ottoman southern Italy in 16 century ?

what if ottoman where free to concentrate on southern italy Without Iranian threat or Austrian threat?
could ottoman take kingdom of Naples and Sicily ?

what if Selim did give the Safavid a mortal blow, Perhaps he does better to point of killing or capturing shah Ismail in battle of Chaldiran 1514. or battle of Merv 1510 didn't happen so Uzbek khan stay mortal threat to Safavid instead of dead plus 10 k Uzbeks as OTL.

Without Persian front ottoman sack Vienna in 1527 or 1528. emperor Ferdinand I give up Hungarian Crown. so ottoman get whole vassal kingdom of Hungary and Croatia.

So can ottoman capture southern Italy with without Persian and Austrian threat ?

In OTL France was talking ottoman to invade boot of Italy in 1535 and France to invade the north of Italy simultaneously
 
I dunno if that'll be feasible, it would be quite the overstretch...some points here...

If Hungary in its entirety does fall into Ottoman hands, I doubt it'll be a vassal state, with no rival Hungarian King, the Ottomans could very well just abolish the Hungaian monarchy and directly make it into provinces not unlike the Christian balkan states.

However even with the Persian threat quelled as is the Austrians, you've still have the Spanish to contend with, not to mention the various other German states, after all Charles V, not Ferdinand I was Holy Roman Emperor, and also King of Spain.

France might also rethink the Franco-Ottoman alliance with what how effective the Ottomans would have performed.
 
Well if you're going to remove the two most intractable Ottoman threats from the picture then I think the OE could certainly take southern Italy. With resources that would have been consumed on other fronts freed up, there's no reason to believe that the Ottomans couldn't have poured everything they had into making/hiring an absolutely gigantic fleet, wresting control of the Mediterranean, and then using that opportunity to transport and maneuver their way around Neapolitan/Sicilian defences.

Whether they'd be able to make more headway (e.g. Rome) is highly debatable, since attempting to take Rome would certainly be something that would be very difficult for any European power to stomach.
 
what if ottoman where free to concentrate on southern italy Without Iranian threat or Austrian threat?
could ottoman take kingdom of Naples and Sicily ?

what if Selim did give the Safavid a mortal blow, Perhaps he does better to point of killing or capturing shah Ismail in battle of Chaldiran 1514. or battle of Merv 1510 didn't happen so Uzbek khan stay mortal threat to Safavid instead of dead plus 10 k Uzbeks as OTL.

Without Persian front ottoman sack Vienna in 1527 or 1528. emperor Ferdinand I give up Hungarian Crown. so ottoman get whole vassal kingdom of Hungary and Croatia.

So can ottoman capture southern Italy with without Persian and Austrian threat ?

In OTL France was talking ottoman to invade boot of Italy in 1535 and France to invade the north of Italy simultaneously

Definitely possible since it would have been int he Italian wars when the peninsula is too divided, and Ottoman did invade Taranto at some point. I can imagine that Venice, which had positive trade relations with the Ottomans despite wars and enriched itself on Ottoman trade, would let them pass too.

The best time to do this would be under Suleiman's rule before Mohacs and people realizing the impending doom. Reason being the Hungarian medieval army would have been defeated just as hard against a partial Turkish force, even when supplanted by equally backwards crusaders responding to the invasion of Italy by invading Turkey, shattering Crusade morale.

Naples was notoriously unstable, but the Ottomans would never be able to advance on Rome, only the princely states, in fear of losing their French alliance.
 
What are the possibilities for a joint Franco-Turkish offensive that sees Naples go to the Turks but Milan to France, as well as an 'quiet' backing for the French overrunning Northern Italy?

Apart from the Pope screaming bloody murder, of course. Hmm, thinking about it that could be an issue considering the French claim to the Neapolitan throne.
 
Isn't Spain also at the peak of their powers?

Considering also that southern Italy and Spain are under one Monarch at the time period would give the emperor incentive to liberate his other kingdom.

The best I could think of is ottomans initially wins then Spain retakes Naples.
 
Henry II of France live longer

what if Henry II didn't die in Jousting match in 1559. the Hapsburg-Valois war will continue in Italy. Spain will have ottoman and France attacking Italy simultaneously. Spain will but under severe strain
 
what if Henry II didn't die in Jousting match in 1559. the Hapsburg-Valois war will continue in Italy. Spain will have ottoman and France attacking Italy simultaneously. Spain will but under severe strain

Is Henry a military genius to change the course of war with a PoD 1558 even with the string of French defeats?

Is Spain fighting alone or is France the one isolated within the Major powers in Christian Europe?
 
There was an old timeline, sinice discontinued, where a stronger Venice wins the League of Cambrai (getting south tyrol Istria and the Romagna plus a strip of land in Apulia) then allies with the Ottomans against the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean.
In such a scenario an Ottoman alliance could certainly see Suleiman invade Naples. They did invade Taranto in the 1400s and with a friendly Venice providing additional naval support plus a possible beachhead I think they wouldn't have too many difficulties... The straits of Taranto are quite narrow, after all, and I don't think the Habsburg's could project power into the Eastern Med with the Venetians AND the Ottomans working together. They did raid Sicily and bomb Nice later on IIRC.
The Spanish may be at the height of their power but so are the Ottomans. :cool:

OTOH Malta showed that southern Italy was a tricky proposition for the Turks alone. Naples is closer yes but would also need a bigger force and face larger opposition...

It would be a logical path of expansion for the heirs to Eastern Rome.

Holding Southern Italy would be quite a bit harder than taking it.

at vest youd get a vunch of vassals like in the Balkan . The Ottomans could offer safety, stavility and the wealth of the orient trade, but religion is a major sticking point, even given their generally hands off approach...

Bottom line is there is an opportunity but it would require either France or Venice to be friendly to the prospect and would detract from their efforts in Persia and the Balkans. I also expect Southern Italybwould be as hard for them to hold as itbwas foebthe byzzies if not worse; they probably lose it early into the 18th century at the latest.
 
Invade Italy, yes, win the war.... naaaa. The fact is that the Ottomans didn't lose their power in the Mediterranean Sea because of their eastern problems. Their problem was that their navy was... well, not very good, if you are being polite. And they would need to win the naval war to keep Italy.

It would be a repeat from 1571 (Lepanto).

For this to be posible, they would need help fron Venice, and for the HRE to ignore them, and that is imposible at thet point in time.

And France would be in a very bad position to defend a war that would leave the OT at the doors of Rome.
 
Top