Can the Ottomans rule Persia

[mikegold]

Is there any way we can see a Constantinople-based Ottoman Empire, including Egypt and most of the Balkans, ruling Persia for a substantial period? Feel free to butterfly away the Safavids, etc.

It seems to me that "Western" Empires geographically contiguous with Iran never succeed in holding Persia long term. Is this a somewhat predestined accident of history, or is it really all-but impossible?


If it is feasible, how does this effect the equation regarding Turkey and its Western and Northern foes? Is Turkey wounded by overextension?

Are Uzbeks, Indian powers, etc any sort of check to the Turks (far less powerful than Persia, but much farther away and harder to deal with)?

 

[Dan1988]

I'll let the Pasha and Keenir deal with this one, but I think it would be stretching itself. Granted, I think the Ottoman Turkish language would becoming a little bit interesting with more Persian influence, but still.

Also, remember the geography of Persia and it's modern-day counterpart in Iran. It's very mountainous, more so than Anatolia. It will be very hard for Istanbul to control Persia.

 

[Keenir]

Is there any way we can see a Constantinople-based Ottoman Empire, including Egypt and most of the Balkans, ruling Persia for a substantial period? Feel free to butterfly away the Safavids, etc.

or just reduce them to loyal vassals. (Balkan royal families were kept around in the Ottoman realm...look at the Michaeloglus for example)

If it is feasible, how does this effect the equation regarding Turkey and its Western and Northern foes? Is Turkey wounded by overextension?

in OTL, the Ottomans were good at balancing influences -- they tried to have the same amount of Arab lands (north Africa, Mesopotamia) as Slavic lands (Balkans), etc.

now the question is this - if they're in Persia, where are the Ottomans not? is Persia counterbalancing Egypt or the Balkans?

all three...hm, not sure. maybe if we butterfly/eliminate the discovery of the Americas (all that gold ruined the European economy, which started the Ottomans on their downward spiral and loss of territory)....otherwise...*shrugs*

Are Uzbeks, Indian powers, etc any sort of check to the Turks (far less powerful than Persia, but much farther away and harder to deal with)?

I'm tempted to say the Timurids or someone in similar circumstances (holding Afghanistan/Pakistan/northern India/Central Asia) might be a good stopping force, but by that point, I suspect the Sublime Porte might take any excuse to stop the expansion.

I'll let the Pasha and Keenir deal with this one, but I think it would be stretching itself. Granted, I think the Ottoman Turkish language would becoming a little bit interesting with more Persian influence, but still.

in OTL, Persian script and poetry was very big in the Ottoman court, and (if I remember correctly) the language itself - Osmanlici ("Osmanliji") - was more Arabic and Persian than Turkish.

Also, remember the geography of Persia and it's modern-day counterpart in Iran. It's very mountainous, more so than Anatolia. It will be very hard for Istanbul to control Persia.

its hard to be more mountainous than Anatolia....as mountainous, sure; but more?
(just wondering)

 

[Choklit Reign]

Kill all of the sand niggers. Problem solved!

 

[Keenir]

Kill all of the sand niggers. Problem solved!

who said anything about Germany?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

If Selim I had lived longer, he most likely would have conquered Persia - that would have probably led to a Sunni Persia, and while I agree that long-term Ottoman rule over Persia is unlikely due to geography and distance, you could well see a longer-term Ottoman control over Azerbaijan, which would be both Turkish and Sunni. The presence of the Shiite Azeris has also been one of the strongest breaks on pan-Turkism, which could become a much bigger issue in the late 19th & 20th c.

Is there any way we can see a Constantinople-based Ottoman Empire, including Egypt and most of the Balkans, ruling Persia for a substantial period? Feel free to butterfly away the Safavids, etc.

It seems to me that "Western" Empires geographically contiguous with Iran never succeed in holding Persia long term. Is this a somewhat predestined accident of history, or is it really all-but impossible?


If it is feasible, how does this effect the equation regarding Turkey and its Western and Northern foes? Is Turkey wounded by overextension?

Are Uzbeks, Indian powers, etc any sort of check to the Turks (far less powerful than Persia, but much farther away and harder to deal with)?

 

[Max Sinister]

"in OTL, the Ottomans were good at balancing influences -- they tried to have the same amount of Arab lands (north Africa, Mesopotamia) as Slavic lands (Balkans), etc."

Sure there's a strategy behind it, and it's not just a coincidence?

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

I'll let the Pasha and Keenir deal with this one, but I think it would be stretching itself.

Trust me, Keenir doesn't know much about Persia.

 

[nyjoz]

I believe the Ottomans could have subdued Persia, it's all just a question of timing and focus. Attacks on Safavid Persia were highly succesful under Selim and Suleiman in OTL. The Persians were forced out of Iraq and the Caucasus and even lost their capital Tabriz to Ottoman occupation. However, the Ottomans soon focused elsewhere and some of the territory reverted back to Persian hands after Suleiman's death.

I believe the difficulty in holding onto Persia is a bit overstated. Remember that the rulers of Persia in OTL were recent Shia converts and the majority of Persians were still Sunni. Though Uzbek raiders and Indians could rightly pose a threat to border provinces, they were Sunni as well and the Ottomans showed that they could ally with Indians in OTL such as Sultanate of Gujarat.

Overextension is possible, but with the halt of Western expansion, it is feasible that Persian would become the Turk's #1 front. It is also interesting to consider the implications of an Ottoman Persia. For instance, would this eastern expansion vest greater interest in the Ottoman naval presence on the Indian Ocean? If so, could the Ottomans have defeated the Portuguese and other Europeans to maintain their former monopoly on the eastern trade?

In my opinion, the only thing that held the Ottomans back during their zenith was the incompetence of its Sultans, who prefered drugs and sex to leading the Empire into battle. If the line of succession produced more men like Selim I and Suleiman Kanuni, than I believe the Ottomans would have been much more formidable on all fronts.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I think the idea that all the Sultans after Suleyman were incompetent sex-addled drunkards is very much overplayed. The empire was essentially a huge, far-flung, and very thinly populated state that gained temporary ascendency due to an advanced military system and a genius for organization. Once Europe caught up, its much greater population and resources made it very difficult for the empire. There were many Sultans later on who were quite talented - but it's easier to be Suleyman than Abdul Hamid II.

Anyway, with regard to Persia, I agree that religion is not the problem, but I think distance and terrain are. The border had been (and still is) very stable for a long time. I think the Ottomans could have conquered Persia in the 16th c, but I think later on, as the empire was under terrible pressure, and decentralized, Persia would spin off into independence.

On the other hand, with no Persia to worry about, the empire would be in a much better position to deal with the Hapsburgs and Russia.

I believe the Ottomans could have subdued Persia, it's all just a question of timing and focus. Attacks on Safavid Persia were highly succesful under Selim and Suleiman in OTL. The Persians were forced out of Iraq and the Caucasus and even lost their capital Tabriz to Ottoman occupation. However, the Ottomans soon focused elsewhere and some of the territory reverted back to Persian hands after Suleiman's death.

I believe the difficulty in holding onto Persia is a bit overstated. Remember that the rulers of Persia in OTL were recent Shia converts and the majority of Persians were still Sunni. Though Uzbek raiders and Indians could rightly pose a threat to border provinces, they were Sunni as well and the Ottomans showed that they could ally with Indians in OTL such as Sultanate of Gujarat.

Overextension is possible, but with the halt of Western expansion, it is feasible that Persian would become the Turk's #1 front. It is also interesting to consider the implications of an Ottoman Persia. For instance, would this eastern expansion vest greater interest in the Ottoman naval presence on the Indian Ocean? If so, could the Ottomans have defeated the Portuguese and other Europeans to maintain their former monopoly on the eastern trade?

In my opinion, the only thing that held the Ottomans back during their zenith was the incompetence of its Sultans, who prefered drugs and sex to leading the Empire into battle. If the line of succession produced more men like Selim I and Suleiman Kanuni, than I believe the Ottomans would have been much more formidable on all fronts.

 

[nyjoz]

I think the idea that all the Sultans after Suleyman were incompetent sex-addled drunkards is very much overplayed. The empire was essentially a huge, far-flung, and very thinly populated state that gained temporary ascendency due to an advanced military system and a genius for organization. Once Europe caught up, its much greater population and resources made it very difficult for the empire. There were many Sultans later on who were quite talented - but it's easier to be Suleyman than Abdul Hamid II.

Anyway, with regard to Persia, I agree that religion is not the problem, but I think distance and terrain are. The border had been (and still is) very stable for a long time. I think the Ottomans could have conquered Persia in the 16th c, but I think later on, as the empire was under terrible pressure, and decentralized, Persia would spin off into independence.

On the other hand, with no Persia to worry about, the empire would be in a much better position to deal with the Hapsburgs and Russia.

Valid points, but I believe a Turkish Persia could have stimulated the Empire away from stagnation. An opening to India and other regions of Asia could solve the population problem that held the Empire back in later years. Also the probable naval expansion in the Indian Ocean could possibly allow Turkey to advance at pace with Europe, or even faster. Afterall, the European's mastery of the open ocean was a huge impetus to their eventual rise. Imagine the expansion of Ottoman influence in Aceh, Indonesia of OTL.

It is true that the incompetent Sultan card is overplayed, but you can not deny that theses Sultan's lacked the drive and ambition that characterized earlier Sultans. You can't compare taking Cyprus and Crete to tackling the Mamelukos, Hungary or the Med. The invasion of Persia, which would not be over very quickly, would provide training grounds for future Sultans, rather than having them sit as governors or in the harem. The true beauty of the earlier Sultans was that they had experience before they took power.

My main point is that the conquest of Persian could give the Ottomans the resources that helped Europe so much, possibly resulting in the formidable Sultanate being even more powerful.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

"in OTL, the Ottomans were good at balancing influences -- they tried to have the same amount of Arab lands (north Africa, Mesopotamia) as Slavic lands (Balkans), etc."

Sure there's a strategy behind it, and it's not just a coincidence?

It's a coincidence. When the Ottomans were expanding, they didn't need to worry about balancing. Their "thing" was spreading Islam - conquering the Arab world was opportunistic. The Mamelukes were so weak that Selim couldn't resist.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

i agree with this - particularly the access to economic opportunities. The elimination of the Persian rival would have made a large difference in itself.

Valid points, but I believe a Turkish Persia could have stimulated the Empire away from stagnation. An opening to India and other regions of Asia could solve the population problem that held the Empire back in later years. Also the probable naval expansion in the Indian Ocean could possibly allow Turkey to advance at pace with Europe, or even faster. Afterall, the European's mastery of the open ocean was a huge impetus to their eventual rise. Imagine the expansion of Ottoman influence in Aceh, Indonesia of OTL.

It is true that the incompetent Sultan card is overplayed, but you can not deny that theses Sultan's lacked the drive and ambition that characterized earlier Sultans. You can't compare taking Cyprus and Crete to tackling the Mamelukos, Hungary or the Med. The invasion of Persia, which would not be over very quickly, would provide training grounds for future Sultans, rather than having them sit as governors or in the harem. The true beauty of the earlier Sultans was that they had experience before they took power.

My main point is that the conquest of Persian could give the Ottomans the resources that helped Europe so much, possibly resulting in the formidable Sultanate being even more powerful.

 

[Keenir]

It is true that the incompetent Sultan card is overplayed, but you can not deny that theses Sultan's lacked the drive and ambition that characterized earlier Sultans. You can't compare taking Cyprus and Crete to tackling the Mamelukos, Hungary or the Med.

in that case, we need to keep the Janissaries from becoming hereditary and overly powerful - to the point that in OTL they would sometimes appoint Sultans.

The invasion of Persia, which would not be over very quickly, would provide training grounds for future Sultans, rather than having them sit as governors or in the harem. The true beauty of the earlier Sultans was that they had experience before they took power.

except that that was a risk...one that, when it didn't result in civil wars, resulted in foreign powers holding heirs to the throne (rivals to the throne, ala Jem/Cem) as hostages.

 

[Admiral Matt]

in that case, we need to keep the Janissaries from becoming hereditary and overly powerful - to the point that in OTL they would sometimes appoint Sultans.

Why? Conquering Egypt doesn't necessarily make conquering Persia less likely. Though obviously they won't happen at the same time.

 

[nyjoz]

in that case, we need to keep the Janissaries from becoming hereditary and overly powerful - to the point that in OTL they would sometimes appoint Sultans.

Yes the janissaries did become overpowerful in later centuries, but at the time we're discussing, the 16th century, they were still loyal, elite troops. Also, OTL shows us that the Janissaries were not all powerful. In 1826, Sultan Mahmud II disbanded the Janissaries and replaced them with the Sipahis.

 

[Keenir]

Yes the janissaries did become overpowerful in later centuries, but at the time we're discussing, the 16th century, they were still loyal, elite troops.

I know; just pointing out a trend that'll need to be de-railed.

Also, OTL shows us that the Janissaries were not all powerful. In 1826, Sultan Mahmud II disbanded the Janissaries

...after they killed every other canidate for the throne (and the rest of his immediate family); and 'disbanded' is an odd choice of words, given that Mahmud II had every Janissary killed (just like the Khedive of Egypt had done a few years earlier)

and replaced them with the Sipahis.

 

[DuQuense]

Rough TL [maybe some one who knows more can clean it up]

1439
Selim I defeats the king of Hungary/Poland. signs 10 year peace treaty

1444 OTL
King Hungary/Poland under proding from the Pope raises army and attacks Ottomans. in south Balkans
Hugarians Defeated in Battle of Vargas, Selim continues on into Hungary, starting 250 years of War between the two.

1444 POD
Poland attacks the Khanate of Crimia. Khanate requests Selim's help, by

1450
Ottoman's control Khanate lands as well as the Ulus of Giza lands on the East side of the Sea of Azoz.
Ottoman Merchants in the Black and Caspian Sea retunily travel up the Don and Volga rivers to portage thru Kazan territory between the rivers.

1459
Selim Busy with problems in the Caususes [White, Black sheep] Otto/Hungary renews peace for another ten years.

146?
Ivan the Terrible attacks Kazan, Alarmed Ottoman Merchants appeal to Selmin.
As Kazan Collaspes and surrenders to Russians-- Ottoman troops occupy land South/Between Don and Volga Rivers, including portage site.

1470's
Ottomans become involeved with Turkish tribes on East coast of Caspian
Ottoman moves onto south coast of Caspian leads to Otto/Persian War.

1480's
Ottomans complete control of Persia, continue expanding across Caspian,
With control of Persia and the Caspian/Black Seas Ottoman focus moves to the East, toward India, and not into Europe.

The Ottoman/Russia rivialry will take the place of all those OTL attemps to conquer Hungary.

 

[nyjoz]

Interesting TL, but I still don't think the Ottomans would abandon European conquest. Hungary doesn't seem a likely buffer state to hold back further advancement. If you remember how easily the Turks swept them aside at the Battle of Mohacs in OTL then I'm sure you'll agree. It required the large and powerful Habsburg Empire that could counter the Ottomans on several fronts to stop their expansion.

As I've stated in earlier posts, I agree with your idea of greater eastern focus. The population and resources of India and control of the maritime trade routes would be a major boost to keeping the Ottomans from falling behind Europe.

It is a well done timeline, I particularly like the Caspian expansion into Eastern Turkic lands, an old version of Turanism maybe.

 

[nyjoz]

I know; just pointing out a trend that'll need to be de-railed.

Its like dealing witht the Praetorian Guard in Rome. If they gain too much power, shake things up a bit, if you can.

...after they killed every other canidate for the throne (and the rest of his immediate family); and 'disbanded' is an odd choice of words, given that Mahmud II had every Janissary killed (just like the Khedive of Egypt had done a few years earlier)

Killing is often the only way to get someone to give up power. But the key point was that the Janissaries were replaced with loyal Sipahis. The idea would be to cycle the elite guard every once in a while to ensure loyalty. Once the bodyguard gets too used to power, take them out before they consolidate and replace them with new and grateful troops. Repeat as needed.