So let's say the Serbian empire manages to survive collapse...

So let's say the Serbian empire manages to survive collapse. It repels the initial ottoman incursions into europe and Uros the weak dies earlier and the throne is inherited by his brother Vukashin. What happens next? I have slim hopes for it surviving long-term, but I would like to hear the opinion of Veeky Forums on what happens next. Would they try to subjugate the bulgars into the empire, or maybe take Constantinople itself? What would be the future of Byzantium here? Would the Serbian empire declare itself the successor state of Byzantium if given the chance to claim such a title?

Also, what role would the Ottomans play in the future?

selfbump

notice me sempai

If Vukasin doesn't get drunk and drown in this scenario, it might hold on for much longer then the renaming Serbian princedoms did. That could result in the halting of Ottomans but not defiantly not many gains for Serbia.
In retrospect he was basically ""in charge"" since the death of Dusan. If you could call controlling the Emperor with disobedient vassals ""in charge"".
Let's say he get's Simeon Uros assassinated, and bribes Lazar enough to be truly in control.
The proclamation of the Serbian king to emperor was basically a stab (not a mere poke) in the eye of Byzantium, it was in effect laying the claim to Byzantium.

>serbian empire
>its capital is in macedonia
>built by the bulgarians

It would've done something akin to that if Dusan's son and successor, Stefan Uroš V wasn't such an "anathema".In terms of proportion, he was as weak as his father was strong.

In popular culture, Uros V would've been Tytos Lannister.

>serbian """""""""""""""""""""""empire""""""""""""""""""""""""

Well, they were part of an empire once...

Short-lived, but it was still legitimate.

would hungary then be considered an empire?

No, because she didn't reach the required level of development.

and what is that requirment?
and despite hungary not reaching it even when talking about eras such as corvinus, serbia did?

Under Dusan, certainly.

1000 development
t.eu4

and in what espect was it more developed under him than hungary under say corvinus?

He reformed the country's administration, placed foundations for the construction of seminaries all across the realm, built an entire system of roads and a dozen of well-sized fortresses, introduced Dusan' code, vastly expanded already existing cities, reformed the army and introduced a more widespread version of literacy among nobles and commoners alike.

i didn't ask you what he did. i know about his rule. i asked you in what espect was it more developed than hungary during corvinus' reign that you'd consider one an empire and one not

>WE WUZ EMPIRE N SHIIIIEEEEEEET

>Dat Iceland
>Dat Norfolk

Because they could claim the title of an "Empire" without anyone else objecting or refuting it.

>serbian
>"empire"
Two words that should never be put together no matter the context unless you are putting together a comedy act.

...you realize that their claim for an empire was due to trying to claim the roman empire title from the byz right? that the title "empire" in the middle ages didn't refer to size or strength but to emperor status right?

now can you please then tell me why it's not refutable for serbia but defintly refutable for hungary? and who is "anyone" in this case?

I'm aware of it, but they've also had objective cause because at that time, they were the most powerful country in Southeastern Europe.

>now can you please then tell me why it's not refutable for Serbia but definitely refutable for Hungary

Because Hungary was never powerful enough to claim such a title, not even during the height of their civilization.

> and who is "anyone" in this case

Their neighbors, including the Byzantines.

>but they've also had objective cause because at that time, they were the most powerful country in Southeastern Europe.

empire. did. not. mean. strength. or. power. in. the. middle. ages.

Because Hungary was never powerful enough to claim such a title, not even during the height of their civilization.

their "empire" claim was their king declaring himself roman emperor the same way the serbians did if we now start bending the rules of the game. if we play by an actual logical game, then there are people who'd shout corvinus and louis de anjou had an empire. they were also defintly

>they were the most powerful country in Southeastern Europe.

throughout many periods in the middle ages or at least the second strongest at times

but lets get to the point, since you avoided the question, what espect of development made hungary less of an empire then serbia?

>Their neighbors, including the Byzantines.

the byz would consider them a threat, not an "empire"

Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of Veeky Forums are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

>itt: uneducated savages who doesnt know Sigismund of Luxembourg
King of Hungary and Emperor of the HRE

No way the Serbs could've taken Constantinople. It took a mammoth effort by the Ottomans (200.000 soldiers) and CANNONS to take it.

The only way the perfidious Latin took it back in 1204 is because they were already inside the Golden Horn.

>Constantinople in 15th century had the same defensive ability as the one during the greatest heights of the Serbian empire

Retard

Nobody could ever take Constantinople it in it's entire history.

The Latins took it with fraud.
The Ottomans took it with cannons.

Dusan couldn't take Thessaloniki, he had no navy to effectively blockade it. Doubt he'd be able to take Constantinople without Venetian help....
Then again, Serbs always profited when working with the sea Jews.

it was not an easy job to do even then, the same walls were still standing and a defensive siege takes far less men than a battle does

>empire. did. not. mean. strength. or. power. in. the. middle. ages.

As I've said before, I'm well aware of it, but you also need to take into consideration that they didn't claim the title of the Roman Empire, but the title of the successor empire of the Roman Empire, hence the difference between them and their Hungarians who've claimed the title of the Holy Roman Empire.

>throughout many periods in the middle ages or at least the second strongest at times

They were the most powerful under Dusan, but not later or before.

>but lets get to the point, since you avoided the question

Not at all, the discussion just changed course.

>what aspect of development made Hungary

The lack of an organized and independently-minded religious organization, frequent dynastic changes where the newcomers would try to balance out the interests of their homelands with those of Hungary, instead of strictly focusing on Hungary, neglect of education and a somewhat inferior presence in regional politics, at least in comparison to the Holy Roman Empire, Venice, Bohemia and Piast Poland.

>the byzantine would consider them a threat, not an "empire"

What they've considered matter little, the Serbs have achieved what they've wanted.

>tfw sirmium will never be made great again

Hey, Svetovid, can you tell me about Dusan's campaign in Bosnia? Also, could you recommend me any good books on medieval Bosnia? I know the basics, but i'm looking for a more in depth overview.

In short, he would've taken the country if it weren't for the rebellion in the south of his realm.

>good books on medieval Bosnia

There are : Bosnia: A Short History by Noel Malcolm and all books by Dubravko Lovrenovic.