From my understanding of the Ottoman Empire's history, they suffered severely from an imperial overstretch - that is, the territory they claimed was greater than what they could effectively control without resorting to decentralization of the Empire, and without having too many flanks where they could be attacked by their many enemies. So, what kind of a POD (or set of PODs) would it take to create an Ottoman Empire that is STILL a Great Power, but that does not have such a large territorial extent, that is more centralized outside of their core territories (Anatolia and some of the Balkans), and that manages to last longer, possibly into the present day, as a singular, centralized nation?
AH Challenge - Smaller, but more stable and longer lasting Ottomans
- Thread starter Midgard
- Start date
NapoleonXIV
Banned
How much more stable would you have it be? It lasted 624 years.
Also, it sort of did become smaller as time went on. The North African parts and Egypt broke away by the 19thc as did much of Balkania, recognizing only nominal suzerainity.
(Besides, if you don't have the Barbary Coast you don't have Christian girls pirated for the hareem and what fun is being Sultan?
)
I have to disagree that they'd be better off without Egypt, which is an awfully rich province. I think the Barbaries were generally just a problem, however, as was Balkania, but then again Balkania's pretty rich too. If I had to let anywhere go it would be Mess'o'potamia, which the Mongols had left pretty much worthless, and Arabia, (Hejaz and the E Coast) which was never anything but battlling bedouins
Also, it sort of did become smaller as time went on. The North African parts and Egypt broke away by the 19thc as did much of Balkania, recognizing only nominal suzerainity.
(Besides, if you don't have the Barbary Coast you don't have Christian girls pirated for the hareem and what fun is being Sultan?
)I have to disagree that they'd be better off without Egypt, which is an awfully rich province. I think the Barbaries were generally just a problem, however, as was Balkania, but then again Balkania's pretty rich too. If I had to let anywhere go it would be Mess'o'potamia, which the Mongols had left pretty much worthless, and Arabia, (Hejaz and the E Coast) which was never anything but battlling bedouins
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
How much more stable would you have it be? It lasted 624 years.
Also, it sort of did become smaller as time went on. The North African parts and Egypt broke away by the 19thc as did much of Balkania, recognizing only nominal suzerainity.
(Besides, if you don't have the Barbary Coast you don't have Christian girls pirated for the hareem and what fun is being Sultan?
I have to disagree that they'd be better off without Egypt, which is an awfully rich province. I think the Barbaries were generally just a problem, however, as was Balkania, but then again Balkania's pretty rich too. If I had to let anywhere go it would be Mess'o'potamia, which the Mongols had left pretty much worthless, and Arabia, (Hejaz and the E Coast) which was never anything but battlling bedouins
What's up with this "Balkania"?
I think it's Hungary. Suleiman the Magnificent never wanted to conquer Hungary. He se the Danube as frontier of his euopean empire & wanted to make it a stable buffer state. Wedged between the Ottomans and the Habsburgs. But Louis II decided to be buddy-buddy with Ferdinand of Austria (how could he not? His wife is Ferdinand's sister) so Suleiman wanted to teach him a lesson.
It went too far....at Mohacs Louis died along with the cream of Hungarian nobility. Under some kind of prenup agreement, Hungary was to be joined with Austria if Louis died without a child. So Ferdinand laid claim. Suleiman decided that rather than allow the Habsburgs to gobble up Hungary, thus making them able to meet the Ottomans somewhere on lower Danube, it would be to his best interest if the two empires met somewhere up the Danube. So he took Hungary.
Even then the Ottomans were operating at the very end of their supply lines. Troops had to be disbanded every winter only to be assembled at either Adrianople or Sofia. Then marchs up the Balkans, which, BTW took months. By the time the reached their destination, it was usually late in season.
So, my POD I is that Louis II didn't die at Mohacs. Suleiman got Hungary's neutrality in exchange for a stop on border raids. Hungary never divided. It served as the Shield of Christianity in the East. The Ottomans can now concentrate their power on Persia, Russia and Malta. Ottoman and Austria never met one another.
ALso, I disagree with the thought of fialure to conquer Egypt. It's very rich. It's the granary of the empire, like it had been under the Romans. The arabian provinces, Hejaz, etc was important because it contained Mecca & Medina. The Ottomans want them for prestige of Caliph.
As for Persia, the Treaty of Kasr-i-Sirin in 1747(please correct me if I'm wrong) established between the empires borders that changed very little until this day. Following the treaty, hostilities decreased considerable for a number of years. Therefore, I think the Ottomans can make lasting peace with the Persians.
POD II is that instead of Selim the Sot who inherited the throne, it was another son, Mustafa. In our TL he was murdered at the instigation of Roxelana, favourite concubine of Suleiman & mother of Selim. I read that Mustafa was Suleiman's best choice since he was capable. he apparently everything his father was and his brother not.
Okay, that's my opinion, thanks!
Cheers,
Rad
It went too far....at Mohacs Louis died along with the cream of Hungarian nobility. Under some kind of prenup agreement, Hungary was to be joined with Austria if Louis died without a child. So Ferdinand laid claim. Suleiman decided that rather than allow the Habsburgs to gobble up Hungary, thus making them able to meet the Ottomans somewhere on lower Danube, it would be to his best interest if the two empires met somewhere up the Danube. So he took Hungary.
Even then the Ottomans were operating at the very end of their supply lines. Troops had to be disbanded every winter only to be assembled at either Adrianople or Sofia. Then marchs up the Balkans, which, BTW took months. By the time the reached their destination, it was usually late in season.
So, my POD I is that Louis II didn't die at Mohacs. Suleiman got Hungary's neutrality in exchange for a stop on border raids. Hungary never divided. It served as the Shield of Christianity in the East. The Ottomans can now concentrate their power on Persia, Russia and Malta. Ottoman and Austria never met one another.
ALso, I disagree with the thought of fialure to conquer Egypt. It's very rich. It's the granary of the empire, like it had been under the Romans. The arabian provinces, Hejaz, etc was important because it contained Mecca & Medina. The Ottomans want them for prestige of Caliph.
As for Persia, the Treaty of Kasr-i-Sirin in 1747(please correct me if I'm wrong) established between the empires borders that changed very little until this day. Following the treaty, hostilities decreased considerable for a number of years. Therefore, I think the Ottomans can make lasting peace with the Persians.
POD II is that instead of Selim the Sot who inherited the throne, it was another son, Mustafa. In our TL he was murdered at the instigation of Roxelana, favourite concubine of Suleiman & mother of Selim. I read that Mustafa was Suleiman's best choice since he was capable. he apparently everything his father was and his brother not.
Okay, that's my opinion, thanks!
Cheers,
Rad
Hmm....
I would say that having Malemuk Egypt break up around 1500 into an assortment of petty states in the Levant and Nile would be the best bet.
With this, the Ottomans to not find the field open with the defeat of a single outdated army but finds itself drawn into a poltical 'great game' with Persia over what petty emirs rule where. Some piecemeal annexxations are probable, but more attention would be paid to keeping cousins or in-laws in place than moving garrissons there.
Meanwhile the Ottoman state remains rather more Rhomaioi in character and less bound up in the need to be the sole defender of Sunni Islam (that is up to thier good friends the Hashemites). The closer political/cultural links to Europe cannot hurt in the least, and more of their sultans are Rennicance(sp?) princes in the mold of Mehmet II.
HTG
I would say that having Malemuk Egypt break up around 1500 into an assortment of petty states in the Levant and Nile would be the best bet.
With this, the Ottomans to not find the field open with the defeat of a single outdated army but finds itself drawn into a poltical 'great game' with Persia over what petty emirs rule where. Some piecemeal annexxations are probable, but more attention would be paid to keeping cousins or in-laws in place than moving garrissons there.
Meanwhile the Ottoman state remains rather more Rhomaioi in character and less bound up in the need to be the sole defender of Sunni Islam (that is up to thier good friends the Hashemites). The closer political/cultural links to Europe cannot hurt in the least, and more of their sultans are Rennicance(sp?) princes in the mold of Mehmet II.
HTG
Thande
Donor
Just out of interest, Oth, where do you get all those 1920s-school-atlas-type maps like that one?
Then, being a map Freak (the "a map thread" is my favourite) I reveal the secret:
I guess it's from
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/
there, under 'historical maps' the above shown map can also be found.
I guess it's from
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/
there, under 'historical maps' the above shown map can also be found.
Thande
Donor
Thank you, I knew of that website, but not the Historical Maps section.Then, being a map Freak (the "a map thread" is my favourite) I reveal the secret:
I guess it's from
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/
there, under 'historical maps' the above shown map can also be found.