The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of

... Malta)

Hey there,
since I'm anything but a history buff but I'm in need of that information with regard to an alternate history writing contest (deadline: ten days beyond the apocalypse, which seems rather ballsy to me), I'd like to know what would have changed if
- the ottomans had vanquished the Knights Hospitaller in 1565
- the Battle of Lepanto had turned out differently (also in favor of the ottomans) or
- von Hompesch had put up a fight against Napoleon in 1798 (let's dismiss the fact that the act of raising arms against fellow Christians was strictly forbidden according to the Knights' principles)

What would today's Europe look like, especially in case of scenario 1 and 2? Would Muslims have overrun us and would they have 'ideologically hampered' any kind of technological progress out of tune with their interpretation of the Koran?

I hope, this vague brainchild of mine doesn't come across as offensive. I simply am incapable of incorporating each and every possible path history could have taken up until the 20th century as a consequence of such a divergence into my even vaguer thought processes. And I'd be grateful for any input that may finally trigger an idea worth being put on paper.



Have a nice day!
blaspor
 
Last edited:
I'm not really an expert on the Ottomans, but I suspect that even if everything went perfectly for the Ottomans in the Mediterranean, a very tall order, whatever expansion they made would be limited both in scope and duration. Southern Italy/ Sicily would probably be the effective limit, although the crushing of Catholic naval power would definitely open up the entire Mediterranean coast to increased raids by both the Ottomans and Muslim pirates from N. Africa. Nevertheless, eventually the Europeans are bound to regain the advantage and press the Turks back.

If the Ottomans managed total control of the Mediterranean sea, even for just a short time, the effects on the Catholic psyche might be very great. Both the increased threat of invasion by the Ottomans, and the heavy burden of pirate raids would certainly cause panic and an even more intense anti-Ottoman feeling in Europe (if that were even possible). This change in attitude could produce heavy-hitting butterflies down the line.

Additionally, all this is happening alongside the religious wars in Europe. Ottoman dominance in the Mediterranean is certain to spill over in some way into this parallel religious conflict, but I don't have the energy to speculate on that right now.
 
- the ottomans had vanquished the Knights Hospitaller in 1565

Controlling Malta would have given the Turks a huge naval strategic advantage - in this era the Turks controlled both sides of the Med, but weren't able to connect via easily between the two sides as Malta acted as a curtain, forcing the Turks to use corsairs to control the western side. I'm not sure what it would actually mean for them in the long run though. I'm sure some people would speculate another invasion of Italy, and probably claim they would succeed, at least in achieving a permanent foothold, but I'm more skeptical. I don't really feel confident to say more though.

- the Battle of Lepanto had turned out differently (also in favor of the ottomans) or

Practically nothing. Lepanto was one of the greatest Christian victories of the era - certainly at sea - and yet went down in history as one of the most pointless victories too. Why? Simply because the Christian response was to withdraw back to their ports and spend the next year back-slapping, congratulating themselves and drinking to their own success, and made absolutely no attempt at prolonguing their supremacy. They could have sailed right into Istanbul's harbour right after the victory, the Ottoman defeat was so great, and yet within 6 months the Turks had even more ships than before Lepanto, they simply rebuilt all their ships and put to sea again, and instantly regained their naval dominance. The Christian fleet had been put together from parts of four different navies, and their co-operation was once-in-a-lifetime. They could have kept supremacy by disrupting the Turks' shipyards or blockading the harbours so that they couldn't reassemble more than two or three ships in any one place, but once the Ottos had a navy reassembled, the Christian nations had pretty much already lost.

Tl;dr version - Lepanto changed exactly nothing. At all.

- von Hompesch had put up a fight against Napoleon in 1798

Again, pretty much nothing. The Hospitallers had virtually no power to resist Napoleon, they would've fallen to the first assault. They would've lost a few thousand men to the assault but most of the important ones would've been captured and others would've fled or been captured too, and ultimately they would've been released and gone about their OTL path - touring European capitals, failing to raise money for another endeavour. Their future would likely have been the same. The British would've still been invited in by the native Maltese, would've kicked the French out in virtually identical circumstances, and nothing really would've been altered.
 
Falastur,

building ships after Lepanto doesn't make a navy;how would you replace the losses of Lepanto in specialised personnel?

Recreating a navy,how much did it cost the Ottoman treasury and what consequence was that in the country's progress? ships,guns and specialised personnel(difficult to find and years to create...) were a very expensive business...
 
Last edited:
Top