The Ottoman Domination

[Condottiero]

Anyway it would have been interesting to see the Spanish Tercios of the Duke of Alva facing an ottoman army in Italy...

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I still do have a lot of doubts on the feasibility of an Ottoman conquest of Italy and Austria. Consider:
* the best route is probably through the heel of the boot: Otranto was from time to time an Ottoman possession. However, the Ottomans never succeeded in expanding their foothold, and I am quite convinced that the Christian navies (in particular Venice and the Papal States) would be able to interdict a major invasion force.
* the other possible invasion routes are through the eastern Italian border, or along the Danube. The former has the difficulty of a number of quite large rivers obstructing the advance; the latter is the typical Ottoman invasion route which typically reaches the walls of Vienna, and then ebbs back toward the City. I am quite convinced that the structure of the Ottoman Empire does not allow for a power projection of this magnitude (in other words: the Sultan cannot afford to keep an army of sufficient magnitude in Belgrade or North of that.
* OTOH, assuming that Vienna falls, this would make easier an invasion of Germany (again along the Danube). The Alpine passes are quite easier to defend.
* even a complete conquest of Spain is not likely. The problems are the difficulty of moving large armies in difficult terrain and the distance from the center of the empire.

As I noted before, all the navies of Italy combined would not be of major concern to the Ottomans, nor did they even threaten the invasion force that captured Otranto, and that was far before the Ottoman navy had reached its zenith.

The leader of the Christian fleets at Lepanto was Don Juan of Austria, but the "Don Juan" part should be a clue to his nationality - he was the brother of the King of Spain.

Ottoman conquest of Vienna would cement their hold over the Balkans and subject Germany to raids, but I doubt the Ottomans would have any interest in the conquest of Germany when Italy is so much richer and accessible.

You are quite mistaken about the power projection capabilities of the Ottomans - they would have been quite capable of maintaining a military force in Belgrade or north.

Also, I'm sensing some "wargame mentality" here - the Ottomans were also adept at diplomatically exploiting divisions between Christian states and denominations, and particularly took advantage of the Reformation to assist Protestant states against the Catholic "superpowers", Spain and the Hapsburgs.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Slavery in Islam is nearly entirely limited to domestic help. Plantation slavery as we experienced historically is just not a possibility. In general, the lot of slaves was better than that of peasants.

So, Ottoman dominion in the Caribbean and South America is likely to be far less destructive than was Spanish and Portuguese rule, provided Islam proves compatible with the native cultures, and there is little reason to assume it would not be.

So imagine an Islamic Inca Empire, or Ottoman military advisors equipping Sitting Bull against "American" armies...

Grey Wolf further explained:


Grey,

Ah! The scales fall from my bloodshot eyes! European exploration and colonization recieve only a fraction of the support they do in the OTL because of the pressures of the European/Ottoman flashpoints in Italy and Iberia. That leads to all sorts of interesting situations and you were wise to create it.

Rather than being seen as a source of plunder, slaves, and free land, the Americas are now seen as a trade partner. Once the Amerind states recover from the epidemilogical consequences of the Columbian Exchange, they'll be eager consumers of Old World goods. How much gold will a horse bring? Iron? Firearms? European traders operating out of Carribbean island entrepots will get very rich very quickly.



Most certainly. Especially once the 'tax' issues are dealt with. I wonder whether any Old World religious ideas may have a role in that? Missionaries from all sides; Catholic, Muslim, etc., would be active but without an armed 'assistance'.



Yes, I see. Far-called our navies melt away... and all that. Contact with the Old World would still occur, but not as frequently as both power blocs have more important issues to deal with closer to home. This TL of yours may be a plausible way for Amerind nations to survive into the 21st Century.



Glad I could help and please keep sharing with us!


Bill

 

[sikitu]

I agree with the Pasha, especially concerning Ottoman diplomatic skill. After all, they even allied with France ( a Christian catholic power) against the Habsburgs (another Christian catholic power). So it is perfectly possible that some Italian states would have become allies...at least for a while

 

[Condottiero]

I agree with Abdul that the Ottomans were capable of keeping the catholic powers busy with the protestants in Europe, but Habsburg diplomacy also kept the Ottomans busy with the Persians.

However I disappoint about Italy being handier for Ottoman conquest, you must not forget that Italy was the training ground for the Spanish Army.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I agree with Abdul that the Ottomans were capable of keeping the catholic powers busy with the protestants in Europe, but Habsburg diplomacy also kept the Ottomans busy with the Persians.

However I disappoint about Italy being handier for Ottoman conquest, you must not forget that Italy was the training ground for the Spanish Army.

Very true, but in this TL there is no Spanish Army! And no Hapsburgs! I'm not sure anyone else had the diplomatic reach to deal effectively with the Persians, and in any case, with Vienna occupied and no counterbalancing Spain, the Persians are in deep doo-doo!

 

[Condottiero]

Oooops.... poor italians then!

 

[Paul Spring]

I am astonished at how incredibly you overrate the military capabilities of the Italian city-states. Mercenary armies were accustomed to chess matches that involved little actual combat. They would have little enthusiasm for a brutal engagement with the Ottoman army at its height.

The armies of Italian city states did tend to fight limited wars for limited objectives, but it's an exaggeration to say that there was "little combat" or that their wars were "almost bloodless" (another expression I've seen used in books). Still, the wars that began with Charles VIII of France's invasion of Italy do suggest that Italy was very vulnerable to invasion by an army from a large outside power. Would an Ottoman army have done as well, sweeping through Italy? There is no reason to say that it would not. However, remember that Charles VIIIs army, and later French invasion forces, didn't do nearly as well over the long run. Also, would the prospect of being faced by a non-Christian invader have led to greater unity and determination on the part of the Italians? It's quiote possible. An Ottoman army of invasion/occupation in Italy would also have had to contend with reinformcements being sent to Italy from other Christian powers, especially from Spain (Aragon and Castile, to be exact).

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

"Almost bloodless" is an apt comparison to battles of annihilation like Kossovo or Mohacs.

It's actually much easier to supply an army in Italy by sea than from France or Germany in this period.

Also, the resources of the Ottoman state for purposes of power-projection would have dwarved those of France - the Ottomans, besides controlling a much larger and richer area, were highly centralized and thus collected a much, much higher revenue than would be the case for what was a largely feudal state like France, where most revenue was dissipated amongst the nobility.

Finally, did the OTL Ottoman of invasion of Italy lead to Castillian or Aragonese intervention?

The armies of Italian city states did tend to fight limited wars for limited objectives, but it's an exaggeration to say that there was "little combat" or that their wars were "almost bloodless" (another expression I've seen used in books). Still, the wars that began with Charles VIII of France's invasion of Italy do suggest that Italy was very vulnerable to invasion by an army from a large outside power. Would an Ottoman army have done as well, sweeping through Italy? There is no reason to say that it would not. However, remember that Charles VIIIs army, and later French invasion forces, didn't do nearly as well over the long run. Also, would the prospect of being faced by a non-Christian invader have led to greater unity and determination on the part of the Italians? It's quiote possible. An Ottoman army of invasion/occupation in Italy would also have had to contend with reinformcements being sent to Italy from other Christian powers, especially from Spain (Aragon and Castile, to be exact).

 

[MerryPrankster]

That is not true. Lepanto was not a coalition of a few Italian city states, it was a coalition of a few Italian city states plus the entire Spanish navy.

Also, by the time of Lepanto, Barbarossa was dead, and the Ottomans for some reason appointed two commanding admirals, destroying the unity of command that was the usual outstanding Ottoman advantage.

Further, the Ottoman navy was not obliterated, just defeated. Within a year it was rebuilt and at full fighting strength.

Otranto was occupied only once, by Mehmed in the last year of his life. His successor had other priorities and did not continue the attack.

I am astonished at how incredibly you overrate the military capabilities of the Italian city-states. Mercenary armies were accustomed to chess matches that involved little actual combat. They would have little enthusiasm for a brutal engagement with the Ottoman army at its height.

The entire Spanish Navy?

I did some research on Lepanto for a story I wrote (the Cthulhu Mythos in the Ottoman Empire) and IIRC, the entire Ottoman navy (except a squadron that retreated and limped home via Greece) was wiped out. However, the Ottomans rebuilt the fleet within a year ("shaved my beard, but I've broken their arms"). But didn't the loss of all the experienced crew hurt the Ottomans in a more long-term way?

 

[Condottiero]

In fact, yes. The "Gran Capitan" second campaign in Italy was aimed against the ottoman threat.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The entire Spanish Navy?

I did some research on Lepanto for a story I wrote (the Cthulhu Mythos in the Ottoman Empire) and IIRC, the entire Ottoman navy (except a squadron that retreated and limped home via Greece) was wiped out. However, the Ottomans rebuilt the fleet within a year ("shaved my beard, but I've broken their arms"). But didn't the loss of all the experienced crew hurt the Ottomans in a more long-term way?

No. First of all, most of the people that died would have been non-sailors - these were galleys, so all the personnel were rowers and troops. So, a few hundred sailors (or a even a couple thousand) didn't begin to dent the available manpower pool. Lepanto was only important psychologically to the West, not strategically. Ottoman control of the East Med was not diminished, nor were any of their conquests rolled back. There was no change in the balance of naval power in the Med as a result. The reverse would most certainly not have been true if the battle had gone the other way, at least for the Italians, and this is why I say Italy had no chance against a determined Ottoman attack without Spain. There is just no comparison between the resources available.

Upon looking, I see that only a bit over 25% of the allied ships were Spanish, apparently Venice was the largest contributor.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I would certainly think that Anjou and Aragon have interests in intervening in Italy, but it has to be remembered that these are COMPETING interests. Even the fact of an Ottoman invasion isn't going to change that, and it is quite likely that one or other would seek to try to use the Ottomans in the first instance, thinking their penetration would be a short term affair.

As for the New World, I cannot see the Ottomans ignoring it once they know its there. With tales of wealth and rich trade in other materials, they would not be fools enough to think that existing trade routes to the East outrank the potential of the new ones which are not rumours by this time but facts

Grey Wolf

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I would certainly think that Anjou and Aragon have interests in intervening in Italy, but it has to be remembered that these are COMPETING interests. Even the fact of an Ottoman invasion isn't going to change that, and it is quite likely that one or other would seek to try to use the Ottomans in the first instance, thinking their penetration would be a short term affair.

As for the New World, I cannot see the Ottomans ignoring it once they know its there. With tales of wealth and rich trade in other materials, they would not be fools enough to think that existing trade routes to the East outrank the potential of the new ones which are not rumours by this time but facts

Grey Wolf

I agree. However, they will establish enclaves on the coast and not try to colonize the interior. If Islam takes off, they might organize the region politically. I suspect Islam would do well in the New World.

 

[President Ledyard]

Do the Ottomans and their core subjects even possess the requisite naval technology to reliably go trans-Atlantic? The ships that work in the Med aren't exactly the best suited for the open ocean.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Do the Ottomans and their core subjects even possess the requisite naval technology to reliably go trans-Atlantic? The ships that work in the Med aren't exactly the best suited for the open ocean.

Either way, at the very least they would copy other designs. But by the time that the Ottomans conquer Iberia, the Iberian kingdoms already have these designs and are thenceforth SUBJECTS OF THE OTTOMANS themselves

Grey Wolf

 

[Redbeard]

With all the factors/powers removed to have the Ottomans advance beyond Belgrade I really think this approaches ASB, but OK if it brings fun to someone at least...Hi Abdul

I'll have to comment on some of the things said though.

First, I think this very much underestimates the power of the Catholic Church and the Imperial idea. Even if the Habsburgs are for some reason taken out as players that doesn't mean anything else than another lucky family is given the chance (perhaps mine - Emperor Redbeard! OK, that has/had been done ). And the Turk landing in numbers in Italy really can't be overdone as rallying factor in the entire Christian world. If you'd like to call it a Saladin effect fell free.

If the Ottomans actually intend to supply their forces in Italy over the Mediterranean they're bloody hopeless in power projection of these centuries. Even when well stuffed magazines were available armies well into the 19th century were fed/supplied mainly by requisition/plunder (horse fodder making up roughly 2/3 of the total amount of supplies). It simply wasn't possible with the availabe transport to supply an army from magazines or from base. Operating in N. Italy would give rich opportunities for living off the land as long as you moved, but an Ottoman invading army would soon have to stop to lay siege and that's where the logistic problems seriously start. Even in rich N. Italy a besieging army would soon run out of supplies and from what I know of the Italian city states of the time much before the besieged. Here you have the main reason why war in N. Italy (and Europe until early 19th century) was so different from those experienced where the Ottomans usually hang around. I do not try to nullify the many good siege engineers the Ottomans had in these centuries, but I seriously doubt if they could storm the Italian city states faster than they could be relieved. I don't even think we need powers outside Italy, and anyway it is easier to feed in new armies from France than from Asia Minor, even if you have sea control.

And even if the Ottomans someway should nevertheless succeed. N.Italy then was such a concentration of wealth, culture, power and innovation, that it will soon be an open question who controls who.

All in all I think the Ottomans were lucky in OTL that they ceased so quickly to be a serious threat to central Europe, if they ever were. If they seriously step on the blue suede shoes they might be lucky if still holding Anatolia when the backlash is over.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Faeelin]

Slavery in Islam is nearly entirely limited to domestic help. Plantation slavery as we experienced historically is just not a possibility. In general, the lot of slaves was better than that of peasants.

Err, while I'll acknowledge that slavery wasn't common in Dar al-Islam historically, that doesn't prove much.

After all, England didn't have a history of plantation slavery, but used it when it was beneficial.

Similarly, I can't see the Ottoman reaction to pagans sacrificing human beings to idols being anything other than declaring a jihad.

And the diseases, of course, would still be around.

 

[LordKalvan]

I think we should put down some marbles, otherwise we are just talking and talking. When do you expect this westward push by the Ottoman Empire?
And what is the situation in Italy, Hungary and Austria?
My points are the following:
1. Who is governing the kingdom of the Two Sicilies? OTL, Anjou was dispossessed by Aragon, and ultimately the kingom went to Charles V. Here it should be different, given the assumed power fragmentation in Europe. I would expect that an Aragonian dinasty (separated from the main line) is reigning in Naples. Now the question is: is the kingom properly managed (considering that it is now ruled from a dinasty who has gone native?). Plus, in case of an Ottoman invasion (or attempted invasion), Aragon should be willing to provide support.
2. Contrary to what happened in OTL, this TL does not see any french invasion in Italy. This means that there are not the associated distructions, and that the Duchy of Milan should be independent (maybe no more as a duchy: when the Visconti got estinguished, Milan - for a short period - became the Ambrosian republic. It would be possible that in TTL the republic remains stable, possibly within the orbit of Venice).
3. Venice should be in a much stronger position than OTL. No Holy League, for example, and their back safeguarded by a friendly milanese republic. No empire pushing down toward Trieste and Udine, btw. Even with the difficulties it faced in OTL, Venice was able to put up quite a fight, against all of its enemies. Here it should be even better. Considering that Venice contributed the largest number of galleys to the Christian fleet at Lepanto, they should be able to interdict the Adriatic to the Ottoman fleet: now try and support a standing army in Southern Italy without being able to count on supplies from Epyrus. Remember that Venice was always unique in its capacity of projecting power: in 1648 OTL, notwithstanding one century of reverses and the loss of Cyprus and most of Crete it was able to land an army in Morea and occupy it. Hint, hint?
4. The Ottomans were never outstanding mariners. Their biggest success was the island jumping in the Aegean sea (Rhodes, Cyprus, Crete). When they tried to conquer Malta, they were defeated. Lepanto you know how it went (and was not even a very close fight).
5. OTL the Ottomans proved unable to project power beyond Croatia. Even the conquest of lower Hungary was most of a fluke, and owed most to hungarian incompetence. Why they should be better TTL (unless you want to go ASB)? The famous sieges of Vienna were more or less a returning saga: the Ottoman army left Constantinople in the spring, slowly moved up in the Balkans and usually were reaching Vienna in early August. Two months later it started to go back. Not even the conquest of Belgrade changed this pattern.
6. My feeling is that the Ottoman empire reached its actual peak with the conquest of Constantinople. Afterward it plateaued for a couple of centuries, then it started to decline. You might say that it reached the limit of its capacity to project power. Additionally, there is a limit to expansion, when it means governing and assimilating different people.
7. I would not discount so easily the Persians. While it is true that they were never able to make major inroads into Anatolia, the reverse also applies. the Ottoman armies had usually difficulties in going beyond Tabriz and Baghdad.
8. Given these difficulties in projecting power, is it credible to postulate an Ottoman surge in Spain? OTL, the Ottomans had difficulties in reinforcing Tunis and Algers.
9. Oceanic commerce: if the Ottoman empire is going merchant (and OTL it did not) doesn't make sense to go east (India and Indonesia) rather then west? OTL the Portuguese were able to interdict the Ottoman probes toward India (notwithstanding the fact that Portugal was much farther away than Mesopotamia). Or is Portugal too big to exist in TTL?
10. But my main point is another, and I have already made it earlier: the 15th and 16th centuries are the great centuries of Europe. Renaissance, Reformation, the printing press, the development of firearms and fortifications.
How can a civilization go under when it is at its prime?
Rather than postulate the Ottomans conquering the heartland of Europe, i would expect the reverse: the "menace of the Turks" unifies the Europeans more than a church or an empire could do, and the Ottomans are rolled up to the farthest reach of Anatolia.

 

[Condottiero]

1. Who is governing the kingdom of the Two Sicilies? OTL, Anjou was dispossessed by Aragon, and ultimately the kingom went to Charles V. Here it should be different, given the assumed power fragmentation in Europe. I would expect that an Aragonian dinasty (separated from the main line) is reigning in Naples. Now the question is: is the kingom properly managed (considering that it is now ruled from a dinasty who has gone native?). Plus, in case of an Ottoman invasion (or attempted invasion), Aragon should be willing to provide support.

I suppose it would be directly in Aragonese hands, they were trying to create a mediterranean Empire (Sicily, Sardinia, Athens&Neopatria...). They had a good navy and a decent army, maybe without the union with Castille they would continue this policy.

One more marble, the berberian corsairs looked for ottoman protection against a united Spain. If there's no Spain maybe they would think, it would be better to go on their own. With the ottoman's busy in Europe, I think it would be easy for them to remain independent and, probably, hostile to any ottoman interference.