Well I doubt it. With an Ottoman Persia means it's verrry unlikely a powerful and Shiite community will even emerge anywhere that can endanger the Empire. Hence it'd be hard for that particular Sultan to find any real motivation to destroy Shiism, let alone a real reason.
The Ottomans move East
- Thread starter Rockingham
- Start date
Well I doubt it. With an Ottoman Persia means it's verrry unlikely a powerful and Shiite community will even emerge anywhere that can endanger the Empire. Hence it'd be hard for that particular Sultan to find any real motivation to destroy Shiism, let alone a real reason.
Weren't the Safavids Shi'ite and didn't the Ottomans fight wars with them?
Have a sultan decide to devote his attention to the annihilation (not just humbling) of the Safavids (or any successor Shi'ite dynasties) and you might end up with a Persian-focused Ottoman Empire for a generation or two.
Annihilation of Shiite dynasties doesn't equal annihilation of the Shiite community as whole. And an Ottoman Persia as the end would mean a failure Safavid revolution, hence preventing the was Sunni majority Persia being mass converted into Shia by the Safavids. A minority Shia community, even if rather sizable, would mean no harm for the Ottomans because they would be simply not powerful enough, especially because now Persia is already under Ottoman control.
Besides an anti-to-a-particular-faith Ottoman Empire doesn't really go with the nature of the empire its self. IOTL where there was a successfully established Safavid Empire, Ottoman Empire remained fairly tolerant towards the Shiites, as it was towards any other religions and sects. How much likely is an anti-Shiite Ottoman Empire in a world without any threatening Shiite power towards them compared to this reality?
One more addition, is also that before they were "unified" by the Safavids, the Shiite Persians weren't very united themselves. When Persia is finally under Ottoman control, it'll be most likely for us to see the Ottomans keeping the Persian Shiites disunited by tolerating their existence and guaranteeing the safety of the very each Shiite sects from each others' threats, rather than antagonizing them which will make them unit under the single anti Ottoman banner. But Ottomans would going to have the support from the rest of majority Sunni population against them anyway.
Last edited:
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I said Shiite STATE, not Shiism. Iran wasn't Shiite before the Safavids. Iraq is the "source" of Shiism, not Iran.
The purpose of buffer vassals is that they take much less in resources to maintain. Of course the Crimea couldn't survive without Ottoman aid, but it was a lot easier to keep it friendly as a vassal than it would have been to rule it directly. All the Ottomans really had to provide was some firearms, cannon, and technical experts - plus under direct rule you not only have to do all the heavy lifting yourself, you most likely had to fight the population, plus you lose most of their manpower. As it was, the Crimeans by themselves were enough to hold off Russia until the 18th c or so.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
Throughout most of its existence the khanate treated Russia as a raiding ground rather than a threat. They even reached Moscow at least once. It was the Cossacks that the Tatars were most worried about, even if they were occasionally allied. Just because Peter the Great made Russia a European power doesn't mean it was always one.
Yes, that's what I was referring too. A Habsburg Hungary couldn't be a buffer state and intervention was necessary to keep the dynasty out.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
If you read one of those Tuğra things (the imperial monogram):
http://www.abdulhamid.gen.tr/content_images/Tugra_Mahmud_II.gif
This is Mahmud II's - it reads Mahmud Han ibn Abdul Hamid Daima Muzaffer, tanslated as Mahmud Khan son of Abdul Hamid, the Ever-Victorious.
The Mongol title was paramount, but the usual title used for late Ottoman Sultans was Padişah, "Lord of Kings" i.e. Emperor. "Sultan" was about the equivalent of "Prince". "Princess", actually, since it was only used for women. Male princes were called "Şehzade" (Son of the Shah).
Sultan came after the woman's name, e.g. "Durruşehvar Sultan". "Valide Sultan" was essentially Dowager Empress - the Sultan's mother, who filled the role in the empire that an Empress or Queen holds in a Western society, except probably with greater gravitas since she gave birth to the monarch instead of just marrying him.
The Padişah was obviously at the peak of the pyramid. Next in rank were the Valide, the Grand Mufti, the Chief Black Eunuch, and the Grand Vizier. The first two were styled "Imperian Majesty", the rest "His Highness".
So in the empire, the second highest person was a slave girl, and a black man tied for third. Who needs an Obama?
http://www.abdulhamid.gen.tr/content_images/Tugra_Mahmud_II.gif
This is Mahmud II's - it reads Mahmud Han ibn Abdul Hamid Daima Muzaffer, tanslated as Mahmud Khan son of Abdul Hamid, the Ever-Victorious.
The Mongol title was paramount, but the usual title used for late Ottoman Sultans was Padişah, "Lord of Kings" i.e. Emperor. "Sultan" was about the equivalent of "Prince". "Princess", actually, since it was only used for women. Male princes were called "Şehzade" (Son of the Shah).
Sultan came after the woman's name, e.g. "Durruşehvar Sultan". "Valide Sultan" was essentially Dowager Empress - the Sultan's mother, who filled the role in the empire that an Empress or Queen holds in a Western society, except probably with greater gravitas since she gave birth to the monarch instead of just marrying him.
The Padişah was obviously at the peak of the pyramid. Next in rank were the Valide, the Grand Mufti, the Chief Black Eunuch, and the Grand Vizier. The first two were styled "Imperian Majesty", the rest "His Highness".
So in the empire, the second highest person was a slave girl, and a black man tied for third. Who needs an Obama?
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
The Safavids were Shiite, but the situation was much more complicated and "shade-of-grayey" than you might think. Shah Ismail was originally the head of the Savafiye Sufi order - which were originally officially Sunni - while the Ottomans had been very sufi-oriented in a pretty Shiite way. It was the Safavid challenge, particularly due to the Kizilbashi movement in Anatolia, that caused the Ottomans to harden into Sunni Orthodoxy which in turn reinforced the Iranian move into Shiism.
If Selim I had lived a bit longer and conquered Persia, Shiism would not have become the majority religion of Iran and Azerbaijan, but would remain a serious factor in Iraq, although it would probably be under much greater pressure there than historically.
It seems to me that long-term rule over Persia is just not possible due to terrain and distance - but destroying the Safavids and placing a nice Sunni regime in place would have removed the most serious threat to the empire - Iran not only posed a serious military threat, but also a serious ideological threat - which was not the case of the Hapsburgs.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I would agree with all this except as I mentioned I don't think long-term control of Iran would be likely, and I don't think Shiism would amount to anything there under these circumstances. However, if the Ottomans did try to remain around, their administration is likely to be terrible as the distance is too great, and Shiism could well get a boost as a "resistance ideology" - which BTW, is pretty much what Wahhabism is - or originally was.
Annihilation of Shiite dynasties doesn't equal annihilation of the Shiite community as whole. And an Ottoman Persia as the end would mean a failure Safavid revolution, hence preventing the was Sunni majority Persia being mass converted into Shia by the Safavids. A minority Shia community, even if rather sizable, would mean no harm for the Ottomans because they would be simply not powerful enough, especially because now Persia is already under Ottoman control.
Besides an anti-to-a-particular-faith Ottoman Empire doesn't really go with the nature of the empire its self. IOTL where there was a successfully established Safavid Empire, Ottoman Empire remained fairly tolerant towards the Shiites, as it was towards any other religions and sects. How much likely is an anti-Shiite Ottoman Empire in a world without any threatening Shiite power towards them compared to this reality?
One more addition, is also that before they were "unified" by the Safavids, the Shiite Persians weren't very united themselves. When Persia is finally under Ottoman control, it'll be most likely for us to see the Ottomans keeping the Persian Shiites disunited by tolerating their existence and guaranteeing the safety of the very each Shiite sects from each others' threats, rather than antagonizing them which will make them unit under the single anti Ottoman banner. But Ottomans would going to have the support from the rest of majority Sunni population against them anyway.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Agree with the first paragraph, and I understand your point about Mohacs, but it's not Suleyman's fault the entire nobility of Hungary got itself killed in a single battle - so I'm not sure I would call it a political error; I doubt he could have expected that crushing a victory.
If Hungary had gone Protestant, or better yet Calvinist (no likely alliances, unless there is a Swiss-Hungary Axis at some point) the Hapsburgs would have been a non-issue. I'm not sure why the Ottomans didn't do more to promote this - they were otherwise very sensitive and savvy about European religious currents.
If Hungary had gone Protestant, or better yet Calvinist (no likely alliances, unless there is a Swiss-Hungary Axis at some point) the Hapsburgs would have been a non-issue. I'm not sure why the Ottomans didn't do more to promote this - they were otherwise very sensitive and savvy about European religious currents.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
I'm not saying it was his fault; shit happens. I can think of at least one more historical case of a dynasty dying out in somewhat similar circumstances: the Battle of Alcazarquivir (Ksar-el-Kebir). BTW, have you read Gonzaga's TL on the battle? It's long, unfinished, and very interesting. It doesn't mention the Ottoman Empire yet - you could give him some suggestions on that.
Well, I think I've said before that trying to play the religious divisions like that would have turned the Catholic majority towards the Austrians. The Habsburg Dynasty was hard-headed enough that a lot of Catholics didn't think too highly of it (just consider the early phase of the Dutch Revolt), but if the choice is between Muslim persecution and Catholic tyranny they'll pick the latter.
The key was to keep the Catholic and Protestant nobles in Transylvania and Partium on the same side. Doing that kept them focused of their privileges and freedoms, which usually (though not always) made them fear Austria more than Turkey.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Are you kidding? The Ottoman Empire was literally built on fear of Catholicism. The Ottomans conquered less than more or less joined up to escape that fate. I'm sure you've heard the aphorism "Better a Sultan's turban than a Cardinal's cap".
And there was no Muslim persecution. I thought we settled that. It's not just that there wasn't, but that everyone was aware there wasn't. That's how the Ottomans were able to build a solid foundation on the ashes of states that nobody was sorry to see go. That plus the lower taxes.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
Which is not a good reason for them to take the side of one millet against another.
I'm not saying there was, I'm saying you're calling for it with your proposal to encourage Protestantism. You can't get a Calvinist Hungary without actively pushing for it, and that's where the persecution comes in.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Hungary would be a vassal. So it would be Hungarians doing the persecuting.
But seriously, 90% of the population of Hungary was Protestant by the end of the 15th c, so there wouldn't be too much persecution - the Calvinists were the strongest group, so that seems the best basis for a national religion, and I don't see the Hapsburgs making too much progress once Calvinism has consolidated its hold. The Counterreformation took a long, long time to succeed here even in OTL.
Rockingham
Banned
So, in the event the Ottomans set up a buffer Hungary, would they still find it neccesary to annex parts of its territory? Perhaps the Croation parts? Or would they go no further then anexing Belgrade, in fear of pushing Hungary(Calvinist or not) into the Habsburg camp under the intent of reaquiring that territory?
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
It seems to me that the most logical border is the Danube-Sava line. The Danube and the mountains South of it are decent barriers, and Bosnia had a nice large Muslim population. Most likely the Ottomans would maintain some bridgeheads on the North bank of the Danube as they did in Wallachia.
Due to the geography, Croatia and Dalmatia are not easy to hold onto. I would expand Dubrovnik as a vassal over as much of Dalmatia as possible.
Philip
Donor
Then again, when has logic ever decided history....
Sounds like the most boring TL ever: WI Logic decided history.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Then again, when has logic ever decided history....
Well, I can't argue with that. Still, large rivers and mountain ranges impose a certain logic - note that Bosnia still has that same boundary - and so do Romania & Bulgaria. The Persian/Ottoman border has remained amazingly stable as well - remember Saddam Hussein's effort to change it?
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
Not yet. When did the Muslims obtain a plurality, late 16th, early 17th century? Or am I thinking of Albania?