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

On the topic of Ottoman equipment, it would be interesting to see some documentation of where it came from. The Ottomans relying solely on imports seems hard to credit - its just not practical, and they did too much to be the kind of people who would willfully neglect something this basic, though that doesn't rule out imports or using captured European equipment. Something based on official records - as in, the records of the people responsible for keeping the army fed and shod - would be best.

And examples (with citation) of the letters where the Ottomans themselves speak of it in the era in question - say up to 1700, unless the question is solely about the first siege, in which case we should stop sometime before 1600.

It would not greatly surprise me if the Ottoman army at the time of Prince Eugene (despite my earlier comments on it being unfair to consider his triumphs proof due to his unusual skill) had become less than supreme.

It would not surprise me if exceptionally well equipped and trained Christian forces such as the Knights of St. John were better than the average Ottoman infantryman.

But that European troops used the pike square - as opposed to what? What did the Ottoman troops do for the situations in which Europeans used that?
 
Last edited:
Well someone had to say it, too bad it took a damn moderator to do it.

I couldn't figure out what Japan had to do with either Europe or the Ottomans myself.

I find the idea that the Ottomans inspired Europe's musket armies to be a bit spurious, one would imagine that developments like the Italian Wars, and the Dutch revolt to be much more influential than a few elite Ottoman units in the 15th and early 16th centuries.

If you want me to believe that European armies developed in part because of fear of the Ottomans, than I'm not sure I can disagree, but I can't buy the idea the Europe 'copied' the Ottomans. I have no doubt that Ottoman developments were included in the "European Military Revolution" (Drum cadence perhaps?), but that doesn't mean they created it, not by any stretch of the imagination
 
Last edited:
On the topic of Ottoman equipment, it would be interesting to see some documentation of where it came from. The Ottomans relying solely on imports seems hard to credit - its just not practical, and they did too much to be the kind of people who would willfully neglect something this basic, though that doesn't rule out imports or using captured European equipment. Something based on official records - as in, the records of the people responsible for keeping the army fed and shod - would be best.

There are a few sources that could be used, but all must be taken with a pinch of salt:
1) Survivors of the battle often wrote memorials or letterns to relatives.
sometimes they describe the enemy, and even if not completely reliable on the numbers (they tend to exaggerate), they often mention some personal anedoct which could be used to infer the armament of the enemy (such as "I've taken an arrow in the shoulder" or "my mate has taken a shimitar blow").
2) in some cases, we have the list of looted items recovered from the battlefield in order to share the booty.
Again this must be considered care, since the looted equipmet is likely to be worn down by the battle, thus the picture provided by those list is probably worse than the real thing.
A second reason to consider them with care is that, since everybody tried to steal something for themself, lists made by different people for the same battle are often a bit different one from the other.
3) Sometimes, people important enough to be ransomed was taken.
Such people was treated with exotic curiosity, and relations often describe how they were equipped and armed.
Again, we must take this with care, since people rich enough to be ransomed was likely to be equipped better than your ordinary soldier.
4) Nobs being nobs (and the prisoners being nobs, too), such people were often treated quite decently, and sometimes we have examples like Mehemet Bey of Negroponte which while waiting to be ransomed wrote his own history of the thing.
5) ottoman minatures. Again, we must take this with care, since miniaturists seldom were battle eye-witnesses.

Unfortunately, the great part of the document we have is one-sided (coming from the west), since in the Empire the Edict of Selim I the Terrible forbidding printing on pain of death had been active for a long time, and you do not kid with the orders of someone which is nicknamed "the Terrible".
Fortunately, sometime we have examples of 4) which are included in some book printed in the west.

The global picture coming from these sources is that of a man wearing heavy clothes or a leather jacket.
The traditional turban was worn on the head, without helmet.
Offensive weapons were a kilich (curved sword), a bow and a horse for timarites; while for jannissaries there was either a kilich and a bow or a kilich and an arquebuse.
Most of the items came from the empire, but it was not unusual that the most important figures (pasha and suchlike) had some piece of item imported from abroad.
Imported items were present also in elite regiments, but more as add-ons to single soldiers (probably the one rich or important enough) than as "standard" uniform issue

The following are either examples of those letters/relations/lists or history books reporting the contents of those:
M. Arroyo: Relation of the progress of the Army of the Holy League, 1576
Mazzarella: Letters of Onorato Caetani, 1995
Caracciolo: Commentary of the wars against Turks, 1581
V. Hidalgo: War and diplomacy in the Mediterranean Sea, 2002
Molmenti: Sebastiano Venier, 1915
Rosi: documents relating turk prisoners at Lepanto, 1901
Stella: Nunziature di Venezia, 1977
Alberi: relations of Venetian ambassadors to the senate in the 16th century, 1840
 
Last edited:

Valdemar II

Banned
I couldn't figure out what Japan had to do with either Europe or the Ottomans myself.

I find the idea that the Ottomans inspired Europe's musket armies to be a bit spurious, one would imagine that developments like the Italian Wars, and the Dutch revolt to be much more influential than a few elite Ottoman units in the 15th and early 16th centuries.

If you want me to believe that European armies developed in part because of fear of the Ottomans, than I'm not sure I can disagree, but I can't buy the idea the Europe 'copied' the Ottomans. I have no doubt that Ottoman developments were included in the "European Military Revolution" (Drum cadence perhaps?), but that doesn't mean they created it, not by any stretch of the imagination

Yes, in fact Ottoman military technology seem to large degree to have been "imported" from Europe. To degree European immigrants was among the major source of development of Ottoman technology, we rarely saw the move the other way. Of course the Ottoman strenght in the 16th century didn't build on superior military technology, it build on superior governance, the Ottomans had one of the biggest proffesional armies in Europe, in fact it was in many way much closer to modern armies than European ones were. Most European state had a army which was a mix of the prince's personal troops, his vassals' personal troops, mercenaries and badly armed conscripts, and the personal troops was rarely anything but slightly superior mercenaries, who in peace got a wage close to starvation (still better than other mercenaries in peace times). As such a well paid proffesional standing army was a century ahead. It's only with the Dutch and Swedish military reforms, we see armies which are better than the Ottomans, but they still have trouble reaching the quantitive size of the Ottoman military might. Of course a century of Ottoman mismanagement of their domains and reforms in Europe after the 30YW change the picture completely.
 
It's only with the Dutch and Swedish military reforms, we see armies which are better than the Ottomans.

We have only a few examples of Spanish Tercios fighting against Ottoman forces in the 16th century, but the result has always been in favour of them, in all the battles we know of.
The same applies for Lansquenets.
Thus I think that it could be a gnat's hair before than that.
I'm not saying that it must be so (few samples make poor statistics), but I thnik reasonable at least to evaluate it as a possibility
 
We have only a few examples of Spanish Tercios fighting against Ottoman forces in the 16th century, but the result has always been in favour of them, in all the battles we know of.
The same applies for Lansquenets.
Thus I think that it could be a gnat's hair before than that.
I'm not saying that it must be so (few samples make poor statistics), but I thnik reasonable at least to evaluate it as a possibility

And for some reason the main example of this is a sea battle. Boarding action or not, sea battles involve more and different skills than land battles, and those falling short would make it easier for the other side to prevail.

Also:
None of the sources you mention in the above post address the issue - they do a very good job of providing European/Christian sources, but very little from the Ottomans themselves.

A ban on printing is not the same thing as a ban on writing - somehow or another records would be kept in any post-written word society.

So again: Where are the Ottoman sources? Where are their reports?

Until those are found, I'm going to remain skeptical of anything which is largely based on the sources of their enemies, who have a strong interest in all ways of presenting the Ottomans in a negative light.
 
Last edited:
Yes, in fact Ottoman military technology seem to large degree to have been "imported" from Europe. To degree European immigrants was among the major source of development of Ottoman technology, we rarely saw the move the other way. .

Hrm. My one criticism here is that you're creating a wall between Europe and the Ottomans which I don't know if makes much sense. England and Sweden "imported" technology from the continent, but we don't see this as a sign they're backwards.

FWIW Ming sources considered ottoman muskets to be better than European muskets in terms of stopping power (although I don't know if they really meant Central Asian muskets), Europeans to be more accurate, and the Japanese to be the worst.
 
I suppose there's a difference between attracting talented foreigners because you have opportunities, and needing talented foreigners because no natives can do the thing in question - and staying that way.

But I'm not sure the Ottomans were any more the latter than your examples.
 
And for some reason the main example of this is a sea battle. Boarding action or not, sea battles involve more and different skills than land battles, and those falling short would make it easier for the other side to prevail.

Also:
None of the sources you mention in the above post address the issue - they do a very good job of providing European/Christian sources, but very little from the Ottomans themselves.

A ban on printing is not the same thing as a ban on writing - somehow or another records would be kept in any post-written word society.

So again: Where are the Ottoman sources? Where are their reports?

the problem is not the ban on painting, but rather the ban on printing, which (on pain of death) was valid from 1515 to 1726.
Hence, the lack of ottoman material, since paper deteriorates and hand-copying is a pain.
Some of their reports (such as the one that the bey of Negroponte did) are transcribed in western sources (the last I provided), and reached us because they were printed.

Some other we could infer from successive facts, but, I am sorry to say, again they reach us mainly from western sources, such the Venice Nunzio at Costantinople (for example, the increasing in arquebuse trade after the unmentinable naval battle).

In a few precious cases we have a few preserved letters of Pashas describing the performance of the army, and they have much more enthusiam for the "sword slashing" part than for the "gunpowder" one.
In any way, they refer to bows as the main throwing weapon, too.
Furthermore, the works of Selaniki Mustafa Efendi and Ibrahim Pecevi ("pure" ottoman fonts) support this.

Actually there were also two cases of "land battle" (Malta and Venna 2nd), but they both have their problems (Malta was an assault and Venna 2nd is much later) that could make them objectable.
And again, as I said few samples make poor statistics.




I suppose there's a difference between attracting talented foreigners because you have opportunities, and needing talented foreigners because no natives can do the thing in question - and staying that way.
One thing must be said anyhow: the Empire was able to attract foreigners (and of course was happy to have ones with skills and competencies), which is something most of western europe was unable to do until the end of 16th century
 
Last edited:
Elf, the Spaniards won in those instances most likely because they had better armor than the Janissaries. To my knowledge I don't know of any open field fight between Imperial Spain and the Ottomans. It was usually in the context of sea battles or attacks on ports by both sides so the Ottoman cavalry would not be of much use.

I do know that the Ottoman long spears/pikes were often referred to as azabs but I'm not sure how they compared with European pikemen. I tend to think they were lighter since azabs were more of a militia IIRC.

@Faeelin: That's weird. Everything I've read indicated that the Japanese placed a very high premium on accuracy in their gunpowder (successfully too!). While it was the Europeans that wanted to fill the air was a ton of lead since it was hard to hit things. In fact the Europeans had the best gunpowder mix (I can provide the ratios if you wish). It could be that my information comes from late or post-Ming times I'll have to check.
 
@Faeelin: That's weird. Everything I've read indicated that the Japanese placed a very high premium on accuracy in their gunpowder (successfully too!). While it was the Europeans that wanted to fill the air was a ton of lead since it was hard to hit things. In fact the Europeans had the best gunpowder mix (I can provide the ratios if you wish). It could be that my information comes from late or post-Ming times I'll have to check.

It's from A History of Firearms to 1800. A very nifty book, if a bit depressing for AH because it's big on determinism.
 
the problem is not the ban on painting, but rather the ban on printing, which (on pain of death) was valid from 1515 to 1726.
Hence, the lack of ottoman material, since paper deteriorates and hand-copying is a pain.
Some of their reports (such as the one that the bey of Negroponte did) are transcribed in western sources (the last I provided), and reached us because they were printed.

Did I typo painting somewhere?

And there still ought to be some Ottoman documents or at least references to documents in their own works, rather than just things from captured prisoners.

Some other we could infer from successive facts, but, I am sorry to say, again they reach us mainly from western sources, such the Venice Nunzio at Costantinople (for example, the increasing in arquebuse trade after the unmentinable naval battle).

In a few precious cases we have a few preserved letters of Pashas describing the performance of the army, and they have much more enthusiam for the "sword slashing" part than for the "gunpowder" one.
In any way, they refer to bows as the main throwing weapon, too.
Furthermore, the works of Selaniki Mustafa Efendi and Ibrahim Pecevi ("pure" ottoman fonts) support this.

This is why I'd maim, metaphorically speaking, for the administrators - the people who would be tracking whether how many arrows and how many bows and how many guns and kegs of gunpowder we're talking about.

And since we do have at least scanty documentation for the Byzantines, I'm unpleasantly surprised at the idea the Ottoman documents are harder to find.

Actually there were also two cases of "land battle" (Malta and Venna 2nd), but they both have their problems (Malta was an assault and Venna 2nd is much later) that could make them objectable.
And again, as I said few samples make poor statistics.

Frustrating state of affairs remains frustrating. Not targeting you, just lamenting that we don't have anything better.

MNP said:
Elf, the Spaniards won in those instances most likely because they had better armor than the Janissaries. To my knowledge I don't know of any open field fight between Imperial Spain and the Ottomans. It was usually in the context of sea battles or attacks on ports by both sides so the Ottoman cavalry would not be of much use.

Interesting. Would explain a lot about how this has gone in regards to the evidence presented.
 
Top