WI:Ottomans successfully annex Vienna in 1529

I think the psychological allure of Rome (since the Ottomans claimed themselves to be the heirs to the Roman Empire ever since Byzantium fell) would probably be too much to resist given a victory at Vienna.

Initial moves after capturing Vienna would probably be to secure northern Hungary (i.e. modern Slovakia) along the line of the Carpathian Mountains by reducing Pressburg (Bratislava), Litra(Nitra), Kassa (Kosice), Munkacs (Mukacheve) and Szatmar (Satu Mare).

Then, with their northern flank secure, for subsequent campaigns Suleiman can probably contemplate moving through Croatia and Slovenia and into the Po Valley, in order to strike at Venice. Then, if Venice is neutralized it's probably just a question of a two-pronged attack from the north and a landing in the south towards Rome.

Evidently the timing of these future campaigns depends on how well the Ottomans or Habsburgs perform in the wake of the Vienna defeat - I think the Habsburgs will suffer tremendous pressure from France given such a calamity. The importance of Persia in wrecking Ottoman plans should also not be ignored (though I think it probably is a bit revisionist to say that for the Ottomans, Persia was really the only theater of importance).
 
Suleiman won't go any further, while in Germany Protestanism just got a massive boost with Habsburg buffer lifted from their way.
 
Wouldn't the rest of christian Europe panic should the turks expand further into Christendom? Both Protestants or Catholics would see the danger of the expansion of Islam. Also should the Ottomans make a play for Italy they'd face French power as well.
 
Protestants did joined Habsburg's side that time. That's why should Ottomans win they'll just settle for Ostermark and no further. Doesn't seem Suleiman desired for pushing beyond anyway, and it will be smarter to repair relations with the Protestants, too.
 
Rome might make for an interesting target but sacking Venice would be a lot more useful to the Turks. So maybe a march on Venice from the northeast...



Wouldn't the rest of christian Europe panic should the turks expand further into Christendom? Both Protestants or Catholics would see the danger of the expansion of Islam. Also should the Ottomans make a play for Italy they'd face French power as well.

Odd thing about sectarian violence; sometimes they see the infidel as a lesser evil than the heretic.
 
I think the Ottomans would've over-extended themselves logistically speaking (I suspect that at this point they were suffering collectively from "Victory Disease") and might actually hasten their decline and collapse as they'd for instance have to put down any revolts in the Balkans (A persistent problem for them) and it's a sure bet that the Persians owuld take advantage of the opportunity to strike the Ottomans eastern-flank; I wonder if the Russians would be in any position to take advantage of an over-extended Ottoman-empire. Also don't forget about Poland-Lithuania too as they see this as an opportunity to strike back at the Ottomans (And maybe gobble up some of the northern parts of the Austro-Hungarian empire).
 
And most of the country which needs to be crossed for any further advance is in the Alps, and eminently defensible.

Is Suleiman is smart, he'll mostly go on the defensive after Vienna, and concentrate on tightening his grip on Hungary by eliminating the remnant still in Habsburg hands. There's little mileage in trying to go further.
 
Suleiman reached the gates of Vienna at the end of September 1529 and raised the siege after the last unsuccessful attack on 12 October. Couple of weeks to take a walled city is not much, and it's worth noting that even starting on 13 October back toward Belgrade did not save the Ottoman army. Suleiman might possibly have taken Vienna and sacked it, but there was not a single hope that he might have been able to hold it.

Vienna - which is 650 km from Belgrade - is simply beyond the limits of Ottoman logistics. When Suleiman tried a return match in 1532 his aim was to bring the Habsburgs to a decisive battle (which the Imperials refused): there was not a new siege but rather a raid-on-steroid that devastated Styria but did not achieve any long-lasting result.

Taking and holding Vienna is already borderline ASB; believing that Vienna can become a basis for further Ottoman expansion, be it toward the German heartland or toward the Po valley, goes so many miles beyond the borderline ASB that it is not even funny.
 
IIRC, Ottomans didn't even take over central Hungary until 1541 OTL, so ITTL they'd need to annex Hungary beforehand, which probably would make them unable to reach Vienna 1529, as they'd be busy establishinh direct control of Pannonian Plain.
 
I think that given logistics taking Vienna is possible - holding is not.

And BTW Vienna is not the direct path to Venice and Rome - controll of todays Slovenia/Croatia would be sufficient...

In addition the HAbsburg center of this day was not "Austria" but Spain, so the loss of Vienna (which was exposed at the border of Habsburgs lands is maybe not the blow it would have been in 1683.
 
IIRC, Ottomans didn't even take over central Hungary until 1541 OTL, so ITTL they'd need to annex Hungary beforehand, which probably would make them unable to reach Vienna 1529, as they'd be busy establishinh direct control of Pannonian Plain.

It would've been easier indeed had Hungarian king not died in Mohacs. Annexation wasn't what the Ottomans originally had planned for Hungary, after all.
 
Defeating a military threat and establishing a defined stable frontier. Perhaps vassalage or a "Finlandization"of Hungary (under a surviving king).

Which is the most reasonable policy for an empire when distances start to become too great: when Suleiman took Egypt, the power of the Mamelukes was only slightly curbed after all. The vassalage policy worked for a long time in Moldova and Wallachia too. North Africa is another case in point, although in this case the rulers of Algeria and Tunisia were much more willing to submit, given the Spanish menace. The most successful example (which might have happened in Hungary too) was represented by the Tatars of Crimea who after the Ottoman invasion of 1475 became an Ottoman vassal.

If Louis had not died at Mohacs he might have ended up as an Ottoman vassal too. OTOH if he had not committed suicide-by-cavalry-charge by attacking a larger Ottoman army on grounds not really suited for heavy cavalry charges, the Hungarian campaign of 1526 might not have ended with a great success.

Coincidentally both the great battles fought in 1525-26 (Pavia and Mohacs) sanctioned the end of armoured knights dominance on the battlefields.
 
Last edited:
I think that given logistics taking Vienna is possible - holding is not.

And BTW Vienna is not the direct path to Venice and Rome - controll of todays Slovenia/Croatia would be sufficient...

In addition the HAbsburg center of this day was not "Austria" but Spain, so the loss of Vienna (which was exposed at the border of Habsburgs lands is maybe not the blow it would have been in 1683.

I'm not sure if the logistics argument is that clear cut - after all, in 1532 Suleiman was leading a larger army, across harsher and further terrain and against an enemy that had resorted to scorched-earth tactics to stop him, and yet he still managed to capture a lot of what is now Kurdistan, Iraq and Western Iran from Persia. Much better weather than OTL and more luck in Ottoman mining operations and it's not unreasonable to expect the Ottomans to be able to capture Vienna in time to fortify it against any inevitable reprisals, as well as open the Danube (which was navigable by the Ottoman fleet) as a permanent logistics corridor of sorts. Buda, after all, was a key Ottoman base during OTL.

Yes on a map Vienna is not a direct path to Venice and Rome, but if we assume the Ottomans march along the paths of the old Roman road and also have to avoid Venice-controlled Dalmatia, they would have to move north from Belgrade, skirting the Hungarian plain before entering Slovenia, which would leave their logistics/communications open to an Austrian force moving down the Danube. So capturing Vienna would secure a major road/riverway facilitating that.

Sure the Habsburgs won't roll over and die if Vienna is annexed. Ottoman plans for taking Rome or Venice might not succeed either, and I would definitely agree that logistics is a serious issue there. Doesn't mean the Ottomans won't try to do it. I would think the psychological allure of 'key objectives' - from Rome to Constantinople to Moscow - has a tendency to overpower any logical assessments of the situation.
 
I'm not sure if the logistics argument is that clear cut - after all, in 1532 Suleiman was leading a larger army, across harsher and further terrain and against an enemy that had resorted to scorched-earth tactics to stop him, and yet he still managed to capture a lot of what is now Kurdistan, Iraq and Western Iran from Persia. Much better weather than OTL and more luck in Ottoman mining operations and it's not unreasonable to expect the Ottomans to be able to capture Vienna in time to fortify it against any inevitable reprisals, as well as open the Danube (which was navigable by the Ottoman fleet) as a permanent logistics corridor of sorts. Buda, after all, was a key Ottoman base during OTL.

Yes on a map Vienna is not a direct path to Venice and Rome, but if we assume the Ottomans march along the paths of the old Roman road and also have to avoid Venice-controlled Dalmatia, they would have to move north from Belgrade, skirting the Hungarian plain before entering Slovenia, which would leave their logistics/communications open to an Austrian force moving down the Danube. So capturing Vienna would secure a major road/riverway facilitating that.

Sure the Habsburgs won't roll over and die if Vienna is annexed. Ottoman plans for taking Rome or Venice might not succeed either, and I would definitely agree that logistics is a serious issue there. Doesn't mean the Ottomans won't try to do it. I would think the psychological allure of 'key objectives' - from Rome to Constantinople to Moscow - has a tendency to overpower any logical assessments of the situation.

Have Suleiman arrive at the gates of Vienna by the end of August (one month earlier than OTL): this is more than generous and more than compensates for the adverse weather conditions. Give him one month to win the siege (and it is again generous). Vienna is sacked at the end of September (and the Ottomans should be already thinking of going back on the long, long treck toward Belgrade. Does Suleiman leaves a token garrison in a broken city? Eating what? and who's going to save them next spring when the Habsburg come in from Linz and Passau while Suleiman has to start again from Belgrade?
Note that the only reasonable route for the Ottomans is along the Danube, which helps the logistics (it's the only thing that is rationale in a mad adventure); however this means that the Ottoman army moves across a country (Hungary) which is less than pacified (Mohacs happened just 3 years before) and there are plenty of castles which have not been taken yet. Not to mention that the army has to pass within reach of Bratislava (and it was a sortie from this fortress city which trounced the retreating Ottomans after the siege of Vienna was abandoned).
It has been argued by a number of historians that Suleiman's intention was not really to conquer Vienna but rather to "pacify" Hungary and to take "coup" against Charles V. It was also the way the story was told in Constantinople: Suleiman did not tolerate another emperor. His behaviour in 1532 (when he did not go for another siege but contented himself with the devastation of Styria) gives credence to this hypothesis.

As far as the Ottoman successes in the East against the Safavids, the situation is hardly comparable: Persian armies were without artillery and their main strength was in horse archers. They were not a match for the modern Ottoman armies, same as the Mamelukes were not a match 15 years before for exactly the same reasons.

As far as the possibility of invading Northern Italy from the Balkans, it does not work very well. No rivers flowing east-west for example, a number of rivers to cross and some mountains to go over. There was the possibility of cavalry raids for sure, and that's why Venice ended up building the fortress of Palmanova, but it would be quite hard to march an army with artillery and other impedimenta from Belgrade to the padan plain.
 
In addition the HAbsburg center of this day was not "Austria" but Spain, so the loss of Vienna (which was exposed at the border of Habsburgs lands is maybe not the blow it would have been in 1683.

As a matter of fact the key countries for Charles V were Burgundy, the Rhein lands and Italy. Spain is not yet the center of power that will become for Philip II.
 
Top