WI: Mehmed II Conquered Rome?

I do think any chance of the Ottomans being considered a European power would be done. You'd probably see a Crusade called. Rome would be reconquered, and the Ottomans would have a lot more hostile Europe than OTL. I suspect Ottoman decline will happen sooner, especially with less land in the East due to having to defend in the West so much.

As for the Venetians, if they allied with the Sultan, my guess is they'd be wiped off the map as an independent state when it's all said and done.
 
I do think any chance of the Ottomans being considered a European power would be done. You'd probably see a Crusade called. Rome would be reconquered, and the Ottomans would have a lot more hostile Europe than OTL. I suspect Ottoman decline will happen sooner, especially with less land in the East due to having to defend in the West so much.

As for the Venetians, if they allied with the Sultan, my guess is they'd be wiped off the map as an independent state when it's all said and done.
If they wouldn't crusade for Constantinople or Hungary, they won't for Rome.
 
Rome's a more existential threat than periphery. Even England would join in on a march for Rome.
No one aided Rome when Charles V sacked it, why would it be any different with the Turks. What makes Hungary and Constantinople so much more periphery than Rome itself. Additionally, OTL Mehmed II landed troops at Taranto and yet we saw no Europe-wide crusade against the Turks, and we saw no crusade to save Cyprus, or Crete or really any Christian place after Varna. In my opinion, Varna broke crusading spirit permanently, and Rome being taken won't change that.
 
No one aided Rome when Charles V sacked it, why would it be any different with the Turks. What makes Hungary and Constantinople so much more periphery than Rome itself. Additionally, OTL Mehmed II landed troops at Taranto and yet we saw no Europe-wide crusade against the Turks, and we saw no crusade to save Cyprus, or Crete or really any Christian place after Varna. In my opinion, Varna broke crusading spirit permanently, and Rome being taken won't change that.

Varna was even a Crusade by largely Eastern European States. It confirms even more what you say on the Crusading spirit. It is pretty dead. Even if it is alive, the Kings won't sent more than they care for. That is, at most 1-2 thousand soldiers.
 
I think the idea of European coalitions in the name of retaking Rome is ridiculous when you consider how many states stand to benefit from the deposition of the Pope and the muddying of Papal legitimacy. As well as how easily any coalition crumples to slight pressure. If the Pope flees to Avignon then the French have him in their back pocket and can make a good show of invading northern Italy to 'secure it for Christendom' in the best case scenario where they want to fight the Turks for Rome and Naples. This immediately triggers the alarm bells over in Vienna and any HREmperor is going to be forced into the diplomatic position of better the Turks than the French. They stand to lose in Northern Italy in the name of French gains whereas they could stay neutral or covertly side with the Turks in order to knock down the French, assert primacy over the Church in the HRE, and bring to heel some of the Church lands in the HRE while questioning the legitimacy of French-led Catholicism with support from other anti-French states such as England.

If the HRE leads the war march to Rome, then the French are likely to lose any and all interest in supporting a Christian coalition because hey, lookie, the Pope is in the pocket of the HREmperor, our claims in Italy are being neglected, and spiting the 'German' Church is actually getting shit done around here that suits the Royal agenda. Basically a clean reversal of roles.

And while the Aragonese/Castillians may have interests in Italy the odds of them being able to solo the Ottomans when they have far worse supply lines(see Berber North Africa versus a recently crushed Venice for the Ottomans) and far less resources than their opponent is unlikely.

Short of the Ottomans donning the stupid pants onto their heads and trying to actively conquer, loot and raze every city north of Rome without exception then the Italian states are likely to be divided between being aghast and celebrating that the Pope is out on his ass in Avignon. Some closer to Rome might bow, some might be cowed like Venice, some might be 'aligned' discreetly with the Ottomans in the name of politics, and you can realistically see Northern Italy becoming a big wall of proxies and foreign hostile puppets for other Christian powers that help to keep Central and Southern Italy free of interventionist wars directly targeting Naples.

There's a scenario where most of Northern Italy bands together to fight for the Pope but one seems highly unlikely and requires the Ottomans do handle everything poorly, to say the least
 
Especially not when rivalry between European dynasties are at it hights. Try to imagine the French aid the Habsburgs. Lol.

IIRC, Louis XIV had stopped war with the HRE during the 2nd Vienna campaign but this was an extent of "cooperation". Needless to say that the French diplomacy had been doing at that time everything possible to prevent the PLC from joining anti-Ottoman coalition. ;)

In the time in question France is ruled by Louis XI who had close relations with Francesco I Sforza, the Duke of Milan, and Republic of Venice and bad relations with the House of Savoy (regardless or perhaps because of being connected by marriage :winkytongue:) and Ferdinand I of Naples who after the fall of Burgundy was trying to improve them. The same goes for the papal States: the relations started improving after the issue of the "Burgundian inheritance" being settled in 1482 by the Treaty of Picquigny. So, a lot depends on the timing of the Ottoman conquest which, IIRC, was not defined in OP. Surely, it does not make too much sense to talk about 1480 (OTL landing in Otranto) because in a year Mehmend was dead. So the time frame should be a conquest of Bosnia and Albania because for landing in Italy a base on the coast of Adriatic is needed. In would also need an earlier end of the war with Venice (in OTL 1463 - 79) or a complete avoidance of it, again, based upon the date of Mehmed's death. So, let's assume that the landing in Southern Italy happens in 1460's - early 1470's.

Prior to 1477 Louis XI is concerned with Charles the Bold still being around and between 1477 and 1482 with settling the issue of the "Burgundian inheritance". His main opponent, Maximillian is busy with the same issue but from an opposite side. I may be wrong but none of them looks like an easily excitable type ready to forget his own interests for the sake of the Papacy, not to mention the Italian states. Louis may be willing to do something to help Milan but, IMO, the chances of the Ottomans going all the way to Lombardy are rather slim even under the most favorable scenario: by going to Italy that early Mehmed leaves unsettled cases elsewhere (and even a conquered Albania proved to be a serious source of trouble) including problems with Karaman and Akkoyunlu(White Sheep) Turkmens who were threatening Anatolia so it is quite possible that in a midst of an entertainment he would be forced to drop the offense, leave some garrisons and sail back to deal with the problems on the Balkans and/or Anatolia.

As for the Rome, well, the Popes had been ruling from Avignon for quite a while and, IIRC, it was still a Papal territory so they could get back there (probably Louis would be happy to have them under his control). An idea that a Pope would stay in Rome to get captured by the Ottomans does not look plausible to me.

The rest is an issue of future: if the Ottomans are still keep trying to expand their empire in all possible directions, holding to the Central Italy for a long time may prove difficult even if they are using a model of the vassal states.
 
However, I think that if the Italian conquests succeeded, the Ottoman Empire would definitely take a more western focus than the OTL eastern focus on the Levant/Egypt. Instead of those conquests we may see conquests around the Caucasus, perhaps into Austria and wheeling around to Northern Italy. Alternatively they may take a maritime empire route and attempt to dominate North Africa and perhaps Southern Spain and colonize the New World.
 
However, I think that if the Italian conquests succeeded, the Ottoman Empire would definitely take a more western focus than the OTL eastern focus on the Levant/Egypt. Instead of those conquests we may see conquests around the Caucasus, perhaps into Austria and wheeling around to Northern Italy. Alternatively they may take a maritime empire route and attempt to dominate North Africa and perhaps Southern Spain and colonize the New World.

The problems with the Western conquests (I'm not sure how Caucasus fits into that category):

1st, they required reliable flanks and the rear, which means that conquests of the Balkans are still necessary and they took a long time in OTL.

2nd, while having an advanced military system (European infantry is on the first stages of rising), the Ottomans had been achieving successes (and not even necessarily a fast success) mostly against relatively small and weak states on the Balkans and their eventual success against Hungary was to a great degree a byproduct of 2 successive nincompoopish reigns resulting in disbanding of an existing army (which was quite successful against the Ottomans) and its replacement with pretty much medieval feudal militia (and even then a lot of "credit" for Mohacs goes to the fact that Louis II was seemingly a complete moron). How successful the Ottomans could be against the stronger states or even against the states with the better military systems (better artillery, better infantry, etc.) is anybody's guess.

3rd, one of the main strengths of the Ottoman military system, well-organized supply of the troops, was also creating noticeable problems with the ability to conduct long-range campaigns.

4th, while the Janissary initially had been a very good infantry, in the field they were usually acting in a defensive manner, preferably being protected by some field fortifications, trenches, stockades, etc. This may create problems when dealing with more aggressive pike and shot infantry formations, especially when there is no time to fortify position.
 
However, I think that if the Italian conquests succeeded, the Ottoman Empire would definitely take a more western focus than the OTL eastern focus on the Levant/Egypt. Instead of those conquests we may see conquests around the Caucasus, perhaps into Austria and wheeling around to Northern Italy. Alternatively they may take a maritime empire route and attempt to dominate North Africa and perhaps Southern Spain and colonize the New World.

What is sure is that Hungary might be avoidedm it was costly enough in OTL for revenue and manpower.

What I am also sure of is that Italy is not a permanent conquest.
 
IIRC, Louis XIV had stopped war with the HRE during the 2nd Vienna campaign but this was an extent of "cooperation". Needless to say that the French diplomacy had been doing at that time everything possible to prevent the PLC from joining anti-Ottoman coalition. ;)

In the time in question France is ruled by Louis XI who had close relations with Francesco I Sforza, the Duke of Milan, and Republic of Venice and bad relations with the House of Savoy (regardless or perhaps because of being connected by marriage :winkytongue:) and Ferdinand I of Naples who after the fall of Burgundy was trying to improve them. The same goes for the papal States: the relations started improving after the issue of the "Burgundian inheritance" being settled in 1482 by the Treaty of Picquigny. So, a lot depends on the timing of the Ottoman conquest which, IIRC, was not defined in OP. Surely, it does not make too much sense to talk about 1480 (OTL landing in Otranto) because in a year Mehmend was dead. So the time frame should be a conquest of Bosnia and Albania because for landing in Italy a base on the coast of Adriatic is needed. In would also need an earlier end of the war with Venice (in OTL 1463 - 79) or a complete avoidance of it, again, based upon the date of Mehmed's death. So, let's assume that the landing in Southern Italy happens in 1460's - early 1470's.

Prior to 1477 Louis XI is concerned with Charles the Bold still being around and between 1477 and 1482 with settling the issue of the "Burgundian inheritance". His main opponent, Maximillian is busy with the same issue but from an opposite side. I may be wrong but none of them looks like an easily excitable type ready to forget his own interests for the sake of the Papacy, not to mention the Italian states. Louis may be willing to do something to help Milan but, IMO, the chances of the Ottomans going all the way to Lombardy are rather slim even under the most favorable scenario: by going to Italy that early Mehmed leaves unsettled cases elsewhere (and even a conquered Albania proved to be a serious source of trouble) including problems with Karaman and Akkoyunlu(White Sheep) Turkmens who were threatening Anatolia so it is quite possible that in a midst of an entertainment he would be forced to drop the offense, leave some garrisons and sail back to deal with the problems on the Balkans and/or Anatolia.

As for the Rome, well, the Popes had been ruling from Avignon for quite a while and, IIRC, it was still a Papal territory so they could get back there (probably Louis would be happy to have them under his control). An idea that a Pope would stay in Rome to get captured by the Ottomans does not look plausible to me.

The rest is an issue of future: if the Ottomans are still keep trying to expand their empire in all possible directions, holding to the Central Italy for a long time may prove difficult even if they are using a model of the vassal states.

For me, the conquest of Northern Italy (From Tuscany and Ancona up to the Alpine mountains) are unlikely unless:

A): Croatia and Slovenia are added

B): No extended Habsburg rule

C): Distracted France

Which is hard. Requires extreme form of luck. Northern Italy is too populous and will resist outright rule over it. Vassalization preserves the Booth and Rome. Direct rule is a Hungary style occupation but smaller and nearby more enemies.
 
For me, the conquest of Northern Italy (From Tuscany and Ancona up to the Alpine mountains) are unlikely unless:

A): Croatia and Slovenia are added

B): No extended Habsburg rule

C): Distracted France

Which is hard. Requires extreme form of luck. Northern Italy is too populous and will resist outright rule over it. Vassalization preserves the Booth and Rome. Direct rule is a Hungary style occupation but smaller and nearby more enemies.

I'd consider it unlikely even without "B" and "C". The naval supply line across Adriatic is viable only if Venice is neutral (and the same goes for Aragon and Genoa). Now, taking into an account that successful advance up to "boot" is potentially squeezing Venice from the East and South, the Venetian neutrality would not last forever.

Milan at the time of Sforza had a very strong army and Venice had enough money for hiring one of its own so the Ottomans would be facing strong resistance somewhere in the Central Italy. Add to the field forces the endless fortified cities and castles, Italian better familiarity with the terrain and possibility of the ...er... "second front" on the Balkans if Hungary and/or Walachia are stimulated to interfere when the main Ottoman force is bogged down in Italy.

I'd say that vassal arrangement along the OTL Moldavia/Walachia lines for the Central Italy would be more realistic but even that arrangement would be subject to the constant pressure from the North and as soon as the main Ottoman forces are out, the system is start falling apart.
 
I'd consider it unlikely even without "B" and "C". The naval supply line across Adriatic is viable only if Venice is neutral (and the same goes for Aragon and Genoa). Now, taking into an account that successful advance up to "boot" is potentially squeezing Venice from the East and South, the Venetian neutrality would not last forever.

Milan at the time of Sforza had a very strong army and Venice had enough money for hiring one of its own so the Ottomans would be facing strong resistance somewhere in the Central Italy. Add to the field forces the endless fortified cities and castles, Italian better familiarity with the terrain and possibility of the ...er... "second front" on the Balkans if Hungary and/or Walachia are stimulated to interfere when the main Ottoman force is bogged down in Italy.

I'd say that vassal arrangement along the OTL Moldavia/Walachia lines for the Central Italy would be more realistic but even that arrangement would be subject to the constant pressure from the North and as soon as the main Ottoman forces are out, the system is start falling apart.

I don't think you can have the Ottomans successfully vassal/conquer Northern Italy unless they crush Venice first in an entirely separate war shortly after taking Southern Italy. And by crush I mean outright make the Doge bow before the Sultan by bringing him before him in Constantinople while the Janissaries are occupying Venezia. Venice needs to be either permanently pliant or the Ottomans' first son among vassals in Northern Italy so as to allow the Ottomans to march on Lombardy and to secure their borders with the Hapsburgs, otherwise Venice easily allows for the money and the men to flow into Lombardy and the rest of Northern Italy.

The best way to accomplish this IMO is that just after overruning Naples, Venice decides that it's time to head up a new Crusade and stop the Ottomans once and for all. Thing is they run into the same problems I outlined above so their coalition ends up being Venice, Aragon-Castille, and Hapsburg Austria. The Ottoman navy has been significantly beefed up due to the increased demands on it compared to OTL and as a result absolutely slaps the shit out of Venice's navy in the Adriatic which is still not up to what it used to be after their last war with the Ottomans. The Ottomans end up largely focused on campaigns similar to OTL's back and forth with the Spanish in the Western Mediterranean and the Ottomans are preparing for a naval invasion of Venice, by far the most exposed and exploitable of the coalition. North Africa ends up aligning/swearing allegiance to the Ottoman Sultan(or is it Caesar now?) and the Iberian navies aren't up to the same scale as OTL in the 16th century so the Ottomans are absolutely running havoc on the Western Med, letting them pour most of their resources into their planned Venetian campaign.

Tl;dr the Ottomans occupy Venice and the Doge surrenders, fracturing the coalition and the Hapsburgs sign a separate peace as other matters in Europe(France) draws their attention away in the short term, thinking they'll be back to settle the score later. The Spanish fight on and eventually sign a separate, indecisive peace years later that sees them ceding Sicily and recognizing Ottoman Malta. If the Ottomans are aggressive and destructive in their conquest of Venice, then Venice is forced to cede all of its maritime possessions and pay a massive indemnity permanently crippling the republic's ability to control trade outside of it's immediate area. If the Ottomans are more pragmatic, then Venezia is left largely intact, allowed to keep most of its maritime possessions, and forced to recognize the Sultan as Caesar. Venetian merchants gain access to more trade opportunities and their navy becomes more commercial in nature whereas the Ottomans now have control over access to Northern Italy from the east and a direct means to wage war into Lombardy and the other Northern Italian states have to immediately deal with the new self-proclaimed Caesar, giving a window of opportunity for the Ottomans to assert hegemony over most of Northern Italy indirectly while the Spanish have been kicked out, the French and the Hapsburgs are busy with each other, and everyone is ignoring the Pope's shouting.

There was a TL starring Ottoman Southern Italy but I can't remember the name or the author. It's sadly dead but if anyone's got the link, post it. I'd like to reread it
 
If they wouldn't crusade for Constantinople or Hungary, they won't for Rome.

Constantinople was on the other side of the continent, Orthodox (the Byzantine Emperor refusing to support Christian unification was crucial to killing Papal support for intervention), a pathetic rump and surrounded by the Ottoman Empire. Hungary imploded after Mohacs and the Habsburgs intervened after to seize as much land as they could. Neither is remotely comparable to Rome, THE seat of the True Church, at the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire and solidly in Western Europe

No one aided Rome when Charles V sacked it, why would it be any different with the Turks. What makes Hungary and Constantinople so much more periphery than Rome itself. Additionally, OTL Mehmed II landed troops at Taranto and yet we saw no Europe-wide crusade against the Turks, and we saw no crusade to save Cyprus, or Crete or really any Christian place after Varna. In my opinion, Varna broke crusading spirit permanently, and Rome being taken won't change that.

Charles V was the lord of the greatest empire in the world and a Western European Catholic, the base political power play of entering Rome was pretty clear and it's not like his Italian adventures were ignored by other nations. Mehmet II is (in European eyes) a barbarian heathen warlord who was advancing the boundaries of Islam, so again simply not comparable.

A literal crusade is probably unlikely but the Habsburgs mustering German, Swiss and Italian forces to beat back the barbarians from Holy Rome seems likely, whether its in 1485 or 1525.

On people saying it was in no one's interest to restore the Pope, I have no doubt no one is simply going to selflessly liberate the city and bow to the Bishop of Rome. The thing is the prestige of kicking out the Turks, combined with the ability to control Rome and by extension, the Papacy is pretty damn enticing. The French would be pleased as punch to have a captive Pope in their lands but the Habsburgs would equally like to take that for themselves and resolve the too-and-fro between the Emperor and Pope in their favour.
 
Top