Suleyman I doesn't kill his son, having the Ottoman Empire survivr to present day

Die Kaiserin

The point of departure is when Sulayman 1 does not kill his most be able son who succeeds in as Sulayman the second, Suleyman 2 stops expanding into Europe, keeping the Ottoman Empire at its territorial height and keepig the military in one piece with mo defeat at Vienna. The Ottomans then enter a period of isolation and economic, industrial, and economical buildup as well as builing a up its infrastructure.

This allows the empire to survive much longer and eventualy become a major player in the global theater
 

Badshah

The Man From Nevada said:
The point of departure is when Sulayman 1 does not kill his most be able son who succeeds in as Sulayman the second, Suleyman 2 stops expanding into Europe, keeping the Ottoman Empire at its territorial height and keepig the military in one piece with mo defeat at Vienna. The Ottomans then enter a period of isolation and economic, industrial, and economical buildup as well as builing a up its infrastructure.

This allows the empire to survive much longer and eventualy become a major player in the global theater
Click to expand...
While a different POD, it isn't the only one required for a resurgent Ottoman Empire, nor to one that survives til the present day.
 

Badshah

The Man From Nevada said:
What other PODs, in addition to this one, do u u think need to be added?
Click to expand...
No, you misunderstand....I think it's a fine POD on its own, I was just noting that it needn't be the only one. What were Suleyman II's traits that they would continue the expansionism of his father?
 

Die Kaiserin

trollhole said:
No, you misunderstand....I think it's a fine POD on its own, I was just noting that it needn't be the only one. What were Suleyman II's traits that they would continue the expansionism of his father?
Click to expand...

that's just it Sulayman the second would actually stop expanding right before the Battle of Vienna due to his fathers death and enter a period of self imposed isolation, fillins from wg up the Ottoman military as well as economy and infrastructure, allowing it to survive at its greatist territorial Heights, allowing Empire to continue the new modern form while still keeping the empire in 1 piece and reorganizing into a defense oriented war machine that could easily defend the empires border from enemies and allowing it to stay at roughly the same size for long to come.

Oh, second POD, Suleyman I dies a few months before the battle of Vienna putting Suleyman 2 in power with just enough time to avoid the disaster at Vienna
 

Codae

And then there's the fact that the Ottoman Empire was a "major player in the global theater" for multiple centuries IOTL.

Might a wise sultan following the Lawgiver end up with the Ottomans lasting to the present day? Sure. But so could any of myriad PODs during later years (say, a better showing against the Russians in 1878). A more consolidated Porte in the short term could even develop into the Ottomans' premature elmination. There's no direct relationship, any more than "JFK doesn't die and RFK doesn't die and WWIII and no 9/11" has any extra meaning added by the last few words.
 

Elfwine

Not to mention that the territorial height of the Ottoman Empire wasn't reached in Suleiman's time - and the defeat at Vienna you seem to be thinking of is a century later.

Also, isolation and economic development do not mix - you want the Ottomans more outward looking (not conquering, necessarily, but open to foreign ideas) not less.
 

Badshah

Elfwine said:
Not to mention that the territorial height of the Ottoman Empire wasn't reached in Suleiman's time - and the defeat at Vienna you seem to be thinking of is a century later.

Also, isolation and economic development do not mix - you want the Ottomans more outward looking (not conquering, necessarily, but open to foreign ideas) not less.
Click to expand...
But there was a siege of Vienna in 1529. He could be talking about that.
 

Codae

Not to mention that my cursory browsing of Wikipedia comes up with no evidence that Suleiman I ever had a son named Suleiman.
 

eliphas8

Codae said:
Not to mention that my cursory browsing of Wikipedia comes up with no evidence that Suleiman I ever had a son named Suleiman.
Click to expand...

He did have a very competent son who died young for avoidable reasons though, but his name was Jihangir.
 
kasumigenx

kasumigenx

Codae said:
Not to mention that my cursory browsing of Wikipedia comes up with no evidence that Suleiman I ever had a son named Suleiman.
Click to expand...

The heir of Suleiman I that he himself had executed is Prince Mustafa..it was because of the manipulative Roxelana..
 
Space Oddity

Space Oddity

kasumigenx said:
The heir of Suleiman I that he himself had executed is Prince Mustafa..it was because of the manipulative Roxelana..
Click to expand...

Well, that's the popular reading--and I'm sure she played a part--but it's important to remember that Suleiman ruled an empire where an aging Sultan could get pushed aside for his younger son, and that Mustafa seems to have been going out of his way to present himself as the only heir, which suggests a great deal of ambition. In the end, I'd argue it was Prince Selim's willingness to loyally wait for his chance to sit on the throne that made him his father's favorite as much as any backroom shenanigans.

Of course, I'd also argue that this is a pretty flat statement of what I like to call 'the Suleiman myth'--that if only the Ottomans could have kept on having badass warlords like Suleiman as Sultan they could have stayed on top forever, even if in reality the Turks acting on this belief WORSENED problems for the Empire. The fact is, the Ottomans faced significant structural problems during this era, and dealing with them is always going to be a lot more complicated then putting another 'badass' on the throne.
 
Last edited:

Elfwine

Space Oddity said:
Well, that's the popular reading--and I'm sure she played a part--but it's important to remember that Suleiman ruled an empire where an aging Sultan could get pushed aside for his younger son, and that Mustafa seems to have been going out of his way to present himself as the only heir, which suggests a great deal of ambition. In the end, I'd argue it was Prince Selim's willingness to loyally wait for his chance to sit on the throne that made him his father's favorite as much as any backroom shenanigans.

Of course, I'd also argue that this is a pretty flat statement of what I like to call 'the Suleiman myth'--that if only the Ottomans could have kept on having badass warlords like Suleiman as Sultan they could have stayed on top forever, even if in reality the Turks acting on this belief WORSENED problems for the Empire. The fact is, the Ottomans faced significant structural problems during this era, and dealing with them is always going to be a lot more complicated then putting another 'badass' on the throne.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Selim the Sot was the wrong solution, but Mustafa might not have been the right one.
 

Barbaros

Space Oddity said:
The fact is, the Ottomans faced significant structural problems during this era, and dealing with them is always going to be a lot more complicated then putting another 'badass' on the throne.
Click to expand...
Hello everyone! I'm new at this site. I'm from Turkey. I have quite knowledgeable about world history and history is my hobby. I hope to benefit from knowledge of other participians and submit some information. My English is not perfect. So please excuse my mistakes. Ok, now I can proceed according to subject:

I agree with Space Oddity's notion. Ottomans had structural and geographical problems. It was very difficult to find solutions to those problems. I will try to explain some of those problems in another message. Now, a short summary about candidates for the throne in the age of Suleyman:

There were three strong candidates of the throne among sons of Suleyman: Mustafa, Selim and Bayezid. Mother of Selim and Bayezid was famous Roxalane (Hurrem). As you know Suleyman killed Mustafa. After death of Roxalane, Selim and Bayezid clashed. Selim defeated Bayezid. Because Suleyman sent him professional soldiers (janissaries). Bayezid escaped to Persia. Suleyman both threatened and bribed Tahmasb (ruler of Persia). So he could kill Bayezid also.

Selim the Sob was the worst candidate. He never managed the army as his ancestors. His son, Murat III was a womanizer. Also he did not campaigned personnally. And they did almost nothing to solve problems of the empire. Mustafa and Bayezid were warriors. Certainly they would have achieved better if they could be Sultan. But it was nearly impossible to solve problems of the empire.
 
Silent Cal

Silent Cal

Kill off Roxelana before she meets Suleiman, butterflying away Selim.

Have a competent son like Mustafa or Bayezit succeed him.

Have them or one of their descendants deal with the Janissary problem without getting strangled with a silk cord for their trouble (like Osman II).
 

Elfwine

And then what?

It's not like you can just break the Janissaries and everything is automatically swimming - if nothing else, you have to replace them, and that's a project on its own.

I'm not saying Ottoman survival to the present is impossible - far from it - but it takes a lot of work, like most imperial survivals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top