The Ottoman Empire looks east

What if the Ottoman Empire expanded east across the Caspian Sea instead of trying to expand into Europe? The Ottoman Empire's founder was originally from Central Asia and thus the Ottoman ruler at the time could claim to be a "New Khan", back to unify the people of Central Asia once more. They might try to outpace Russia in eastward expansion.

Perhaps after the Siege of Vienna the Ottomans could try going after the less populous Central Asia. I'm guessing the Ottoman Empire will still collapse but it could be interesting to see an alternate course of expansion.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
They be stopped by Safavid, Timurid and other Persian dynasty, just like Sassanian and Parthian stop Rome.
 
The Ottoman Empire's founder was originally from Central Asia
Osman was Bithynian, actually.

This could happen if the Ottomans really did secure the Don-Volga route in the late sixteenth century and even built the fabled Canal Between the Black and the Caspian, as they wanted to. Otherwise, the Ottomans would not have focused on eastward expansion from the beginning.
 
Before the Safavids came to power in Iran in 1501, Iran was Sunni. It was considered more acceptable to attack the Byzantine Empire than to attack another Sunni state.
 
This is straight ASB

Peter I's people did a feasibility study on an early Volga-Don in the 18th c. and found it wasn't really doable, yeah.

I mean I could see the Ottomans snatching Astrakhan for a while but please keep in mind the logistics costs.
 
Peter I's people did a feasibility study on an early Volga-Don in the 18th c. and found it wasn't really doable, yeah.

I mean I could see the Ottomans snatching Astrakhan for a while but please keep in mind the logistics costs.

Maybe they'd be able to establish some puppet states from the remnants of the Golden Horde,like they did in Crimea?
 
The only way I can think of this happening is if the Ottomans NEVER get access to Europe - essentially the Romans act as the Bulwark of Christianity - becoming THE Balkan power, perhaps even absorbing Hungary in the process.

This would leave the Ottomans strong and in control of Anatolia - more than capable of taking Egypt - but also following the legacy of the Seljuks - making a move to dominate Middle Eastern politics could be to their advantage, becoming a sort of Neo-Seleucid Empire, with Anatolia as their initial core, and building a long-term peaceful relationship with the (ITTL) Romans - primarily economic, but likely also cultural in many ways.

Now, it isn't EASY - but it wasn't easy to do what the Ottomans did IOTL - but they united Arabia, Egypt, Anatolia, the Balkans, and North Africa (more or less), under one Sultan.

So yeah, figure out a way to keep the Romans alive, and strong, in the Balkans - and simply ALWAYS repel the Ottomans (fleets get intercepted, landings get repelled, etc), and the idea that you can go west is neutered - so uniting the Muslim would is the best approach - perhaps even propagandising for a united invasion of Spain, a 'back door' to Europe.
 
But control over Bithynia would be critical for any such polity, no?

I don't see how the Ottomans manage this just by controlling Bithynia and without their Balkan possessions.

Neither are essential for either. It just isn't easy to do without. But peace and neutrality can be enough.

Full control over the straits is great for either power. But if the Romans are strong enough to prevent the Ottomans (or anyone else for that matter) from coming over, then great.

Both powers can benefit from peace between them (although losing the Ghazi is a loss) - so you could have initially the Ottomans go a-pirating. Lots of ghazi ambushing trade ships, looting and running to shore. Sates the Ghazi a bit, makes the Ottomans quite rich. This can provoke either a war (lets assume a stalemate), but potentially a small Roman victory that forces a peace and trade treaty - the Ottomans get a preferred trade status, which includes lower tariffs in the Straits/Dardanelles (same for the Romans), in exchange for long term peace. That benefits both, and can enable both to dominate their local rivals more easily. Romans hire Ottoman troops as Mercs, Ottomans get Roman assistance in Anatolia, etc.

The Romans think they're in control, but eventually lose it because ... hello? Ottomans. They become more equal partners and the Ottomans aren't a rogue pro-Roman entity in Anatolia, but the leading Turkish power, with a strong economic backbone via trade, the same backbone as the Romans. There will be factions that disrupt this relationship, but for the same of the TL, they're minor disruptions at best.

So both have that free hand in a secure border that allows them to expand more easily - eventually both dominating their respective regions.

The Ottomans can then continue from there. More mercantile and Pro-Roman than most Muslim Empires, and still secure in that western border for now.

Eventually, that will break down, but if the Ottomans have refocused in the middle east, even a devestating Roman victory will only force them to cede lands on the western border - they still have trade in the Levant, control over the Spice Trade until Europe goes around Africa.

TL;DR mutual trade, peace and secure borders can jump-start both realms immensely. It'll fall apart eventually, but that gives the Ottomans plenty of time to dominate the Middle east
 
Top