I'm not sure what your point is, because the Ottomans didn't have this problem. They were able to raise large numbers of native troops with little administrative difficulty. There's an advantage to having a meritocracy and no nobility or other established classes.
Also, it hasn't been...
I have no idea what any of you are talking about, but you don't seem to have any idea about the way the Ottoman army worked. What time period are you talking about? Are you honestly saying the Ottoman army under Suleyman was of lower efficiency that Western armies? That's just madness.
I have no idea what you're talking about. The Ottomans were not fighting in the style of 1300 during Suleyman's reign. The Ottoman command system was totally superior to the West's at this time, and the Ottomans were the most heavily gunpowder-armed army in Europe. They had an artillery arm...
It's hard to tell. There is incredible genetic similarity between Greeks, Armenians, and Turks. A lot of "Armenians" are Christian Turks, and vice versa. Anatolia was never "Greek", it was Hellenized in the West, and to a much lesser degree in the interior, where there was a multitude of...
Nestorian Christians? Wha? How do Nestorians keep popping up uninvited to every scenario? The official story is that Osman's father Ertugrul came across a battle between the Seljuks and the Mongols, and chivalrously chose to join the losing side.
Later, Osman was spending the night in a...
The core of most European armies were "professional", but they were mostly militias or mercenaries, neither of which are as effective as a paid standing army of career soldiers which were largely trained from boyhood.
Mercenary armies were characterized by fighting by maneuver and avoiding...
If for some reason the Oguz or at least Osman's branch travelled north of the Caspian rather than South, there's a decent chance they could have been Christianized. While that would change everything to the point of being unrecognizable, leaving as much as possible the same, the Ottomans would...
Relief of a siege is not a field battle. The besiegers are in a poor position, especially in the case of a large city with a sizable garrison like Vienna.
In any case, you're moved on to a period where the Ottoman system was in relative decline, not the 15-16th c. By 1683 there's not much...
There would never be a pan-European alliance against the Ottomans. Especially not in the middle of the Reformation. It's just too easy to divide the enemy. Also, much of Europe probably thought the Emperor was a much more serious problem than the Ottomans.
Nobody has ever said Ottoman troops were unmatched in all respects. In the 16th c, they were the best army in the field, and nobody really attempted to engage them. Holding out in a gigantic fortress and withstanding a siege is a totally different matter. Here, it's not so much army strength...
The mountains between Iraq and Iran are worse, and Iraq is a horrible base from which to attack Iran. Northern Iran is not worse than Anatolia, but it's obviously further. Remember that the core of the Ottoman Empire was not Anatolia, it was the Balkans. Persian Azerbaijan is richer than...
It would be possible to militarily conquer Persia, but I just don't think it would be possible to hold it given the geography. There are ties between eastern Anatolia and Azeri regions that could possibly be the basis for lasting Ottoman domination, if you could de-Shiite the area and link it...
That isn't true. The Janissaries evolved their tactics over time. What eventually happened is that they ceased to be an elite military force in the 16th c and became a social class with special privileges. They were no longer specially recruited, but rather positions became heritable or even...