The Seas of the Sultan, Ottoman New World

Carpathian/Danubian vassal states

I suggest that the vassal states of the Ottomans in the territory of modern Romania look something like this.

This makes allowances for where there are mountains and where there are plains.

I wasn't sure how many vassal states you wanted. If 3 is enough, have the Dobrudja be part of the Ottoman Empire south of the Danube, and part of Moldavia to the north of it.

Hope that helps. :cool:

Ottoman.png
 
I suggest that the vassal states of the Ottomans in the territory of modern Romania look something like this.

This makes allowances for where there are mountains and where there are plains.

I wasn't sure how many vassal states you wanted. If 3 is enough, have the Dobrudja be part of the Ottoman Empire south of the Danube, and part of Moldavia to the north of it.

Hope that helps. :cool:

Why is Transylvania a an Ottoman vassal? It was always apart of Hungary up till Louis's disaster at Mohacs. Even then, it was the ensuing civil war between Hapsburgs and the Transylvanian voivode that made it into an Ottoman vassal.
 
Why is Transylvania a an Ottoman vassal? It was always apart of Hungary up till Louis's disaster at Mohacs. Even then, it was the ensuing civil war between Hapsburgs and the Transylvanian voivode that made it into an Ottoman vassal.

Yeah, it can be in or out of Ottoman control as the author of the thread sees fit.

I was just attempting to show how more realistic borders of the Transdanubian principalities could look.
 
Yeah, it can be in or out of Ottoman control as the author of the thread sees fit.

I was just attempting to show how more realistic borders of the Transdanubian principalities could look.

But thats the thing. The timeline hasn't stated that it is. The collapse of Hungary was a big deal, and transylvania was an integral part of the medieval kingdom of Hungary.
 
But thats the thing. The timeline hasn't stated that it is. The collapse of Hungary was a big deal, and transylvania was an integral part of the medieval kingdom of Hungary.

In this timeline, the Ottomans do not invade Hungary, thus bumping heads with the Habsburgs, so Transylvania will belong to Hungary. Also the Ottomans will not play a major role in the Balkans, as they did in OTL
 
Dobrudja should really be part of the Ottoman Empire. Its last independent ruler died in 1390. Plus, it is a logical step for the Ottomans to have all the territories south of the Danube.

As for Transylvania I won't comment but if the Habsburgs take over Hungary, Transylvania will be the first realm that will attempt to resist them. Too much concentration of nobles that couldn't stand royal control, too many free communities of Szeklers or Germans. And yeah, they'll even be glad to manipulate the Ottomans into helping them.
 
I just object when major aspects are not taken seriously: I'm not refering to the Venetians, but to the actual objectives of the Ottomans, which were instructed by rational Geopolitics....

At that time, Italy was wealthy enough to make Mehmed's lust for it quite rational, really. If Skandenberg was dealt, more manpower to spend on Italy, and it can really be Ottoman territory. It won't be cake-walk, but it'd be fairly easy.
 
At that time, Italy was wealthy enough to make Mehmed's lust for it quite rational, really. If Skandenberg was dealt, more manpower to spend on Italy, and it can really be Ottoman territory. It won't be cake-walk, but it'd be fairly easy.

:rolleyes:

Fairly easy to occupy the richest region of Christianity, that also held the main seat of that religion, along with hundreds of fortresses, castles and defensible cities? It's not even a problem of manpower, but supply and siege capabilities. The Ottomans would have given up the conquest of Italy long before they would have been destroyed there.

I think some of you are ignoring a basic fact, and that is the different ways the Ottomans subdued their future provinces. While the muslims were fairly easy to deal with (the Mameluks fell like a ripe apple, northern Africa was a bit harder, but not by a long shot, it took only a campaign to conquer Iraq as Suleyman, one campaign to reconquer it as Murad IV), the European affairs were always a messy affair. In fact, apart from Thrace and Bulgaria, most of their european possesions were fought for in very difficult conditions. And, of course, nobody explained how the Ottomans would gain superiority over the Adriatic Sea and the possibility of supplying their armies in Italy. Not to mention the completely absurd possibility of a muslim power with no maritime experience to intervene in Iberia in the 15th century, with no "real" resistence from Castille or Aragon.

The Ottomans were by the 1560s a real WANK. Really they don't need an illogical timeline to make them stronger: they were the strongest power in Europe. They don't need America, they don't need Italy. All they need is a bit of luck in naval matters in 1571, a good sultan after Suleyman and a bit of interest for western culture and technology to catch up in the subsequent centuries.
 
By 1450 the Ottoman navy can hold its own against the other maritime powers though it is not yet dominant. I fail to see your point.

Point me to a battle prior to the 16th century in which the Ottomans defeated a Christian fleet.

The only advantage of the Ottomans was the number of deployed ships. For the Egeean Sea this was enough. For the rest of the Mediterranean Sea, the Barbary Coast pirates managed to fill the void of leadership... after 1571, while the Ottoman Fleet dissapeared as a tangible danger, the pirates continued to harass and hold the sea lanes, which proves their fundamental role in making the Ottoman Fleet number 1 between Preveza and Lepanto.

As for their holding their own, let's not forget the 1453 moment:

As the four ships came along under sail and were becalmed, the Turkish fleet began to move and came in their direction. The Turkish admiral was the first to attack with great energy the stern of the ship of the Emperor of Constantinople, and all the rest of the fleet attacked as hard as they could among all four of the ships; but the galley of the admiral of the Turks never moved its ram from the stern of the Most Serene Emperor, that is from his ship, pressing it hard, with all the rest of the Turkish fleet pressing hard also; and of these four ships one had five galleys around it, another had thirty fuste, and another had forty parandarie, so that the Dardanelles were covered with armed boats, and the water could hardly be seen for the vessels of these evil dogs. The battle lasted between two and three hours, and neither side was victorious, but our four Christian ships won greater honour, because they had had on top of them a hundred and forty-five Turkish ships, and had survived their attack.
 
Point me to a battle prior to the 16th century in which the Ottomans defeated a Christian fleet.

The only advantage of the Ottomans was the number of deployed ships. For the Egeean Sea this was enough. For the rest of the Mediterranean Sea, the Barbary Coast pirates managed to fill the void of leadership... after 1571, while the Ottoman Fleet dissapeared as a tangible danger, the pirates continued to harass and hold the sea lanes, which proves their fundamental role in making the Ottoman Fleet number 1 between Preveza and Lepanto.

As for their holding their own, let's not forget the 1453 moment:

The Ottomans defeated the Venetians in several battles during the 1499-1503 War, the War of 1463-1479 and the Battle ofZonchio.
 
The Ottomans defeated the Venetians in several battles during the 1499-1503 War, the War of 1463-1479 and the Battle ofZonchio.

The Battle of Zonchio is 50 years after the year 1450 and it belongs to a war that started the 16th century great naval Ottoman tradition... Not to mention, again, the downright superiority of numbers...

Now, I'm no expert, but if you have any further information to back up your claim, your wrong.

Until the 16th century, the Ottomans had no capability of projecting power outside the Egean Sea. Their ships were used to carry soldiers onto ill-protected islands. Now, such operations were successful, thus the navy had an important role as a supporting player in the Ottoman campaigns. But until the Venetian War of 1499-1503, you couldn't expect to see the Ottomans carry an independent naval action outside that pond. Even then the actions were limited by the personality of Bayazed II and the natural tendency of Mehmed I's descendents to expand their realm in logical and progressive steps.

In other words, the Barbarossa Brothers, Turgut and the other great Captains are not an evolutionary effect. It's no surprise that Oruc entered the service of Selim I, the same Selim that completely destroyed the Eastern Balance of Powers by conquering the Mameluks. I can imagine an European waking up sometime in 1517 and saying to himself: "So they took out all the Middle East and they employed the greatest band of pirates that just conquered Algiers... Mmm, I smell trouble".

Again, it's all about projecting strategic power. After Lepanto, it's not like the pirates dissapeared, they were probably stronger in numbers and power... but they lost completely the ability of employing other types of raids. They resorted to simple piracy but couldn't threaten anymore the european mainland.

The medieval fleets of the italian city-states were in the same situation. Until the first crusade the scope of their navies was limited to trade and protecting some sea-lanes. After 1096, they found themselves forced to accept the domination of the Mediterranean Sea. It was not an evolution, but a fundamental event that changed the equilibrium of forces, the same one that gave Venetia their Egeean holdings in 1204 or the one that made Genoa Queen of the Black Sea in 1261.
 


Part XII


Many advocated a campaign against Hungary, including the Grand Vizier. But Ahmed knew that conquering Hungary would indefinetley mean butting heads with the powerful Habsburgs, and the Holy Roman Empire. But while Ahmed was consolidating his claims on Iraq, Aden and the Barbary Coast, an alliance between Hungary, Austria, the Holy Roman Empire and Tuscany, dubbed the Papal League, crossed the Danube and attacked the Ottoman holdings. Isolated garrisons were quickly taken, and in several weeks, they reached Belgrade. An army of 75 000 laid seige to the city. The Ottoman garrison, while small resisted for several months, until a large reilef army from Rumelia and Thrace arrived. Led by Sultan Ahmed I, himself, the army quickly reached Belgrade. Though tired and weary from the march, they were forced to fight the Hungarians. The Christians were able to drive the Ottomans back. They were in danger of being driven into the river, but at that moment, sallies were led by the Garrison leader into the Christain rear. The effect was horrid. the Christains thinking that they were encircled fled. The Ottomans had gained a victory, but the Christains had regrouped and they quickly advanced down the Adriatic, capturing Zagreb, Sarajevo and then laying seige to Belgrade once more.

The army led by Hakim Pasha was directed to once again fight the Christains, but were decisivly routed. The army fled. Meanwhile, a rebellion broke out in Greece. And simeltaneously, Tuscany invaded Ottoman Italia, with an Army of 15 000. The Ottoman governor Halil Karaman Pasha quickly organized all garrisons, and militia units, and mustered an army of 4500. Reinforcements were hard to come, as the main army was engaged in the Balkans, recieving one defeat after another. Halil Karaman played trickery, fitting militia with Janissary and regular uniforms, and cavalry charge consisted of two horses for one man, to scare the enemy. Along with some decisie maneuvering, they drove the Tuscans back, even attacking Tuscan border towns, before being ordered back to set up defenses against another attack.

A Christain Army, emboldened by Austrian and German recruits captured Belgrade, and quickly attacked Macedonia. Another Ottoman Army led by the incompetent Hakim Pasha was routed near Skopje. Sultan Ahmed beheaded Hakim Pasha, led an army of 85 000 men from Anatolia, Syria and Iraq, and quickly struck north, a flanking movement by Janissarie amd Cavalry quickly won, and the Christains were driven back. The tide had turned, and the Christains retreated to Zagreb. Though the city was under seige for several months, the garrison would not budge. Seeing that another army was being raised in the Hungarian and Austrian lands, and the Safavids were acting up once again, Ahmed had no choice but to sue for peace. Croatia and Slovenia were ceded to Hungaria, and the Ottomans were forced to pay for reparation. Parts of Serbia were also ceded. The Ottomans now behind the Danube were seething. But Ahmed sought no gain from conquering the Croatians again. No, the Portugese had recently discovered a land to the west, that held gold and silver beyond a man's dream.
 
I think if there is an early victory against the Safavids, Iran will not become a Shiite power and will not pose a serious threat to the Ottomans. As you say, it will also reduce the impetus to Sunni Orthodoxy in the Ottoman Empire.

Just to make sure we're all clear-Iran was a mostly Sunni country before the Safavids, who converted the populace to Shia Islam. No Safavids means Iran stays Sunni. This will have huge effects on 19th and 20th century Middle Eastern politics.
 
Top