WI: Persia attacks the Ottomans in 1683

In 1683, Persia seriously considered attacking the Ottoman empire while it was preoccupied with the disastrous siege of Vienna and its aftermath.

IOTL, the Shah was ultimately convinced to remain neutral. The European ambassadors tried to persuade him to attack, to which he replied that he did not think it was right to attack a Muslim nation defending against infidels, while the Ottoman ambassador tried to have Persia enter the war on their side, which the Shah rejected unless Iraq was returned to Persia.

What if the Europeans were a little more successful, and Persia attacked the Ottomans in 1683?

With the catastrophic war in the Balkans, how badly would the Ottomans turn out?
 
In 1683, Persia seriously considered attacking the Ottoman empire while it was preoccupied with the disastrous siege of Vienna and its aftermath.

IOTL, the Shah was ultimately convinced to remain neutral. The European ambassadors tried to persuade him to attack, to which he replied that he did not think it was right to attack a Muslim nation defending against infidels, while the Ottoman ambassador tried to have Persia enter the war on their side, which the Shah rejected unless Iraq was returned to Persia.

What if the Europeans were a little more successful, and Persia attacked the Ottomans in 1683?

With the catastrophic war in the Balkans, how badly would the Ottomans turn out?

The French intervention gave the Ottomans some breathing time in the Balkan. Assuming the French still intervene and the bulk of the Austrian forces leave for the Rhineland the Ottomans can focus on Persians with a brilliant Köprülü Fazil Pasha. And 2, 3 victories over Persia is enough to get a Status Quo.

One thing I am sure about is that Mehmed IV will be deposed even faster instead of 1687. Suleiman II or Ahmed II would do much better than the hunter sultan.
 
It seems that the Ottoman Empire or Persia is not a popular subject :p

The Ottoman Empire in the 19th c or the 16th c isn't super popular but you'll get answers at least. Threads with them as the main subject can even go on for many pages sometimes. The main problem here is that the 17th c isn't seen as a time where the OE was doing anything interesting. It's not being carved up-reforming like in the 19th c but isn't at its "height" like in the 16th. European history dominates these boards so it's not surprising that a period in which the OE seems peripheral and unimportant to Europeans doesn't get much attention. I know that I know very little of the OE or Iran in this period.
 
Any other thoughts?

Since there are just but a little responders I guess I can give you a different possibility.

Persia intervenes:
Some minor gains in Eastern Anatolia and full influence over Georgia and Dagestan. The Caucasus will fall under Persian rule. That is the best Safavid Persia can get. Their troops don't have experience because of several decades peace and the Ottoman troops are battle hardened. As long as the Ottomans balue Belgrade more than Kars there is hope for Persia. Iraq seems for me almost implausible for that era Safavids. The army has no experience and the area is behind the mountains.
 
The Turks were driven to the edge by the coalition on their own. I can't imagine that the Poles, Russians, and Persians wouldn't be able to cut down the Ottomans considerably, with or without Habsburg troops
 
Since there are just but a little responders I guess I can give you a different possibility.

Persia intervenes:
Some minor gains in Eastern Anatolia and full influence over Georgia and Dagestan. The Caucasus will fall under Persian rule. That is the best Safavid Persia can get. Their troops don't have experience because of several decades peace and the Ottoman troops are battle hardened. As long as the Ottomans balue Belgrade more than Kars there is hope for Persia. Iraq seems for me almost implausible for that era Safavids. The army has no experience and the area is behind the mountains.

I concur. While the Ottoman state was highly war weary, it was not incapable of at least limiting the territorial gains of the Persians. Afterall it manage to only concede a relative little when fighting the HRE, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and Russia all at once. Now you could argue that adding foes is exponentially damaging, and that Persia could be the stick that broke the Turk, when it was suddenly facing 4 of its biggest rivals all at once, but I don’t know.

The Persians themselves faced a problem in that Shah Suleiman’s rule had let the professional army of his father grow lax in its organisation and a significant chunk of the army were now ethnic Georgians who were not unkeen for independence. The Georgians had rebelled once in 1659 and would in OTL rebel again in 1688 when they would ask for Ottoman help. In OTL the Ottomans refused, still distracted in Hungary, and the rebellion failed. If, however, there was a war on the Eastern front, the Ottomans could have thrown support behind such a move towards independence to divide both the Persian attention and its military cohesion.
 
The Turks were driven to the edge by the coalition on their own. I can't imagine that the Poles, Russians, and Persians wouldn't be able to cut down the Ottomans considerably, with or without Habsburg troops

In 16 years, the Russians got Azov, Poles got Podolia, Austria got almost all of Kingdom of Hungary and Venice got Morea. Persia won't change much.

Without the Habsburgs troops there is no threat in Hungary which was the biggest front during the war. That means more Ottoman troops are free to face Sobieski's Poland and Venice. Persian Military has no war experience. That makes thing worse for them.

Habsburg Military support was necessary for other allies to take land from the Ottomans. Otherwise most Poland, Russia, Venice and Persia could get is a Status Quo.
 
Top