Ottoman Vienna-- Ottoman Italy?

I'm still waiting for any sensible proposal from your side. Don't feel the pressure, though: I can wait :rolleyes:

Since you reject the concept of there being a way this could be different as an unreasonable idea, I suspect you'll have to keep waiting.
 
Since you reject the concept of there being a way this could be different as an unreasonable idea, I suspect you'll have to keep waiting.

A sensible way, I said: this I've not yet seen.

The problem with you, my deal Elfwine, is that you are biased in favor of Costantinople, irrespective of the era and the form of empire located there.
I do remember very well you were singing a very different kind of song during various discussions about an early Suez canal, talk about pots and kettles.
 
A sensible way, I said: this I've not yet seen.

The problem with you, my deal Elfwine, is that you are biased in favor of Costantinople, irrespective of the era and the form of empire located there.
I do remember very well you were singing a very different kind of song during various discussions about an early Suez canal, talk about pots and kettles.

I don't see you acknowledging that there is such a thing when you talk about ideas of changing the Ottoman army as if people are proposing making a New Model Army "out of the blue" when suggesting that changes could be made.

As for Constantinople: I don't like the Latin Empire and I don't bet on the odds of a post-1204 Byzantine Empire being favorable - or at all realistic by the mid 14th century.

So much for "all eras and the form of the empire".

As for the Suez canal, that is a different situation, not an equivalent scenario.
 
Great Byzantinophile vs Turkophile bashing, as little as I care for ERE wanks, I don't think it's constructive The Ottomans could only do such before their system could start to hurt itself.

The Ottomans could not hold to Vienna or Italy within reason, The Ottomans would have to deal with the same problems the ERE did and more, threats from the East, the Safavids and threats from other area's like keeping the Crimea. The Ottomans would also have to be wary of the Janissaries and their interests and if the Ottomans aren't practicing chaotic fratricide than the Kafes system could lead to serious problems. At best I could see the Ottomans weakening The Hapsburgs greatly and possibly keeping what they have of Hungary and maybe forcing nearby states in the Balkans as clients like they did with Wallachia without of fear of influence from other states save Poland and possibly Russia.
 
I don't see you acknowledging that there is such a thing when you talk about ideas of changing the Ottoman army as making a New Model Army "out of the blue".

As for Constantinople: I don't like the Latin Empire and I don't bet on the odds of a post-1300 Byzantine Empire - heck, I'm iffy on the odds of a post-1204 Byzantine empire doing better than OTL.

As for the Suez canal, that is a different situation.

It's always a different situation, isn't it?

For the record I said:
"you need to change something else before you just wave your fingers and create a New Model Army out of the blue"
which is quite different from what you understood (or thought to understand).
Never mind, old chap: sticks and stones....
 
It's always a different situation, isn't it?

For the record I said:
"you need to change something else before you just wave your fingers and create a New Model Army out of the blue"
which is quite different from what you understood (or thought to understand).
Never mind, old chap: sticks and stones....

And as you clearly have no interest in anything resembling a polite and productive discussion, say hello to the ignore list.
 
Now that is a great idea: I wonder why noone thought of it, since the parlous position of the Habsburgs when the Elector Palatine claimed the throne of Bohemia was pretty evident. Oh, wait:

QUOTE (from Wikipedia, I know. But still..)
In the east, the Protestant Hungarian Prince of Transylvania, Gabriel Bethlen, led a spirited campaign into Hungary with the support of the Ottoman Sultan, Osman II. Fearful of the Catholic policies of Ferdinand II, Gabriel Bethlen requested a protectorate by Osman II, so "the Ottoman Empire became the one and only ally of great-power status which the rebellious Bohemian states could muster after they had shaken off Habsburg rule and had elected Frederick V as a Protestant king".[25] Ambassadors were exchanged, with Heinrich Bitter visiting Constantinople in January 1620, and Mehmed Aga visiting Prague in July 1620. The Ottomans offered a force of 60,000 cavalry to Frederick and plans were made for an invasion of Poland with 400,000 troops in exchange for the payment of an annual tribute to the Sultan.[26] These negotiations triggered the Polish–Ottoman War of 1620–21. The Ottomans defeated the Poles, who were supporting the Habsburgs in the Thirty Years' War, at the Battle of Cecora in September–October 1620,[28] but were not able to further intervene efficiently before the Bohemian defeat at the Battle of the White Mountain in November 1620. Later Poles defeated the Ottomans at the Battle of Chocim and the war ended with status quo.
UNQUOTE

Osman lost most of his army to winter cold and sickness, but eventually made it back to Costantinople.
It's pretty interesting what happened afterwards:

QUOTE
The Battle of Khotyn was the largest battle in the history of the Polish Commonwealth to date, and it was proclaimed as a great victory over the 'heathens'. Among the accounts of the battle is a rather one-sided one from Wacław Potocki's Transakcja wojny chocimskiej (The Progress of the War of Chocim), written during the period 1669–1672. It was based on the less-known Commentariorum Chotinensis belli libri tres ("Commentary on the Chocim War in three volumes") (diary, published in 1646) by Jakub Sobieski and other sources, now lost.

On the Ottoman side, young Sultan Osman II declared publicly that the result of this battle was an Ottoman victory over the 'giaour'. When he returned to Istanbul on 27 December 1621, he entered with a victory procession; there were three days and nights of victory celebrations. However, the young Sultan was personally very unsatisfied with the result of the battle and the behavior of his household troops, the janissaries, during the campaign and started taking measures to reform the Ottoman military. That attempt led to a revolt in Istanbul by the army, madrasa (religious school) students and wealthy merchants in May 1622, at the end of which Sultan Osman II was deposed and killed by the leaders of the mob
UNQUOTE

Another unlucky reformer. Now it might possibly be argued that Osman could have handled better the aftermath of the Polish war, but it looks like the forces arraigned against his attempt at reforming were quite widespread, and at least a few years of unrest would have to be expected. It is quite possible that the Safavids still make a grab for Baghdad (as they did OTL during the regency of Murad IV), and therefore the priority for the Ottomans would switch to the east. Even if they don't take this opportunity, the reformation process of the Ottoman structure (not just the army) would take decades, and this would negate any possibility to make another try in the north-west.

Never underestimate the opposition to change and the built in inertia of a structure like the Ottoman one, the more so since (within limits) it has been working pretty well.

He was responding to a potential scenario that I posited, the idea that a joint operation between a Swedish (not Bohemian) army and an Ottoman/Transylvanian army takes out Vienna. The logistics for both parties are a nightmare, but the threat could easily make the Habsburgs panic and do something stupid, and at the very least the suburbs could get trashed by cavalry.

However the scenario required an earlier element, that the Safavids do not exist, and that no similar threat exists on the Ottoman Empire's eastern frontier. Either this would be in the form of a Sunni Persia, so the religious element in OTL Ottoman-Safavid element is gone, however typically great powers rubbing borders is still an issue. The other option was a fragmented Persia, but then Kostantiyye might go fishing in Persia, not Hungary. (And there's the issue of having a Thirty Years War IOTL style with a POD around 1500ish)

In short, I think the Ottoman Empire can take and hold Vienna provided the Ottomans are not required to commit significant land forces to Asia. However I admit that is a very difficult condition to both fulfill and sustain. Without that caveat, I think the Ottomans could wreck Vienna given a lucky campaign, but would not be able to hold it any more than Venice could hold the Morea in the late 1600s/early 1700s.

Truthfully the best way towards an Ottoman Italy I think is a development of the 1480 Otranto expedition. The problem though is an Ottoman southern Italy is going to anger Spain, the HRE, and France. Yes, I know Franco-Ottoman relations were good in this time period IOTL, but that was because from Paris' perspective the Ottomans were in the second ring of states (the neighbors of France's neighbors, effectively the enemy of their enemies). As soon as the Ottomans enter the first ring (neighbor), that will change.

Not to mention the fact that the Ottomans still have to deal with Persia, and in 1480 the Mamelukes are still around.

Regarding Ottoman reform, the fact that for serious ones to go forward required the prerequisite of ambushing and mowing the Janissaries down with cannon fire IOTL suggests it won't be easy, and would require several decades at least.

@LordKalvan: Do you know of any good books on the Ottoman army? I have Lord Kinross' history of the Ottoman Empire, but that's it.
 
Last edited:
... as a matter of fact they never incorporated lower Hungary: it was governed by Transilvanian princes, vassals of the Ottomans, but always a bit unruly. At the time of the 2nd siege of Vienna (1683) the situation was not substantially different.

This is partly true. At the time of the 1529 siege, all of Eastern Hungary was ruled by John Zapolya who claimed the title of king of Hungary. He had recently suffered a defeat by Ferdinand's forces and had agreed to become a vassal of Suleiman to get help against the Hapsburgs. He was in no position to be unruly.

Some time after the war was over, Eastern Hungary was divided, with the Turks ruling central Hungary (including Budapest) directly and the successors of Zapolya ruling Transylvania further to the East. Zapolya's son, John Sigismund, was the first Prince of Transylvania. He was pretty tractable, but later rulers were not so easy to control. Around 1660, however, the last of the independent-minded princes was defeated and removed by the Turks and there was a puppet ruler in place again by the time of the second siege.

On the 1529 siege: it wasn't implausible that the Turks would win. The rains had been particularly bad that year and the heavy cannons didn't reach Vienna (question -- could some have been sent by boat up the Danube?). The defenders, though seriously outnumbered, were well-trained, highly motivated, superbly commanded by Nicholas von Salm and never betrayed from within. There's obviously some room for a counterfactual outcome.
 
He was responding to a potential scenario that I posited, the idea that a joint operation between a Swedish (not Bohemian) army and an Ottoman/Transylvanian army takes out Vienna. The logistics for both parties are a nightmare, but the threat could easily make the Habsburgs panic and do something stupid, and at the very least the suburbs could get trashed by cavalry.

However the scenario required an earlier element, that the Safavids do not exist, and that no similar threat exists on the Ottoman Empire's eastern frontier. Either this would be in the form of a Sunni Persia, so the religious element in OTL Ottoman-Safavid element is gone, however typically great powers rubbing borders is still an issue. The other option was a fragmented Persia, but then Kostantiyye might go fishing in Persia, not Hungary. (And there's the issue of having a Thirty Years War IOTL style with a POD around 1500ish)

In short, I think the Ottoman Empire can take and hold Vienna provided the Ottomans are not required to commit significant land forces to Asia. However I admit that is a very difficult condition to both fulfill and sustain. Without that caveat, I think the Ottomans could wreck Vienna given a lucky campaign, but would not be able to hold it any more than Venice could hold the Morea in the late 1600s/early 1700s.

Truthfully the best way towards an Ottoman Italy I think is a development of the 1480 Otranto expedition. The problem though is an Ottoman southern Italy is going to anger Spain, the HRE, and France. Yes, I know Franco-Ottoman relations were good in this time period IOTL, but that was because from Paris' perspective the Ottomans were in the second ring of states (the neighbors of France's neighbors, effectively the enemy of their enemies). As soon as the Ottomans enter the first ring (neighbor), that will change.

Not to mention the fact that the Ottomans still have to deal with Persia, and in 1480 the Mamelukes are still around.

Regarding Ottoman reform, the fact that for serious ones to go forward required the prerequisite of ambushing and mowing the Janissaries down with cannon fire IOTL suggests it won't be easy, and would require several decades at least.

@LordKalvan: Do you know of any good books on the Ottoman army? I have Lord Kinross' history of the Ottoman Empire, but that's it.

I know you were the instigator of the idea :D
It's a bit too convoluted to work, for a number of reasons:
- Persia is very, very difficult to take out from the west. It happened two times only (Alexander and the Arab invasion) and IMHO both of them were flukes (the 3rd time Persia was conquered by the Mongols, and that too is a very different sort of game). OTOH Rome (and Constantinople) head butted with Persia many times, but neither side prevailed. The same happened when the Ottomans replaced the ERE: Mesopotamia changed hands a few times, and there were heavy fighting around lake Van and Tabriz (same as it happened with the Romans). However the "western" side never entered the true Iranian highlands, nor the Persians entered in force into Anatolia. Quite difficult to imagine that the Safavids can be disposed of (Murad IV made a serious try in the 1630s, and tried to set up an anti-Persian alliance with the Moghuls, but nothing came out of it). The religious divide sunni/shi'a is also an important part of the difficulties: southern Mesopotamia remained (and remains) staunchly shi'a against all difficulties and persecutions.
- it is also very very difficult to plan for an enveloping maneuvre that encompasses such distances. It is not impossible (Venice at different times tried to engineer a Mameluk-Safavid alliance against the Ottomans and a Mameluk-Ottoman alliance against the Portuguese in the Indian ocean; unsurprisingly both attempts failed). The 16th century may be a bit too early for intercontinental diplomacy, and the time frame involved was too long for the proper span of attention to be given. This applies also to the theoretical Swedish-Ottoman alliance you suggested. Osman II made war on Poland, but it was more to avoid Polish encroachment in Moldavia than to be a part of an anti-Habsburg pincer, and the Protestant Hungarians could not do much on their own. The war with Poland did not go too well, Osman was assassinated in a coup and the Ottomans were sidelined anyway for the rest of the 30 years war.
- finally I should say that Vienna is hardly the highest priority for a sultan. It may look strange, since Suleiman tried twice to take it; however there is a view that he was "counting coup" rather than looking to secure Vienna as the advance base for an "invasion of Europe", which not even a megalomaniac could have planned. According to this theory, the main practical aim was to secure the recent Ottoman gains in Hungary: this makes sense to me.

Regarding books: I've also read Kinross, it's a bit dated but not really bad. I also did enjoy a lot a book on military history titled "The Renaissance at War" which discusses the changes in mil tech at the end of 15th century and during 16th century. It talks about Ottomans too (Mohacs, Rhodes, Malta, Lepanto) but it also gives a very good and detailed background in general (including the weight of artillery pieces, how much foodstuff was required to sustain an army, the standard payments for a mercenary company). Sorry but I cannot remember the author.

I would be interested to read this book: http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Armies-of-the-Ottoman-Turks-1300–1774_9780850455113

but it is out of print and was unable to source it.

Mind, my main interests are Venice and naval warfare and cannot help you much more than this on the specific Ottoman subject.
 
This is partly true. At the time of the 1529 siege, all of Eastern Hungary was ruled by John Zapolya who claimed the title of king of Hungary. He had recently suffered a defeat by Ferdinand's forces and had agreed to become a vassal of Suleiman to get help against the Hapsburgs. He was in no position to be unruly.

Some time after the war was over, Eastern Hungary was divided, with the Turks ruling central Hungary (including Budapest) directly and the successors of Zapolya ruling Transylvania further to the East. Zapolya's son, John Sigismund, was the first Prince of Transylvania. He was pretty tractable, but later rulers were not so easy to control. Around 1660, however, the last of the independent-minded princes was defeated and removed by the Turks and there was a puppet ruler in place again by the time of the second siege.

On the 1529 siege: it wasn't implausible that the Turks would win. The rains had been particularly bad that year and the heavy cannons didn't reach Vienna (question -- could some have been sent by boat up the Danube?). The defenders, though seriously outnumbered, were well-trained, highly motivated, superbly commanded by Nicholas von Salm and never betrayed from within. There's obviously some room for a counterfactual outcome.

The behaviour of the prices of Transylvania is quite normal: they are not great friends of either the Ottomans or the Habsburg, and they will play (or try to play) one against the other.

The Danube was used during the first siege, but the northern side had a number of Habsburg castles and the important fortress of Bratislava, which controlled the river.
As I said more than one time, the Ottomans could have taken the siege (maybe during the last desperate assault), but it would have not profited them at all (except in terms of bragging rights). If the Ottoman army stays until mid-October the weather has turned and snows have come. The march to Belgrade will be slow and costly, and the retiring army will be harried as it was IOTL. They may leave a token garrison in the city, but it will be expelled coming next spring. Funnily enough, if Suleiman feels forced to go back next year (1530) instead of waiting until 1532 (when he was much more cautious) he may get really trounced, and this might change history for good.
 
If Vienna is sacked, I may see it as a good thing in perspective for the Habsburgs. It may easily lead to a reconciliation with the Lutherans in the name of the crusade against the Turks (with the Calvinist possibly left out of the deal? There might be a vested interest of Catholics and Lutherans in not having to share power with another denomination), and even to a "strengthening" of the HRE (not very likely, but who knows?)

I've always been very exceptical of scenarios with Protestants and Catholics just suddenly embracing each other and going on joint crusade against the Turks.

Unless the Ottomans get insanely powerful to overrun the Habsburgs and threaten the Protestants with invasion/conquest (which as I say, I do not see at all) I think they'd just take advantage of Habsburg weakness and press on their offensive until something like Westphalia a century earlier is imposed on the Emperor.
 
I've always been very exceptical of scenarios with Protestants and Catholics just suddenly embracing each other and going on joint crusade against the Turks.

Unless the Ottomans get insanely powerful to overrun the Habsburgs and threaten the Protestants with invasion/conquest (which as I say, I do not see at all) I think they'd just take advantage of Habsburg weakness and press on their offensive until something like Westphalia a century earlier is imposed on the Emperor.

Possibly not militarily, but definitely politically.

Any campaign that really manages to take Vienna is going to mean either a much stronger Ottoman presence in the West or weaker Habsburgs or both - which means at best Charles (or whoever, but let's stick with him) will have to make a lot of promises. Promises the princes can ensure he keeps.
 
Top