Ottoman Empire Conquers Persia -- How does it happen?
- Thread starter MNP
- Start date
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Selim I lives longer. He only reigned 12 years, but that guy was fierce. He would likely have gone after Persia had he lived. In the run-up to conquering the Mameluke Empire, he struck at Persia first, crushed the Safavids, and sacked their capital. I think he could have conquered Persia - it would have been more difficult than the Mamelukes, but it would have seriously changed history.
Okay, so I know some of his advisers told him to stop after taking Syria. So say they prevail upon him to stop after he enters Damascus because the heretical Safavids need whipping and the Mamluks are in total chaos--they're no threat anymore. An invasion of Persia will probably also trigger internal conflicts as these seemed to result from Chaldiran until the majority of Tamasp.
What kind of logistics would the Ottomans have to pull off to to conquer Persia? Chaldiran itself was fought because the Safavid army was nearby and Selim's troops were unhappy. That and later campaigns in the east over the centuries indicate that it was pretty much the back of beyond as far as development went for the Ottomans.
Keenir
Banned
Most of the Ottoman Emperors had a fondness for Persia - there was a reason that Persian was the language of the Ottoman court and poetry, after all.
I'd say that taking large chunks out of Persia is doable...but conquering the entire Persian realm? i wouldn't know how they'd even do that.
for one thing, the Ottomans liked balancing their territories - they added the Balkans (in part) to keep the Egyptians and Arabs from getting too influential.....so how are they going to balance out the addition of Persia?
Caucasia and Russia of course!
I'd say Caucasia and Ukraine myself.
Perhaps they could go South into Ethiopia, or take over more of Northern Africa as well.
Conquering is just a part of the job, the easy one. The difficult part would be keeping Persia. Could the ottomans keep a territory as large as Safavid Persia, without exerting too much?
Depends on what else they take. If they only keep Syria and Mesopotamia, end up in the Kaukasus and establish Serbia, Bosnia, Walachia and Moldavia as buffer states between them and Hungary/Hapsburg, and if they allow for more Venetian/Genuese trade within their realms, and if they stay out of India, which not many Persian Empires did, there's a chance they could conquer Persia and keep it.
On the other hand, just adding Persia to OTL Ottoman Empire would likely imply overstretching.
This means that the Caliphate remains in Egypt for some time longer, maybe indefinately if the Ottomans get distracted with Persia. The Ottomans would still be claiming the Caliphate, but if Egypt pulls itself together later it might be willing to fight for it.
If the Ottomans take Persia, they may very well be embroiled in never-ending hoo-hahs with the Uzbeks and such. They also get a border with the Moghuls. Would this have a retardant effect on Ottoman expansion into Europe?
More Ottoman ports on the Indian Ocean. What effect on the competition with the Portugeuse?
If the Ottomans take Persia, they may very well be embroiled in never-ending hoo-hahs with the Uzbeks and such. They also get a border with the Moghuls. Would this have a retardant effect on Ottoman expansion into Europe?
More Ottoman ports on the Indian Ocean. What effect on the competition with the Portugeuse?
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I'm not sure why there's an either/or here. Selim did conquer the Mamelukes, rather easily in one campaign. He had also rather easily defeated the Safavids, who were seriously inferior in military tactics and technology, and at that point it wasn't too late to reverse Shiism in Iran.
Holding onto Iran would have some geographic issues, but if local power is crushed and the Ottoman system put in place, it's doable.
Holding onto Iran would have some geographic issues, but if local power is crushed and the Ottoman system put in place, it's doable.
[/QUOTE]
So you say that the Ottomans could hold what they conquered IOTL and additionally hold onto Persia?
What about Afghanistan and Inner Asia?
And wouldn't it be tempting to go to rich India?
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
The Ottomans generally didn't operate that way - most of their conquests were either opportunist (and somewhat rarely even then), or responding to a specific strategic threat. India is definitely a bridge too far for the Ottomans.
But sure, why couldn't they have held Persia? It would take a whole lot less in resources than it did to have to fight Persia for 300 years. Once it's gone, you've removed a large manpower drain on the East, added the manpower of Persia, which frees you up to deal with the West. The population of Persia has a huge Turkic element, and the culture is compatible, and pre-Shiite religiously so, too, potentially.
Adding both Persia and the Mameluke domains all in a short period would radically transform the Ottoman polity, though - it's hard to say where that would go.
Faeelin
Banned
Even if he doesn't conquer the place permanently, Iran wasn't really united before the Safavids. Without that threat, it seems to me that the Ottomans will have more to deploy west no matter what, right?
Rebel
Banned
So what do the do with this manpower? Adding most of the population and recources of Persia, along with any resources originally used against Persia, would overall create quite the benefit. So do we end up with more succes in Hungary, Italy, North Africa, Ethiopia, all of the above?
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
The Ottoman Empire would be incredibly over-stretched at this point. I would expect them to lose some territories pretty quickly.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
The Ottoman Empire was overstretched largely because it had a powerful Iran on the Eastern border. Conquering Iran diminishes overstretch not increases it. Iranian territory is hard to hold so long as there is a strong Iranian state, but otherwise, not so much. The Caliphate was nowhere as near as powerful as the Ottoman Empire, but it had little trouble holding Persia.