PDA

View Full Version : Ottoman Victory in Vienna 1683


vtmarxist
November 17th, 2007, 01:22 AM
What do you think would have happened if the Ottoman Empire had succeeded in defeating the Austrians in Vienna, which was the farthest west the empire would expand. I think it would have had a large effect on Europe possibly putting most of it in Ottoman control, because until that point the Ottomans had been largely unstoppable.

Ridwan Asher
November 17th, 2007, 01:30 AM
Hmm, Abdul Hadi Pasha ever said that the expansion into Hungary by Ottoman Empire was a kind of waste. But the conquest of Vienna would may make that worth it....

Keenir
November 17th, 2007, 02:25 AM
What do you think would have happened if the Ottoman Empire had succeeded in defeating the Austrians in Vienna, which was the farthest west the empire would expand. I think it would have had a large effect on Europe possibly putting most of it in Ottoman control, because until that point the Ottomans had been largely unstoppable.

small question: why would any of the Ottoman Emperors want to conquer/administer/have most of/the rest of Europe under their rule/in a client state ?

seraphim74
November 17th, 2007, 07:17 AM
To be richer and more powerful, of course. Why do all the conquerors are...well, conquerors? Add also the religious factor, islam.

BrotherToAll
November 17th, 2007, 07:55 AM
But what of Sobieski and his forces? Do they not arrive in time? Does he never fullfill the obligations made in the treaty? That would be contrary to Sobeiski's personality to abandon allies in their time of need. Are the forces of the Commonwealth occupied elsewhere at the time? Because I know for a fact that Sobieski almost stripped his country bare of defenses to come to the Austrians aid against the Ottomans.

Roberto
November 17th, 2007, 01:26 PM
Vienna could be taken by bringing in extra cannons and cavalry, which the Ottomans could have done OTL but didn't. But what would the worth be of having a large portion of Christian Europe under Turkish control? They'd be constantly under attack by other countries. Eventually they'd be pushed out again.

Keenir
November 17th, 2007, 01:39 PM
To be richer and more powerful, of course.

look at all the rich lands the Ottomans already ruled -- they also had to administer that whole span of land.

Add also the religious factor, islam.

what about Islam?

But what would the worth be of having a large portion of Christian Europe under Turkish control?

:rolleyes:

they already did.

They'd be constantly under attack by other countries.

this was true in OTL with all their borders. its why treaties were formed.

Tyr
November 17th, 2007, 02:04 PM
To be richer and more powerful, of course. Why do all the conquerors are...well, conquerors? Add also the religious factor, islam.

More land != more power & wealth.

Rockingham
November 17th, 2007, 02:37 PM
More land != more power & wealth.
No, not necessarily. It depends on the land itself, and the strategic situation. Sparsely populated territories that have little economic value, strategic importance or needed resources, that only enlarge the frontier and push the said frontier away from the adminstrationa center are certainly not beneficial to a power. Austria-Bohemia would be at best a vassal, and a fractious one at that.

LordInsane
November 17th, 2007, 02:39 PM
Doesn't != mean not equal to?

Tyr
November 17th, 2007, 03:41 PM
Doesn't != mean not equal to?

Yep.

chhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

seraphim74
November 17th, 2007, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Keenir
look at all the rich lands the Ottomans already ruled -- they also had to administer that whole span of land.


So what? They wanted even more. That's human nature - very few people are happy with what they have. Also, Turkish army wanted spoils and victories - yanissars were upset after defeat in war against the Commonwealth (Khotyn 1673), so Turkish sultan had to give them an opportunity, before they would show him how unhappy they were by cutting his head off. Another thing, elimination of strong christian neighbour (Austria) could have help to keep christians in the Ottoman Empire properly subdued - especially Hungarians.


what abut islam?


Ottoman Empire truely believed that it was its duty to fight infidels. Remember, that according to the Quran a muslim fallen in battle against infidels goes straight to paradise.

Keenir
November 17th, 2007, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Keenir

So what? They wanted even more. That's human nature - very few people are happy with what they have. Also, Turkish army wanted spoils and victories - yanissars were upset after defeat in war against the Commonwealth

who and who?

(Khotyn 1673), so Turkish sultan had to give them an opportunity, before they would show him how unhappy they were by cutting his head off. Another thing, elimination of strong christian neighbour (Austria) could have help to keep christians in the Ottoman Empire properly subdued - especially Hungarians.

and why would all the Christians in the Ottoman Empire want to be under Austria's bootheel?

and why do the Ottomans in the 1500s want to subdue their Christians? (you know, the taxpaying people in the civil service) for the most part, the folk who needed subduing in the 1500s were all Muslim brigands.

Ottoman Empire truely believed that it was its duty to fight infidels.

they had infidels within their own borders -- groups who were seen as worse than any Jews or Christians.

Remember, that according to the Quran a muslim fallen in battle against infidels goes straight to paradise.

the Janissary system was illegal according to the Quran.

Ridwan Asher
November 17th, 2007, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by Keenir


1) Also, Turkish army wanted spoils and victories - yanissars were upset after defeat in war against the Commonwealth

2) Another thing, elimination of strong christian neighbour (Austria) could have help to keep christians in the Ottoman Empire properly subdued - especially Hungarians.



3) Ottoman Empire truely believed that it was its duty to fight infidels.

4)Remember, that according to the Quran a muslim fallen in battle against infidels goes straight to paradise.

1) If you didn't mean to joke impolitely, I recommend you to spell words correctly...

2) Um yeah, Hungarians just leuvvvv the Austrians because they were fellow Christians..... :rolleyes:

3) Um Sir, the Ottomans' thing back then were "Spreading Islam", not "Fighting and Killing Infidels". Those are two different thing. Muslims' methods at spreading their religion weren't quite the same as the methods that Christians using in those times....

4) Only if he was sincere, clean from any other intentions other than to fight for his beliefs. And, as Keenir has just said, Janissary system was illegal according to the Qur'an.

Thande
November 18th, 2007, 01:17 AM
You Ottomanophiles should pause for a moment and consider that the Turks winning at Vienna means the croissant and the bagel are never invented...

Roberto
November 18th, 2007, 01:24 AM
You Ottomanophiles should pause for a moment and consider that the Turks winning at Vienna means the croissant and the bagel are never invented...

Oh god! Are you implying we should start a No Bagels and No Croissants Thread? :eek:

Thande
November 18th, 2007, 01:29 AM
Oh god! Are you implying we should start a No Bagels and No Croissants Thread? :eek:
I'm not DMA... ;)

Rockingham
November 18th, 2007, 03:47 AM
the Ottomans' thing back then were "Spreading Islam", not "Fighting and Killing Infidels".


I've never quite understood this concept. The Ottoman's "thing" was making themselves stronger and more powerful, both inside and outside their borders (just like any state). If their "thing" was spreading Islam, why did they restablish the Patriarchate? They only cared about spreading Sunni Islam so far as it was neccesary-such as converting the Shite, thus weakening Persian influence in Ottoman lands.

Ridwan Asher
November 18th, 2007, 04:16 AM
I've never quite understood this concept. The Ottoman's "thing" was making themselves stronger and more powerful, both inside and outside their borders (just like any state). If their "thing" was spreading Islam, why did they restablish the Patriarchate? They only cared about spreading Sunni Islam so far as it was neccesary-such as converting the Shite, thus weakening Persian influence in Ottoman lands.

I hope you didn't miss the point that Islam was an integral part of the Ottoman Empire. Hence, basically you can say that for the sake to promote Islam (their brand of Islam, of course...) to places as far as they could reached, they built an empire. And you shouldn't compare their methods of spreading Islam with the methods that most of (if not all of...) the European Powers were using at that time to spread Christianity. Of course they should re-establish the Patriarchate, so that they could derive support form the Christians in their realm (Well, during the Ottoman reign Balkan was still largely Orthodox Christian, even until the end of it...). Process of Islamization doesn't need to be done to rush. In fact, such way was way better than the systematic persecution against the despised beliefs that were done by several European powers at those times...

Rockingham
November 18th, 2007, 04:23 AM
I hope you didn't miss the point that Islam was an integral part of the Ottoman Empire. Hence, basically you can say that for the sake to promote Islam (their brand of Islam, of course...) to places as far as they could reached, they built an empire. And you shouldn't compare their methods of spreading Islam with the methods that most of (if not all of...) the European Powers were using at that time to spread Christianity. Of course they should re-establish the Patriarchate, so that they could derive support form the Christians in their realm (Well, during the Ottoman reign Balkan was still largely Orthodox Christian, even until the end of it...). Process of Islamization doesn't need to be done to rush. In fact, such way was way better than the systematic persecution against the despised beliefs that were done by several European powers at those times...
You seem to have missed my point. Re-establishing the Patriarchite greatly slowed Islamification, and the result could be seen a few hundred years down the line. Not re-establishing it does not imply persecution.

Islam was an integral part of the Empire? To what extent? Certainly less then most Christian nations of that time. I would suggest the Ottomans attitude towards religion was for more realistic then much of Europe, as opposed to misguided idealistic.

Ridwan Asher
November 18th, 2007, 04:43 AM
1) You seem to have missed my point. Re-establishing the Patriarchite greatly slowed Islamification, and the result could be seen a few hundred years down the line. Not re-establishing it does not imply persecution.

2) Islam was an integral part of the Empire? To what extent? Certainly less then most Christian nations of that time. I would suggest the Ottomans attitude towards religion was for more realistic then much of Europe, as opposed to misguided idealistic.

1) I'm quite aware of that. Certainly Islamification was slowed, but it's better than halted at all by constantly raging anti-non-Christian turmoils, at least until the dawn of "Nationalism"....

2) Of course. Ottomans attitude towards religion was far more realistic then much of Europe. That, however, didn't turn the Ottomans away from their Islamic roots. Janissary system, although the primarily purpose of it was for military, Islamization was inevitably included in the agenda as well (despite that Janissary system was illegal according to the Qur'an...).

To what extent, you asked ? Certainly to the point where Islamic principles can't be removed from the Empire by any kinds of reforms....

Rockingham
November 18th, 2007, 04:58 AM
1) I'm quite aware of that. Certainly Islamification was slowed, but it's better than halted at all by constantly raging anti-non-Christian turmoils, at least until the dawn of "Nationalism"....

2) Of course. Ottomans attitude towards religion was far more realistic then much of Europe. That, however, didn't turn the Ottomans away from their Islamic roots. Janissary system, although the primarily purpose of it was for military, Islamization was inevitably included in the agenda as well (despite that Janissary system was illegal according to the Qur'an...).

To what extent, you asked ? Certainly to the point where Islamic principles can't be removed from the Empire by any kinds of reforms....


Yes, but then theirs the problem of defining "Islamic principles" is their not? Its very much a matter of perception, as is it is with all religion.
In any case, the Jannisaries prove that they can be removed to a minor extent....

Also, the late 19th century/early 20th century Ottoman empire undertook and considered undertaking reforms that could be considered contradictory to Islam, did it not?

This thread really needs Abdul back , as much to settle disputes such as this as anything else.

seraphim74
November 18th, 2007, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by Xenophobo-phobic guy
1) If you didn't mean to joke impolitely, I recommend you to spell words correctly...
2) Um yeah, Hungarians just leuvvvv the Austrians because they were fellow Christians.....
3) Um Sir, the Ottomans' thing back then were "Spreading Islam", not "Fighting and Killing Infidels". Those are two different thing. Muslims' methods at spreading their religion weren't quite the same as the methods that Christians using in those times....
4) Only if he was sincere, clean from any other intentions other than to fight for his beliefs. And, as Keenir has just said, Janissary system was illegal according to the Qur'an.

1. OK, so I made an error. Sorry, if anybody felt offended.
2. Hungarians didn't want to be under Turkish rule. They were Christians. Austria was a Christian country, pretty much hostile to Ottoman Empire (feelings mutual). Hungarians didn't have to love Austrians to accept help from therm. Besides, an example of strong Christian neighbour was enough to raise Hungarians' hopes for freedom.
3. Indeed, Muslims were more tolerant that Christians, but chances for spreading islam in a country ruled by Christians were practically nonexistent. The only way Muslims could convert anybody in Europe was to conquer a country and give its inhabitants a choice - become Muslims or live under Ottoman rule and pay special taxes.
4. Islam in Ottoman version wasn't the first case of forgetting about some religious laws that were politically inconvenient. And even if Janissary sytem was against the spirit of Qu'ran, it DID exist.

nyjoz
November 18th, 2007, 06:52 AM
I think that if the Ottomans played it smart, and played off alliances between France and other enemies of the Hapsburgs, they could establish a lasting hegemony over Europe. To say it wasn't worth the trouble to control Europe is foolish, expansionism was the norm of the era and new lands, especially ones as valuable as Europe's, were always considered worth taking. We're talking about a warrior's culture in a time that glorified conquest and military dominance.
Also, there is much evidence that the Ottomans would be able to control new territories. For hundreds of years the Ottomans effectively controlled Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Christians in its territories. The Ottomans were very effective at neutralizing the effect of these difference, for example, the Hungarians actually revolted against Austrian control in favor of Turkish rule. The religiously tolerant Ottomans took better care of Catholic peasants than did their fellow Catholics in Austria. The Ottomans also protected the Orthodox Church from Catholic influence. Even today, the head of the Orthodox Church is still in Istanbul, Turkey. The Balkans were highly unstable before and after the Ottoman conquest, yet experienced unprecedented stability during the "occupation".
Also on the religious note, the Ottomans were never known for following the Quran. They followed pragmatism over religion. They were religiously tolerant, made alliances with Christians and rarely made use of the Caliph title to which the Sultans were entitled.

In conclusion, the Ottomans were very willing, and very able to expand into Europe. The conquest of Vienna and Hapsburg Austria would be just one more step to overall dominance of Europe.

BrotherToAll
November 18th, 2007, 06:55 AM
What I wonder about is why no one has mentioned the Polish led relief forces, even if Vienna falls they will still try to drive off the Ottomans. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is a very real threat to the Ottoman forces in Europe, they will be beaten at some point by the Christians and driven back. Also another thing I was under the impression that the Ottoman forces were stretching their supply lines to the limit so even if they did take the city they could not hold it for long the Ottomans will be driven out by the Holy League eventually.

seraphim74
November 18th, 2007, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by BrotherToAll

What I wonder about is why no one has mentioned the Polish led relief forces, even if Vienna falls they will still try to drive off the Ottomans. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is a very real threat to the Ottoman forces in Europe, they will be beaten at some point by the Christians and driven back. Also another thing I was under the impression that the Ottoman forces were stretching their supply lines to the limit so even if they did take the city they could not hold it for long the Ottomans will be driven out by the Holy League eventually.


Actually, I assumed that relief forces came and were defeated by the Ottomans. In such case Polish-Lituanian Commonwealth army is destroyed or in best case dispersed, and since PLC permanent army was small, organizing a new force would have been rather hard and certainly it would have taken a lot of time. Even then, that army would have been definitely weaker, if not in numbers, then in terms of experience, organization and discipline. Central power in the Commonwealth was weak, and with king Sobieski defeated, perhaps even killed or captured, it would have become even weaker.
OTOH, PLC forces in allied army at Vienna were, AFAIK, only Polish forces - Lithuanian corps was late. So at least the Commonwealth had some reserve. However, I doubt if Polish and Lithuanian noblemen would have agree to send their last army against victorious Ottomans leaving their country defenseless.

zhqaat
November 18th, 2007, 06:16 PM
Woah stop let's just back onto the topic. All we need to know is what would have happened if the Ottaman Empire had managed to capture Vienna ?

Last question, what would they have done after securing the city ?

BrotherToAll
November 18th, 2007, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by BrotherToAll


Actually, I assumed that relief forces came and were defeated by the Ottomans. In such case Polish-Lituanian Commonwealth army is destroyed or in best case dispersed, and since PLC permanent army was small, organizing a new force would have been rather hard and certainly it would have taken a lot of time. Even then, that army would have been definitely weaker, if not in numbers, then in terms of experience, organization and discipline. Central power in the Commonwealth was weak, and with king Sobieski defeated, perhaps even killed or captured, it would have become even weaker.
OTOH, PLC forces in allied army at Vienna were, AFAIK, only Polish forces - Lithuanian corps was late. So at least the Commonwealth had some reserve. However, I doubt if Polish and Lithuanian noblemen would have agree to send their last army against victorious Ottomans leaving their country defenseless.

Assume nothing my friend to have the Ottoman forces ready for the relife forces you would need a POD that goes all they way back to the begining of Tatar-Ottoman relations. Part of the reason Sobeiski caught the Ottomans off guard was that the Tatar forces gaurding their flanks and rear of the forces laying seige to the city left the field becuase they had no great love for the Ottomans (the Ottomans had treated their leaders poorly in past dealings) and they were not being payed enough to stick around and get killled. Also Sobeiski stripped his country of defense to fullfill his obligations to the Austrians leaving a skeleton force to protect it in fact the King of Hungry would try to use the absence of the Polish to his advantage.

BrotherToAll
November 18th, 2007, 07:58 PM
Woah stop let's just back onto the topic. All we need to know is what would have happened if the Ottaman Empire had managed to capture Vienna ?

Last question, what would they have done after securing the city ?

The reactions of the Christian states of Europe is on topic you cant just say "Ottomans win!" and leave it at that. For every change you make to a TL there are an inumerable amount of changes that must be taken into account each POD must be taken with a grain of salt and looked at carefully to truly understand the repercussions of even the smallest of chagnes let alone a large one such as a Christian faliure at Vienna. And to answer your questions very little other than try to hold what they have taken as they have extend themsleves to the breaking point logistically and their postion is weak at best.

Superdude
November 18th, 2007, 08:51 PM
In previous threads like this, it has been suggested that Austria does not remain the seat of Habsburg power.

BrotherToAll
November 18th, 2007, 09:03 PM
In previous threads like this, it has been suggested that Austria does not remain the seat of Habsburg power.
But where do you think it would move? My knowledge of the Hapsburgs is not very good (my field expertise being the PLC), I think Bavaria maybe?

Superdude
November 18th, 2007, 09:21 PM
Perhaps the Austrian Netherlands.

BrotherToAll
November 18th, 2007, 10:42 PM
Perhaps the Austrian Netherlands.

Perhaps, would some city in Spain be in the cards?

Valdemar II
November 18th, 2007, 11:33 PM
Perhaps the Austrian Netherlands.

Spanish at the time, Prague is more likely, even if it is close to the Ottomans in TTL.

seraphim74
November 19th, 2007, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by BrotherToAll
Assume nothing my friend to have the Ottoman forces ready for the relife forces you would need a POD that goes all they way back to the begining of Tatar-Ottoman relations. Part of the reason Sobeiski caught the Ottomans off guard was that the Tatar forces gaurding their flanks and rear of the forces laying seige to the city left the field becuase they had no great love for the Ottomans (the Ottomans had treated their leaders poorly in past dealings) and they were not being payed enough to stick around and get killled. Also Sobeiski stripped his country of defense to fullfill his obligations to the Austrians leaving a skeleton force to protect it in fact the King of Hungry would try to use the absence of the Polish to his advantage.

AFAIK the Ottomans knew Sobieski was coming - the surprise for them was that Polish forces came through Vienna Forest, believed to be unpassable for cavalry and artillery. German-Austrian units pushed along the Danube.
Tatar forces indeed fleed, but WI Kara Mustafa treated their Khan with a little more respect, or paid him better?
And you admit, the PLC was left defenseless. Sobieski convinced the noblemen to let him lead the main army to Vienna, because it was better to fight together with allies in foreign country, than alone on your own land. However, with the main army eliminated together with German-Austrian allies, the noblemen wouldn't have let another one out of the country because of an emotional impact of Vienna defeat. Their attitude would have been: We tried to help them, it didn't work, now we have to protect our land, because Ottomans are coming to get us.

BrotherToAll
November 19th, 2007, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by BrotherToAll


AFAIK the Ottomans knew Sobieski was coming - the surprise for them was that Polish forces came through Vienna Forest, believed to be unpassable for cavalry and artillery. German-Austrian units pushed along the Danube.
Tatar forces indeed fleed, but WI Kara Mustafa treated their Khan with a little more respect, or paid him better?
And you admit, the PLC was left defenseless. Sobieski convinced the noblemen to let him lead the main army to Vienna, because it was better to fight together with allies in foreign country, than alone on your own land. However, with the main army eliminated together with German-Austrian allies, the noblemen wouldn't have let another one out of the country because of an emotional impact of Vienna defeat. Their attitude would have been: We tried to help them, it didn't work, now we have to protect our land, because Ottomans are coming to get us.

Very true, the death of Sobeiski would be a terrible blow on the PLC as well as the loss of many of their best troops, but I wonder what would happen if instead Sobeiski is forced to withdraw and is beaten but his forces are not destroyed? Would the Ottomans attempt to conquer the PLC or would they try to consolidate their resources and hold on to what they had just taken?

ranoncles
November 19th, 2007, 07:59 AM
I think the conquest of Vienna/defeat of Austria would have had major consequences for the OTL.

The other European powers greatly feared the mysterious Ottoman Empire but relied on Austria to act as a bulwark against Ottoman expansion. Should Austria and its allies fall, that would have scared the others into action. The question is how effective their response would have been. The German nations were fractured and probably too small and diverse to form a united front and in any case were still recovering from the 30 years war. France would have had a good chance militarily but would likely face action from other countries such as Holland and especially Britain who would see great opportunity to stick it to France while it was committed against the Ottomans.
Had the Ottomans advanced further, it is likely they could have conquered large parts of central Germany and/or Italy.

The question remains if the Ottomans would have moved on? Eliminating Austria made strategic sense as it was a major power that blocked possible further expansion. It was also the Sultan’s main rival in the Balkans. Further conquest after Austria was eliminated would have been difficult but not impossible. But it would have meant the Ottoman empire would have to make choices with its (limited) means. Empires may like to grow but at some point it does not add to their power but rather diminishes it as the cost of maintaining imperial dominance becomes too expensive (imperial overstretch).

The sultan would have to commit major resources to further conquest in Europe, thereby weakening his hold on the other (previously conquered) parts. In the east, Turkey’s traditional rival Persia is always ready to exploit Ottoman weakness and internal revolts were quite common even if the Turks were indeed one of the more accommodating imperial powers.

Brandonazz
November 19th, 2007, 12:53 PM
No more Vienna Sausages.

Ridwan Asher
November 19th, 2007, 01:00 PM
No more Vienna Sausages.

Why shouldn't ? ;) Is it pork ?

Rockingham
November 19th, 2007, 01:14 PM
It would make far more sense to weaken Austria and seize some minor Austrian territories....thereby they wold have no common border with the German states to attack from. Essentially Austria as a neutral buffer. From their they should have inavade Ventia, and froced them to relinquish Crete, Cyprus, and Dalamtia in return for Ottoman withdrawal from Venetia.

Persia is always waiting on their eastern flank to strike...

Rockingham
November 19th, 2007, 01:15 PM
No more Vienna Sausages.
Sure their would be. They just might be called something else. Why can't Austria as a buffer or Ottoman territory develop Vienna sausages?

Ridwan Asher
November 19th, 2007, 01:26 PM
Sure their would be. They just might be called something else. Why can't Austria as a buffer or Ottoman territory develop Vienna sausages?

Bečli Sausage ? Or Viyana Sausage ? Although I believe it would be the former...

Analytical Engine
November 19th, 2007, 01:39 PM
No more Vienna Sausages.
Nooooooooooooooooooooo!
:eek::eek::eek::eek:

Wait,... the Austrians would be Christian.

I don't think that the Muslim dietary laws applied to them in the Ottoman Empire, did they? :confused:

Ridwan Asher
November 19th, 2007, 01:49 PM
Nooooooooooooooooooooo!
:eek::eek::eek::eek:

1) Wait,... the Austrians would be Christian.

2) I don't think that the Muslim dietary laws applied to them in the Ottoman Empire, did they? :confused:

1) At the very least most of them would.

2) No, it wasn't. Were Vienna Sausages made of pork anyway ?

Analytical Engine
November 19th, 2007, 01:51 PM
2) No, it wasn't. Were Vienna Sausages made of pork anyway ?

According to wiki, there are several diferent types: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_sausage

That's why I was asking.

Keenir
November 19th, 2007, 03:14 PM
You Ottomanophiles should pause for a moment and consider that the Turks winning at Vienna means the croissant and the bagel are never invented...

what in Your Name do you think cimets are?

htgriffin
November 19th, 2007, 03:16 PM
What do you think would have happened if the Ottoman Empire had succeeded in defeating the Austrians in Vienna, which was the farthest west the empire would expand. I think it would have had a large effect on Europe possibly putting most of it in Ottoman control, because until that point the Ottomans had been largely unstoppable._Might_ save Ottoman Hungary for a minute more (although setting up the Transylvanian prince as Pasha over that whole marchland would be a better idea, esp. if a coronation at Wien is in the offering). The big question is how broken the Hapsburgs would be.

HTG

Keenir
November 19th, 2007, 03:19 PM
What I wonder about is why no one has mentioned the Polish led relief forces, even if Vienna falls they will still try to drive off the Ottomans.

on more than one occasion, the Ottomans were allies of the Poles. why would the Poles attack their allies?


2. Hungarians didn't want to be under Turkish rule. They were Christians. Austria was a Christian country, pretty much hostile to Ottoman Empire (feelings mutual). Hungarians didn't have to love Austrians to accept help from therm. Besides, an example of strong Christian neighbour was enough to raise Hungarians' hopes for freedom.


hm, I hope you're not suggesting the Bulgars and Greeks and Armenians were just plain laxy (for not taking up after the Hungarians, since they also had Christian neighbors)


4. Islam in Ottoman version wasn't the first case of forgetting about some religious laws that were politically inconvenient. And even if Janissary sytem was against the spirit of Qu'ran, it DID exist.

nobody's arguing that it didn't.
(at least, nobody I've noticed)

Keenir
November 19th, 2007, 03:22 PM
Why shouldn't ? ;) Is it pork ?

even then, its not neccessarily a problem.

(why do people always assume pork and liquer are deal-killers?)

Ridwan Asher
November 19th, 2007, 03:27 PM
(why do people always assume pork and liquer are deal-killers?)

Don't know.... though I was curious whether they thought that Wienners wouldn't exist because it was made of pork at that time....

seraphim74
November 19th, 2007, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by Keenir

on more than one occasion, the Ottomans were allies of the Poles. why would the Poles attack their allies? And IOTL Poles did lead the relief force that defeated Ottoman army.


When the Poles and the Ottomans were allies? There were times of peace, but usually relation between Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Ottoman Empire were relatively cold, at best. Besides PLC fought a war with Ottomans from 1673 till 1676, so memory was still fresh.


hm, I hope you're not suggesting the Bulgars and Greeks and Armenians were just plain laxy (for not taking up after the Hungarians, since they also had Christian neighbors

Greeks and Bulgarians had Christian neighbours not subdued by Ottomans? Whom?

Keenir
November 19th, 2007, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by Keenir
Greeks and Bulgarians had Christian neighbours not subdued by Ottomans? Whom?

The Italian states, Austria, etc....anybody on the Ottoman border, basically.

seraphim74
November 20th, 2007, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by Keenir

The Italian states, Austria, etc....anybody on the Ottoman border, basically.


Between Greece and Italian states there are lands later called Yugoslavia - under Ottoman rule (we're talking year 1683). Bulgaria is surrounded by future Yugoslavia and Vallachia and Moldova - Ottoman vassals.

Ridwan Asher
November 20th, 2007, 06:42 AM
The Italian states, Austria, etc....anybody on the Ottoman border, basically.

Yes, the ROMAN CATHOLICS !!!

Keenir
November 21st, 2007, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Keenir
between Greece and Italian states there are lands later called Yugoslavia - under Ottoman rule

actually, there's only water between them.
;)

seraphim74
November 21st, 2007, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Keenir

actually, there's only water between them.


Well, yes, between Greece and Italy, but I meant land neighbours.

Doug M.
November 21st, 2007, 06:15 PM
Not to dig up the whole Islam thing again, but we should keep in mind that by the 1600s the Ottoman Empire was at a state of relgious equilibrium. That is, the numbers of Christians, Jews and Muslims were pretty fixed, and nobody was trying too hard to convert anyone else.

Note that the Ottomans never pushed Islam into Hungary or their Romanian vassal states, and never converted more than a small minority in Serbia, Vojvodina, or Greece. Even in Bosnia, they only took about a third of the population as converts.

So I doubt they'd be converting too many Austrians. They were tolerably experienced at ruling Christian provinces.


Doug M.

seraphim74
November 21st, 2007, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by Doug M.
Not to dig up the whole Islam thing again, but we should keep in mind that by the 1600s the Ottoman Empire was at a state of relgious equilibrium. That is, the numbers of Christians, Jews and Muslims were pretty fixed, and nobody was trying too hard to convert anyone else.
Note that the Ottomans never pushed Islam into Hungary or their Romanian vassal states, and never converted more than a small minority in Serbia, Vojvodina, or Greece. Even in Bosnia, they only took about a third of the population as converts.
So I doubt they'd be converting too many Austrians. They were tolerably experienced at ruling Christian provinces.

Ottomans indeed weren't too eager to convert anyone by force (at least nor Christians and Jews - who had different status that pagans, from muslim point of view). However, there is a difference between converting relatively small group and converting nobody. It was impossible to convert a Christian to islam in Christian-ruled state, and a muslim in a Christan state was usually in much worse situation than a Chistian in Ottoman Empire (with exception of PLC). Besides, Ottomans invasion of Austria was not started only for religious reasons. It was a combination of politics, desire to conquer with healthy dose of religious zeal to show the infidels not to mess with true believers.