Una diferente ‘Plus Ultra’ - the Avís-Trastámara Kings of All Spain and the Indies (Updated 12/27)
- Thread starter Torbald
- Start date
Great chapter as always. Cant wait for next years update and to see if the christians will be able to put together a Lepanto. Happy New Year @Torbald , my it be better to you than the last.
I am glad to see this updating, fascinating to see this clash over dominance in the med.
Can you advise on how things are different from OTL? As I’m not very knowledgeable on the time period apart from in the vaguest terms and it would be interesting to compare in contrast OTL with this timeline.
Can you advise on how things are different from OTL? As I’m not very knowledgeable on the time period apart from in the vaguest terms and it would be interesting to compare in contrast OTL with this timeline.
It looks like Spain has been positioning itself for this for a century, now its about to go for takedown. Boy, King Miguel would love to be around for this.
What makes you think this? The Ottomans pushed in deep, it won't be easy just dislodging them fully from Italy. In North Africa the local muslims are causing problems, maybe they overextend and get punished but I don't see many gains in NAf from this, the reverse actually. Aside from Tunis I mean which seems like it will be secured. The Ottomans do seem to be heading for a naval disaster but they are a primarily land based power anyway so not a crippling defeat.
My point is, this will be a painful failure for the Ottomans but not really some grand takedown. Mainly because I don't think the Spanish have enough energy (and too many rivals) to push into Ottoman lands on the back of this victory. At worst for the Ottomans I see some loss of land in the Balkans and only if the Austrians go into this really hard which I am still not seeing. And given that the Ottomans will (likely) lose no important land they will recover soon enough.
This seems the more accurate take. This kind of excursion will be a "border setter" kind of war where the ottomans may decide Italy isn't worth it in the future if they can't take any foot hold at the end of the war.
I mean it is a serious defeat for the Ottomans, but the issue is I don't think anyone is in a position to pounce on them or rebel from under them to make use of it. Poles, Russians or Persians could take a shot at the Ottomans after this (likely) defeat but will they be able to react in time? As for rebels, maybe some minor rebellions on the fringes like in Arabia and the Balkans. Even if those things come to pass the Ottomans will not go into serious decline from this defeat alone.
Holy hell indeed. I think it's worth dwelling on what kind of effect this war is going to have on the European and specifically Italian historical psyche. IOTL, while millions of Europeans were taken as slaves and there were innumerable raids on villages and towns, the decades of war between the Ottomans and the Christian powers in this theater almost entirely took place in North African ports (e.g. Algiers and Tunis), remote islands (e.g. Malta and Cyprus), or at sea (e.g. Preveza and Lepanto) - meaning that its impact on the Western European mind was limited mostly to stories rather than big, observable, long-lasting, physical changes. ITTL, there's an actual, growing Ottoman occupation of a lot of Italian soil, meaning there's going to be large economic and (more importantly) demographic shifts as a result of the devastation in Southern Italy and by extension the Central Mediterranean. You could argue that the main reason the Christian princes of the 16th century never put aside their quarrels long enough to mount a serious counteroffensive against the Ottomans IOTL was because no matter how troublesome the Barbary Corsairs and the Ottoman war machine were, it never made good on its promises of invading Italy and taking Rome, using the Moriscos as a springboard to overrun Spain, building the Suez Canal and upsetting Portuguese dominance in the Indian Ocean, etc etc etc
Thank you all very much
Thank you
Sort of a broad question, was there anything specific that you were wondering about being different?
Without spoiling too much, this is probably the most realistic estimate of what will happen, and I'm actually surprised at how well you predicted how things would pan out lol
Holy hell indeed. I think it's worth dwelling on what kind of effect this war is going to have on the European and specifically Italian historical psyche. IOTL, while millions of Europeans were taken as slaves and there were innumerable raids on villages and towns, the decades of war between the Ottomans and the Christian powers in this theater almost entirely took place in North African ports (e.g. Algiers and Tunis), remote islands (e.g. Malta and Cyprus), or at sea (e.g. Preveza and Lepanto) - meaning that its impact on the Western European mind was limited mostly to stories rather than big, observable, long-lasting, physical changes. ITTL, there's an actual, growing Ottoman occupation of a lot of Italian soil, meaning there's going to be large economic and (more importantly) demographic shifts as a result of the devastation in Southern Italy and by extension the Central Mediterranean. You could argue that the main reason the Christian princes of the 16th century never put aside their quarrels long enough to mount a serious counteroffensive against the Ottomans IOTL was because no matter how troublesome the Barbary Corsairs and the Ottoman war machine were, it never made good on its promises of invading Italy and taking Rome, using the Moriscos as a springboard to overrun Spain, building the Suez Canal and upsetting Portuguese dominance in the Indian Ocean, etc etc etc
Thank you all very much
Thank you
Sort of a broad question, was there anything specific that you were wondering about being different?
Without spoiling too much, this is probably the most realistic estimate of what will happen, and I'm actually surprised at how well you predicted how things would pan out lol
I suppose just in terms of this war mainly, is this analogues to another war that happened around this time historically or is this a reflection of Spain’s greater dominance of North Africa being perceived as a greater threat, or simply an Ottoman attempt to permanently wrest control of the central Mediterranean from the Christian powers.
How would the Spaniards deal with these Greeks and Albanians being Orthodox instead of Catholic?
A lot of Apulians and Sicilians will flee northward. Perhaps a larger bunch of Italians will now find themselves beyond Gibraltar in America or in the Indies.
Given the level of investment, both in resources as in manpower and particularly on prestige from the Ottoman State (and by the Sultan himself) once that the invasion begun and especially given its initial success, nothing short of a complete victory i.e. to take and to keep the just conquered Rome and/or a complete defeat of the Spanish and their allies.
Would be enough or more important 'd allow that the Empire can compensate or recuperate the investment and spent/lost resources.
Though, even if still could be a bit soon, but, I think that given the overall strategic and logistical situation, that have to the Ottoman, invading/campaigning simultaneously in Sicily and Napoles without first have assured an uncontested domain of the central Mediterranean.
Or failing that, to chose to concentrated in a single strategic goal, at this point seems clear that they had been the newer victims of the imperial hubris and had overextended. Which, I think that was one of the reasons, as why OTL, IMO, this was never planned nor even less attempted by the Ottoman Empire...
Specially, cause not only they were unable to protect, defend their Barbary coast rearguard (Tunis) deploying another fleet for chasing and crushing the Christian fleet. Or that aside that seems that a definitive victory in Italy, paradoxically, still seems to be as far out to reach as when was launched the invasion, that the Empire soon will be fighting a two front war either in or out of their borders and at the end of their logistical chain...
Also, should be noted that even letting aside the Italian and Sicilian theaters that in the scenario created ITTL by the Ottoman invasion that any TTL Ottoman naval defeat like OTL Lepanto would be even more important and with far more reaching consequences than OTL.
Cause, in this situation the destruction of the Ottomans fleets 'd be truly catastrophic. And not only, as OTL, on the Naval side or for the Ottoman sea domain, but cause it would mean that all the troops deployed and fighting in Italy/Sicily 'd be cut off without any hope to get any supply or reinforcements and their only hopes 'd be to fight to death or surrender.
Finally, even without any TTL Lepanto like naval battle, IMO, should be noted that the Ottoman situation, as was aforementioned, doesn't seem that could have, given the situation, very much room or possibilities to improve. Cause even a 'partial victory' or a standoff would only mean that they 'd be involved and compromised to fight in a war of attrition at the end of their logistical chain and in a war theater totally dependent of the Ottoman naval dominance either for be supplied or for impeding to be isolated from the rest of the Empire.
A same logistically chain that 'd be affected either by the Christian corsair/piracy activity in the Central/Eastern Med. and in Italy for both the terrain and for the need to protect from the probable Christian raids and the fight against the insurgency inside and in the fringes of the Ottoman controlled territory...
Of course that in any scenario a thing seems inevitable that its that Sicily and the Kingdom of Naples, would have been left crippled and utterly devastated as a shadow of their former self.
A situation that even in the best scenario, I think that 'd be safe to assume that the region certainly 'd be needed, at minimum, decades to recover.
Also, that among their (surviving) population 'd be probably a greater increase in the religious zeal that I assume it 'd be coupled with a deep hatred toward the Ottomans...
Last edited:
Well for the Ottomans, even if they can't retain any land in Italy, it's not a total failure. If they obtained enough loot from Southern Italy, the war could basically be paying for itself. If they are taking large numbers of slaves, or do so during the retreat, they can transport them back to safe areas in the Empire, and gain that way.
Stealing the people and the wealth is just as good as taking the land itself. They expanded their influence greatly in north Africa, though the loss of Tunis is a big blow, and it's unknown how much more they will lose before the war ends. If they don't overcommit and are prepared to pull back at a reasonable point they should avoid horrendous losses.
Of course, if they decide to go "Rome or Bust" they will almost certainly end up on bust. And then if their armies are too broken and battered, they wouldn't be able to extract that much wealth and slaves out during the retreat. That is assuming that they hold back on looting in order to ingratiate themselves with the locals, but if they are losing why should they care about that?
Additionally, they've softened up southern Italy terribly, gotten total knowledge of the land and sea, which they admittedly mostly had already, and if they converted enough people, left a problem behind for the Spanish to deal with.
Of course, while in the short term this might seem like a raw deal for Spain, it might actually benefit them. If southern Italy is devastated and many thousands of people flee to Spain or the colonies, the situation will result in a greater interweaving of the Spanish realms. Especially if it becomes a thing for italians to migrate to the colonies.
Further the depopulation of the area might mean that spain might send Iberians over to repopulate, which would bind them ever closer to the kingdom. With the devastation of the kingdom it might also become politically and economically dependent on spain, instead of the prior situation where they were quite well off and drifting apart.
Any local Muslim converts will probably be dealt with by Spanish priests which have ... extensive experience with the existence of crypto-Islam. These spanish priests might help reform the clergy while they are there, relieving some of the issues the italians were having with the church. This could lead to an excessively catholic southern Italy, and a more mixed northern Italy, which would have interesting ramifications for the pope and his relationship to spain.
Basically, this war might be the stab in the back/killing blow to Southern Italian independence from the greater Spanish crown. After this, it's possible they might be as stuck deep into the whole "Spain" business as Portugal, Castille, or Aragon.
Stealing the people and the wealth is just as good as taking the land itself. They expanded their influence greatly in north Africa, though the loss of Tunis is a big blow, and it's unknown how much more they will lose before the war ends. If they don't overcommit and are prepared to pull back at a reasonable point they should avoid horrendous losses.
Of course, if they decide to go "Rome or Bust" they will almost certainly end up on bust. And then if their armies are too broken and battered, they wouldn't be able to extract that much wealth and slaves out during the retreat. That is assuming that they hold back on looting in order to ingratiate themselves with the locals, but if they are losing why should they care about that?
Additionally, they've softened up southern Italy terribly, gotten total knowledge of the land and sea, which they admittedly mostly had already, and if they converted enough people, left a problem behind for the Spanish to deal with.
Of course, while in the short term this might seem like a raw deal for Spain, it might actually benefit them. If southern Italy is devastated and many thousands of people flee to Spain or the colonies, the situation will result in a greater interweaving of the Spanish realms. Especially if it becomes a thing for italians to migrate to the colonies.
Further the depopulation of the area might mean that spain might send Iberians over to repopulate, which would bind them ever closer to the kingdom. With the devastation of the kingdom it might also become politically and economically dependent on spain, instead of the prior situation where they were quite well off and drifting apart.
Any local Muslim converts will probably be dealt with by Spanish priests which have ... extensive experience with the existence of crypto-Islam. These spanish priests might help reform the clergy while they are there, relieving some of the issues the italians were having with the church. This could lead to an excessively catholic southern Italy, and a more mixed northern Italy, which would have interesting ramifications for the pope and his relationship to spain.
Basically, this war might be the stab in the back/killing blow to Southern Italian independence from the greater Spanish crown. After this, it's possible they might be as stuck deep into the whole "Spain" business as Portugal, Castille, or Aragon.
If the Ottomans sack Rome it’ll definitely be a symbolic blow to the Catholic world and will definitely scar it for a long time. Even if the Ottomans don’t succeed in holding onto it the fact that they were able to capture Rome will definitely be a devastating humiliation for the Catholic nations, and also show that the Ottomans can definitely take it again if they want to.
Italy will be a lot more militarized if the Ottomans hold onto portions of southern Italy with a lot of Catholic troops posed to take on the Ottomans. If the Ottomans decide to have another round in Italy the whole region will become a bloodbath without a doubt.
Italy will be a lot more militarized if the Ottomans hold onto portions of southern Italy with a lot of Catholic troops posed to take on the Ottomans. If the Ottomans decide to have another round in Italy the whole region will become a bloodbath without a doubt.
No, even so it 'd be a total failure. First cause this was an invasion to incorporate new land and subjects for the Empire and not a raid to loot the enemy.
So, until now and except some isolated cases, the Ottomans aren't enslaving, looting and/or sacking everywhere systematically, cause it 'd be counterproductive for the economy of those that would be their new subjects.
But also because, it 'd be impractical carrying with them, great amounts of slaves and loot. It wouldn't be practical given the necessity to advance faster and that their offensive still continue and even less transport it back.
Given that the fleets still are busy with the war operations and/or supplying to the armies. Should be taken into account, first that the South of Italy and Sicily cities wasn't so rich as for their plundering, for itself, 'd have compensate the whole preparations for the campaign and even less for the invasion costs and resources invested in it.
Also, that even if the Ottomans 'd have managed to find the spare ships and to divert them for transport 'large numbers of slaves', that even so it wouldn't be meaningful for the Empire Treasure.
The problem with this interpretation,IMO, it's first that the Ottomans might not be able to 'pull back' or also, their leaders 'd be unwilling to face the loss of prestige and political consequences of an military failure, cause it 'd imply and quite literally, that 'd be rolling heads to pay for it...
Aside that any 'retreat' would depend from the Ottoman navy continued existence and especially from the Sultan quite unlikely deciding to 'cut losses' and ordering it.
Also, an Army forced to retreat while being harassed all ways to the ports and while trying to avoid be encircled or forced to give battle, would be very hard for them to carry a baggage train with the loot that they 'd have gotten...
First the Ottomans doesn't seem to be a proselytizing activity among the local population... First cause just passed some weeks since the start of the invasion and also, cause it 'd be bad for their treasury and for keeping the obedience of the just conquered population.
But, even if they 'd able to get some converts, then I think that probably that most of these converts either 'd share the Ottomans armies fate or if they 'd stayed behind after a possible Ottoman withdrawal, then if before any priest they 'd be targeted by the local population as the 'enemy/infidel collaborators/apostates'...
Unlikely, that 'd have as a consequence an annexing given that the Kingdom of Naples and Sicily weren't part of Spain nor were in the same peninsula, as Portugal, and that their links were exclusively dynastic.
What could be more likely its that while stimulating their inhabitants to stay and the migration from the rest of Italy that 'd be possible that to the surviving veterans of the Tercios 'd be given land in the region and allowed to settle there, though should be noted that many of them weren't Spaniards, at Roman style and with similar goals...
Last edited:
Magnificent update! A truly titanic battle for the supremacy of the Mediterranean, with an awesome Tercio-Janissary showdown.
I agree with some of the posters above, it seems Ottomans will be repulsed but not weakened in the long term. Some money will be lost and their offensive capability bloodied, but empire will remain whole and powerful.
I also agree with A_simple_pilgrim, devastation of southern Italy might lead to closer ties to Spain. With some effort it might be fully integrated in the future. Spanish army coming to deal with Ottomans must lead to a lot of good will among Italians. And if Spain helps in recovery, sends Spanish colonists to repopulate peninsula and acts as a protector against Ottomans, closer relationship might be mutually beneficial and bind southern Italy as a core land of Kingdom of Spain.
I agree with some of the posters above, it seems Ottomans will be repulsed but not weakened in the long term. Some money will be lost and their offensive capability bloodied, but empire will remain whole and powerful.
I also agree with A_simple_pilgrim, devastation of southern Italy might lead to closer ties to Spain. With some effort it might be fully integrated in the future. Spanish army coming to deal with Ottomans must lead to a lot of good will among Italians. And if Spain helps in recovery, sends Spanish colonists to repopulate peninsula and acts as a protector against Ottomans, closer relationship might be mutually beneficial and bind southern Italy as a core land of Kingdom of Spain.
The 23 galleons can take on their own the whole ottoman fleet. From the phrasing I guess they are proper warships and not armed merchantmen. The outcome of the naval campaign is know then.
We also see the widespread utilization of renegades by the Ottomans in order to infiltrate Italy. The Spaniards and Italians have a similar tool in their disposal: the stradioti connection. Among other things, I am looking to see the reaction of the Arbëreshë people who have only reently arrived in South Italy to escape the Ottomans in Albania. Speaking of Albania, the connections of the Italo-Albanians are to a country very different than the one of future centuries. According to Anton Minkov who uses official ottoman statistics (in the book "Conversion to Islam in the Balkans: Kivse Bahasi Petitions and Ottoman Social Life, 1670-1730), Albania was almost completely christian at the time. In 1535, the albanian sanjak with the lowest percentage of christians was Elbasan, with 94,4% christians.
Concerning Greece, men such as Petros Lantzas or Emmanuel Mormoris had been both rebels against the Sultan and stradioti mercenaries. After all, Greece was in turmoil and revolt in the OTL , with all the coast from Himara to Parga at one point in rebel hands. According to Minkov, in 1535 the two sanjaks in Epirus, Janina and Preveza had a christian population of 98,1% and 99,9%. In a similar manner, the Peloponnese, another hotbed of revolt in the period had a christian population of 97%.
We also see the widespread utilization of renegades by the Ottomans in order to infiltrate Italy. The Spaniards and Italians have a similar tool in their disposal: the stradioti connection. Among other things, I am looking to see the reaction of the Arbëreshë people who have only reently arrived in South Italy to escape the Ottomans in Albania. Speaking of Albania, the connections of the Italo-Albanians are to a country very different than the one of future centuries. According to Anton Minkov who uses official ottoman statistics (in the book "Conversion to Islam in the Balkans: Kivse Bahasi Petitions and Ottoman Social Life, 1670-1730), Albania was almost completely christian at the time. In 1535, the albanian sanjak with the lowest percentage of christians was Elbasan, with 94,4% christians.
Concerning Greece, men such as Petros Lantzas or Emmanuel Mormoris had been both rebels against the Sultan and stradioti mercenaries. After all, Greece was in turmoil and revolt in the OTL , with all the coast from Himara to Parga at one point in rebel hands. According to Minkov, in 1535 the two sanjaks in Epirus, Janina and Preveza had a christian population of 98,1% and 99,9%. In a similar manner, the Peloponnese, another hotbed of revolt in the period had a christian population of 97%.
Last edited:
I wonder what Spain is doing in the Americas as we speak. Will Spain have the entire continent to itself this time without being too distracted in Europe?
I think @Torbald has mentioned that the French will colonize the Southeastern U.S. (as in my timeline), and I'd still bet that the British and Dutch would get involved in colonization and exploration.