Longer Lasting Granada?

[Hendryk]

if the Ottomans had decided to support a lasting Granada, Spain would be hurting.

I'd like to see an ATL come out of this. As stated above, I think it would have far-reaching consequences beyond Europe.

 

[Archdevil]

I understand you're very informed about the Ottomans, but it would not hurt to take into account the massive resources Charles V could muster.

It is also a fact that apart from the Ottomans, he was somewhat distracted by France, a religious war in the HRE and off course the building up of the largest colonial empire the world had yet seen.

The fact Grenada as is was in 1492 was taken more as a demonstration of unity by the two Catholic Monarchs than an actual war seems to suggest the Ottomans need to pour an enormous amount of resources into propping up that state.

So yes, the Ottomans could do a lot in the early 16th century, maybe even land an army at Rome (disastrous as that would be for their alliance with France), but providing meaningful assistance to Grenada was utterly impossible.

The location, close to (on, actually) the main base of Habsburg power and far from Constantinople, means that to apply a force capable of matching Spanish resources deployed to attack Grenada, the Ottomans would have to use much larger resources to defend it.
Simple logistics say that if the area of conflict (Grenada here) is on the western end of the Med, the side that has its main soure of military might there is going to have a massive advantage over the side that has its base at the far end in Constantinople.

I would even go as far to suggest that the Ottomans pissing away their resources into propping up Grenada is actually in Charles V advantage in that they cannot do a lot of nasty stuff they did to him becuase the money for it is deviated into holding on a useless piece of land. After all, the Ottomans already have a Western base in the form of Algiers, but the Portugese and Spanish still control the Strait of Gibraltar, so an Atlantic presence is impossible (discounting for a moment the fact Ottoman ships would sink in the first Atlantic storm they'd run into).

And after the Ottomans have been put down as before, Charles V or Philips II can simply walk in as happened in 1492 OTL to liqidate the remnants of the Caliphate of Corduba.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Charles V was in a far, far, far, far more difficult position than Suleyman. with his territories so far-flung, with his grip on much of it tenuous at best, it was a strategic and political nightmare that eventually made him go insane and retire to a monastery to contemplate death for the rest of his life.

The Ottomans, on the other hand, had a unitary and centralized state, able to utilize its manpower and wealth much more efficiently than could Charles.

While this is partially moot as Granada was not still around when the Ottomans could have helped, striking directly at Spain is a lot more efficient than putzing around chipping away at Charles in unimportant theaters.

Establishing a powerful Muslim state in Spain, and perhaps overrunning Iberia, would have been a much, much better use of Ottoman resources than conquering Hungary, which was a huge strategic liability and resulted in catastrophic imperial overreach.

Instread of going back and forth about why or why not the Ottomans could have supported Granada, when it is blindingly obvious that they could have (they sent a frickin' fleet to save Aceh, for Chrissakes - if there hadn't been a change of ruler before it got there, we might be debating whether or not the Ottomans could have annexed Hawaii from their Indonesian territories), why don't we discuss what the impact of this would have been?

So here goes: I'll let someone else give us a POD for Granada lasting until the 1530s.

Suleyman invades and captures Rhodes in 1521. Keeping in mind the situation in Iberia, he does not allow the Knights of St John to relocate to Malta, and subsequently occupies that island.

Castille/Aragon's preparations for an invasion of Granada prompt an appeal for help, causing Suleyman to appoint Hayreddin Barbaros C-in-C of the Ottoman fleet and sending an army to Granada.

The Ottomans are now in control of the whole African coast to the border of Morocco and have landed an army in Iberia. Expect a large Jannisary force and artillery corps. Probably also some support infantry and regular cavalry. Also, lots of money and mercenaries from North Africa, plus the forces of Granada itself.

France, seeing a golden opportunity, behaves much as it did historically.

So how do things go?

I understand you're very informed about the Ottomans, but it would not hurt to take into account the massive resources Charles V could muster.

It is also a fact that apart from the Ottomans, he was somewhat distracted by France, a religious war in the HRE and off course the building up of the largest colonial empire the world had yet seen.

The fact Grenada as is was in 1492 was taken more as a demonstration of unity by the two Catholic Monarchs than an actual war seems to suggest the Ottomans need to pour an enormous amount of resources into propping up that state.

So yes, the Ottomans could do a lot in the early 16th century, maybe even land an army at Rome (disastrous as that would be for their alliance with France), but providing meaningful assistance to Grenada was utterly impossible.

The location, close to (on, actually) the main base of Habsburg power and far from Constantinople, means that to apply a force capable of matching Spanish resources deployed to attack Grenada, the Ottomans would have to use much larger resources to defend it.
Simple logistics say that if the area of conflict (Grenada here) is on the western end of the Med, the side that has its main soure of military might there is going to have a massive advantage over the side that has its base at the far end in Constantinople.

I would even go as far to suggest that the Ottomans pissing away their resources into propping up Grenada is actually in Charles V advantage in that they cannot do a lot of nasty stuff they did to him becuase the money for it is deviated into holding on a useless piece of land. After all, the Ottomans already have a Western base in the form of Algiers, but the Portugese and Spanish still control the Strait of Gibraltar, so an Atlantic presence is impossible (discounting for a moment the fact Ottoman ships would sink in the first Atlantic storm they'd run into).

And after the Ottomans have been put down as before, Charles V or Philips II can simply walk in as happened in 1492 OTL to liqidate the remnants of the Caliphate of Corduba.

 

[el t]

Granada

I favor a union with Morocco, the type of which was attempted with the Almoravids and Almohads. This is the only way Granada could have survived.

 

[Faeelin]

So how do things go?

Hrmm. Well, I could see a major defeat for the Spanish, and Seville falling, maybe Murcia; but I think that a conquest of Northern Spain is exceedingly unlikely.

I guess we know who wins the Italian Wars, though.

 

[fortyseven]

This would be a very interesting atl. That's a good start Pasha.

 

[DuQuense]

Granada

The Kingdom of Granada had been held by the Nasrids dynasty.Protected by natural barriers and fortified towns, it had withstood the long process of the reconquista. However, in contrast to the determined leadership by Isabella and Ferdinand, Granada's leadership was divided and never presented a united front. It took ten years to conquer Granada, culminating in 1492.

When the Spaniards, early on, captured Boabdil (Sultan of Granada) they set him free - for a ransom - so that he could return to Granada and resume his reign. The Spanish monarchs recruited soldiers from many European countries and improved their artillery with the latest and best cannons. Systematically, they proceeded to take the kingdom piece by piece. Often Isabella would inspire her followers and soldiers by praying in the middle of, or close to, the battle field, that God's will may be done. In 1485 they laid siege to Ronda, which surrendered after extensive bombardment. The following year, Loja was taken, and again Boabdil was captured and released. One year later, with the fall of Málaga, the western part of the Muslim Nasrid kingdom had fallen into Spanish hands. The eastern province succumbed after the fall of Baza in 1489. The siege of Granada began in the spring of 1491. When the Spanish camp was destroyed by an accidental fire, the camp was rebuilt, in stone, in the form of a cross, painted white, and named Santa Fe (i.e. 'Holy Faith'). At the end of the year, Boabdil surrendered. On January 2, 1492 Isabel and Ferdinand entered Granada to receive the keys of the city and the principal mosque was reconsecrated as a church. The Treaty of Granada signed later that year was to assure religious rights to the Islamic believers - but it did not last.

Henry IV, whose first marriage to Blanca of Navarre was not consummated and had been annulled, remarried to have his own offspring. He then married Joana of Portugal. His wife gave birth to Joan, princess of Castile. When Isabella was about ten, she and her brother were summoned to the court, to be under more direct supervision and control by the king. In the Representation of Burgos the nobles challenged the King; among other items, they demanded that Alfonso, Isabella's brother, should be named the heir to the kingdom. Henry agreed, provided Alfonso would marry his daughter, Joan. A few days later, he changed his mind.
The nobles, now in control of Alfonso and claiming him to be the true heir, clashed with Henry's forces at the Battle of Olmedo in 1467. The battle was a draw. One year later, Alfonso died at the age of fourteen, and Isabella became the hope of the rebelling nobles. But she refused their advances, acknowledging instead Henry as king, and he, in turn, recognized her as the legitimate heir in the Treaty of the Bulls of Guisando,

POD Henry IV doesn't change his mind, Alfonso Marries Joan.

Isabella I (April 22, 1451 – November 26, 1504) was Queen regnant of Castile and Leon. She and her husband, Ferdinand II of Aragon, laid the foundation for the political unification of Spain under their grandson, Carlos I of Spain (Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor).

Isabela still marrries Ferdinand, giving her Grandson Carlos I of Aragon [Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor], a claim on Castille.

Castille survies till 1530, when the Ottomans arrive to help fend off the Aragon Empire.

 

[EricW]

Spain and Hungary

There's an assumption that Spain would be part of the Habsburg Empire. However, if it wasn't for that families' bizarre luck with marriages and deaths, that wouldn't be true. Of course Charles V, the first Habsburg King of Spain, wasn't even born till 1500. Since the POD for this timeline must be before 1492, he obviously wouldn't exist. However, it's unlikely that any analog from this timeline would have inherited the throne of Spain.

Ferdinand and Isabella's first heir was their son Juan, who died in 1497. Next was their eldest daughter, also names Isabella, who was married to Manuel I of Portugal and died in 1498. The third heir was their grandson Miguel, Isabella and Manuel's child, who died in 1500. It was only after these three deaths that their second daughter Juana, Charles V's mother, became heir.

In this timeline, it's likely that Juan or the younger Isabella, or one of their children, became the next ruler of Spain. Possibly, that meant a unification of Spain and Portugal.

But since we're changing the Habsburgs' luck in this timeline, there's another convenient death that MUST be considered - King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary in 1490. Matthias was a warrior, had conquered half of Austria from the Habsburgs, and was ruling from Vienna when he died at age 47. He had no legitimate children, so was trying to get his illegitimate teenage son Janos accepted as his heir. However, he died before accomplishing this. Instead, Hungary got a couple of weak kings and went into a serious decline. In 1526 the Ottomans defeated the Hungarians at Mohacs, killed the king, and took much of the country. The rest of Hungary was inherited by the Habsburgs, by way of another lucky marriage.

Since this timeline's POD is probably before Matthias' death, it's possible he lived longer. If so, the Ottomans could have faced a much stronger Hungary on their northern border, blocking any attempts at expansion. At the same time Spain, though strong, was not part of a Habsburg superpower. Under these conditions, it's conceivable the Ottoman Empire would have turned to the west.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Perhaps that forces Austria-Burgundy into becoming a colonial power?

 

[Atom]

I'm not very informed about this period (it apears there are people who know far more about it on this board), but I imagine it would be easiest not to have a united Castile and Aragon. Having a war between them would help to.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Wow. That's good input.

Matthias died of gout, so I'm not sure how many more years he was good for, but it seems to me that most of his reign was spent struggling for position, and that it was only his extraordinary character and abilities that held things together - in other words, I think the Ottomans had a strong centralized system that ran itself even with a mediocre ruler, whereas Matthias' empire was a personal creation that was too unstable to last without him.

On both subjects, since he was married to Ferdinand's daughter, could you not end up with Hungary-Aragon? That sounds whacky, but stranger things have happened. I don't know if she was barren or merely failed to conceive...

There's an assumption that Spain would be part of the Habsburg Empire. However, if it wasn't for that families' bizarre luck with marriages and deaths, that wouldn't be true. Of course Charles V, the first Habsburg King of Spain, wasn't even born till 1500. Since the POD for this timeline must be before 1492, he obviously wouldn't exist. However, it's unlikely that any analog from this timeline would have inherited the throne of Spain.

Ferdinand and Isabella's first heir was their son Juan, who died in 1497. Next was their eldest daughter, also names Isabella, who was married to Manuel I of Portugal and died in 1498. The third heir was their grandson Miguel, Isabella and Manuel's child, who died in 1500. It was only after these three deaths that their second daughter Juana, Charles V's mother, became heir.

In this timeline, it's likely that Juan or the younger Isabella, or one of their children, became the next ruler of Spain. Possibly, that meant a unification of Spain and Portugal.

But since we're changing the Habsburgs' luck in this timeline, there's another convenient death that MUST be considered - King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary in 1490. Matthias was a warrior, had conquered half of Austria from the Habsburgs, and was ruling from Vienna when he died at age 47. He had no legitimate children, so was trying to get his illegitimate teenage son Janos accepted as his heir. However, he died before accomplishing this. Instead, Hungary got a couple of weak kings and went into a serious decline. In 1526 the Ottomans defeated the Hungarians at Mohacs, killed the king, and took much of the country. The rest of Hungary was inherited by the Habsburgs, by way of another lucky marriage.

Since this timeline's POD is probably before Matthias' death, it's possible he lived longer. If so, the Ottomans could have faced a much stronger Hungary on their northern border, blocking any attempts at expansion. At the same time Spain, though strong, was not part of a Habsburg superpower. Under these conditions, it's conceivable the Ottoman Empire would have turned to the west.

 

[Tocomocho]

You'll note Charles did not attempt to attack the real center of Ottoman power in the West Med, Algiers, because he had no chance of success. From there Barbarossa even landed in Italy and would have sacked Rome, but the Sultan ordered him not to to avoid embarrassing France. If Charles couldn't even protect Rome, the Ottomans with a base in Granada would be a larger problem.

What? Charles attacked Algiers in OTL. And it wasn't what I would call a small attack. He also made something more than raids in the own Balkans. He can be the Emperor of the Romans, but he doesn't have the obligation to defend Rome as Rome isn't part of his lands. In fact, as other guy mentioned, he did sack Rome in OTL and he wasn't anything soft when he did that. I wonder if the Ottomans would rape nuns and play football with Saint Peter's head like Charles' soldiers did, by the way...

So a would-be attack on Rome that never happened doesn't prove anything. Neither the Turks nor their Barbary vassals sacked ever a big port in Spain like Barcelona, Valencia or Cádiz, just small coastal villages and towns which had little or no defenses at all (which is the same argument you used to defend why the Ottomans didn't prevent the fall of Tunis). I agree that the Ottomans were in their golden ageat this time; yet you seem to forget that Spain also was. The situation in the Mediterranean between 1500 and 1700 was more a Spanish-Turkish stalemate than a clear Ottoman or Christian dominance.

Second, it is still neccessary to give 30 or 40 extra years to Granada till the Ottomans can be of any help, because they had not a proper fleet nor a domination of the seas in the 1480s or 1490s. The Knights of Rhodes were still around in 1520, despite they were right in the face of the Ottoman Empire! The only way to have Granada surviving that time is to butterfly away the union of Castile and Aragon, i.e. the birth of Spain. If they join together, Granada is toast, plain and simple. And in the remote case Spain comes around and Granada is still there, and even if the Ottomas are at their peak, I'm still sceptical about the Ottomans launching a successful campaign in the Iberian Peninsula. They weren't able or willing to subdue the Saadis in Morocco in OTL, and I don't think it was because the Moroccans were more powerful than the whole Ottoman Empire. It was just that Morocco is fuckingly far, in the opposite side of the Mediterranean and with a big power right above it. Same happens with Granada.

 

[Max Sinister]

Why didn't the Ottomans cooperate with the Barbary pirate states and Granada earlier? Since 1453, one should think, they were strong enough.

 

[Tocomocho]

I favor a union with Morocco, the type of which was attempted with the Almoravids and Almohads. This is the only way Granada could have survived.

Eh... it wasn't an union with Morocco. It was an invasion first by the Almoravids then by the Almohads, and the Andalusis suffered it at the same rate the Christians did.

By the way, there is no Morocco to play with, because Morocco is divided into statelets that didn't start to join till the aftermath of the Battle of Kser el Kebir. And I doubt theywould attend Granada's petitions as they didn't care about Granada. The King of Fez refused to send any help, despite he was a personal friend of King Boabdil. In fact, few people in the Muslim world if any cared at all about Granada during her conquest, and the cry for her loss only came decades after it happened.

 

[Tocomocho]

Why didn't the Ottomans cooperate with the Barbary pirate states and Granada earlier? Since 1453, one should think, they were strong enough.

They were strong on land but not at sea. In fact, around 1500 Algiers was paying tribute to Aragon...

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Why didn't the Ottomans cooperate with the Barbary pirate states and Granada earlier? Since 1453, one should think, they were strong enough.

Mehmed's conquests were so large and destabilizing that a period of consolidation was required. At this time, eastern nations were incomparably richer than Western ones - and the immense wealth to be gained by an easy and proximate conquest of the Mamelukes was far more attractive than a much more difficult and uncessary conflict with Spain.

In addition, in 1453, the Ottoman fleet was fairly new and the Aegean was still infested with Christian corsairs operating out of the Aegean islands - that was a bit of work to clear up.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

That was a puny operation. Teeny.

The Ottomans were operating armies of six digits in this period. Charles' strategy was to very deliberately avoid head-on conflicts with the Ottoman army - and it was a very smart strategy. Suleyman was interested in Hungary - the conflict with Spain was a sideshow. If the main effort had been in Iberia, believe me, you'd know it.

Spain was at it's peak in this period, but that doesn't put their army on par with the Ottomans - and in any case, sans Granada we're talking about a different Spain, a different Holy Roman Empire, different dynastic unions, and in almost every conceivable scenario, a weaker "Spain", which anyway didn't have the human or material resources to maintain its position in the long-run (or even medium-run) as a first-rank power.

The HRE was defender of Christendom. Having Rome sacked by the infidel would be a disaster. In 1876 3,000 Bulgarians were killed in a revolt, leading to demonstrations against the "Bulgarian Horrors" and led to the destruction of Ottoman power in Europe. Yet, just a few years earlier 20 times that number of people were killed in the Paris Commune which laid waste to much of the cultural center of Europe. Yet people still rant and rave about how brutal the Turks are but have forgotton the far worse destruction the French wrought upon themselves. So I don't think that Charles' sack of Rome, no matter how brutal (and at this time, a sack was a sack - is there such thing as a happy fun conquest of a city?), would have the same impact upon Europe as if the Ottomans did it. 1453 is the arbitrary date marking the end of the Middle Ages for a good reason - the fall of Constantinople, no matter how inevitable, overdue, and largely irrelevant, was a body blow to the European psyche.

What? Charles attacked Algiers in OTL. And it wasn't what I would call a small attack. He also made something more than raids in the own Balkans. He can be the Emperor of the Romans, but he doesn't have the obligation to defend Rome as Rome isn't part of his lands. In fact, as other guy mentioned, he did sack Rome in OTL and he wasn't anything soft when he did that. I wonder if the Ottomans would rape nuns and play football with Saint Peter's head like Charles' soldiers did, by the way...

So a would-be attack on Rome that never happened doesn't prove anything. Neither the Turks nor their Barbary vassals sacked ever a big port in Spain like Barcelona, Valencia or Cádiz, just small coastal villages and towns which had little or no defenses at all (which is the same argument you used to defend why the Ottomans didn't prevent the fall of Tunis). I agree that the Ottomans were in their golden ageat this time; yet you seem to forget that Spain also was. The situation in the Mediterranean between 1500 and 1700 was more a Spanish-Turkish stalemate than a clear Ottoman or Christian dominance.

Second, it is still neccessary to give 30 or 40 extra years to Granada till the Ottomans can be of any help, because they had not a proper fleet nor a domination of the seas in the 1480s or 1490s. The Knights of Rhodes were still around in 1520, despite they were right in the face of the Ottoman Empire! The only way to have Granada surviving that time is to butterfly away the union of Castile and Aragon, i.e. the birth of Spain. If they join together, Granada is toast, plain and simple. And in the remote case Spain comes around and Granada is still there, and even if the Ottomas are at their peak, I'm still sceptical about the Ottomans launching a successful campaign in the Iberian Peninsula. They weren't able or willing to subdue the Saadis in Morocco in OTL, and I don't think it was because the Moroccans were more powerful than the whole Ottoman Empire. It was just that Morocco is fuckingly far, in the opposite side of the Mediterranean and with a big power right above it. Same happens with Granada.

 

[Paladin]

Strangely enough, I'm an International Affairs major specializing in human rights and genocide, and I've never even heard of the "Bulgarian horrors" except possibly lumped in with the rest of the unpleasantness of the Balkans.

On the other hand, I had to write a freaking paper of the Paris Commune.

As for 1453, remember that it also marked the end of the Hundred years war, so it's not completely arbitrary.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Strangely enough, I'm an International Affairs major specializing in human rights and genocide, and I've never even heard of the "Bulgarian horrors" except possibly lumped in with the rest of the unpleasantness of the Balkans.

On the other hand, I had to write a freaking paper of the Paris Commune.

As for 1453, remember that it also marked the end of the Hundred years war, so it's not completely arbitrary.

It is an arbitrary dividing line, but I don't at all think it's a random one. Big year, that 1453!

 

[Archdevil]

1492 is a more common year to end the Middle Ages, thanks to Columbus.

Off course, his expedition could only start thanks to the fall of Grenada in the same year.

re the "centralized Ottoman state" claimed here: we're talking about the same state where at eleven times, the ruling sultan was deposed. Where local governors operated with little regard for the guy in charge in Constantinople and which had the decidedly decentralizing millet system in place.
And then there are the various succession crises to consider.

The only two countries in Europe with some degree of centralization at the end of the Middle Ages were France and England, thanks to over a hundred years of war.
There was an attempt of centralization in the Burgundian territories (inspired by France), but attempts to continue that by the Habsburgs were partly responsible for the Dutch Revolt later on, indicating how people were attached to their own privileges.