Ottoman Victory in Vienna 1683

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by vtmarxist, Nov 16, 2007.

  1. vtmarxist The Infamous

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007
    Location:
    Look to your left.
    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.
     
  2. Ridwan Asher Jungle Arab

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Location:
    In the middle of nowhere
    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....
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2007
  3. Keenir Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    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 ?
     
  4. seraphim74 Incurable Polonocentric

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    To be richer and more powerful, of course. Why do all the conquerors are...well, conquerors? Add also the religious factor, islam.
     
  5. BrotherToAll Student of G.K. Chesterton

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    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.
     
  6. Roberto FREE SUSAN O.

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Location:
    The Impenetrable Fortress of Kr'Rundor
    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.
     
  7. Keenir Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    look at all the rich lands the Ottomans already ruled -- they also had to administer that whole span of land.

    what about Islam?

    :rolleyes:

    they already did.

    this was true in OTL with all their borders. its why treaties were formed.
     
  8. Tyr air in space

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Location:
    欧州
    More land != more power & wealth.
     
  9. Rockingham Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Location:
    Rockingham, Australia
    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.
     
  10. LordInsane Supporter of the Alliance

    Doesn't != mean not equal to?
     
  11. Tyr air in space

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Location:
    欧州
    Yep.

    chhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
     
  12. seraphim74 Incurable Polonocentric

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    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 (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.

    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.
     
  13. Keenir Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    who and who?

    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.

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

    the Janissary system was illegal according to the Quran.
     
  14. Ridwan Asher Jungle Arab

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Location:
    In the middle of nowhere
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2007
  15. Thande Brexit Out Now, Funk Soul Brother

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Location:
    Doncaster/Sheffield
    You Ottomanophiles should pause for a moment and consider that the Turks winning at Vienna means the croissant and the bagel are never invented...
     
  16. Roberto FREE SUSAN O.

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Location:
    The Impenetrable Fortress of Kr'Rundor
    Oh god! Are you implying we should start a No Bagels and No Croissants Thread? :eek:
     
  17. Thande Brexit Out Now, Funk Soul Brother

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Location:
    Doncaster/Sheffield
    I'm not DMA... ;)
     
  18. Rockingham Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Location:
    Rockingham, Australia
    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.
     
  19. Ridwan Asher Jungle Arab

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Location:
    In the middle of nowhere
    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...
     
  20. Rockingham Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Location:
    Rockingham, Australia
    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.