Subject: Turkish Australia Date: 14 Jun 2001 15:54:53 -0700 From: antigonos_jb@hotmail.com (diadoch) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if Make it happen. I dare you. Subject: Re: Turkish Australia Date: 14 Jun 2001 18:58:59 -0700 From: pipe1234@aol.com (Jonathan Klingler) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 I dog dare you! Really, you can get an Islamic Australia through more contact with Indian or Indonesian traders perhaps venturing into the Land Down Under. Just change the turks to go south instead of west in the 1100s and we may have something. BTW, I triple dog dare you. Pipe! Subject: Re: Turkish Australia Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 02:25:52 GMT From: "hanjar" Organization: AT&T Worldnet Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Prior to Western contact, the Indonesians did have some primitive contacts with Australian aboriginals on the west coast; fishermen went there for part of the year. There was a primitive economy of bartering fish for sex or what few goods could be found in the outback. Western Australian aboriginals have some Indonesian heritage for this reason. But otherwise, the Indonesians found Australia to be a useless block of sand. Originally, Australia was settled by Melanesians from New Guinea who knew agriculture, bow hunting, and a few other prerequisites for civilization. But due to isolation and the unproductive land, the aborigines grew increasingly primitive and forgot how to do agriculture or bow hunting. In most of Australia, aborigines simply set fire to their surroundings and ate the charred meat that remained. Other aborigines near present-day Sydney knew where to find large clusters of moths in the hills, so they ate a moth-based diet. In the most extreme case, Tasmanian aborigines no longer knew how to make fire when the English met them in the 19th century. Time essentially flowed backward on the island-continent. Australia's climate also follows random El-Nino dependent patterns, so it may not rain at all for a few years. We could have had the Turks, Mongolians, Arabs, or whoever other testosterone-rich civilizations discover Australia earlier. But chances are that any colonies would be economic failures, so whoever survives would become suntanned black as coal, and set fire to the bushes for food. Subject: Re: Turkish Australia Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 07:13:49 GMT From: Mike Cleven Organization: Iron Mountain Creative Systems Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Jonathan Klingler wrote: > > I dog dare you! Really, you can get an Islamic Australia through more > contact with Indian or Indonesian traders perhaps venturing into the > Land Down Under. Just change the turks to go south instead of west in > the 1100s and we may have something. BTW, I triple dog dare you. Turkish China? MC Subject: Re: Turkish Australia Date: 14 Jun 2001 19:13:42 -0700 From: joergradd@yahoo.de (Jörg Raddatz) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 antigonos_jb@hotmail.com (diadoch) wrote in message news:<50ff6b66.0106141454.25efad16@posting.google.com>... > Make it happen. I dare you. Why not. That´s easy. Vienna 1683. Kara Mustapha manages to capture the city, Starhemberg is killed. After some struggles, the Emperor leaves Austria for Bohemia and the Danube area up to Passau is occupied by the Turks. They realize it cannot be administrated from Stambul, so next to the Kadiasker of Rumelia and that of Anatolia a third one is appointed for Australia. Slight error while translating Latin letters to Arabic ones. Joerg Subject: Re: Turkish Australia Date: 14 Jun 2001 20:11:47 -0700 From: black_on_white@hotmail.com (Derrick Reeves) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 antigonos_jb@hotmail.com (diadoch) wrote in message news:<50ff6b66.0106141454.25efad16@posting.google.com>... > Make it happen. I dare you. The only thing that comes to mind is an exodus post-WWI, wherein there's a significant Turkish population in Oz. I can just barely see it happening. - Derrick Subject: Re: Turkish Australia Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 07:17:14 GMT From: Mike Cleven Organization: Iron Mountain Creative Systems Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Derrick Reeves wrote: > > antigonos_jb@hotmail.com (diadoch) wrote in message news:<50ff6b66.0106141454.25efad16@posting.google.com>... > > Make it happen. I dare you. > > The only thing that comes to mind is an exodus post-WWI, wherein > there's a significant Turkish population in Oz. I can just barely see > it happening. Well, there's all the semi-apocryphal Melungeon mythography about Turkish/Ottoman (incl Jewish) settlements in the New World pre-Columbus; let's say that instead of westerly the Sultan's emissaries had sailed from the Arabian (Persian) Gulf; surely there would have been auxiliaries from Indonesia etc. that could have been engaged to undertake exploration of a possibly-newly-discovered Australian continent. On this general theme, it's indeed a bit suprising that someone like Suleyman hadn't undertaken to spread the Word of the Prophet into new territories, not just by way of exploration/empire but proselytization as well (which was, of course, the Christian Empire's pretext for same). Turkish East Africa? Turkish Cape Province? Turkish Phillippines? Perhaps better to use the word "Ottoman" here, of course...... MC Subject: Re: Turkish Australia Date: 15 Jun 2001 08:41:02 -0700 From: kalen@another.com (fasquardon) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 antigonos_jb@hotmail.com (diadoch) wrote in message news:<50ff6b66.0106141454.25efad16@posting.google.com>... > Make it happen. I dare you. O.K., My PoD is during the Ottoman-Portuguese trade wars, in OTL the Portuguese were engaged in a war for the Indian ocean with the Ottomans for much of the second quarter of the 16th century, before the Brits and the Dutch bombed in and took everything over. The wars eventually led to a balence of power in the Indian Ocean because the Ottoman Sultans considered the Safawids in Persia a greater threat than any Indian Ocean pirates from Europe. I propose that Suleyman should decide that Persia was such difficult terrain (and the Ottomans had plenty of experience of Persian war from before) that he would adopt a much more conservative method of warfare and focus the resouces thus freed to build a new Red Sea/Indian Ocean fleet. This fleet could then be used to clear the Portuguese out of the East and give the Ottomans a successful Holy War to distract attention from the embarassment of the Persian wars. Its a bit more of a streach to get the Ottomans actively involved in the sea trade, but lets say it happens when the Ottomans subdue Oman (a more meritime culture I believe). With this Ottoman navy holding sway in the East at least until the arrival of the Dutch the Ottomans are going to be a fair bit more wealthy than IOTL as they will not have the sea trade undermining their economy, they're going to _be_ the sea trade. We now have about 50 years for the Ottomans to get some poor sod shipwrecked on a fairly nice area of Australia (maybe the bit in the Southwest...). As for why the Ottomans would want anything to do with Austrailia, well, lets say they've just had some expensive Europian/Persian war and they want a low cost but high propaganda conquest so that they can continue to claim to be carrying the torch of Islam and bringing enlightment to all peoples etc. This scenario has some cool possibilities for the Anglo-Ottoman wars for India and the controversy of the Ottoman-Chinese Opium wars. The Ottomans would also be mean opponents in the Indian Ocean being that they would have a larger resource base than Portugal did in OTL, and Portugal lost most of its empire during the time of Spanish dominion, so who ends up with the Indian Ocean would be a damned close run thing. As an aside Persia could well be stronger in this TL being that overland trade would still be substantial later and the less fierce Ottoman-Persian wars. fasquardon Subject: Re: Turkish Australia Date: 17 Jun 2001 01:59:05 GMT From: kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 In article <8b359655.0106150741.5b3557ac@posting.google.com>, kalen@another.com (fasquardon) wrote: > so that they can > continue to claim to be carrying the torch of Islam and bringing > enlightment to all peoples etc. Only problem is that the Ottomans never claimed to carry the Torch of Islam during the period of expansion. The religious claims were an attempt to bolster a decaying empire. In fact at one point they were discouraging people from converting as Moslems provided military service but were not taxed. Ken Young kenney@cix.co.uk Maternity is a matter of fact Paternity is a matter of opinion Subject: Re: Turkish Australia Date: 17 Jun 2001 00:46:45 -0700 From: kalen@another.com (fasquardon) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote in message news:<9gh2t9$t6g$1@plutonium.compulink.co.uk>... > In article <8b359655.0106150741.5b3557ac@posting.google.com>, > kalen@another.com (fasquardon) wrote: > > > so that they can > > continue to claim to be carrying the torch of Islam and bringing > > enlightment to all peoples etc. > Only problem is that the Ottomans never claimed to carry the Torch of > Islam during the period of expansion. The religious claims were an > attempt to bolster a decaying empire. In fact at one point they were > discouraging people from converting as Moslems provided military > service but were not taxed. > > Ken Young > kenney@cix.co.uk > Maternity is a matter of fact > Paternity is a matter of opinion Wrong. The Ottoman empire defined itself by religion, it was _not_ a nationalist/royalist state on the Europian pattern. The Ottomans took great pride in the fact that, unlike all of the other Turkish tribes, they had never stopped fighting ghazis (holy wars) against various non-muslim states until the decay (when they had to stop fighting because of the drain of sheer distance to the frontiers and the expence of the Persian wars). My cite is `A history of the Ottoman empire to 1730` edited by M.A. Cook. fasquardon Subject: Re: Turkish Australia Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:29:32 +0100 From: "Helbob" Organization: BT Internet Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Ah I see you have been playing Europa Universalis. diadoch wrote in message <50ff6b66.0106141454.25efad16@posting.google.com>... >Make it happen. I dare you. Subject: Re: Turkish Australia Date: 15 Jun 2001 23:12:08 -0700 From: black_on_white@hotmail.com (Derrick Reeves) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Europa doesn't have Australia (or New Zealand) on the board, much to my disgust. Unless you're talking about the PC Version, which I haven't really spent much time with. - Derrick Subject: Re: Turkish Australia Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:51:39 +0200 From: "Arkadiusz Danilecki \"szopen\"" Organization: POZMAN - http://www.man.poznan.pl/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 In 1683 Turkey conquers Vien. Then it conquers Poland and Germany, and in few next years whole Europe. HAving so huge resources, a lot of talented soldiers and engineers, it quickly develop in large world-wide empire. Colonizing Australia is then easy 8-> -- Arkadiusz D. Danilecki Institute of Computing Science tel. : +48 61 6652864 Poznan University of Technology ul. Piotrowo 3A, 60-965 Poznan Subject: Re: Turkish Australia Date: 20 Jun 2001 11:27:38 -0700 From: kalen@another.com (fasquardon) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 "Arkadiusz Danilecki \"szopen\"" wrote in message news:<9gq9j8$h22$1@sunflower.man.poznan.pl>... > In 1683 Turkey conquers Vien. Then it conquers Poland and Germany, and in > few next years whole Europe. HAving so huge resources, a lot of talented > soldiers and engineers, it quickly develop in large world-wide empire. > Colonizing Australia is then easy 8-> Not quite, the reason that Vienna was not taken is that by the time the Ottoman armies had marched up the Balkans (often with heavy losses) there were only a couple of months left in the campeigning season. Even when they won in Austria they never had enough time to follow their victories up. In Poland this problem would be worse, and in Germany, I feel it is safe to say that the Ottomans would not have a hope. Now maybe this would be the major effect of the JATYWWS time line, as with rail the Ottoman economy would be much more able to project its power. fasquardon