Ottoman Empire vs. Iberian Union

[Maoistic]

As the thread of the Spanish Empire vs the Ottoman Empire keeps running in circles and the same addressed arguments get repeated, I decided to make this thread to avoid further confusion and focus entirely on one goal post.

This is exclusively between the Ottoman Empire and the Spanish Empire during the Iberian Union after 1580 when Portugal and its colonial empire was annexed to Spain. The Ottoman Empire is of course how it was during the time of the Iberian Union (between 1580 and 1640).

Again, this is exclusively between the Iberian Union and the Ottoman Empire. We're assuming no one else fights, only these two.

 

[Millennium 7]

Tercios can beat Jannisairs every day of the week on a level field.
From a global perspective, geography might be the factor, with much of the fighting in North Africa, far from the respective cores and rather inconclusive.

 

[turing]

On sea, I would give Spaniards a slight advantage. On field, Ottomans would win.

 

[Maoistic]

On sea, I would give Spaniards a slight advantage. On field, Ottomans would win.

Sure, slight advantage when the Spaniards utterly destroyed the Ottoman fleet in Lepanto, and they're even stronger during the Iberian Union. If they send the even more powerful Treasure Fleet and Spanish Armada against the Ottomans and the Ottoman navy gets annihilated.

On field they're winning nothing. The Ottomans rarely fought the Spanish and Portuguese Tercios. Add in that the Ottomans will have to divide their land forces after the Spaniards invade Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula from their colonies in the Indian Ocean and it becomes a crushing defeat on land.

That is why it's no speculation that the Spaniards would take Constantinople in five years or less.

 

[Maki]

Lepanto wasn't Spain vs the Ottomans, it was Holy League vs the Ottomans. I believe Venice actually provided more ships to the Christian fleet than the Spanish.

 

[Maoistic]

Lepanto wasn't Spain vs the Ottomans, it was Holy League vs the Ottomans. I believe Venice actually provided more ships to the Christian fleet than the Spanish.

Yes, but Spain could build a fleet of even bigger size and with superior ships on top of that. That it was an alliance is irrelevant, because the relevant point is that Western European ships had attained superiority over Ottoman ones.

 

[Maki]

Yes, but Spain could build a fleet of even bigger size and with superior ships on top of that. That it was an alliance is irrelevant, because the relevant point is that Western European ships had attained superiority over Ottoman ones.

Eh. Superior? Maybe. But the Ottomans were capable of quickly replacing their losses. I mean, they basically managed to rebuild their fleet in a few years after Lepanto.

 

[Maoistic]

Eh. Superior? Maybe. But the Ottomans were capable of quickly replacing their losses. I mean, they basically managed to rebuild their fleet in a few years after Lepanto.

All that means is that they will get their fleet destroyed again, and in this case they're getting their major ports quickly occupied anyway, preventing the relaunching of a new fleet.

 

[turing]

More of the same, and frankly boring speculative arguments.

 

[Maoistic]

More of the same, and frankly boring speculative arguments.

No, it's not, rather you just don't have anything to counter-argue.

 

[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.

So the Ottomans can conquer Constantinople despite having this same problem but not the Spanish? And it's clear the Ottomans didn't require all that many men to rule Constantinople.

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

The Ottomans aren't the English, and the Iberian Union didn't conquer the Ottomans because it was occupied fighting against Western Europeans who had superior firepower and were robbing Spain off its colonial riches. Here, the Iberian Union is not occupied fighting Western Europeans and is only occupied fighting the Ottomans (who also aren't occupied fighting anyone else in this scenario).

Another pure speculation.

You seriously can't be this dense. The fact that the Iberian Union is geographically bigger and has a bigger population is undeniable. That it also has more ships and artillery is also undeniable. The only thing you can dispute is if the Spaniards had superior firepower, but this was proven to be the case since Lepanto.

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.

How many times do I need to say that the Austrians aren't the Spanish? They are a part of Spain but didn't make use of Spanish forces and were largely outdated in comparison to Western Europe. Now, send the Spanish Army of Flanders to the Balkans to aid the powerful Austrian army that had the Ottomans' advance completely checked and even took away Hungary by the late 17th century entirely from them and the Ottomans get decimated.

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.

Except that the Spaniards did have the logistical requirement. How else do you think it could administer an empire so big and continually wage war in all parts of this global empire?

 

[Maki]

So the Ottomans can conquer Constantinople despite having this same problem but not the Spanish? And it's clear the Ottomans didn't require all that many men to rule Constantinople.

When the Ottomans took the city, it had 30,000 inhabitants and was mostly in ruins. Also, the Byzantine Empire was practically a city-state at that point. And even then, the Ottomans only managed to take it after a bloody siege. Taking Constantinople is not easy, it only fell 3 or 4 times to foreigners in its history.

 

[Maoistic]

When the Ottomans took the city, it had 30,000 inhabitants and was mostly in ruins. Also, the Byzantine Empire was practically a city-state at that point. And even then, the Ottomans only managed to take it after a bloody siege. Taking Constantinople is not easy, it only fell 3 or 4 times to foreigners in its history.

That's because of lack of try, not because the city was magically invulnerable. It definitely is not going to be magically invulnerable to an all-out onslaught by a militarily superior opponent.

 

[Maki]

That's because of lack of try, not because the city was magically invulnerable. It definitely is not going to be magically invulnerable to an all-out onslaught by a militarily superior opponent.

Lack of try? Persians, Avars, Slavs, the Umayyads twice (perhaps), the Niceaens multiple times, the Ottomans multiple times. All of them tried to take the city, it was successful only 3 times.

 

[Maoistic]

Portugal was decisively beaten by Morocco in 1578, its king being killed on the battlefield. Spain conducted negotiations for peace with the Ottomans in 1578-1580 period. Why did Spain not attack and end the rival so weak? After all, the Ottomans were busy making wars with Russia (1577), Persia (1578) and Austrian Habsburgs (1593).

Because as you know, the Spaniards took that opportunity to annex Portugal and get its empire, forming the Iberian Union. Why would they care about Morocco when they can get the infinitely more richer Portuguese colonies (which funnily enough consisted of Moroccan territories, including Ceuta, Melilla and Tangiers)?

And Spain was also busy fighting not just Portugal but France, England, Holland and German Protestants.

 

[raziel678]

@Maoistic

How many times do I need to say that the Austrians aren't the Spanish? They are a part of Spain but didn't make use of Spanish forces and were largely outdated in comparison to Western Europe. Now, send the Spanish Army of Flanders to the Balkans to aid the powerful Austrian army that had the Ottomans' advance completely checked and even took away Hungary by the late 17th century entirely from them and the Ottomans get decimated.

Actually, from late 16th century, Spain is the backward one. And Tercio was not anything special. They only benfited from fighting on foreign ground. But Austrians and others were doing the same.

"Spanish tercios raised and drilled for service in Spain were usually of poor quality; so were Italian tercios stationed in Italy, while the Walloons were despised in their native Low Countries. On the other hand the Italians did well in Flanders and Spain and the Spaniards were considered crack troops in Italy and Flanders. The Spanish authorities discovered this phenomenon early in the sixteenth century; hence the system of roulation whereby, if at all possible, Spanish and German troops were sent to Italy and Flanders, Italian and German troops to Flanders and Italian and Walloon troops to Spain. In 1630 the Marquis of Aytona, stationed in Flanders, wrote to his King:

If there should be war in Italy, it would be better to send Walloons there and bring Italians here, because the troops native to the country where the war is being fought disband very rapidly and there is no surer strength than that of foreign soldiers.
​

In the prestigious army of Flanders the majority of soldiers were always non-Spanish. Its most famous commander, Ambrogio de Spinola, was an Italian. However, the nationalities were kept strictly apart in the tercio system. Spanish Maestres de campo could only command Spanish units, Walloons only Walloon units, etcetera. For reasons that still resonate today, Roman or Milanese soldiers could not command (or even serve in) a Neapolitan tercio, a Scotsman could not command an English or Irish tercio and vice versa.
"
https://crossfireamersfoort.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/the-spanish-army-of-the-thirty-years-war/


More about Spanish decline:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milit..._16th_and_17th_centuries,_Spain's_'Golden_Age'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain_in_the_17th_century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Spain#Gold_and_silver_from_the_New_World
https://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/351/351-06.htm
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1819513?seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents




And Austrians needed political skills more than good army, to defeat the Ottomans. On battlefields, the Austrians were often loosing. Still, both politically and militarily they were more advanced than the Spanish.

 

[Maoistic]

@Maoistic






Actually, from late 16th century, Spain is the backward one. And Tercio was not anything special. They only benfited from fighting on foreign ground. But Austrians and others were doing the same.

"Spanish tercios raised and drilled for service in Spain were usually of poor quality; so were Italian tercios stationed in Italy, while the Walloons were despised in their native Low Countries. On the other hand the Italians did well in Flanders and Spain and the Spaniards were considered crack troops in Italy and Flanders. The Spanish authorities discovered this phenomenon early in the sixteenth century; hence the system of roulation whereby, if at all possible, Spanish and German troops were sent to Italy and Flanders, Italian and German troops to Flanders and Italian and Walloon troops to Spain. In 1630 the Marquis of Aytona, stationed in Flanders, wrote to his King:

If there should be war in Italy, it would be better to send Walloons there and bring Italians here, because the troops native to the country where the war is being fought disband very rapidly and there is no surer strength than that of foreign soldiers.
​

In the prestigious army of Flanders the majority of soldiers were always non-Spanish. Its most famous commander, Ambrogio de Spinola, was an Italian. However, the nationalities were kept strictly apart in the tercio system. Spanish Maestres de campo could only command Spanish units, Walloons only Walloon units, etcetera. For reasons that still resonate today, Roman or Milanese soldiers could not command (or even serve in) a Neapolitan tercio, a Scotsman could not command an English or Irish tercio and vice versa.
"
https://crossfireamersfoort.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/the-spanish-army-of-the-thirty-years-war/


More about Spanish decline:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milit..._16th_and_17th_centuries,_Spain's_'Golden_Age'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain_in_the_17th_century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Spain#Gold_and_silver_from_the_New_World
https://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/351/351-06.htm
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1819513?seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents




And Austrians needed political skills more than good army, to defeat the Ottomans. On battlefields, the Austrians were often loosing. Still, both politically and militarily they were more advanced than the Spanish.

Yes, Austria was the backward one since it lacked the powerful armies of Spain and its powerful fleets. Austria wasn't the one that created the largest maritime empire in history at that point. Heck, it was the Austrians who got absorbed into Spain's empire, not the other way around. And it doesn't matter one bit if the Army of Flanders was largely composed of non-Spaniards, what matters is that it is superior to anything the Ottomans and Austrians had.

 

[raziel678]

Yes, Austria was the backward one since it lacked the powerful armies of Spain and its powerful fleets. Austria wasn't the one that created the largest maritime empire in history at that point. Heck, it was the Austrians who got absorbed into Spain's empire, not the other way around. And it doesn't matter one bit if the Army of Flanders was largely composed of non-Spaniards, what matters is that it is superior to anything the Ottomans and Austrians had.

But I already explained to you that Austria had more powerful army. I don't care about seas and oceans, so you can stop bringing that stupid thing up. And Austrian tercios had the same organisation and similar people as Spanish tercios. Soldiers of German Emipre were considered elite when they were sent to Spain. And Spain was backward economically and politically. I proved to you that Spanish state and army were inferior, poor, not inventive, indiscipilned, collapsing form inside, failing in the simplest things, lacking in manpower, money, equipement, technology and everything else. You just deny it without giving any arguments. You only say "ha, but they were strong". No they were terribly weak, they were a backward country in decline. And your lack of arguments shows it. You think that Spain achieved something between late 16th and beginning of 18th century? No, the same way in which you hype Spain, historians hype every other country. According to many historians, Sweden was the best empire at that time. And their arguments are as stupid as yours.

 

[Maoistic]

But I already explained to you that Austria had more powerful army. I don't care about seas and oceans, so you can stop bringing that stupid thing up. And Austrian tercios had the same organisation and similar people as Spanish tercios. Soldiers of German Emipre were considered elite when they were sent to Spain. And Spain was backward economically and politically. I proved to you that Spanish state and army were inferior, poor, not inventive, indiscipilned, collapsing form inside, failing in the simplest things, lacking in manpower, money, equipement, technology and everything else. You just deny it without giving any arguments. You only say "ha, but they were strong". No they were terribly weak, they were a backward country in decline. And your lack of arguments shows it. You think that Spain achieved something between late 16th and beginning of 18th century? No, the same way in which you hype Spain, historians hype every other country. According to many historians, Sweden was the best empire at that time. And their arguments are as stupid as yours.

For the infinite time, the Austrians didn't have Tercios nor did they make use of them. That Germans fought in Spanish Tercios is not the same as the Austrians making use of them. And you can take your outdated historical analyses out of here. Whether Spain "accomplished nothing" or not is completely irrelevant here since we're only talking exclusively about military matters. The Spanish side of the Habsburgs were the ones that had superior ships, superior tactics and more artillery than the Austrian side of the Habsburgs, which is why I say that it was the more advanced one, not Austria with its outdated cavalry charges and lack of artillery in comparison to Spain.

And again, it doesn't matter if the Spanish Tercios were mostly composed of Northern Europeans, what matters is that in this scenario they are going to be sent against the Ottomans and are going to decimate the Ottoman forces in the battlefield.

And yes, those overseas colonies are relevant because of their enormous size providing a far greater resource base than the Ottomans and requiring a logistical capacity to maintain that the Ottomans didn't have.

The Ottomans could barely wage war in their border territories while the Spaniards could depose the Cambodian emperor on the other side of the world with a mere 500 Spanish soldiers and also momentarily conquer Brunei with a force that wasn't much greater, all while fending off Indonesian, Chinese and Japanese pirates and fighting English and Dutch invasions against their American and Asian colonies.

Now, send this entire empire against the Ottomans like in this scenario and the Ottomans are definitely not lasting more than five years.

 

[Tulius]

Because as you know, the Spaniards took that opportunity to annex Portugal and get its empire, forming the Iberian Union. Why would they care about Morocco when they can get the infinitely more richer Portuguese colonies (which funnily enough consisted of Moroccan territories, including Ceuta, Melilla and Tangiers)?

And Spain was also busy fighting not just Portugal but France, England, Holland and German Protestants.

At risk in this theme of being considered nationalistic, but nevertheless trying to be more precise in the language, I must say that Portugal was not annexed by Spain.

Portugal had several pretenders to an empty crown, the “Spanish” king was the strongest pretender and the one that raised more consensus in Portugal even if another pretender, the António, Prior do Crato, raised a small army (with many slaves) to oppose Filipe II.

During 60 years Portugal had the same kings as the rest of Spain, i.e, the crowns of Castile and the crowns of Aragon, uniting this way all the Iberian Peninsula under a king, so the name Iberian Union. The Kingdom of Portugal and all its domains and colonies were legally and technically independent from the other Spanish kingdoms. The treaty of Tordesilhas was still respected, the Habsburg kings had to nominee Portuguese people for the Portuguese colonies and in the Far East Macao and Manila were still strong competitors and allies in a love hate relationship.

Managing the different crowns and kingdoms of the Habsburgs was a hard task and there was always problems when a centralizing policy (i.e an annexation) was tried as we saw for instance in 1640 (Portugal, Catalonia), 1641 (Andaluzia) and 1647/8 (Naples) as well as in later centuries.

As for Morocco Ceuta and Tangiers were Portuguese (even during the Iberian Union) but Melilla was Castilian. The Spanish (at the time the word had a different meaning than today) were quite interested in Morocco, as well as in the rest of the North of Africa (Algiers, Tunis...).