archaeogeek
Banned
at this rate the last capital of the Ottomans would have been Iraklion: compared to Paris or Constantinople, Vienna was a hole. The Ottomans are also not the Seljuks.[/QUOTE
You are wrong! There is no any important difference between Ottoman and Seljuks management of new cities. before 15. century, Turkish nomad people came to anatolia from east and Seljuks put them to new cities and gave farming areas to commanders, and Ottomans did same. After 15. century it was difficult to find nomad Turkish people but if Vienna was fallen, Ottomans d build a completely new city; mosques, turkish baths, madrasahs, palaces etc. Of course Muslim population d be increased and it d be possible to be new capital. and Vienna was available huge city to use as a capital.
The Ottomans were not the Seljuks, they didn't even consider themselves turks. I also pointed out how much your point is bullshit, the Ottomans did not make any random city their capitals, they settled their capitals based on political expediency, and Vienna, in 1683, is not an advantage, it's a burden.
As for a policy of consolidation: it would be incredibly stupid and would probably overextend the empire even more as there wouldn't be the excuse of christian countries not trying to invade christian princes at will. It would also decrease administrative efficiency and cause enormous tensions in the christian millet because the romanians would not take kindly to be put in a greek dominated polity. "European-style administration" in the 17th century, would be a regression, not an improvement.