The Ottoman Domination

[LordKalvan]

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.

Probably Aragon could keep Sardinia and the kingdom of Sicily, but it would be a bit too large in an Europe of small countries. That was the reason for which i assumed an independent Aragonese dinasty in southern Italy.
What about the Sicilian kingdom looking for glory in Tunisia? it would be a classic.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Thank you Lord Kalvan for helping to crystalise some thoughts

I don't find the alternative hypothesis very useful as I am looking for discussion to advance the one I need for the new thingy-wing I am writing, but I will let you off as you raise some good points.

Some key aspects then :-

- Castile and Portugal form a temporary dynastic alliance, but fall apart later
- France fractures into independent states
- England and Burgundy gain territorially
- Edward IV and Valois Burgundy both survive long term
- James III lives longer, is not overthrown
- James IV invests his energies in Scandinavian affairs
- The Kalmar Union survives

The Reformation is a key here. I am looking at the situation within Europe being MORE open to a fracturing and collapse of the Catholic Church than OTL. Ottoman assault on Austria, the fall of Vienna and ructions within the HRE. Habsburgs dispossessed from everything but Britanny. Saxon Emperor of the HRE, protector of Luther and a rival Official Church of the HRE. These tensions and opposing forces at the same time as the Ottomans assault Italy fully from both directions. One could see this drawing Aragon in as stated, a massive defeat perhaps coinciding with an Aragonese attack on or involvement in Granada which then collapses and gives the Muslim state a massive boost. At the same time internal strife is pulling the Portugal-Castile union apart.

Italy sees a longish period of war, I am by no means postulating these things occur quickly, but that over the century it will be so, so maybe a decade or even 15 years for Italy, with states allying against each other, drawing in Anjou, some allying with the Ottomans, the Papacy a wretched ruin of what it used to be as the Saxon emperor backs the Lutheran church and as Calvin helps pull Europe apart, and much of what is left adopts an Erasmian position, I see England as likely to go down that route.

Grey Wolf

 

[LordKalvan]

Grey Wolf, it's your TL.
I have some serious doubts on the trend you want to follow (Europe does not see the birth of national states, and at the same time the influence of the church decreases? and the empire is the shadow of itself? It would be quite unusual, to say the least).
Another thing which for me borders on ASB is the Ottomans taking Vienna (it would be a bit like a TL with the Ottomans winning at Lepanto: everything may happen in the multiverse, but some events are clearly less probable than others): Vienna is too far away from Constantinople, and too strong (even in its reduced circumstances) to be taken by storm. So what? either the Ottomans change their way of doing wars (armies remaining in the field rather than going back to the City: this would require a truly major POD) or someone opens the door of Vienna from the inside (Protestants hating the catholic Habsburg? or a repetition of the siege of Constantinople?).
Anyway, as I said it is your TL. And a TL does not need to be realistic to be entertaining

 

[MerryPrankster]

Hapsburg Brittany? Wouldn't the English want that for themselves?

 

[Hierophant]

Is their anyway for the the joining of both Burgudy and England?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I'm not sure which centuries you're talking about but in the 16th the Ottomans nost certainly did have the naval power to supply large armies - the seige of Malta was not run on foraging, for instance. The Ottomans were also regularly raiding Northern Italy - at one point, due to Suleyman's alliance with France, the Ottomans refrained from sacking Rome to avoid embarrassing their allies. You're really quite mistaken about this issue unless you're talking about the first half of the 15th c or earlier.

I think you seriously overrate the imperial idea in the 16th c. Also, the conquest of Constantinople and the Balkans, while certainly having a large impact on the nature of the Ottoman state, certainly did not result in Ottoman/Islamic culture being subsumed. The same would be the case in Northern Italy. The Ottoman landing in 1480 was minor compared to what was possible just a couple of decades later.

You're also forgetting, THERE'S NO FRANCE! If there were, I wouldn't give the Ottomans any chance at all of conquering Italy. Without either Spain or France, Italy is simply toast. There is no way a bunch of fractuous city stateswith mercenary armies would have any chance against the 16th c Ottomans - the powers that matter are commercial and are not going to fall on their swords. The Ottomans will likely conquer the South outright and reduce the stronger northern states to vassalage as a prelude to annexation, as was the case in the Balkans. Hungary was certainly a more robust opponent than anything in Italy, and harder to get to, but they really didn't amount to much of a challenge.

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

 

[Grey Wolf]

Well, your take on plausibility and mine are obviously different. If Vienna was besieged twice in OTL, I don't see how that is proving the INCAPACITY of the Ottoman armies to operate in Austria. On one of those occasions it was close to falling before Sobieski arrived, IIRC, and previously under attack by the Mongols it was also on its last legs before they withdrew. Its not impregnable despite what looks like a historical trend.

I do feel you are correct in that it is not fleshed out properly enough, but that was what I hoped people would help me with. You have also helped me with looking at the Reformation, even if you reject my conclusions. I think you are mis-stating the matter when you say this scenario results in the HRE being a shadow of itself. It doesn't. Under the Saxon dynasty (whats their name btw ?), with a Lutheran imperial church, it will re-establish its cohesion, but its got priorities and foci than in OTL. Saxony will see Bohemia and Bavaria as the borderlands. It will not feel the loss of Austria and Hungary as massive blows, well certainly not the latter which was a Habsburg not an imperial possession, and the former is also 'tainted' by having been Habsburg. I imagine Bohemia will go back to a Polish-Lithuanian dynasty and orientation as well, and together the HRE and Poland-Lithuania form the defensive bloc in Northern/Central Europe.

This obviously does not mean that they are not involved in events in Italy, but whilst these events are going on I am postulating a relgious schism that pulls natural alliances apart and for a time debilitates the empire. They will recover, but too late for Italy.

As for ex-France, I see no likelihood whatsoever of an English-Burgundian merger. The rulers of Burgundy would do everything possible to avoid it. Habsburg Britanny is a historical oddity I liked the sound of. It is far more likely OTL than in this ATL, but I still feel its a possibility and may or may not go with it. OTL Anne was looking to preserve Britanny's independence and the Habsburg ruler of Burgundy was about to wed her when the French invaded and forced her to wed the King of France, with a treaty saying if he died she would wed the next one too. As there is no France but there is a female ruler I can see Anne looking to protect herself from English incursions. Of course, whilst a Habsburg marriage alliance is great at the time, after the fall of Vienna and the passing of the imperial crown to Saxony it becomes an oddity, leaving the only reigning Habsburg in a comparative backwater. But historical oddities like that are hardly unknown.

As for the non-formation of nation states, France was one, then falls apart in this ATL. England is a nation state - the non-inclusion of Scotland does not affect this as the Scots were ALWAYS a separate nation. Besides, England with Normandy can be said to HAVE reformed its ultimate national state. Within Iberia if the POD which I have used is the personal union of Portugal and Castile by the marriage of the King of Portugal to la Beltraneja, the union looks doomed to fall apart as Portugal already has an heir by his previous marriage. Either Castile will get an heir from the marriage, or the succession will revert to whoever is still alive to take it. The trend for the formation of larger states is over-stated (oh, ironic language) - Aragon had a dynastic hold on Navarre for over a century but did not seek to integrate it into their nation.

Grey Wolf

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I don't understand this post. Vienna came within a hair of falling to Suleyman - slightly better weather would have done it - and at Lepanto the Ottomans lost because they had two admirals in charge who hated each other. With unitary Ottoman command, it's hard to imagine the League winning.

Grey Wolf, it's your TL.
I have some serious doubts on the trend you want to follow (Europe does not see the birth of national states, and at the same time the influence of the church decreases? and the empire is the shadow of itself? It would be quite unusual, to say the least).
Another thing which for me borders on ASB is the Ottomans taking Vienna (it would be a bit like a TL with the Ottomans winning at Lepanto: everything may happen in the multiverse, but some events are clearly less probable than others): Vienna is too far away from Constantinople, and too strong (even in its reduced circumstances) to be taken by storm. So what? either the Ottomans change their way of doing wars (armies remaining in the field rather than going back to the City: this would require a truly major POD) or someone opens the door of Vienna from the inside (Protestants hating the catholic Habsburg? or a repetition of the siege of Constantinople?).
Anyway, as I said it is your TL. And a TL does not need to be realistic to be entertaining

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

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.

An Ottoman Empire that controls Iberia and Italy will by definition have the technology required.

This is not a computer wargame - the Ottomans don't have a limited set of units they can use, they will absorb and utilize all the technological and human resources of the areas they dominate.

The Ottomans built different ship types to operate in different seas - they just never had an Atlantic presence historically.

 

[Lysander]

In my view it is unlikely that the Ottomans would be able to compete in a transatlantic struggle. They did not have the naval technology and it is unlikely they would have developed it (historically they were excellent at copying technology but not very strong at developing). Plus the northen countries were already ahead in naval technology (at about the time of Lepando the english were buiding galleons while the mediteranean states were dominated by galleys), assuming that most of the intelligencia in southern europe would flee the turkish onslaught (as they fled byzantium after the fall of Constantinople) it is highly likely that technological stagnation would follow in southern europe as well. So highly unlikely to see turkish trasatlantic empire.

Plus I would expect that in the face of the turkish conquest the rest of europe would consolidate and fight back (wouldn´t the fall of Rome have a similar effect with the fall of jerusalem and a recindling the crusading spirit).

My take on this scenario would be a consolidation of the rest of europe and due to near total naval supremacy (mostly through the northen navies) a "reconquista" would start in spain which would slowly proceed to the rest of europe. it would be a lengthly process (a couple of centuries at least) but one that possibly would push the turks out of europe. It is debatable how far the europeans would push as the psychological effects of having the turks in the back yard would be significant. One could expect that they would attempt to push them completely off europe beyond the bosporous and the aegean islands.

An interesting point would be the role of Russia in all this.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

In my view it is unlikely that the Ottomans would be able to compete in a transatlantic struggle. They did not have the naval technology and it is unlikely they would have developed it (historically they were excellent at copying technology but not very strong at developing). Plus the northen countries were already ahead in naval technology (at about the time of Lepando the english were buiding galleons while the mediteranean states were dominated by galleys), assuming that most of the intelligencia in southern europe would flee the turkish onslaught (as they fled byzantium after the fall of Constantinople) it is highly likely that technological stagnation would follow in southern europe as well. So highly unlikely to see turkish trasatlantic empire.

Plus I would expect that in the face of the turkish conquest the rest of europe would consolidate and fight back (wouldn´t the fall of Rome have a similar effect with the fall of jerusalem and a recindling the crusading spirit).

My take on this scenario would be a consolidation of the rest of europe and due to near total naval supremacy (mostly through the northen navies) a "reconquista" would start in spain which would slowly proceed to the rest of europe. it would be a lengthly process (a couple of centuries at least) but one that possibly would push the turks out of europe. It is debatable how far the europeans would push as the psychological effects of having the turks in the back yard would be significant. One could expect that they would attempt to push them completely off europe beyond the bosporous and the aegean islands.

An interesting point would be the role of Russia in all this.

On what do you base these conclusions? The Ottomans used galleys in the Med because they were superior in performance to galleons. If they engaged in the Atlantic, they would build the appropriate vessels. I don't know where you get the idea the Ottomans only imitated. They developed a tactical system and the technology to support it greatly in advance of anything Europe could muster. The intelligencia of the historical Ottoman domains failed to flee the onslaught, so I'm not sure I understand why you think people would leave their homes to go elsewhere. And where exactly would you have Catholic Italians and Iberians flee? To Protestant states where they will face persecution?

And why do you think Europe will be MORE successful in fighting the Ottomans without Spain or France in the picture? Europe abjectly failed to unite against the Ottomans historically - you might note that while Suleyman was swallowing Hungary he was allied to France, and even Hungary was split among factions. The fall of Constantinople, a city with equal significance to Rome failed to unite Europe or even provoke a serious attempt to save the city.

Do you think the Ottomans might take diplomatic steps to prevent Europe from uniting against them? Do you think Protestants and Catholics (not to mention Orthodox) are going to cooperate? They most certainly did not historically - the Ottomans were able to play them off against each other quite effectively.

Name ONE technology the Ottomans failed to develop when they needed it.

 

[Faeelin]

The Ottomans will likely conquer the South outright and reduce the stronger northern states to vassalage as a prelude to annexation, as was the case in the Balkans. Hungary was certainly a more robust opponent than anything in Italy, and harder to get to, but they really didn't amount to much of a challenge.

Oh, really? Remind us agains how long it took the Ottomans to defeat Venice compared to how long it took to defeat Hungary?

 

[Faeelin]

Name ONE technology the Ottomans failed to develop when they needed it.

Well, one could argue that the inferiority of their weapons at Lepanto had something to do with their defeat.

I take it you're not a fan of the book Carnage and Culture ??

 

[Faeelin]

Regarding the fleet at lepanto:

Just over half of the galleys in the combined Christian fleet which fought at Lepanto were Venetian, some 108 out of 206 or roughly 52 percent. Spain and her Viceroyalties of Naples and Sicily contributed 49 galleys, about 24 percent. Gian Andrea Doria had 11 galleys in his own squadron, 5 percent, while Genoa, Savoy, and the lesser Italian naval entrepreneurs accounted for another 23, another 12 percent. The Papal contingent put 12 galleys on line and the Knights of St. John of Malta 3-7 percent between them.#12

http://www.angelfire.com/ga4/guilmartin.com/Lepanto.html#12

 

[Faeelin]

The ottomans could certainly take Vienna, BTW.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Oh, really? Remind us agains how long it took the Ottomans to defeat Venice compared to how long it took to defeat Hungary?

Venice was being fought on sea, and ended up surrendering, yes, surrendering, because the Ottoman frontier had crept up far enough for raiders to ravage Venetia. Venice and its possessions had always been shielded by inaccessibility, or valuelessness, but once their livelihood was directly threatened by a VASTLY superior power, they lost the stomach to fight. This is a major factor in the equasion - the "major" powers of Italy are mercantile, not military. Southern Italy is an easy target, and once a foothold is established, the conquest of Italy is more or less inevitable in the context of a 16th c with no Spain or France.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Well, one could argue that the inferiority of their weapons at Lepanto had something to do with their defeat.

I take it you're not a fan of the book Carnage and Culture ??

What inferiority?

 

[Diamond]

It's nice to see this idea getting some play once more. My own attempt at it stalled (for those regulars who recall) at around 1510, as I couldn't decide which way to go with France's unity or lack thereof.

A nice POD which you haven't appeared to consider, Grey, is Tamerlane and his conquests. I can't remember who suggested it to me; it might have been John, Scott, Matt Quinn, or even yourself. In my TL, Tamerlane decides not to attack the Ottomans, but instead pushes into the Levant and Egypt, conquests which were denied him OTL by a plague of locusts that decimated crops in the area and made it impossible to feed his armies.

By having the Ottomans escaped unharmed from Tamerlane (whose conquests presumably break up about the same way after his death), you not only give them another couple of decades to build up their strength even more than its already considerable OTL levels, you also create a vastly weakened Egypt (weakened by the collapse of the Timurid Caliphate) which becomes easy for the O.E. to conquer. This in turns weakens Venice considerably, as the Mamelukes were a major Venetian trading partner.

Other things which occurred in my TL which helped things fall the O.E.'s way were continued Spanish disunity (the marriage of Ferdinand & Isabella falls through, leading to nasty wars between Portugal, Castile, and Aragon), serious disunity between the Christian states of Europe, and the rise of Protestants, who are eagerly supported by the Ottomans.

Just some thoughts; feel free to disregard.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

It's nice to see this idea getting some play once more. My own attempt at it stalled (for those regulars who recall) at around 1510, as I couldn't decide which way to go with France's unity or lack thereof.

A nice POD which you haven't appeared to consider, Grey, is Tamerlane and his conquests. I can't remember who suggested it to me; it might have been John, Scott, Matt Quinn, or even yourself. In my TL, Tamerlane decides not to attack the Ottomans, but instead pushes into the Levant and Egypt, conquests which were denied him OTL by a plague of locusts that decimated crops in the area and made it impossible to feed his armies.

By having the Ottomans escaped unharmed from Tamerlane (whose conquests presumably break up about the same way after his death), you not only give them another couple of decades to build up their strength even more than its already considerable OTL levels, you also create a vastly weakened Egypt (weakened by the collapse of the Timurid Caliphate) which becomes easy for the O.E. to conquer. This in turns weakens Venice considerably, as the Mamelukes were a major Venetian trading partner.

Other things which occurred in my TL which helped things fall the O.E.'s way were continued Spanish disunity (the marriage of Ferdinand & Isabella falls through, leading to nasty wars between Portugal, Castile, and Aragon), serious disunity between the Christian states of Europe, and the rise of Protestants, who are eagerly supported by the Ottomans.

Just some thoughts; feel free to disregard.

Not to rain on your parade, but you couldn't have come up with an easier-to-conquer Mameluke regime than the historical - Selim conquered it after two one-sided battles and a fast march to Cairo.

Also, Timur's destruction of the Ottoman army at Ankara led to a major reorganization that made the Ottoman army the premier force of the 15th-16th c.

 

[Diamond]

Not to rain on your parade, but you couldn't have come up with an easier-to-conquer Mameluke regime than the historical - Selim conquered it after two one-sided battles and a fast march to Cairo.

Also, Timur's destruction of the Ottoman army at Ankara led to a major reorganization that made the Ottoman army the premier force of the 15th-16th c.

That's OK, rain away.
BUT:
Reorganization could have occurred just as easily due to the Ottomans recognizing that some things needed to be changed to protect against the new threat on their border. There's always more than one way to accomplish something. Although I do agree with your assessment of OTL defeat of Egypt. Mine just seemed more fun.

One more point: this scenario may give the O.E. the impetus to do a better job absorbing their Balkan conquests, so as not to set up the possibility of fighting a two-front war. Once the Timurid falls apart, the O.E. then has not only a vastly strengthened eastern border, which frees them to concentrate fully on the Med, they also have a more stabilized Balkan region, making their supply lines easier when they invade Otranto (which just seems more likely to me than invading through the Tyrol).