So Poland saves Austria from conquest and a century later Austria takes part in 2 of the 3 partitions of Poland between Russia,Prussia and Austria. How trustworthy.
was talking about the partitions of Poland that Austria took part in along with Prussia and Russia in the 18th century. They occurred in 1772, 1793 and 1795. Austria took part in the first and the third. But you are right. Just as in the twentieth century, Poland could not defend itself from the degenerate absolutists of those three European states. What kind of constitutional monarchy has an elected assembly that only allows laws to be passed with a 100% vote like 18th century Poland did?
polands heroic aid at Vienna had nothing to do with their love or good relationship with Austria, it was simply the best chance to stop the ottoman advance especially since viennas fall would mean the Commonwealth would be the next that had to face the wrath of the Turks. Also the Poles that were in Austrian territory had it far better than those in Prussian/Russian territories
It would be a complete disaster for Europe as the Ottoman Empire was not facing the internal issues they faced in 1683. Some claim that Süleyman wanted to make Vienna a military base and attack deep in Europe from there, not starting walking from İstanbul
Suleiman wasnt intended to win in 1529 he just wanna keep the army busy because of the internal strife which messed up the ottoman sultans force them to always declaring war on somebody just like todays usa.
It would have been possible, but very unlikely. The Ottomans were operating at the very end of the logistical capacity of 16th Century armies, with many dangers along the way. Even preparing the previous fall, as Suleiman did in a later attempted siege, did not help, as his army was fatally delayed by fanatical resistance. It's easy to forget that Suleiman faced a very powerful adversary in the form of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, who ruled much of Europe as well as vast territories in the New World. He actually ruled more territory than Suleiman. Charles's authority was less solid and he was beset by many enemies, but he was a truly redoubtable foe for Suleiman. Christian armies were just as powerful as Ottoman ones if they possessed numerical equality. Vienna, which was then a rather small city and not the metropolis it became later, would have taken years to become a new base of power, and where was Sulieman going to get his new recruits if the lands to the east were still in a constant state of upheaval? In the meantime, the fall of Vienna would almost certainly have triggered a massive reaction from Charles, from the German princes, England and more. And possibly even France, which despite its alliance with the Ottomans, might act differently if the latter was on its doorstep. Suleiman would have had to face a huge united front of enemies on the battlefield to the west, and with more enemies to the east.
I guess Renaissance and would be disrupted because of the policy of the Ottomans. Also, reform may be never existed because of Europe would unify under the catolic leaders. Further, industrialization and colonization will be different or never happen. My ancestors were Ottoman but present scenario is more viable in terms of technology and development in lots of areas.
@Edward James Kenway Abdülhamid borçların büyük bir kısmını ödeyip Osmanlı ekonomisini güçlendirdi ve savaş olacağını önceden anlayıp tabyalari yaptırdı. Daha nice sayabildigim şeyler var yeter ki sor.
OOF Mustafa, in my opinion, would have surpassed his father 10 folds and took the empire to new heights That guy was the perfect son Shame he had him killed cause of his bitch wife who wanted her son's on the throne
If Mustafa had been king, everything would have changed. He told his father that "we should not care east (Persians), we should only concentrate on Europe" and Mustafa's main aim would have been Roma(Catholic church) and to do this, he immediately conquer Vienna and than Owing to strong land army and navy, Roma would have been easy to conquer. All army would have respected to Mustafa and became full motivated if Mustafa had been king. To answer this question, within 3 years after Mustafa's sultanate, Vienna would have been conquered and then within 8 years, Roma would have been Turkish city. If Mustafa had taken control more than 15 years, probably next target would have been France and Germany(Prussia). and if he had taken control more than 20 years, last target would have been respectively Spain and British. He would have chosen to set up balance with Russia. But ofcourse Spain and British would have been hard because he would have gotten old after 20 years. But his child probably would have been educated well and total domination of Europe would have occured in his children saltanate.
@@pratik1568 ottomans only converted anatolian greeks-armenians (and not completel by the way) on their early stages. They mostly left them to themselves as long as they paid taxes and didnt start rebellions (and until 18th century gave 1 male kid from each family)
In my (Age of Civilization 2) i am allied with PLC. I build the strongest empire in the world spaning from Portugal (I allied to Castile, we also destroy France) to Instanbul (Rome included). Long Live the Alliance nobody can stomp the Ottoman Empire for 1000 years.
the reason why the ottomans lost at Vienna was because the second army deployed by the leader of the first army revolted against the ottomans and didn't stop incoming Polish Troops. The siege leader knew that polish would send help so he gathered a big second force to inturrpt them he put a Crimean Prince to charge. But he revolted against the ottomans to gain independency in Crimea. He was executed later.
This is the exact fact. Crimean Prince betrayed Ottomans and so Polish could reach to the battfield. They did not fly with those wings like Polish nationalists imagine.
Why wouldn’t bohemia just declare independence after the fall of Vienna? It’s not like the ottomans would bother marching to Prague after the arduous Austrian campaign
I also find this to be too much, why not be content with Austria? They could go for Italy insyead (but later of course) as it was wealthy, divided, and strategically placed for them. Also the Ottomansconsidered themselves as the successors of the roman empire. Of cpurse it would be difficult for them to take the franco-spanish controlled regions and they cpuld be fearful of a huge christiam retaliation if ever they took Rome. Anyway, it was an excellent video
Why would even Vienna remain in Ottoman hands when they could barely supply armies fighting in Hungary? The whole premise of this video (Austria magically becoming fully integrated into the Ottoman empire) sounds like something a person who knows nothing of real life and only played video games made up.
Vienna was less important then ppl think, it was more important to fight French then Ottomans, kind of like today you know Turkey would like to get into Europe but Europe does not really care. But yes timeline in this video is one of the possible even tho its not most likely to have happend.
The whole Point of conquering Vienna, was for the Ottoman Army to have a new base from witch to campaign into Central Europe. I agree that they wouldn’t have gotten much further and would probably fail at a city like Krakow, Berlin or Venice, but not because they couldn’t reach it.
Yeah i agree too,if vienna fall...the holy league still formed...but ottoman at the strong position likely.then the great turkish war will become stalemate and vienna remain at turkish hand
I think they be able. Venice did sometimes good in sea but so huge army on its doorstep be good bye freedom. Italy cant resist it. Maybe it would help. Eitherways we all got our loved alternatives. I personally be very satiesfied with no second Balkan war and Balkan alliance remain and guess how that ends for ur interest. So anyways. Take caew
Yes I agree Europe failed many times to get rid of the ottomans and ottomans advanced for in their first generation extremely far so I dont think the italians will stand a chance as well ottomans could make an ally with a European superpower
@Xerius but think abt it framce and ottoman monarchs marry into each other making France have a muslim thing in them a Christian thing won't be in with the ottomans
@@user-up4el3vq3i Heard of population exchange, also were talking culture not religion to this day there are plenty of Turkish words that have corrupted Balkan languages. It got so bad that nations like Albania and Bulgaria had to go through national revivals to revive and teach once again their native language.
@@user-up4el3vq3i The ottomans also forcefully converted them too through policies and tax incentives, trade networks and transnational religious links. And their effect was not minor at all many societal problems can be felt to this day.
@@user-up4el3vq3i What does spain have to do with this? If so what happened to the muslims in Spain can't be compared to what happened to the Nestorian Christians by Tamerlane. Or what the janisaries did to Serbs and the Catholic Albanians or Ali Pasha Tepelena to orthodox Christians. Whataboutism is a slippery slope.
@@user-up4el3vq3i bruh "they didn't send very much people". After the Balkan wars they kicked out 8 to 10 million so-called Muhacirs, which made up 1/5 of the Balkans. Secondly many nations in the Balkans today have large muslim populations, including Bosnia, Albania, Macedonia and Bulgaria. The only reason Islam seems to have dissapeared from Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia is due to Communism (because in a Communist state you are Atheist). Thirdly, if they were so "tolerant", why is their a collective resentment towards the Turks nowadays and why were the Turks so violantly kicked out of the Balkans?
Sobieski actually considered allying himself with the Ottoman Empire to recover Silesia from Habsburgs, so this timeline isn't that unlike. However, I don't think that the fall of Vienna would mean that the entire domain of Austrian Habsburgs would fall into Ottoman hands. And in your timeline Poland-Lithuania simply disappears (as they did in ours), but this seems unlikely. Not only because Austria participated in the partitions of Poland, and now it was out of the equation, but also because Ottomans, now being a bit stronger, wouldn't allow it, fearing the rise of power of Russia and Prussia. Also, Czech Republic was not a thing until 1993, so I don't understand why you name it in 1600s.
He explains what Bohemia is by pointing out what became of those lands. (Czech Republic reference) Re: P-L - I'd say that rather than disappearing, the guy(s) who made the video are incompetent morons who do not understand logistics, supply and plausibility and simply decided not to speak about it because, in their ignorant eyes, it ceased being important after Vienna.
Gibbons writes " It can not be argued that the Ottomans were the first nation in the new age to use the principle of religious freedom as fundamental idea in establishing their state ". Jean Bodin(1520-96)founder of European state laws,recommended to the King of France that he take the ruling of the Ottoman State as an example. He said that Padishah(Ottoman Ruler) treated the Orthodox,the Catholics and Jews as equal to Muslims and protected them all. Chenier of Geneva said in 1717: " The Turks have a very wide perspective of religion and show great tolerance" No one was punished for their religious beliefs,except for those who deliberatly insulted Islam.The few priest punished were not charged with religious offences,but with treason. Marshall Von Moltke found this source of this tolerance towards Christians that reason for this could only be their solid and strong belief in Islam. The violence and aggression between rival Christians(Catholics and Orthodox Christians)sects in those years is recorded in their own books. After Viennas defeat,The Venetians invaded Sakiz for a short time and Mora for quite a long time. They caused so much violence that when the Ottomans resumed control,the Greeks greeted them with songs and celebration. The Ottomans also collected The Jizya from the people of the book in return for their exemption from military service and for protection Christians soldiers did not have to pay this tax.Soldiers from southern Romania,presented for service to the Ottomans in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries became very important part of army. Many non Muslims lived in the Empire ,especially in port cities. The state protected them and gave them complete freedom to conduct business,visit religious places,or just tour the country. V Morrin of Rokebey wrote that he went to Istanbul in 1794,when he was 22 years old,and had roamed freely among the Turks and found them very helpful. Ottomans respected the art of ancient civilizations.The mosaics in Ayasofia(Aya sofya) the number most famous mosques,were not touched from 1453 until 1922. Out of respect for Christians feelings,the mosaics were painted over. Orientalists,basing themselves on the twentieth century values have problem with dhimmi status of non Muslims Ottoman subjects. However they are gravely mistaken. I have mentioned the vast rights given to them in theory and practice.
Religious freedom> steals christian childeren as a form of tax and applies dhimmi status to infidels. Ottomans were nazi's and everybody knows it. despised by virtually all its neighbours for a reason.
There is no such thing as stealing children. The ammount of Jainesery was at the top moment just arround 15.000 man. That was just few % of the main army. Dhimmi status is todays, visa. Without a working or travelling visa you can not go to another country and work in 2018. You have to PAY for this visa every year or every 3 years. So the 'dhimmi' status is stil active in todays world between other countrys. None muslims were giving 'dhimmi'status bc there were not citizens of the empire but just people who lived in these lands.
despised by all neighbourhgs? hahahahahhaa every balkan nation is in same condition because the balkans are literally consist of retards. plus azerbaijan, iran and georgia don't hate us.
Of which events exactly are you talking here, Provocateur? I'm genuinly curious as the conflict between the HRE and the ottomans on the balkans were partially what made my country's independence possible
Lol, yes i'm ignorant and that is why i asked the very question i did in my previous comment. As far as the history of the Balkans goes, that never was a priority piece of history for my people and therefor not part of history told in schools in my country, unless you specify towards history and maybe then specify again thereafter. So maybe i'm ignorant, but you're an idiot for pointing out the obvious as it was right there on display. At least i'm curious about it and willing to look into it. You telling me to shut up means i don't get to ask questions which thereafter means i can't cure my ignorance on the subject. Get a brain, or start using the one you have.
My Grandfather smoked his whole life. I was about 10 years old when my mother said to him, 'If you ever want to see your grandchildren graduate, you have to stop immediately.'. Tears welled up in his eyes when he realized what exactly was at stake. He gave it up immediately. Three years later he died of lung cancer. It was really sad and destroyed me. My mother said to me- 'Don't ever smoke. Please don't put your family through what your Grandfather put us through." I agreed. At 28, I have never touched a cigarette. I must say, I feel a very slight sense of regret for never having done it, because your voice gave me cancer anyway.
MyVanir, even though they were one of the first to use big cannons to tear down walls and decimal system in their armies which is now used by nearly every army in the World? While those European soldiers were still using halbers and stuff, Janissaries were using Muskets. Ottoman Empire in the 16th and 17th century was at its height when it came to discipline and technology. You are way too clueless.
@@kartvelianmapping808 that is not i meant. Eastern orthodox church has many oriental influences. Earlier from Persia (zorostrianism) and later from Nestorian church.
One aspect of the Ottoman victory scenario you overlooked is the role of the Holy Roman Emperor. As you know, the Habsburgs of Austria were traditionally elected emperor of the German states in the Holy Roman Empire. Louis XIV knew that they, more so than the Prussians at this point, were his main competition for control over the German lands. Louis was related by blood to the Habsburgs and he knew that if Vienna fell to the Turks and the Habsburgs were removed as Emperors, the German princes would most likely look to him for protection. If Vienna had fallen, there was a very good chance that Louis would have been elected Holy Roman Emperor.
You points you make about the Ottoman Empire are absolutely true. Congrats on that. Even if they had won at Vienna, the empire was destined to collapse.
You are very good at this and have a nice voice for the job. Your conclusions are quite logical and would probably even have happened in the most cases. Though it is alternative history I'd say most predictions are very accurate. Keep up the good work. As you've covered quite much already it's hard to suggest more, but what if Switzerland, Spain and Sweden hadn't been neutral during WW2? Or WW1? Best regards
A few ideas for future videos: What if the Black Death never happened? What if Japan never became isolationist? What if the Japanese Empire discovered oil in Manchuria? What if Russia won the Russo-Japanese War? What if Gran Colombia survived? What if the Mali Empire discovered the New World? What if Russia kept Alaska? What if Justinian and Khosrow were allies? What if France won the Franco-Prussian War? What if Nazi Germany focused on the Mediterranean instead of Operation Barbarossa? What if the Americas were settled by Homo erectus instead of the native Americans? What if Judaism never existed? What if jutsu/magic/bending was real? I can already think of some outcomes of these scenarios, especially the last one. But I would like to hear your thoughts on how these would turn out.
Putting aside that an Ottoman invasion of Bohemia is unlikely, and fundamentally misses the reasons why the Ottomans wanted Vienna to begin with, I'd like to point out that it is unlikely that the King of Prussia would have done as you say that he did. The reason why frederick ii attacked Austria and entered Bohemia when he did was because he recognised the severity and instability of the Austrian succession crisis at the time. Furthermore, in this AT, the Ottomans would not only have a larger manpower reserve to call upon in comparison to the Austrians, but would also not be dealing with internal and external conflicts, and would be allied with France, so it's unlikely that the King of Prussia would suddenly declare war on the most powerful empire in the world with no allies and absolutely no guarantee that he's going to win. Were he to do so, I simply cannot see him winning this, no matter how competent he is as a general. The Ottomans at this time would be able to call upon several armies tens, potentially even hundreds of thousands strong, and yes, whilst numbers aren't everything, they would need to get lucky only once, the Prussians would need to get lucky every single time.
His Majesty the King of Sweden's letter: "I was captive in Poltava. This was a way of death for me, I was saved. Danger occurred more powerfully before Dnyester River; there was water before me, enemy behind me, and the sun sprewing out hells... Water claimed to suffocate me, enemy claimed to cut me into pieces and the sun claimed to melt me; I was again saved. However I am a captive today, I am the captive of the Turks. They did me what the iron, heat and water could not do, and they captivated me. Merely there is no chain on my leg, I am not in a prison; I can do whatever I want... However this time I am the captive of tenderness, nobility and kindness. Turks embrace me with this diamond affection. I want you to know how sweet is to live among a nation that is this much generous, noble and kind as an independent slave." Charles XII, was the King of Sweden from 1697 to 1718. He belonged to the House of Palatinate-Zweibrücken, a branch line of the House of Wittelsbach. Charles was the only surviving son of Charles XI and Ulrika Eleonora the Elder. Charles' subsequent march on Moscow met with initial success as victory followed victory, the most significant of which was the Battle of Holowczyn where the smaller Swedish army routed a Russian army twice the size. The campaign ended with disaster when the Swedish army suffered heavy losses to a Russian force more than twice its size at Poltava. Charles had been incapacitated by a wound prior to the battle, rendering him unable to take command. The defeat was followed by the Surrender at Perevolochna. Charles spent the following years in exile in the Ottoman Empire.
What about the first siege of Vienna though, led by Sultan Suleiman in 1529 would that alternate scenario be different or would be the same as this one?
@@Kai555100 Germany to Prussia is the colonial equivalent of England to Americans. Old Prussia was Baltic until the German/Teutonic crusade wiped them out. Then the area was settled by Germans, likely from Pommeranian and Saxon stocks, which in turn developed their own distinct (still Germanic) culture they named 'Prussian', a name they took from the region
I love how casual you were about the lack of a French revolution, like 'oh it would probably just mean Spain would hold on to its colonies' and not 'Liberalism, the ideas of the enlightenment, and nationalism wouldn't have spread and the entire political land scape of the world would be radically different'
The thing is tho the whole reason the ottomans wanted vienna was to have a new hub in central europe where they can stage new attacks So if they actually did take vienna the campaigns of europe would be set from vienna not constantinople
The problem is that frederick the great had a teacher and that was Prinz Eugen (Austria), with out this teacher he would be an other person. We can't say that Frederick the Great would be that millitary genius we known as.
There would also probably be no partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Sobieski would have just enough time to make his dynasty stable (his son was almost elected in our timeline) or king Leszczynski would take the throne. Leszczyński was famously good administrator of Loraine and Louis XV of France father-in-law. Austria would not mingle in Polish politics of the era which would be huge. Commonwealth was also in a strong ally of the France to the end of XVII century. Electing any other monarch than August of Saxony would change many things, keeping the aliance intact. Commonwealth would have enough strenght to bring about reforms that were proposed by Sobieski and Leszczyński. It would also take part in war against Prussia, probably reconquering some of the territory lost in second half of XVII century (quite a fresh loss). It is quite possible that Prussia would loose in this timeline as it was close to fall in our.
For a History Fatih Sultan Mehmed made a huge army in balkans and in izmir. He didn’t tell to anyone where they were going but it was obvious. He was going to Italy. From North he was going with the army from the Balkans and the other army from izmir was going with ships to the south of Italy. They were not going to stop if they won the Vienna. But Sultan Mehmed got sick on the way to Izmir for last checking and he died on the way.
Vienna was the far logistical end of OE. Even if they theoritically take it they couldn't use it as a base of operation the same reason they couldn't use Belgrade or Buda as such, because Ottoman started preparing for a campaign the previous year through raising armies in Anatolia and Rum, cross the Balkans in spring before early summer river floods, do operations in summer / early autumn, and had to go back before late autumn floods. The scope of devastation meant that most of Hungary and Croatia simply couldn't upkeep their armies long term, and troops raised in Balkans were only secondary to the janissaries and spahis.
Ottoman Empire's decline had already started with the death of Mehmet the Conquerer. Even if the whole Europe had been captured by the 17. century, the fall of the Empire might have been faster because of the overspending of its borders, mostly due to problems of accessibility.
@@think9747 Fatih'ten sonra bilimi ciddiye alan olmadığı için yıkıldı Osmanlı, ki tam Fatih zamanı Rönesans sonrası ve Coğrafi keşiflerin bilimle buluşup Batın'nın sıçramaya başladığı zamanlardır. Batı kendi arasında ittifak edilebilmiş olsaydı eğer Osmanlı'yı 19. yy başında çoktan bitirebilirlerdi ama bunu yapamadılar çünkü Napolyon batı ittifakına en az 50 yıllık bir darbe vurup Rusyayı zayıflattı. Bu yüzden de Osmanlı'nın selâsı gecikti.
Celal şengörü dinleyipde saçma sapan konuşma yok osman bey zamaninda cokmeye basladi hangi imparatorluk gerilemeye başladigi sureden 400 sene sonra yikilir hic mi akil yok sende
And they fought while Ottomans didnt even try to much. Buncha homosexuals comes and thinks they can win over Turks lmao. And the way Austria slaps you after being saved. Lol no surprise Pols got f'ed with the attack of German and Russian XD
Mr. Two Germans DID win the battle of verdun They defeated the french and took verdun however the french did a counter attack and took it back from Germans
0:24 "However, at the last moment, King Sobieski..." Jan III of Poland was never actually called this as Sobieski was his house name. That would be on par with calling Elizabeth II "Queen Windsor"
Well, coffee would differ in Western Europe, if consumed at all. The Turks brought a mountain of coffee to Vienna and it was captured. The the Viennese figured out how to filter it. That filtered coffee became popular in Western Europe.
if we won this war, the second stage was VENİCE. the third and final phase is the conquest of the ROME. In fact, we had won this war city had almost fallen, but the Crimean Khan has betrayed us so we lost the battle
You have kinda assumed that the partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth would have happened as they originally did, even though there would be no Austria to participate in those. It is possible that without Austria Frederick of Prussia would not be able to convince Tsarina Katherine and PLC would last as a Russian puppet state, and possibly managed to do some reforms in the future, or at least maintain its quasi-independence over the years. This could make a huge difference in the Eastern Europe.
If we won at Vienna (Beč, Beç), Austria (Nemce) will be defeated. I agree that we would not be able to move further into the continent, but instead we will invest heavily to the navy and try to conquer Italy, actually that was the main plan by Mehmet, the Conqueror at 1481. This will inevitably result in the endless Turco-Spanish War. One can never know the consequences of that war.
I'm less "offended" by him ignoring logistics and distance than I'm offended by the very very shallow "knowledge" of history presented by the author of the video about literally everything else.
And it seems that Commonwealth disappears immediately after Sobieski refusing to help, and has no influence on anything whatsoever, seemingly serving only as space for Russians to walk through... Right...
If Austria was destroyed wouldn't the Austrian Hapsburgs simply move to the court of their cousins in Spain? I feel like this would simplify the Spanish succession issue as the Austrian Hapsburgs wouldn't also be in charge of another nation, and they could inherit the throne without major opposition.
Sad laugh of fate is it turned out that Commonwealth shouldn't help Habsburgs near Vienna. If Ottomans won then, IMO there were big chances that Russia and Austria (and Prussia, mostly Habsburg influenced) wouldn't have enough power to annex Poland hundred years later. The only nation that didn't accept annexes of Poland was Ottoman Empire (That was more against Russia and Austria, than toward Poland, but still). You don't make a country great with one foreign victory. Poland lost on it in wider perspective. Fake allies sometimes are worse than enemies. Nice video, man :).
I think you're overestimating the damage loosing Vienna would cause the Hapsburgs tbh, they almost certainly wouldn't surrender all their land to the Ottomans just because of the defeat and Vienna would most likely have been retaken soon due to the Ottomans supply lines being way too overstretched at this point. Even the effect this would have on the Hapsburg might not be as bad as you might think as well. In fact an Ottoman incursion into the heartland of the Holy Roman Empire could've easily been used as an excuse for the Hapsburg emperors to push for greater unification and help them reestablish control over the otherwise fractured HRE.
Oh look someone with actual knowledge on the subject. The worst thing that would have happened is Vienna being sacked. Ottomans still would have lost the war probably, since their army was in the middle of hostile land with supply lines pretty much cut off as they didn't even bother to take castles on the way to Vienna. The significance of this battle is so overhyped... at the end of 17th century Europe was in no danger of being conquered by Ottomans, the quality of their army was already far below most European armies.
+sovijus Yea, at most it would've allowed the Ottomans to maintain control over Hungary for a longer time. At least the video does acknowledge that the Ottomans wouldn't have conquered Europe and would still have started declining unlike so many others who seemingly believed it would've spelled the end of Europe. Another part that is seriously exaggerated in the battle is the importance of the cavalry charge (not in small part due to a certain song), at the time the charge was made the Ottomans were already on their last legs, if the hussars wouldn't have done it the German troops (who seemingly never get mentioned despite making up the bulk of the army) would've finished them instead, as they were preparing to do.
Sobieski was as a king only the highest rank and nominal head in the army, which rescued vienna. The overwhelmingly part of the troops (3/4) in the battle at Kahlenberg were Germans of different german states (Reichsarmee). The Armys head and de facto commander was Karl von Lothringen. The polish help was important, but not decisive.
They were basicly almost all united under the Mongol Empire, except the Mamluks of Egypt and India. It would likely be the same, maybe grow like the Mongols but eventually getting too big and internal princes fighting eachother would result in civir war.
The Ottoman military had a habit of starting their conquests in the spring, then withdrawing before winter set in, so they could re-group and re-supply. They did this several times during the Balkan wars. This is a major reason they could not have won at Vienna.
The first siege was nearly a success, Wikipedia tells that the walls wouldn't have stood much longer. With more casualties and expenses Vienna could've fallen in 1529 under magnificent Suleiman's reign
You miss an important point. If Vienna was won, Sultan Suleyman would have made it a new capital for the muslim. Its all about strategy. If they made Vienna their capital the main force of the Turks would be in the centre of Eu. That would be the end of all other German states. Search Kizil Elma and what it means ;)
You never mention, Poland most likely would have taken Hungary and other northern Ottoman balkan lands too. The polish had strong claims on hungarian land. I think with the extra land, and poland's main rival, austria, being gone, poland would have feasted on the ottoman lands. There would be a ton of tension between poland and russia. I could see the polish allying with france, and there being a massive war: France and Poland against Prussia, Russia, and Great Britain. The French and Poles would eventually win, but Poland would face ennourmous casualties even Europe would have never seen before.
@@seymentheboss5194 yeah am sure In islam Muslim leaders are forced to keep up with world or else it would Be considered failure And will held the consequence
@@seymentheboss5194 will most of people here are taught religious beliefs Are against sciences Because the church held Europe for years in ignorance But they tend to forget that other religions natures are pretty different There no head of church to sell people Land in heaven or the someone who symbolizes the rule of god In zoroastrian or Hinduism
To be honest , this might have deescaleted things between germany and Poland. Germany did have plans for a German-Polish alliance against the Soviet Union after all. But the Poles decided to go with the British. Which would sell them off to the Soviets after WW2.
@@rafaelomansan No. The cause for war was reconquest of German territory and protection of the German people who fell under Polish rule after the WW1. There would be no reason to fight a war against several countries if Danzig was returned.
So I wish to say that while I do applaud both your academic level of research and your professional, unbiased view of the subject, (Deus Vulters, Deus Vulters EVERYWHERE!) there is a major flaw in this theory...and that is which siege you used for this "What if" scenario, this theory is applicable to the first siege of Vienna in 1529, not for the second in 1683. Now it's true that in both scenarios of Vienna being conquered in 1529 or 1683 would have given the Ottomans a new base from which to invade northern Italy, southern Germany and eastern Switzerland but that's where the similarities between the two end. I myself have said this for years "If the Ottomans had taken Vienna in 1529 the possible subsequent domino effect could have resulted in the Ottomans bordering their then new ally France, (Though this in itself becomes a new topic of consequences) and even an Austrian historian (Who's name I regrettably forgot and cannot find, a reinvestigation is required on my part) who lived in the late 1600s himself stated that "The silent victory in 1529 was far greater than the recent flamboyant one (1683). However this same scenario is astronomically improbable when applied to the 1683 siege and throughout the course of your video, you yourself unintentionally explain how this could not happen, even if the Ottomans had conquered Vienna in the absence of a relief force from the Poland, Vienna would have been as far as the Ottomans would have gotten, even for a pro "Team Ottoman" person such as myself, professionally the Ottomans reaching Bohemia in the 1680s-90s is wishful thinking as opposed to that being the case in the 1530s. As you yourself stated, the Ottoman Empire was in militaristic decline by the middle of the 17th century, thanks to the women of the harem ruling through weak Sultans, those weak Sultans not leading the army in person and now ruling the government as a mere figurehead rather than with an iron fist which lead to the Janissaries and Ülema preventing military advancement and deposing any Sultan who tried etc etc, and this factors in with a key fact that you forgot to mention which unravels the 1683 scenario: The Austrian military high command, Vienna falling in 1683 would not have meant the rest of Austria would have followed suit, again this would be applicable to 1529 because at that time Europe, militaristically behind, did not have a nation that could, by itself with no allies, field an army to match the Ottomans in an open field battle, (One might argue Austria or Spain but the fact that Charles V avoided every invitation/challenge by Süleyman I to an open battle, was nowhere to seen when the Ottomans marched on northern Hungary in the 1530s-60s and the real fighting between the Ottomans and Holy league took place in the Mediterranean via naval conflict instead speaks volumes) but 154 years later this was not the case, at this point Europe had already caught up to and surpassed the Ottomans militaristically and on the field of battle, The Battle of St. Gotthard/River Raab in 1664 had proven this to be true. The Austrians had the notable commanders of Prince Eugene Von Savoyen and Wilhelm Louis "Türkenlouis" of Baden-Baden (Both of which you never mentioned) at their disposal, had the Ottomans taken Vienna in 1683 these two would have most likely taken it back with relative ease and the following great Turkish War of 1683-1699 would have still occurred, initially between just the Ottomans and Austria this would mean at first the Ottomans would have only one front to focus all their forces on rather than dividing them on four as they did in real life but the poor Ottoman military leadership would still lead to problems/defeats on the field, the poor performances at the 2nd Battle of Mohács 1687 and disastrous defeats like at the Battle of Zenta 1697 would most likley still occur (Perhaps at diffrent locations and years in the scenario) and considering that in both real life and the scenario the Ottomans make the fatal logistical mistake of not securing the fortresses in the surrounding countryside of Vienna (And they would most likely repeat this mistake in Austria, Czech/Slovakia and Southern Germany if they somehow managed to go on the offensive following Vienna) the same applies to the Austrian Sieges of Buda 1686 and Belgrade 1688 and these subsequent victories by the 2 Austrian commanders would eventually embolden Venice to declare war for the first and only time on the Ottomans as they did in real life (2 fronts now) and inevitably, regardless of Austrian success, Russia would get involved (2 fronts if the Austrians are losing, 3 if winning). Ultimately in the scenario of Vienna being conquered the Ottomans still lose the war albeit with probably less territorial loss in Hungary in the following treaty as opposed to that of Karlowitz in 1699, Russia would probably take Podolia with Poland being absent, (This possibly leading to a war between the two countries) Venice would take Morea/Sparta only to lose it in 1715 just like in real life and so on. Additionally say the scenario somehow goes the way you envision it, this would drastically change the subsequent Wars with Russia for the next 200 years, in real life after the death of the two Austrian commanders the Austrian military and military high command proved to be nearly as weak and incompetent as their Ottoman counterparts with the following wars between the two powers seeing Ottoman victories and wars ending in stalemates with Belgrade usually being juggled back and forth, however these wars for the most part saw joint campaigns with Russians forcing the Ottomans on 2 fronts in Serbia and the Ukraine and while successful at matching the Austrians on the Serbian front, the Ukrainian front would see Russian victories. In the alternate scenario of Austria being knocked out of existence, the Ottomans can focus all of their forces on the Russian front (And that's IF the Battle of Pruth river in 1711 goes exactly the way it did in real life, because if the Ottoman Baltacı Mehmet Pasha had not made the important strategic mistake of signing the treaty with relatively easy terms for the Russians and with Peter the Great himself commanding the Russian army, had Baltacı Mehmet Pasha not accepted Peter's peace proposal and pursued to capture him as a prisoner instead, the course of history could have changed for without Peter, Russia would have hardly become an imperial power, and the future arch-enemy of the Ottoman State in the Balkans, the Black Sea basin and the Caucasus~ 'Alexander Mikaberidze) and then either of these scenarios drastically affect future Ottoman-Prussian relations, the future of Poland-Lithuania and Sweden as a northern European power. Ultimately in order for your scenario to work exactly to the tee, it would require the Austrians not having Eugene or Louis and for the Ottomans to have military leaders like those two instead of the idiot of Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Paşa and the average Köprülü vezirs that lead (And were eventually killed) leading the army, for said military leaders to secure every surrounding fortress in the countryside in Hungary, Germany and Czech/Slovakia, for Venice and Russia in addition to Poland not getting involved in the 1680s-90s, for Peter to be spared at Pruth in 1711, for Prussia and the Ottomans to develop hostilities, for France and the Ottomans to not develop hostilities, for Prussia to have interests soley focused on Ottoman holdings in Bohemia in the event of hostilities and have for some reason no designs on Polish territories, same goes for Russia in the event Peter lives and so many more events that quite frankly make it extremely improbable for something even remotely similar, let alone exactly like your scenario to come into fruition. Still that's not to say this video wasn't entertaining or wasn't well done and again thanks for being professional and unbiased in your presentation and not a Deus Vulter (Which 96% of UA-cam videos related to these topics seem to be full of) or Ottoman fan boy (Which I admittedly am one but as you can see, I don't allow that to blind me to unbiased truth or reasoning) and definitely more people like you are needed on the UA-cam scene and for that matter, the world.
Would all the mentioned European Monarchs still exist without Austria? As there were already so few potential people to marry, the loss of Austria would likely alter at least a few royal marriages on the continent, making it less likely that Fredrick the Great or King Louie would ever be born, let alone in the exact positions of power they had in our timeline.
![ОРБАН приехал к ПУТИНУ и "отчитался" о поездке в Киев 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_0ukDovOWq8/mqdefault.jpg)
So Poland saves Austria from conquest and a century later Austria takes part in 2 of the 3 partitions of Poland between Russia,Prussia and Austria. How trustworthy.
was talking about the partitions of Poland that Austria took part in along with Prussia and Russia in the 18th century. They occurred in 1772, 1793 and 1795. Austria took part in the first and the third. But you are right. Just as in the twentieth century, Poland could not defend itself from the degenerate absolutists of those three European states. What kind of constitutional monarchy has an elected assembly that only allows laws to be passed with a 100% vote like 18th century Poland did?
and Austria and Ottoman Empire fought side-by-side in the WWI...history ain't exact science
youre forgetting that is 17th-18th century politics, not 21st century.
polands heroic aid at Vienna had nothing to do with their love or good relationship with Austria, it was simply the best chance to stop the ottoman advance especially since viennas fall would mean the Commonwealth would be the next that had to face the wrath of the Turks.
Also the Poles that were in Austrian territory had it far better than those in Prussian/Russian territories
@Genghis Khan Not sure if It would go that easly then
I think a more interesting scenario would be what is the Turks won at Vienna in 1529 under Suleiman, in my opinion its overlooked far too much.
It would be a complete disaster for Europe as the Ottoman Empire was not facing the internal issues they faced in 1683. Some claim that Süleyman wanted to make Vienna a military base and attack deep in Europe from there, not starting walking from İstanbul
İf we won there will be no europo
Suleiman wasnt intended to win in 1529 he just wanna keep the army busy because of the internal strife which messed up the ottoman sultans force them to always declaring war on somebody just like todays usa.
It would have been possible, but very unlikely. The Ottomans were operating at the very end of the logistical capacity of 16th Century armies, with many dangers along the way. Even preparing the previous fall, as Suleiman did in a later attempted siege, did not help, as his army was fatally delayed by fanatical resistance.
It's easy to forget that Suleiman faced a very powerful adversary in the form of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, who ruled much of Europe as well as vast territories in the New World. He actually ruled more territory than Suleiman.
Charles's authority was less solid and he was beset by many enemies, but he was a truly redoubtable foe for Suleiman. Christian armies were just as powerful as Ottoman ones if they possessed numerical equality. Vienna, which was then a rather small city and not the metropolis it became later, would have taken years to become a new base of power, and where was Sulieman going to get his new recruits if the lands to the east were still in a constant state of upheaval?
In the meantime, the fall of Vienna would almost certainly have triggered a massive reaction from Charles, from the German princes, England and more. And possibly even France, which despite its alliance with the Ottomans, might act differently if the latter was on its doorstep. Suleiman would have had to face a huge united front of enemies on the battlefield to the west, and with more enemies to the east.
I guess Renaissance and would be disrupted because of the policy of the Ottomans. Also, reform may be never existed because of Europe would unify under the catolic leaders. Further, industrialization and colonization will be different or never happen. My ancestors were Ottoman but present scenario is more viable in terms of technology and development in lots of areas.
The leader of the Ottomans were just bad after the 1650’s.
Exactly same thing with Poland, it last good king was Sobieski, after he died Poland started to slowly collapse.
but abdulhamid the second was a good leader.
No, the leaders were not good after the 1800s
You got damn rigth
@Edward James Kenway Abdülhamid borçların büyük bir kısmını ödeyip Osmanlı ekonomisini güçlendirdi ve savaş olacağını önceden anlayıp tabyalari yaptırdı. Daha nice sayabildigim şeyler var yeter ki sor.
*What if comment section stop doing crusades with their keyboards*
What a s***show
Oguzhan Türk
But... But... Muh Jerusalem! I mean, Istambul! I mean, constantinople!
@@noone7692 peacefull muslims dont 'spitting' jihad, thats what peacefull means. Peacefull christians also dont call for crusades
Oguzhan Türk,
You are asking for moderation from people with anonymous accounts on UA-cam?
You ask too much, friend.
Cumhuriyetçi Aslan Its past, show me now christians murdering peoples of other religions. Muslims didnt stop doing it.
What if Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent never killed Prince Mustfa?
OOF
Mustafa, in my opinion, would have surpassed his father 10 folds and took the empire to new heights
That guy was the perfect son
Shame he had him killed cause of his bitch wife who wanted her son's on the throne
Chaos
Ottoman empire would be between central asia and britain
If Mustafa had been king, everything would have changed. He told his father that "we should not care east (Persians), we should only concentrate on Europe" and Mustafa's main aim would have been Roma(Catholic church) and to do this, he immediately conquer Vienna and than Owing to strong land army and navy, Roma would have been easy to conquer. All army would have respected to Mustafa and became full motivated if Mustafa had been king. To answer this question, within 3 years after Mustafa's sultanate, Vienna would have been conquered and then within 8 years, Roma would have been Turkish city. If Mustafa had taken control more than 15 years, probably next target would have been France and Germany(Prussia). and if he had taken control more than 20 years, last target would have been respectively Spain and British. He would have chosen to set up balance with Russia. But ofcourse Spain and British would have been hard because he would have gotten old after 20 years. But his child probably would have been educated well and total domination of Europe would have occured in his children saltanate.
Aşk Kılıç ve Muska romanındaki gibi olurdu
What if Kim presses the button?
Okay fair enough
Kim Possible?
lol! THis is the most surprising of all I read here xD
lmao lol
What if Trump presses the button?
As a Pole I sometimes wonder - if Turks had conquered Habsburg Empire, would have there been Partitions of Poland?
Probably not, I'd honestly see Poland Ally with the Ottomans
@@pratik1568 ottomans only converted anatolian greeks-armenians (and not completel by the way) on their early stages. They mostly left them to themselves as long as they paid taxes and didnt start rebellions (and until 18th century gave 1 male kid from each family)
In my (Age of Civilization 2) i am allied with PLC. I build the strongest empire in the world spaning from Portugal (I allied to Castile, we also destroy France) to Instanbul (Rome included). Long Live the Alliance nobody can stomp the Ottoman Empire for 1000 years.
Yes the main reason for this was Prussia and Russia with Austria just getting in on the fun
Thinking as another pole I think we would be great and strong with Turkey or crumble against Turkey in this time line
the reason why the ottomans lost at Vienna was because the second army deployed by the leader of the first army revolted against the ottomans and didn't stop incoming Polish Troops. The siege leader knew that polish would send help so he gathered a big second force to inturrpt them he put a Crimean Prince to charge. But he revolted against the ottomans to gain independency in Crimea. He was executed later.
This is the exact fact. Crimean Prince betrayed Ottomans and so Polish could reach to the battfield. They did not fly with those wings like Polish nationalists imagine.
every empire fall from the inside eating its self alive not only the ottomans
The Poles had honor and god. They coulden’t be stopped by some weak turks
@@nikolauz3162 Well God partitioned them some years later lol
@@fatihsaidduran oof
Why wouldn’t bohemia just declare independence after the fall of Vienna? It’s not like the ottomans would bother marching to Prague after the arduous Austrian campaign
I also find this to be too much, why not be content with Austria? They could go for Italy insyead (but later of course) as it was wealthy, divided, and strategically placed for them. Also the Ottomansconsidered themselves as the successors of the roman empire. Of cpurse it would be difficult for them to take the franco-spanish controlled regions and they cpuld be fearful of a huge christiam retaliation if ever they took Rome. Anyway, it was an excellent video
Same goes for the Tyrol, I don't think they would be interested in mountain climbing after such campaign...
cuz them are rattchet
Why would even Vienna remain in Ottoman hands when they could barely supply armies fighting in Hungary? The whole premise of this video (Austria magically becoming fully integrated into the Ottoman empire) sounds like something a person who knows nothing of real life and only played video games made up.
Vienna was less important then ppl think, it was more important to fight French then Ottomans, kind of like today you know Turkey would like to get into Europe but Europe does not really care. But yes timeline in this video is one of the possible even tho its not most likely to have happend.
The whole Point of conquering Vienna, was for the Ottoman Army to have a new base from witch to campaign into Central Europe. I agree that they wouldn’t have gotten much further and would probably fail at a city like Krakow, Berlin or Venice, but not because they couldn’t reach it.
Yeah i agree too,if vienna fall...the holy league still formed...but ottoman at the strong position likely.then the great turkish war will become stalemate and vienna remain at turkish hand
At that time Europe was weak and the Ottomans were the most powerful country, so if they wanted to, they would have advanced more in Europe.
@@GhostD-gg4hr they were already in decline, stop lying.
@@cardozoluciano8362 ottoman f*cked europe
@@cardozoluciano8362 stop cying
If Ottomans won at Vienna, they would want to conquer Rome, second Constantinople.
I think they be able. Venice did sometimes good in sea but so huge army on its doorstep be good bye freedom. Italy cant resist it. Maybe it would help. Eitherways we all got our loved alternatives. I personally be very satiesfied with no second Balkan war and Balkan alliance remain and guess how that ends for ur interest. So anyways. Take caew
@@ivokantarski6220 albania had one problem lol, We already want attack it, but albania make it hard
Yes I agree Europe failed many times to get rid of the ottomans and ottomans advanced for in their first generation extremely far so I dont think the italians will stand a chance as well ottomans could make an ally with a European superpower
@Xerius but think abt it framce and ottoman monarchs marry into each other making France have a muslim thing in them a Christian thing won't be in with the ottomans
@Xerius but it could we never know? Or ottomans would ally with someone else
2:13 Finally someone pointed this out, THANK YOU.
The Blakans: "So that was a fucking lie"
@@user-up4el3vq3i Heard of population exchange, also were talking culture not religion to this day there are plenty of Turkish words that have corrupted Balkan languages. It got so bad that nations like Albania and Bulgaria had to go through national revivals to revive and teach once again their native language.
@@user-up4el3vq3i The ottomans also forcefully converted them too through policies and tax incentives, trade networks and transnational religious links. And their effect was not minor at all many societal problems can be felt to this day.
@@user-up4el3vq3i What does spain have to do with this? If so what happened to the muslims in Spain can't be compared to what happened to the Nestorian Christians by Tamerlane. Or what the janisaries did to Serbs and the Catholic Albanians or Ali Pasha Tepelena to orthodox Christians. Whataboutism is a slippery slope.
@@user-up4el3vq3i bruh "they didn't send very much people". After the Balkan wars they kicked out 8 to 10 million so-called Muhacirs, which made up 1/5 of the Balkans.
Secondly many nations in the Balkans today have large muslim populations, including Bosnia, Albania, Macedonia and Bulgaria. The only reason Islam seems to have dissapeared from Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia is due to Communism (because in a Communist state you are Atheist).
Thirdly, if they were so "tolerant", why is their a collective resentment towards the Turks nowadays and why were the Turks so violantly kicked out of the Balkans?
A better question would be if Suleiman the Lawgiver had captured Vienna in 1529.
I answered this question in a comment somewhere here if you are interested.
@@alidokadri Which coment
As historians say: ”never make history with ”what if””
Then all historians should be out of work.
geroestetumor thats not how history works. You cant talk with "if" in history. You cant know it.
Oguz Caliskan You surely did not get what I meant, and judging by your name you never will. Good day.
geroestetumor sorry what is wrong on my name and what is your point?
Oguz Caliskan Based on your name you belong to a different community than I do and therefore you have a different take on the statement.
Sobieski actually considered allying himself with the Ottoman Empire to recover Silesia from Habsburgs, so this timeline isn't that unlike. However, I don't think that the fall of Vienna would mean that the entire domain of Austrian Habsburgs would fall into Ottoman hands.
And in your timeline Poland-Lithuania simply disappears (as they did in ours), but this seems unlikely. Not only because Austria participated in the partitions of Poland, and now it was out of the equation, but also because Ottomans, now being a bit stronger, wouldn't allow it, fearing the rise of power of Russia and Prussia.
Also, Czech Republic was not a thing until 1993, so I don't understand why you name it in 1600s.
He explains what Bohemia is by pointing out what became of those lands. (Czech Republic reference)
Re: P-L - I'd say that rather than disappearing, the guy(s) who made the video are incompetent morons who do not understand logistics, supply and plausibility and simply decided not to speak about it because, in their ignorant eyes, it ceased being important after Vienna.
Gibbons writes " It can not be argued that the Ottomans were the first nation in the new age to use the principle of religious freedom as fundamental idea in establishing their state ". Jean Bodin(1520-96)founder of European state laws,recommended to the King of France that he take the ruling of the Ottoman State as an example. He said that Padishah(Ottoman Ruler) treated the Orthodox,the Catholics and Jews as equal to Muslims and protected them all. Chenier of Geneva said in 1717: " The Turks have a very wide perspective of religion and show great tolerance"
No one was punished for their religious beliefs,except for those who deliberatly insulted Islam.The few priest punished were not charged with religious offences,but with treason. Marshall Von Moltke found this source of this tolerance towards Christians that reason for this could only be their solid and strong belief in Islam.
The violence and aggression between rival Christians(Catholics and Orthodox Christians)sects in those years is recorded in their own books. After Viennas defeat,The Venetians invaded Sakiz for a short time and Mora for quite a long time. They caused so much violence that when the Ottomans resumed control,the Greeks greeted them with songs and celebration.
The Ottomans also collected The Jizya from the people of the book in return for their exemption from military service and for protection Christians soldiers did not have to pay this tax.Soldiers from southern Romania,presented for service to the Ottomans in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries became very important part of army.
Many non Muslims lived in the Empire ,especially in port cities. The state protected them and gave them complete freedom to conduct business,visit religious places,or just tour the country. V Morrin of Rokebey wrote that he went to Istanbul in 1794,when he was 22 years old,and had roamed freely among the Turks and found them very helpful.
Ottomans respected the art of ancient civilizations.The mosaics in Ayasofia(Aya sofya) the number most famous mosques,were not touched from 1453 until 1922. Out of respect for Christians feelings,the mosaics were painted over.
Orientalists,basing themselves on the twentieth century values have problem with dhimmi status of non Muslims Ottoman subjects. However they are gravely mistaken. I have mentioned the vast rights given to them in theory and practice.
Religious freedom> steals christian childeren as a form of tax and applies dhimmi status to infidels. Ottomans were nazi's and everybody knows it. despised by virtually all its neighbours for a reason.
There is no such thing as stealing children. The ammount of Jainesery was at the top moment just arround 15.000 man. That was just few % of the main army. Dhimmi status is todays, visa. Without a working or travelling visa you can not go to another country and work in 2018. You have to PAY for this visa every year or every 3 years. So the 'dhimmi' status is stil active in todays world between other countrys. None muslims were giving 'dhimmi'status bc there were not citizens of the empire but just people who lived in these lands.
despised by all neighbourhgs? hahahahahhaa every balkan nation is in same condition because the balkans are literally consist of retards. plus azerbaijan, iran and georgia don't hate us.
Lotte Lotte OH COMPARING MEDIEVAL EMPIRE TO UNITED STATES! SEEMS LEGIT!
Keith L. Another wikipedia historian in sight.
Keeping with the Big Blue Blob theme, could you do "What if Napoleon beat Russia?"
Of which events exactly are you talking here, Provocateur? I'm genuinly curious as the conflict between the HRE and the ottomans on the balkans were partially what made my country's independence possible
He's talking about the Crimean War
AwoudeX Shut up! You are ignorant person. Go to school and learn something.
Lol, yes i'm ignorant and that is why i asked the very question i did in my previous comment. As far as the history of the Balkans goes, that never was a priority piece of history for my people and therefor not part of history told in schools in my country, unless you specify towards history and maybe then specify again thereafter.
So maybe i'm ignorant, but you're an idiot for pointing out the obvious as it was right there on display. At least i'm curious about it and willing to look into it. You telling me to shut up means i don't get to ask questions which thereafter means i can't cure my ignorance on the subject. Get a brain, or start using the one you have.
TBH, it's not a priority piece of history anywhere but in russia probably.
My Grandfather smoked his whole life. I was about 10 years old when my mother said to him, 'If you ever want to see your grandchildren graduate, you have to stop immediately.'. Tears welled up in his eyes when he realized what exactly was at stake. He gave it up immediately. Three years later he died of lung cancer. It was really sad and destroyed me. My mother said to me- 'Don't ever smoke. Please don't put your family through what your Grandfather put us through." I agreed. At 28, I have never touched a cigarette. I must say, I feel a very slight sense of regret for never having done it, because your voice gave me cancer anyway.
I read it all for no reason
Underrated comment lol
U funny af
Thats a bit rude
thanks for the sad but not request drama story in a video that talk about history and not drama
*100%* *DISCIPLINE*
nahte armystrong *Janissary coup in progress*
Bruh, Ottos have 5% disc in their traditions.
i have only now realised i have tryped 100% and not 150%(i was talking about prussia)
MyVanir, even though they were one of the first to use big cannons to tear down walls and decimal system in their armies which is now used by nearly every army in the World? While those European soldiers were still using halbers and stuff, Janissaries were using Muskets. Ottoman Empire in the 16th and 17th century was at its height when it came to discipline and technology.
You are way too clueless.
bahadir dekin he is talking about eu4,not history
The Ottomans were just about to take Vienna and.... THEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED!
That was the night Vienna was freed...
We made the enemy bleed
Storm clouds fire and steel, death from above make our enemies kneel...
God damn it!!!
Kieran McFall Sabaton.
COMING DOWN THE MOUNTAINSIDE
"Christendom" on the Map made me laugh out loud, specially when you didn't include Russia in it. :P
russia is orthodox. christan but not mainstream one. also orthodox hate west because the west is the one that sack constantinople in 1204
orthodox is influenced heavily by eastern mystic culture (especially from zorostrian sassanids through byzantines)
@@aydnmesuttorun8397 what? Lol no. We just dont have a pope fighre thats it.
@@kartvelianmapping808 that is not i meant. Eastern orthodox church has many oriental influences. Earlier from Persia (zorostrianism) and later from Nestorian church.
@@aydnmesuttorun8397 zoroastrianism has literally no influence. Im eastern orthodox christian myself and i dont see any zoroastrian influence
One aspect of the Ottoman victory scenario you overlooked is the role of the Holy Roman Emperor. As you know, the Habsburgs of Austria were traditionally elected emperor of the German states in the Holy Roman Empire. Louis XIV knew that they, more so than the Prussians at this point, were his main competition for control over the German lands. Louis was related by blood to the Habsburgs and he knew that if Vienna fell to the Turks and the Habsburgs were removed as Emperors, the German princes would most likely look to him for protection. If Vienna had fallen, there was a very good chance that Louis would have been elected Holy Roman Emperor.
You points you make about the Ottoman Empire are absolutely true. Congrats on that. Even if they had won at Vienna, the empire was destined to collapse.
All empires are destined to collapse.
Husky lol when one Turk state falls another one rises
all empires are destined to collapse you idiot
You are very good at this and have a nice voice for the job. Your conclusions are quite logical and would probably even have happened in the most cases. Though it is alternative history I'd say most predictions are very accurate. Keep up the good work.
As you've covered quite much already it's hard to suggest more, but what if Switzerland, Spain and Sweden hadn't been neutral during WW2? Or WW1? Best regards
I am Turkish and live in Vienna
and we have conquered vienna
every fourth person in vienna is Turkish
😂🇹🇷❤🇦🇹
A few ideas for future videos:
What if the Black Death never happened?
What if Japan never became isolationist?
What if the Japanese Empire discovered oil in Manchuria?
What if Russia won the Russo-Japanese War?
What if Gran Colombia survived?
What if the Mali Empire discovered the New World?
What if Russia kept Alaska?
What if Justinian and Khosrow were allies?
What if France won the Franco-Prussian War?
What if Nazi Germany focused on the Mediterranean instead of Operation Barbarossa?
What if the Americas were settled by Homo erectus instead of the native Americans?
What if Judaism never existed?
What if jutsu/magic/bending was real?
I can already think of some outcomes of these scenarios, especially the last one. But I would like to hear your thoughts on how these would turn out.
Właśnie tego szukałem
dzięki
The way he finish hid setences really grinds my gears
Putting aside that an Ottoman invasion of Bohemia is unlikely, and fundamentally misses the reasons why the Ottomans wanted Vienna to begin with, I'd like to point out that it is unlikely that the King of Prussia would have done as you say that he did. The reason why frederick ii attacked Austria and entered Bohemia when he did was because he recognised the severity and instability of the Austrian succession crisis at the time. Furthermore, in this AT, the Ottomans would not only have a larger manpower reserve to call upon in comparison to the Austrians, but would also not be dealing with internal and external conflicts, and would be allied with France, so it's unlikely that the King of Prussia would suddenly declare war on the most powerful empire in the world with no allies and absolutely no guarantee that he's going to win. Were he to do so, I simply cannot see him winning this, no matter how competent he is as a general. The Ottomans at this time would be able to call upon several armies tens, potentially even hundreds of thousands strong, and yes, whilst numbers aren't everything, they would need to get lucky only once, the Prussians would need to get lucky every single time.
Valid
Right, thr ottomans mainly pursued subjugation of Persia and restoration of Rome. Why would they go that far north?
His Majesty the King of Sweden's letter:
"I was captive in Poltava. This was a way of death for me, I was saved. Danger occurred more powerfully before Dnyester River; there was water before me, enemy behind me, and the sun sprewing out hells... Water claimed to suffocate me, enemy claimed to cut me into pieces and the sun claimed to melt me; I was again saved. However I am a captive today, I am the captive of the Turks. They did me what the iron, heat and water could not do, and they captivated me. Merely there is no chain on my leg, I am not in a prison; I can do whatever I want... However this time I am the captive of tenderness, nobility and kindness. Turks embrace me with this diamond affection. I want you to know how sweet is to live among a nation that is this much generous, noble and kind as an independent slave."
Charles XII, was the King of Sweden from 1697 to 1718. He belonged to the House of Palatinate-Zweibrücken, a branch line of the House of Wittelsbach. Charles was the only surviving son of Charles XI and Ulrika Eleonora the Elder. Charles' subsequent march on Moscow met with initial success as victory followed victory, the most significant of which was the Battle of Holowczyn where the smaller Swedish army routed a Russian army twice the size. The campaign ended with disaster when the Swedish army suffered heavy losses to a Russian force more than twice its size at Poltava. Charles had been incapacitated by a wound prior to the battle, rendering him unable to take command. The defeat was followed by the Surrender at Perevolochna. Charles spent the following years in exile in the Ottoman Empire.
Who cares? How is this relevant in this video?
They loved bombed him , because they needed an alliance with Sweden against Russia.
Did you not fucking watch the video? How is this remotely relevant to this bullshit-on-a-stick video?
Indeed,calm your tits, dude
He's talking about the Ottoman Empire. The fuck is your problem?
Your videos are so much better than alternative historys
What about the first siege of Vienna though, led by Sultan Suleiman in 1529 would that alternate scenario be different or would be the same as this one?
So, Prussia was "German" and Austria was not? How do you make that distinction? If anything I would say it was the other way around.
Well modern prussia no ,prussia back then German
@@Kai555100 Germany to Prussia is the colonial equivalent of England to Americans. Old Prussia was Baltic until the German/Teutonic crusade wiped them out. Then the area was settled by Germans, likely from Pommeranian and Saxon stocks, which in turn developed their own distinct (still Germanic) culture they named 'Prussian', a name they took from the region
I love how casual you were about the lack of a French revolution, like 'oh it would probably just mean Spain would hold on to its colonies' and not 'Liberalism, the ideas of the enlightenment, and nationalism wouldn't have spread and the entire political land scape of the world would be radically different'
Fascinating to see the domino effect from Istanbul to London
If french revolution not happened as a result
Maybe Ottoman Empire dissolution would be more peaceful like British Empire after WW2
Monarchy would still be a thing
I haven't opened the video yet but the thumbnail looks scary enough.
XD
The thing is tho the whole reason the ottomans wanted vienna was to have a new hub in central europe where they can stage new attacks
So if they actually did take vienna the campaigns of europe would be set from vienna not constantinople
Not true tho. The Sultan at that time didnt even want to attack Vienna. The Grand Vizier attacked Viena just randomly.
The problem is that frederick the great had a teacher and that was Prinz Eugen (Austria), with out this teacher he would be an other person. We can't say that Frederick the Great would be that millitary genius we known as.
There would also probably be no partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Sobieski would have just enough time to make his dynasty stable (his son was almost elected in our timeline) or king Leszczynski would take the throne. Leszczyński was famously good administrator of Loraine and Louis XV of France father-in-law.
Austria would not mingle in Polish politics of the era which would be huge.
Commonwealth was also in a strong ally of the France to the end of XVII century. Electing any other monarch than August of Saxony would change many things, keeping the aliance intact.
Commonwealth would have enough strenght to bring about reforms that were proposed by Sobieski and Leszczyński. It would also take part in war against Prussia, probably reconquering some of the territory lost in second half of XVII century (quite a fresh loss). It is quite possible that Prussia would loose in this timeline as it was close to fall in our.
If Poland on French side then Russia would ally Prussia
For a History Fatih Sultan Mehmed made a huge army in balkans and in izmir. He didn’t tell to anyone where they were going but it was obvious. He was going to Italy. From North he was going with the army from the Balkans and the other army from izmir was going with ships to the south of Italy. They were not going to stop if they won the Vienna. But Sultan Mehmed got sick on the way to Izmir for last checking and he died on the way.
Vienna was the far logistical end of OE. Even if they theoritically take it they couldn't use it as a base of operation the same reason they couldn't use Belgrade or Buda as such, because Ottoman started preparing for a campaign the previous year through raising armies in Anatolia and Rum, cross the Balkans in spring before early summer river floods, do operations in summer / early autumn, and had to go back before late autumn floods.
The scope of devastation meant that most of Hungary and Croatia simply couldn't upkeep their armies long term, and troops raised in Balkans were only secondary to the janissaries and spahis.
Nice video.
What about the winged hussars?
Surely they were the deciding factor in this epoch?
Your ends of sentences are so funny, have you noticed? :D
So Austria disappears and Poland is still partitioned among Russia and Prussia? And France allows Prussia to grow at the expense of the Commonwealth?
poland :i always protected europe
germany, russia ,austria :ok let us return the favor by deleteing u from the map
Ottoman Empire's decline had already started with the death of Mehmet the Conquerer. Even if the whole Europe had been captured by the 17. century, the fall of the Empire might have been faster because of the overspending of its borders, mostly due to problems of accessibility.
abartmayın bu arada 2.bayezid diyen duydum ve mantıklı buldum ama avrupa amerikayı keşfetmemişti bile
@@think9747 Fatih'ten sonra bilimi ciddiye alan olmadığı için yıkıldı Osmanlı, ki tam Fatih zamanı Rönesans sonrası ve Coğrafi keşiflerin bilimle buluşup Batın'nın sıçramaya başladığı zamanlardır. Batı kendi arasında ittifak edilebilmiş olsaydı eğer Osmanlı'yı 19. yy başında çoktan bitirebilirlerdi ama bunu yapamadılar çünkü Napolyon batı ittifakına en az 50 yıllık bir darbe vurup Rusyayı zayıflattı. Bu yüzden de Osmanlı'nın selâsı gecikti.
Celal şengörü dinleyipde saçma sapan konuşma yok osman bey zamaninda cokmeye basladi hangi imparatorluk gerilemeye başladigi sureden 400 sene sonra yikilir hic mi akil yok sende
@@1.2713 celal sengörün kendi bilim dalı dışındaki konuşmalarını fazla ciddiye almamak lazım zaten kendi görüşlerini çok katan biri
@@kocerarif tamamda sen bildigin çöküş demissin duraklama hadi neyse bi devlet toprak kazanıyorsa böyle değildir bana göre
Pretty cool, I enjoyed all the, "What ifs?"
This could’ve been our history.
BUT THEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED!!!
And they fought while Ottomans didnt even try to much. Buncha homosexuals comes and thinks they can win over Turks lmao. And the way Austria slaps you after being saved. Lol no surprise Pols got f'ed with the attack of German and Russian XD
The loss at Vienna was because the Crimean prince betrayed the Ottomans, not because of some Hussar's.
@@serhaterenarslan95 lmao cope
@@ihatetheantichrist9545 cope and seethe my boi, your hussars didn't change anything.
What if the Germans won The battle of Verdun?
Mr. Two I can bet that it would have been the same a more interesting question is what if they won the balle of Maine
What if BigBite won WWI
Mr. Two
Germans DID win the battle of verdun
They defeated the french and took verdun however the french did a counter attack and took it back from Germans
They never took Verdun. They were at the closest about 4 km's away from Verdun.
It was such a brutal battle, that at this point, it wasn’t important who wins or loses, both suffered heavy losses
0:24 "However, at the last moment, King Sobieski..."
Jan III of Poland was never actually called this as Sobieski was his house name. That would be on par with calling Elizabeth II "Queen Windsor"
"Diplomacy" by Henry Kissger begins with War of Spanish Succession. It was a huge deal. How people can forget that?
All the Europeans think that this would have been their doom but in reality as a Turk i can say that this wouldn't change anything :DD
It is already spelling our doom.
Western Historiography likes to overhype the Ottoman Empire for some reason. It's weird.
Why is no one talking about whenever he ends his sentences he extends his vowels by a million years
It actually irritates me
Do you think there would be a Großdeutschland unification or do think that there would not be a unification at all?
You totally won me over with the thumbnail. #forthealgorithm
What if "Operation Valkyrie" succeeded?
VincX213 idk next operation viking
Ottomans always had a border troops called “akıncı”
And now akıncı is a gay looking stupid superhero on atv
@@disco_depression lol
the question should be what if viena falled at 1529?
Well, coffee would differ in Western Europe, if consumed at all. The Turks brought a mountain of coffee to Vienna and it was captured. The the Viennese figured out how to filter it. That filtered coffee became popular in Western Europe.
jesus christ I never knew the ottomans had such a massive empire in its peak
if we won this war, the second stage was VENİCE. the third and final phase is the conquest of the ROME. In fact, we had won this war city had almost fallen, but the Crimean Khan has betrayed us so we lost the battle
tachanka main but as the saying goes
من يضحك أخيراً يضحك كثيراً
And at the end your shitty empire collapsed and Christianity won
@Theo Lionheart if only there was a god :) .
that means no internet cars phones helicopters and many more inventions by the west thank god the ottoman lost
@Theo Lionheart no,bcuz that crimean prince...
@Theo Lionheart at that time we had egypt which the richest province
You have kinda assumed that the partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth would have happened as they originally did, even though there would be no Austria to participate in those. It is possible that without Austria Frederick of Prussia would not be able to convince Tsarina Katherine and PLC would last as a Russian puppet state, and possibly managed to do some reforms in the future, or at least maintain its quasi-independence over the years. This could make a huge difference in the Eastern Europe.
why is the name churchhill to britain basically the same as the name "enterprise" to the Federation?
Better idea, what if the battle of Vienna DIDN’T happen?
Mind your grammar.
If we won at Vienna (Beč, Beç), Austria (Nemce) will be defeated. I agree that we would not be able to move further into the continent, but instead we will invest heavily to the navy and try to conquer Italy, actually that was the main plan by Mehmet, the Conqueror at 1481. This will inevitably result in the endless Turco-Spanish War. One can never know the consequences of that war.
Wouldn't the War of Polish Succession 1733-1735 be affected by this alternate timeline?
Could you do a video on if the Dogger Bank Incident started a world war?
WHEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVE
Volbeater 7734 did Hussar save poland economy??
Did Polish economy fall?
WHEN THE TATARS ARRIVE :)
Volbeater 7734 there it is XD
yes the only success in polish history xD carry that with pride boy
What a ridiculous timeline, how come all the alt-history channels have no proper understanding of plausibility?
I'm less "offended" by him ignoring logistics and distance than I'm offended by the very very shallow "knowledge" of history presented by the author of the video about literally everything else.
Sounds like he played EU4 or something and used that as the basis for the video.
And it seems that Commonwealth disappears immediately after Sobieski refusing to help, and has no influence on anything whatsoever, seemingly serving only as space for Russians to walk through... Right...
Could you do it any better?
If Austria was destroyed wouldn't the Austrian Hapsburgs simply move to the court of their cousins in Spain? I feel like this would simplify the Spanish succession issue as the Austrian Hapsburgs wouldn't also be in charge of another nation, and they could inherit the throne without major opposition.
Sad laugh of fate is it turned out that Commonwealth shouldn't help Habsburgs near Vienna. If Ottomans won then, IMO there were big chances that Russia and Austria (and Prussia, mostly Habsburg influenced) wouldn't have enough power to annex Poland hundred years later. The only nation that didn't accept annexes of Poland was Ottoman Empire (That was more against Russia and Austria, than toward Poland, but still). You don't make a country great with one foreign victory. Poland lost on it in wider perspective. Fake allies sometimes are worse than enemies.
Nice video, man :).
liked, subscribed, too poor for patreon
AND THEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED
Magyar Huszar because Magyarsz are have the Turkic Blood , we are son of Attila 😂🇹🇷🐺🤘🇭🇺
Sabaton
Also Ottoman has it :) WINGED HUSSARS LIKE DELİLER :)
@@furkancanoglu
Aga bizde dmden yürüyenler var.
AND THEN DELILER ARRIVED
Greetings from Turkey A good video but I dont know english enough ı understand A little :)
Hey, your voice is getting better!
I think you're overestimating the damage loosing Vienna would cause the Hapsburgs tbh, they almost certainly wouldn't surrender all their land to the Ottomans just because of the defeat and Vienna would most likely have been retaken soon due to the Ottomans supply lines being way too overstretched at this point. Even the effect this would have on the Hapsburg might not be as bad as you might think as well. In fact an Ottoman incursion into the heartland of the Holy Roman Empire could've easily been used as an excuse for the Hapsburg emperors to push for greater unification and help them reestablish control over the otherwise fractured HRE.
Oh look someone with actual knowledge on the subject.
The worst thing that would have happened is Vienna being sacked. Ottomans still would have lost the war probably, since their army was in the middle of hostile land with supply lines pretty much cut off as they didn't even bother to take castles on the way to Vienna. The significance of this battle is so overhyped... at the end of 17th century Europe was in no danger of being conquered by Ottomans, the quality of their army was already far below most European armies.
+sovijus Yea, at most it would've allowed the Ottomans to maintain control over Hungary for a longer time.
At least the video does acknowledge that the Ottomans wouldn't have conquered Europe and would still have started declining unlike so many others who seemingly believed it would've spelled the end of Europe. Another part that is seriously exaggerated in the battle is the importance of the cavalry charge (not in small part due to a certain song), at the time the charge was made the Ottomans were already on their last legs, if the hussars wouldn't have done it the German troops (who seemingly never get mentioned despite making up the bulk of the army) would've finished them instead, as they were preparing to do.
The cavalry charge was overhyped years before the song was a thing bud.
+MyVanir Of course, but the song has helped entrench the belief more than anything before.
No, the song just turned it into a meme.
THE WING HUSSARS ARRIVEDDDD
arent you the guy who was spamming racial slurs on discord
Sobieski was as a king only the highest rank and nominal head in the army, which rescued vienna. The overwhelmingly part of the troops (3/4) in the battle at Kahlenberg were Germans of different german states (Reichsarmee). The Armys head and de facto commander was Karl von Lothringen. The polish help was important, but not decisive.
Great video!
What if Turkic Empires never fight with eachothers????
=You can't stop the ottoman if this happens
@@omubw6836 Imagine tamerlane and the ottomans cooperating to conquer the world
They were basicly almost all united under the Mongol Empire, except the Mamluks of Egypt and India. It would likely be the same, maybe grow like the Mongols but eventually getting too big and internal princes fighting eachother would result in civir war.
Ottomans aim was Rome.
Dont trust google translator
@فهمي كتاني Not muslims,it was a Turkish business.
@@KebabS kral sen burda ne yapıyorsun gsgshdh
@فهمي كتاني nope Turks( Mehmed II) declared themselves as the Third Rome. Mehmed's dream was Conquering Rome
@@alimertcangur3547 one day rome will enter in our hand
The Ottoman military had a habit of starting their conquests in the spring, then withdrawing before winter set in, so they could re-group and re-supply. They did this several times during the Balkan wars. This is a major reason they could not have won at Vienna.
The first siege was nearly a success, Wikipedia tells that the walls wouldn't have stood much longer. With more casualties and expenses Vienna could've fallen in 1529 under magnificent Suleiman's reign
On The last map of the video it shows Finland as part of Russia but wouldn't it still be Swedish since there were no Napoleonic war in this timeline?
The French take over Europe!? Gott in Himmel! Go, Sobieski, go!!
poor poland, a century after they helped austria, their country cease to be claimed by germany states and russian
You miss an important point. If Vienna was won, Sultan Suleyman would have made it a new capital for the muslim. Its all about strategy. If they made Vienna their capital the main force of the Turks would be in the centre of Eu. That would be the end of all other German states. Search Kizil Elma and what it means ;)
5:25 you completely missed what would do Poland if Prussia get buffed by invading Bohemia.
You never mention, Poland most likely would have taken Hungary and other northern Ottoman balkan lands too. The polish had strong claims on hungarian land. I think with the extra land, and poland's main rival, austria, being gone, poland would have feasted on the ottoman lands. There would be a ton of tension between poland and russia. I could see the polish allying with france, and there being a massive war: France and Poland against Prussia, Russia, and Great Britain. The French and Poles would eventually win, but Poland would face ennourmous casualties even Europe would have never seen before.
What if *sykespicot agreement never happend
Saddam's wet dream.
We'd miss out on one of the best songs of all time.
Weren’t the Ottomans attacked by Timur in Anatolia, and that made them break off the attack on Vienna? I may be wrong but I recall that detail...
Every night before bed I give thanks to the winged hussars ❤️❤️🙏🏻🙏🏻
And I swear them as a Turk 🤣🤣🤣 Just a joke btw.
1:50 the religious leaders never opposed science
Are you sure
@@seymentheboss5194 yeah am sure
In islam Muslim leaders are forced to keep up with world or else it would
Be considered failure
And will held the consequence
@@coolboycoolboy6314 i was serious with this question i was just wondering because a lot of people say the contrary
@@seymentheboss5194 will most of people here are taught religious beliefs
Are against sciences
Because the church held Europe for years in ignorance
But they tend to forget that other religions natures are pretty different
There no head of church to sell people
Land in heaven or the someone who symbolizes the rule of god
In zoroastrian or Hinduism
What if the Turks won at Malta, would they be able to read islands like Sardinia, Sicily, and into Italy?
Fascinating video thanks
How about "What if Poland ceded Danzig to Germany in 1939?"
Georg LP its called Gdansk.
Germany would still invade, Danzig/Gdansk was just an excuse.
Danzig was free city that wasnt part of Poland, its like saying what if England cede Alasce and Lorraine to Germany
To be honest , this might have deescaleted things between germany and Poland. Germany did have plans for a German-Polish alliance against the Soviet Union after all. But the Poles decided to go with the British. Which would sell them off to the Soviets after WW2.
@@rafaelomansan
No.
The cause for war was reconquest of German territory and protection of the German people who fell under Polish rule after the WW1.
There would be no reason to fight a war against several countries if Danzig was returned.
R.I.P. Pork , Pork for life! They should taste the glory of pork !
So I wish to say that while I do applaud both your academic level of research and your professional, unbiased view of the subject, (Deus Vulters, Deus Vulters EVERYWHERE!) there is a major flaw in this theory...and that is which siege you used for this "What if" scenario, this theory is applicable to the first siege of Vienna in 1529, not for the second in 1683.
Now it's true that in both scenarios of Vienna being conquered in 1529 or 1683 would have given the Ottomans a new base from which to invade northern Italy, southern Germany and eastern Switzerland but that's where the similarities between the two end.
I myself have said this for years "If the Ottomans had taken Vienna in 1529 the possible subsequent domino effect could have resulted in the Ottomans bordering their then new ally France, (Though this in itself becomes a new topic of consequences) and even an Austrian historian (Who's name I regrettably forgot and cannot find, a reinvestigation is required on my part) who lived in the late 1600s himself stated that "The silent victory in 1529 was far greater than the recent flamboyant one (1683).
However this same scenario is astronomically improbable when applied to the 1683 siege and throughout the course of your video, you yourself unintentionally explain how this could not happen, even if the Ottomans had conquered Vienna in the absence of a relief force from the Poland, Vienna would have been as far as the Ottomans would have gotten, even for a pro "Team Ottoman" person such as myself, professionally the Ottomans reaching Bohemia in the 1680s-90s is wishful thinking as opposed to that being the case in the 1530s.
As you yourself stated, the Ottoman Empire was in militaristic decline by the middle of the 17th century, thanks to the women of the harem ruling through weak Sultans, those weak Sultans not leading the army in person and now ruling the government as a mere figurehead rather than with an iron fist which lead to the Janissaries and Ülema preventing military advancement and deposing any Sultan who tried etc etc, and this factors in with a key fact that you forgot to mention which unravels the 1683 scenario:
The Austrian military high command, Vienna falling in 1683 would not have meant the rest of Austria would have followed suit, again this would be applicable to 1529 because at that time Europe, militaristically behind, did not have a nation that could, by itself with no allies, field an army to match the Ottomans in an open field battle, (One might argue Austria or Spain but the fact that Charles V avoided every invitation/challenge by Süleyman I to an open battle, was nowhere to seen when the Ottomans marched on northern Hungary in the 1530s-60s and the real fighting between the Ottomans and Holy league took place in the Mediterranean via naval conflict instead speaks volumes) but 154 years later this was not the case, at this point Europe had already caught up to and surpassed the Ottomans militaristically and on the field of battle, The Battle of St. Gotthard/River Raab in 1664 had proven this to be true.
The Austrians had the notable commanders of Prince Eugene Von Savoyen and Wilhelm Louis "Türkenlouis" of Baden-Baden (Both of which you never mentioned) at their disposal, had the Ottomans taken Vienna in 1683 these two would have most likely taken it back with relative ease and the following great Turkish War of 1683-1699 would have still occurred, initially between just the Ottomans and Austria this would mean at first the Ottomans would have only one front to focus all their forces on rather than dividing them on four as they did in real life but the poor Ottoman military leadership would still lead to problems/defeats on the field, the poor performances at the 2nd Battle of Mohács 1687 and disastrous defeats like at the Battle of Zenta 1697 would most likley still occur (Perhaps at diffrent locations and years in the scenario) and considering that in both real life and the scenario the Ottomans make the fatal logistical mistake of not securing the fortresses in the surrounding countryside of Vienna (And they would most likely repeat this mistake in Austria, Czech/Slovakia and Southern Germany if they somehow managed to go on the offensive following Vienna) the same applies to the Austrian Sieges of Buda 1686 and Belgrade 1688 and these subsequent victories by the 2 Austrian commanders would eventually embolden Venice to declare war for the first and only time on the Ottomans as they did in real life (2 fronts now) and inevitably, regardless of Austrian success, Russia would get involved (2 fronts if the Austrians are losing, 3 if winning).
Ultimately in the scenario of Vienna being conquered the Ottomans still lose the war albeit with probably less territorial loss in Hungary in the following treaty as opposed to that of Karlowitz in 1699, Russia would probably take Podolia with Poland being absent, (This possibly leading to a war between the two countries) Venice would take Morea/Sparta only to lose it in 1715 just like in real life and so on.
Additionally say the scenario somehow goes the way you envision it, this would drastically change the subsequent Wars with Russia for the next 200 years, in real life after the death of the two Austrian commanders the Austrian military and military high command proved to be nearly as weak and incompetent as their Ottoman counterparts with the following wars between the two powers seeing Ottoman victories and wars ending in stalemates with Belgrade usually being juggled back and forth, however these wars for the most part saw joint campaigns with Russians forcing the Ottomans on 2 fronts in Serbia and the Ukraine and while successful at matching the Austrians on the Serbian front, the Ukrainian front would see Russian victories.
In the alternate scenario of Austria being knocked out of existence, the Ottomans can focus all of their forces on the Russian front (And that's IF the Battle of Pruth river in 1711 goes exactly the way it did in real life, because if the Ottoman Baltacı Mehmet Pasha had not made the important strategic mistake of signing the treaty with relatively easy terms for the Russians and with Peter the Great himself commanding the Russian army, had Baltacı Mehmet Pasha not accepted Peter's peace proposal and pursued to capture him as a prisoner instead, the course of history could have changed for without Peter, Russia would have hardly become an imperial power, and the future arch-enemy of the Ottoman State in the Balkans, the Black Sea basin and the Caucasus~ 'Alexander Mikaberidze) and then either of these scenarios drastically affect future Ottoman-Prussian relations, the future of Poland-Lithuania and Sweden as a northern European power.
Ultimately in order for your scenario to work exactly to the tee, it would require the Austrians not having Eugene or Louis and for the Ottomans to have military leaders like those two instead of the idiot of Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Paşa and the average Köprülü vezirs that lead (And were eventually killed) leading the army, for said military leaders to secure every surrounding fortress in the countryside in Hungary, Germany and Czech/Slovakia, for Venice and Russia in addition to Poland not getting involved in the 1680s-90s, for Peter to be spared at Pruth in 1711, for Prussia and the Ottomans to develop hostilities, for France and the Ottomans to not develop hostilities, for Prussia to have interests soley focused on Ottoman holdings in Bohemia in the event of hostilities and have for some reason no designs on Polish territories, same goes for Russia in the event Peter lives and so many more events that quite frankly make it extremely improbable for something even remotely similar, let alone exactly like your scenario to come into fruition.
Still that's not to say this video wasn't entertaining or wasn't well done and again thanks for being professional and unbiased in your presentation and not a Deus Vulter (Which 96% of UA-cam videos related to these topics seem to be full of) or Ottoman fan boy (Which I admittedly am one but as you can see, I don't allow that to blind me to unbiased truth or reasoning) and definitely more people like you are needed on the UA-cam scene and for that matter, the world.
Would all the mentioned European Monarchs still exist without Austria? As there were already so few potential people to marry, the loss of Austria would likely alter at least a few royal marriages on the continent, making it less likely that Fredrick the Great or King Louie would ever be born, let alone in the exact positions of power they had in our timeline.