1640: The Ottomans Go Extinct
- Thread starter Whiteshore
- Start date
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
The Janissaries being really corrupt by the 1640s. Militarily still capable but corrupt and used for intrigues against Sultans or government officials.
Offer the head of the Janissaries something valuable and have at least some legitimacy and see how they will support you.
What's to stop them declaring their own Sultanate? Abaza Siyavuş Pasha, Agha of the Jannissaries, was married to Murad's cousin Safiye.
Last edited:
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
No legitimacy. They opposed the Ottoman Sultans many times but did not support non dynastic succession as they aren't legitimate. The Giray are almost the same. They don't necesaarily have to be 100% against the Giray, just get deals done. Most other officials would support them as wel.
gurgu
Banned
i'm pretty sure that if the ottomans go extinct after a cold war style moment a civil war between 2 claimants( or even more) will spark, as soon as the main armies are near to fight all the balkans will rebel: Bulgaria, greece/Byzantium, Serbia, Montenegro. The strongest nations would be Bulgaria and Serbia both reclaiming the lost lands but maybe they could agree to form a commonwealth like the polish one( but orthodox) and elect a common king.( no rivalry in that moment, both are Slav brothers trying to break free)
IF this happens a Slav tsardom more stable( and very strong) will rise ruled by some surving bulgarian-serb noble( parcevic? shishman?)
about the eastern/southern part of the empire i think that except egypt and the curds the most would stay loyal in the first time to see if there will be a change in the new upcoming rulers than decide
IF this happens a Slav tsardom more stable( and very strong) will rise ruled by some surving bulgarian-serb noble( parcevic? shishman?)
about the eastern/southern part of the empire i think that except egypt and the curds the most would stay loyal in the first time to see if there will be a change in the new upcoming rulers than decide
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
Assuming the Girayid inheritance of the Ottoman Empire. If they hold the majority of the empire together, might they actually do best in holding the European territories, since that is their own base. Perhaps if the Girayids lose anything, it is the Maghrebi and Arabian extremities of the empire. Would Europe still call them "the Turks" or start calling them "the Tatars". I suspect the West and Central Europeans and Balkan peoples will still call them the Turks, but the Russians may call them the Tatars.
To successfully inherit the empire, the Girayids would have to move their capital to Constantinople. However, with their ancestral connection to Crimea, might their empire be more vigorous in the defense of Crimean and Caucasian territories in the 200 years after 1640, delaying Russian expansion a generation or more?
If on the other hands Girayids fail to take over and hold the realm intact and the Balkan Christians break away - do local nobles or west European royals get picked as their new kings? Is it a distrinctive orthodox sphere or are there vast increases in engagement with western Europe. What about increase in local/regional languages literary output and printed matter? What's the level of anti-Semitism in newly independent states? What amount of the local population already converted to Islam. How many would be massacred, versus flee, versus convert back to Christianity versus be ignored.
I don't think Balkans would be spontaneously rebelling for independence. Infact I think they would be much more stabile then the muslim territories. The age of Nationalism hadn't begun yet and during the Ottoman interregnum Ottoman Empire basically lost no land in Europe while Anatolia imploded with Beyliks reestablishing themselves. Now 1600s were much different to 1400s and I recognize this. But still I believe North Africa is likelier to secede than European territories.
Last edited: