So you basically want an all-Christian Europe? For me, that would make that continent much less interesting!
WI: Ottomans lose Islamic legitimacy
- Thread starter Socrates
- Start date
I enjoy Byzantine screws, as long as it is paired with a continued Abbasid hegemony.
Islamic Golden Age wank? Sounds more interesting than an Ottowank, that’s for sure
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
Mehmed Ali era starts in 1805. The times of trouble start in 1808 with Mustafa IV second attempt coup. So it fits.
The timeframe is too early for nationalistic feelings. So no Arab dynasty ruling over Syria, Egypt or Iraq. The existing dynasties around Damascus and Acre for example are too weak to enforce anything. Even if they go for it they will be absorbed by Mehmed Ali Pasha and/or the Mameluks not soon afterwards.
Personally,I enjoy an Ummayad wank in Western Europe and a Byzantine wank in the Middle East.I enjoy Byzantine screws, as long as it is paired with a continued Abbasid hegemony
longsword14
Banned
A lot of people care about the portion of history related to modern Europe. From there on Ottoman military capability did not increase, and their ass-kickings began.
How are the Ottoman's the winners of history? They have been a second rate power from the second half of the XVII on and you could argue that they were a toothless lion that only preyed on countries that were too busy in other fronts to do any harm
Considering that Turkey’s still a country,they are considered a winner too.
You could argue that, yes, but it wouldn’t be a very good argument. To the contrary — there’s scholarly consensus that the Ottomans lost the Great Turkish War primarily because they were being attacked on too many fronts.
The ottoman empire was not just Anatolia. And all their values were shattered by secularism and republocanism. I would hardly call them winners of anything.
It’s an internal change.There’s essentially no way Ottoman values would have remained unscathed into the 21st century even if the empire still exists.As for the empire,the French and British Empire were more than just Metropolitan France and Britain itself as well.The fact that they all survived as opposed to entities like the ERE and Al Andalus,who were conquered by foreign invaders and their traditions erased,they are winners.
The Ottomans sieged Vienna when emperor Leopold was fighting Louis XIV. They attacked the Spanish african strongholds after the catalan and Portuguese revolts,before that the Spanish navy was raiding anatolia and had sound victories like the battle of Cape Caledonia. In the XVII century the Ottomans were a shell of what they were under Suleiman and Austria and Russia picked them appart with ease for the most part of the XVIII century and in the XIX century they could barely beat Serbia on their own.
I won't deny the might of the Ottoman empire at its peak,but claiming that they are amongst the winners of history there is a stretch
I would argue that both France and Britain are amongst the losers of history as well like most of western Europe excluding Germany. Those two countries went from powerful empires with a voice in world politics to be reduced to partner states of the US and not even the top economies of Europe. Do you believe that a Brit in 1870 would believe that Britain would basically be reduced to a US partner and have an economic weight similar to that of California in a global scale?
Germany’s in a worst shape than those two lol.Germany lost a massive chunk of what it considered to be its’ traditional territory.Britain and France basically just went home after they finished milking their colonies.
I would argue that Germany has ever being in such a dominant position. They are an economic powerhouse being the largest or second largest exporter in the world with a very stable labour market that doesn't have as many issues like France with its unions, the German brand is as strong as ever being and is related to reliability and quality,they have a really strong presence in the EU and have their hands on the finance of countries like Greece,Spain or Portugal and internationally they are seen by some as the true leaders of the freeworld eventhough it is just a minority. Granted they can't conquer Paris in 4 weeks but power has transitioned and soft and economic power are way more relevant than hard power,and Russia is a living proof of it.
For now.Truth is,countries have their ups and downs,and unless they have their people slaughtered and the land salted,they are still in the game.
And 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).
What could the Safavids have potentially gained against the Ottomans had the Shah (either Suleiman I or Sultan Husayn) decided to open a fifth front during the Great Turkish War?
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