Imperial Spain vs Ottoman Empire

Nov 2017
789
Commune
View attachment 12117

They did pay, and regularly so.
Nowhere in your source does it state that, only that the Turks upheld the treaty forcing them to pay which is different.


One battle doesn't win war: Spain had only 49 ships (and most of them came from Naples) compared to Venetian 109. The League failed at its basic task of recapturing Cyprus, and Venice moreover agreed to pay compensation for the war. In addition to all of this, when the Ottomans recovered (in a single winter), Kılıc Ali Pasha had no one to fight against, as the allied fleet existed no more.
Spain could build the same kind of ships Venice had with the same number. In fact, by the time of the Iberian Union, it had the capacity to build far more of an even superior quality. And of course a single battle is not going to win a war, but my point is that the Spanish navy would have annihilated the Ottoman navy in all all out war. It doesn't matter how many times the Ottomans rebuild their navy, it would still get annihilated, and in any case, the Spaniards would quickly seize every major port of the Ottoman Empire, preventing the navy's reconstruction anyway.
 

Tsar

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
2,010
Serbia
Nowhere in your source does it state that, only that the Turks upheld the treaty forcing them to pay which is different.
Screenshot_3.jpg

It was one of the most important terms of peace in 1606. Central European History 101.

Spain could build the same kind of ships Venice had with the same number. In fact, by the time of the Iberian Union, it had the capacity to build far more of an even superior quality.
But did it?

And of course a single battle is not going to win a war, but my point is that the Spanish navy would have annihilated the Ottoman navy in all all out war. It doesn't matter how many times the Ottomans rebuild their navy, it would still get annihilated, and in any case, the Spaniards would quickly seize every major port of the Ottoman Empire, preventing the navy's reconstruction anyway.
It's things like Battle of Preveza that make me doubt it.
 
Nov 2017
789
Commune
View attachment 12118

It was one of the most important terms of peace in 1606. Central European History 101.
That it got replaced by an "honorary gift", as an insult to the Habsburgs, doesn't mean that the Habsburgs were actually paying the annual tribute.


But did it?



It's things like Battle of Preveza that make me doubt it.
Yes they did it. Send the Spanish Armada and the Treasure Fleet to face the Ottoman navy and the Ottomans get Lepanto'd even worse. And I'm not getting into the differences between Charles V, when Preveza was fought, and Philip II's Iberian Union, of half a century later, again. Go read the discussion from page 3 and then come back.
 

Tsar

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
2,010
Serbia
That it got replaced by an "honorary gift", as an insult to the Habsburgs, doesn't mean that the Habsburgs were actually paying the annual tribute.
Screenshot_4.jpg


Yes they did it. Send the Spanish Armada and the Treasure Fleet to face the Ottoman navy and the Ottomans get Lepanto'd even worse. And I'm not getting into the differences between Charles V, when Preveza was fought, and Philip II's Iberian Union, of half a century later, again. Go read the discussion from page 3 and then come back.
How did such a strong union allow itself to lose so badly at Djerba?
 
Nov 2013
725
Texas
Ottoman vs. Iberian arms.

Spanish were great fighters when they fought somebody who hadn't discovered steel yet (like the Aztecs or some ass-end of the phillippines), they ran in to a lot more trouble when they fought people as advanced.


Spanish were great fighters; but for a country that could not subjugate tiny Holland or take much of France, or decisively defeat Brunei, or defeat the English navy, I think you are overrating their arms a tad.



As crude as the Ottoman Empire was, they did not conquer a huge empire by being 2nd rate fighters by any standard. The principle failure of the Ottomans was in the Indian Ocean; not the Mediterranean. Now Portugal (ie Iberian Union is quite the variable), but Ottomans military record repeatedly suggests that they could defend themselves until their botched siege of Vienna in 1683.


You may have considered all this (not sure why I bothered typing this crude overview); but you seem to overrate the Spanish a bit with this in mind.





That it got replaced by an "honorary gift", as an insult to the Habsburgs, doesn't mean that the Habsburgs were actually paying the annual tribute.




Yes they did it. Send the Spanish Armada and the Treasure Fleet to face the Ottoman navy and the Ottomans get Lepanto'd even worse. And I'm not getting into the differences between Charles V, when Preveza was fought, and Philip II's Iberian Union, of half a century later, again. Go read the discussion from page 3 and then come back.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2017
789
Commune
And again, it doesn't say they actually did it, only that they were forced without actually carrying it out except for diplomatic purposes, if you actually read the chapter contained in "The Globalization of Renaissance Art".

How did such a strong union allow itself to lose so badly at Djerba?
The Iberian Union did not exist back in the battle of Djerba, which shows how little you actually know of the Spanish Empire.
 
Oct 2017
169
Poland
@Maoistic


Please read more carefully what I write.





You're putting me an example of Poles winning against an Ottoman army
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.



And Poles were not of higher quality than the Spanish Tercio
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.



especially since it will be supported by armoured cavalry, heavy artillery and other musketeers.
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:



I think we can assume that the war between the Ottomans and the Habsburgs was a war against Austria and Spain at the same time. Putting Spain in this fight alone would only increase Turkey's chances. Looking at the battles in which the Germans worked together with the Spaniards, there is not much difference between them. However, the Austrians were much better prepared to fight Turkey. If you cut off the Spanish Habsburgs from Eastern Europe and suddenly make them fight in those conditions (let's assume they would get supplies on the spot), they would be slaughtered.

Quote:
Tercio's would be hard to stop, no one really managed it in Europe until the development by the Dutch of increasing the front firing lines for more muskets so I find it difficult to imagine the Turks even the Jannisary managing to halt their advance


As far as I know, the Janissaries from the beginning did what the Dutch later "invented". Turkey has always tried to get the most firepower, so if we gave Turkey and Spain the same resources and told them to use them to implement their usual tactics, the Spaniards would lose against the Turks even worse than against the Dutch. The Spanish squares would be massacred in an open field by Turkish infantry, which would be hidden in trenches, and repelling of the Spanish cavalry would easily be handled by Ottoman riders.

In Lubieszów 1577 and Byczyna 1588 the Polish-Hungarian infantry was entirely armed with firearms, no pikes , so pike-shot squares did not compete well against such infantry. I know too little about janissaries, but if they were comparable to the Hungarian infantry, then the fight should look similar.

Wimpfen 1622 should be enough to prove that the Spaniards would have a hard time. Protestants fromed a wagenburg there and massacred Catholics with firearms. Catholic cavalry and infantry were colliding with each other. Repeated attacks on the wagenburg were repelled despite the fact that it was a terribly clumsy wagenburg. But even so, the greatest mockery was made by cavalry on both sides. Let's focus on Spanish.


"[Protestant squadrons], moving away from the rest of their units, were exposed to danger. The Spanish commander decided to seize the opportunity. He stood at the head of some of his squadrons, probably the 4 most experienced, and gave orders to charge. [...] Over 400 cuirassiers and arquebuses raced after him. The result of this charge was surprising: his Walloons turned back just before the direct battle! Something has happened that is hard to even imagine: over 400 riders abstained in full speed, still too far from the ranks of the opponent to fire the pistols, turned around and escaped from the fight before it even began. The Walloon cavalrymen concluded that prudence was better than courage. Only the commander himself, Cordoba, fell into the ranks of the enemy alone."

However, both sides were constantly showing ineptitude.

"At that moment, the Catholics were in such disarray that one strong, coordinated attack by the Protestant troops would end the battle. [...] Unfortunately, no one was watching over the course of the battle. All the senior commanders [...] were entangled in the chaotic fuss on the right wing."


Quotes from "Wojna Trzydziestoletnia (2)" by W. Biernacki.


The ineptitude of Protestants led to the fact that their wagenburg exploded. Turks have been experienced in this kind of battles since the first half of the 15th century. However, for some reason they rarely learned from their own battles. As noted by hborrgg:
Quote:
in most cases either way you see the other side adapt to new problems they're facing and things return to a stalemate

Indeed. But this does not reflect how grotesque this adaptation in practice was. There was only a small chance that the Spaniards would fight against the Turks in the same way that they fought against other Christians. The Habsburgs, when they fought in the east, suddenly wisely followed better tactics similar to those used by the Turks. The Turks, when they fought against the Habsburgs, were suddenly stupid and did not use tactics known from fights against Poles and Hungarians, but they tried to become similar to the Habsburgs. Similarly, the Swedes and Poles became similar to their opponents regardless of the actual effectiveness of individual tactics. Gustav Adolf from Lutzen 1632 looks like an idiot, a completely different man compared to Gustav Adolf from Gniew 1626.

As for the battles of the Turks, like the Habsburgs, they too often were inept and won only thanks to the fact that the opponent was even more stupid (Varna 1444, Kosovo 1448, Mohacs 1526, Keresztes 1596, Cecora 1620).


This why they are "overestimated". But they are not overestimated when compared to some other country, only compared to the ideal that history fans have made up. All World's "super powers" are overrated in this way. People present the history as if it was a Europa Universalis game. Each country is a player, an individual unit striving to achieve specific, clearly defined goals, either wins or loses. Competes with other players and races in the arts of war, culture and economy. The one who is the best wins. Meanwhile, real politics has more to do with an absurd circus in which no one knows what he wants, what is going on, what is what and who is who.


The grounds on which people assess the power of states are also questionable. Mamluk Warrior, you hype Spain and Turkey, while laughing at China and Mughals. In the same way, I could argue that Poland, Russia, Sweden, the Netherlands or England was stronger than Turkey and Spain in the 16-17 century.



Quote:
Mezokeresztes is an interesting one since sources from the Turkish side consider the battle a near disaster. Habsburg formations armed with pikes and muskets basically marched straight through the Ottoman infantry and cavalry into the enemy camp, and it was only after the Christians broke ranks to start looting the Sultan's treasury that he was miraculously able to rally his fleeing army and counter-attack.

If anything this seems to have common theme during the 15 years war. Ibrahim Pecevi repeatedly brings up instances where ottoman troops struggled against the habsburg infantry, especially the musketeers, who he generally considered more disciplined and more skilled at preparing entrenchments.

In a 1602 letter from the grand vizier he reported that "in the field or during a siege we are in a distressed position, because the greater part of the enemy forces are infantry armed with muskets, while the majority of our forces are horsemen and we have very few specialists skilled in the musket."

https://books.google.com/books?id=ED...page&q&f=false
Do you have the full version of this book and this is how it describes that battle? Because according to my information it looked different.
The Christian army was unusually large. In the number of regular soldiers Turkey almost did not exceed the opponent. This prevented the opponent from being overwhelmed by the firepower of the Turkish infantry or surrounded by the Ottoman army, which happened in other battles. The Turks also had the same problem as always. They wanted to come home immediately and the battle had to be resolved as soon as possible. So even though they did not have enough strength for the offensive, they tried to break the resistance of the entrenched Christians. Then it turned out that even the Ottoman cavalry is too weak. The Hungarians played the main role on the Christian side. The Turks could not fight the Christian cavalry. The battle turned into a Christian massacre when the fleeing Ottoman cavalry turned back and struck the rear of the Christians who were completely disorganized and attacked by Turkish rear servicemen. Such an event was easily predictable thanks to knowledge from other wars, but the commanders did not prepare themselves accordingly. The battle was similar to other "victories" of the Ottoman Empire.



As for your other claims:



Finally, the Ottomans are not Western Europeans.
I didn't say anything like that.


Any Western European army of the 17th century would demolish any Ottoman army 9/10.
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.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2017
789
Commune
Spanish were great fighters when they fought somebody who hadn't discovered steel yet (like the Aztecs or some ass-end of the phillippines), they ran in to a lot more trouble when they fought people as advanced.


Spanish were great fighters; but for a country that could not subjugate tiny Holland or take much of France, or decisively defeat Brunei, or defeat the English navy, I think you are overrating their arms a tad.



As crude as the Ottoman Empire was, they did not conquer a huge empire by being 2nd rate fighters by any standard. The principle failure of the Ottomans was in the Indian Ocean; not the Mediterranean. Now Portugal (ie Iberian Union is quite the variable), but Ottomans military record repeatedly suggests that they could defend themselves until their botched siege of Vienna in 1683.


You may have considered all this (not sure why I bothered typing this crude overview); but you seem to overrate the Spanish a bit with this in mind.

Yeah, you literally don't know what you're talking about. The Spaniards repeatedly fought and repeatedly defeated North Africans, Ottomans, French, Dutch, English and Portuguese, who all used steel and gunpowder.

The Spanish invasion of Brunei you mentioned was very much a success since the Bruneian sultan ran away and his country occupied. The Spaniards simply lacked the logistics to hold the Sultanate not to mention it was dangerously close to the Portuguese, who conquered nearby Malacca, a fact that you don't mention, the same Portuguese that the Spaniards defeated and annexed in 1582 into the Iberian Union.


The Spaniards could have also annexed France after the Battle of Pavia when they captured the king Francis I, and they also effectively balkanised France during the French Wars of Religion, which became a playground for Spanish troops, who even occupied and conquered Paris itself in 1590, forcing the opposing anti-Spanish French to besiege the city for several weeks to capture it.

The Dutch were also only successful because they not only had some of the richest ports of the Spanish Empire and thus from there they could siphon much of the Spanish colonial wealth into them, allowing them to build a strong military, but also because they were allied with England, France, rebelling German Protestan duchies and electorates and, of course, the Ottoman Empire. And even with all of that, the Dutch still took decades to actually become fully independent (until around 1610, about 40 years after they had been fighting against Spain).

In any case, the Dutch aren't the Ottomans and a Dutch army would defeat an Ottoman army more times than not in the 16th century and outright annihilate it it 9/10 in the 17th.

Seriously, this downplay of the Spanish Empire is ridiculous.
 

Tsar

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
2,010
Serbia
And again, it doesn't say they actually did it, only that they were forced without actually carrying it out except for diplomatic purposes, if you actually read the chapter contained in "The Globalization of Renaissance Art".
It literally does say that they've been paying it. Perhaps a slight improvement of English is in order?

Anyways,

Screenshot_5.jpg

The Iberian Union did not exist back in the battle of Djerba, which shows how little you actually know of the Spanish Empire.
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.
 

Tsar

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
2,010
Serbia
It literally does say that they've been paying it. Perhaps a slight improvement of English is in order?

Anyways,

View attachment 12120


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.

Screenshot_7.jpg

Compared to Suleyman's figure of 15.000 (Ramberti)