The Ottoman Domination

[Faeelin]

THERE IS NO SPAIN! AAAAAAAAAGHHHH!!!!!! Portugal will have a much harder time competing with the Ottomans all alone. As it was, in the middle of the wars against the Hapsburgs, the Ottomans ejected the Portuguese from the Red Sea and seriously challenged their control of the Indian Ocean - once again, Hapsburg pressure prevented them from concentrating on this.

I can see the Ottomans ejecting the Portuguese from the Red Sea, but not the Indian Ocean (although you only say Challenge, which I agree with).

The Hapsburgs were unable to crush the Netherlands because the Ottomans were careful to launch a major assault upon said Hapsburgs to prevent this.

I think you underestimate the Princeso of Oranje, Good Queen Bess, Henri IV, etc.

In Italy the Ottomans are dealing with a particularly militarily weak region of Europe. I'm sorry, mercenary armies simply are not competitive against either a feudal force nor the well-disciplined, trained, and motivated armies of the Sultan. While the Ottomans' financial resources were of course limited, they were vastly greater than any other state in Europe, with the exceptions of... wait for it... wait for it... FRANCE AND SPAIN. Naples or Aragon simply don't factor in.

Gotta disagree here. Mercenary armies proved very effective against feudal forces in Europe; that was, after all, why they were used.

 

[LordKalvan]

I can see the Ottomans ejecting the Portuguese from the Red Sea, but not the Indian Ocean (although you only say Challenge, which I agree with).

I believe it's mostly a technical limitation: galleys are very effective in inland seas (Mediterranean, Persian Gulf, Red and Black seas), but, once you have to maneuvre in an open area, like the Indian Ocean, a sailing ship is way superior. The Ottomans did not have sailing ships in the 16th or 17th century.

Gotta disagree here. Mercenary armies proved very effective against feudal forces in Europe; that was, after all, why they were used.

Look at the 30 years war, also. It's still a time when you cannot pull farmers from the fields for too long a time, otherwise you may win the war and loose the harvest

 

[Leo Caesius]

Speaking of the Ottoman rivalry with the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean...

My friend Giancarlo Casale has written his dissertation on the matter. I thought I'd read it so I downloaded it from UMI. Now, for a limited time only, I'm including a link to it here, as I thought it might be of interest to you.

The relevant dissertation is located at the very top of the list. The other ones will probably bore you to tears so don't bother with them. The link will only be active for the following 72 hours. Act now while supplies last!

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The Ottomans had access to ships that were eminently suitable for sailing the Indian Ocean - there had been continuous trade there for millenia before the arrival of the Portuguese, and Suleyman even sent an expedition to Indonesia in support of the ruler of Aceh.

I believe it's mostly a technical limitation: galleys are very effective in inland seas (Mediterranean, Persian Gulf, Red and Black seas), but, once you have to maneuvre in an open area, like the Indian Ocean, a sailing ship is way superior. The Ottomans did not have sailing ships in the 16th or 17th century.



Look at the 30 years war, also. It's still a time when you cannot pull farmers from the fields for too long a time, otherwise you may win the war and loose the harvest

 

[Croesus]

I've lost sight of where TTL is currently at...

However, the recent postings seem to be leading towards a naval 'arms-race', principally between Portugal and Istanbul. Going back over the Lepanto issue gives two fairly good arguments for and against an Ottoman victory; which to my alt-his mind indicates a fair possibility of either occurring and so there's little evidence to conclusively make Lepanto a make-or-break factor in the development of TTL.

Any discussion of technical advance/limitation must IMHO take into account spurs to technological development. I think that the onus is on the Ottomans to demonstrate that they can take the initiative in naval/maritime technology given the reasonable observation of the OTL Ottomans technical conservatism. The OTL dominance of Portugal in naval/maritime technology was to a large degree what took her into the Red Sea and Indian Ocean and I think there is a reasonable case to argue that for the purposes of TTL the Ottomans may well be able to prevent an eastwards expansion by western European powers. Though again I'd have to place the emphasis on the pro-Ottoman posters to give an alt-his of Ottoman advances in this area.

Given the proposition that the Ottomans shut off an eastward sea route, or at the least, in the absence of a definitive Lepanto, make an eastward passage commercially risky, we have the issue of a greater emphasis on westward exploration/exploitation and potentially an anticipation of the work of Henry the Navigator. There are substantial Atlantic challenges that need to be overcome, but they were overcome OTL so there is little to suggest they couldn't pre-empt these developments TTL.

I feel the issue of Italy will to some degree be a paper tiger given a substantive blunting/nullification of Western naval power in the Mediteranean and that, indeed, "Better a turban than a Cardinal's cap". Though I'd possibly widen that pragmatic sentiment to move from a religious to a wider political sense. Given the history of Italy as a plaything of the greater European powers, there is a case to be made for the welcome mat being put out for an eastern power that tends to promote stability (and to be fair the other side of that coin, stasis). In one sense, there's a case to be made for Italy to be conquered 'de facto' given it's main connection with Europe may now well become the Alps. With a lack of blood and gore, regime change becomes easier to accept.

Given the parameters of non-unified Spain and France, this gives a stronger westward orientation to western Europe, a tightening of Ottoman influence over 'Arabic' east Africa and India, and a likely military deadlock centered somewhere around Austria. The roles that Africa and the Russias play hasn't been touched on particularly, and I still have doubts about the Ottomans ability to make their ascendancy permanent (that 'why' question again). I feel that working through the Iberian/Sicilian apostate issue may throw light on how the Ottomans might obtain a permanency.

Croesus

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Gotta disagree here. Mercenary armies proved very effective against feudal forces in Europe; that was, after all, why they were used.

What do you mean by that? The Italians didn't even bother to pretend to resist the French. Mercenary armies were not terribly motivated to do anything that would cause casualties, and used forced conscription to fill their ranks. I don't think you can compare an Italian city-state's military capability with that of France.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Good post. But the issue of technical conservatism does not really apply to the 15th & 16th centuries. Also, while Portugal proved a powerful adversary in the Indian Ocean in OTL, with no Spain and France to contend with simultaneously, Portugal is not going to be able to match the resources the Ottomans can devote to the Indian.

Lepanto would not occur in this TL, as Italy and Iberia would have been conquered before that date.

I've lost sight of where TTL is currently at...

However, the recent postings seem to be leading towards a naval 'arms-race', principally between Portugal and Istanbul. Going back over the Lepanto issue gives two fairly good arguments for and against an Ottoman victory; which to my alt-his mind indicates a fair possibility of either occurring and so there's little evidence to conclusively make Lepanto a make-or-break factor in the development of TTL.

Any discussion of technical advance/limitation must IMHO take into account spurs to technological development. I think that the onus is on the Ottomans to demonstrate that they can take the initiative in naval/maritime technology given the reasonable observation of the OTL Ottomans technical conservatism. The OTL dominance of Portugal in naval/maritime technology was to a large degree what took her into the Red Sea and Indian Ocean and I think there is a reasonable case to argue that for the purposes of TTL the Ottomans may well be able to prevent an eastwards expansion by western European powers. Though again I'd have to place the emphasis on the pro-Ottoman posters to give an alt-his of Ottoman advances in this area.

Given the proposition that the Ottomans shut off an eastward sea route, or at the least, in the absence of a definitive Lepanto, make an eastward passage commercially risky, we have the issue of a greater emphasis on westward exploration/exploitation and potentially an anticipation of the work of Henry the Navigator. There are substantial Atlantic challenges that need to be overcome, but they were overcome OTL so there is little to suggest they couldn't pre-empt these developments TTL.

I feel the issue of Italy will to some degree be a paper tiger given a substantive blunting/nullification of Western naval power in the Mediteranean and that, indeed, "Better a turban than a Cardinal's cap". Though I'd possibly widen that pragmatic sentiment to move from a religious to a wider political sense. Given the history of Italy as a plaything of the greater European powers, there is a case to be made for the welcome mat being put out for an eastern power that tends to promote stability (and to be fair the other side of that coin, stasis). In one sense, there's a case to be made for Italy to be conquered 'de facto' given it's main connection with Europe may now well become the Alps. With a lack of blood and gore, regime change becomes easier to accept.

Given the parameters of non-unified Spain and France, this gives a stronger westward orientation to western Europe, a tightening of Ottoman influence over 'Arabic' east Africa and India, and a likely military deadlock centered somewhere around Austria. The roles that Africa and the Russias play hasn't been touched on particularly, and I still have doubts about the Ottomans ability to make their ascendancy permanent (that 'why' question again). I feel that working through the Iberian/Sicilian apostate issue may throw light on how the Ottomans might obtain a permanency.

Croesus

 

[Paul Spring]

What do you mean by that? The Italians didn't even bother to pretend to resist the French. Mercenary armies were not terribly motivated to do anything that would cause casualties, and used forced conscription to fill their ranks. I don't think you can compare an Italian city-state's military capability with that of France.

A few points - The Italians did resist the French. At the battle of Fornovo (1495) they inflicted a partial defeat on the French, almost capturing the French King Charles VIII. Also, some of the most effective troops in the French army, the Swiss pikemen, were themselves mercenaries.

The real problem that the Italians had is that different city-states and different factions supported different foreign powers. After Fornovo, there would never again be an alliance between several different Italian city-states against an invader. Instead, Italians fought in French, Spanish, and Imperial armies. They never became quite as effective with pike tactics as the Swiss or the German landsknechts, but they were pioneers along with the Spanish in the extensive use of firearms. They were also at the cutting edge when it came to designing heavy artillery and fortifications. Of course, no one city state could match a kingdom (still less an empire) in resources, but they were very far from being easy targets.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Perhaps a larger, scarier Ottoman threat forces the Italians to unite? Perhaps an Ottoman takeover of Sicily (thus doing a heck of a lot of damage to the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies) and Ottoman raids in Italy create a sort of Italian nationalism?

 

[Leo Caesius]

In OTL, the Italians would probably never have united if it were not for Napoleon, who created a "Republic of Italy" and later a "Kingdom of Italy" (in fact, they still use the flag that Napoleon himself designed). I don't think that Italian nationalism would arise in response to a threat - unless the Italians were already conquered and reorganized into one state, as they were in OTL.

 

[Croesus]

Good post. But the issue of technical conservatism does not really apply to the 15th & 16th centuries. Also, while Portugal proved a powerful adversary in the Indian Ocean in OTL, with no Spain and France to contend with simultaneously, Portugal is not going to be able to match the resources the Ottomans can devote to the Indian.

Lepanto would not occur in this TL, as Italy and Iberia would have been conquered before that date.

I'm suggesting that we move the TL forward to a point where we accept an Ottoman naval dominance of most of the Med and certainly the Red Sea and Indian Ocean, thus forcing Portugal to anticipate an Atlantic expansion/exploration, and, furthermore, a strategically redundant and political non-unifiable (under these conditions) Italy.

The technical issue is IMHO a live one as the Ottomans are going to have to deal with the periodic reversions into conservatism that swept the OTL east, a pattern discernible all the way back to Achaemenid Persia and beyond. While it can be fairly argued that such conservatism is not confined to the east, there is a strong case that the east had a predilection to.

The concern I would have for the Ottoman domination is that if they fail to continue to evolve, then they run the risk of losing their mediteranean thassalocracy to more aggresive, more rapidly evolving western european technical advancement.

The recent focus on Portugal is an apt one, given a balkanized Spain, as I'm not sold on a complete conquest of the peninsula by the Ottomans and given a bold, independent and outward looking Portugal poised, perhaps, to loot Mesoamerical, the threat to the Ottoman domination from this region is acute.

Croesus.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

All points, but the French did not pose a lesser threat to Italy than the Ottomans, and resistance was feeble at best.

Also, Swiss mercenearies are a far cry from the rabble that comprised most Italian merc companies.

Also note that the Hapsburg army in this period NEVER accepted battle with the Ottoman army - one presumes there is a good reason for this, and I think it's fair to say no Italian city state is going to be able to field as formidable a force as the Emperor, and holing up in cities will not win a war, only prolong it, and the contrast between the fate of cities that bar their gates and those that surrender is likely to be quite persuasive.

What do you mean by that? The Italians didn't even bother to pretend to resist the French. Mercenary armies were not terribly motivated to do anything that would cause casualties, and used forced conscription to fill their ranks. I don't think you can compare an Italian city-state's military capability with that of France.

A few points - The Italians did resist the French. At the battle of Fornovo (1495) they inflicted a partial defeat on the French, almost capturing the French King Charles VIII. Also, some of the most effective troops in the French army, the Swiss pikemen, were themselves mercenaries.

The real problem that the Italians had is that different city-states and different factions supported different foreign powers. After Fornovo, there would never again be an alliance between several different Italian city-states against an invader. Instead, Italians fought in French, Spanish, and Imperial armies. They never became quite as effective with pike tactics as the Swiss or the German landsknechts, but they were pioneers along with the Spanish in the extensive use of firearms. They were also at the cutting edge when it came to designing heavy artillery and fortifications. Of course, no one city state could match a kingdom (still less an empire) in resources, but they were very far from being easy targets.

 

[MerryPrankster]

John,

This ties into an earlier point I made, but what do you think the Ottomans will do if they conquer Sicily (probable) and Iberia (not so probable). You made a comment about "apostate lands" but never elaborated (though in the past, you criticized Islam on its treatment of apostates).

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

John,

This ties into an earlier point I made, but what do you think the Ottomans will do if they conquer Sicily (probable) and Iberia (not so probable). You made a comment about "apostate lands" but never elaborated (though in the past, you criticized Islam on its treatment of apostates).

I think that legally the Ottomans have greater freedom in their treatment of Sicily and Iberia due to the fact that they were once Muslim - however, politics will probably give these places a good deal.

I also don't think Ottoman conquest of Iberia is all that improbable so long as Granada is still around - that provides a more than adequate base to dominate the peninsula.

Also, we're not necessarily talking about outright conquest and annexation of all these additional territories - one would assume many would be vassalized and perhaps integrated later, as was the case in much of the Balkans. Wide areas of the Ottoman Empire were never centrally integrated and remained vassals for centuries, like Wallachia and Moldavia.

 

[Faeelin]

I also don't think Ottoman conquest of Iberia is all that improbable so long as Granada is still around - that provides a more than adequate base to dominate the peninsula.

John, no offense, but by this point Grenada had been paying tribute to Castille for over a century. Why would it suddenly become a threat just because the Ottomans are supporting it from across the Mediterranean?

I think we need to take a look at what happens to the Empire in this set up. Does it still pick up Egypt?

What are the effects of the Ottomans ruling an advanced, literate, mercantile population in Italy that has commercial contacts reaching into India? Do they pick up the printing press? Do they continue to allow painting? Machiavelli, servant of the Sultan? (That'd make a pretty good book, actually).



What of Venice?

 

[MerryPrankster]

Scott,

Granada could make a useful forward base to attack Spain if the Ottomans can keep their presence in Granada on the down-low (one or two ships a month over the course of a few years--requires long-term planning, but a smart guy like Suleiman the Magnificent could do it). Grenada could also be useful for proxy wars to keep Portugal distracted or divert resources away from the naval conflict in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean.

Thing is, when precisely is the POD? Grenada could be defeated by newly-unified Castille-Aragon and then the C-A union could fail for some reason or another. That nixes unified Spain but Grenada is also out of the way.

Thing is, without the depredations of Spain and France, might there be a North African power capable of challenging the Ottoman Sultan? According to what I've read, the Kingdom of Morocco feared Ottoman power and that might have been the cause of their 1529 invasion of Songhay--got to get their hands on the gold and other resources to fuel.

If a stronger Ottoman Empire attempts to bind the North African cities closer to Constantinople's will, Morocco could lead the resistance.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Actually, Grenada wasn't even discovered yet and had a small native American population.

But GRANADA in this case is being supported by an Ottoman Empire that is right next door in Italy and Algiers. The scenario postulates no France or unified Spain. I can practically guarantee Granada would be more active with a large Ottoman army on its soil. I didn't say that it would merely receive moral support, I meant it would be the springboard for Ottoman conquest of Iberia.

The Mamelukes were so weak in this period it's hard to imagine the Ottomans NOT conquering them.

John, no offense, but by this point Grenada had been paying tribute to Castille for over a century. Why would it suddenly become a threat just because the Ottomans are supporting it from across the Mediterranean?

I think we need to take a look at what happens to the Empire in this set up. Does it still pick up Egypt?

What are the effects of the Ottomans ruling an advanced, literate, mercantile population in Italy that has commercial contacts reaching into India? Do they pick up the printing press? Do they continue to allow painting? Machiavelli, servant of the Sultan? (That'd make a pretty good book, actually).



What of Venice?