Is an Ottoman Italy the equivalent of sealion?

[Faeelin]

I'm going to push back against Abdul's eloquent and vigorous defense of the Ottomans as a superpower, and his suggestion that the Ottomans were immensely superior in military tactics and equipment in the 15th and 16th century compared to their Western counterparts. If you look at Ottoman successes during the period, are they really doing that well?

Yes, the Ottomans expanded greatly, so clearly they were a successful state. But consider Mehmet the Conqueror's reign....

In 1454, Mehmet invaded Serbia, with the goal of reclaiming territory lost in the Treaty of Edirne in 1444. He advanced, then withdrew when John Hunyadi appeared with a Hungarian army. In 1456, Mehmet invades Serbia again, besieging Belgrade. Where loses to Hunyadi again. Mehmet then spends the next couple of years overrunning the Duchy of Athens. Belgrade doesn't fall for another 40 years, until 1521.

Now, in 1463 the Venetians went to war with the Ottomans. And initially, they overran all the Ottoman fortresses in Morea except for Mistra, Patras, and Corinth. The war then swung in the Ottomans favor, as they gradually overran Albania and Bosnia. But in the Aegean the Ottomans took the offensive, seizing the islands of Imbros and Tenedos. Only in 1479, after sixteen years of warfare, did the Venetians cede their holdings in Albania, the Mani peninsula in the Peloponnese, and the Aegean islands of Lemnos and Negroponte.

Okay, then let's fast forward to 1479, when the Ottomans besiege the city of Rhodes. They land with around 70,000 troops but fail to take the fortress.

In 1480, the Ottomans assaulted southern Italy, seizing Otranto. And then... the Neapolitans put Otranto under seize, and defeated the Ottoman navy in the Adriatic.

This does not suggest, at least to me, a power capable of threatening most of Italy. If Mehmet had somehow lived, perhaps he would have taken Otranto (but note the city fell roughly around the same time as Mehmet died, so it seems fairly likely in any event).

Thoughts?

 

[Snake Featherston]

IMHO the Ottomans would have a very difficult time conquering 15th Century Italy. There'd be too many individual states and city-states for them to grind out, and the consequences could well push the Italians into bigger states and set up a potential earlier unification. Conquering Italy would be equivalent to trying to do the same to post-Westphalia Germany: too many petty states to crush with casualties and stretching out troops to occupy them.

Assuming, of course, that the Ottomans don't use divide and conquer effectively which dramatically mitigates the above paragraph. Whether they'd do that in the heartland of Roman Catholicism and what happens when they try to invade the Papal states is a very interesting question.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Actually it's very well plausible for the Ottomans to take Italy, or at least the southern portion of the peninsula. It has none of the obstacles that you pointed out - such as the many city states which the Ottomans could easily bribe into joining them. And taking the south would put them within reach of taking Rome which could very well splinter Catholicism if they install a puppet Pope as the leader of the Catholic religious millet as they did with the Patriarch of Constantinople.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

Southern Italy, being under more or less united kingdoms (Naples, and Sicily) would be far easier to take than the balkanized mess that is Northern Italy.

Though the biggest obstacle would be trying to take Rome; every Catholic state would dogpile on the Ottomans.

 

[Don Grey]

Though the biggest obstacle would be trying to take Rome; every Catholic state would dogpile on the Ottomans.

Very unlikly. People keep saying if the ottomans took one more inch every one would dog pile on them. They never did when the took jeruselam or C-town or greece or the balkans etc.Its very hard to unite these waring states together under one cause and crusades had become unpopular by now and nations on united against the ottomans when it was under direct threat to there indrests mainly there land. But i will Pm Abdul about this maybe he will come take a look.

BTW Faeelin have have you checked the prior discustions about this topic? There were some quite spirited debates.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

Very unlikly. People keep saying if the ottomans took one more inch every one would dog pile on them. They never did when the took jeruselam or C-town or greece or the balkans etc.Its very hard to unite these waring states together under one cause and crusades had become unpopular by now and nations on united against the ottomans when it was under direct threat to there indrests mainly there land. But i will Pm Abdul about this maybe he will come take a look.

The difference here is that Rome is the seat of the Holy Father - sure, they let the Ottomans take Constantinople, but that was filled with OH NOES SCHISMATICS.

 

[Zuvarq]

HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT THE GLÖRİOUS OSMANLI İMPARATORLUĞU HAS ANY FLAWS?!?

 

[Van555]

HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT THE GLÖRİOUS OSMANLI İMPARATORLUĞU HAS ANY FLAWS?!?

BY THE CALIPH'S ZEPPELINS!

 

[SavoyTruffle]

How else did the Balkans name the balkanization phenomenon?

 

[MrP]

There's no call to shit on Faeelin's thread with giant type for "comic" purposes.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Ummm... ASB although the ottomans were powerful them conquering Rome ASB with the heart of catholics siezed by Ottomans expect massive crusades by Euro powers like France and the Habsburgs I agree ottomans could conquer italy but only trmporarily maybe a couple decades if they are lucky.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

Serious thought: The Ottomans could get a foothold on Italy, but they couldn't plausibly expand without angering Venice for starters (Their control of the Adriatic can hamper Ottoman plans to control southern Italy long-term).

That said, it was the Ottomans who eventually dealt Venice strong blows that led to its decline.

 

[Faeelin]

Very unlikly. People keep saying if the ottomans took one more inch every one would dog pile on them. They never did when the took jeruselam or C-town or greece or the balkans etc.

And yet we have Lepanto, which seemed to involve the Italian city states, with Habsburg support, coming together to defeat the Ottoman fleet. And the war in the early 18th century, which is how La Serenissima acquired Morea. Or for that matter interactions between the Venetians and the White Sheep, and later the Venetians and Mamelukes. Or Venetian-Hungarian alliances.

My criticism of Abdul is that he tends to view the fact that the Habsburgs and other states avoided pitched battles with the Ottomans as a sign that everyone viewed the Ottoman army with trepidation. Yes, but much of early modern warfare was trying to out maneuver people and avoid direct battle. Look at the 80 Years War in the Netherlands, for instance.

 

[Faeelin]

The difference here is that Rome is the seat of the Holy Father - sure, they let the Ottomans take Constantinople, but that was filled with OH NOES SCHISMATICS.

I don't think this actually matters. I am very open to the possibility that people would let Rome fall, as they let Jerusalem, Constantinople, etc. (Louis XI would weep, just weep, for instance, at the thought of a Pope in Avignon).

But consider also that armies tended to melt away in the malarial swampland that was Southern Italy. It just looks like a mess for the Ottomans, unless they engage in a sort of lightning campaign which just seems implausible.

 

[LordKalvan]

IMHO, the Ottomans have a problem with landing and even more so with keeping supplied an army in Italy.
They can certainly take Otranto (or another port city in Puglia) and they may even keep it for some time, but I cannot see how they can use the straits of Otranto as their only supply route, considering that Corfu is in Venetian hands and that lower Dalmatia is a pirate paradise since before the birth of Alexander.

From my point of view, this kills any true chance for the Ottomans of taking Italy, even before strating to argue on the poor roads in southern Italy, the mountains to cross before getting to Naples or Rome, the impossibility of fighting in winter, the problems in eastern Anatolia (which would certainly increase exponentially if the Ottomans get mired in southern Italy) and so on.

My take is that the Ottomans reached their "best case" borders with the conquest of Egypt and Mohacs. They can try some adventures, and may be successful, but it is simply not feasible to imagine them conquering Italy or Germany. Too far away, and too much time to get there (even if I grant that the Ottomans were moving faster than the European armies), not to mention that every unbalance to the west would be paid by troubles in the east (and viceversa). It is a situation not dissimilar by the one experienced by great empires in the past (Persia and Rome come to mind), made even worse by the fact that the Ottomans are not lords of the Mediterranean.

It would also explain why the border stabilised in the west and in the east, and also why the Ottomans were in in a position to successfully counter Portuguese penetration in India. Another plus: it's the simplest explanation

 

[Mikestone8]

Well Venetian etc sea power didn't stop the OE conquering Rhodres, Cyprus, Crete and various other Islands, so a conquest of Naples and Sicily is not ASB.

Going further than that might present problems, as at some point France is going to put its oar in. The French King may not mind a Turkish Naples, as it keeps the rest of Italy clinging to his trousers, but he'll be a lot less enthusiastic about a Turkish Rome, let alone a Turkish Florence, Bologna or Milan. The Sultan gets an extra Vilayet or two, but that's about it.

Thje greatest effect might be in the Moslem World. If Naplers/Sicily is Turkish, and esp if Malta falls as well, that strengthens his grip on Tunis, and probably on points west. Maybe a Turkish Morocco and even conceivably a Turkish Canary Is. Moslem corsairs attacking the Spanish treasure fleet?

 

[LordKalvan]

Well Venetian etc sea power didn't stop the OE conquering Rhodres, Cyprus, Crete and various other Islands, so a conquest of Naples and Sicily is not ASB.

Going further than that might present problems, as at some point France is going to put its oar in. The French King may not mind a Turkish Naples, as it keeps the rest of Italy clinging to his trousers, but he'll be a lot less enthusiastic about a Turkish Rome, let alone a Turkish Florence, Bologna or Milan. The Sultan gets an extra Vilayet or two, but that's about it.

Thje greatest effect might be in the Moslem World. If Naplers/Sicily is Turkish, and esp if Malta falls as well, that strengthens his grip on Tunis, and probably on points west. Maybe a Turkish Morocco and even conceivably a Turkish Canary Is. Moslem corsairs attacking the Spanish treasure fleet?

OTOH the siege of Malta failed, and the Ottoman fleet was defeated at Lepanto. Maybe it's another proof that there is a limit to the power projection of both Spain/HRE and Ottomans. Besides running an effective occupation of Italy, and "conquistadoreing" the Americas, Spain had to run the HRE, fight against the French, keep the Flanders peaceful, manage the Germanies: is it a surprise that their north-african crusade was a failure?
The Ottomans had their own kettle of problems: Balkans, Egypt, Persia, Indian Ocean, plus the Mediterranean. Is it a surprise they did not suddenly expand the Ottoman domains?

 

[Mikestone8]

OTOH the siege of Malta failed, and the Ottoman fleet was defeated at Lepanto. Maybe it's another proof that there is a limit to the power projection of both Spain/HRE and Ottomans. Besides running an effective occupation of Italy, and "conquistadoreing" the Americas, Spain had to run the HRE, fight against the French, keep the Flanders peaceful, manage the Germanies: is it a surprise that their north-african crusade was a failure?
The Ottomans had their own kettle of problems: Balkans, Egypt, Persia, Indian Ocean, plus the Mediterranean. Is it a surprise they did not suddenly expand the Ottoman domains?

Pretty much agreed. Malta, Naples and Sicily were roughly midway between the Spanish and Ottoman power bases, and could have gone either way, whereas the chances of the Ottomans liberating Granada or the Spaniards Cyprus were always pretty remote. Possession of Italy, however, strengthened the Habsburgs vis a vis other Christian powers, and possession of its southern half would have strengthened the Ottomans vis a vis other Moslem ones.

 

[Don Grey]

OTOH the siege of Malta failed, and the Ottoman fleet was defeated at Lepanto. Maybe it's another proof that there is a limit to the power projection of both Spain/HRE and Ottomans. Besides running an effective occupation of Italy, and "conquistadoreing" the Americas, Spain had to run the HRE, fight against the French, keep the Flanders peaceful, manage the Germanies: is it a surprise that their north-african crusade was a failure?
The Ottomans had their own kettle of problems: Balkans, Egypt, Persia, Indian Ocean, plus the Mediterranean. Is it a surprise they did not suddenly expand the Ottoman domains?

At the time of mehmet there was a window of oppertunity when italy city states could not stand up against the ottomans on open field . There was a big military gap. If im not mistaken a french king with down into napels with 40 thousand men nearly unchalanged. Then the area could be supplied by sea.

As for lepanto it was a minor skirmish for the ottomans. They were back a year later with a new fleet. the reason it failed was because barbarosa was dead the the two very capable admirals leading the ottoman fleet at lepanto hated each other and kept on throughing a rench in each other plans the battle could have been easly one.

All this has been discused before. The question you ask have been asnwered before. Just got to look at the search function.

 

[Paladin]

Well, yes, but the point is that it's a very narrow window. And campaigning of this sort, particularly in the pre-modern period, takes lots of time. Like the others, I can see the OE taking Otranto and the hinterland, but not much else, and it's worth a bet to see how long they could keep it.