Is an Ottoman Italy the equivalent of sealion?

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

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.

Southern Italy is not a malarial swampland.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

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.

It is a narrow window, but that's why Mehmed chose that moment. Venice had just been crushed, etc. Campaigning in this era took lots of time for Western armies. That's why the Ottomans were so successful in this period. They had a level of discipline and attention to supply trains that were beyond the capabilities of the West for a few more years.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

My problem with a Ottoman conquest of Italy, are that people usual transfer the Blietzkrieg of plains of Hungary to the Italian peninsula. Italy has as many people as the Balkans with the exception of the far north as bad geography, was a lot more developed and had a lotr stronger states.
We also have the problem that people think that the Ottomans can play divide and rule a poliocy which mostly failed for the French and Austrians in Italy until the 18th century. We also have the problem that people expect that the French will support the Ottomans when they threaten French interests. Rome won't be saved because anyone outside Italy cares about the Papalcy. It will be saved because no one want to give the Ottomans access to northen Italy.

We also have another problem with the conquest of Rome, if people look at this picture.

You will see that Ottoman supplies would need to through either a geographic challenging area or through hostile sea territories. While supplies from the north are much easier both from the sea and land.

There was a good military road from Istanbul to Albania which was a good supply route, not to mention sea supply; crossing to the heel was no particular logistical or military challenge.

Regarding Northern Italy, that would indeed probably be tough. It would depend upon the nature of success in the South. I don't think there's any question of direct rule of North Italy, but the states there could be vassalized ala the Principalities.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

So they need to supply them through sea lanes going by Sardinia and Sicily. For that to be viable the Ottomans would need completely naval dominance in the westen Mediterranean.

Why? What's wrong with across the Adriatic? Also, once established in Southern Italy, then Southern Italy is the supply source. I think you may be thinking in more modern terms, where logistics would be more complex due to technology.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The Jannisseries was excellent infantry at this point in time, at very least on par with the better European infantry. Through the greatest strength of the Ottoman military wasn't the quality of the troops, but the fact that they was part of a large permanent standing army. Europes problem at this point was that countries usual only had rather small permanent forces and in times of war had to rely on unreliable mercenaries companies (through some quite fine militias existed for defensive purposes).

And also a much superior logistical organization and overall command structure, and there's something to be said for not allowing the troops to drink.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

what i mean is the following.
Earlier tukish army was traditionally cavalry. and it was an excellent one.
Since the othmans were smart badasses, they understood that they need a solid infantry, too. You can sweep the hungarian plains with horsemen (or the anatolian liplane), but if the terrain is broke, you're toast.
thus the "new militia" (that's what Jannissery mean) was formed.
And the way it was formed made it loyal to the sultan (cavalry was often more skiddish and unthrustworthy, more loyal to local lords).
That's a good thing, having loyal soldiers around. thus most of Costantinople garrison was made of them.
And that caused the same situation the roman emperors had with their pretorian guards, which basically prevented any reform of the corp other than "rising the pay".
Now the Jannissaries themselves did not start as a bad infantry (e.g. they had an high espirit de corp), but they had the limitations of a society that traditionally did not have an infantry of sort and tried to improvise one. That would have not been a critical problem it the corp had gradually evolved towards better arrangements, but their status of half-guards, half-kidnappers of the sultan made them able to stem any attempt of that.

The core of earlier Ottoman forces was cavalry, but they had always used infantry. There were two types of cavalry: the type you mention, which was generally used for skirmishing and raiding, and the regular cavalry, which was the backbone of the army, which was very loyal to the state.

A lot of what you say applies to much later periods. In the 15th & first half of the 16th c, there were no such issues.

 

[KCammy]

My TL has an example of an Ottoman South Italy. No-one seemed to have any problems with it there.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

a) the logistics of feeding and supplyng an expeditionary army across the straits of Otranto are well beyond the capabilities of the Ottoman empire

Except that they're not. Any basis for this statement? Especially considering they did feed and supply an expeditionary army across the Straits to Otranto. Not to mention Tunis, Algeria, Egypt, Yemen, the Indian Ocean, Oman, the Persian Gulf, Ethiopia...

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

It hadn't been too weak to conquer most of the Balkans and Asia Minor (which thanks to Tamerlane it had to spend a generation reconquering) so that needn't stop it conquering some more.

True, but the states of the Balkans and Asia Minor weren't on the scale of the greater European powers. It's possible that the Ottomans would have developed their military abilities further anyway; it's impossible to tell.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Admiral Matt-

You're absolutely right, any of those PODs, and probably a dozen more, could lead to an Ottoman invasion of Italy. And I'm sure it would make for a gripping TL. However, the POD we're focusing on specifically (or so I've been led to believe) is the Ottoman capture of Otranto in 1480. A lot of board members seem to think that if the Sultan just hadn't up and died, the Ottomans would have walked all over Italy. The point of this thread is that maaayyybee it wouldn't be that easy.

Nobody said "easy".

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Iirc the Bzantines sometimes referred to the Crusaders as "Franks". The Saracens called them "Feringhi", which I understand is derived from "Franks".

"Franks" was a catch-all term for "Western Europeans". That usage was retained all the way to the later Ottoman period.

 

[Alexius I Kommenos]

Hmph well it is very plausable, what I think should happen is this have Spain never form.
2: the Italian wars take a turn for the worse with massive fighting occuring beetween the city states as they fight each other and exaus. Resources.
Francis I wins at Pavia
Charles V dies due to a fever. Habsburg lands ten get split.
France soon verextends and exausts itself. The papal army fights against Venuce and allies leading to mass destruction. Thus by 1530 you have a bankrupt and weakeaned France fighting a civil war agains Hugenots. A slit in AH that fights the Protestants. Italy laying in complete ruins and the Italian powers completly Exausted. Spain never is formed. Thus by 1540 an ottoman invasion of Italy is doable because no major Euro power can halt the Ottoman advance thus leading to Ottomans easily overunning Southern Italy and Rome would easily fall because the pope would have no aid due to te weakeaned status of France and the Habsburgs who can do little. Then Ottos can gather a
large army by using Apulia as a base and then launch an invasion overunning the ruined and bankrupt Italian states. Thus by 1560 you can have an Ottoman Italy, a broken Austria, no Spain, and a bankrupt france fighting a massive civil war.



Anyway how is my idea

 

[Sadr-ı Azam]

Fatih Sultan Mehmed Han conquered Serbia.
Causes of Conquest of Serbia
-Unificaiton of Balkans.
-İf Fatih Sultan Mehmed Han was not conquered Serbia,Serbia may be invaded by Matthias Corvinus.Matthias Corvinus's kingdom powerful this times.Matthias Corvinus stopped the Ottomans at Belgrade.
-Serbia was former part of Byzantine Empire.Fatih Sultan Mehmed Han defines himself as Kayser-i Rum.
-Also I think Devlet-i Alliye Osmaniye must be conqured all lands of southern Danube.

*Fatih Sultan Mehmed Han is in english "Mehmed the Conqueror" or "Mehmed II"
** Kayser-i Rum is in english "Caesar of Rome"
***Devlet-i Alliye Osmaniye is in english "Ottoman Empire"

 

[Earling]

There are similarities to sealion. It seems reasonable to assume that the French and Habsburgs shall maintain reasonably constant pressure on any Ottoman conquest since Italy is reasonably wealthy, its native resistance is weak and therefore it is worth having in any Empire.

To control Italy the Ottomans shall therefore have to maintain continuous naval supremacy, since if their lines are cut then their force in Italy, barring some extreme good fortune, is going to be lost.

Southern Italy isn't full of malaria today, thanks to Mussolini, but in the renaissance generals regularly dropped dead over summer and cities experienced plague as a matter of course.

Anyway, could the Ottomans maintain naval supremacy? The answer is surely that they didn't in OTL.

 

[GenghisKhanfan]

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.

Indeed, though if Rome were threatened, there would be a unity such as Constantinople was unfortunately unable to see. French, German, English, Polish, Hungarian, Venetian, and Spanish would forget their own disagreements and coalesce into a force more than capable of expelling the Ottomans from Italy. The REAL question is, would they remain united long enough to expel them from the Balkans?

 

[GenghisKhanfan]

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.

Very true. The Ottomans drove Venice into decline, and Napoleon would put the screws to them later when he first handed the Venetian Republic to the Hapsburgs, then later stripped them of Venice to add into the French Empire.