Possible Byzantine Reconquest

[Avicenna]

Dracula once had a mistress who lived in a house in the back streets of Târgovişte. This woman apparently loved the prince to distraction and was always anxious to please him. Dracula was often moody and depressed and the woman made every effort to lighten her lover's burdens. Once, when Dracula was particularly depressed, the woman dared tell him a lie in an effort to cheer him up; she told him that she was pregnant. Dracula warned the woman not to joke about such matters but she insisted on the truth of her claim despite her knowledge of the prince's feelings about dishonesty. Dracula had the woman examined by midwives, to determine the veracity of her claim. When informed that the woman was lying, Dracula drew his knife and cut her open from the groin to her breasts while proclaiming his desire for the world to see where he had been. Dracula then left the woman to die in agony.

If this guy isn't a monster, I don't know what is.

[Rosacrux redux]

Vlad adopted the impaling practice by the Turks - he lived a great deal of his early life at the Porte as a "royal hostage" of sorts. His disdain and deep hate for the Turks comes precisely from this period of his life. The steppe people were the first to practice impaling - it was a very practical way of killing someone with great pain and agony, without having to actually be around. Steppe people were always on the move and couldn't afford to stay a couple of days to torture someone. So, they invented impaling - nobody could save the victim of an impalement, and if the impaler was good, the victim could last up to three days in agony. And with no need of supervising.

Vlad wasn't original. He just made quite an impact by the extensive use of this measure in Christian lands, hence the fuss about him.

One has to bear in mind that 90% of the stories of horror surrounding Vlad are blatant lies, myths and fantasy. They originate from a series of pamphlets published by the German merchants Vlad expulsed from Vlachia - Vlad's "bad press" is literally Bad Press That doesn't mean he wasn't a monster by current standards, but by medieval standards he was just a very harsh despot, one of the many.

[Watchman]

Impaling is only a marginally more unpleasant way of dying than crucification - or at least I'd imagine the difference is rather moot for the subject. And that one was pretty popular back in the day too.

Hey fella, you're talking about my ancestor here.
We need another Dracula in our country again.

Do you know what order and discipline was when Vlad reigned? There's a legend about this:

A merchant left a town with the caravan for another town. At the middle of the road, he found out that he forgot his large bag of gold coins in the market. He rapidly came back, and he found it untouched and unharmed.

Order and discipline man.

...do I even need to point out this sort of thing is what tends to get said about Mussolini and similar fascists too...?

'Sides, obedience of laws merely out of fear is really just tyranny, and really only works as long as the subject thinks he may get caught. If authority is to be truly effective people have to want to uphold it - to such a degree that it is internalized and becomes a semi-instinctive response.

[L'Impresario]

Vlad's "bad press" is literally Bad Press

Some spilled coffee here

About the original topic, I'd hypothetically (and generally speaking) say that a partial reconquest during the byzantine last years might have been possible if there had been a somewhat more lasting Timurid empire and a great leader of sorts for Byzantium who would have been able to develop an understanding between the Balkan powers - more easily said than done,and I suspect that the surviving empire would acquire a more distinct slavic character, should the Ottomans be removed from the game or held in check by that hypothetical and unitedTimurid empire.

[Rosacrux redux]

L' Impressario, I think Byzantion's last chance was the time right after the battle of Ankara, when Timur captured Bayazid and destroyed his army. After that the Ottoman celebi (princes) got involved into a long, bloody civil war. If Byzantion could unite the Christians of the Balkans or could get support from Catholic powers (Hungary excluded, they were still liking their wounds after the harsh defeat of their "crusade" in the hands of "the Thunder") they had a very good chance of drawning the young Ottoman power in it's infancy. But they were unable to do that... the Byzantines got eventually the chance to support their favorite celebi for the Ottoman throne, but that didn't gave them more than just a few years of life - even Murad II renewed the ghazi spirit of the Ottomans and gained lots of land in the Balkans.

I would agree that had the Byzantines succeeded in uniting the Balkan christians, the empire would go mostly Slavic, but that wouldn't be the case if the "westeners" would come to aid the crumbling empire.

[Knight Templar]

L' Impressario, I think Byzantion's last chance was the time right after the battle of Ankara, when Timur captured Bayazid and destroyed his army. After that the Ottoman celebi (princes) got involved into a long, bloody civil war. If Byzantion could unite the Christians of the Balkans or could get support from Catholic powers (Hungary excluded, they were still liking their wounds after the harsh defeat of their "crusade" in the hands of "the Thunder") they had a very good chance of drawning the young Ottoman power in it's infancy. But they were unable to do that... the Byzantines got eventually the chance to support their favorite celebi for the Ottoman throne, but that didn't gave them more than just a few years of life - even Murad II renewed the ghazi spirit of the Ottomans and gained lots of land in the Balkans.

I would agree that had the Byzantines succeeded in uniting the Balkan christians, the empire would go mostly Slavic, but that wouldn't be the case if the "westeners" would come to aid the crumbling empire.

In 1402, when the battle of Ankara took place, Byzantine empire was so ruined that it was not able to take advantage of Turkish defeat in the battle of Ankara and Turkish civil war. In fact, I believe that Turkish were ready to conquer Constantinople at a time, but Ankara postponed this for half century.

And about uniting with the Slavic countries or Hungary:

Hungary:recovering from Nicopolis plus there was civil war.
Bosnia: the country was weaking, because of no strong kings in 15th century. Nobleman were too powerful.
Serbia: recovering from defeat at Kosovo field (1389), plus there were no strong rulers after death of emperor Dushan.
Bulgaia: IIRC, conquered by Ottomans in the last decade of 14th century.

My point is that no Slavic country in Balkan was strong enough to help the Byzantines.

The big Slavic coalition actually happened in 1444, when Vladislav, king of Hungary and also king of Poland united with Serbian despot. Coalition managed to re-gain some territories and win some battles. However, when king Vladislav alone (without the Srebs) went into antother campaign against the Turks, his army was crushed and he got killed (the battle of Varna 1444).

edit:grammar