Can the Ottomans rule Persia

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I think it was a mistake to directly annex Hungary. It would have been better to set up a durable vassal state along the lines of Transylvania or Wallachia - Hungary was just too far from Istanbul and was a strategic liability. If I were Süleyman I would have taken steps to secure Hungary under John Zapolya and his dynasty, and done whatever I could to promate Unitarianism or Calvinism to sever Hungary from the rest of Europe.

Eastern expansion could have had the justification of helping the Umma against Portugal in the Indian Ocean and Against Muscovy in the Caspian region.

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.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

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.

This might be the most poorly researched TL I've seen on this site.

 

[nyjoz]

I think it was a mistake to directly annex Hungary. It would have been better to set up a durable vassal state along the lines of Transylvania or Wallachia - Hungary was just too far from Istanbul and was a strategic liability. If I were Süleyman I would have taken steps to secure Hungary under John Zapolya and his dynasty, and done whatever I could to promate Unitarianism or Calvinism to sever Hungary from the rest of Europe.

Eastern expansion could have had the justification of helping the Umma against Portugal in the Indian Ocean and Against Muscovy in the Caspian region.

Vassal states are almost never preferable to direct conquest. Direct conquest gives what is described, direct control to taxation, lands and men of military age. Also, direct control will ensure greater loyalty. The vassal ruler would be likely to swith aliegances according to his own interest. The mistake in Hungary was not conquering it, but not conquering all of it. The Battle of Mohacs was not as successful as is commonly supposed, allowing the Hapsburgs to grab the northern strip of Hungary. This allowed the Hapsburgs to extend their influence into Ottoman Hungary and other vassals.

Suprising to most, religion was one of the few worries about controlling Hungary. In fact all Hungarians, from noble to peasant, faired better under Muslim Turkish rule than under the rule of their fellow Catholic Hapsburgs. This can be shown in OTL as the many attempts of Hungarian revolt against Hapsburgs in favor of the Ottomans. I find no other example in history of a christian state rebeling to rejoin Muslims.

Any way, direct control of Hungary provides a better base for expansion, even if that didn't work out in OTL.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I have to disagree with you. A region conquered and made into a province is weaker than it was as an independent state. Hungary was too deeply Christian, and too far away to have any chance of becoming an integral part of the empire - as evidence, look how easily it was lost - in a single campaign, when the empire was still very powerful. Later, despite how weak it became, it's "core" in the Balkans was far more resiliant than anyone thought.

If Hungary had been allied, under its own leadership, the resources that the Ottomans would have needed to expend to maintain it would have been minimal. Defending Hungary would have been nearly impossible - it is too close to the center of Hapsburg power, and too far from Istanbul. As it took most of the campaign season to reach it from the capital, there was no way to maintain an adequate defense. However, if the Hungarians had been left to maintain their own defense, the Ottomans would have had an important buffer between them and the Hapsburgs, allowing concentration of effort in other theaters.

The Principalities served Ottoman interests longer as autonomous states than they could have as annexed provinces, which could have been directly annexed by other powers in victorious wars. As another example, the Crimean Khanate was a critical element of Ottoman power against Russia and Poland - it's forces magnified by Ottoman technology and specialists accomplished a lot more than they would have as a province.

Another important consideration is that vassals have to maintain internal order themselves. In a province, a rebellion has to be quelled by the Imperial government, which can at times be impossible due to other distractions, or extremely difficult due to distance.

Vassal states are almost never preferable to direct conquest. Direct conquest gives what is described, direct control to taxation, lands and men of military age. Also, direct control will ensure greater loyalty. The vassal ruler would be likely to swith aliegances according to his own interest. The mistake in Hungary was not conquering it, but not conquering all of it. The Battle of Mohacs was not as successful as is commonly supposed, allowing the Hapsburgs to grab the northern strip of Hungary. This allowed the Hapsburgs to extend their influence into Ottoman Hungary and other vassals.

Suprising to most, religion was one of the few worries about controlling Hungary. In fact all Hungarians, from noble to peasant, faired better under Muslim Turkish rule than under the rule of their fellow Catholic Hapsburgs. This can be shown in OTL as the many attempts of Hungarian revolt against Hapsburgs in favor of the Ottomans. I find no other example in history of a christian state rebeling to rejoin Muslims.

Any way, direct control of Hungary provides a better base for expansion, even if that didn't work out in OTL.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

This can be shown in OTL as the many attempts of Hungarian revolt against Hapsburgs in favor of the Ottomans. I find no other example in history of a christian state rebeling to rejoin Muslims.

The rebellions were in favor of independence. The Ottomans were just the most convenient ally.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I find no other example in history of a christian state rebeling to rejoin Muslims.

They weren't really attempting to rejoin the Ottomans so much as have the Ottomans sponsor their independence - as a protector, not direct ruler.

Actually, I can think of a a "sort of" example - in 1804 the Serbs revolted against local Janissaries on behalf of the Sultan - so in effect were asking the Sultan for justice and the implementation of Ottoman law to stop the excesses of their basically independent lords.

 

[nyjoz]

I have to disagree with you. A region conquered and made into a province is weaker than it was as an independent state. Hungary was too deeply Christian, and too far away to have any chance of becoming an integral part of the empire - as evidence, look how easily it was lost - in a single campaign, when the empire was still very powerful. Later, despite how weak it became, it's "core" in the Balkans was far more resiliant than anyone thought.

If Hungary had been allied, under its own leadership, the resources that the Ottomans would have needed to expend to maintain it would have been minimal. Defending Hungary would have been nearly impossible - it is too close to the center of Hapsburg power, and too far from Istanbul. As it took most of the campaign season to reach it from the capital, there was no way to maintain an adequate defense. However, if the Hungarians had been left to maintain their own defense, the Ottomans would have had an important buffer between them and the Hapsburgs, allowing concentration of effort in other theaters.

The Principalities served Ottoman interests longer as autonomous states than they could have as annexed provinces, which could have been directly annexed by other powers in victorious wars. As another example, the Crimean Khanate was a critical element of Ottoman power against Russia and Poland - it's forces magnified by Ottoman technology and specialists accomplished a lot more than they would have as a province.

Another important consideration is that vassals have to maintain internal order themselves. In a province, a rebellion has to be quelled by the Imperial government, which can at times be impossible due to other distractions, or extremely difficult due to distance.

What you are saying would be correct if the Ottomans were content with no futher expansion. The presence of border vassals meant an excellent defensive cusion, but provided little means for extending Ottoman influence beyond. If the Ottomans wished further campaigns into Europe, the fact is it would be too risky to bet the safe passage and or retreat of your army to the whims of an independant, christian nation.

The Crimean Tatar vassal worked well because both peoples, Turks and Tatars, were culturally isolated from their neighbors. Their common religion led to the mutual defense against the aggressions of christian Poland-Lithuania and Russia. Militarily, the Tatars were so valuable because they were uniquely capable of dealing with the Cossak threat. It would be the duty of the Ottoman military commander of Crimea or any other province to form specialized units that excelled in the local style of fighting.

If the Ottomans continued to maintain their dominance in the Mediterranean, they would no longer have to centralize their armies in Istanbul. Instead they could form powerful border garrisons that could fulfill the dual role of protecting from outside powers while maintaining order in the Ottomans' newest territories. By assimilating conquered peoples, the Ottomans would eventually be able to recruit soilders from the provinces, increasing man power on all fronts. The Ottomans proved unusually adept at assimilating foreign people in OTL.

Ultimately, if the Ottomans were content not to expand outside the Balkans, vassals would be the cheapest and easiest way to secure the Empire. However, if they wished to expand or just campaign outside their territories, then direct conquest would be necessary to ensure the security of the armies and outlying territories.

 

[nyjoz]

The rebellions were in favor of independence. The Ottomans were just the most convenient ally.

True, but we are discussing a time when there was nothing convenient about dealing with Muslim "infidels". The French alliance and Hungarian revolts were unprecedented in that Catholics favored Muslims over other Catholics.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I agree with you, but I thought the point of the scenario was for Ottoman expansion Eastward, not into Europe - what I'm saying is that it would be better to have a Hungarian buffer state than to be directly clashing with the Hapsburgs if you want to expand into Persia, thew Caucasus & Central Asia, and the Indian Ocean. In the long-term, acquisition of Muslim, preferably Turkic, populations is of greater benefit to the empire than expansion into solidly Christian areas. I would argue that the Ottomans wer most successful at assimilating Christian lands that were only superficially so, like Albania and Bosnia. Greece and Hungary, which had long been Christian, did not experience much in the way of conversion.

What you are saying would be correct if the Ottomans were content with no futher expansion. The presence of border vassals meant an excellent defensive cusion, but provided little means for extending Ottoman influence beyond. If the Ottomans wished further campaigns into Europe, the fact is it would be too risky to bet the safe passage and or retreat of your army to the whims of an independant, christian nation.

The Crimean Tatar vassal worked well because both peoples, Turks and Tatars, were culturally isolated from their neighbors. Their common religion led to the mutual defense against the aggressions of christian Poland-Lithuania and Russia. Militarily, the Tatars were so valuable because they were uniquely capable of dealing with the Cossak threat. It would be the duty of the Ottoman military commander of Crimea or any other province to form specialized units that excelled in the local style of fighting.

If the Ottomans continued to maintain their dominance in the Mediterranean, they would no longer have to centralize their armies in Istanbul. Instead they could form powerful border garrisons that could fulfill the dual role of protecting from outside powers while maintaining order in the Ottomans' newest territories. By assimilating conquered peoples, the Ottomans would eventually be able to recruit soilders from the provinces, increasing man power on all fronts. The Ottomans proved unusually adept at assimilating foreign people in OTL.

Ultimately, if the Ottomans were content not to expand outside the Balkans, vassals would be the cheapest and easiest way to secure the Empire. However, if they wished to expand or just campaign outside their territories, then direct conquest would be necessary to ensure the security of the armies and outlying territories.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

True, but we are discussing a time when there was nothing convenient about dealing with Muslim "infidels". The French alliance and Hungarian revolts were unprecedented in that Catholics favored Muslims over other Catholics.

First of all, many of the Hungarian rebels were Protestants. Second of all, they preferred to emphasize their alliance with France and Poland-Lithuania whenever possible.

And I suspect that they were gonna turn against the Turks at the earliest opportunity.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

First of all, many of the Hungarian rebels were Protestants. Second of all, they preferred to emphasize their alliance with France and Poland-Lithuania whenever possible.

And I suspect that they were gonna turn against the Turks at the earliest opportunity.

I think the Ottomans should have seriously encouraged Protestantism in Hungary - Unitarianism or Calvinism - that would have set Hungary against Austria forever.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

I think the Ottomans should have seriously encouraged Protestantism in Hungary - Unitarianism or Calvinism - that would have set Hungary against Austria forever.

I agree, but how could they do that? In the area they controlled, of course. Expelling Catholics doesn't look like the sort of policy the Porte would engage in (in spite of stereotypes to the contrary). Besides, the Ottomans have much more to gain from harmony between the different denominations in Hungary and Transylvania, since the nobility was naturally opposed to Habsburg absolutism. If the Ottomans are seen as anti-Catholic, the Catholic nobles would pick Austria as the lesser evil.

Now that I think about it, there are few ways the situation in Hungary could have gone better for the Turks and many ways it could have gone worse. Even the 1682-1699 war against Austria is an example of this - the Habsburg gains were relatively modest.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I agree, but how could they do that? In the area they controlled, of course. Expelling Catholics doesn't look like the sort of policy the Porte would engage in (in spite of stereotypes to the contrary). Besides, the Ottomans have much more to gain from harmony between the different denominations in Hungary and Transylvania, since the nobility was naturally opposed to Habsburg absolutism. If the Ottomans are seen as anti-Catholic, the Catholic nobles would pick Austria as the lesser evil.

Now that I think about it, there are few ways the situation in Hungary could have gone better for the Turks and many ways it could have gone worse. Even the 1682-1699 war against Austria is an example of this - the Habsburg gains were relatively modest.

If that's your idea of modest, I'd hate to see your definition of horrendously gigantic. Gaining all that in one campaign is pretty dramatic.

As above, I would have left Hungary vassal. In OTL, Protestantism did predominate, but was of course eradicated when the Hapsburgs moved in. A protected vassal could have become a strong Protestant power that would have had to cultivate good relations with the Porte in order to survive against Austria - and it's hard to imagine Hungary wanting to expand into the Balkans, so it seems like a win-win situation for everyone (Except of course the Romanians in Transylvania...).

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

If that's your idea of modest, I'd hate to see your definition of horrendously gigantic. Gaining all that in one campaign is pretty dramatic.

I'd say that, after being on the offensive for 16 years, allying with Poland-Lithuania, Muscovy, Venice, the Cossacks, Malta, the Papacy, Montenegro, Savoy, Bavaria, and Saxony, having commanders like Eugene of Savoy, John Sobieski, Charles V of Lorraine, Francesco Morosini, and Louis William of Baden in that alliance, and having their forces reach deep into Serbia, the Austrian gains were quite modest. They didn't even get Temesvar until the next war (where I find their victory more impressive, given the context).

As above, I would have left Hungary vassal.

I was talking about after Hungary was divided.

Edit: And just how far did the Habsburgs make it into Serbia anyway? Nish? You wouldn't have guessed it from the 1699 border.

 

[DuQuense]

Originally Posted by 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.

This might be the most poorly researched TL I've seen on this site.

I would agree with you -- Except -- As others would tell you -- I've written worst.
This time I at least Wikied Selim and the links in his article.
[and it pulled the thread off page 2]

My TL shows my point that to get an eastward focus, you need something in the east to start with.
Control of the Don/Volga portage may do it, by increasing the Ottoman control of the Caspian coast [Intermitten, tenious OTL]

 

[nyjoz]

I agree with you, but I thought the point of the scenario was for Ottoman expansion Eastward, not into Europe - what I'm saying is that it would be better to have a Hungarian buffer state than to be directly clashing with the Hapsburgs if you want to expand into Persia, thew Caucasus & Central Asia, and the Indian Ocean. In the long-term, acquisition of Muslim, preferably Turkic, populations is of greater benefit to the empire than expansion into solidly Christian areas. I would argue that the Ottomans wer most successful at assimilating Christian lands that were only superficially so, like Albania and Bosnia. Greece and Hungary, which had long been Christian, did not experience much in the way of conversion.

Yes I understand perfectly, but my Turkish nationalism prevents me from agreeing. I say expand in all directions!

I have an idea, what would happen if the Ottomans expanded their influece in Aceh to the rest of Indonesia/South West Asia? A Turkish controlled trade with China? Turkish India? The Turkish Co-Prosperity Sphere?

 

[Rockingham]

hmmm...could the Ottoman empire perhaps have defeated Tamerlane when he invaded Anatolia? If they captured or killed Tamerlane, his empire might well collapse...in which case they would have an opportunity to push east into his old domains and create a Alexanderesque empire. Only problem might be other powers taking advantage of their distraction on the Eastern front.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

hmmm...could the Ottoman empire perhaps have defeated Tamerlane when he invaded Anatolia? If they captured or killed Tamerlane, his empire might well collapse...in which case they would have an opportunity to push east into his old domains and create a Alexanderesque empire. Only problem might be other powers taking advantage of their distraction on the Eastern front.

It's not too easy to develop a POD for this. The Ottoman army was equal to Timur's, but Beyazid was maybe a more reckless man - but can you blame him after how easy it had been to crush European armies?

There are plusses and minuses here - while the empire was in chaos for some time and lost a lot of Anatolian territory, the battle did cause them to restructure the army and the state which made the Ottomans far more formidable in the long-run - whether or not they would have done this anyway is hard to answer, but probably not, at least not as much and not as fast.

 

[htgriffin]

I have to disagree with you. A region conquered and made into a province is weaker than it was as an independent state. Hungary was too deeply Christian, and too far away to have any chance of becoming an integral part of the empire - as evidence, look how easily it was lost - in a single campaign, when the empire was still very powerful. Later, despite how weak it became, it's "core" in the Balkans was far more resiliant than anyone thought.

If Hungary had been allied, under its own leadership, the resources that the Ottomans would have needed to expend to maintain it would have been minimal. Defending Hungary would have been nearly impossible - it is too close to the center of Hapsburg power, and too far from Istanbul. As it took most of the campaign season to reach it from the capital, there was no way to maintain an adequate defense. However, if the Hungarians had been left to maintain their own defense, the Ottomans would have had an important buffer between them and the Hapsburgs, allowing concentration of effort in other theaters.

Accurate assessment, although I am not certian about the Danubian and Crimian freedom of action that you mentioned.

Be amusing if an independent Hungary sees Islam spread there more effectively (think Calvinism) than the annexxed one though.

HTG

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

My first sentence should read "it's not too DIFFICULT..."

It's not too easy to develop a POD for this. The Ottoman army was equal to Timur's, but Beyazid was maybe a more reckless man - but can you blame him after how easy it had been to crush European armies?

There are plusses and minuses here - while the empire was in chaos for some time and lost a lot of Anatolian territory, the battle did cause them to restructure the army and the state which made the Ottomans far more formidable in the long-run - whether or not they would have done this anyway is hard to answer, but probably not, at least not as much and not as fast.