About that empire of footrests...

How could any of the following happen, if at all?

-Ottomans remain strong and conquer Safavids by 1700
-Ottomans conquer Spain and/or Portugal by 1650
-Ottomans conquer Austria by 1700


I need to know because I might actually write a timeline about this.

Emphasis on might.
 
All of those are heavily, heavily ASB.

Expanding in any of those directions, especially Iberia, will completely overextend the Ottoman state and lead to massive Christian crusades (except Persia).
 
I don't think they can conquer the Safavids, but they can nip them early by capturing Tabriz under a longer lived Selim I. Otherwise it is difficult to take the rest of Persia due to Geographic issues.
 
The main thing that held back the Ottomans was the influence of the conservative faction and corruption in the government. You'll need an early POD.
 
All are pretty unlikely- by the time the Ottomans are rising to serious power, each of these is formidable enough to be a match for them. Of all the options, I'd say Austria is the most plausible, but even that's a stretch.
 
Ok, so another one:

How do we get Ottoman colonies in the New World?

Alternately...

Get it European allies before 1700?
 
Get it European allies before 1700?

Thing is, allies are well and good, but there will always be reasons for tension and going to war, not least of which is incessant slave-raiding by the Turkish empire and its vassals into all neighbouring territories, and conversely, Christian piracy in the mediterranean against all Muslim or associated shipping. Thus, as soon as the Ottoman allies' interests diverge even a little bit, creating a Holy Coalition of sorts agianst the Ottomans would not repesent a huge diplomatic challenge.
 
Thing is, allies are well and good, but there will always be reasons for tension and going to war, not least of which is incessant slave-raiding by the Turkish empire and its vassals into all neighbouring territories, and conversely, Christian piracy in the mediterranean against all Muslim or associated shipping. Thus, as soon as the Ottoman allies' interests diverge even a little bit, creating a Holy Coalition of sorts agianst the Ottomans would not repesent a huge diplomatic challenge.

On the other hand, it might not be impossible for the Ottomans to be regarded as a valuable counter to some Christian power one likes, so that that "Holy Coalition of sorts" never is all it could be.

But you'd need someone the Ottomans are worth allying against, which also has to be someone they can threaten.

Though doing more than was done OTL there would probably take work.
 
Ignore the Inevitable Unified European Alliance. We've gone over a dozen times why it's a farcical concept.

Vienna almost did fall in OTL, and a matter of a couple days difference in the marches of any of the major players would see the city fall. They would scarcely hold the place the way they did Bulgaria, sure. And yes, they couldn't hold Hungary indefinitely (though certainly longer with a Carpathian border and Vienna as a border fort). But it would have for all intents and purposes been a conquest of Austria.

Persia would have absolutely been possible. Not the most likely outcome, or something that almost happened (like the fall of Vienna), but possible. It is worth noting that geography would virtually require the loss of the place in the long run - there are reasons that the modern Iran-Iraq border show up recognizably on Roman-era maps. But still, it could be taken, and its eventual de jure autonomy and then probable independence would still have tremendous consequences.

Conquering Iberia.... Well, okay, that's not really going to happen. If the lifespan of Granada is extended, and if the Castile-Aragon marriage does not come off, and if the Ottomans get further into the Western Mediterranean (Italy or Malta or a more serious presence in Algeria) than OTL, and if they do so faster than OTL.... You still aren't there. At that point the most that can be done is defend Granada and hopefully play the Christian states off against each other. Given that you have to dominate the entire Mediterranean to secure even this.... it's a temporary situation at best.
 
I've a couple questions. If the armies did arrive a couple days later than OTL, what exactly happens then?

Vienna falling is not game over for the Hapsburgs (in the sense of,"no you cannot take further actions") and their allies.

As for Persia: How exactly are the Ottomans going to take all of Iran?
 
I've a couple questions. If the armies did arrive a couple days later than OTL, what exactly happens then?

Vienna falling is not game over for the Hapsburgs (in the sense of,"no you cannot take further actions") and their allies.

As for Persia: How exactly are the Ottomans going to take all of Iran?

Well I am not one of our experts to give you all the details, but Vienna is a natural point of control on the Danube, was the Hapsburg capital, and was the only significant fortification the Ottomans needed to reduce. The various powers could indeed continue fighting, but since they were committed to a defensive war that will mean they pull back to places the Ottomans don't care about. Badly outweighed, they weren't willing to take the field in a conventional action. The longer they remain nominally at war, the more their other enemies can take advantage of their distraction. Meanwhile, the Ottomans have combined the army that outmatched their opponents before with the best possible defensive positions. They can afford to just sit back and dig in, knowing that peace will follow.

As for Persia, you need to take Azerbaijan - the original one, not the Soviet construct. The useful transit between Anatolia and Persia all goes through it. That's not really a problem, and (IIRC) something that briefly occurred in OTL. That done, you need a window. If you can concentrate for a long war and the Persians are in one of their periods of weakness or internal disarray, you can take the heartland of the country. Hard as anything, but I don't buy impossibility.
 
Well I am not one of our experts to give you all the details, but Vienna is a natural point of control on the Danube, was the Hapsburg capital, and was the only significant fortification the Ottomans needed to reduce. The various powers could indeed continue fighting, but since they were committed to a defensive war that will mean they pull back to places the Ottomans don't care about. Badly outweighed, they weren't willing to take the field in a conventional action. The longer they remain nominally at war, the more their other enemies can take advantage of their distraction. Meanwhile, the Ottomans have combined the army that outmatched their opponents before with the best possible defensive positions. They can afford to just sit back and dig in, knowing that peace will follow.

And no one will attempt to retake Vienna? (I'm presuming by context that we're looking at the first siege) Instead of just pulling back to the next place, that is.

As for Persia, you need to take Azerbaijan - the original one, not the Soviet construct. The useful transit between Anatolia and Persia all goes through it. That's not really a problem, and (IIRC) something that briefly occurred in OTL. That done, you need a window. If you can concentrate for a long war and the Persians are in one of their periods of weakness or internal disarray, you can take the heartland of the country. Hard as anything, but I don't buy impossibility.

It does sound like a fairly demanding campaign, of the sort that might not be impossible in the sense of Sealion but certainly unlikely.

Something with Persian weakness and the Ottomans being able to focus here (sucks having many commitments and interests) both working out together might not be the easiest thing in the world, either. Not impossible, but...
 
And no one will attempt to retake Vienna? (I'm presuming by context that we're looking at the first siege) Instead of just pulling back to the next place, that is.

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

No, no one will attempt to retake Vienna. Not if you're speaking in terms of the next generation, anyway. Obviously in the long run it'd be ASB for it not to be retaken by a Christian state.

The problem is that the Ottoman's enemies were unable to take them in a conventional pitched battle. The Ottoman military system of the time was superior - they were simply out of their league. That's why, after all, despite Hungary already leaving the Ottomans over-stretched, all Austrian offensives were peripheral. They simply would not attack anywhere it would risk large-scale, open battle with the Porte.

That was true in OTL, and will be doubly so here. With Vienna taken, the edges of Hungary that historically were denied to the OE will be absorbed. Specifically, Slovakia is critical, because it puts the northern border in the middle of the Carpathians. Vienna itself is also a big deal in that it locks up the best approach to Hungary from the the west. This is an odd case where further expansion could (within strict limits) actually reduce imperial overstretch.

It does sound like a fairly demanding campaign, of the sort that might not be impossible in the sense of Sealion but certainly unlikely.

Something with Persian weakness and the Ottomans being able to focus here (sucks having many commitments and interests) both working out together might not be the easiest thing in the world, either. Not impossible, but...

Agreed.
 
Sorry, I wasn't clear.

No, no one will attempt to retake Vienna. Not if you're speaking in terms of the next generation, anyway. Obviously in the long run it'd be ASB for it not to be retaken by a Christian state.

The problem is that the Ottoman's enemies were unable to take them in a conventional pitched battle. The Ottoman military system of the time was superior - they were simply out of their league. That's why, after all, despite Hungary already leaving the Ottomans over-stretched, all Austrian offensives were peripheral. They simply would not attack anywhere it would risk large-scale, open battle with the Porte.

I was more thinking "Okay, so we arrived too late to reinforce it, but we can take it back." sort of thing. What stops besieging Vienna to get it back?

It seems kind of odd that if the city is taken that the Hapsburgs will give up and not even try given its importance. Even if they're not overly confident in their forces relative to the Porte, would they be willing to give up this much just to avoid a possible defeat?

That was true in OTL, and will be doubly so here. With Vienna taken, the edges of Hungary that historically were denied to the OE will be absorbed. Specifically, Slovakia is critical, because it puts the northern border in the middle of the Carpathians. Vienna itself is also a big deal in that it locks up the best approach to Hungary from the the west. This is an odd case where further expansion could (within strict limits) actually reduce imperial overstretch.
Not arguing on this part, but could you explain how this can't (or at least would be improbable to the point that sustaining an argument that it could be would be optimistic at best) be done without Vienna?
 
I was more thinking "Okay, so we arrived too late to reinforce it, but we can take it back." sort of thing. What stops besieging Vienna to get it back?

Well, they had troops to defend a siege and troops to relieve a besieged city. The requirements are much reduced from those necessary to take the city. The Ottomans brought the latter sort of army, and would not need to defend the city. They could simply take the field facing the approaching armies, at which point those armies would withdraw or be destroyed.

It seems kind of odd that if the city is taken that the Hapsburgs will give up and not even try given its importance. Even if they're not overly confident in their forces relative to the Porte, would they be willing to give up this much just to avoid a possible defeat?

It's not a matter of cowardice, just practicality. If the city goes that's the war. Why didn't the Nazis just retake Berlin?

Vienna's not an easy spot to take, and the Hapsburgs had to struggle just to defend it. Not only would retaking it require a great deal more effort and strength, but because it represented the greatest single Hapsburg asset they are less able to muster even their previous strength. The dynasty lived off the political capital of being defenders of Europe in OTL - without the benefit of this they would have less support and eventually less territory.

Not arguing on this part, but could you explain how this can't (or at least would be improbable to the point that sustaining an argument that it could be would be optimistic at best) be done without Vienna?

Without Vienna you can't control the immediate regions just south, southeast, and east of the city. Essentially, it let Austria control the modern southern and eastern borders it has in the modern day, and a little beyond. This in turn gave Austria the opportunity to get involved in Slovakia - without the city the region would cease to be in play. Not that some trouble couldn't be stirred from Bohemia (Poland, not so much), but without Vienna they have no foothold on the plains. Essentially, the city determines whether the Turks have freedom of action within the old Kingdom of Hungary.

They failed to conquer Hungary's periphery not because the areas were particularly hard to take, but because they couldn't put a big army anywhere except in front of Vienna. Commit your army to Slovakia or Slavonia, and the Austrians can strike at your rear. Turn the army around to fight them and they'll just run back to Vienna, so you might as well just take the city in the first place. Which, after all, is what they tried to do. The remaining bits of Christian-ruled Hungary were unable to return the favor for Vienna at the same scale (hence the ability of the Ottomans to attempt Vienna at all). If the Turks hold the city, they're essentially the only state with substantial power projection on the plains. They can then digest the rest of Hungary at their leisure.
 
Another thought: Vienna is a bit of a choke-point. Hold one it and you need to protect one point, while your opponent needs to defend several. It's easier to defend into mountainous Austria, granted, but without Vienna a variety of less-prepared areas are at risk.
 
Well, they had troops to defend a siege and troops to relieve a besieged city. The requirements are much reduced from those necessary to take the city. The Ottomans brought the latter sort of army, and would not need to defend the city. They could simply take the field facing the approaching armies, at which point those armies would withdraw or be destroyed.

Understood.

It's not a matter of cowardice, just practicality. If the city goes that's the war. Why didn't the Nazis just retake Berlin?

Vienna's not an easy spot to take, and the Hapsburgs had to struggle just to defend it. Not only would retaking it require a great deal more effort and strength, but because it represented the greatest single Hapsburg asset they are less able to muster even their previous strength. The dynasty lived off the political capital of being defenders of Europe in OTL - without the benefit of this they would have less support and eventually less territory.
The Nazis had already lost the war by that point? As in, they didn't have anything to retake it with? Not sure that's the same here, which is why I'm asking about the situation.

Without Vienna you can't control the immediate regions just south, southeast, and east of the city. Essentially, it let Austria control the modern southern and eastern borders it has in the modern day, and a little beyond. This in turn gave Austria the opportunity to get involved in Slovakia - without the city the region would cease to be in play. Not that some trouble couldn't be stirred from Bohemia (Poland, not so much), but without Vienna they have no foothold on the plains. Essentially, the city determines whether the Turks have freedom of action within the old Kingdom of Hungary.

They failed to conquer Hungary's periphery not because the areas were particularly hard to take, but because they couldn't put a big army anywhere except in front of Vienna. Commit your army to Slovakia or Slavonia, and the Austrians can strike at your rear. Turn the army around to fight them and they'll just run back to Vienna, so you might as well just take the city in the first place. Which, after all, is what they tried to do. The remaining bits of Christian-ruled Hungary were unable to return the favor for Vienna at the same scale (hence the ability of the Ottomans to attempt Vienna at all). If the Turks hold the city, they're essentially the only state with substantial power projection on the plains. They can then digest the rest of Hungary at their leisure.
Gotcha.
 
Top