Successful and long lasting Tamerlane EmpireIt seems very strong though. I have seen many scenarios and timelines where even the Nazis win occasionally. But almost never Ottomans or other Turkish empires.
Successful and long lasting Tamerlane EmpireIt seems very strong though. I have seen many scenarios and timelines where even the Nazis win occasionally. But almost never Ottomans or other Turkish empires.
In that case, persian cities ought to be decorated with lovely skull piles and stolen gate doors.Successful and long lasting Tamerlane Empire
Najaf and Karbala, of course. The Ottomans actually begged for Persian support during the war, but the Safavids refused unless the shrine cities were returned. P
I don't se how bringing XVI stuff proves anything. The Turkish fleet was terrorizing the mediterranean in the XVI century. In the XVII century a couple of old galleons of the Spanish fleet consistently defeated the Turkish fleet (and Spain wasn't even the biggest maratime power at the time,the Dutch were). Which just shows that the Ottomans failed to modernize at all and laggedAnd the Ottomans were attacked on at least three or four front during the Great Turkish War (Hungary, the Adriatic, Greece, the Crimean steppe) and could very plausibly have had a fifth front had the Shah of Persia been slightly more ambitious. In any case, Ottoman records make it clear that the Ottoman decision to annul the Treaty of Vasvar and declare war on Austria was mandated not by Austria fighting France, but primarily by Imre Thököly requesting Ottoman support against the Catholic Habsburgs.
The Ottomans were attacking Spanish positions in North Africa long before the seventeenth century and your “Catalan and Portuguese revolts.” Including sacking the Baleares several times and planning to send military support to the Morisco rebellion in the 1570s.
Anyways I don’t quite see your point, all empires exploit the weakness of their enemies.
The Ottomans were not a “shell” in the seventeenth century. They were a different sort of state from the sixteenth, sure, but still militarily capable both in Europe (they reached their greatest extent in Europe in the late seventeenth century) and the Two Iraqs (where they forced the Treaty of Zuhab on the Safavids. The state’s financial capacity survived the immense stresses put on it by the era and the Ottoman economy remained very healthy well into the eighteenth century. The thesis of “seventeenth-century Ottoman decline” is widely discredited in academia.
The Ottomans beat Peter’s Russia at Prut and reconquered much of the Balkans in 1739, after defeating the Habsburgs at Grocka (where they may have killed as much as half the Austrian cavalry deployed).
I don't se how bringing XVI stuff proves anything. The Turkish fleet was terrorizing the mediterranean in the XVI century. In the XVII century a couple of old galleons of the Spanish fleet consistently defeated the Turkish fleet (and Spain wasn't even the biggest maratime power at the time,the Dutch were). Which just shows that the Ottomans failed to modernize at all and lagged
Land extend doesn't equate to power (see when the British and Spanish empire reach theirs for example. Austria and Russia have a very favourable record against the Ottomans and Peter's Russia got trashed by Sweden on a regular basis,so it was nowhere near its peak in the XVIII century. The Ottomans went from a thread to all of Europe to being almost a non-factor in European affairs and basically being a second/third rate power.
The Russian-Empire-From-A-Timeline-Where-It-Wins-WWI frowns at your comment.Personally if you are going to do that said power needs to control Anatolia and Greece
I'm not a fan of the Thrace nub
That' fine I prefer a CP victoryThe Russian-Empire-From-A-Timeline-Where-It-Wins-WWI frowns at your comment.![]()