What If: Ottoman conquest of;malta,vienna,(tahran)persia?

[Don Grey]

My questions are simple im not discussion the exact plausability but what would have need to be done to conqure the above mentioned places. What are the effects on the region the ottomans and her advesaries (in short term long term manner). What is the potential of loot gained and what is the economic gain long term, not to mentions short and long term stratigic gain. And what type of position will it be under ottoman administartion: Meaning will it be directly annexed will be turned into a vessal will it be just looted for all its worth will it be burned to the ground. What is the most bennifical outcome for the ottomans. These are the points im mainly intrested in.

You can pick any time in ottoman history that isnt post-suleiman to achive this and explain what needs to be done to achive said results.

Malta: What needs to be done to achive conquest when is it going to happen and what are the result according to the points mentioned above.But with this one i want it turned into a large naval base for the ottoman and the island administrated by the ottomans.

Vienna: I know what needs to be done to take it and what the problams were in taking it. But for the sake of argument lets say the first siege of vienna takes the city with great success what are the results according to the points mention above.

Persia: Ofcourse all of persia isnt nessecary taking tahran and looting it for all its worth is enough for me(i just want the persians nocked out of the game for good so the ottomans dont have to deal with them anymore). The problam with persia is it was always a serious annoyance to the ottomans. The ottomans could beat them at open field and take azerbaijan and persian azerbaijan but when ever the ottomans were focused at europe the persians would try to take back ottoman gains. And always try to draw the ottoman into the harsh interior while refusing to meet them at open filled. Lets say for the sake of argument one of the sultans beat the persians and take tahran aswell. Will this get rid of the persians as a thorn on there eastern back and what are the results according to the points mentioned above.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

Malta is a strategic port. OTOH conquering Vienna... won't end so well. There's partitioning Hungary and then there's stabbing at your rival's capital.

 

[Don Grey]

Malta is a strategic port. OTOH conquering Vienna... won't end so well. There's partitioning Hungary and then there's stabbing at your rival's capital.

Conquest of vienna doesnt have to be absolute. Meaning they can take the city and loot completly and kill what ever current hapsburg monarchs that were at the city. Then they can leave. They dont have to hold it. But what is the result for the balkans of the distruction of the hapsburgs base of operations there and what are the economic ramification for the hapsburgs.

 

[Animefan]

With the Ottomans conquering Vienna and Malta the Catholic Hapsburgs will demand help from the pope to declare some "crusade" against the muslim invaders. Hapsburg Austria+Spain with possible help from Poland and Russia will do everything to drive the Turks back and they might be pushed out of Europe some 100 years earlier then in OTL.

 

[Snake Featherston]

The Ottomans *can* take Vienna and some of the Italian city-states. They will never take the entire peninsula and their rule there will be as short-lived as the ERE's experience, but they can do this. The Ottoman navy can also capture Malta, and doing so will be a tremendous advantage for them and grease the skids perhaps to capture Venice.

They will not do more than hold Vienna due to the logistics of the time, and they will conquer Persia when Hell freezes over, as they never defeated any of the Persian dynasties IOTL. The Persian dynasties had some formidable armies at the time of Ottoman strength, and if the Empire's having problems in Europe, Tehran means less to them than Belgrade.

 

[Snake Featherston]

With the Ottomans conquering Vienna and Malta the Catholic Hapsburgs will demand help from the pope to declare some "crusade" against the muslim invaders. Hapsburg Austria+Spain with possible help from Poland and Russia will do everything to drive the Turks back and they might be pushed out of Europe some 100 years earlier then in OTL.

Not at that point. At that point the Ottoman professional army was far better than its European counterparts, and holding Malta's given the Ottoman navy a shot in the arm.

 

[Don Grey]

With the Ottomans conquering Vienna and Malta the Catholic Hapsburgs will demand help from the pope to declare some "crusade" against the muslim invaders. Hapsburg Austria+Spain with possible help from Poland and Russia will do everything to drive the Turks back and they might be pushed out of Europe some 100 years earlier then in OTL.

Thats the most rediculas thing i have ever heard. The crusades were incredibly passé by this tşme and forming such an alliance given the era is difficult at best. There is this presistant notion that if the ottoman took one more inch of territory other then the otl then all hell would brake lose every christin in the world would unite against the ottomans.

The Ottomans *can* take Vienna and some of the Italian city-states. They will never take the entire peninsula and their rule there will be as short-lived as the ERE's experience, but they can do this. The Ottoman navy can also capture Malta, and doing so will be a tremendous advantage for them and grease the skids perhaps to capture Venice.

They will not do more than hold Vienna due to the logistics of the time, and they will conquer Persia when Hell freezes over, as they never defeated any of the Persian dynasties IOTL. The Persian dynasties had some formidable armies at the time of Ottoman strength, and if the Empire's having problems in Europe, Tehran means less to them than Belgrade.

If they can nock out vienna from becoming a threat then venice could be reached and perferably sacked if not acpture altogether after malta falls.And again they dont have to hold on to vienna just take out there base of operations to consolidate there hold on the balkans. As for persia they defeated them on sevral battles, persian azerbeijan and azerbeijan was a constant toug of war. To the ottomans persia was a second theater of war. And its nto nessecary to conquore persia just sack tahran and nock the persians out of the game so there hold on both azerbaijans are secure and they dont have to leave such a large eastern force and so then can focus on europe. Persia is just too big and harsh to conquore.

 

[Nassirisimo]

With the Ottomans conquering Vienna and Malta the Catholic Hapsburgs will demand help from the pope to declare some "crusade" against the muslim invaders. Hapsburg Austria+Spain with possible help from Poland and Russia will do everything to drive the Turks back and they might be pushed out of Europe some 100 years earlier then in OTL.

But the Ottomans were never pushed out of Europe. Part of Turkey today is still in Europe. And while holding Vienna is quite unlikely for the Ottomans, as Don Grey pointed out, they can still do some serious damage. Russia at this point does not have the strength to think of any expeditions into Central Europe, as they are still kept busy enough by the Khanates surrounding them. Spain has the French to worry about in the north and in Italy, as they will be taking any fall in Hapsburg fortunes to their advantage.

It would be alot more beneficial for the Ottomans to hold Persia then Vienna, although Malta is another good possibility, if only to deny it from Europe. Without the Knights there, the Barbary pirates may have an even easier time then OTL, as the Knights were actually one of the most effective anti-pirate forces, and they even raided the north African coast from time to time.

 

[mailinutile2]

must ... not ... flame ....

I'll try to be as objective as I can and keep the flamethrower down.

Malta: it is possible per se if the Door finds a way to keep both Venice and Madrid out of the game (I'm sorry to say that this alone borders with ASB).
You would need an upgrade of the Algeri squad fom galeotte to galee, and possibly increasing the small calibers on them.
Also you have to convince the Algeri bey to do it (let's say "booty")
The troops to land are going to be a big problem: the empire proper is too far away, Tunisi is aligned with Spain and Algeri cannot provide them. I'd say Morea, but that would mean make them transit in a Venice-dominated sea.
A surprise raid is almost impossible (the island is too faraway from friendly bases and too near to potential enemy ones).
The most plausible way would be to really carry on an agreement with France and intervene during a France-Spain war (but the french king would have to be quite deaf not ho hear the Pope's yelling).

Vienna: you need to upgrade the jannissaries corp. absolutely.
You don't take cities with cavalry, and in he mid 1500 the jannies are not on par with european infantry.
They had to be upgraded to the pike-and-arquebus formation which is the standard for europe, or at least to the pike-square formation which was the standard 100 years before.
The problem is that any Sultan who tried to do that has seen the pointy side of a blade.
Imposing such a change on the timarites is not possible (too fragmented, often too far away and unruly): I think the jannissaries are the best possibility.
The production of the guns would be a problem, too: you cannot rely only on buying from venice.

Persia: that's a tough one.
Barring a new Timurleng which lays waste to it and then go back to goat-herding in central Asia leaving Persia cracked open for the plundering, I really cannot see how it could happen.

 

[Elfwine]

I'm not an expert on the condition of the Janissaries, but what basis is there to say that they're behind the European infantry of their day? Sure, European tactics and formations have been improved over the years, but what does that have to do with whether or not the Janissaries are comparable?

The Ottomans nearly did seize Vienna in 1683 (but for a few in campaign mistakes and things going right for the Habsburgs that might not have - it would not be too difficult to tie Sobeiski up for instance), but Persia...

An Alexander-style conquest might be possible. Anything beyond that is definitely ridiculous.

 

[mailinutile2]

Sure, European tactics and formations have been improved over the years, but what does that have to do with whether or not the Janissaries are comparable?

Because theirs didn't.
don't misunderstand my words: the janissaries were a worthy force, which at the time of its creation (somwhere in 12XX) was probably better than european foot infantry.
Individual bravery and willingess to combat are out of the question, and they had an espirit de corps that nobody else had.
But they got stuck where they were then.
With them being so close to the sultan, they riproposed the emperor-pretorians problem of the roman empire: nobody was really sure if he had power on them or vice versa.
The net result is that any reform other than "rising the pay" resulted in the jannies empting their kettle on the street (which was the way they used to begin the revolts) and more often than not the thing ended in a new Sultan.
Thus, to summarize: janissaries were good, but were 300 years old.
Their way of waging war had not evolved like happened in europe (lancers and pavese bearers, pike squares, pike-and-arquebuse, firepower and loading, the military revolution).
They weren't forced to evolve, and thus their way to wage war become progressively outdated, up to the so-called "happy incident", when the Sultan sent the artillery to slaughter them (but it was 18XX already).
That they were a force to be considered, but not on par with a modern (meaning 1500-ish) european foot soldiers was the common opinion at the time (I think we have a letter of Gian Andrea Doria stating it)

 

[Know Nothing]

The Ottomans have a far better chance of expanding in Europe if they don't expand to the east and south past Anatolia, because swallowing up the Mamluks caused them to be distracted in every direction.

Thus expansion in Italy and Central Europe is very possible. The problem is that taking Vienna and/or Rome is likely to provoke a pan-European response with even the French cooperating. I think the Ottoman's could hold, but it would be challenging.

With Persia it's the opposite. If the Ottomans expand minimally in Europe, then they will have a much greater chance IMO of being able to strike past Tabriz in the Persian Empire.

 

[Elfwine]

Because theirs didn't.
don't misunderstand my words: the janissaries were a worthy force, which at the time of its creation (somwhere in 12XX) was probably better than european foot infantry.
Individual bravery and willingess to combat are out of the question, and they had an espirit de corps that nobody else had.
But they got stuck where they were then.
With them being so close to the sultan, they riproposed the emperor-pretorians problem of the roman empire: nobody was really sure if he had power on them or vice versa.
The net result is that any reform other than "rising the pay" resulted in the jannies empting their kettle on the street (which was the way they used to begin the revolts) and more often than not the thing ended in a new Sultan.
Thus, to summarize: janissaries were good, but were 300 years old.

And what does this have to do with anything? Especially the Praetorian thing, which has nothing to do with their fighting mettle at all (unless your point is that they spent more time manipulating politics than drilling or something).

Their way of waging war had not evolved like happened in europe (lancers and pavese bearers, pike squares, pike-and-arquebuse, firepower and loading, the military revolution).
They weren't forced to evolve, and thus their way to wage war become progressively outdated, up to the so-called "happy incident", when the Sultan sent the artillery to slaughter them (but it was 18XX already).
That they were a force to be considered, but not on par with a modern (meaning 1500-ish) european foot soldiers was the common opinion at the time (I think we have a letter of Gian Andrea Doria stating it)

Do they need to evolve? That is, do they need to change what they've been doing to be equal in effectiveness to this?

That's the problem. If you're several levels above your opponents to begin with (when the corps is formed), that your opponents have advanced a few levels and you haven't...just narrows the gap. It doesn't make you inferior.

The real question is not what common opinion said but what the actual results in battle were.

 

[mailinutile2]

Do they need to evolve? That is, do they need to change what they've been doing to be equal in effectiveness to this?

they need to change what they did (for example, adopt formations) to be equal in effectiveness to soldiers were already that trained that way, like the spaniard tercios or their german equivalents.
In full 1600 they still had to adopt the early-1400 swiss pike square formation.
The fact that they stubbornly refused that and that the power was unable to impose it to them was the problem which I tried to illustrate with my pretorian parallel.

The real question is not what common opinion said but what the actual results in battle were.

that's my point.
look at the battle results.
(by the way, Doria spent half of his life fighting them, when he was not busy fighting venice)

 

[Elfwine]

they need to change what they did (for example, adopt formations) to be equal in effectiveness to soldiers were already that trained that way, like the spaniard tercios or their german equivalent.
The fact that they stubbornely refused that and that the power was unable to impose it to them was the problem thich I tried to illustrate to explain with my pretorian parallel.

Praetorian tendencies and a resentment of the Sultan trying to mess with their established traditions/privileges/etc. are a sign of nothing when it comes to whether or not they were deadly on the battlefield.

that's my point.
look at the battle results.
(by the way, Doria spent half of his life fighting them)

Show me a battle where the Spanish or Germans beat the Ottoman army in the 16th-17th century due to superior infantry.

Not just an Ottoman defeat. Something where the Spanish or German infantry outfought the Janissaries in particular.

Picking infantry on infantry as we're comparing how effective they were at doing the role of infantry, not how well the Ottomans kept up with artillery refinements, which is a separate problem from formations or pikes.

 

[Thespitron 6000]

Re Malta: Had the 1565 siege gone the other way, through say the Spanish failing to support the Knights there, then the Ottomans probably would have won. My guess, this would have led to increased focusing on the Mediterranean, and you probably wouldn't have a future Siege of Szigetvár because the Ottomans would have less incentive to try and take on the Hapsburgs when they were having such success in the Mediterranean. My two cents, anyway.

 

[mailinutile2]

Not just an Ottoman defeat. Something where the Spanish or German infantry outfought the Janissaries in particular.

Picking infantry on infantry as we're comparing how effective they were at doing the role of infantry, not how well the Ottomans kept up with artillery refinements, which is a separate problem from formations or pikes.

Second siege of Vienna.
Lepanto, during the assault on the decks.
All the fricking career of Eugene of Savoy (e.g. Zenta).

 

[Elfwine]

Second siege of Vienna.
Lepanto, during the assault on the decks.
All the career of Eugene of Savoy.

1) Is an example of infantry inferiority how again?

2) Did the Janissaries fight at sea? I did not know that.

3) Eugene of Savoy was an unusually skillful commander. This is hardly a fair contest. It would be like using Hannibal as an example of the superiority of the phalanx over the legion. (Kudos to anyone who has read Dodge's book).

 

[mailinutile2]

1) Is an example of infantry inferiority how again?

Certainly.
the relief army was german polish, meaning polish cavalry and german infantry

2) Did the Janissaries fight at sea? I did not know that.

90 to 100 for each galley, on fraction of fleet the ranging between a quarter and a third, of the fleet depending on the estimation.
they were good, but where defeated by comparable forces both when fightnig against the spaniard tercios and against the tyrol-recruited austrian infantry.

3) Eugene of Savoy was an unusually skillful commander. This is hardly a fair contest.

I agree.
but it is mainly an unfair contest because it is late (meaning late 1600), where the lack of evolution of the turkish army (and the corp in particular) results more evident

 

[Elfwine]

Certainly.
the relief army was german polish, meaning polish cavalry and german infantry

And Polish infantry (and presumably German cavalry).

Saying that because the battle was lost it was because the Janissaries were inferior is incomplete. The Roman legions lost battles even against inferior troops because of inferior leadership, for instance.

So...yes, I am unconvinced.

90 to 100 for each galley, on fraction of fleet the ranging between a quarter and a third, of the fleet depending on the estimation.
they were good, but where defeated by comparable forces both when fightnig against the spaniard tercios and against the tyrol-recruited austrian infantry.

Would like to see a source. Not questioning your honesty, just hunting down good reading material.

I agree.
but it is mainly an unfair contest because it is late (meaning late 1600), where the lack of evolution of the turkish army (and the corp in particular) results more evident

I disagree. If Eugene had been a terrible general instead of a brilliant one, would he have won? I doubt it.