The argument of Mehmed!

[Mehmed II]

Guys, let`s get back to the golden times of the ottoman empire. It`s the beginning of the 16th century, Suleiman the Magnificient is the sultan and the Ottoman empire is the dominant force in Europe, middle east and the north africa. Now, I got couple of what if`s to present you:



After the failure of Vienna , Suleiman continued spending most of his treasure in finding ways to gaining power in the Balkans and the Eastern Europe. Instead of following and executing this policy, what would happen if

a) He began colonizing Africa. IMO, the only problem was that they had to pass the Shara Desert in order to move south. The only possible opposition they would have had to confront would be tribal warriors and I don`t think they would be a match for a disciplined Ottoman Force. Ottomans would probably achieve colonizing all of the continent in a century at most.

b) He got involved in the discovery of the new world. They knew that Spain was getting richer and richer because of the Aztec Gold. What if Suleiman tried to participate in colonizing the new world, using morroco as a front possibly?

c) What if Ottomans tried to come up with a huge invasion to Spain, do you think that it would cost them badly? There s also a possibility of victory here; conquering Iberia would mean pressuring Europe from both sides. You musn`t also forget that there was an alliance going on between France and the Ottoman Empire. They could ve persuaded France to attack (their age old enemies : ) HRE and also supported their invasion by backing them up from Hungary or just carrying out another siege to Vienna.

d) What if Ottomans invaded Persia with full force? Suleiman the lawgiver was always interested in the west, yet his father, in contrast, was always interested in the east; he planned to conquer the Safavid Empire and contact with the nomad Turks there. What if the son swore to fulfill the wish of his dying ``young`` man ( Selim I died pretty early)


Poor Selim I

Yes, Alternative history maniacs. A massive thread to talk about, what if ottomans work on all of these. More importantly, why ottomans didn`t try to work on all of these?

[Honduras]

C wouldn't have worked. Because the French were christians, and would never aid Islam believers. why he didn't colonize Africa. I guess the simple anwser is because he needed a lot of attention on Europe and the rest of Asia. I also thik he couldn't afford to send his troops to Africa, leavin his empire partly undefended.

[Portuguese Rebel]

a) He began colonizing Africa. IMO, the only problem was that they had to pass the Shara Desert in order to move south. The only possible opposition they would have had to confront would be tribal warriors and I don`t think they would be a match for a disciplined Ottoman Force. Ottomans would probably achieve colonizing all of the continent in a century at most.

Nah! if european powers perceived this (and with portugal colonies there they would perceive) they would either start racing to get some to or cruzade against the ottoman empire. Even at its high the empire would not want this as it would simply stop their attempts of colonizing and made them focus on war again.

c) What if Ottomans tried to come up with a huge invasion to Spain, do you think that it would cost them badly? There s also a possibility of victory here; conquering Iberia would mean pressuring Europe from both sides. You musn`t also forget that there was an alliance going on between France and the Ottoman Empire. They could ve persuaded France to attack (their age old enemies on_5.gif ) HRE and also supported their invasion by backing them up from Hungary or just carrying out another siege to Vienna.

The conquest of the Iberian peninsula (Portugal included, thanks a lot mehmed :p ) would mean a terrible unbalance in the status quo. Even the momentaneous alliance with the french would not hold, as the papacy was at this time pretty much controled by spaniards.

d) What if Ottomans invaded Persia with full force? Suleiman the lawgiver was always interested in the west, yet his father, in contrast, was always interested in the east; he planned to conquer the Safavid Empire and contact with the nomad Turks there. What if the son swore to fulfill the wish of his dying ``young`` man ( Selim I died pretty early)

Now i see real possibilities here. The persians would not be able to gather so much support as a christianized Europe. But then again they did have a huge amount of resources and an always strong army (in numbers at least : ). It would be a very tough fight for the sultan and a possibly deadly danger still lurked in the west. An Ottoman empire involved in a war with the persians (or right after the war when they would be at a weak time) might once more look ripe for the taking. As history tells that a weakened empire with many enemies (and these several westerner factions did not mind sharing if they could not get it all) can colapse like a deck of cards if things are decided with a light heart.

I think the ottoman empire at its peak had realized its potential and risking more adventures might have had a pernicious effect. To say the truth, the turks had not made much friends over the time of their rising :cool

I'm sure Suleiman saw this and was wise enough to know how to stop. the ottoman empire ended in ww1. It could have ended a lot sooner.

[Mehmed II]

Pr! Man, I got to disagree; you know me :

I agree that attacking Spain would be a bad idea, but certainly not catasthropic. If the so strong Christian europe was so strong, they would've thrown Ottomans out of the Balkans long ago. Ottomans thrashed everything they've sent at
battles like Nicepol, Varna, Mohacs etc. They lost so many battles that they decided to take a completely defensive stance instead.
I can't debate about whether Ottomans would be able to rise as the victor in a possible battle against the Spanish though.

Second of all, There is one thing for sure: Europe wouldn't be able to do anything if Ottomans tried to colonize Africa. As you mentioned in your previous post PR, Spanish was the strongest European nation at the time and their strength came from the new world coins that fed their wallets; don't you think that they would also be risking too much if they chose to battle the Ottomans?

I'm sure Suleiman saw this and was wise enough to know how to stop

The fact is that he never planned to stop. Even after the failure of Vienna , he kept conquering settlements around the Balkans. Heck, after the battle of Mohacs, He invited Charles of HRE to the battle.... :

[Lady_Dragoon]

Originally posted by Mehmed II@Sep 7 2004, 05:22 PM
. More importantly, why ottomans didn`t try to work on all of these?

Could be they learned from the Romans--get too big, with too many enemies, and something's got to give. As has been pointed out, the Turks hadn't exactly made a lot of friends in the course of their empire-building, and I imagine that if they thought they could win, the Christian powers would have been more than willing to rip into the Ottomans like wolves. At its current size, the Ottomans could defend themselves, yes? Maybe they worried that if they got any bigger they wouldn't have the physical manpower to defend all their borders?

[the Black Prince]

would be interesting if they did go for the new world, would have given the royal navy something other than spanish galleons to prey on, could have chnaged the course of anglo french and anglo spanish relationships...

in terms of sucess, persia is probably the best bet, but htat means with drawing troops from the european borders.
europe just been attacked and pretty much beaten back by the turks, and now you leave that broder undefended? your asking for counter attack by possibly papal inspired christian armies. pushing south into africa requires less troops than persia, allowing you to maintain defences both east and west. this is your safest option... it also opens up previously unexploited areas in terms of treasury.

spain has to be the worst option... the pope would certainly be very unhappy about the whole thing, perhaps enough to call a crusade, the spanish armies are battle experianced, their navy is strong. they get the first whiff on an invasion, i think the spaniards are going to be quite happy to pull their fleet out of the atlantic and blockade their coast, and seabourn invasion would be very very coastly. in this option, you also have to consider the english. england would be quite happy to see spain trounced, and in our history have fought against her several times, allying with whoever is attacking her. but i'm fairly certain we wouldn't want to see the ottomans this close to home, with access to the new world, especially after knowing about your sucesses in eastern europe. you could end up being the only reason spain and england would unite, and at this time, no one would be able to face the combined english and spanish fleets.

on top of that, you then have to large navies hanging around the western med... and isn't istanbul a coastal city?

[Portuguese Rebel]

I agree that attacking Spain would be a bad idea, but certainly not catasthropic. If the so strong Christian europe was so strong, they would've thrown Ottomans out of the Balkans long ago.

Meddling in the balkans is not the same as attacking Spain, a core nation of western europe.

Suleiman did not face an united europe effort at the balkans, but he was sure to face one if he crossed the line. And an attempt to invade Spain would be to cross the line.

Another big problem with invading spain would be to face Spain's navy. At that time Spain had arguably the most powerfull fleet in the world in number of ships and second in technology (second to the portuguese, yours trully... according to you another target for the invasion of Iberia :p ). The ottoman empire would have to go by land through the north of africa and then find a way to cross to the peninsula. This in itself would be very hard (with the two most powerfull navies of 16th century opposing it...) and then it would have to have a constant supply chain from north of africa for a huge army wich would be required to defeat the iberian powers, and again with the crossing of gibraltar being always in doubt. I think Suleiman had softer targets close by

Second of all, There is one thing for sure: Europe wouldn't be able to do anything if Ottomans tried to colonize Africa. As you mentioned in your previous post PR, Spanish was the strongest European nation at the time and their strength came from the new world coins that fed their wallets; don't you think that they would also be risking too much if they chose to battle the Ottomans?

Considering Suleiman's personality i don't think he would be interested in ruling over a few tribesmen in the colonies, but lets suppose he did. The spaniards would not risk all that much because they had a superiority in the seas. Any colony the ottomans might start would soon be countered by the navy. The spanish could only be defeated if somehow it was possibe to weaken their navy (this was historically so). This would only be possible in two ways:

1. Bankrupt Spain so it cannot replace ships (highly unlikely...)
2. Defeat Spain in a major sea engagement (this would require a totally incompetent spanish admiral also... again, historical)

So the turks would have to defeat Spain in a huge battle (spain and the more than likely allies of the italic peninsula), probably in the mediterraneum. Would this be possible? I am unsure about the naval capabilities of the turks at that time, but i'm guessing that the mediterraneum would be their only chance of a victory, since i don't think they had much of a high sea fleet. :w00t

The fact is that he never planned to stop. Even after the failure of Vienna , he kept conquering settlements around the Balkans. Heck, after the battle of Mohacs, He invited Charles of HRE to the battle.... on_5.gif

But it is apparent that he did not commit the ottoman's full weight into those enterprises :cool

[Mehmed II]

Suleiman did not face an united europe effort at the balkans, but he was sure to face one if he crossed the line. And an attempt to invade Spain would be to cross the line.

Ottomans didn't face united europe effort? What about all those crusades and all those battles? Ottomans were the aggressors and the Europe was the one who was scared...

Considering Suleiman's personality i don't think he would be interested in ruling over a few tribesmen in the colonies, but lets suppose he did. The spaniards would not risk all that much because they had a superiority in the seas. Any colony the ottomans might start would soon be countered by the navy.

Well, first of all, let's present some facts:
1) Ottomans are known for their extreme administrative power and it's management of ethnic groups ( ask username for christ sakes&#33
2) East Africa was in constant contact by the persians at that time. ( Zanzibar- Zanji Bar (thanks ornlu&#33 which means the Black city in persian I think) Some of them were even practicing Islam. Adding the tolerance factor; I don't think Ottomans wouldn't face kind of a resistance the west did in the industrial era.
3) I'm not sure about it's importance but about %10 percent of the Ottoman army ( at that time, mostly azab units) were Ethiopian- Black...
4) I don't know about west countering Ottoman colonies; coastal ones..maybe? the ones on Land; they had to face the Ottoman land army

So the turks would have to defeat Spain in a huge battle (spain and the more than likely allies of the italic peninsula), probably in the mediterraneum. Would this be possible? I am unsure about the naval capabilities of the turks at that time, but i'm guessing that the mediterraneum would be their only chance of a victory, since i don't think they had much of a high sea fleet.*

Pr, since you're not sure of the naval power of the Ottomans, before I reply you, let me give you a small description of the outcome of the battle of Lepanto:

Lepanto was the first major Ottoman defeat by the Christian powers, and it ended the myth of Ottoman naval invincibility. It did not, however, affect Ottoman supremacy on the land, and a new Turkish fleet was speedily built by Sokollu, grand vizier of Selim II. Nevertheless, the battle was decisive in the sense that an Ottoman victory probably would have made the Ottoman Empire supreme in the Mediterranean.

Ottoman, navy, since the successful siege of Constantinople, was significant. The continuing successes of sea commanders like Barbarossa, who defeated a huge christian holy league naval fleet commanded by Andrea Dorya at Preveze (1538), turned the Mediterrenean into an ''Ottoman Lake''.

The result of the battle of Lepanto had a psychological effect to the Ottoman fleet; despite the fact that the Ottoman grand vizier Sokollu Mehmed Pasha ( who was also a devshirme, taken by the Ottomans at the age of 18 ) rebuilt the navy and blockaded the aegean sea by more than 300 ships, it was understood that Ottomans were beatable after all...

My point is that you shouldn't underestimate the naval power of the Ottomans, especially in the era of Suleyman.

Also, as I mentioned before, you musn't forget that Ottomans and French were allies. ( A short summary about how it happened; The Hre emperor Charlken captures Francois I, Francois' mother requests help from the Ottomans, Suleiman, not missing the opportunity to finally divide the christian union, approaches to Austria by an army and defeates the opposition at Mohacs and forces Charlken to set Francois I free.) Don't you guys that would be useful for the Ottomans later on?

and what about choice B fellows? Do you think Ottomans stood a chance?

Also, what if the first siege of Vienna was successful, the christianity in Eastern Europe would definitely be history, what about Hre, what would happen if the Ottomans finally had the chance to carry out a massive invasion westwards. Could Suleiman make Mehmed II's dreams come true (He dreamed of taking Rome, he even captured Otranto for it )

Another option, North of the black sea, The Grand vizier Sokollu wanted to make a canal between the Don- Volga River; thousands of workers,builders and diggers were trasported to the Crimea to begin the work. Only 1/3 of the canal was completed due to:
a) The constant raids of the Russians
b) (which is directly connected to a) The Khan of Crimea didn't do his job of protecting the workers and the project.

What if instead of wasting money in her aggressive eastern europe policies, Ottoman empire concentrated on this project only. Because, if had it been completed:
a) It would prevent the Ruskies from entering south. ( Ottoman navy would be able to easily establish security)
b) Iran would be surrounded by the north.
c) Ottomans would be able to contact with the turks in Khazaria and central asia and so forth.

What do you guys think?

[The Knight 2100]

I don't know much about Ottoman Naval capabilities so I'm not sure about B, but as for the others-

A. This would be feasible, an empire in Africa could have occurred, although it would have been costly and difficult to forge let alone hold together. The Europeans had their share of trouble trying to conquer Africa in the Industrial Era, it would be even harder to conquer a large amount of territory in Sub-Saharan Africa before the Industrial Age. I don't think the Ottoman Empire would manage to take all of the continent either, that's a lot of land for one country to possess and a lot of ethnic groups to keep under control.

C and D. seem possible, as to who would win such a war is unknowable because it there are so many things up to chance in war.

[Portuguese Rebel]

My point is that you shouldn't underestimate the naval power of the Ottomans, especially in the era of Suleyman.

In the mediterraneum naval warfare yes, they had to be reckoned with, but to threaten Spain's overseas empire you would not get far with mediterraneum able galeys. Suleiman would have to buil a fleet comparable to the spanish to win in atlantic battles too.

lso, as I mentioned before, you musn't forget that Ottomans and French were allies. ( A short summary about how it happened; The Hre emperor Charlken captures Francois I, Francois' mother requests help from the Ottomans, Suleiman, not missing the opportunity to finally divide the christian union, approaches to Austria by an army and defeates the opposition at Mohacs and forces Charlken to set Francois I free.) Don't you guys that would be useful for the Ottomans later on?

No. :cool

the french would be allies until the ottomans got too close. You think the french would want a potentally agressive warmonger suleiman (after defeating the spanish if he ever managed to) to be at their door? No way, they would join the gang bang :p

Well, first of all, let's present some facts:
1) Ottomans are known for their extreme administrative power and it's management of ethnic groups ( ask username for christ sakes&#33
2) East Africa was in constant contact by the persians at that time. ( Zanzibar- Zanji Bar (thanks ornlu&#33 which means the Black city in persian I think) Some of them were even practicing Islam. Adding the tolerance factor; I don't think Ottomans wouldn't face kind of a resistance the west did in the industrial era.
3) I'm not sure about it's importance but about %10 percent of the Ottoman army ( at that time, mostly azab units) were Ethiopian- Black...
4) I don't know about west countering Ottoman colonies; coastal ones..maybe? the ones on Land; they had to face the Ottoman land army

I was not implying that Suleiman was intolerant. what i meant was that he prefered to take big civilized cities rather than to start colonies next to the end of the world :smile

Colonies at that time were always coastal. This allowed to trade by sea and would ease communications. No sea power colonized inland until much later. unless the ottomans would colonize inland on purpose (and this would make trading and resupplying very hard) they would have to reckon with the spanish navy first.

Anyway, any war of this sheer size, even if victory for the ottomans was to be achieved, would leave the empire weakened for years. Greedy eyes from the east were upon you, were they not? :

[Mehmed II]

Portuguese rebel, I was talking to jeff at that time; I knew that you didn't mean the Suleiman was intolerant dude :cool

Ok, let's get back to the topic:

a)

No.*

the french would be allies until the ottomans got too close. You think the french would want a potentally agressive warmonger suleiman (after defeating the spanish if he ever managed to) to be at their door? No way, they would join the gang bang*

Well, I wouldn't be so sure of that. Pope's pressure would undoubtedly affect France; but considering that the Ottomans were literally their emperor's saviour and their source of gold because of all those trade capitulations and priviliges French wouldn't suddenly get back to, to put it the most simple way, lick pope's arse.. Frankly I think that France might've decided to wage war if the Ottomans offered them alliance and promised them the title of the guardian of christendom; Hre wouldn't stand a chance if it was gang banged from two sides however I'm certain that the results for France would be fatal if things went wrong.

was not implying that Suleiman was intolerant. what i meant was that he prefered to take big civilized cities rather than to start colonies next to the end of the world*

Colonies at that time were always coastal. This allowed to trade by sea and would ease communications. No sea power colonized inland until much later. unless the ottomans would colonize inland on purpose (and this would make trading and resupplying very hard) they would have to reckon with the spanish navy first.

I know that Suleiman preferred to take big cities instead of building them Pr! But we are talking about what if's here.

a) Pr, would you please think with the pre (non industrial and post medieval) imperialist mind? : Spanish was already satisfied with all the gold that was coming from the Aztec Lands, I don't think, as the current military and economical core , they would want to interfere with the Ottoman business before they learned that African gold was worth taking a look at.


The only problem they would've had at that time would be the Persians; who were trading with the Africans before 1400's and I don't think they would be strong enough to oppose the Ottomans. They were barely defending their lands!

b) Pr, I don't think, especially for ottomans, colonizing Africa's east coast would be too hard.
1. They had Arabia and all of north africa in their control and Mediterrenean was mostly an Ottoman lake.
2. As I mentioned above, Europe wasn't interested in inner Africa at that time. I think that Ottomans would be even richer and would have a strong navy to protect it's colonies by the time they took it really serious. Am I right?

By the way guys, what do you think about the Volga- Don project and the successful siege of Vienna.

EDIT: Also, Ottomans, IIRC, helped the Spanish (against the portuguese) gain the upper control by assisting them at the ''battle of three kings'' (forgive me If I'm wrong) I believe. Would the Ottomans kindly ask the Spanish to return their favor and ''staying the f'ck out of Ottoman'' colonies.

[Portuguese Rebel]

Also, Ottomans, IIRC, helped the Spanish (against the portuguese) gain the upper control by assisting them at the ''battle of three kings'' (forgive me If I'm wrong) I believe. Would the Ottomans kindly ask the Spanish to return their favor and ''staying the f'ck out of Ottoman'' colonies.

Yes the spanish were always ready to ally with whoever they may ally with to screw the portuguese, but they would also quick to forget the alliance the next year. this happened multiple times in history with the kindom of castille (the main origin of Spain) allying with muslims agains the other christian kingdoms one year then in the next year or so attacking the muslims and pushing them further to the south. :p

Portuguese rebel, I was talking to jeff at that time; I knew that you didn't mean the Suleiman was intolerant dude on_8.gif

Ooops, sorry my bad... :

Frankly I think that France might've decided to wage war if the Ottomans offered them alliance and promised them the title of the guardian of christendom;

Along with a guarentee of non-agression without an expiration date? :cool

By the way guys, what do you think about the Volga- Don project and the successful siege of Vienna.

A project as genial as crazy... :p

Could have worked if not countered right away.

[Mehmed II]

Ok, guys, I know this is a very old topic. I was actually thinking of opening a new one but I thought continuing from this topic would be better.

It is a very simple question.

Ottoman empire, in the beginning of 16th century, was at the height of its power. It controlled the silk road,it was a very dominant force in the Mediterrenean sea and it's treasures were full with Mameluke Gold. Consider yourself in the shoes of Suleiman I, what would you do to make the Ottoman Empire even greater? For example, how would you participate in the Renaissance or the discovery of the new world; how would you react to the colonization of the west? or Did the Ottomans really have the potential to become a Roman empire?

The topic is yours...