Maximum possible Ottoman expansion in extremities .
- Thread starter mad orc
- Start date
I'm gonna say Lower Austria, South Italy, and Granada are the limits of a Constantinopolitan empire.
With nineteenth-century shenanigans? I mean, I don't think Ottoman control extending far south of Equatorial Africa is totally implausible given a lucky enough nineteenth century for the empire.
mad orc
Banned
I don't mean whole provinces ,but the Ottomans could easily annex the coast of Zanzibar if they annexed Oman .They could further colonize some more coastal provinces or establish protectorates and extort money from them .
I don't mean entire regions ,you people haven't understood the meaning of my words .
No ,i haven't walked straight out of the Berlin conference ,i just happened to not clarify my OP correctly resulting in people misunderstanding me .
I don't mean entire regions ,you people haven't understood the meaning of my words .
No ,i haven't walked straight out of the Berlin conference ,i just happened to not clarify my OP correctly resulting in people misunderstanding me .
Actually, the most probable POD for Ottoman control over Zanzibar (again, excluding nineteenth-century shenanigans) is in the sixteenth century, when the Ottomans actively tried to vassalize the area as to ward off the Portuguese.
Yep, if Ottomans can create a the Suez canal... Like proposed in https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/16th-century-suez-canal.3690/
Then Ottoman galleys can go from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea to Madagascar quite easily
Ottoman Zanzibar, then go crash the Portuguese supply line through Cape of the Good Hope. Would be an interesting TL.
Then Ottoman galleys can go from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea to Madagascar quite easily
Ottoman Zanzibar, then go crash the Portuguese supply line through Cape of the Good Hope. Would be an interesting TL.
Max Sinister
Banned
In my Chaos TL, the Seljuks (yes, no breakup ITTL) manage to conquer southern and central Italy and the flat part of Austria. Does that count?
holy digging up seriously old thread
I agree it should be feasible and quite doable, question is only one of need and resource to do this. The Ottomans where not really known as a strong maritime nation after the 1700's, however if it si the 1500's we are talking about then this is during a high point for the Osmani Navy.
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
Italy itself can actually be supplied by sea. It easier to rule Ravenna and Rome as the Ottomans than present day Hungary. With easier I mean to supply it, reach it in less time than to reach Buda or so. But for the rest I agree with you as well.
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
1. With Ottoman Hungary: Ukraine, Royal Hungary, Slovenia, Caucasus. No more than that.
Without Ottoman Hungary: Italy, Sardinia, Sicily, Emirate of Granada, Caucasus, Croatia and Slovenia.
Africa: Most of Swahili/East African Coast can be taken in the 16th century. Ideally if the Ottomans have access to the Indian Ocean before the Portuguese arive otherwise it will require more focus. With a bit of luck the Ottomans may rule as far as south near todays Mozambique-South Africa border. If too ambitious, they may as well try to settle on the cape.
Innerpart of Africa can be ruled even by 1877 if the Ottomans beat Russia in 1877-1878 war. Think of Sudan, Chad, eastern part of Niger, Somalia, Ethiopia. Maybe some northern tips of CAR as well.
I'm more curious how far they could expand in the grey continent of Europe or the light but curiously polka-dotted continent of Southwest Asia.
Building off of OP, is at all possible that the Ottomans triumph over Portugal in the sixteenth century? Or is that too low on the Ottoman list of priorities? That would certainly help with any future expansionist endevors in the Indian Ocean/East Africa.
Edit: I assume we're assigning colors to continents out a weird sense of synesthesia and not bizarre antiquated racism. Because the latter would just be icky and weird.
Building off of OP, is at all possible that the Ottomans triumph over Portugal in the sixteenth century? Or is that too low on the Ottoman list of priorities? That would certainly help with any future expansionist endevors in the Indian Ocean/East Africa.
Edit: I assume we're assigning colors to continents out a weird sense of synesthesia and not bizarre antiquated racism. Because the latter would just be icky and weird.
The Ottomans had effectively reached their zenith in Eastern and Central Europe. If you look at the letters collected in "Ottoman diplomacy in Hungary: Letters from the Pashas of Buda, 1590-1593" you see that the Ottomans were struggling to properly maintain control of the Hungarian countryside for almost the entirety of Ottoman rule. Capturing Vienna (and almost certainly losing it very quickly afterwards) might help a little as the Habsburg raids played a large role in Hungarian peasants not paying taxes as they were more afraid of the Habsburgs than the Ottomans, but it doesn't change the logistical nightmare the Ottomans had administering the region.
If the Ottomans don't invade Hungary and concentrate on Italy and naval dominance, I could see them taking Sicily.
If the Ottomans don't invade Hungary and concentrate on Italy and naval dominance, I could see them taking Sicily.
IIRC, the Ottoman plan for the 2nd Vienna expedition was (after getting ransom) to make the region into a vassal "kingdom of Vienna" ruled by Imre Tekeli.
As for the possible scope of their operations, it had been said that the main Ottoman problem in Europe had been logistic: for the big campaign they had to assembly the troops from various parts of the empire, then prepare an enormous baggage train because they had been paying much more attention to the regular supply of their troops than their opponents, then to march that monstrosity along the bad roads (which means that 1st they's have to wait until the roads dried after the spring). By the time they arrived somewhere, it is already a summer, which leaves only few moths for a campaigning season: then it would come fall with the rains and nobody was fighting at winter (and, anyway, sipahi had to oversee the harvest on their lands and Janissary preferred to spend winter in their barracks in Istanbul). So, in the Western direction, Vienna was pretty much on the longer end of their logistics. To the North they went as far as Podolia and on the North-East they managed to get to Don - Volga area.
In Italy they managed to capture Otranto (which, in theory could provide them with control over both sides of Adriatic) but then lost it.
dcharles
Banned
I think the comment was directed at the usage of an antiquated and racially tinged term--"the dark continent"--to describe Africa.
I could be wrong, but that's how I interpreted it.
Regardless, I think that the Ottomans could have expanded farther into Europe or farther into Africa or farther into Asia, but not all at once. The Ottoman expansion was obviously incredible in historical terms, but I think the stronger geopolitical move for them, after the fall of Constantinople, would have been to concentrate on conquering the lands around the Black Sea. This puts them in control of the trade routes that link Ukraine, Crimea, Moldovia, Walachia, Georgia, and Kurdistan to the outside world. It keeps the Ottomans strong and their competitors (particularly Poland-Lithuania) weak. Serbia, Albania, Morea are all nice additions to the Empire, but they aren't worth nearly as much in the long run as Crimea, Georgia, and the Ukrainian coast.
For what its worth, I'm aware the Ottomans had nominal control over much of the lands surrounding the Black Sea in the decades after the fall of Constantinople. But while the Crimean Tatars, for instance, pledged fealty to the Sultan, they were otherwise independent, minting their own coins, conducting a semi-independent foreign policy, etc. The Sultan was their suzerain, but not their sovereign. What I'm talking about is establishing Ottoman sovereignty over the Black Sea coast and surrounding areas. With that accomplished, Mesopotamia is vulnerable and Europe, which can now be attacked from both the south and the east, is more vulnerable.
Turning the main focus of their from the Mediterranean to the red Sea/ Indian ocean would have some undesirable effects back at home. Particularly by the hands of a certain merchant republic and a very inquisitive kingdom somewhere in the western Mediterranean. Dethroning Portugal is certainly possible, and probably easier in the second half of the 16th century. Again, that was around the apex of tensions in the Mediterranean, so I'm not sure whether a Sultan would be wiilling to meddle outside the Mediterranean or not, considering there would be a possible Lepanto lurking in the distance.
Which it most probably did not. Strictly speaking, it did not even demonstrate advantage of the ships with the greater numbers of artillery pieces (galeases?) over the galleys.
I meant to say that it was a crucial period of dispute in the mediterranean between the powers of that time, and that while it is the earliest window of time for the ottomans to contest Portugal easily, it is also a time where their attention was turned elsewhere. Referring to Lepanto was simply a manner of saying that there would, likely, be a large scale conflict in the Mediterranean that would become the main concern of the Ottoman Empire.
I did not say in any manner that I consider Lepanto as a permanent failure for the ottoman navy. Honestly I don't even know why you chose to reply in such a condescending manner.