Maximum Ottoman expansion pre-1700?

Per the title.

How far could the Ottoman Empire expand before 1700?

Maybe the Occidental alliances break up early and wars because of Reformation get worse (Maybe no Augsburger Religionsfriede). Maybe the Ottomans hold parts of Spain and Italy with constant raids into other parts oof Europe. Furthermore they and their client states like the Crimean Khanate manage to controll large parts of Eastern Europe and are a direct threat to Poland, which is in constant alarm. Maybe they even rule the whole Caucasus. In Eastern Africa they go further south and are in war with Ethiopia. Also Persia is in danger, as Ottoman troops invade .
 

Cueg

Banned
A conquest of Iran is possible with numerous POD's

Had the Janissaries not declined, the Ottomans could have conceivably conquered all of Italy and everything up to the Danube; including Vienna. The Ottomans were, for a long time, the masters of logistics. Despite this, they couldn't, because of logistics, conquer Vienna in 1529. After a century of building depots and meticulously improving the flow of supplies from the empires center to its frontier, they were finally able to make a push for Vienna. It was only the stagnation of the Ottoman military due in no small part to the hijacking of the bureaucracy by the Janissaries that led to its defeat on the field.
Overexertion wasn't a monolithic force that lead to the empires decline and defeat. The logistical situation was, and always had been, a dynamic variable that is constantly in flux. This is important because there are many on this forum that will argue that Ottoman expansion beyond their historical extent is difficult, impossible, or a form of overextension that would create more harm then good. I wholeheartedly disagree with the aforementioned assertions. Overextension is NOT a static force.
Understanding the aforementioned opens up imaginative possibilities.
 
Hungary was a bad choice to expand into - the plains were too large, too open, and too Christian. They'd have had energy to do better elsewhere if they'd snatched a bit of Hungary's frontier, demanded tribute, and stopped.

Alternately, if they somehow lucked their way into an early capture of Vienna, holding Hungary would suddenly cost them much less, and open up many other options. Not so much options in Germany, but the reduced overstretch could pay off on other frontiers.

That said, there weren't too many options lying about that would have been simple to grab. What do we mean when we say "maximum"? Largest territory? Then the easiest way would be the Ottomans exerting their precedence in the Arabian interior and upper Nile. Which would be costly wastes of effort given the technology at the time.

Limiting things to what I suspect was meant, in rough order of ascending difficulty: The Trucial States or eastern Caucasus would be the easiest. After that the Mezzogiorno, which would be quite complicated to arrange. Then the rest of Italy or Morrocco. Then the very challenging foothold on the Iberian Peninsula. Finally, Persia.

Alternately, there's the colonial option. The Ottomans launched a surprising number of ambitious maritime adventures between 1500 and 1700, from North America to the East Indies. Conceivably, they could have pulled off something extraordinary. It's probably easier than holding Persia alongside its OTL empire (not that that is a high bar!).
 
Top