WI: Mehmed II establishes Third Rome

This was actually inspired by the Byzantine-Venetian history. Except that the Byzantines largely gave the monopolies because of their weakness post-Manzikert, whereas the Ottomans would be operating from a position of strength. The Italians would be able to rise to prominence because of the superiority of their economic models over those of any Muslim competitors- the development of banks and all the legal innovations that are necessary to make them possible is probably the single biggest innovation/contribution that the Ottomans get from conquering Italy.

Not really. Well, kind of, but not entirely. Italian trading cities were getting a helping hand from the time of the Macedonian Dynasty. Trade privileges for the Venetians show up in a 992 novel written by Basil II.
 
Wow. The Pope's power and revenue should be large, but it really depends on how much of Italy the Ottomans have direct control. If it is Naples and the Papal states, then I think the Pope will be wealthy, but not nearly on the scale of previous Popes. While the Patriarch gained a huge territory with the Ottoman conquest, the Roman Papacy loses Europe beyond the reach of Ottoman arms.

As an aside, Naples was a Papal fief if I remember- so when the Italian reconquest comes the European Papacy might make a bid for a complete takeover from the Ottoman Papacy- maybe complete with pardons for Ottoman collaborators if they can bring their territory into the European Papacy's hands?

I have this feeling that the Medicis, Sforzas and Venetians are going to be in complete control of their territory and their respective Churchs- that is, the Italian elite are going to continue to maintain their hold on the leadership of the Church. I have this feeling that as long as the Italian princes maintain loyalty to the Ottomans they will make sure that the Church remains very much their creature. On the other hand, the Ottomans could use the Church to extend its reach into the technically independent Italian states, with the Ottoman governor of Italy refereeing conflicts between the Papacy and the Italian princes.

I can see a fallout between the Italian princes over the Papacy leading to the first major European-Ottoman conflicts. Milan abandons the alliance over the Medicis or Venetians gaining the Papacy out of turn or using it to do something off-limits.

Most ecclesiastic land was doled out as fiefdoms. In Ottoman millets, it was administered by directly by the Patriarch and his council. Even if there's less Church land, there's more control over its revenue.

I don't think all of Italy is going to just end up as vassal states - and the Ottomans are not necessarily going to tolerate the existence of extremely powerful dynasties like te Medicis and Sforzas. Why would they? There are plenty of other local notables to depend upon.
 

Valdemar II

Banned

1:Austria wasn't under Hungarian control in that periode.

2: Austria would likely be given to a second son, whose family would use the Ottoman threat and the whole defender of the faith to gain more independence from their westen imperial cousins, couple with the fact that the Austrian-Venecian border is quite easy to defend from the Austrian side, he had the money making machine, which Tyrol were, plus the fact that the Po Vally is excellent campagn territorium, especially by the standard of the 16-18th century. I think the Easten Habsburgs would do their best to try to conquer Venice, when the Ottoman lose Italy I could see Austria get Venice (and taking the title king of Lombardy), while the French take Milan and the West, the Aragonese/Spanish take Naples, while the middle end up either as French or as rump Tuscan and/or Papal Italy (either as one or two states).
 
K, I'm still reading through this thread, but a few questions:

You could actually end up with the bizarre situation of an Ottoman Reformation of Catholicism. Hee.

What type of Reformation could we see in Catholicism?

Also: what effect would Ottoman rule have on the Italian language?
 
Most ecclesiastic land was doled out as fiefdoms. In Ottoman millets, it was administered by directly by the Patriarch and his council. Even if there's less Church land, there's more control over its revenue.

I don't think all of Italy is going to just end up as vassal states - and the Ottomans are not necessarily going to tolerate the existence of extremely powerful dynasties like te Medicis and Sforzas. Why would they? There are plenty of other local notables to depend upon.

So, what is it that will eventually drive the Ottomans out of Italy ?
 
1:Austria wasn't under Hungarian control in that period.

Hungary seized control of most of Austria starting in 1483, following HRE Frederick III's refusal to keep to the terms of an earlier treaty. By 1485 Hungary controlled most of Austria, King Matthias styling himself "Duke of Austria" and ruling his kingdom from Vienna for the rest of his life (Matthias died in 1490).

The treaty violations had already begun by the late 1470's, and Matthias only moved on Austria after Mehmed II died and his sons started their civil war. With the Ottomans involved in Italy, I think Matthais will do the realpoltik thing and follow exactly the same policy as OTL.

2: Austria would likely be given to a second son, whose family would use the Ottoman threat and the whole defender of the faith to gain more independence from their westen imperial cousins, couple with the fact that the Austrian-Venecian border is quite easy to defend from the Austrian side, he had the money making machine, which Tyrol were, plus the fact that the Po Vally is excellent campagn territorium, especially by the standard of the 16-18th century.

I think the Easten Habsburgs would do their best to try to conquer Venice, when the Ottoman lose Italy I could see Austria get Venice (and taking the title king of Lombardy), while the French take Milan and the West, the Aragonese/Spanish take Naples, while the middle end up either as French or as rump Tuscan and/or Papal Italy (either as one or two states).

I don't really see it like this. As I laid out in an earlier post, the Hapsburg strength is in the west, the Burgundian Inheritance. The war against the Ottomans would be long and costly, and if you look at the history, Italy is where potential German unifying dynasties go to die.

The French are occupied in Italy, the Hungarians are occupied by the Ottomans. Germany is in the position to be united, but there is not a very big window. If the Hapsburg can carry out an effective reform of the HRE without major foriegn interference under Maximilian then the stage will be set for later Hapsburg emperors to use the reformation of the Church to seize control of the Electoral system (with its prince-bishops) and turn the HRE into a national monarchy.
 
So, what is it that will eventually drive the Ottomans out of Italy ?

The real problem the Ottomans have in any TL is that the lands the empire occupies are poor, sparsely populated, and ecologically fragile. As I've said before, the entire population of the Ottoman Empire at it's height under Suleyman was roughly the same as France's. That means the Ottomans have to defend a region 10 times the size of France with less manpower (Muslims only), spread over three continents.

At first they could do this because they had a far more efficient administration and a superior military system. But once Europe caught up, and began to surpass the Ottomans, it was really impossible for the Ottomans to contend. By the 19th c, the Hapsburg Empire had twice the population of the Ottomans, and the Russians six times. It's kind of a miracle they survived at all. Just building a rail line was a massive undertaking; the terrain was very difficult, and the concentration of population wasn't great enough to make most rail lines profitable, requiring large state subsidies.

In the best case, the Ottomans don't have massive slugfests against thte Hapsburgs and Russians. Let's say they get to the 19th c still holding Italy. Unless the Counter-Reformation and Enlightenment are butterflied away, some form of nationalism seems likely to emerge, and especially with neighboring powers to exploit it, I don't see how the Ottomans can hold onto an unwilling region of 17-18 million people when their own Muslim population isn't much larger than that.
 
The real problem the Ottomans have in any TL is that the lands the empire occupies are poor, sparsely populated, and ecologically fragile. As I've said before, the entire population of the Ottoman Empire at it's height under Suleyman was roughly the same as France's. That means the Ottomans have to defend a region 10 times the size of France with less manpower (Muslims only), spread over three continents.
(Going OT...)

And yet now, right-wingers in the West are alarmed by the growth in Muslim populations! What is the fundamental difference between now and then, as far as Muslim-versus-Western demographics are concerned?
 
(Going OT...)

And yet now, right-wingers in the West are alarmed by the growth in Muslim populations! What is the fundamental difference between now and then, as far as Muslim-versus-Western demographics are concerned?

I'm not sure what you're asking. The post-Ottoman lands are still fairly underpopulated compared to Europe, but for the last few decades European population has stagnated while the Islamic world's continues to climb, so that disparity has decreased - but a lot of that is dependent upon modern agricultural and health technology.
 
Top