Imperial Spain vs Ottoman Empire

[Tairusiano]

View attachment 12119




How did such a strong union allow itself to lose so badly at Djerba?

Hello, Tsar I will not enter into the debate Spanish vs Ottomans, but Djerba happened 20 years before the Iberian Union, in 1560 the year of the battle, Portugal was ruled by the regent Catherine of Austria, king Sebastian the one that died in Alcácer Quibir and sparked the succession crisis, and later the Iberian Union was only a child he would became king with 14 years in 1568, until 1580 Portugal was not united to Spain.

 

[Tsar]

Hello, Tsar I will not enter into the debate Spanish vs Ottomans, but Djerba happened 20 years before the Iberian Union, in 1560 the year of the battle, Portugal was ruled by the regent Catherine of Austria, king Sebastian the one that died in Alcácer Quibir and sparked the succession crisis, and later the Iberian Union was only a child he would became king with 14 years in 1568, until 1580 Portugal was not united to Spain.

Hi Tairusiano. I have explained myself in post #99. Regards.

 

[Tairusiano]

I didn't saw there, sorry.

 

[hborrgg]

There's also illustrations like this of the 1593 battle of Sisak which show christian cavalry armed with carbines routing large numbers of Ottoman lancers.

The Ottomans had been fighting against western-style pike infantry supported by shot since as least as far back as Mohacs in 1526. And as far as I can tell during the 16th century there seems to have been mixed successes for either side. In some cases imperial pike and shot infantry seems to have performed fairly well against ottoman or north african cavalry such as during Charles V's 1535 Tunis expedition, in other cases they seem to have performed very poorly such as during Charles V's 1541 Algiers expedition.

Over time you generally do see the Ottomans fielding larger numbers of infantry armed with muskets, especially after the Long War as I mentioned earlier in this thread, but they don't seem to have been at all interested in fielding large numbers of pikemen or copying the european brand of pike and shot. Similarly even when defeats occurred the Hapsburgs and other european powers don't seem to have ever been persuaded to stop trying to use pikemen against the ottomans and European military writers generally continued to interpret the Turks' lack of quality pikemen as a weakness.

(Not to imply that I agree with its assumptions, but anyone's interested in a curious bit of speculative fiction one Francois de la Noue's 1587 discourses was dedicated to planning a theoretical war in which all the christian kings in europe suddenly decided to put aside all their differences and assemble a massive force made out of all the best troops available at the time including French gendarmes, Polish and Hungarian lancers, German reiters, Swiss and landsknecht infantry, and English, Spanish, and Italian fleets, all in order to retake constantinople from the Ottomans: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A05074.0001.001/1:5.22?rgn=div2;view=fulltext)

I really don't think there's enough evidence to say that either side's "art of war" really was superior over the others. Similarly, to say that one side had a truely significant technological advantage over the other throughout this period really just sort of displays a misunderstanding about how technological transfer works in the first place. (It's kind of silly to criticize the Ottomans for a lack of ocean-going ships if they didn't actually have a pressing need for many ocean-going ships)

The currently most-agreed upon interpretation of the apparent gradual military "stagnation" of the ottoman empire during this period is that it was primarily a quantitative one more than anything else as gradually improving financial and bureaucratic instantiations in europe throughout ~1500-1700 slowly caught up with those of the ottoman empire until the Habsburgs and other western rulers were finally able to field the same kind of massive armies that the sultan could.

 

[Maoistic]

@Maoistic

Please read more carefully what I write.






The only example I gave you was Buda 1541, it was a Western vs Ottoman battle. I also wrote that I don't know a lot about Western-Turkish battles and I know much only about Polish-Turkish battles.



They were, they met this and similar formations in many battles and won easily. Especially easily in battles against non-Russian commanders. I write a lot bout it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FTKXmG306ogTJ97Xng2lz-mmcK2hQ4RjBJ0Nvz-J7Z4/edit?usp=sharing



Tell me if you need more details.




Habsburg cavalry was laughable the more west you went. Those on the Ottoman border were quite good, but go to the west and you will find this what I discribed in one of previous posts in this thread, its also an answer to your other claims:








As for your other claims:




I didn't say anything like that.



But they just didn't. Did you even try to read about those wars? Europeans struggled a lot. As late as early 18th century Austria looses against Turkey (Russians did better).


Edit:


In my previous post, I confused Wimpfen 1622 with Stadtlohn 1623. I have already corrected it.

How many times will I have to repeat it? The Battle of Buda occurred under Charles V. Go read from page 3 onwards what I've said about Charles V. I thought you were referring to the Battle of Khutyn based on the image you gave me, where the Poles managed to fend off an Ottoman siege.

You base your assumptions on how fighting Austria is the same as fighting Spain. No, it doesn't work like that. Spanish troops simply did not fight for Austria most of the time and both fought with different tactics. Austria using inferior troops to those of Spain was still able to completely check the Ottoman advance after the Battle of Mohacs. Austria was part of the Spanish Empire and deviated Spanish resources to fight the Ottomans, but that is not the same as Tercios fighting for Austrians which wasn't the case.

Nor is Austria Western European, it is Central European, meaning you can't use wars between Austria and Poland and the Ottoman Empire as examples of equality with Western Europeans.

The example of Wimpfen is still not a good one because not only did the Spanish still win that battle anyway, you're using terms like "inept" which are incredibly subjective and don't say anything about the actual quality of the troops on both sides, both infantry and cavalry. This is also a single battle out of countless ones. The Tercios fought all over Western Europe, from the Iberian peninsula, to France to Italy to the Low Countries and Germany. This multiplicity of terrain and opponents proves they're not going to get stopped by simple tactics as the one you propose with the Ottoman cavalry, which proved numerous times to not be superior to Polish and Austrian cavalry.

Finally, your examples of Polish wars against Western Europeans just makes them look poor. You admit that Sweden humiliated Poland in the 16th century, that they lost against Teutonic knights in the same century, and your example of the Thirty Years War is pretty poor since sending cavalry mercenaries fighting alongside heavy infantry and artillery of Western European armies is no proof of anything.

Fact is, put an Ottoman army to fight against a Spanish Tercio of the time of the Iberian Union and beyond, and it gets annihilated, especially if they're supported by powerful cavalry from their international empire.

 

[Maoistic]

It literally does say that they've been paying it. Perhaps a slight improvement of English is in order?

Anyways,

View attachment 12120

No, only says they were forced without saying they actually had been paying it, and the chart only assumes that they had been paying it yearly when they only did it at times.

My bad, meant alliance (seeing the lack of a capital letter and attribute of union). Anyways, there were no major naval engagements after the formation of the Iberian Union. Therefore, seeing that the Spanish navies lost 2 out of 3 major naval engagements of the 16th centuries (despite having all those impressive colonies) and that the Spanish Empire had smaller resources, one needs not ponder why you stick with theory.

I'll have to put another attachment to another post.

The Spanish Empire, the first intercontinental global empire in history and the biggest of the 16th and early 17th century, didn't have "smaller resources", especially not after the Iberian Union, and saying this with a straight face is ridiculous. And in one of those three engagements, the Ottoman fleet was annihilated in direct combat. Not in a storm nor because of lack of coordination.

Fact is, if the Iberian Union sends its Treasure Fleet and their Armada against the Ottoman navy, it's going to repeat Lepanto again and going to take every major Ottoman port, cutting off Ottoman supplies and thus a major source of resources to support its troops.

I stick with this theory because the Ottomans by the time of the Iberian Union were indeed outgunned, outnumbered and outsized, with inferior technology and logistical capacity, while before that they were already yielding to Spanish and Portuguese prowess.

 

[raziel678]

@Maoistic

How many times will I have to repeat it? The Battle of Buda occurred under Charles V.

And you said that the Ottomans didn't fight against pike-shot formations of Charles V. Besides, Buda is just one example, Turks fought such formations all the time.

You base your assumptions on how fighting Austria is the same as fighting Spain. No, it doesn't work like that. Spanish troops simply did not fight for Austria most of the time and both fought with different tactics. Austria using inferior troops to those of Spain was still able to completely check the Ottoman advance after the Battle of Mohacs. Austria was part of the Spanish Empire and deviated Spanish resources to fight the Ottomans, but that is not the same as Tercios fighting for Austrians which wasn't the case.

But the infantry of the German Empire had literally the same formations as Spanish and the name is the same: tercios. And Spanish soldiers took part in many battles against the Ottomans, for example Keresztes. And they were normal soldiers in the Thirty-Years War, not better than non-Spanish infantry, just similar.

Nor is Austria Western European, it is Central European, meaning you can't use wars between Austria and Poland and the Ottoman Empire as examples of equality with Western Europeans.

And Sweden is also not Western European, I know. But I'm talking about art of war here. Division into Eastern and Western European armies was a specific phenomenon in 16th and 17th century Europe. This is not a reference to geography or other historical periods. This period is not your specialty and you can trust me that I know what I'm talking about.

The example of Wimpfen is still not a good one because not only did the Spanish still win that battle anyway,

They won it despite making all possible mistakes. Because the enemy was as stupid as them. Wimpfen is an example of how bad were Western European armies in general, not only Spanish.

ou're using terms like "inept" which are incredibly subjective

Because transalting everything from Polish to English takes too much time and effort. But just look at this crazy way in which you discuss. You are completely blind on the arguments of the other side. Do you even allow the possibility of agreeing with the other side? If yes, then I will give you all you need to be convinced that the Spanish army was very weak in comparison to Polish one. Just tell me where do you need more details.

This is also a single battle out of countless ones.

And others were just as bad if we look at the quality of all Western European armies at that time.

simple tactics as the one you propose with the Ottoman cavalry

Which one?

which proved numerous times to not be superior to Polish and Austrian cavalry.

It was superior to Austrian cavalry, but Austrians were lerning from the Ottomans and getting better. And they had Hungarian and Balkan cavalry to help them, and they were probably better than the Austrian cavalry. Spanish didn't improve that much and even in early 17th century they were losing against other Western Europeans, like Swedes and Dutch, who combined their efforts against Poland but it didn't end well for them.

You admit that Sweden humiliated Poland in the 16th century

Eh, you didn't really read it. Zygmunt III humiliated himself without much help from the enemy. That's the only way for Poles to loose: fight against each other instead of fighting against the enemy. That case also happend in Zygmunt III army. But in general:
1. While Zygmunt's army was indeed Eastern European, there were almost no Poles there.
2. He himself was more Swedish than Polish, and especially at that point in time probably didn't really know Polsih art of war.
3. Swedish army at that time was before its westernisation and managed to "humiliate" the Polish army more then after the Swedish westernisation. So we can say that it proves that Western European armies were worse.
4. The whole thing was a kind of a joke. I was just making fun of the way in which western military superiority apologists prove its superiority. And now you fell into this obvious trap.

they lost against Teutonic knights

Lol, they didn't.

and your example of the Thirty Years War is pretty poor

I just had to describe all conflicts, that is also this one. It is better to pay attention to 1577, 1588, and to the wars against Sweden. Russia too had a large share of western art of war in its army.


Besides, those mercenaries were often winning without the help of other units. And their enemies came from all over Europe. German, English, French and others. And the same variety was in Swedish and Russian armies.

Fact is, put an Ottoman army to fight against a Spanish Tercio of the time of the Iberian Union and beyond, and it gets annihilated

But actual historical events completely disagree with you.

 

[Tokugawa Ieyasu]

I stick with this theory because the Ottomans by the time of the Iberian Union were indeed outgunned, outnumbered and outsized,

Outnumbered ? That’s funny. Don’t you know that number was one of the greatest advantage of the Ottoman Empire in the 16-17th century warfare.

Do you know how many troops were mobilized for both sieges of Vienna ? Do you realize how was the Habsburg always heavily outnumbered in the war prior to 1683 ？

The Ottomans could always mustered the great number of troops through the timar and kepikulu structure. Ten thousands of Balkan Christians were forcefully grouped into the Janissaries for augmentation of armies.

In the AD 1683 Siege of Vienna, the Ottomans even enlisted the aid of 30,000 Crimean Tatars. (though they deserted at the midst of siege, enabling the Polish winged hussars to trample upon the Turkish camp by marching across the river unopposed)

 

[raziel678]

@hborrgg

There's also illustrations like this of the 1593 battle of Sisak which show christian cavalry armed with carbines routing large numbers of Ottoman lancers.

Yes, I always say that the Ottoman commanders were mostly bad. In this battle they divided their forces in such a way, that it seems the enemy had local superiority in numbers. And the Ottoman cavalry was probably too close to a river. I also don't know how often the Ottoman soldiers and horses were immune to the psychological effect of firearms. It was certainly the case for example in Parkany 1683, were they charged at Poles despite carabine(I think) fire.

Over time you generally do see the Ottomans fielding larger numbers of infantry armed with muskets, especially after the Long War as I mentioned earlier in this thread, but they don't seem to have been at all interested in fielding large numbers of pikemen or copying the european brand of pike and shot.

At the Sultan's court (or somewhere, I do not know enough about Turkey) there were aggressively combating factions. There was a faction praising everything that was Habsburg and demeaning the order prevailing in Turkey, especially Janissaries.

Similarly even when defeats occurred the Hapsburgs and other european powers don't seem to have ever been persuaded to stop trying to use pikemen against the ottomans and European military writers generally continued to interpret the Turks' lack of quality pikemen as a weakness.

However, in the fight against the Ottomans, the Austrians relied on field and permanent fortifications, where long pikes were less useful. They did differently in the fight against other opponents, where they fought more willingly with the infantry in the open field. Also, the Imperial cavalry in the fight against the Ottomans receives a lot of care from the commanders, while the great Turkish cavalry seem to fall into stagnation and the Turks want to win wars with sieges only, without caring about cavalry anymore.


I should also add, that I don't expect Ottoman cavalry to defeat pikemen as easily as Poles did it, this is why I'm especially curious about such events.

speculative fiction one Francois de la Noue's 1587

It was a popular topic at the time. Poles wanted Russians to go on this war. The Russians had great artillery.

I really don't think there's enough evidence to say that either side's "art of war" really was superior over the others.

Well, the Habsburgs ultimately went the eastern way. They started to depend more on trenches, light artillery and cavalry, their infantry focused on firepower. At the same time, the Ottomans didn't improve that much. But later, during 18th century, the whole Europe forgot how to fight. Infantry, making primitive maneuvers, was dying under fire in open field, cavalry was completely clumsy and neglected, equipement and horses were cheap instead of good, and even artillery was less numerous. But at least they forgot about sieges, that one was good. 17th century Western Europe had a fixation on sieges, though the Ottomans also always had that illness, which led them to neglect field battles, although certainly some parts of the Ottoman empire, like Tatars, didn't focus on sieges.

 

[turing]

The currently most-agreed upon interpretation of the apparent gradual military "stagnation" of the ottoman empire during this period is that it was primarily a quantitative one more than anything else as gradually improving financial and bureaucratic instantiations in europe throughout ~1500-1700 slowly caught up with those of the ottoman empire until the Habsburgs and other western rulers were finally able to field the same kind of massive armies that the sultan could.

This is interesting and not my first time hearing it. I've seen Halil Inalcik, one of the most prominent Ottoman Historians, said in a TV show something along the lines of "Turks thought (implying forced) how to recruit villagers, train them and make massive armies to Europeans."

 

[Tsar]

No, only says they were forced without saying they actually had been paying it, and the chart only assumes that they had been paying it yearly when they only did it at times.

The Spanish Empire, the first intercontinental global empire in history and the biggest of the 16th and early 17th century, didn't have "smaller resources", especially not after the Iberian Union, and saying this with a straight face is ridiculous.

Refer to my earlier post about European budgets.

And in one of those three engagements, the Ottoman fleet was annihilated in direct combat. Not in a storm nor because of lack of coordination.

The Spanish was destroyed in other two combats. In fact it took them almost 3 full years to recover from Djerba, while it took only 6 months for Ottomans to recover from Lepanto.

Fact is, if the Iberian Union sends its Treasure Fleet and their Armada against the Ottoman navy, it's going to repeat Lepanto again and going to take every major Ottoman port, cutting off Ottoman supplies and thus a major source of resources to support its troops.

So why didn't the Union do it? I mean, Armada failed against England alone.

I stick with this theory because the Ottomans by the time of the Iberian Union were indeed outgunned, outnumbered and outsized, with inferior technology and logistical capacity, while before that they were already yielding to Spanish and Portuguese prowess.

Another pure speculation.

 

[Tokugawa Ieyasu]

The Spanish was destroyed in other two combats. In fact it took them almost 3 full years to recover from Djerba, while it took only 6 months for Ottomans to recover from Lepanto.

Good point, it sufficiently proved that the Ottoman Empire had far greater resource and manpower than the Spaniards in recovering the strength it lost.

So why didn't the Union do it? I mean, Armada failed against England alone.

Because Maoistic thinks that real-life war is just like playing computer video games. The enemy empire could be easily crippled by just concentrating the army and navy into the enemy territories, regardless of logistical requirement, supply line, morale, fatigue, terrain, the enemy’s possible counter-stratagem, capability of mobilization, financial resource.

 

[Tokugawa Ieyasu]

Even in the 18th century, the Ottoman Empire was able to score crushing victory over the Habsburg Austria in the 1735-39 Ottoman-Austrian War, besieged and recaptured Belgrade after defeating the numerically much smaller Austrian army on field in the Battle of Grocka (100,000 vs 40,000).

The military potential of the Ottoman Empire was clearly shown even in the age of its declination. That proved someone's viewpoint about the Habsburg Spain had "utter superiority" over the Ottoman Empire in the late 16th century and 17th century was absolutely ridiculous.

 

[raziel678]

Even in the 18th century, the Ottoman Empire was able to score crushing victory over the Habsburg Austria in the 1735-39 Ottoman-Austrian War, besieged and recaptured Belgrade after defeating the numerically much smaller Austrian army on field in the Battle of Grocka (100,000 vs 40,000).

The military potential of the Ottoman Empire was clearly shown even in the age of its declination. That proved someone's viewpoint about the Habsburg Spain had "utter superiority" over the Ottoman Empire in the late 16th century and 17th century was absolutely ridiculous.

You know, I know it, everybody knows it. But Maoistic didn't read about those wars and speaks from his imagination. In his opinion, Austrian army was not Western European and this is why it was loosing to the Ottomans. In actuality, Austrian soldiers and commanders were better suited to fight the Turks.


Edit:
By the way, you forgot to mention that Spanish army would be completely alien to Ottoman people, while Austrians cooperated with local forces and that was the main factor which allowed them to stop the Ottomans. Spaniards would have problems to conquer Balkans even if they were completely undefended by Turks.

 

[turing]

Edit:
By the way, you forgot to mention that Spanish army would be completely alien to Ottoman people, while Austrians cooperated with local forces and that was the main factor which allowed them to stop the Ottomans. Spaniards would have problems to conquer Balkans even if they were completely undefended by Turks.

Conquering Balkans? This poster claimed Spaniards would conquer Constantinople within 5 years. This should alone let you know how his opinions are out of touch with history.

 

[raziel678]

I wonder what does Maoistic even mean by "conquering Constantinople". That city had like 1,000,000 ctizens. Does he think that Spanish would just rule over that city by simply pointing their guns at that milion people? How many soldiers they would need to constantly maintain there? 100 000 ? The whole power of their empire would be occupied by maintaining that conquered territory.

 

[Yeke Khagan]

What "German expedition"? Seriously, what the hell are you meaning with that

The name given by the Ottomans to 1532-1533 campaing.
LOL,be relax.

And second, that there were Protestants in Charles's army or that they could agree with fight for Charles doesn't change the fact that Charles V was still fighting against powerful Protestant rebels and that

İn 1532-1533 Charles V didn't fight against ''powerful Protestant rebels''
Almost all protestant soldiers and their princes joined Charles V's army.

he didn't really care about the Ottoman Empire but was far more interested in expanding into the Americas and consolidating his hold there, something that was also part of my argument yet you conveniently ignored

I ignored because your argument not make any sense.

According to your claims Charles V did not fight against Suleiman because of
protestants,which agreed to fight against the Ottoman Empire and İndian rebels which fighting with a stick,more than 10.000 miles away from Charles V's army.
You created an irrelevance chain.

Also, during the Augsburg Confession, Charles was also fighting France over Italy.

Charles V made a peace treaty with France in August 3,1529(Treaty of Cambrai)

"Austuria" is not a real place, and if you mean Austria, they completely disregarded the treaty and never followed it, continually mustering armies to face the Ottomans and checking their advance completely after the battle of Mohacs.

Ferdinand and his successors regular tribute to Ottomans in peace times and the agreement constantly renewed after wars(until 1606).

Again, this is during Charles V's reign, which I said only edges out the Ottomans by little. And no, they didn't "wiped Spanish out in North Africa", as they didn't expel them from Ceuta, Melilla and Oran

Well,then Ottoman pirates forget several little islans in South of spain,what a great military failure.


It also took them decades to expel them from Tunis and Djerba, at a time of the Protestant upheaval and alliance with the Ottomans.

Speaking of alliance with the Ottomans, this is what the Wikipedia article says:
"In the Siege of Nice in 1543, a combined Franco-Ottoman force captured the city."

Main power was Ottoman navy
France was like suppot-force.

The Ottomans weren't technologically superior to the Spanish by the reign of Charles V. This is an outright falsehood and a laughable one at that. They lacked ocean-going ships and galleons. They in fact continued to rely mostly on oared ships rather than sail ships ("It would not be an exaggeration to say that the galley type of oared ships, which had been the backbone of the Ottoman navies throughout the sixteenth and in the first three quarters of the seventeenth centuries, only came to be replaced by large sailing ships in the last quarter of the seventeenth century.", in Tuncay Zorlu's "Modernisation of the Ottoman Navy", p. 2). This is the reason why their naval performance was so poor outside the closed sea of the Mediterranean

The Ottomans dont have business with the oceans,their focus points were mediterranean.
For their tactics, faster ships were more important than heavy and cumbersome ships.
So,they didn't need Ocean-ships and galleons in 16 century

And when did the Ottomans destroy Charles V's navy? When

LOL,''what the hell are you meaning with that''

No, in the world. The Ottomans didn't even face Charles V's weaker arquebus pike-shot formation, and we're talking here about a musket pike-shot formation superior to that of Charles's.

What do you talking about ?
Ottomans destroyed Charles V's army in Buda,Algiers and in many parts of the Mediterranean.

Do you really like to lie this much? The 1541 Spanish expedition to Algiers failed primarily because of storms, not because of any Ottoman effort. By contrast, the Ottomans couldn't even take Oran until the War of the Spanish Succession, lost it again around the 1730s to the Spanish and couldn't retake it, the Spanish wilfully ceded it back after an earthquake in the year 1790.

From Gazavat-ı Hayreddin(first raid):
...Ghazis did not release their swords until dawn. More than twenty thousand of the infidel passed the sword. Four-five hundred were taken prisoners and they put them in front of themselves like sheep-herd.

Second raid:
With the will of Allah and the Prophet's miracles, they stick out a sword to infidels.Ya medet Allah.
So rain water and the infamous blood mixed with the flood-stricken, dirty corpses.
The survivors didn't stand against ghazis sword and start to flee...The river called the harrah was cut their front. It was a raging flood because of the rains.The front of the infidels threw themselves to river..probably,ten thousand of them went to hell.the rest of them couldn't dare threw themselves to river,said ''Mayna Senior'' and they surrendered to Ghazis
They tied the infidels to each other and brought them to Algiers. All of them was twenty-five thousand infidel

How easy isn't it say ''Do you really like to lie this much'',especially on issues you don't know .

No, the Spanish Empire's army is more numerous. Again with thinking that the Spanish Empire is just Spain when it includes Portugal, most of Italy, the HRE and most of Mesoamerica and South America alongside the Philippines, Malacca and other outposts colonised by the Portuguese in Asia

Ottoman empire's estimated population was 20-30 million.
How much is the population of the Spanish empire(if we talk about the military population, you should ignore the native americans)
Hre not under Spanis Empire during Philip II reign also.

And you really speak out of your mouth when you say the Ottoman forces are the most varied, powerful and disciplined in the world. Heck no, they're not.

Ottoman Military Units
infantry
Janissary
Sekban(After,mixed with janissaries)
Musellem

Cavalry
Silahdar
Sag and Sol Ulufeci(Guard of Sultan)
Sag and Sol Garip(Guard of Sultan)
Sipahi(Guard of Sultan)
Akınji
Deli
Timarli Sipahi

Artillery
Topcu
Cebeci
Top Arabacılar Ocagi

From Essays of Montaigne:

I could wish that our youth,instead of the time they spend in less fruitful travels and less honourable employments,would bestow one half of that time in being an eye-witness of naval exploits,under some good captain of Rhodes and other half in observing the discipline of the Turkish armies;for they have many differences and advantages over ours,one of these is,that our soldier became more licentious in expedetions,theirs more temparate and circumspect,for thefts and insolencies commited upon the common people,which are only punished with a cudgel in peace,are capital in war;for an egg taken by Turkish soldier without paying for it,fifty blows with a stick is the fixe rate;for anything else,of what sort or how trivial soever,not neccessary to nourishment,they are presently impaled or beheaded without mercy.

If they face the very disciplined Spanish Army of Flanders, they would get routed worse than Darius's forces at Gaugamela.

LOL.

Point out to me the Ottoman version of Lepanto, because I'm sure you can't. If the Ottomans fight the Spanish Empire at the time of the Iberian Union at sea, they're getting Lepanto'd again.

I can easily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Preveza
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Djerba

 

[Maoistic]

LOL.



I can easily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Preveza
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Djerba

Not even remotely close. They didn't destroy the majority of the European fleet and kill nearly as many men, whereas this is what happened to the Ottomans in Lepanto, losing 200 - double the number of European ships lost at Preveza and Djerba combined ships and 40,000 men.

The other arguments are just you repeating yourself. I made a new thread so that we can focus more on where I said the Spanish definitively win:
http://historum.com/war-military-history/137927-ottoman-empire-vs-iberian-union.html

 

[Maoistic]

Good point, it sufficiently proved that the Ottoman Empire had far greater resource and manpower than the Spaniards in recovering the strength it lost.

God no, at best the Ottomans had equal resources to the Spanish Empire before the Iberian Union, and it's obvious that Spain, controlling vast colonies on a continent separated by an entire ocean, did not have less resources and manpower than the Ottomans.

The Spanish also weren't the ones who had to rebuild their fleet since they weren't the only fighting force. It was an alliance that seems to have been mainly composed of Venetian ships. Meaning it was Venice that had to rebuild. The fact that the Spaniards continued to send ships to America, Africa and Asia how false this is.

Because Maoistic thinks that real-life war is just like playing computer video games. The enemy empire could be easily crippled by just concentrating the army and navy into the enemy territories, regardless of logistical requirement, supply line, morale, fatigue, terrain, the enemy’s possible counter-stratagem, capability of mobilization, financial resource.

I answered this in my other thread to keep the debate more organised:
http://historum.com/war-military-history/137927-ottoman-empire-vs-iberian-union.html

 

[Maoistic]

I wonder what does Maoistic even mean by "conquering Constantinople". That city had like 1,000,000 ctizens. Does he think that Spanish would just rule over that city by simply pointing their guns at that milion people? How many soldiers they would need to constantly maintain there? 100 000 ? The whole power of their empire would be occupied by maintaining that conquered territory.

I continued the discussion here:
http://historum.com/war-military-history/137927-ottoman-empire-vs-iberian-union.html