Dominance of the Ottoman Empire

Having created the map in the attatchment, I have now decided to create a timeline to accompany it. I must give credit to Imperial Vienna, who inspired me to create the idea of a series of consitutional monarchies across Europe in the 20th Century (though here it will be British influence that causes it).

Basically, the Ottoman Empire wins the seige of Vienna in 1683, then expands across Europe before being defeated by the Coalition of the Free World at the end of WWII in 1961.

Any advice as to details to include is most welcome, but the Coalition members have already been sorted out. Also the Napoleonic Wars and late 17th Century are pretty much sorted in fabric, but not detail.

Only 1 rule: No critisism of the absurdity of the Ottomans conquering all Europe (not to mention much of Africa and Asia). I know its absurd, but this is Alternative History and I like the idea of a MEGA Reconquista.

Ottoman Empire Dominance Map 2.jpg
 
Only 1 rule: No critisism of the absurdity of the Ottomans conquering all Europe (not to mention much of Africa and Asia). I know its absurd, but this is Alternative History and I like the idea of a MEGA Reconquista.

That's well and good. That is a rule you can add to a discussion you want to have. You just need to understand that such a claim with such a map requires that this be in the ASB forum.

ps - Very nice map.
 

MrP

Banned
As Admiral Matt says, the knowingly implausible works are best in the ASB Forum. If you're after a plausible version, it'd be a good idea to drop Abdul Hadi Pasha a line, as he's our resident expert on all things Ottoman, and can steer you towards many handy sources. :)
 
Maybe absurd is slightly overexagerrating.:(:(

Still, I've got the Polish, Bavarian and Saxon armies obliterated at the siege of Vienna. That certainly makes Ottoman Conquests of The Holy Roman Empire, Poland Lithuania Commonwealth and then at least Northern Italy and Denmark possible by the Napoleonic wars!:):)

Prehaps a slight exagerration in the conquests from Russia, but a divide and conquer policy would probably cause the independant nations to fall. Especially as Russia loses the warm water ports of the Black Sea, and France has to face fighting along the whole of the Eastern border.

Then there's plans for a rebel french state in 1840-1890, slowing down the conquest of Spain, and a Great European Revolt coinciding with the end of WWI/start of WWII (they're practically merged together).

This gets less and less absurd the more I think about it.
 
Actually your explanation just makes it more and more absurd to me, but I'll bite: Who are they fighting in WWI?
 

Philip

Donor
Maybe absurd is slightly overexagerrating.

I would say the opposite.

Still, I've got the Polish, Bavarian and Saxon armies obliterated at the siege of Vienna.

Um, okay. Mind explaining how?

That certainly makes Ottoman Conquests of The Holy Roman Empire, Poland Lithuania Commonwealth and then at least Northern Italy and Denmark possible

No, it doesn't, except maybe in a video game. That is an awfully large amount of land and a tremendous number of people to conquer. Then comes ruling....

by the Napoleonic wars

What makes you think there will be a Napoleon, much less the Napoleonic Wars?

Prehaps a slight exagerration in the conquests from Russia, but a divide and conquer policy would probably cause the independant nations to fall.

Right, because it is so easy to invade and conquer Russia. BTW, which independent nations are those?

This gets less and less absurd the more I think about it.
Your thought patterns are rather distinct from mine.
 
OK, the Bavarian, Saxon and Polish armies (including the King of Poland) were sent to relieve Vienna. They arrive too late and are picked off one by one by the large Ottoman force (POD is probably mid 16th Century to boost Ottoman tech). With Austria conquered, Bavaria, Saxony and Poland fatally weakened and the Russians still without ports or the Window on the West (thus ensuring Otomman domination over the Khanate of Astrakhan) the fragmented states of the Holy Roman Empire (over 250 of which the only one with a decent army left is Brandenburg-Prussia) are easy pickings. France is caught up in Flanders and Alsace-Lorraine at the moment, while Sweden is embroiled in the Northern War. Poland Lithuania absorbed by Ottomans during this conflict, while the Russians gain Estonia-Livonia and Karelia-Istria. Sweden keeps Finland after signing a peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire when Scania was conquered in 1737. they are given Norway after the Defeat of Denmark in 1708 makes it a bargaining chip.

Meanwhile, the still heavily fragmented states of Northern Italy are also conquered, Venice first, then up to the boundary of the Papal States. Ownership of Silesia, coupled with the now equal tech of France and the Ottomans leads to huge campaigns against France culminanting in the capture of Flanders and Alsace-Lorraine. Britain remains neautral after Ottoman guaranties that it will not invade Holland, or keep Norway permanently.

War of the Great Coalition-Napoleon Bonaparte, the French General wins a string of victories for le Roi (revolution never happens to maintain French stregnth) in Northern Italy. France, Spain, Sweden, Russia, Portugal and Britain are the Coalition against Ottomans. Before the war, the Versailles agreement states that all colonial possetions are to be placed in the custody of the strongest remaining nation if they are conquered (this ends up being Britain).

Sweden defeated after capture of stockholm in 1808 (I'll change Norway), Spain and Portugal concede neutrality (and volluntarily surrender empires fearing impending doom) after the Ottomans take Gibraltar in 1810 and begin moving troops across the Straits, Russia attempts 'scorched earth' tactics in the winter of 1812, but these fail due to Ottoman control of Ukraine and Byelorussia. France defeated in 1815, and Britain signs peace treaty as anti-war protesters fill London. It has already lost India, but keeps Burma. Ottomans refuse to recognise Versailles agreement, but an attempt to take over Madagascar fails after local resistance.

Britain decides to run all colonies as dominions. French rebel creating independant state in the North.

WWI: Britsh/Empire troops take India, Africa south of Tanzania/Zaire. Peace signed. Ottomans invade Britain in 1914, are pushed out but british attempts to create free french state in Brittany/Normandy are crushed in 1917. British army stranded but no Dunkerk. Britain conquered after lengthy 14 year campaign. European governments in exile form plans to launch an invasion in Britain. By this time the ethnic groups of central and easern europe (heavily repressed but told in secret by monarchs in exile to bear with it until liberation) rebel.

WWII: March 1935-landings made in Britain. by November the country has overthown the Ottomans. The war proceeds across Afro-Eurasia. By 1945, all Ottoman gains since 1683 are wiped out. The remaining areas are the most heavily repressed (the revolt's been crushed) and it takes another 8 years for the Ottomans to be pushed back to the Blue borders shown. By 1957, the Ottoman hardliners have been forced to flee into the mountains of Anatolia, where they are finally defeated in 1961.

1967: much of the area shown as Ottoman territory revolts, declares independance. Free city state of Jerusalem created. Ottoman Empire restricted to modern Turkey (minus Kurdish areas and Antioch).

My thinking could be quite odd, but does this clear up any issues?
 
Oh and if you want to know how easy it is to conquer Russia, then unless they employ scorched earth and you get stuck in the middle of the country in winter, they're toast. Napoleon and Hitler were able to advance far into Russia, then came winter. I'm merely suggesting the Ottoman aquisition of border territories (see map), followed by full conquest when scorched earth is no longer effective.

Oh and the Mongols conquered Russia in the 1200s, and before 1547, Russia was merely one state in many.

map-europe 1683.jpg
 
Well I suppose it would work in a Total War game. How do the Ottomans keep rebellions from happening?

Also for the record, the biggest weather/terrain problem with advances into Russia is not the winter but the fall rains... that is, mud oceans of mud combined with crap roads.
 
Russia don't get siberia till the 1770s. Alaska always British. Siberia taken by by Japan in WWI, restored to Russia at the end of WWII
 
WWI: Britsh/Empire troops take India, Africa south of Tanzania/Zaire. Peace signed. Ottomans invade Britain in 1914, are pushed out but british attempts to create free french state in Brittany/Normandy are crushed in 1917. British army stranded but no Dunkerk. Britain conquered after lengthy 14 year campaign. European governments in exile form plans to launch an invasion in Britain. By this time the ethnic groups of central and easern europe (heavily repressed but told in secret by monarchs in exile to bear with it until liberation) rebel.

Well, thought I would ask some things about the modern elements of this. The map intrigued me but some things confused me. First ... this ATL WW1 is just a weaken (I'm guessing the Turks rule the seas) Britain versus a continental superpower? Where is Asia in this battle? The British army is able to land a force in France after just beating off an invasion force in England? And my big question is where are these governments in exile at? Where do they hide? Lastly, ... when you speak of 'ethnic groups' and their monarchs ... do you mean that after decades or centuries of Ottoman rule they are still taking secret orders from a dynasty line hiding somewhere in the world?

WWII: March 1935-landings made in Britain. by November the country has overthown the Ottomans. The war proceeds across Afro-Eurasia. By 1945, all Ottoman gains since 1683 are wiped out. The remaining areas are the most heavily repressed (the revolt's been crushed) and it takes another 8 years for the Ottomans to be pushed back to the Blue borders shown. By 1957, the Ottoman hardliners have been forced to flee into the mountains of Anatolia, where they are finally defeated in 1961.
s?


Okay, again big question. Where from and who is making these landings in Britain? If this is the most newly conquered state, wouldn't the Turkish navy and army be strongest there? Why suddenly does are the Turks being pushed back hundreds of miles and out of dozens of countries they've held for years? If it's a global revolt, who is calling the shots and how and where? Seems amazing that this 'force' of rebels and exiles can wipe out Ottoman holdings in just 10 years? Again ... I'm intrigued.
 
Basically the invasion force comes from America. The Turkish army and navy are tied up as the whole of central and eastern europe is in open revolt. These are the issues which Ottoman Empire has in OTL, but on huge scale and delayed to the Thirties. Not sure what I was thinking of when the whole secret orders thing was going on. The European governments in exile are the monarchies (Habsburgs, Bourbons etc.) fleeing from occupied Europe and living in Britain, then America. British life will lead to them establishing constitutional monarchies after WWII. the landing are carefully timed as the European revolt means widespread dissatisfaction and an easier travel to Ottoman heartlands.

In Asia, I'm planning an Ottoman puppet state of China vs. Japan with Sberia, Korea, Manchuaria maybe Mongolia. WWI, China is defeated, Chinese emperor replaced with suitable refugee in Japan? WWII, Ottomans pushed out of Central Asia, then to the blue boundaries.
 
Oh and the Coalition of Independant States consists of all the Americas, India, Southern Africa (Africa south of the eqautor) South/South East Asia, Japan, Australasia and the Pacific and the european goveernments in exile (think Charles de Gaulle and the free french, then multiply to include all major royal famlies in Europe).
 
Last edited:
To the credit of this timeline, keep in mind that from some standpoints it would seem absurd that the British conquered all of India over a couple generations, when it held something like 1/5 of the entire world population.

I admit fully to a limited knowledge of Ottoman capabilities except from what I read off of the "Ottoman Colonies/ Ottoman Italy" thread's 10+ pages.

In fact a burning OTL question I have had recently is this: Why did the Ottomans even Want to conquer Austria? Why didn't they must focus on conquering Persia and leave Europe alone in the 1600s anyway? If anyone can answer that for me in modest detail, I would be very happy.

Anyways, back on topic. If I were to tackle a timeline like this, I think I would aim for a timeline in which perhaps Italy and Austria-Bohemia and perhaps Ukraine/Caucasus are conquered. That alone stretches the plausibility of an Ottomanwank, especially if they hold those lands for longer than a couple generations.
 
OK, the Bavarian, Saxon and Polish armies (including the King of Poland) were sent to relieve Vienna. They arrive too late and are picked off one by one by the large Ottoman force (POD is probably mid 16th Century to boost Ottoman tech).

Unlikely but possible so far.... You don't really need to adjust Ottoman tech to get these victories, either. They were well ahead of Europe in terms of military organization at the time.

What tech they do need is logistic. In OTL, the outcome of the Siege of Vienna was largely dependent on Ottoman overreach. Their power was based in the Balkans and run from Istanbul. With that as a platform, they were running the war with a logistical train the length of the Danube. Worse, the better half of it ran through Hungary, which was a solidly Christian and itself too far from Ottoman strength to manage easily.

Just so we're clear: It wasn't an issue of momentum. Hungary was too far for the Ottomans to manage easily. Unless this 16th century POD is giving them railroads and keeping the technology from everyone else, even the brown areas on your map are flat out impossible.

With Austria conquered, Bavaria, Saxony and Poland fatally weakened and the Russians still without ports or the Window on the West (thus ensuring Otomman domination over the Khanate of Astrakhan) the fragmented states of the Holy Roman Empire (over 250 of which the only one with a decent army left is Brandenburg-Prussia) are easy pickings.

I'm going to stop you right there. First of all, taking Vienna does not give you secure control of Austrian territory. It does a lot - probably forcing the Hapsburgs into dependency. But a base for easy conquest it is not.

European armies of the time very, very rarely represented a commitment of the full strength of the states involved. At best they represented a significant part of their treasuries. It is impossible to fatally weaken a state in one battle, if it does not contribute its entire strength to that battle. None of the above states did. Poland, in fact, contributed very little relative to its potential strength. At this time large Polish armies were chiefly raised in order to rebel against Polish kings, though in a pinch invaders could be a poor substitute.

The Ottomans, who in OTL failed to take Vienna because they could not easily supply their armies across Hungary, will not be able to put armies of conquest in every region beyond Vienna.

It's insanely unrealistic. If it makes more and more sense to you as you think about it, I recommend that you stop and read a few threads for a taste of how history works. Or better yet, a book. A book on logistics in the 17th century.

My thinking could be quite odd, but does this clear up any issues?

Not odd. We all start there. I remember when I first started imagining the British invading the USA from Canada circa our WWI and being an even match. Or not understanding how a major power would have trouble quickly conquering India from bases in Sri Lanka and Indonesia.

History does look like a game of Risk. You just have to watch it a bit before you can see that it really isn't.
 

Philip

Donor
Is it not at all plausable that at least the first 2 areas of conquest occur?

All of Central Europe and most of Eastern Europe? In 50 years? No. Not plausible. I suppose it is possible that they could overrun those areas, much as Napoleon did, however it simply isn't possible for them to incorporate that many people into the empire in that time. How do you plan on having the Ottomans keep control of the land and the people. And how are they going to pay for it?

BTW, what are the Safavids (or whoever you will put in their place) doing at this time? Is Egypt going along happily?
 
Well Austria had been a long term enemy by now.

The timeline does include obliteration of the Polish army, why not take advantage of that. And with Austria gone HRE soon follows.

Definately need to grab Persia in the 1700s (will need a route to British India anyway by 1815)

This is an unfinished map for the Napoleonic wars analogue, Semi-incorporated states are ones which still suffer from widespread rebellion. This will of course occur across most of Europe in the 1930s.

Does this help plausability?

Ottoman Empire Dominance Napoleonic Wars 2.jpg
 
In fact a burning OTL question I have had recently is this: Why did the Ottomans even Want to conquer Austria? Why didn't they must focus on conquering Persia and leave Europe alone in the 1600s anyway? If anyone can answer that for me in modest detail, I would be very happy.

The Ottomans didn't want to conquer Austria.

They wanted to break Austria, who was their chief opponent, and the biggest threat to their holdings.

Initially, the real Ottoman goal was to dominate (not necessarily conquer) Hungary. That's how it started. Hungary was the first unitary, non-Muslim state they ran up against in the course of their expansion.

There wasn't just the one power trying to gain a presence in Hungary, though. The Hapsburgs, and even the Poles, were competing for influence. Poland wasn't a serious contender, but Austria was. The Ottomans IIRC, first tried to effectively vassalize the King of Hungary. That didn't work well, and anyway, they believed they'd have less problems just annexing the place.

They were wrong. The result was the long series of wars with Austria. The Ottomans consistently won when it came to a stand-up fight, but never quite got over the fact that Vienna was way the heck away from everything.

A victory at Vienna might include some annexations. Royal Hungary, for example, is likely. It's unlikely, though, that the Porte would have been willing or able to incorporate much of the Hapsburgs' other holdings. They would have been more than satisfied with independent states in, say, Silesia, Bohemia, and Tyrol. Such small states would be unable to seriously threaten Ottoman Hungary, and that was, after all, the point.
 
Top