantinople. It would also help to further smooth over efforts at a reunion of the churches. A friendly Constantinople would also act as valued bulwark to secure their Southern Flank against the possibility of a Turkish resurgence in the Balkans. We know that such a resurgence would be unlikely (though not impossible), but _they_ don't know that. The Romans would also act as a very good ally against the Venetians, whom the Polish-Hungarians would be in conflict with.
Now, what would the Romans do with the region? Rule everything south of the Danube like the days of yore? I doubt it. The Romans would likely only directly rule everything south of the Haemus Mountains while only maintaining some fortifications along the Danube (for trade purposes), while making the rest of friendly puppet state. The Romans have long since learned that the Danube simply doesn't make for a very good border.
So, by 1500 the Balkans and Anatolia would look very similarly to how they did in the 12th century. As for further along in the timeline? Either the Romans lose Anatolia or regain it in its entirety. No state can only rule part of Anatolia, unless outside powers enforce it as the status quo.
So pumped by the video, I'm gonna launch EU4 and play a solid Poland game
Can't believe the Crusade can be talked about without mentioning Hunyadi, since it would have never happened without him forever trying to push the Ottomans out. As it wasn't the "strong leader" Wladyslaw doing most.
Yeh.
Can you make a video on Queen Elizabeth's suitors because she had
many marriage proposals by so many people I know you did one on Ivan the Terrible of Russia but you can make a lot more videos with a lot more scenarios of her suitors and their marriage to her and
how each other's marriages could change history with every individual ruler
I want to see a Polish, Hungarian, and Lithuanian commonwealth too!
Where do you get/make these maps? They look absolutely perfect and I would like to use them for alt history
I make these maps with paint.net! Feel free to join the discord (discord.gg/qP7DuvX9Jd), ping me and I'll give you my maps.
I love your channel and videos, and this one is great too, but I'd love to see you make up your own timeline. I love that you stay realistic, but you seem to fall into vagueness and it ends up a bit boring. Maybe you could just do a very general summary of the affected areas into the modern era in your videos, so that it's a little more interesting.
This was a very good cenário
Finally, an alternate history channel that’s consistent and doesn’t make dogshit videos.
Ideas:
- What If Norway 🇳🇴 took control of Britain in 1066 AND NOT William I Of Normandy?
- What If Iran remained Zoroastrian?
- What If Russia turned Facist AND NOT communist
- What If Russia won WW1?
Didn't Russia turn Fascist last year..?
@@moritamikamikara3879 I consider Russia an oligarchical fascist State.
@@johnpyefinch3454 you describe Russia from the mid 90s 😅
@@moritamikamikara3879 no, Russia didn't turn fascist last year. It was Ukraine which did. Iron curtain, no way to leave the country, no civil rights, no human rights. Never heard? Now you know as I'm living right there.
Russia turned fascist earlier. Gradually from 2009 as well as most of Europe. The US from 2001 (patriotic act). The world has turned semi-fascist or quite fascist while you were living your lives absent minded way.
@@marksengels5473Fascism isn’t just strict governance, especially modern fascism with all the weird racial shit it has going on
Great premise.
I'd add that if the Jagiellon "Superstate" adopted the same constitutional principles as the PLC (eg liberum veto), it would have resulted in a fractured state easily manipulated by their neighbours, much as in our own timeline.
On the other hand, there is a possibility that more numerous, prosperous and prestigious Jagiellon dynasty would have more political leverage to use against its nobility and more wealth to hire mercenaries, thus reducing the need to appease the nobility during conflicts in order to convince them to fight (so they will not recieve some privileges szlachta of PLC had).
Like no. It would be super power, new christian rome style slavic bloc
you know nothing about as PLC functioned and how liberum veti worked XD
@@Har1ByWorld It didn't function. That's my whole point. It was the EU of its day - easily bought and manipulated by foreign interests.
@@Emanon... It worked? it was power house for more then 100 years longer than Kittler 1000-Year german Reich that lasted 12 years.
Frujin (Prince/Knyaz of Bulgaria) who participated in the crusade was the main claimant for the Bulgarian throne so I would expect him to become Tsar or Knyaz if it's with patronage or under the Hungarian King
An alternative history scenario I’ve been very interested in but haven’t seen many videos of us “What if the Entente had succeeded in the Gallipoli campaign”
How much succeed? Original goal to was to make Ottomans surrender. If this is done, then Black Sea would be opened for trade and aid for Russia (lend-lease like ). This would tip the balance to Entente side, especially with Italian joining, war would be shorter and Bulgaria may stay neutral. I suppose WW1 would end in late 1916, with Entente victory. Russia would stay monarchist for some time. Without Red revolution of 1917 in Russia, there would be much less revolutions around the world. No Red scare... Also there won't be 14 points of Wilson. Countries would take all land they want as in old times. In the Rhineland buffer state between France and Germany would be created, Austria- Hungary would be dismantled, Italy would receive same lands as irl + Dalmatia. Yugoslavia won't be created. Poland would be recreated from German and Austrian polish populated lands + Congress of Poland( Danzig would stay German) . Also Finland would be free.
Without fear of Bolshevism, Nazis would have trouble with rising in power...
My best alt his scenario is if Bulgaria joins the entente instead of central powers. The central powers be done by mid 1917.
That Campaign is extremely unwinnable
@@stevekook-xw3is so an early downfall of the ottoman and possibly a partition of the ottoman?
@@kiankier7330 That is guaranteed. If Bulgaria joins then entente would have much more convenience in the Balkans. The 1st difference is Serbia would not fall since it would manage to get the hundreds of thousands of soldiers support instead of getting overran due to Bulgaria's position on the flank. The Bulgarian entry on entente side would create a wonderful opportunity for entente. It is a sure thing that the entente powers would gather a way larger force in Thrace for the conquest of Ottoman capital. Bulgaria could easily field over 300k soldiers and replace loses. Britain, France and Russia would all send their forces in order to make a quick capture of Istanbul. It is safe to claim that Greece may be more motivated to join and same stands for Romania which joined in 1916. In such scenario even if it joins at that time they would be able to get much more support and there won't be an ars beating from the South either. So Hundreds of thousands more men defending against A&H and the German forces. Once Istanbul falls by 1916 Easter the straights would be open. Even if the Ottomans don't surrender right there and then they would be in no position to harm any entente power. So from there we could get hundreds of thousands of men transfering in Serbia and Romania. A&H had big struggles despite Serbia and Romania being done. In such scenario they would have it a lot harder. Doubt my country Bulgaria would be really willing to send many soldiers to defend Serbia or Romania but other entente forces would help. Russia being supplied by the Bosporus straights may also fare better. A&H would have to constantly fight upwards of 200k men after 1915. Adding to that the fact that Serbia and Romania aren't as likely to fall means additional half a million to a million men on the south side of A&H.
Would you make what if the Muslims kept Spain
Alternate History Hub has already made a video on that one.
Then it wouldn't be called Spain anymore.
Plus, Alternatehistoryhub already made one about this scenario. You should check it out.
Or in other words: What if the reconquista failed
Yh I kinda want to see An Al Andalus video on this channel now
That would be f**ked up
Eu4 would have a different start date
nice video :)
Perfect choice of background music. No notes.
I am going to assume the big Jagielon Empire theory to be true (also the way you spell it makes me want to cry)
When you blow up i'll be able to say I was here before 10,000 subscribers. Thank you for all the high quality videos. In case you need more scenarios, two alternate history ideas I had were "what if operation valkariye or a similar plot to kill hitler succeeded" and what if the Russian Empire won the Japanese-War".
Ah yes Varna, the Bulgarian city also im from Bulgaria and i love rhe vids you make dude!
Brazillian maping got a whole AHOE series to this.
S2 ends with Hungary-poland-Lithuania comonwealth
4:15 slight correction, Skanderbeg is pronounced with "ž" at the end of his name. The "ž" is like a "g" sliding and being longer pronounced. I hope it was understandable enough.
It's important to know, that the crusaders literally defeated the Ottomans, but then arrived the late Venicean fleet and Vladislav was like: Oh, we have fleet now. Lets break the treaty we've just signed an attack again. What could possibly go wrong?
I don't think other powers in Europe especially Austria would allow a young ruler such as Vlad become that powerful. Whenever a country gets too bloby European powers seem to come to their senses and team up against the big boy. Such as the ottomans and then France (Spanish succession).
Now I am just waiting for a video "What If everything went PERFECT for the Jagiellons"
can you do a "What if Catherine the great married George III" this was weirdly enough very possible in 1760-1762
This is a really good video.
hi.
What if the union between the danubian principalities by michael the brave was maintained?
finally someone is speaking on polish lithuanian commonwealth
I would honestly imagine that a successful crusade would reignite fervor in Catholicism, on top of the mending of the scism, and might lead to further crusades with even more participants and maybe even another push for Jerusalem
Here are three what if scenarios into one big one what if Napoleon never invaded Russia but instead invade the Ottoman Empire what if Napoleon married a Russian princess and what if Napoleon never invaded Spain what do you think would happen
Damn, I need to get that "Lions from the north" dlc and finally do a Poland campaign. Right now I'm slowly making my way from year 2 to 2023 in extended timeline as Poland. Around 1400 years still to go...
There was no such thing as Poland in 2 AD, i assume you mean some germanic tribe ?
@@nevyanplamenov5409 Yaah, I'm aware. At the 2AD start date there a "Wenedi" tribe which has Polish set as it's primary culture and lies in eastern Poland/western Ukraine. I started as them and formed Poland after conquering germanic tribes that were in the modern day Polish territory.
Did you finish it? I wouldn't be able to because I'd get bored a thousand years in lol
@@krasnallom You finish it?
If the greater jagiellon empire became a thing, chanches are Poland would challenge the holy roman empire, which at the threat of such a powerful state invading its princes would have acted as a whole in defence. And being embroided in such a massive war would have made eastern Europe open for an ottoman re-expansion
Great video but i dont think the orthodox church would reunite with the west, the only reason i saw was how the byzanines were basicly a city state and thought if they rejoined with the west they would get more assistance. I do think there would be on wayyyy more friendlier relations though, but a full-on reunion i doubt.
Very interesting scenario. I think similarly that Poland Lithuania Hungary would be short lastenig becoming Poland Lithuania as in our timeline however with maybe of incorporation of nowadays Slovakia (due to linguistic and ethnic ties) which was part of Kingdom of Hungary at the time
There were no Slovaks that time, Hungary had bigger population than Poland and the Hungarian crown had higher inland revenues, so its importance was bigger.
@@jozsefsandor671Source?
Still awesome as always !
If I can suggest somes ideas I find interesting :
What if the technocratic party won the american elections of 1936
What if the industrial revolution started in china
What if the majapahit empire never disolved
Do you know where this guy gets his maps from? Also your third suggestion is great 👍
@@laabh9949 I don't, sorry x)
Even if they did win the battle it wouldn´t have amounted to much, most western nobles looked at a crusade more as a field trip/ distraction than actual long term goals
Finally you're saying "Balkans" correctly (sometimes).
HUGE MISTAKE IN THIS VIDEO, Murad II was not the sultan of the ottomans, the ottoman sultan at the time told Murad to come out of abdication and lead the ottoman armies at Varna, as he was less experienced.
there is also an AHOE about an althistory what if the crusade won from brazilian mappers.
Tbh modern Greece + Izmir/Smyrna looks really cool.
I already know people from the Balkans that see this video we love it because if there's one thing broken people hate most is an ottoman Turk
You completely missed the existence of a state that came into being only 60 years after this battle: Safavid Persia. A significantly weakened Ottoman empire means more time for Persia to consolidate its rule over the lands they lost to the Ottomans in early 1500s, Mesopotamia and eastern Anatolia. Also it means both Persia and Mamluks of Egypt would have more time to adopt firearms and be more on pars with the Ottomans.
Good point.
One key note the unification of the churches likely would not happen in a byzantine revival as the only reason talks ever happened was because the Byzantines were so weal
Jagellon Empire Could have been created the same way the Habsburg Empire was. Initally the Kingdoms and Duchies the habsburgs ruled weren't united and only shared a king. it took many centuries of reforms, squashing rebellions and building institutions to truelly Unify all the habsburg held lands into a singular empire. This only completed in the napoleonic era when the Empire of Austria (wich was a different instution than the Duchy of Austria) was declared.
The Jagellon's with enough prestigious positions and victories backing them and working together as a family similar to the Habsburgs could have created a similar empire wich was culturally diverse but had a long tradition of sharing the same monarch, and eventually common institutions such as a common army, currency and economic union.
That's interesting.
One thing I think was missed here was that Germany would probably have been unified sooner, without Austrian influence over Hungary, it's possible they would've eventually lost the Emperorship to perhaps the Bavarian Wittelsbachs, or even the Bohemians. Coincided with the Reformation, the Austrians would be unable to keep the south of Germany Catholic, and thus divided, and so it seems more than likely that Germany would've unified under a protestant Wittelsbach dynasty, or something to that effect.
Very good point. The Varna system is based on employment and I have already achieved up to Private equity then ended it and then started social media`ing my history. Meaning a failure of The system and heritage is the only ruling hierarchy. Therefor 14th century Varna named people are grouped into the bottom part of the three part triangle. ⚡️🤴🏽🕉🔺➕
The nobility... it's always the blasted nobility
Best timeline
What about the discovery of America? Wasnt the age of exploration all about the end of the bizantine control over the spice trade? How would the survival of bizantium impact this?
As a Polish I think you forgot about few countries including Brandenburg, The Teutonic Knights, Russian Principalities, Crimean Tatars and most Importantly Austria.
I hate how you establish Hungary as a downward spiraling kingdom after the Crusade of Varna, completely ignoring the golden age of Hungary under Matthias Hunyadi.
Tbf it did spiral right back after his reign. He should have done more to destroy the nobility and secure his son's succession.
@@SuperCrow02 My point still stands
Greetings from Varna :)
Hola
When it comes to Southeastern Europe, the majority of internet "historians" are traditionally fixated on the East Roman Empire, and ignore the fact that the said Empire hasn't boasted a dominant role in SE Europe from the 1200s and onward, the state that did, in fact, boasts the dominant role was the Medieval Serb state, whether in the form of the Serbian Empire, Lazar's Serbia and the Serbian Despotate, the said state was the preeminent enemy of the Ottoman Empire in SE Europe and the preeminent bulwark against the Ottoman Empire with the largest flatland fortress in Europe, waging war against the Ottomans for more or less 100-140 years, depending on whether one identifies Zeta as the final iteration of the Medieval Serb state. Considering the massive territory liberated in the first year of the Varna Crusade, it is more than apparent that the Serb and Hungarian, not Polish leadership were instrumental in the matter, and both, due to generation-spanning experience in waging war against the Ottomans, understood that after these triumphs and the events in Anatolia (invasion of the Ottoman Empire by either the Karamanids or the Aydinids), the Ottomans were in a dire position, and could not retake lost territories, and would agree to all terms of negotiation, and they did at Szeged, but Polish, East Roman and the Vatican geopolitical aspiration triumphed over reason, and they pushed for the furthering of the Varna Crusade (thus turning triumph into defeat), instead of consolidating their positions against the Ottomans, as Hunyadi and Brankovic had advised.
Furthermore, Branković had a much larger interest in the peace treaty and solicited Hunyadi's support. He demanded that Serbia be returned to him, and he bribed Hunyadi by promising him the land he held in Hungary. On July 3, 1444, the lordship of Világosvár was transferred, in perpetuity, to Hunyadi. Around the same time, as additional security, the estates of Mukačevo, Baia Mare, Satu Mare, Debrecen, and Böszörmény were also transferred, and Hunyadi became the largest landowner in the Kingdom. There is another reason for this, Brankovic understood that a Hungary dominated by Hunyadi and his progeny would be a vital asset and ally to the Serb state, and to Hungary itself. He was proven right, the rule of Corvinus speaks volumes on the matter.
Ideas: what would happen if Italians were competent in 19~20C?
best timeline
Dziękuje
Word jagiellon you should say more like yagiellon with "g" like in word "good". To spell '"j" or "g" in the way you said it we have in polish two letters "dż".
There was a plan for Bulgaria btw, the kingdom was promised to John Hunyadi in return for his further participation in the crusade.
I think you mixed up expanding Candar rather than Trebizond
If only he had more shock pips maybe it could have been
European kings failing to produce a single heir to their throne while the Ottoman Sultans casually executing 29 of their brothers so they won't cause civil wars be like.
Only one Sultan did this, the rest did not
@@user-cg2tw8pw7j the rest just killed less
Kind of a similar scenario but what if Skanderbeg did not get sick and die and thus lived on to win against the Ottomans
The Ottomans raised/trained/ teached Iskender Bey everything, that's why he was so good at warfare.
Cool video, but you dont say JaGiellon but yagielon;)
What if the New Madrid earthquake hit somewhere/time else? Like today?
You forgot the effects that Constantinople not falling would have on the Great Navigations in the west, if the Crusade was successful, maybe there wouldn't have been such a big incentive to find alternative routes to asia, and the americas would have been discovered and colonized later, allowing native American civilizations to better adapt and maybe survive colonization.
I thought the siege of Constantinople ended the Byzantine Empire when the Ottomans took over the city under Mehmend II's command. How come nobody mentions this in the history books? What I like about this history video is that the Byzantium Empire got to stay intact either by reform or through transiting of power for a more democratic government with the Emperor being a figurehead, even though I wanted to see a Polish-Hungrain Empire. What I said is true. Still, at least Poland wouldn't be partitioned in this alternate timeline by its neighbors. Could the Romanovs become the new dynasty of the Byzantine Empire if the Eastern Roman Empire survived, and what is your opinion of the Romanovs being in charge? They were known as autocrats, and the Byzantine Empire did have a senate; how would that fit the Romanvos? Anyway, this a great scenario, Mr. PH. The more your video comes, the more stuff I learn about actual history, and you'll make a good history teacher or history professor!
I do have alternate history suggestions and ideas for future videos. So if you're interested in hearing them again, excellent job, and may your channel live long and prosperous!
Pov you play too much eu4
😹😂
After the survival of the byzantines, they would do everything to return Anatolia since it was still majority Greek even the kingdom of pontus was still independent which was Greek
Any timeline with the Ottomans getting their asses kicked is a good timeline.
So, OTL?
an 11 year old inheriting shaken empire restricted to Anotolia. Id say Orhan would seize power and try to unify Anatolia. Would the Byzantines try rebuild their fleet and fortifications on the Bosporus idk? but i believe the ottomans would still be a threat but only across the sea.
You forgot that when EU4 would eventually be developed in our timeline the start date would be different
Everyone is happy!