Ottoman russia ?

Is there any chance the ottomans could've conquered some southern lands from russia ? Could they have made it to moscow ? I always wondered why OE never tried to conquer Russia , i mean they did hold the balkans , and the russian army wasn't that good before the USSR, i am not good in the ottoman/russian history so please can someone explain this to me ?
 
The Ottomans did hold some territories in Ukraine and southern Russia - some directly, others through their Crimean Tatar vassals. And the Crimean Tatars did reach and burn Moscow in 1571.

As for how these gains could be made bigger or more permanent...no idea. The Russian army wasn't very good at the time, but it was no joke either, especially when fortified.

Maybe it would help the Ottomans if they directly took over the vassal Tatars. The Crimean Khanate's entire organization and economy was based on slavery and slave raids; it was sometimes an useful ally to the Ottomans, but also an obstacle to more permanent conquest and bad for stability in general.
 
Is there any chance the ottomans could've conquered some southern lands from russia ? Could they have made it to moscow ? I always wondered why OE never tried to conquer Russia , i mean they did hold the balkans , and the russian army wasn't that good before the USSR, i am not good in the ottoman/russian history so please can someone explain this to me ?

Russia is cold and poor compared to South Europe. Also while Russian army rarely held to Western contemporaries, it won almost all Russian-Ottoman wars, and when it did not, the result was usually a return to status quo. Still there is no guarantee that Russians would always win when they did. It is possible for Ottomans to hold at least part of modern Ukraine and Trans-Caucasian territories up to 20s century. The last POD could be as late as Crimean War of 1854.
 
I think that when we take into consideration any decision by a competent expansionist power (as the Ottomans undoubtedly were during this period), there are probably several main elements that dictate whether or not they will attempt to conquer any given territory:

Balance of accounts: This has to do with whether the presumed cost of the conquest outweighs the economic benefit derived from the incorporation of the territory into the Empire. This value will derive itself from several sources. First of all is tax income, which also includes the jizya. Despite the increase in tax burden on the people resulting from the jizya, this is only useful if the locals are capable of paying it, which I think is probably questionable in the Russian case. Farming techniques are backward compared with much of the rest of Europe. Russian territory is open and with poor infrastructure, creating a significant burden on tax collectors, with little control over the accountability of tax collectors, who may well skim plenty off of the top for themselves. A tributary relationship, receiving furs, possibly amber or other goods that are scarce in the Eastern Mediterranean, is more valuable, and to a degree operated IOTL with the Crimean Tatars as a middleman providing Russian slaves.

Capability: The ability to project power in order to seize and maintain control over the territory. At least in regards to the former, I have little doubt that the Ottomans could have maintained control at least over large territories in Ukraine. In the late 1600s the Ottomans were able to impose their control over much of Ukraine, including authority over the Cossack Hetmanate, until Poland and Russia began to unite against the Turkish threat. This is where the second problem comes in - retention of control. I highly doubt that the Ottomans, who face multiple significant rivals on different fronts in the form of Safavid Persia, the Hapsburgs, Spain, Poland and Russia, can retain control over wide open areas such as Russia without the complete annihilation of the relevant threat in a particular theater and the establishment of borders along natural barriers. In Russia, this is simply not possible. I can't see an Ottoman Empire capable of exerting the effort to seize all of Russia west of the Urals without opening itself up to the dispossession of their core political and economic powerbases.

Relative Benefit: This is whether or not an alternative target for expansion can provide a more immediate and significant benefit to the conqueror. This is definitely present. Italy is far more likely to pay dividends, having a highly-developed economy, numerous rich cities with a high tax base, lots of infrastructure allowing effective tax collection and trade, easy access (as long as naval superiority is maintained) and defensible frontiers (the Alps). With this added revenue, I could see the Ottomans being able to seize Vienna and maintain a line between the Alps, the Leitha Mountains and the Carpathians. They could easily fortify the passes along these lines and make an extremely formidable line of defense between Ottoman Southern Europe and the rest of the continent. With the added revenue of Italy, as well as more ports and expert shipwrights, they could likely achieve supremacy, if not outright dominance over the Mediterranean. Between a powerful Ottoman fleet in the centre of the Mediterranean and the Barbary pirates, it would be extremely impressive if the Spanish and the Knights of St John were able to roll back Ottoman strength. It is even possible that the Ottomans would be able to utilise their wealth and power to keep the Protestants and Catholics divided in Germany, and could ally with the French at the expense of the Spanish. It is true that in such a situation, a Russia which extends its control over the Ukraine is the only real single existential threat to the Ottomans. There is no easy fix to this. I would presume that there would need to be, after all of these Danube and Italian campaigns, an effort to balkanise Russia and support the Crimean Tatars. That being said, there is no easy fix, and for an Ottoman ruler accustomed to their own supremacy, Muscovy would seem like a very distant threat indeed. An expectation of such foresight is probably unreasonable.

Based on balancing these factors, it seems unlikely that the Ottomans could hold significant Russian territory for an extended period of time.
 
if ottoman destroy totally Safavid Persia in 1514-1520. ottoman will have more than enough resources to capture southern Russia and Volga river valley. ottoman will build don-volga canal to access rich silk producing Iranian Caspian coast by 1550 instead of otl attempted effort of 1570
ottoman could have save Kazan khanate before it downfall in 1552. with Kazan in ottoman hand .ottoman get Ural and Siberia before Russia. in time of trouble of 1600-1613 ottoman have excellent chance to cripple Russia form south and kazan. ottoman could capture kursk and Voronezh and have border run form sura river to khopyor river to Voronezh to kursk.

Italy very tough nut to crack . you have Spain and France fighting over Italy for more than half century 1495-1559. Russia of 16 century isn't tsarists Russia of late 18 century. if you get southern Russia and Ural and Volga river valley and Siberia that is more valuable than chunk of Italy
 
Last edited:
Top