Franco-Ottoman Alliance

[cenkiss]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Ottoman_alliance

In 1536,a treaty has been signed between King of France Francis 1 and Ottoman Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent.This treaty was good for both sides.
I wonder what kind of reaction it had from rest of Europe?I would like to see if you have any historical documents or letters.I onder if that can be mentioned in that series The Tudors too?Because it is unusual.And it was just in the time of Lutherians and religious unrest in Holy Roman Empire.

[Sher Khan]

The natural thing to do for a France squeezed in between the HRE and Spain. Lots of propaganda material for Hapsburg sympathizers, etc.

Of course, the Hapsburg house tried the very same with alliance overtures to Persia.

[Odovacar]

The natural thing to do for a France squeezed in between the HRE and Spain. Lots of propaganda material for Hapsburg sympathizers, etc.

Of course, the Hapsburg house tried the very same with alliance overtures to Persia.

That wasn't the same since the persians did not invade christian lands like the ottomans. The persian alliance was intended to forge a cooperation between anti-ottoman forces.

[Erebus Pasha]

That wasn't the same since the persians did not invade christian lands like the ottomans. The persian alliance was intended to forge a cooperation between anti-ottoman forces.

It's pretty irrelevant Odo in the sense that Persia's geographical location meant they weren't in any position to invade Christian lands, certainly not those of the Great Powers, until the 18th century with the advance of Russia into the Caucasus, and by that time (the era of Nader Shah apart, although he never went to war with the Russians) the Persians were on the defensive.

[Odovacar]

It's pretty irrelevant Odo in the sense that Persia's geographical location meant they weren't in any position to invade Christian lands, certainly not those of the Great Powers, until the 18th century with the advance of Russia into the Caucasus, and by that time (the era of Nader Shah apart, although he never went to war with the Russians) the Persians were on the defensive.

Regardless where they were the fact remains: the french aided ottomans in harming christians, the Habsburgs planned to aid persians to harm ottomans. (Which could be beneficial for christians) That's two different things.
I'm not saying that to protect the Habsburgs. I am also not implying that the Habsburgs were selfless heros. I am saying that, because it's simply a fact.

[Erebus Pasha]

Regardless where they were the fact remains: the french aided ottomans in harming christians, the Habsburgs planned to aid persians to harm ottomans. (Which could be beneficial for christians) That's two different things.
I'm not saying that to protect the Habsburgs. I am also not implying that the Habsburgs were selfless heros. I am saying that, because it's simply a fact.

Still I agree with Sher Khan that religion played no part in the formation of the two alliances to which we are referring, rather that they made sense in a military context.

[Lysimachos11]

In 1536,a treaty has been signed between King of France Francis 1 and Ottoman Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent.This treaty was good for both sides.
I wonder what kind of reaction it had from rest of Europe?I would like to see if you have any historical documents or letters.I onder if that can be mentioned in that series The Tudors too?Because it is unusual.And it was just in the time of Lutherians and religious unrest in Holy Roman Empire.

It might seem strange a Christian power allied with an infidel power against other Christians, but France has done this on a number of occasions in history. Power politics usually wins from religious solidarity. What might strike you even more is that France allied with the Protestants during the Thirty Years War, ie. with Sweden and the Northern German states against the Catholic League of the Holy Roman Empire. Power politics simply made it more beneficial to weaken Catholic Austria than help the Catholic Church in their quest to restore unity of the faith.

Similar instances can be found in the Iberian Peninsula during the Middle Ages. Many Christian kingdoms allied with Muslim emirates (the Taifa's) if it better suited them to fight other Christian kingdoms. The same goes for these Muslim kingdoms against each other.

[DeMolay]

François Ier was at war against most of europe's through its rivalry with the Habsburgs (Spain , HRE mainly but also Henry VIII of England , parts of Italy etc ) , he was happy at the time to find support with the Ottoman empire to contest the Spanish navy in the mediterranean sea . the geographical situation of France and political context justified the alliance ,

The alliance lasted quite some time , more than 2 centuries , there were good relations between them despite the difference in religion , it was useful for both parties . Sher Khan is right , Charles V indeed also cooperated with the Persians .

It might seem strange a Christian power allied with an infidel power against other Christians, but France has done this on a number of occasions in history

Really , you have some examples ?

regardless , we stopped the Muslims at Poitiers , we inititiated , founded the orders and undertook the crusades in huge majority , we sent thousands of men to support the reconquista , France was called "the eldest daughter of the church" for centuries , at the time of wars of religion between west and east , kingdom of France was always the most zealous and at the forefront of christianity .

The alliance with the Ottomans was in a totally different era and political context , also France siding with Protestants is the thirty years war of the 17th century , France sided with Sweden among other powers because it was in the context of the Habsburg-Bourbon struggle and was merely the continuation of the previous wars from the French point of view , the king of france probably couldn't care less about protestant/catholic struggles in central europe (probably like Sweden by the way , who wanted Pomerania ) .

The alliance (well in fact it was a non written agreement based on a long friendship and common interests ) was not to destroy the Christians or anything , but merely to weaken the Habsburgs (mainly the Spanish navy btw which was a problem at the time ) who were reigning over a big part of Europe ( to get them busy , take some weight off french war effort ). . France at the time of François Ier (16th century) was surrounded by major powers and was himself willing to expand his influence to export the war outside his kingdom , it was no joke to be french king (surrounded ) , you had to use your wit or get crushed

[Koelkastmagneet]

This isn't really as strange as some people point it out to be, Muslims and Christians weren't always mortal enemies and there wasn't any titanic struggle for Europe's survival.

The French had previously allied with the Mongols and were to ally with the protestants as well.

[cenkiss]

You are right.It served very well for both parties at the beginning.But later France exploited the treaty.

[CiviC]

A notable exception to Franco-Ottoman Alliance is the Battle of St. Gotthard (1664) where the 6000 French on the side of Imperials were the best equiped and trained troops to fight the Ottomans. This battle shows the French were not disposed to see Ottomans in Vienna but their goal was play Habsburgs against Ottomans.

[hindov]

France was not the first Christian power which tried to settle an alliance with the Ottomans. Venice also was in search of sultan's support during the war against the League of Cambrai. The problem of the Franco-Ottoman alliance is its efectiveness. As far as I know an Ottoman fleet lead by Barbarossa support the French army during the siege of Nice (1543); than another Ottoman fleet support an expeditionary French corp in Italy during the reign of Henri II.

[cenkiss]

France was not the first Christian power which tried to settle an alliance with the Ottomans. Venice also was in search of sultan's support during the war against the League of Cambrai. The problem of the Franco-Ottoman alliance is its efectiveness. As far as I know an Ottoman fleet lead by Barbarossa support the French army during the siege of Nice (1543); than another Ottoman fleet support an expeditionary French corp in Italy during the reign of Henri II.

Combined Turkish-French forces also captured corsica and raided spanish coasts.

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

And Italian coast too! Also both nations had plan of full Invasion of Italy, Suleiman would start from Sicily and/or Napoli. And France from North (Savoy). France would attack with 50,000 but Ottomans with 300,000 led by Suleiman him self! Ottomans captured Apulia, but France abandoned plan and attacked Spanish Netherlands instead! Then Ottomans went to capture Corfu, but failed to do so. After that Spain re-conquered Apulia. Every one also should also know about Battle of Preveza in 1538. One of the greatest Ottoman naval victories! Christians had arround 300 ships, but Ottomans only around 120! After battle Ottomans gained control of all Mediterranean! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_preveza

[cenkiss]

And Italian coast too! Also both nations had plan of full Invasion of Italy, Suleiman would start from Sicily and/or Napoli. And France from North (Savoy). France would attack with 50,000 but Ottomans with 300,000 led by Suleiman him self! Ottomans captured Apulia, but France abandoned plan and attacked Spanish Netherlands instead! Then Ottomans went to capture Corfu, but failed to do so. After that Spain re-conquered Apulia. Every one also should also know about Battle of Preveza in 1538. One of the greatest Ottoman naval victories! Christians had arround 300 ships, but Ottomans only around 120! After battle Ottomans gained control of all Mediterranean! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_preveza

I wish they could have shown same success in its later naval battles.

[Manco]

Politics trump religion, so it's not that special.

[Sher Khan]

It was the same. Religion was no factor in the French king's search for a potential ally to hit the Holy Roman Empire in the east - this happened to be the Ottomans, who could also provide diversions in the Mediterranean against Spanish forces. A perfect ally.

The Hapsburgs overtures to Persia were in the same mold, to search for an ally that could divert their neighboring enemy's attention to a faraway front.

[Odovacar]

It was the same. Religion was no factor in the French king's search for a potential ally to hit the Holy Roman Empire in the east - this happened to be the Ottomans, who could also provide diversions in the Mediterranean against Spanish forces. A perfect ally.

The Hapsburgs overtures to Persia were in the same mold, to search for an ally that could divert their neighboring enemy's attention to a faraway front.

The Habsburgs sought an islam power to harm another islam power, the french sought an islam power to harm christian powers. That's not the same at all.

Besides christians allying with muslims was a commonplace in the crusader age already.

[Sher Khan]

The bit about allying with an Islamic power to harm Christians is good for a monk's print block to chastise France/support Austria, but this is just a reflection of grassroots European opinion and the Hapsburg propaganda machine hard at work to exploit it in a time of war.

But this is a matter of one supreme king facing his rival supreme kings and using another supreme king further away to do it. The bit about fellow Christians using fellow Muslims to harm fellow Christians is waxing poetic, especially when the people we talk about were killing fellow everyone left and right. Is it somewhat better for the Christian peasant to die in the midst of a war between 'fellow' Christian kings, who when not scorching the earth and sea in their titanic clash are busy undermining the Holy See for their own empowerment? Is the brother of the Christian peasant who dies in the midst of another titanic clash to the East dying a 'worse' death because the battle fought involves Muslims (and not just Muslim, but a combined Muslim-Christian force under the Ottoman Sultan's banner)?

Or does the third Christian brother in Anatolia and Iraq die a 'better' death because he was unlucky enough to be stuck in between two Islamic powers?

All just pedantic if you ask me. :S

[Odovacar]

The bit about allying with an Islamic power to harm Christians is good for a monk's print block to chastise France/support Austria, but this is just a reflection of grassroots European opinion and the Hapsburg propaganda machine hard at work to exploit it in a time of war.

You may consider it "poetic" or "propaganda" but back in 16th century people were not joking with this. Bocskai for example did not accept the crown from ottomans, who fully supported him. I guess he would have accepted it let's say from the polish king..
The Habsburgs were more consistent with their propaganda and machiavellism than the french, at least.

For myself I was merely pointing out that you compare apples and pears, from mere logical point of view.
Regardless of the original intent, deeds have consequences-

All just pedantic if you ask me. :S

I am pedantic Sher Khan, I am You might add biased, too.