Now I know what most of you are thinking. You've probably seen this scenario/POD dozens of times on this forum. But the reason why I think it deserves a better assessment is that most of the time the answers to this generally misunderstand the aims and state which the Ottoman Empire was in. Generally viewing it as an indefinitely expanding polity rather than one based around conquest, consolidation and control over different regions.
Take for example this REALLY INACCURATE alt-map of Europe following a successful siege of the city.
The problem isn't exclusive to this reddit map, but is common all the time when discussing alt-history scenarios regarding this POD. Most explanations don't really seem to understand what the aims of the Ottoman Empire actually were in either siege of Vienna. Most responses you've see usually go along the lines of pointing out how the ottomans were supposedly overextended thus taking vienna and pushing further into Europe would have just made things worse for them logistically, or depicting central germany as the new massive battleground between the forces of 'Islam' and 'Christendom', like the above map does.
Here are other examples of threads making a similar mistake when talking about this:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/vienna-falls-to-suleiman-29-11-1529.76513/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-vienna-falls-to-the-ottomans-in-1529.423277/
If we specifically focus on the first siege of Vienna in 1529, Suleiman's aim does not appear to have been to annex Vienna and/or push further into Germany in either one of the two sieges. More realistically it seems that the aim of the empire revolved forcing the Hapsburgs into an open battlefield conflict and around securing their control over Hungary. By 1529, Suleiman had in theory occupied most of Hungary however the Hapsburgs still had some control over the populous northern regions (later Royal Hungary).
In order to solve this issue, and fully conquer all of Hungary, Suleiman sought to solve the entire Hapsburg Hungarian question in one fell swoop by shattering the Hapsburg hold over Hungary in a single campaign. Thus severely weakening the Hapsburg Empire and solidify his own control over the region.
His failure to do this meant that the Ottoman conquest of Hungary was delayed and his true decisive move to conquer the region wouldn't come until 1541 with the siege of Buda and the subsequent gradual push northwards known as the 'little war' and the wrestling of most of Hungary from the Hapsburgs, as well as the consolidation of these conquests with the treaty of Edirne in 1568. And even then, whilst he did end up conquering most of the region, the northern regions were still controlled by the Hapsburgs and became known as 'Royal Hungary.'
This is roughly what it looked like in 1572. As we can see, the Hapsburgs still controlled the northern regions of Hungary:
Here's another less accurate but still understandable map distinguishing Hapsburg Hungary from Ottoman Hungary:
Had Suleiman been successful in his 1529 campaign and managed to win the siege of Vienna, it is likely that he would have conquered and consolidated his control over ALL of Hungary, rather than having to fight an extended war later with the Hapsburgs, subsequently having to divide it between the two empires, and would have also likely have done this far sooner than in our timeline as well.
As to the other short and long term consequences of this; The Hapsburg Empire in Europe would have been severely weakened at least temporarily with the occupation of their capital and being cut off from its Hungarian possessions. The Ottomans would then focus on fortifying Hungary from the Hapsburgs as they did in our timeline. Except this time these fortifications would be further north, in what was known as 'Royal Hungary' in OT. Given how much closer this is to central Europe, it is also likely that they would have had a greater role to play in central European geo-politics.
Furthermore, it would mean that Suleiman could pay more attention to his eastern rivals the safavids, who went to war with them in 1532, since he wouldn't be varying his attention between two theatres of war. The war with the safavids lasted until 1555 and was an ottoman victory. Therefore it is possible that he could have concluded this war sooner and perhaps forced more concessions in the peace of amasya in 1555.
It is hard to say how the later 'Long Turkish War' at the end of the 16th century would have played out, or if it would have even happened at all given that it was instigated by the governor of Bosnia who raided Croatia, leading the Hapsburgs to declare war.
If the long turkish war gets butterflied, then it is certainly likely that the Ottomans would have held onto their Iranian territories, which were conquered from the Safavids in the war of 1578-1590 which were lost to Shah Abbas I in the fourth safavid ottoman war (1603-1618), due to the ottomans again fighting against the hapsburgs and safavids at the same time.
If we assume that the Ottomans did manage to conquer all of Hungary following a successful siege in Vienna in 1529, could the Hapsburgs have eventually retaken any of it? Possibly.
Take for example this REALLY INACCURATE alt-map of Europe following a successful siege of the city.
The problem isn't exclusive to this reddit map, but is common all the time when discussing alt-history scenarios regarding this POD. Most explanations don't really seem to understand what the aims of the Ottoman Empire actually were in either siege of Vienna. Most responses you've see usually go along the lines of pointing out how the ottomans were supposedly overextended thus taking vienna and pushing further into Europe would have just made things worse for them logistically, or depicting central germany as the new massive battleground between the forces of 'Islam' and 'Christendom', like the above map does.
Here are other examples of threads making a similar mistake when talking about this:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/vienna-falls-to-suleiman-29-11-1529.76513/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-vienna-falls-to-the-ottomans-in-1529.423277/
If we specifically focus on the first siege of Vienna in 1529, Suleiman's aim does not appear to have been to annex Vienna and/or push further into Germany in either one of the two sieges. More realistically it seems that the aim of the empire revolved forcing the Hapsburgs into an open battlefield conflict and around securing their control over Hungary. By 1529, Suleiman had in theory occupied most of Hungary however the Hapsburgs still had some control over the populous northern regions (later Royal Hungary).
In order to solve this issue, and fully conquer all of Hungary, Suleiman sought to solve the entire Hapsburg Hungarian question in one fell swoop by shattering the Hapsburg hold over Hungary in a single campaign. Thus severely weakening the Hapsburg Empire and solidify his own control over the region.
His failure to do this meant that the Ottoman conquest of Hungary was delayed and his true decisive move to conquer the region wouldn't come until 1541 with the siege of Buda and the subsequent gradual push northwards known as the 'little war' and the wrestling of most of Hungary from the Hapsburgs, as well as the consolidation of these conquests with the treaty of Edirne in 1568. And even then, whilst he did end up conquering most of the region, the northern regions were still controlled by the Hapsburgs and became known as 'Royal Hungary.'
This is roughly what it looked like in 1572. As we can see, the Hapsburgs still controlled the northern regions of Hungary:
Here's another less accurate but still understandable map distinguishing Hapsburg Hungary from Ottoman Hungary:
Had Suleiman been successful in his 1529 campaign and managed to win the siege of Vienna, it is likely that he would have conquered and consolidated his control over ALL of Hungary, rather than having to fight an extended war later with the Hapsburgs, subsequently having to divide it between the two empires, and would have also likely have done this far sooner than in our timeline as well.
As to the other short and long term consequences of this; The Hapsburg Empire in Europe would have been severely weakened at least temporarily with the occupation of their capital and being cut off from its Hungarian possessions. The Ottomans would then focus on fortifying Hungary from the Hapsburgs as they did in our timeline. Except this time these fortifications would be further north, in what was known as 'Royal Hungary' in OT. Given how much closer this is to central Europe, it is also likely that they would have had a greater role to play in central European geo-politics.
Furthermore, it would mean that Suleiman could pay more attention to his eastern rivals the safavids, who went to war with them in 1532, since he wouldn't be varying his attention between two theatres of war. The war with the safavids lasted until 1555 and was an ottoman victory. Therefore it is possible that he could have concluded this war sooner and perhaps forced more concessions in the peace of amasya in 1555.
It is hard to say how the later 'Long Turkish War' at the end of the 16th century would have played out, or if it would have even happened at all given that it was instigated by the governor of Bosnia who raided Croatia, leading the Hapsburgs to declare war.
If the long turkish war gets butterflied, then it is certainly likely that the Ottomans would have held onto their Iranian territories, which were conquered from the Safavids in the war of 1578-1590 which were lost to Shah Abbas I in the fourth safavid ottoman war (1603-1618), due to the ottomans again fighting against the hapsburgs and safavids at the same time.
If we assume that the Ottomans did manage to conquer all of Hungary following a successful siege in Vienna in 1529, could the Hapsburgs have eventually retaken any of it? Possibly.
Last edited:
