Ottoman-Portuguese Wars in Indian Ocean WI

This is actually a very interesting idea for a POD - an Ottoman Empire focused on the Indian Ocean would lead to a very different outcome from OTL - in fact, I can't help but envision the Ottoman colonial Empire that was discussed... plus, this could be, ideally, a catalyst for a revitalization of the Ottoman Empire, perhaps a new wave of intellectual development brought on by the new challenge, as the government perhaps sees the threat posed by the Portugese.

Maybe that's wishful thinking... but it would be cool, to see the Ottomans turn themselves around in that manner, and become a real power again. One that could have the Austrians quaking in their boots...
 
The Ottomans successfully clearing the Portuguese out of the Indian Ocean at this time would allow for domination of trade routes by Indians and Middle Easterners, and this would have made it much harder for later Europeans to break into these markets and certainly harder to have something like the EIC take over India.


Abdul,

Oddly enough, I just finished reading a book on this very topic: A Splendid Exchange by William Bernstein.

An Ottomans repulse of the Portuguese wouldn't lead to the domination of spice trade routes by Indians and Middle Easterners because Indians and Middle Easterners already dominated the spice trade routes. An Ottoman victory would have simply prevented any change to the pre-existing systems and not created anything new.

Also, an Ottoman victory wouldn't obviate future Portuguese attempts or attempts by other European powers. The Europeans would have eventually broken into the trade in some manner. The Portuguese themselves only held onto it for a relatively short period of time, and then only partially because they failed to seize the mouth of the Red Sea and could rarely intercept ship traffic there.

In the end, some European power would "discover" the method the Dutch used to muscle the Portuguese out of the trade. The Dutch, thanks in part to advances in maritime technology, used the "Roaring Forties" route across the southern reaches of the Indian Ocean. That allowed them to sail directly to Malacca and the other various spice entrepots. That neatly bypassed all the chokepoints and trade centers the Ottomans and Portuguese had fought over thereby rendering any victory by either party essentially moot.


Bill
 

corourke

Donor
An interesting and often ignored theater of this conflict was Ethiopia.

In the sixteenth century, Portugal sent a number of expeditions to Ethiopia, which was at the time being conquered by Ahmed Gran (sometimes called al-Ghazi). Gran was a Somali, but if I recall correctly he was acting at the behest of Egyptian (and therefore ultimately Ottoman) overlords.

A Portuguese expeditionary force under Christovao da Gama succeeded in killing Gran and expelling the occupying force (the Ethiopians had been more or less completely defeated and occupied by Gran at this point), but in this scenario that help might never arrive. In that case, Ethiopia could be occupied for a hundred years instead of the decade or so that were the case OTL.

Just something to think about.
 
Bump.

Anything more ?

And to Bill Cameron, I have to say that there maybe is a point that you've missed, which is the after math effect of the dawn of the Portuguese on the Indian Ocean have given to the region. Maybe the Portuguese will going to try again, and I'm sure of it. But have the nations around Indian Ocean already felt the effect of the previous Portuguese presence by then ? That should mean something, I guess....
 
The critical point here is the possibility of an Ottoman Suez Canal. Even if one has to develop a network of watering stations between it and Yemen, we have just rendered the circumafrican route obsolite and given the Venitians a MASSIVE shot in the arm economically (and strengthened the trading faction of the local nobility).

HTG
 
Someone said that the wind pattern in the northern end of the red sea sucks for going north. Therefore the Suez Canal would be useless for going northward until the invention of steam engine.

How plausible is this?

However, suppose it is so, had the canal was built, the Ottomans would have found away to get around this problem.

Like, they can use galleys to tow ships upstream. Something like the tug boats now. I think that two galleys with lots of rower-slaves would be enough to tow an armed merchant vessel upstream.

If the Ottomans can develop a strong naval presence in the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea is an Ottoman lake. Supposing the Ottomans ejected the Portuguese from the Indian Ocean, their priority would be to keep the trade to flow through their MUCH shorter route.

I agree that Dutch & English would eventually muscled into the area. Therefore I think that the Ottomans would fight to keep the lionshare of the trade in their hands.

That would justify the Ottoman looking southeast. Because the gold! I don't think that the Ottoman would start colonizing India & SE Asia, but I think they would keep naval bases here and there to keep them dominating trade there & keep check on the europeans.

Remember that western imperialism presence begun from these bases. Probably the Ottomans, in time, would forge alliance with local rulers against the westerners.

I remember an episode in the 1570s during Selim II, envoys from the Sulatan of Aceh in the northern tip of Sumatra went to Constantinople bearing gifts and asked for help against the Portuguese. They were well-recieved.

Aceh was a strong naval power and nearly took Malacca twice in the early 1600s. They were defeated because their naval tech was below Portuguese. But shift this back to the 1570s & Ottoman-Aceh alliance would probably crush the Portuguese.

Also, Aceh was thickly wooded...even now. They never ran out of wood. Ottoman could make a use of that.

Just my $ 0.02
 
And to Bill Cameron, I have to say that there maybe is a point that you've missed, which is the after math effect of the dawn of the Portuguese on the Indian Ocean have given to the region.


Ridwan,

Why should the appearence and repulsion of the Portuguese change anything at all? I can't see how this will somehow spark an Ottoman colonization push; in the Indian Ocean they were a satisified power and not a revisionist one.

The Ottomans, and both their Muslim and non-Muslim predecessors in the Middle East, had been enjoying their piece of the spice trade since before Alexander. All the polities and cultures involved were "satisfied"; that is they were happy with the status quo. It provided the goods they needed, goods they either consumed or trade onward.

Let me suggest that you pick up a book on the Indian Ocean spice trade prior to ~1500 CE. It was vast and cosmopolitian. Chinese traded along it's eastern edges, Greeks and Muslims along it's western edges, and the middle was, and a jumbled whole host of others including Hindis, Acehnese, and Indian Jews worked the middle. It was a working system that no one involved felt the need to upset.

Defeating the Portuguese isn't going to change anything for two factors. First; the Ottomans did beat the Portuguese for a short period. An 80-year-old Ottoman admiral whose name escapes me stomped de Gama off India's southwest coast. It took the Portuguese years to grab and hold what little they did and then they were never able to control the approaches to the Red Sea. (That last bit is also part of the second factor.)

Second; the Portuguese were never able to monopolize the trade. They may have monopolized the delivery of those goods to Europe by seriously undercutting the previous prices those goods sold for in Europe, but they never seriously endangered the flow of those goods along the Indian Ocean trade routes. When the Portuguese seized control of the approaches to the Persian Gulf, all they did was shut down "Sinbad's Route". Goods still moved up the Red Sea to Egypt and the Ottomans.

All the Portguguese presence meant was that the Ottomans and other people in the Middle East sold fewer goods on to Europe. They still had plenty for their own internal consumption.

As I suggested, find a book on the subject. It's a fascinating one.


Bill
 
Someone said that the wind pattern in the northern end of the red sea sucks for going north. Therefore the Suez Canal would be useless for going northward until the invention of steam engine. How plausible is this?


Rad,

Not plausible at all. Goods were moved both by ship and also landed around the southern end of the Red Sea and then moved overland. Mecca, Medina, and all the others started as trading towns remember. The only real threat to shipping on the Red Sea was piracy, something strong polities suppressed.

The Red Sea was one of two trading routes connecting the Indian Ocean basin. The other was the so-called Sinbad route; into the Persian Gulf and than overland through Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, etc.

However, suppose it is so, had the canal was built, the Ottomans would have found away to get around this problem.

Canals were built as far back as the time of the Pharoahs(sic), which rather negates your "Red Sea is bad for sailing vessels" idea.


Bill
 
Portuguese?

Haven't visited in ages, apologies! Have just been reading the Ottoman-Portuguese conflict, entertaining idea. Also just finished a book called "1421", describing a (hypothetical) Chinese exploration of much of the World in and around that year, consequent colonisation, etc. Then Govt. changed and the whole thing fell apart and even the records were destroyed. Fascinating book, recommended to anyone. My point, the Chinese mapmakers were very advanced (according to the book) and their legacy of mapping was taken up by the Portuguese, ie. a possibility Columbus had a map when he sailed to the New World? What if the Chinese fleets had continued to sail? Might we later see a threeway conflict, Ottomans, Portugal and China?
Another two pennyworth?
Ian Winterbottom
 
Haven't visited in ages, apologies! Have just been reading the Ottoman-Portuguese conflict, entertaining idea. Also just finished a book called "1421", describing a (hypothetical) Chinese exploration of much of the World in and around that year, consequent colonisation, etc. Then Govt. changed and the whole thing fell apart and even the records were destroyed. Fascinating book, recommended to anyone. My point, the Chinese mapmakers were very advanced (according to the book) and their legacy of mapping was taken up by the Portuguese, ie. a possibility Columbus had a map when he sailed to the New World? What if the Chinese fleets had continued to sail? Might we later see a threeway conflict, Ottomans, Portugal and China?
Another two pennyworth?
Ian Winterbottom

1421 isn't particularly highly regarded- the fellow who wrote it isn't an expert in the field, merely an amateur crank with an idea.

Now, as to the thread- the Ottomans aren't going to colonise because they simply don't have the manpower. They'll set up trading posts but nothing much more intrusive than that. what's going to be interesting is how the Indian maritime states develop- if the Ottomans adopt advanced shipbuilding techniques these will probably filter through to the Indians. Now, you'd have the serious possibility of Indian polities also putting their navies into the Indian Ocean. Maybe some of these will be able to set up trading posts in East Africa and beyond.
 
Yes, that's what I meant. But note that I was coupling an Ottoman victory with a couple of other essentials:

a) A long-term realignment of Ottoman strategic priorities, and
b) Construction of a canal linking the Med to the Red Sea.

Without either of those or only one, there's not going to be that much difference. If both of those are the case, the Europeans are going to have a very hard time ever competing in Indian Ocean trade.

Abdul,

Oddly enough, I just finished reading a book on this very topic: A Splendid Exchange by William Bernstein.

An Ottomans repulse of the Portuguese wouldn't lead to the domination of spice trade routes by Indians and Middle Easterners because Indians and Middle Easterners already dominated the spice trade routes. An Ottoman victory would have simply prevented any change to the pre-existing systems and not created anything new.

Also, an Ottoman victory wouldn't obviate future Portuguese attempts or attempts by other European powers. The Europeans would have eventually broken into the trade in some manner. The Portuguese themselves only held onto it for a relatively short period of time, and then only partially because they failed to seize the mouth of the Red Sea and could rarely intercept ship traffic there.

In the end, some European power would "discover" the method the Dutch used to muscle the Portuguese out of the trade. The Dutch, thanks in part to advances in maritime technology, used the "Roaring Forties" route across the southern reaches of the Indian Ocean. That allowed them to sail directly to Malacca and the other various spice entrepots. That neatly bypassed all the chokepoints and trade centers the Ottomans and Portuguese had fought over thereby rendering any victory by either party essentially moot.


Bill
 
Yes, that's what I meant. But note that I was coupling an Ottoman victory with a couple of other essentials:

a) A long-term realignment of Ottoman strategic priorities, and
b) Construction of a canal linking the Med to the Red Sea.

Without either of those or only one, there's not going to be that much difference. If both of those are the case, the Europeans are going to have a very hard time ever competing in Indian Ocean trade.

My question for you is this: who will participate in the carrying trade that will presumably flow through the Ottoman's Suez Canal? If the answer is Muslim merchants, then I don't think that you've really changed the dynamic enough to end the economic incentives for the French, English, and Dutch to continue to attempt to grab a piece of the Indian trade via the Cape of Good Hope route.

Also, the changed strategic priorities- does this include the construction of a new fleet to solidify Ottoman control over India? Does it also include direct Ottoman possessions (or client regimes) on the Indian subcontinent?

I think that for the strategic priorities to change, you need some kind of gain that the Ottomans can easily see. I don't think that kind of gain can be achieved without changing priorities (especially building the Suez)- so they're in a catch-22.

If there is a general push East and more economic growth within the Ottoman Empire, how likely is it that the Ottomans will attempt to push further east on their land border in an effort to subjugate the Safavids?

Last idea: If the Suez Canal is going to be built, can we get a Don to Volga Canal as well?
 
Rad,

Not plausible at all. Goods were moved both by ship and also landed around the southern end of the Red Sea and then moved overland. Mecca, Medina, and all the others started as trading towns remember. The only real threat to shipping on the Red Sea was piracy, something strong polities suppressed.



Canals were built as far back as the time of the Pharoahs(sic), which rather negates your "Red Sea is bad for sailing vessels" idea.


Bill

Bill,

I never said that "red sea is bad for sailing vessels"

What I said was that the northern end of the sea was bad for sailing ships going northward, is this right or wrong I don't know.

If the northern end was bad for sailing ships, then it would be pretty useless to construct a canal there. Ships would find it difficult to go there.

Rad
 
I never said that "red sea is bad for sailing vessels".


Rad,

Yes, you said that and during certain times of the year the Red Sea is bad for sailing vessels. You also suggested something more however; that the seasonal unsuitability of the Red Sea for sail transport somehow meant that the Red Sea trading routes didn't work and/or were less useful. It was that portion of your claim that I was refuting.

The Red Sea route was the better of the two trade routes at the western end of the Indian Ocean basin. The overland component of that route was far shorter than the Persian Gulf/Mespotamia(sic) alternate (i.e. the Sinbad route) and involved fewer middlemen. Thus the Red Sea route saved on both transport and "tolls".

The Cape route the Europeans "discovered" really didn't save on transport costs, but they did save on the "tolls" charged by various middlemen. What's more, thanks to the Cape route transport costs involved, the Portuguese didn't really undercut the prices already paid for spices at the docks of Alexandria. The big savings and the big money that followed only really occurred when Holland seized the production areas rather than the transport routes as the Portuguese did.

If the northern end was bad for sailing ships, then it would be pretty useless to construct a canal there. Ships would find it difficult to go there.

Which, of course, is why the Med-Red Sea canal was dredged in 1867 only to be used by primarily sailing ships for the next decade or so. Cheap steel and improvements in marine engineering finally shifted most of the canal's traffic to steam, not the "unsuitability" of sail.

The pre-1867 canal, both ancient, medieval, and Muslim failed for entirely different reasons. First, those canals connected the Red Sea with the Nile and, when the Nile flooded yearly, it would silt it's end of the canal creating the need constant dredging - a very expensive proposition before steam-driven equipment. Second, the pre-1867 canals connected to the Red Sea through the Great Bitter Lake. When the tides and winds were "right" both the Lake and the natural waterway that connected it to the Red Sea would all but empty leaving shipping traffic aground until the water returned.


Bill
 
All the Portguguese presence meant was that the Ottomans and other people in the Middle East sold fewer goods on to Europe. They still had plenty for their own internal consumption.

But make less off the profit. And I disagree about your statement it didn't affect the non-European trade; the Portuguese did a pretty good job of taking and holding major entrepots, and trying to use that to their advantage. Malacca, Zanzibar...
 
And I disagree about your statement it didn't affect the non-European trade; the Portuguese did a pretty good job of taking and holding major entrepots, and trying to use that to their advantage. Malacca, Zanzibar...


Faeelin,

Check out the book I posted. The actual numbers are all there.

The Portuguese never came close to shunting the trade into a monopoly they controlled. They were able to grab up certain entrepots, control through various licenses the trade between those entrepots, and monopolize the trade into Europe. However, they never shut down the land/sea route up the Red Sea, only imperfectly controlled the Persian Gulf "Sinbad" route, and never controlled anything resembling a simple majority of the Indian Ocean trade itself. There were too many other actors and the Portuguese only grabbed a few choke points.

It was only when the Dutch seized the sources of supply that the Europeans came anywhere near achieving a monopoly status.

Anyway, as Abdul correctly pointed out, a naval victory isn't enough a POD. An Ottoman admiral, Ries (IIRC), did beat the Portguese in at least one pitched battle and the Ottomans didn't lose every single smaller skirmish either. As I continue to point out, they kept the Red Sea routes out of European control. Ottoman thinking about and perception of the situation would have to be shifted also. Beating de Gama and Albequerque (sic) isn't enough because the Ottomans did that historically.


Bill
 
Ottoman defeating the Portuguese means that Ottoman would get the Hormuz but not in India. Portuguese doesn't want to give up India to Ottomans and second Ottoman-Portuguese will happen. If Portuguese would lose, I think the focus of the Portuguese would shift to Brazil.

Another is, no more Portuguese in India means that Ottoman, British, French and Dutch would compete for the control for India with British victory by early 19th century.
 
Top