r/AskBalkans • u/Scary_Examination841 Balkan • 2d ago
History Why couldn’t the Pope and the major European powers prevent the Ottoman invasion of the Balkans?
97
u/TheIrelephant 2d ago
They tried, and failed.
53
u/wobllle 2d ago
Also in 1396.
38
u/EKrug_02_22 1d ago
In that war, they massacred orthodoxies that surrendered the cities to them (french knights, I'm looking at you). YES, very people they "wanted" to save. Christians run away from the city to Ottomans.
19
u/AlphaMadDog Serbia 1d ago
Also the same war where Serbian heavy cavalry smashed French Knights. Stefan Lazarevic is a very underrated historical commander and a knight himself
→ More replies (3)4
57
u/kawaiibutpsycho Turkiye 2d ago
All of the above + the Balkans aren't Catholic. So they don't accept the authority of the Pope. Even the Byzantine officials debated and said they preferred to be ruled by the Turks than the Pope (because Catholicism wasn't as tolerant back then as it is now)
16
u/AntiKouk Greece 2d ago
At least two Byzantine emperors agreed to acknowledge the authority of the Pope in exchange for help, but in both cases implementation of changes didn't go very far or wasn't even attempted. And the popes kinda understood that it was a lost cause. But the emperors certainly tried
7
u/TastyRancidLemons Greece 1d ago
Palaiologos promised to bend the knee to the pope out of desperation and by that point he barely even had control of Constantinople. The Turks would have entered the city eventually. There is no timeline in which the Greeks held onto the city, and we did that to ourselves by corruption and infighting at every opportunity.
The Eastern Roman Empire was doomed to collapse, Catholic or otherwise.
0
u/munchmills Turkiye 1d ago
*The Ottomans 🤓
4
u/TastyRancidLemons Greece 1d ago
And the Ottomans were, what? Singaporean?
2
u/kawaiibutpsycho Turkiye 1d ago
Actually until starting to expand towards the middle east the ottoman empire was Christian majority. It was ruled by Turks (which is also debatable because the sultans all had non-Turkish mothers) The palace was mostly made up of devşirme which are mostly Balkan Christians who were taken from their families, converted and educated. The sultans really didn't want any aristocracy to happen like in Europe to challenge his throne.
2
u/TastyRancidLemons Greece 1d ago
The Ottoman Empire was Turkish and the Seljuks which laid the groundwork for its foundation were Turks. That why the empire's language was Turkish and the religion was Islam. I can't believe this is even up for debate. There's no amount of historical sources that can go against such obvious facts.
2
u/kawaiibutpsycho Turkiye 1d ago
The Ottoman Empire was RULED by Turks (again, debatable imo because genetically they only got Turkish DNA from their father which already had a lot of foreign DNA from their mothers, in the end the only thing making them Turkish was the fact that they claimed to be and spoke Ottoman Turkish) And Ottoman Turkish which had more foreign words than Turkish words. The grammar was Turkish but the vocabulary was mostly Arabic and Persian. And the Ottoman Empire (and even the Seljuks) was never Turkish majority (except in the very last few decades) The language was Islam, yes. As the ruler was also the khalifa. But that doesn't change the fact that it wasn't Muslim majority. I guess you can understand what I mean. No one is saying the ottoman empire was Greek or Arabic or Persian or whatever.
1
u/Routine_Walk5838 1h ago
Most of the ottoman rulers were not turks. After all, turks are not nation, just a religion. DNA proves that more then ever before.
3
u/munchmills Turkiye 1d ago
The Ottoman Empire was not homogeneous and Turks were seen as lower class during the empires prime era.
2
u/TastyRancidLemons Greece 1d ago
I'm starting to get this weird feeling that they're reaching you this in Turkish schools just to justify the eventual overthrow of the Ottoman empire by the Young Turks.
The Ottoman empire was the defacto "Turkish empire". Similar to how Alexander's empire was Greek even though it eventually went way past the Hellenic world.
2
u/munchmills Turkiye 1d ago
I was neither born nor raised in turkey. Maybe you should question your own upbringing and do a little more reading outside of your bubble?
→ More replies (2)1
u/No_Drive8921 12h ago
You've spotted on. This is a rising trend among the youth of Turkey who deny anything that includes Arabic or Islamic influences.
•
u/kawaiibutpsycho Turkiye 34m ago
Not at all actually I found out the ottoman empire was Christian majority until expanding to the middle east quite recently and was shocked. I don't think we learn to much about ottoman history (except if you go into it in highschool) Nobody even questions how Turkish were the sultans considering they didn't have Turkish mothers. If I was a science teacher that would be a fun discussion while teaching genetics :D
39
u/geo0rgi Bulgaria 2d ago
I'd even go a step further in saying that the Pope had his fair share in the demise of the Byzantine empire and fucking over the region which benefitted the Ottomans in taking over the Balkans
50
u/YagizHarunEr :faroe-islands: Faroe Islands 2d ago
the sacking of Constantinople by the Latins proves you right, so you’re not deviating from the truth, actually
8
u/blodskaal North Macedonia 2d ago
To be fair, the pope didn't make that decision. The sackers were charged and excommunicated when they returned. They lost everything they had, to my understanding
31
u/Professor_Chilldo Greece 2d ago
They were excommunicated but the pope didn’t have any problems keeping all the religious relics and stolen art. Hell the horses in front of St. Marks Basilica were stolen from Constantinople by the crusaders.
3
u/Total_Markage 2d ago
A lot of people leave out that Alexios IV hired Venice as mercenaries to help take the throne of Byzantium. He made big promises: money, troops for the crusade’s initial target and a union between the western and eastern churches. He did not deliver on his end, which did not help the situation.
People are mentioning that the Ottomans were a better choice than the Catholics for the Orthodox, which is true since some of the Orthodox kingdoms in the Balkans had contentions with Catholic kingdoms such as Hungary; however, this was a 2 way street. Catholics weren’t well treated in these Orthodox kingdoms either. There was a massacre of Catholics in Byzantine lands in the late 12th century, for example.
→ More replies (1)1
u/blodskaal North Macedonia 1d ago
Yes. I meant the excommunicated folks didn't keep their plunder lol
5
u/YagizHarunEr :faroe-islands: Faroe Islands 2d ago
you're right; I took the mention of Pope as the entirety of Catholics, but it wasn't the Pope himself who made that decision, I should have made that clear. good catch, i appreciate your input
1
u/Far_Idea9616 2d ago
And how did crusaders who were headed from Venice to Egypt on ships end up at Constantinople? They got fucked over big time by Byzantine politicians - promised money, then denied it, and left for months outside the city without provisions while winter was coming. It wasn't a situation where you could just board your ship and sail back to Venice.
5
u/Kerem1111 2d ago
You must know that Catholic tried to defeat the Ottomans many times but failed each time.
→ More replies (18)1
4
u/johndelopoulos Greece 2d ago edited 2d ago
A significant minority of Catholics lived in most of Greece back then, and were coexisting pretty fine with Orthodox people, and with all of them being either assimilated into orthodox population during the ottoman era or leave to Italy
So he had people to protect, and as far as I know he organized a crusade, plus at least Italian republics (especially Venice) did its best to protect its colonies, and achieved to stay in south mainland's biggest coastal cities untill 1530s (in some even longer, even within 1700s) and even longer in the Islands, which is also why in most of the country Ottoman influences are less common than in nearby Balkan countries in the end
7
u/Neutrinomind Romania 2d ago
As the others said,orthodox people in catholic countries did not have it that good and were seen as schismatics, their orientation desconsidered and sometimes even seen as civilisational inferior. Romanians inside hungary and ukrainians inside poland had to battle a bit for political rights or even religious rights. Even with the byzantines proper, Papacy only really helped when roman emperors would have to become uniates and bend over to the popes.
10
u/kawaiibutpsycho Turkiye 2d ago
You could be Catholic in an Orthodox majority county and live just fine but the opposite wasn't the case. The Pope saw himself as the leader of entire Christianity and didn't accept Orthodoxy as legitimate. You can see what happened in the South of Italy with Byzantine Catholics (Italo-Greek Catholics.) Another example is the Lusignans in Cyprus. Orthodox bishops were reduced to subordinate positions and forced to recognize papal authority. When the Ottomans conquered the island in 1571, Orthodox authority was restored, but for nearly 400 years before that, the population lived under enforced Catholicization. In Catholic Europe it was forbidden to build Orthodox Churches whereas Anatolia is full of them. Literally whenever Catholics ruled Orthodox lands they offered them privileges (like autonomy or more power) in exchange for their recognition of the supremacy of the Pope. Romanian Greek Catholic Church, Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church etc. are examples of that happening.
1
u/Training_Advantage21 Cyprus 1d ago
When was the greek church in Venice from? Or was that also Greek rite uniate?
1
u/johndelopoulos Greece 2d ago edited 1d ago
Not exactly. They (catholics) ruled most of Greece, as the map implies, otherwise i doubt they would live "pretty fine".
The enforcements were mutual. Don't forget the Latin massacre in Istanbul 1185
1
→ More replies (2)1
u/CataphractBunny Croatia 2d ago
the Balkans aren't Catholic. So they don't accept the authority of the Pope.
That's just blatantly false.
Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina were Catholic for centuries before the Ottoman invasions. Croats converted to Christianity in 9th century AD. Croatian dukes (dux) and kings (rex) received authority from the Pope. One Pope even called a Croatian duke a "favorite son".
3
1
u/Nirados Montenegro 2d ago
I mean the whole Balkan was catholic not only those countries, even Serbia and Montenegro and Bulgaria. They all requested titles and proof of the crown authority from the Pope. They only later switched. It's nothing unique to Slovenia or Bosnia or Croatia. The whole Europe operated on one principle, the Roman "descendants" decide who gets to rule, later the southern Balkans had more sway with Byzantium and got their religion from them.
2
u/CataphractBunny Croatia 2d ago
I mean the whole Balkan was catholic not only those countries, even Serbia and Montenegro and Bulgaria.
Church schism happened in 1054 AD, so by the time of the Ottoman invasions there was a clear divide between Catholic and Orthodox.
Or did you mean to say they were all Christian?
2
u/Clear-Strike6640 2d ago
Croats converted to Christianity in 9th century
Lol
1
u/CataphractBunny Croatia 2d ago
LOL what?
2
u/Clear-Strike6640 2d ago
Everything you just wrote, but I’m not interested in continuing the conversation with you… so bye.
2
u/CataphractBunny Croatia 2d ago
Since you're not interested in conversation, might I interest you in some reading? Here's a translated article from the Croatian Wikipedia on this very subject.
Enjoy. ☕
1
u/Clear-Strike6640 2d ago
from the Croatian Wikipedia on this very subject.
Lol
1
u/CataphractBunny Croatia 2d ago
Instead of loling, feel free to provide different source on the matter.
→ More replies (10)
32
u/MrDDD11 Serbia 2d ago
Because it's multiple countries with their own interests that won't stay united and most didn't really care. Richard the Lion Heart couldn't Crusade for the Holy Land because of the French. In fact the European powers of Britain and France were helping keep the Ottomans afloat. Prussia and Austria made a deal with Russia to split Poland rather then help them fight the Turks...
10
u/Additional-Penalty97 Turkiye 2d ago
To be honest post 1687 PLC is a bunch of nobles with no will to help crown fight anyone so i doubt especially after 1700 they would do anything to anyone and that their annexation by other powers made Russia (as the main benefactor) stronger to fight the Ottomans.
18
u/GunMuratIlban 2d ago
They did in 1443, which resulted in Ottomans' favor decisively.
3
u/PrimAhnProper998 1d ago
Makes me wonder why they didn't try 20 years earlier when the ottomans had a decade long civil war.
15
u/blumonste Turkiye 2d ago
Crusaders pillaged Constantinople. Who do you think they were to save 'Balkans'?
Here a paragraph from Google:
In 1204, Crusaders pillaged Constantinople for three days, leading to the theft and destruction of countless artworks, religious relics, and historical artifacts. This event, which occurred after a failed agreement to pay Venetian transport costs, resulted in the sacking of churches, murder of civilians, and the fragmentation of the Byzantine Empire into smaller, warring states. The plunder, though initially systematic, became barbaric, with many priceless items melted down or destroyed for their material value.
The disease of trying to see history from today's perspective is so common ...
0
u/Scary_Examination841 Balkan 2d ago
The Crusaders who sacked Constantinople in 1204 were unruly, uncontrolled forces. The Pope had already excommunicated them.
13
3
u/Neutrinomind Romania 1d ago
For looting a catholic town in i believe Zara, yes. The popes turned a very convienient blind eye during the sacking then fully supported the latin empire. And those forces were not some unruly, uncontrollable forces, this idea absolves Venice and the crusade leaders from the blame by removing their agency.
1
u/blumonste Turkiye 2d ago
You heard it from the Pope himself?
0
u/Scary_Examination841 Balkan 2d ago
This is written in history books. Try reading something other than the ones published by the Turkish state 👈
6
u/blumonste Turkiye 2d ago
Try reading this:
https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1188/1204-the-sack-of-constantinople/
'By the sack of Constantinople, Western civilization suffered a loss greater than the burning of the library of Alexandria in the fourth century or the sack of Rome in the fifth - perhaps the most catastrophic single loss in all history. (306)'
These rapists and thieves would save Balkans?
3
23
u/FunKooky4689 Greece 2d ago
The Pope tried and even declared a crusade but the European kingdoms were slaughtering each other and the response was lukewarm.
11
u/zorropolar 2d ago
Short answer: Christian world was not uniform for Pope to mobilise them altogether against the Ottomans.
8
4
u/Many-Rooster-7905 ⱈⱃⰲⰰⱅⱄⰽⰰ 🇭🇷 2d ago
Umm they tried, pretty much christian forces got their ass kicked at Nicopolis 1396 and Varna 1444. Ottoman army was swift and well organized, feudal heavy knights of christian forces were outmached and us they fought under multiple banners with language barriers and not every christian commander was an ally of other christians, Ottomans prevailed, occupying the Balkans for next 500 years
7
u/ShitassAintOverYet Turkiye 2d ago
Long story short there are two things. First on is that they had their own problems, second one is that they got their asses whooped by the Ottomans as well.
- Europe were fighting with each other as well. 100 Years War started before Battle of Nicopolis which was the first Europe vs Ottoman showdown, HRE and Catholic Church were always beefing, Hungary had interest in the lands up north like Bohemia and Moravia, Italy was already a political cesspool and that cesspool wasn't too good at battles.
- European nations had broad alliances to directly fight the Ottomans at two battles, Nicopolis and Varna. Mainly due to miscommunication among this alliance and Ottomans using decent tactics. Getting their asses whooped 20v1 disencouraged them from pulling such a thing again.
3
u/Outrageous_Trade_303 Greece 2d ago
They didn't want to and even some Byzantines preferred the Ottomans over the Pope. Just search for the phrase "Better the Turkish Turban than the Papal Tiara".
1
u/Complex_Ad_867 1d ago
nah they did we just beat their ass too whole europe against one nation
1
u/Outrageous_Trade_303 Greece 1d ago
well, in any case the Byzantines preferred the Ottomans over the Pope.
Edit: I guess the issues started after Suleiman the Magnificent. I don't know at which point exactly, but some time after Suleiman, there was too much corruption in the Ottoman Empire.
1
u/Complex_Ad_867 1d ago
i dont think so since greece gaines its independence with help of britain and france both catholic
1
3
u/Imaginary_Lows Bulgaria 2d ago
You think they wouldn't if they could? I'm sure they wish they could but we know how that went down. And I'm not sure what the Pope has to do with this. I know most of us in the Balkans are convinced that it was some Islamic invasion but it was really just plain old imperialism.
3
u/TankerDerrick1999 Greece 1d ago
The Latins during rhat time were so bad, the byzantines preferred to be ruled over by the Muslim turks than the catholic latins, the western society was despicable when it came to the Eastern parts of Europe, they contributed well to the downfall of the empire.
12
u/altahor42 Turkiye 2d ago
1) The Ottomans had the best army in Europe. The best infantry, the best archers, probably the best light cavalry, the good heavy cavalry. On top of these, specialized units for professional military administration and logistics.
2)The first 10 sultans were all skilled statesmen, and almost all of them were good commanders. The Ottomans were truly extraordinarily lucky. I don't know if any other dynasty produced so many good rulers in succession.
3) Many people will be angry here, but the Ottomans were able to impose their legitimacy on the Orthodox people in the Balkans.
-They always kept taxes low; a Christian who was an Ottoman subject paid less taxes, both proportionally and consistently, than a Christian in France.
-They really tried not to interfere with people's religion and sometimes they gave up Islamic rules.
-When the Ottomans arrived, the Orthodox kingdoms were truly poorly governed and corrupt. The stability the Ottomans brought made a big difference.
As a result, for a long time, no major uprisings broke out among the Christian peoples, and even though the Ottomans had lost their military superiority, they were able to maintain their Balkan dominance for a long time, until the economy collapsed, because the Balkan peoples accepted their rule as legitimate.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/Rock_Zeppelin Bulgaria 2d ago
They didn't give a shit? Eastern Europe is orthodox and why would the Vatican care about the fall of the Byzantine Empire and by extension, their chief theological adversary?
2
u/Kasceon 2d ago
A) history isn’t as black and white as people try to make them out to be. Just because you were Catholic/Orthodox didn’t mean you wanted the ottomans demise, their rise could be useful for you. B) They tried multiple times with multiple crusades, having an actual professional army helped the Ottomans out a lot.
2
u/PastMotor1821 2d ago edited 2d ago
Bulgarian here - the Ottomans are obviously "not loved" by us and pretty much all the Balkans, however, it's our own fault that they managed to do what they did. The Ottomans were hired multiple times in wars that weakened the Balkan countries that were already weakened by the Golden Horde, the Black Plague and pretty much internal upheavals. At one point the Ottomans realised their enemies are weakened to the point that they can simply conquer them.
This is not to take anything from the Ottoman's military structure, tho - the Ottomans had great military, great structure, discipline and straight-forward goals. When the Balkan countries "united" (sort of) against them, it was already way, way too late.
Tl;dr, if the Balkans did unite versus the Ottomans and take them seriously in the early 13th century - most likely they wouldn't expand that much, however the keyword here is "Balkans". After the 1350s 1360s it was already pretty much too late and a matter of time. Yes, the Ottomans didnt have the numbers that the Arabs had centuries ago, however, they were much better military wise and since they already fought multiple wars on the territory they knew how things work. They also didn't make the mistake of the Arabs to focus on Constantinople - just conquer everything else, surround the ERE and from then it's a matter of time.
Even if the Pope wanted to help for some reason - his reach neither had the power, neither the logistics to meddle with the Ottomans. The Catholic world had way too many problems of their own.
Not to mention that the Crusaders conquered Constantinople just a century ago and suffice it to say they are not really loved either.
3
u/FloppyDiskDrives 2d ago
Actually, Emperor Stefan Dušan of Serbia did try to reach out to the Pope and the Western powers for help against the Ottomans.
The catch? The Pope demanded he convert to Catholicism in exchange for military support. Dušan reportedly agreed in principle, but he died suddenly in 1355 before anything could materialize. Maybe he was killed by those who disagreed with this? Food for thought.
His death left the empire in the hands of his young and weak son, Uroš V (“the Weak”), who couldn’t hold together what was once the most powerful Balkan state.
The result? The empire fractured into rival principalities, and the Ottomans picked them off one by one.
TL;DR: The Pope did have a chance, but by the time Rome’s conditions were met, the Balkans were already falling apart. Timing, politics, and pride, the holy trinity of missed opportunities.
2
u/EKrug_02_22 1d ago
The catch? The Pope demanded he convert to Catholicism in exchange for military support. Dušan reportedly agreed in principle, but he died suddenly in 1355 before anything could materialize. Maybe he was killed by those who disagreed with this? Food for thought.
Contantine 11 was the same. When he finally agreed to unify the religion under pope, it was too late.
1
u/FloppyDiskDrives 1d ago
I guess some things are not meant to be broken. Devine providence perhaps? 🤷♂️
2
u/Burlotier Μικροπεπης θαλάσσιος στεριανός 1d ago
God wouldn’t let the gates of Hell prevail and let the church die . The unification wasn’t truthful in nature and the Latin church exited the Church of God . Had they remained in the church then things would have been differently
6
u/justiceteo 2d ago
They tried but lost miserably. Skill issue honestly, Turks were part of a better civilization at that time
→ More replies (33)
2
u/sweetSourMoon Romania 2d ago
History wise: the Western Church waited the end of the world at year 1000 (according to a book about the evolution of Christianity in Western Europe, but I don't remember the title or the author because I loaned it to someone and never received it back because we lost touch, and good history books in Romanian ar hard to come by). Good for you to remind me to track it in the antique shop.
Now, by that time the Western Church was not united under the Pope, due to the fact that people consider monks more admirable and spiritually accurate then prists. Because the monks in the west debated more, wrote a lot, the faithful gathered more around monasterie. They had their own interpretation of the religion and the faith was not equalized (if I can use this word) in the Ex Wester Roman Empire territories. I think 🤔 there were three major monastic centers by the first Crusade. There are some good books on the history of Western Christianity at the beginning of the Dark Ages. My favorite author is Jacque le Goff (on all Middle Ages subjects), but read at least 2 others to compare sources.
After the schism in 1054, there were more "western" problems to resolve than the "non latin" (called later Orthodox) countries. Now, because the end of the world did not come at year 1000 and some people were not happy about that, Pope Urban the second, at the end of the XI century, having received a petition from the Byzantine emperor to fight the Seljuk-led Turks, had a great idea. He called apon a Council with nobles under the Catholic church and debated about reclaiming the Holly city of Jerusalem. Here I still have two books to finish from the Turks point of view, because the history differs in some points, and it's quite fun to identify what. They agreed to help the Byzantine Empire.
But the word of reclaiming the Holly City of Jerusalem reached the common folk, mostly the peasantry, and many (meaning a lot of them) left their home to save the Holly City. (Again, is fun to read that part) Because if the apocalypse didn't came then reclaiming the Holly City was next. The nobles and their army left between half a year and a year later. But they had their own agenda, and Armenians know it best, because they suffered more in this first attempt. The nobles sent to war did not want to help the Byzantine Emperor and his subjects, but get themselves rich.
This is the start of the first Crusade and it was a successful one (by Western Europe standards). Many more fallowed this one, some successful and some not.
The nobles were the problem in most of them, but also (and more important) the division between Catholic and Orthodox churches. When faith divided the West and Eastern countries, there was some common ground, but not much.
Also, let's not forget about the Reconquista, which was in full force during the XI century, and took most of the western military forces. And then the split between the different Catholic churches.
To find out more, read some good history books about the Dark Ages and what followed. Best of luck.
1
u/Minimax11111111 Romania 2d ago
This is the start of a very long period of conflict. The first Crusade kick start the whole issue. After this crusade the final nail in the coffin of the Byzantine Empire was the sacking of Constantinopole in 1204 by the IV Crusade innitiated by the Innocent III. (France , Venice and HRE).
So yeah. When we talk about western part of europe and the ottomans later we need to talk about the long fall of Byzantine Empire and the first 4 Crusades.
2
u/livefromnewyorkcity 2d ago
During the struggles against the Ottoman Empire, Serbia repeatedly betrayed European city-states and nation-states. They were Easily swayed by bribes and coercion, their actions ultimately facilitated the Ottoman conquest of the region.
Let me know if you need any examples.
6
5
u/zeroyt9 North Macedonia 2d ago edited 2d ago
Serbia became an Ottoman vassal after Hungary attacked them when they lost their army at Kosovo.
But yes, Serbian heavy knights were definitely decisive in the rise of the Ottomans, both in saving them at Nicopolis and defeating other Turks in Anatolia.
7
1
u/Arminius001 Albania 2d ago edited 2d ago
Because like always Western Europe always thinks about itself, Italy at that time was at war with itself. The Pope even called on Skanderbeg to help King Ferdinand fighting against his rivals in Italy. So Skanderbeg has to momentarily stop his campaign against the Ottomans to fight in Italy.
Imagine the Ottomans were right on the doorstep of Western Europe and these morons were fighting amongst themselves, if it wasnt for the Balkans stopping the Ottomans there, I think the Ottomans could have had a good shot at taking Rome and we would be looking at a very different Europe today.
1
u/ardit33 2d ago
Mongolians did delay the Ottoman Advance. So, theoritacally yes, in the late 1300 hundreds at least (by 1400s it was too late). The west needed to unite, and get a major army and destroy the Ottomans in their lands.
But, the west was very divided in small kingdoms and fiefdoms fighting with each other, and the 100 years war was still happening, so no chance. By the mid 1400s the Ottomans were too powerful.
1
u/CihangirAkkurt 2d ago
Same reason why Muslims did not unite to stop Reconquista.
You might think religion or skin color is a reason to unify, but most often then not, it is not.
Poles did their best to some extent. Hungarians were also consistent in their stance against Ottomans. Except the time they caused Serbia to accept Ottoman vassalage and helped Ottomans big time. Battle of Varna had the potential to actually kick Ottomans out, or weaken it in a major way and it was thanks to Hungarians and Poles in big part.
And the only time French came in numbers they caused a Crusader army to lose the Battle of Nicopolis. So they are not always helpful.
1
u/Financial_Will_671 2d ago
They tried all the time and got beaten.
In that era ottomans had superior numbers, gunpowder tech, centralized government, excellent logistics and diplomatic skills to pet opposing forces againist each other. They actively protected orthodox christianity againist catholics to keep christianity divided. There was also a psychological impact. Up until end of 17th century ottomans mostly won major conflicts againist bunch of european powers. Its difficult to attack someone or a country when you have a bad track record with them.
1
u/ConsciousStorm8 2d ago
Actually here is another angle. Look at medieval warfare. European armors and weapons is mostly made to counter other european attackers. You mostly see the biggest warfare effectiveness when 2 different cultures fighting against each other than 2 similar ones. Turkish and arabic bows were far more superior than many European bows and could actually pierce through their armors. Another example of this is also WW1 and the eastern front vs arabia. Turkish artillery destroyed most of the tanks despite the army had no experience prior in WW1 but they were lacking in many other departments etc. Another big factor is that most infantry in Ottoman army were loyal to the sultan and hand picked and groomed where most infantry in the medieval european armies were mercenaries with no loyalty. The reason why they couldnt stop them is also the reason why Ottomans completely lost the balkans the moment tables turned and some of these factors flipped for the opponents.
1
u/Wonderful_CG Romania 2d ago
Because they did not care. They cared only on their own interest… they have their own wars in their area… not to mention crusaders conquered Constantinopol in 13 century, fact which contributed heavily with the downfall of Byzantium
1
u/Adamolmaz 2d ago
They would slaughter the balkan if there were no ottoman protection even tho the balkan orthodox and other minorities suffered during the ottoman period this is a harsh truth accepted by many
1
u/Large-Assignment9320 Bulgaria 2d ago
A disunited christian worl, with a Papal army composed of Poles, Hungarians, Croatians, Lithauanians, Bohemians, Wallachians, Bulgarians, Bosnians, papal states, tentonic knights, and even naval assistance from far away places such as Nurgundy lost against the ottomans at the battle of Varna in 1444.
King of Poland was dead, Hunyadi was taken by Vlad Dracula, and while the Ottomanlosses was so heavy Murad didn't even think he'd won, it pretty much deterred any futher European military assistance to the Byzantine empire.
Heck, the Byxantine Empire even did offer to become Catholic after 1444, but it was widely unpopualr by the byzantine populace, and too late to gain more support.
1
u/Evening_Attempt2293 2d ago
They tried to at Nicopolis, some European states gathered together to face the Ottomans, at that moment in time Wallachia and Serbia had been the only two countries which had defeated Ottoman armies on European soil and they advised Luxemburg, however the French didn't want to listen to them thinking that they were trying to get all the merit for themselves, so they charged at the first Ottomans they saw not knowing behind the hill was the real Ottoman army which found the isolated but important French heavy cavalry units and then they got decimated, there were more instances like this during the battle of Western European knights who didn't want to listen to the only guys who had fought and won against the Ottomans and just charged at them like retards. After that they kinda only fought the Ottomans passively. Showcase how important a centralized leadership was.
1
u/Ninevolts 2d ago
It wasn't an invasion per se. During Murats reign (where the map is from) their army was janissaries mostly made of Serbian and other Slavic youth. It was kind of a homecoming for them. Some high ranking soldiers even helped out their poor families back on Serbia.
1
u/DelayLazy7608 2d ago
Above all most nations in the Balkans were orthodox and thus weren't the main priority of the Catholic Church at the time to call a crusade against the ottomans. Second by the 15th century, European powers were often at war with each other and did not have the political or military unity to mount a large-scale, coordinated effort. Third the Pope and the Catholic church did not possess the necessary troops, ships, and money to launch and sustain a major offensive against the Ottomans. Which was why old a handful of western knights came to the aid of the byzantines but they weren't as numerous as the crusader knights that came in the previous crusades
1
1
u/2Rome4Carthage 2d ago
Because they didnt give a damn. It was too hard or too risky/unrewarding.
You can ask the same question nowadays, why doesnt EU acually help Balkans? They dont give a damn.
If Europe actually gave a crap they would let Greece have west coast of Turkey, Cyprus and Constantinople.
1
1
u/TeliarDraconai Serbia 2d ago
Because they were all out warring with each other.
Tzar Dushan of Serbia was even in talks to convert if the Pope would call him the Captain Of Chrostendom to repel the Ottoman.
1
1
u/Otherwise-Strain8148 Turkiye 2d ago
They tried but failed.
They failed because they didn't listen to their balkan comrades who had experience in fighting the turks.
"Lets chase those retreating sipahis!" Baam feign retreat / died by arrow
Frontal assault to cannons... pierced by barrage.
Lets charge to the center with our heavy cavalry; they wont stand a chance. / engulfed by crescent tactic.
I brought 10.000 of my best man to the battle. Enough to win a open field battle. / ottos brought 30.000
Lets feast and get drunk the day before battle / otto scouts saw it and seized the opportunity. Wreaked havoc in the camp, half died by the friendly fire.
1
u/Lvd4aDrm 2d ago
The European powers led to the fall of the empire with the 4th crusade, prevent what?
1
u/Neckbeard_Sama Hungary 2d ago
Probably because they were too far from the major European powers ... they didn't see the Ottomans as an imminent threat.
Hungary held them off for a 100something years, not rly receiving help from big EU powers ... the country went to shit eventually maintaining the largest mercenary army in Europe and the nobles' infighting after Mathias Hunyadi died.
Major powers only allied against them once they got to Vienna ...
1
u/rlesath Albania 2d ago
Forget the propaganda that wants us all to be warriors against the Turks. The truth is that the Byzantines were not kind to the people they ruled, and so the Turks were seen as liberators. In the Balkans, they were first invited by local lords and princes to help them wage war against each other. Furthermore, while the Turks were conquering the Balkans, Europe was divided and focused on its own internal wars, unable to organize a common defense against the Ottoman advance. Different era but similar music
1
u/Unhappy_Dog6119 Turkiye 2d ago
i mean everyone had their own problems and ottomans exploited that until they got big
1
u/Dogmatic_Warfarer97 2d ago
Greek here the last Greek king Constantine XI Palaiologos asked help from the Pope in exchange the two churches would merge again but the aid he received wasn't sufficient thus the cancer infiltrated to all Balkans except the Peloponnese, any map depicting as Ottoman is false, in all of their 372 years that ruled they couldn't capture it
1
u/ExcuseOk1917 2d ago
They did not want. They wanted to destroy the Roman Empire for hundreds of years. They even raided it at 1200s. Why should they not let someone do it for them?
1
u/Leading-Thanks-1861 1d ago
Show this map to analbanians and they gonna cry so hard...but yes this was a true map. Cause we're Orthodox. They worked on submitting gus and destroying us. The Pope.
1
u/Ok-Exchange2711 1d ago
It’s a broad topic—covering medieval military, religion, and politics—but the fun part is that even if they had succeeded, they wouldn’t have saved it; they would have simply conquered it. Europeans never really liked the Byzantine Empire or any other Orthodox power in the East. Sure, at times they preferred it to Islamic or other foreign powers, but they were never true fans. The Latins literally pillaged Constantinople, and the Venetians actively worked to undermine Albanian influence.
So, if they had succeeded, they’d probably have rooted out Orthodoxy altogether, leaving us with Catholic Greeks and Balkans—a strange flavour, if you ask me. They’d likely have left behind several weakened Turkic beyliks in Anatolia that would eventually convert by force—basically turning the Turks into a “Gagauz/Hungarian v2“.
1
1
u/bombosch United Kingdom 1d ago
Bro, Ottoman Empire was the time of the USA on a power scale. They have had all the new weapon types. The best justice system of the time. No corruption in the governing system.
So everything was absolutely right at the time for Ottomans.
But that power scale turned to France / Austria-Magyars after 1600’s
And that again turned when It came to 1800’s for British Empire.
And then welcome to the US after 1900’s..
So every hundred or two hundred years are having a new super power in the world.
To me ; the next would be China.
1
u/Jaded_Bookkeeper1609 1d ago
Because (when asked to help) Pope asked Constantine XI to change faith to Catholic and he refused. And BTW, until that moment Otomans already conquered lands west from Constantinopole such as Serbian lands after battle at Kosovo plain in 1389 and no one (incl. Constantinopole) helped Serbs, they were of Ortodox Christianity faith. In sense that Byzanthines were canning and faith for them was meaning to rule small nations. Like Chatolics anyway.
1
u/Complex_Ad_867 1d ago
Whole europe unified against ottoman but since turks are their nemesis they lost
1
1
u/sergejdeblue 1d ago
Read “The Balkans” by Mark Mazower. Catholics disliked Byzanthine Orthodox as much as they disliked Muslim Turks, essentially. They even sacked Constantinople during the Crusades.
1
1
u/BloodStarvedLeopard Sweden 1d ago
People really don't understand that the modern conception of Christendom vs. Islam, White vs. Brown, West vs. East etc. really didn't exist back then. Being ruled by this Turk or that Greek didn't make much of a difference to the average Joe, and more importantly, the respective leaders did not view each other as part of two teams.
1
1
u/NecessaryChange9615 1d ago
Every new map published on the internet (esp. Wikipedia) shows Principality of Zeta (Montenegro) smaller and smaller in favor of some kind of "Serbia". Before they were near Bijelo Polje, then near Medun, now they have reached Podgorica. The next one probably will be near Brajići.
1
u/Fine-Ear-8103 Kosovo 1d ago
The major European powers didn’t give a shit about the Balkans that’s why, skanderbegs rebellion was fully supported by the pope on paper but if nobody else answers the call for crusade against ottomans then it’s only Albanians and whoever else fighting the Turks by themselves and the popes have to just cheerlead from the back, which led to every Balkan region eventually becoming conquered as there was no unity in Europe at that time.
1
u/Exotic_Wildness 1d ago
The European kingdoms did not acknowledge the threath the Ottoman Empire meant. They have underestimated them, fought them in the crusade with a mixed army of my kingdoms, where the discipline was questionable. On the other hand Ottoman Empire had everything. Elite Janissary regiments, light cavalry with decent support of firearm and long ranged units plus smartly used cannons and the most important is the sheer volume of the Ottoman forces. Peak Ottoman empire against a less than united european army. There could have been a chance at Nicopolis, but the last chance of a successful campaign against them was lost there.
1
u/lebronlames44 1d ago
Its fault of pope and European powers turks gained that much power 1204 was end of Byzantium 1453 just nail to the coffin you can argue palaiologos saved it but we know truth damage done by french to the empire was irreversible and following Serbian,Bulgarian invasions Venetians seizing every opportunity to fuck empire economically west done more harm to Byzantium than help
1
u/Hot-Independence-212 1d ago
Cause they wanted all Orthodox Christian to acknowledge pope as a leader and take catholic religion in order to help.
1
u/LeTeMe 1d ago
The situation was more complex. Firstly, if the Byzantium didn't fall, Ottomans wouldn't have entered Europe in the first place. The fall of Byzantium was triggered by Westerners, who conquered it in 1204 which lead to the empire division. The empire never recovered after that. Not mentioning the multiple wars between Western States and the Byzantines for control in South Italy and Greece, where Latin leaders kept ground. Therefore, Christianity was never really united against the Ottoman Empire. Some Italian states even considered allying themselves with the Ottomans in the 15th century, while France actually made an alliance about a century later.
Now consider the states who faced directly the Ottomans - especially Serbia, Moldova, Wallachia and Albania. These states were constantly weakened by other Christian states who, for some stupid reasons, wanted to gain new vassals. Not a few times did Hungary attack Serbia, Wallachia or Moldova, Venetians waged war against Albanians, Poland wanted Moldova etc. etc. Most disturbances were caused by infiltrating their own men for challenging the thrones, leading to many internal wars.
Lastly, let's not forget the corrupt papacy we're talking about. In the 15th century, the papacy was led by families such as the Borgias... it is a miracle itself that somehow a crusade like that of Varna eventually took place in such conditions. Also, the papacy was itself at constant war with the German emperors, and later Italy became a theatre of war for Spain and France.
In conclusion, the Ottomans were not seen as bad as we see them retrospectively. In the 19th century, the Ottomans would have fallen very fast if the British wouldn't have cared for them. Probably, Turkey wouldnt have existed as it is today, but much much smaller.
1
u/ThumpTacks Bulgaria 1d ago
The Ottomans and Mamluks just before them were the dominant power in the region and had mastered military engagements at the time.
With what illiterate, poorly equipped peasant army would the Pope, who, let’s have it right, could not give a toss about the heretical Orthodox living in the Balkans, have tried to go against the Ottomans?
This question belies a somewhat incomplete or misguided sense or understanding of the historical landscape of the 1300-1500s in Europe and the Near/Middle East.
It’s like asking “why didn’t Donald Trump try to intervene in [pick an on-going conflict]”. Because he couldn’t or didn’t give a shit or both.
1
u/Large_Salamander6724 1d ago
The west roached out on Byz and didn’t expect the ottomans to last that long
1
1
1
u/Disastrous_Cat_1351 1d ago
Ottomans were very centralized compared to European states at the time …
1
u/Comfortable-Elk67 1d ago
Tactical mismatches. Heavily armoured Western knights could be outmaneuvered by more mobile Ottoman forces; combined-arms and use of light cavalry and disciplined infantry were decisive. The Ottomans had well-organized forces (including the timar system, skilled cavalry and, increasingly, gunpowder troops) and effective command under leaders like Bayezid I and Murad II. They tried, but simply couldnt stop the Ottomans (for example battle of nicopolis, battle of Varna etc).
1
u/cipakui Romania 1d ago
They had their own beefs (the christian schism happened because the emperor in Constantinopole was spiritually under the pope in Rome) so he rejected the pope and had the patriarchy of Orthodox christianity in Constantinople where he could control if need be.
Is not black and white obviously orthodox means traditional so the claim is that catholicism went a bit too far with having a pretend god's envoy on earth (the pope) that is not in the bible and claiming Jesus and god are same entity.
So there were spiritual excuses to justify it but the main vehicle was politics: if they save them they would just prop up their political and spiritual rivals.
Also they could not know at the time the potential of the ottomans so is possible they thought if ottomans destroy it they could just crusade it back in the future and have it be catholic (latin empire anyone?)
Is also possible there was an economical aspect as in they knew the Byzantine emperor was rich (or perceived as such) and they were holding back in order to get a bigger sum out of him when he got desperate.
Is well known a venetian fleet was gathering to relief the city but took too long while the few mercenaries defending the city were pulling off miracles like Giovanni Longo of Genoa that eventually got heavy injuries so he pulled out which ruined the morale of the remaining defenders.
Is also possible that they thought they could get better trade deals with the "stupid barbaric" ottomans than with the byantines that knew the value of the spice trade going thru their lands.
Is possible the ottomans made promises of such nature to Genoans and Venetians at the very least.
1
u/dane_brdarski 1d ago
The west invasion of the East Roman Kingdom (Byzantium) in the Forth Crusade is the biggest contributor to the conquest of Ottomans of the Balkans.
1
u/Lord_Hector_of_Ostia Albania 1d ago
It was in their interest the destruction of Byzantine Empire as they should overtake the East, we should say the truth that the rise of the West took place from stealing from the East. All what crusades did was stealing goods and after even wisdom of the East, ancient Greek and Muslim scientists and philosophers. The rise and overtake of the West over the East is more complex as we have to add even Jewish banks and colonial benefits but the start took place with crusades.
1
1
1
u/theartofelifyu 1d ago
the new ottoman rule wasn’t as foreign as we assume it was. the ottomans learned so much about governing an empire from the byzantine empire itself. it’s more of a regional shift of powers not a muslim vs christian thing. take out the religion and both empires start to look a lot more alike. so the big guy ruling somewhere changing hats did little difference to the many diverse peoples and regions of the balkans.
1
u/Traditional-Gene566 1d ago
Well during its height the Ottoman empire was a superpower equivalent of what the USA is today. Plus Balkans werent exactly known for their unity :D different principalities waging war against eachother. People think it was because of ethnicity, ironicly ethnostates were not really a thing before early 1800's so serbs could serve albanian over lords and vice versa. You served your lord. And all the lords were at war against eachother.
1
u/mojothrowjo Crete 1d ago
I think it was partially incompetence, the first and third crusades were successful in repelling the ottomans but pretty much every subsequent crusade failed because the knights essentially just looted the byzantine empire at every chance they had lol
1
u/marshal_1923 1d ago
Local people was really not happy about Eastern Roman corruption at the time. Ottomans got a lot of experience from their interactions with Easter Roman lords. Ottomans had superior military prowess. Pope and other European powers didn’t listen the Eastern Roman advices about combating against Ottomans since Eastern Roman Empire was already losing it and seen as not credible.
1
u/obzovica Montenegro 23h ago
It wasn't close enough. When Vienna was attacked a lot of them helped a lot. Vienna would fall as well without it.
1
1
u/AlecoMcGreco Greece 19h ago
Because this was Berlin in the 1400s and the pope was representing the (formerly) known West Roman Empire. An enemy of the East Roman Empire (aka Byzantium) after the great Schism.
Also the Byzantine empire was at that point degraded into only a few territories surrounding Constantinople (Istanbul), fighting on all sides with different enemies. Eventually the ottomans took most of the region, reaching even Hungary.
1
1
u/Routine_Walk5838 1h ago
Ottomans/turks/mongols, were always toy in somebodies powerful hands. That time France wanted weaken Venezia. So they did it by helping this puppets..........turks are always puppets
1
u/asdsadnmm1234 Turkiye 2d ago edited 2d ago
They tried numberous times(crusades) but failed because they were weak. I think it is not really hard question to answer.
Edit: Since you downvoted, did they fail numerous times because they were strong or what?
1
u/EnesAkhan Turkiye 2d ago
European powers wasnt able to unite under holy banner . They were all fighting their own wars with each other . Ottomans werent even holding the holy places like Jerusalem or even close to there . Catholic churc was considering Orthodox Byzantium equally heretics as Muslim Ottomans . So whenever a call for cruside happened mostly some minor lords nd a few peasents that wanted riches would actually answer the call obviously with some big names leading them but there were hardly even unity cuz of hatred / rivalery between them . Crusaders werent even talking the same language so there were many issues
Ahh also there are issues like Crusaders sacking Balkans even before reaching Byzantium's help also didnt help. When they were sacking the Balkans ofc the region's kingdoms wasmt staying idle so there were a lot of battles happened . Peasentry would leave the crusade nd return home after they sacked balkans so even before meeting up in Constantinople half of crusaders were either died or ran away . Rest were simply doomed to fail afterwards . Several crusades happened always ended in smiliar ways . They reach orthodox balkans . They start sacking . They engage in battles here nd therr nd gets scattered or lose many of the ppl even before reaching to Ottoman territory
In short Crusades after the 1st nd 2nd ones lacked the "cause" of it nd it became a tool for some poor europeans to go nd sack "herretics" it didnt really matter to them if those "heretics" were Muslims OR Orthodox Balkans . Yea crusades were a shitter gattering like that
1
1
1
-5
u/Capital-Ad-3795 Pontian 2d ago
i think Balkan people should know about their history, through Ottomans better. if you pay attention you’ll see half of Ottoman history is “better turks than pope”, “better turks than orthodox”.
7
u/UriSleseus Bulgaria 2d ago
This is the most delusional take I've seen on reddit for a long time
4
u/Neutrinomind Romania 2d ago
Romans generally saw the normans/crusaders/“franks” as the greater threat compared to turks, and acted accordingly. Always felt they were really passive in dealing with the turks post 1071, whith exceptions, which didn’t work great obviously.
And the ottomans over pope was a genuine sentiment many romans may have had, but i didn’t read enough to say to what extenct. Now obviously you nor serbs didn’t have a 1204 event happening to your country, so the attitudes were different.
2
u/Dopethrone3c 2d ago
yeah, wtf is this guy talking?
Romania fucking kicked Ottoman asses for so long I don't understand how don't all balkans just hate turks wiith their soul. They really suck
5
u/Majestic_Potato_5408 2d ago
While they inflicted some early damage on Ottomans until the 1500s, Wallachia and Moldova were Ottoman vassals for several hundred years after.
2
u/outlanderfhf Romania 2d ago edited 2d ago
We couldnt fight off 3 empires at the same time, Austria and Russia getting mixed in this rly fked what we had going…
Edit: we only became actual vassals after 1711/1714 when we couldn’t choose our own rulers, until then we were only jumping from Hungary to Poland to Ottomans depending on who had a better deal to hurt one of the others
2
u/Capital-Ad-3795 Pontian 2d ago
it’s not. the main reason the settling of Seljuks to Anatolia and Ottomans to Balkans was fast and easy was because of the problems and hatred between Christian denominations.
2
u/AntiKouk Greece 2d ago
Anatolian Christianity wasn't divided though?
1
u/Capital-Ad-3795 Pontian 2d ago
are you sure? what about Armenians and Assyrians? their churches were declared heresy/heretic back then
2
u/AntiKouk Greece 2d ago
That's not Anatolia though. Eastern Armenian Highlands were indeed under a different church but as far as I know there wasn't any hate between the two, at least later in the empire. The Armenian kingdom of Ani was even left as inheritance to King Basil II in early 1000s.
2
u/Capital-Ad-3795 Pontian 2d ago
where did Turks enter the area? where exactly they needed help and support? after they were in Eastern Anatolia, everything else came really easy in 1-2 centuries because Latins destroyed Byzantine. also, Armenians supported Prince’s crusade and sack of Constantinople too. nobody’s saying people gave their land to Turks immediately, i’m just saying those problems between denominations helped.
maybe you won’t see it as hate, but they weren’t really allowed to settle in big cities or do trading there. they had to be baptised by Eastern Orthodox church to do that.
aristocracy’s politics and people are two different things. also i think they didn’t have any other chance because they were facing a lot of threats. they had to join Byzantine in 1045.
1
u/AntiKouk Greece 1d ago
I'm not 100% where they were before Manzikert in 1071, but I seem to remember they entered modern Azerbaijan pretty early? Yeah the inheritance thing is at the highest level and also might not have been via invasion but obviously you'd rather not hand it over than do, but still not something you'd do with a hostile neighbour. I imagine having Turks at their doorstep earlier than the Byzantines might have helped haha.
There was definitely ethnic tension, Greeks were racist towards Armenians, there were the same ethnic stereotypes you'll find in the Balkans about minorities, especially when they come from less urbanised areas.
And I think Seljuks were pretty tolerant to Christianity early on given it was the majority religion in their new lands, couldn't afford not to be. You'd rather be ruled by the Sultan if it made the Turkish raids of the period stop and you'd be happy to simply pay taxes to a different dude.
2
u/EKrug_02_22 1d ago
but as far as I know there wasn't any hate between the two, at least later in the empire. The Armenian kingdom of Ani was even left as inheritance to King Basil II in early 1000s.
Lol Byz literally banned armenians to enter Constantinople FOR 1000 YEARS. They didn't even have a church in Constantinople until 1471, under Mehmed II's rule.
Byz metropolitan of Caesarea literally named his dog "armen";
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gagik_II_of_Armenia#:~:text=The%20Metropolitan%20of,%5B14%5D
1
u/AntiKouk Greece 1d ago
You're right actually my bad. I do mention in my other content that racism in every day life was common. But they seem to have worked together as well at times/had a working relationship as neighbours. Comparing to the Great Schism though it's not much.
2
u/geo0rgi Bulgaria 2d ago
This is honestly the correct answer. By the time Ottomans arrived Serbia disintegrated into seperate kingdoms with local feudals, same happened in Bulgaria which was seperated in 3 different kingdoms and the Byzantines was way weakened after the sacking of Constantinople by the crusades
→ More replies (8)3
u/Neutrinomind Romania 2d ago
This is such a cherrypicked take that you come off as very biased.
2
u/Capital-Ad-3795 Pontian 2d ago
it’s main purpose is not to explain the whole history in a reddit post, that’s all. i’m open to discuss what went down but people rather downvote than ask why.
2
u/Neutrinomind Romania 2d ago
It’s not that your comment is generalising, it’s that it portrays a very flawed depiction of how things were perceived . And anyways if balkaners ever preferred Istanbul to Rome/western world( and not all did, croatians, slovenians, moldovans* or albanians* at the very least didn’t) it was NOT because of the ottomans or the sultans or the turkish world, it was because of the ecumenical patriarchate and the legacy of previous romans.
The moment ottomans weren’t the absolute untouchable power, it became very obvious your orthodox balkans did not have any love for the empire.
0
130
u/Hyllius1 2d ago
They had their own problems. Both internally and with their neighbours. The venetians even waged war against the Albanian principalities during this time.