The Ottomans move East

[Rockingham]

Based on what B Munro said on the Persian thread, and the suggestion that it needed a new thread......(my apologies if i'm going over the top with the threads)...

What would happen if the Ottomans were to conquer Persia, and focus on Eastern conquest, as opposed to the conquest of Hungary and wasting their time on numerous attempts a taking Budapest? A possible POD:The Safavids don't come to power.

A few thoughts:

-This would probably result in the near death of the Shia sect of Islam, without any Muslim states sponsoring it. If this were the case, what would the major fracture lines of the Islamic faith be?

-Persian would remain the language of the Ottoman court if Persia was to remain Sunni....upon conquering Persia, mightn't the Ottomans come to see themselves as a hybrid Roman-Persian empire? In which case we might see a spread of Persian culture throughout the Ottoman territories, and Persian, not Arabic, being the lingua franca of the Islamic world today.

-They meay establish a significant presence in the Indian ocean, thus maintaing the regions status as an essential Islamic lake, and preventing their decline.

-Perhaps they woudl relocate their capital?

 

[Boom22]

Hmmm the oil in the region could keep the empire alive but a capital change I don't think so.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Well, the sultan was already Roman emperor, Muslim caliph and Turkic khan, now he'd be Persian shah as well.

But the thing about Ottoman expansionism is that they didn't know when to stop. There was always a tempting target at the horizon, and they were usually able to take it (Buda, Algiers, Podolia), but the problem was when they went too far (Vienna, Malta, the Ukraine). So they could secure Persia only to over-extend themselves and suffer some historic defeat at Samarkand, Balkh, Delhi or wherever ambition takes them next. Not that this would spell doom for the Ottoman Empire, though. Better to have the battlefield in Khorasan than in Iraq.

But this is a pretty big POD you have there. Crushing the Safavids will have an effect on India, keeping Hungary independent (and under what dynasty?) will have an effect on Central Europe. There's a lot to account for and the effects on the empire are both direct and indirect.

 

[Keenir]

What would happen if the Ottomans were to conquer Persia, and focus on Eastern conquest, as opposed to the conquest of Hungary and wasting their time on numerous attempts a taking Budapest?

the Ottomans banged their heads against Persia just as often as Hungary.

-This would probably result in the near death of the Shia sect of Islam, without any Muslim states sponsoring it.

religions don't need a sponsoring state - but they don't object to it either.

and Persian, not Arabic, being the lingua franca of the Islamic world today.

the Quran is still written in Arabic. hard to get around that.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

the Quran is still written in Arabic. hard to get around that.

It didn't stop Persian from having such a huge influence in OTL.

Most of the other stuff would be either written in Persian or translated into it. If Aristotle could be translated into Arabic, Averroes could be translated into Persian.

Think of a combination of Europe in 1500 and 1700. The Bible is in Latin but the upper class speaks French.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I'm not sure I agree with this. Other than a couple of the early rulers, and Mehmed II and Selim I, the Ottomans were really not that conquest oriented. it was the Byzantines that invited them into Europe, and most of the rest was either opportunistic or a response to a specific threat. Example, the Safavids came after the Ottomans hard - and the adherence of the Kizilbashi in Anatolia to Ismail made it a life or death struggle. Control over Mesopotamia became a part of that, as it was dangerous in Iranian hands (and still is!). Algiers asked to join the empire to help defend against Spain, and fit well into the Ottoman need to protect trade routes through the Mid East. The Ottomans tried to erect buffer vassal states in the Balkans, but that only really worked in the Principalities - many of them rebelled or became bases for anti-Ottoman crusades.

I still think the Ottomans should have vassalized Hungary, encouraged it to become Calvinist, and then devoted the much lesser amount of resources that would have been required to keep it independent, but it had been the center of all Crusades against the empire, and it could have become a big threat in its own right. On the other hand, trying to maintain a region that far from Istanbul and that close to Vienna seems to me to be a strategic liability.

As for overextension in general, I don't see it. The borders of the core Ottoman territories were pretty stable for a long time. In the Balkans the Danube-Sava line seems to have been the natural extent of the empire. Many of the territories they ended up with they gained with minimal effort and resources expended, i.e. North Africa, Egypt & Syria, Iraq.

Well, the sultan was already Roman emperor, Muslim caliph and Turkic khan, now he'd be Persian shah as well.

But the thing about Ottoman expansionism is that they didn't know when to stop. There was always a tempting target at the horizon, and they were usually able to take it (Buda, Algiers, Podolia), but the problem was when they went too far (Vienna, Malta, the Ukraine). So they could secure Persia only to over-extend themselves and suffer some historic defeat at Samarkand, Balkh, Delhi or wherever ambition takes them next. Not that this would spell doom for the Ottoman Empire, though. Better to have the battlefield in Khorasan than in Iraq.

But this is a pretty big POD you have there. Crushing the Safavids will have an effect on India, keeping Hungary independent (and under what dynasty?) will have an effect on Central Europe. There's a lot to account for and the effects on the empire are both direct and indirect.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

Well, the sultan was already Roman emperor, Muslim caliph and Turkic khan, now he'd be Persian shah as well.

But the thing about Ottoman expansionism is that they didn't know when to stop. There was always a tempting target at the horizon, and they were usually able to take it (Buda, Algiers, Podolia), but the problem was when they went too far (Vienna, Malta, the Ukraine). So they could secure Persia only to over-extend themselves and suffer some historic defeat at Samarkand, Balkh, Delhi or wherever ambition takes them next. Not that this would spell doom for the Ottoman Empire, though. Better to have the battlefield in Khorasan than in Iraq.

If you look at Ottoman expansionism, it was mostly focused in the West. The takeover of the Levant, Mesopotamia, and Egypt was all done in one fell swoop, without a lot of the heavy fighting that you saw in the Ottoman gains in the Balkans.

The reason for this, I think, is that the Ottomans didn't see the Eastern territory as desirable as the Balkan territory that they were mostly interested in. If you could get the Ottomans to deliver a quick knockout blow to the Safavids (I think the capture and execution of the Safavid Shah should do it) and then have Ottoman influence start reaching further east, perhaps you see Ottoman eyes turn towards India or Central Asia?

Really, I want to figure out how to get the Ottomans to build the Don-Volga Canal. If you have the Ottoman's build that canal, I think that you would really throw a serious monkey wrench in the whole development of not only the Ottomans (a good monkey wrench) but the Russians (with that canal nothing external would stand in the way of Ottoman expansion into what became Russian Turkestan).

But this is a pretty big POD you have there. Crushing the Safavids will have an effect on India, keeping Hungary independent (and under what dynasty?) will have an effect on Central Europe. There's a lot to account for and the effects on the empire are both direct and indirect.

On the contrary I think that big expansion in the East would lead to further expansion into the West. Ottoman expansion feed itself, by which I mean the Empire in its expansion phase basically invested its captured riches in building a more powerful and farther reaching war machine. If you have an Ottoman Empire that streches into large portions of OTL Safavid Persia, then the Ottomans controlling a huge chunk of the Silk Road, and nearly the entire land route to India.

If the Ottoman penchant for expansion leads to a Don-Volga Canal, then you've brought Trans-Oxania into range of the Ottoman war machine. Add to that direct control of the Ukrainian steppes (which would happen if you have that canal), with the opportunity for massively productive agricultural colonies, then you've really created an Ottoman-wank that looks very cool and does all kinds of nasty things to Europe.

If you have an Ottoman Empire that is rich and well-organized enough to take huge chunks of Safavid Persia, then those riches will be re-invested in a war machine that could easily project power into Italy and Austria. An Ottoman Empire that controls most of the Danube and Italy to the Alps would be extremely difficult to force out of Europe, because the internal momentum that OTL carried the Ottomans forward far beyond the Empire's ability to really keep itself together would be so much greater.

Do people think that this would be possible? I'm kinda just thinking out loud.

 

[Keenir]

It didn't stop Persian from having such a huge influence in OTL.

Think of a combination of Europe in 1500 and 1700. The Bible is in Latin but the upper class speaks French.

so it's still OTL - Persian is a courtly language, and used by poets.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Algiers asked to join the empire to help defend against Spain, and fit well into the Ottoman need to protect trade routes through the Mid East.

Yeah, but they didn't have to accept them in. Algiers was quite far away when it was incorporated; the empire didn't control Tripoli, Tunis, Constantine, Bougie, Cyprus, Crete, Rhodes, Chios, and Naxos yet and would never control Malta and the Ionian Islands. There was no clear route to the city by either land or sea. Algiers was way out there.

I still think the Ottomans should have vassalized Hungary, encouraged it to become Calvinist, and then devoted the much lesser amount of resources that would have been required to keep it independent, but it had been the center of all Crusades against the empire, and it could have become a big threat in its own right. On the other hand, trying to maintain a region that far from Istanbul and that close to Vienna seems to me to be a strategic liability.

As I explained in another thread, Mohacs was a military victory and a political defeat. If Suleiman hadn't intervened then all of Hungary would have probably become part of a Habsburg empire stronger than anything the Turks had ever faced in Europe.

As for overextension in general, I don't see it. The borders of the core Ottoman territories were pretty stable for a long time. In the Balkans the Danube-Sava line seems to have been the natural extent of the empire. Many of the territories they ended up with they gained with minimal effort and resources expended, i.e. North Africa, Egypt & Syria, Iraq.

The examples I gave for overextension were Vienna, Malta and the Ukraine. This is an empire that, before going into territorial decline, was involved in wars from Morocco to Gujarat and from the Horn of Africa to the heart of Russia. You don't think that's going too far?

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

Yeah, but they didn't have to accept them in. Algiers was quite far away when it was incorporated; the empire didn't control Tripoli, Tunis, Constantine, Bougie, Cyprus, Crete, Rhodes, Chios, and Naxos yet and would never control Malta and the Ionian Islands. There was no clear route to the city by either land or sea. Algiers was way out there.

The examples I gave for overextension were Vienna, Malta and the Ukraine. This is an empire that, before going into territorial decline, was involved in wars from Morocco to Gujarat and from the Horn of Africa to the heart of Russia. You don't think that's going too far?

Once the Ottoman stopped expanding, they started declining. Without the mission that constant expansion gave the empire, there was no point in the continued investment in cutting edge military technology and an effective military machine. The empire's leadership had to be good at maintaining its position in court, not good in waging war and administering and organizing the new territories.

I think the key to continued Ottoman potence is to give the Empire internal frontiers that can be settled and further conquered. For instance, with the Don-Volga canal, the Empire will need to establish direct control of the Crimean Khanate and the Ukrainian steppes. Or give it places where it can continue to spread its influence and power without major use of resources, for instance Central Asia, where the Ottoman's Turkish character and relatively effective administration would probably be enough to overthrow or coopt the relatively weak local leadership.

Also, as I previously pointed out, if you have the Ottoman conquer Persia, you also significantly strengthen the Ottoman grip on Eastern Trade. With control of the land route to India and (with Central Asia) control of the land route to China, the Ottoman Empire would make itself a very good venue for European merchants who want to move good relatively cheaply and with pretty good security from the Indian and Chinese start points to European end points. You would create a single polity streaching from the Med to the Hindu Kush and the western marches of China. That is a great value for European merchants.

As I explained in another thread, Mohacs was a military victory and a political defeat. If Suleiman hadn't intervened then all of Hungary would have probably become part of a Habsburg empire stronger than anything the Turks had ever faced in Europe.

This actually might not have been a bad thing. The Ottomans couldn't project power much beyond Hungary, as the repeated attempts to capture Vienna showed. If the Hapsburg have control over most of Hungary, then they would have enough of a buffer with the Ottomans to allow them to focus on European politics. A de facto truce between the Ottomans and Hapsburg could allow both to focus on what were bigger opportunities and threats to both countries opposite frontiers (Germany and France for the Hapsburg, Safavid Persia for the Ottomans).

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

If the Hapsburg have control over most of Hungary, then they would have enough of a buffer with the Ottomans to allow them to focus on European politics. A de facto truce between the Ottomans and Hapsburg could allow both to focus on what were bigger opportunities and threats to both countries opposite frontiers (Germany and France for the Hapsburg, Safavid Persia for the Ottomans).

Except the Ottomans have no reason to expect that and neither do we. How long is Austria going to battle France? Not forever, that's for sure, especially if they beat it so bad that it stops being a threat (which might just happen if they're not facing a war in the east).

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

Except the Ottomans have no reason to expect that and neither do we. How long is Austria going to battle France? Not forever, that's for sure, especially if they beat it so bad that it stops being a threat (which might just happen if they're not facing a war in the east).

Various German Emperors in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries all fought and died in vain to gain control of Northern Italy. All of them had the benefit of not having to worry about an eastern front, and yet they still failed. The French by the end of the 15th century no longer really had to worry about their western front vs the English, and yet they too were unable to hold on to either northern Italy, or a border at the Rhine. Even without the Ottoman threat, there is precious little evidence that the Hapsburg would have been able to dominate Europe and therefore totally unbalance Europe.

I for one have an awful lot of faith that Europe was evenly matched enough that even if the Ottomans stopped their western charge the Hapsburgs would have been stymied by a combination of Italian, English, French, German, and Scandinavian Kings, Princes, and Lords, all of whom had a vested interest in making sure Germany stayed divided.

Might the politics of Europe been changed by a de facto truce like this? Certainly. Is the unquestioned outcome of such a truce that the Hapsburg successfully unify Germany into a unitary state with a hereditary monarchy? Absolutely not.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Even without the Ottoman threat, there is precious little evidence that the Hapsburg would have been able to dominate Europe and therefore totally unbalance Europe.

I for one have an awful lot of faith that Europe was evenly matched enough that even if the Ottomans stopped their western charge the Hapsburgs would have been stymied by a combination of Italian, English, French, German, and Scandinavian Kings, Princes, and Lords, all of whom had a vested interest in making sure Germany stayed divided.

Charles V came closer than anyone until the Congress of Vienna to finishing France as a great power. The Habsburgs are very strong at this point and there's not much room for faith in Suleiman's decisions; consider that Charles actually pushed the French to a once unthinkable alliance with a Muslim power invading Europe.

 

[B_Munro]

Charles V came closer than anyone until the Congress of Vienna to finishing France as a great power. The Habsburgs are very strong at this point and there's not much room for faith in Suleiman's decisions; consider that Charles actually pushed the French to a once unthinkable alliance with a Muslim power invading Europe.

Must quibble here: the French religious wars did far more harm to France's status in the 16th century than anything Charles V did. The problem was that
Charles (and Philip) didn't have the necessary mindset to _eliminate_ France as a great power.

Peel off a few minor border provinces, extort a big ranson for a captured monarch, perhaps even try to help a friendly French candidate onto the throne: but something _serious_ such as wiping out the French royal family and putting a Habsburg on the throne, or breaking France into a bunch of smaller states - that sort of thinking appeared to have been alien to them.

Bruce

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

Must quibble here: the French religious wars did far more harm to France's status in the 16th century than anything Charles V did. The problem was that
Charles (and Philip) didn't have the necessary mindset to _eliminate_ France as a great power.

Peel off a few minor border provinces, extort a big ranson for a captured monarch, perhaps even try to help a friendly French candidate onto the throne: but something _serious_ such as wiping out the French royal family and putting a Habsburg on the throne, or breaking France into a bunch of smaller states - that sort of thinking appeared to have been alien to them.

Bruce

I don't know if Philip II or Charles V were really capable of carrying out the kind of operation that your imagining. On the other hand, Philip II was apparently fully prepared to invade Elizabeth's England to bring the country to its knees, and impose his own daughter on the throne, so perhaps if a suitable candidate could be found, its possible.

The best idea that I can think of is the French King deciding to become a Protestant, and doing a St. Bart's Massacre on the Catholics. The leadership wiped out, the remaining Catholics nobles plead for Hapsburg intervention. The war is long and brutal, but in the end a Hapsburg King sits upon the French throne in Paris, surrounded by Jesuits and a particularly nasty French Inquisition.

I think what you need is a Hapsburg with a good claim on the French throne. The other thing that your going to need is long-term political stability across the rest of Europe. I think the big problem that faced both monarchs is that princes who would otherwise be allies may turn on the Hapsburgs if it appeared that they were about to destroy the balance of power in Europe.

For instance if Charles V invades France after the capture of Francis at Pavia, with the full intention of installing a Hapsburg on the French throne, that might spur serious action from the Ottomans. I would imagine the thought of Charles V with an entirely friendly Europe behind him would result in the Ottomans attempting anything to persuade him that is not a good idea/ distract him. Invading Italy would probably do the trick.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

There are many things wrong with the below:

- Ottoman decline was caused by a number of factors, most notably that they had a very light population density in their territories (consider that the entire empire in Suleyman's time has a population equal to that of France, but with many, many times the territory), the loss of trade routes due to the discovery of the Americas and the Cape route, and constant warfare with the Hapsburgs, Persia, and Russia, which drained the empire of resources, and caused a severe decentralization.

- Lack of expansion is not ever a reason for abandoning keeping up with military technology. I'm sure we can come up with hundreds of examples off the top of our heads to demonstrate that. As for the Ottomans specifically, WWI should be adequate demonstration that they kept up with military technology and theory. As late as the 18th c they were able to hold their own against Russia and the Hapsburgs combined - no mean feat.

- The Ottoman Empire did NOT have a "Turkish character". Nobody would have given a fig for the "Turkishness" of Central Asia, although they would have cared about it's MUSLIM nature.

I'm not sure what Dr PH means by "political defeat" - Mohacs was every sort of victory. I'm saying a Hungarian vassal state, preferably Calvinist or at least Protestant, would have been a better barrier against the Hapsburgs than trying to rule it directly. An earlier Hapsburg absorption of Hungary would have been a very bad thing for the Ottomans.

Iran doesn't help much with trade routes to India, but Central Asia does. The real value in absorbing Persia is preventing a hostile Shiite state from developing. Shiism would still have existed, but not as a mortal threat to the empire's existence. It would also make the Ottomans indisputably THE Muslim power.

Once the Ottoman stopped expanding, they started declining. Without the mission that constant expansion gave the empire, there was no point in the continued investment in cutting edge military technology and an effective military machine. The empire's leadership had to be good at maintaining its position in court, not good in waging war and administering and organizing the new territories.

I think the key to continued Ottoman potence is to give the Empire internal frontiers that can be settled and further conquered. For instance, with the Don-Volga canal, the Empire will need to establish direct control of the Crimean Khanate and the Ukrainian steppes. Or give it places where it can continue to spread its influence and power without major use of resources, for instance Central Asia, where the Ottoman's Turkish character and relatively effective administration would probably be enough to overthrow or coopt the relatively weak local leadership.

Also, as I previously pointed out, if you have the Ottoman conquer Persia, you also significantly strengthen the Ottoman grip on Eastern Trade. With control of the land route to India and (with Central Asia) control of the land route to China, the Ottoman Empire would make itself a very good venue for European merchants who want to move good relatively cheaply and with pretty good security from the Indian and Chinese start points to European end points. You would create a single polity streaching from the Med to the Hindu Kush and the western marches of China. That is a great value for European merchants.



This actually might not have been a bad thing. The Ottomans couldn't project power much beyond Hungary, as the repeated attempts to capture Vienna showed. If the Hapsburg have control over most of Hungary, then they would have enough of a buffer with the Ottomans to allow them to focus on European politics. A de facto truce between the Ottomans and Hapsburg could allow both to focus on what were bigger opportunities and threats to both countries opposite frontiers (Germany and France for the Hapsburg, Safavid Persia for the Ottomans).

 

[Rockingham]

religions don't need a sponsoring state - but they don't object to it either.

True, but without a Shiite Persia, I doubt their would be a Shiite majority covering a large area anywhere.

As for overextension in general, I don't see it. The borders of the core Ottoman territories were pretty stable for a long time. In the Balkans the Danube-Sava line seems to have been the natural extent of the empire. Many of the territories they ended up with they gained with minimal effort and resources expended, i.e. North Africa, Egypt & Syria, Iraq.

I would disagree. Controlling a border from the Adriatic to the Sea of Azov, bordering nations that commonly allied against them, was over extended to put it mildly. Had they set up an independat buffer Hungary, it probably could of held its own, but the Crimean Khanate had no hope of holding its own gaisnt the Russians without Ottoman aid...

Creating the Don-Volga canal would thus perhaps have been a poison chalice.... on the one hand, it would be a major boon to the Ottomans economically, but on the other, it would extend their long northen frontier from the Asov sea to the Caspian...and in Russian hands, it would be a disaster...

They would need to drive deep into Russia to make it defensible.

There are many things wrong with the below:

-1)Lack of expansion is not ever a reason for abandoning keeping up with military technology. I'm sure we can come up with hundreds of examples off the top of our heads to demonstrate that. As for the Ottomans specifically, WWI should be adequate demonstration that they kept up with military technology and theory. As late as the 18th c they were able to hold their own against Russia and the Hapsburgs combined - no mean feat.

-2) The Ottoman Empire did NOT have a "Turkish character". Nobody would have given a fig for the "Turkishness" of Central Asia, although they would have cared about it's MUSLIM nature.

-3)I'm not sure what Dr PH means by "political defeat" - Mohacs was every sort of victory. I'm saying a Hungarian vassal state, preferably Calvinist or at least Protestant, would have been a better barrier against the Hapsburgs than trying to rule it directly. An earlier Hapsburg absorption of Hungary would have been a very bad thing for the Ottomans.

-4Iran doesn't help much with trade routes to India, but Central Asia does. The real value in absorbing Persia is preventing a hostile Shiite state from developing. Shiism would still have existed, but not as a mortal threat to the empire's existence. It would also make the Ottomans indisputably THE Muslim power.

1)Not neccesarily. If one does not wish to expand, it makes sense ot adopt a defensive military structure, which tends to be both less costly and require a less powerful military to maintain(due to the defense-offense equation, or whatever its called)....

2) Well, the Ottomans did claim the title of Khan...although thats more Mongol in origin then Turkish.

3)I'm pretty sure he refers to the death of the Hungarian king in battle....and according to a treaty he had made with the Hapsburgs, if he were to die without a heir, Hungary would pass onto them.

Had he survived, Sulieman may have had the wisdom to create your much touted Hungarian buffer state

4)Shiism would have existed.... but not at any meaningful level, assuming the Persians hadn't been Shiite long enough that the majority wouldn't convert back, or that another Muslim realm didn't convert to the Shiite doctrine.

Wouldn't having a strong naval position on the Persian gulf have been a major sop to Ottoman power in the Indian ocean, and thus their trading capacity? The Red sea may have remained the primary route through which trade flowed, but in terms of establsihing a naval and military presence the Persian gulf would be ideal... just look at the geography.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

2) Well, the Ottomans did claim the title of Khan...although thats more Mongol in origin then Turkish.

Well yeah, but Ottoman Empire was way more Islamic than it was Turkic, wasn't it ? To view pre-1850 Ottoman Empire with nationalistic ideas of 20th century is just doesn't compute.

 

[Rockingham]

Well yeah, but Ottoman Empire was way more Islamic than it was Turkic, wasn't it ? To view pre-1850 Ottoman Empire with nationalistic ideas of 20th century is just doesn't compute.

True, and it was just a formal title....but still, they wore with pride the title Han(which is the Turkish name for Khan), the legacy of the Mongols....indeed, for a long time it took presidence over their other titles, though I'm not sure if that was so by 1850.

They thus may have seen it as something of their rightful inheritance to "recreate" the old Mongol empire- nationalism has nothing to do with it. Of course, they won't reach Mongolia, let alone China....

 

[MerryPrankster]

As far as focusing on Persia and not Europe, perhaps we get a Sultan who decides it's his mission from God to destroy Shiism?