Imperial Spain vs Ottoman Empire

Tsar

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
2,010
Serbia
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.
Screenshot_1.jpg


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.
 
Jul 2018
538
Hong Kong
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.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2018
538
Hong Kong
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.
 
Oct 2017
169
Poland
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.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2016
819
Eindhoven
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheBlackRose
Oct 2017
169
Poland
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.
 
May 2018
113
Bordeaux
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'' :deadhorse:


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
 
Nov 2017
789
Commune
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
 
Nov 2017
789
Commune
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
 
Nov 2017
789
Commune
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