Ottoman Africa

Alright, I'll be the first to admit I know jack-all about the Ottomans. From beginning to end, the extent of my knowledge is "Turkic invaders, Neo-Roman badasses, Sick Man of Europe" and end. Beyond their rivalries with the Austrians and the Russians, I know nothing of their endeavors. So I had an idea. What if they'd gone south? Say one Sultan or another had a dream that the sun set in the north or something and rose in the south. Some sort of personal impetus to redirect the nation away from Europe down the Red Sea and Nile, through "Zanj" and on all the way to the Cape (eventually). My question isn't so much 'why' or 'how,' but more a 'what comes next' sort of situation.

With the Turks turning south, there's no siege of Vienna and the Austrians are likely to recoup the Balkans. Where do the Russians stand? After all, this is between 1500-1600 where the biggest changes will occur. The Turks, going so southerly, might even be inclined to kiss and make-up with the Russians as a counterbalance to the Austrians. But what of the Pole-Liths? With an Austria on the march during this nadir of Europe, do they become the mega-rivals of France as OTL or are they too busy and eventually play nice with the French? Does Germany get carved up or left for someone like Saxony or Denmark to unify? How might Italy turn out without the Ottomans ranging across North Africa?

Not to mention Indian Politics or New World colonialism...

Thoughts?

Kelian said:

What if they'd gone south? Say one Sultan or another had a dream that the sun set in the north or something and rose in the south. Some sort of personal impetus to redirect the nation away from Europe down the Red Sea and Nile, through "Zanj" and on all the way to the Cape (eventually). My question isn't so much 'why' or 'how,' but more a 'what comes next' sort of situation.

Click to expand...

An obstacle to overcome:

For centuries, Muslim traders carried the religion inland over from Saudi Arabia through the deserts of northern Africa to the grassy savannah bush, till they couldn’t cross the swampy jungle that begins south of the tenth parallel. This is where, in the tsetse fly infested jungles, the spread of Islam halts

Click to expand...

http://www.strategicforesight.com/tenth_parallel.htm

What purpose would they have? I mean honestly, there's nothing worth anything south of Cairo. Perhaps they'd want to hold the territory along the red sea, maybe even Zanzibar and some coastal territory around Kenya and Tanzania. Other than that? No purpose in owning useless desert, which is most of the Africa that would be accessible to the Ottomans.

They could go for Zanzibar and the Omani trading Empire in the Indian Ocean, and attempt to be the masters of east and southeast Africa - but it requires a strong Ottoman naval presence in the Indian Ocean.

Eventually, I see some kind of conflict with the Mughals on who's going to throw their weight around with the muslims on the Eastern Hemisphere.

what about taking the Horn of Africa?

IOTL the Ottoman Empire did control a large chunk of Africa which, besides the more obvious portions (IE North Africa) included a large chunk of what's now Sudan and about half of what's now Eritrea.

von Adler said:

They could go for Zanzibar and the Omani trading Empire in the Indian Ocean, and attempt to be the masters of east and southeast Africa - but it requires a strong Ottoman naval presence in the Indian Ocean.

Eventually, I see some kind of conflict with the Mughals on who's going to throw their weight around with the muslims on the Eastern Hemisphere.

Click to expand...

This would be pretty cool, it would probably one of the earliest colonial empires, up there with the Spanish and Portuguese. Though it would most assuredly require resources to be diverted from the Balkans.

Iori said:

IOTL the Ottoman Empire did control a large chunk of Afric which, besides the more obvious portions (IE North Africa) included a large chunk of what's now Sudan and about half of what's now Eritrea.

Click to expand...

"control"........

Delvestius said:

"control"........

Click to expand...

Yes.

I tend to use the term control interchangably with 'was part of the state', though in the Ottomans case it was more complicated as the Ottomans seemed to like to mimic the British in the sheer amount of different levels of administrative division the integral empire had and then made even worse by the presence of multiple different polities tied to the Ottoman state to differing degrees, with many cases of legality and reality not always matching-up both ways.

Iori said:

Yes.

I tend to use the term control interchangably with 'was part of the state', though in the Ottomans case it was more complicated as the Ottomans seemed to like to mimic the British in the sheer amount of different levels of administrative division the integral empire had and then made even worse by the presence of multiple different poliies tied to the Ottoman state to differing degrees, with many cases of legality and reality not always matching-up both ways.

Click to expand...

Didn't the Barbary Coastal states have a relationship to the Ottomans like Korea and China; one technically subservient and a part of the empire, but in practice was largely a sovereign state?

othyrsyde said:

Didn't the Barbary Coastal states have a relationship to the Ottomans like Korea and China; one technically subservient and a part of the empire, but in practice was largely a sovereign state?

Click to expand...

It depended on the time period, in the 17th century all of the North African coast from the Sinai to roughly around the modern Algeria-Morocco border was part of the Empire proper, while after that they slowly lost control, first with Algeria slowly becoming less integrated then becoming more independent before they more or less cut ties when the Bey of Algiers decided hitting the French Ambassador with a Flyswatter for not giving him the answers he wanted was a good idea, whch was followed by Tunisia going a similar route, but more slowly, and in a less stupidly hilarious manner, then their was Egypt, always wanting to control itself was at times a suzerain state at other times a Dominion (equivalent) and fo several different periods was an integral Ottoman territory.

Libya was essentially the only part of North Africa the Ottomans controlled throughout.

Iori said:

It depended on the timer period, in the 17th century all of the North African coast from the Sinai to roughly around the modern Algeria-Morocco border was part of the Empire proper, while after that they slowly lost control, first with Algeria slowly becoming less integrated then becoming more independnet before they more or less cut ties when the Bey of Algiers decided hitting the French Ambassador with a Flyswatter for not giving him the answers he wanted was a good idea, then Tunisia wnet a similar route, albeit slower, and less hilarious, then Egypt, always wanting to control itself was at times a suzerain state at other times a Dominion and sometimes an integral Ottoman territory.

Libya was essentially the only part of North Africa the Ottomans controlled throughout.

Click to expand...

Didn't know that about Libya.

Iori said:

IOTL the Ottoman Empire did control a large chunk of Africa which, besides the more obvious portions (IE North Africa) included a large chunk of what's now Sudan and about half of what's now Eritrea.

Click to expand...

Yes, and technically the southern limit of the Ottoman Empire went into what is now northern Uganda. The Lado enclave was pulled from the Ottoman province of Equatoria, leased by the British to the Congo Free State and then Belgian Congo, before returning to the British. It was divided between Anglo-Egyptian Sudan and Uganda.

Very well then.

The Ottomans controlling all of North Africa, having the Tuaregs and Bedouins of the Sahara as client states/vassals, directly controlling Sudan and the Horn of Africa as well as the Kenyan coast and down to the Omani posessions of Zanzibar and Tanzania is quite possible if the Ottomans make a strong presence in the Indian Ocean.

If the Ottomans survive and prosper through the 19th century, I see no reason why they should not be able to expand their influence from these positions a lot when rapid-fire rifles and syntetich quinine becomes available (as well as suramin against sleeping sickness from 1916 or so). Taking the Oromo areas, the Ogaden and Harar from Ethiopia is probably safe. All of Kenya and Tanzania, expanding from the coast too. Bringing the Tuareg and Bedouin under central control too. Perhaps Morocco as a client state.

Then Ottoman Africa would consist of North Africa, with Morocco as a client state, all of Sahara, running a diagonal line from southwestern Algeria down to southeastern Tanzania, with Ethiopia as a jagged enclave in this sea of Ottoman territory.

I bet that England will work harder to keep most of North America with Africa and India evading it grasp.

Almost from the start, the growth of the Ottoman Empire started with its European possession. Much of their territory in Balkans was conquered before they gained control of Anadolu Peninsula. Most of the Janissaries were recruited in Rumeli (Turkish European provinces) as well as much of the Akincilar (light cavalry raiders of Turkish origin) were settled in Greece and Bulgaria. Europe was more the foundation of their empire than the Asian part of modern Turkey ever was.

The deep interior of Africa, on the other hand, has nothing of interest for the Ottomans, aside from slaves, which they gain easily enough through commercial links in Egypt and Arabia anyway, not to mention that Ottoman vassals in Tunisia and Algeria would receive the trafficking of slaves from Sahara routes. The Ottomans didn't need anymore of Africa than they already had.

Lysandros Aikiedes said:

The Ottomans didn't need anymore of Africa than they already had.

Click to expand...

Most of the European colonies in Africa were at best unprofitable, what's to stop the OTtomans from engaging in similar folly?

Not saying that they automatically would, but . . .

Could the Ottomans take Mali / Songhay?

Elfwine said:

Most of the European colonies in Africa were at best unprofitable, what's to stop the OTtomans from engaging in similar folly?

Not saying that they automatically would, but . . .

Click to expand...

What, for example, would the Ottomans want with personally ruling the Sahal? A vast, but, perceivably resource-poor, sparsely populated region of Africa where most of the merchants going north and south have no choice but to trade with Ottoman subjects anyway? Other than expanding the tax-base, which would hardly make a difference with the addition of a region that would be difficult to control, and with small scattered communities here and there with little to offer.

After hundreds of years of ruling an empire, The Ottomans would have had a better idea of what they needed than colonial late-comers like the Germans, Italians and Belgians who had to make do with what the British and French left them.

Lysandros Aikiedes said:

What, for example, would the Ottomans want with personally ruling the Sahal? A vast, but, perceivably resource-poor, sparsely populated region of Africa where most of the merchants going north and south have no choice but to trade with Ottoman subjects anyway? Other than expanding the tax-base, which would hardly make a difference with the addition of a region that would be difficult to control, and with small scattered communities here and there with little to offer.

After hundreds of years of ruling an empire, The Ottomans would have had a better idea of what they needed than colonial late-comers like the Germans, Italians and Belgians who had to make do with what the British and French left them.

Click to expand...

But the British and French also took colonies that weren't terribly valuable. And the idea that expanding the empire by some amount would be prestigious in the "eyes of the world" comes to mind.

I'm not trying to be contrary, but I think there are plausible reasons for dumb decisions here.