Ever heard about the mine-ship "Nusrat/Nusret"?

Belisarius;

here is Nusrat:

"From  the point of view of  the  continuation of the
battle and the future of  the  world,  the  mines laid
by  Nusrat  had  very  definitive results.."
Sir Winston Churchill

The ships  inevitably  played  a  large  role,  in  British  Prime  Lord  of the Admiralty, Sir
Winston Churchill. However, there are only two small ships which through sheer  tyranny
determined Churchill' s  fate and whole career. One of these ships was the Nusrat mine
layer and the other was the battleship Bismarck..
One of the most effective methods of ensuring the safety of the  straits  againist  enemy
fleets was by laying down sea mines. However, even mines could be destroyed  as the
mine sweepers would  gather  up  the  mines  and  destroy  them. At  this  time, Turkish
movable ground  guns  were  sinking  all  the  small  vessels  which  came  within  close
range,  but   as   the  British  had  set  their  minds  on  crossing  the  straits,  they  were
consistently sweeping the mines.
They  had  carried  out  a  sweeping  operation  prior  to  the 18 th March. However, the
night before, a small, brave mine  layer  named  Nusrat,  captained  by Lieutenant Hafýz
Hakký  Bey, had  entered  the  strait  and  had  laid  her  last 26  mines  fifteen  seconds
apart, parallel  to  the  shore. The  other  mines  were  lying  accross  the  strait. In order
to carry  out  this  highly  dangerous   operation,   Nusrat   had  almost literally  held  her
breath by  decreasing  the  steam  and  reducing the circuit  of  the  machinery.  On  the
eighteenth  of  March,  under  the  impression  that  they  had  swept  the  seas  clear of
mines, the proud Allied  Fleet entered the strait. They anchored in  front  of  the Turkish
fortresses and opened fire for hours.
The Turkish fortresses  retaliated  with  opening  fire  on  ships, at  the moments,  finally
Bouvet  hit a mine and sank  almost instantly. This incident  became the turning point of
the battle. After  Bouvet, the  new  battle cruiser  HMS  Inflexible  hit  another  mine  and
retreated from the battle, closely followed by the Irresistible. The armored  cruiser HMS
Ocean, who came to the aid of the Irresistible  also  hit  a  mine  and  sank  too. The job
which had been started by the Turkish Ground gun batteries  had  been  finished by the
small mine layer Nusrat..
De Robeck  gave  the  order  to retreat. This was  the most  sensible command ever to
have been given, because of the heavy ship losses..
Rumors  has  it  that  the  British  mine  sweeping  team who  gave the report  declaring
the  area  free  of   mines  were  immediately   handed  over  the   supreme   court   and
sentenced  to  execution.  Apparently  later on  it was realised that at the  time of writing
the report, the area was actually  clean,  and  the  British Government apologised to the
families of those who had been  executed. The real  truth  will never be known, however
we do know what Churchill wrote about the Nusrat and  her deadly mines:
" From  the  point  of  view  of  the  battle  and  the  future  of the world, the mines  which
Nusrat  so  secretly  laid, had  a  much  more  definite  conclusion than any other efforts
made.  This  obstacle which ceased the battle, created  many  psychological problems
amongst  the  British  who  had   most   succesfully  started  the  Çanakkale Operation.
Turkey owes its thanks entirely to these mines, which lenghtened  the war considerably.
It is because of  this,  that  the European  victors  were shaken  just as those who were
defeated. The bones of the 6 million people who lay buried on French, Polish, Galician,
Balkan, Syrian, Palestine and  Northern  Italian  battle  fields were  not  defeated by the
enemy fire at  all. They were destroyed  entirely by 26  iron balls  (the  mines of  Nusrat)
which lay anchored to wire ropes under the  surface of the strait of Canakkale.."
The 1952 - 1953   issue  of  Jane' s  Fighting  Ships,  the  well  known  and   prestigous
publication, gives information on  Nusrat mineship with the following  description: "This
is  the  ship that laid the mines to strike Irresistible, Ocean and Bouvet in March 1915."

http://battlecruiseryavuz.hypermart.net/canakkale/nusrat.htm - http://battlecruiseryavuz.hypermart.net/canakkale/nusrat.htm

Yes, this does seem to be the main and obvious reason in the end.  I read something yesterday which said that overseas and New World expansion really did not fit the mindset and the Ottoman "world  view" at the time.  In essence, the Ottomans saw no need for their empire to extend beyond the Mediterranean and the Near East.  Also, their main focus was on the conquest of the Balkans, not on broader expansion.

Do you mean the Ottoman navy had difficulty recovering after the battle of Lepanto?

This was a point in my initial post.  It just seems logical that, in order to open up more avenues of trade, and to extend the frontiers of Islam, the Ottoman Empire would have used its powerful navy to eventually sail to the New World.  I have read since, however, that the Ottomans were very Mediterranean-centered.  In other words, although they knew that the Americas existed, they pushed them to the back of their minds and focused on their Mediterranean and Balkan possessions.  I have also read that they did have good light vessels and raiding ships, but did not develop any large, open-sea going ships like those which the Italians and the Spanish had used to sail long distances.

y

It was 1571 in Lepanto

Yes Ottomans didn't have the enduring ocean discovery ships.By the way,what was the name discovery ships of Europeans?In Turkish we call they "karavel" but I don't know what it is spelled in English.

Btw Ottomans once reached Philippines in their Indian Ocean rushes

I have seen the word you mentioned.  I think the word for the large open ocean vessels of the Europeans was something similar.  I can't remember the word offhand.

Were the Ottomans able to establish bases in the Philippines?  I know they definitely had footholds in the East Indies, as part of the spice trade.

I thought it was the southern island of Mindanao where the native Islamic kingdoms were established. Luzon is where the Spaniards established themselves because they couldn't penetrate the more strategic Mindanao. And most muslims travelling to the Philippines were not Arabs, but simply local converted indonesians and malays. Arabs were few and far in between.

MILF??

Yes these are the ancestors of those stoned loonies with swords that Leonard Wood shot to peices arent they?

Lets bring this discussion back onto the topic.  Here is a new source that I came across the other day in some searches, if anyone is interested.  It is a doctoral dissertation; I am not sure if the writer has published anything else yet on the subject.  If you have access to it through the computing resources of a college or university, it can be found using the ProQuest search database.

Giancarlo Casale. The Ottoman Age of Exploration: Spices, Maps and Conquest in the Sixteenth Century Indian Ocean. PhD Dissertation. Harvard University, 2004.

Well, you can purchase a copy of any of the materials that you find on ProQuest, including dissertations.  With the dissertations, you can choose if you want an unbound, hardbound, or softcover copy.  If I remember right, the hardbound is $47.00 American currency.  Are you currently enrolled or know anyone who is enrolled in a college or university?  You can get into ProQuest, but you have to have a password or a subscription.  That is how I got to use the database, my university subscribes to it and I can get in through remote access.  Anyways, here is the website if you want to take a look:

http://www.proquest.com/proquest/ - http://www.proquest.com/proquest/

Earlier in this thread the discussion turned to the "world view" of the Ottomans during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent and how it effected their participation in expansion and exploration.  I found this interesting web page that elaborates more on the the Ottoman Empire's relationship with Europe and overseas expansion.

http://www.humanities.ualberta.ca/ottoman/module3/lecture1.htm - http://www.humanities.ualberta.ca/ottoman/module3/lecture1.h tm

I agree with you there. At the time, the Ottomans were already expanding their empire into civilized territories. Why would they waste time and money on claiming a new uncivilized territory when there was more money to make and more power to gain in the old world? Perhaps the Spanish and others were forced, in a sense, to seek new lands over seas as a result of the ever expanding Ottomans controlling more and more trade routes. Maybe Europe's motivation to claim the new world was more a result of desperation than curiousity.

Although the Ottomans were on the liberal side of Islam at this time, it is interesting that they did not incorporate the New World (and the Native Americans) into their concept of the dar-al-Islam, that they could eventually extend the frontiers to there and convert the natives.  Early on in their history, the Ottomans were newly-converted Ghazi warriors with the spread of Islam through conquest as their main priority.  Imagine what a terror Muslim Aztecs would be to not only the Spanish, but to the other native civilizations!

I ask the same question as to why they expanded into the Indian Ocean and eastern Africa.  They had a maritime advantage with both naval supremacy and strategic ports in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf.  Furthermore, they saw the riches that could be won in finding a niche in the spice trade and charging customs for the use of their Arabian ports. 

Similarly the Ottomans had a naval advantage in the Mediterranean for a while too.  I don't think it would have been difficult for them to get through the straits into the Atlantic.  Their motivation?  New converts and the opportunity to mine precious metals that were becoming scarce in their old world empire.  They already experienced the havoc the Spanish caused to the old world economy when they dumped silver from the New World into it!  Why didn't the Ottomans want a piece of that pie?

I don't understand the talk about liberal Islam. But Dar-al-Islam is the land ruled by a Muslim power. A land eyed for conquest is not Dar-Al-Islam. So what you wrote does not make much sense.

This was because of specific conditions. The Ottoman Beylik (princedom) was placed at the Byzantine border and it was expanding towards that territory. This was more advantageous, since expanding towards other Islamic states caused problems. It was hard to justify. I don't think this 'holy war' ideological drive was very strong. This period was over quite quickly anyway. Even before Mehmed II, Ottomans were fighting wars in the east against other Muslim powers. 

Why in hell would the Aztecs convert to Islam, even if the Ottomans made it there? Besides I think Spanish were the real terror in America, they wiped everyone out.

It was far more difficult than it was for the Spanish. 

Ottomans didn't like converts that much. They surely hadn't invaded places to convert the population. They had higher tax from non/muslims. Islam is not as missionary as Christianity. So it can't be a motivation.  

As to precious metals, when they know that the Spanish have these metals coming from their colonies, it means that the Spanish have bases over there. You can't cross the atlantic with mediterranean vessels and establish a base there when the Spanish are already there.

Let me refine what I said in order that you may understand my point.  I meant that the Ottomans were more liberal in that they were tolerant of non-Muslims (ones within Ottoman domains who were paying taxes) more than the Arabs were.  That being said, in the hypothetical situation the Ottomans would be less likely to carry out the extermination of the Aztecs (since they would be considered pagans and not People of the Book).  The question is, would they require that the Aztecs be converted to Islam or would they extend tolerance to them in the same way as Jews and Chrsitians were more or less tolerated?

About my comment on the dar-al-Islam: the New World would not be considered part of the dar-al-Islam before its conquest.  What I meant is why did the Ottomans not view the New World as lands that needed to be brought into the dar-al-Islam through conquest, since its population was neither Muslim nor Peoples of the Book?

No need to get all worked up!  What I was saying is, if the Ottomans made it to the New World and encountered the natives.  Would they treat them in the same manner as the Spanish?  And, if the Aztecs were converted, it is interesting to speculate what kind of cultural and religious consequences would result from their conversion.

So, in our hypothetical situation, what do you think the Ottomans would do concerning the native Americans if in fact they did establish a colony and it survived?

Because there is no such 'need'. As I wrote above, Ottoman expansion was not driven by religious compulsion/ideological reason.

I agree. I think the Ottomans would not have been as barbaric as the Spanish were (consider the inquisition, expulsion of Jews in 1492, the Ottomans took them in), but I don't think they would like the Aztecs that much. 

The simplified reason why the Turks never branched was *drum roll* they were losing power, and could not keep up with the European powers. Sure they were facing problems in the Mediterranean, yet everyone also had their problems.

Well, yes, to put it quite simply!  But what century are you talking about? 

The Ottomans really did not start lagging behind until the late 16th century, after Suleiman's and his immediate successors' reigns.  So during the era of European expansion (late 15th and into the 16th century), the Ottomans were still a competitive military power and controlled a good part of the Mediterranean with both their own navy and loyal corsairs.  It can be argued that the increasing domination of the Mediterranean by the Ottomans spurred the overseas expansion of Europeans.

Since I first posted the original thread, I have come to a couple conclusions based on some reading and study of this topic.  It seems that the Ottomans:

1. focused their foreign policy towards landward expansion in Eastern-Central Europe (as well as into Safavid Asia) after Suleiman the Magnificent, and away from domination of the seas.

2. The New World (Americas), both geographically and religiously, remained on the periphery of both the Sultans' minds and the consciousness of those who could fund an exploratory expedition.  Exploration of new lands occupied the attention of only enterprising corsairs / admirals who had geographic knowledge of the New World (like Piri Reis) and a minority of liberal-minded scholars.

No the expansion of Europeans was GOLD, SPICES, TRADE, not Ottoman power in the Medditeranean. Europeans didnt all just dash of to the Americas all at once, it took time dude. When it was realised that "thar be gold in dem thar hills" then the expansion happened.

Notice I said "it can be argued" that Ottoman militarization was a factor that spurred on European expansion.  That does not mean it was the only factor in their expansion, either!

Machine, what is your analysis of the two points that I provided on why the Ottomans did not expand westward into the New World? 

There is a common city legend here in Turkey that Christopher Colombus had approached to Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I before approaching to Queen Isabella for his overseas voyages,and it is said that Bayezid rejected to support him because he believed it was an adventure..But after all it is just a legend

This is not accurate. Before the 19th century (and even then, the 1870's), Italy or Germany did not even exist as unified nations: they were both composed of a mosaic of city-states and were often at the whim of larger powers such as France, Spain and Austria. As for Russia it was basically landlocked, as it had no warm-water ports (no ports that would be accessible year-round). For instance, the first warm-water port that Russia had was Azov, conquered in 1684 I think, and even then Russian ships would have had to go through Ottoman-controlled Bosphorus just to get to the Mediterranean. As for the maritime city-states of Italy and Germany, they could not build a fleet large enough to compete with the likes of Engladn or Holland. The maritime cities of Italy were also impoverished due to the shift of trade routes away from the Mediterranean in favor of the Indian Ocean, which occurred after Vasco da Gamma's voyages.

The Americas were very large, and Spanish control over most of it was rather feeble in the 16th century. What they did control though, were the areas most likely to produce quick revenue (Mexico and Peru for precious metals and the Carribean for sugar). In Mexico and Peru, the Spansih were too well entrenched and none of the other maritime European powers haqd the stomach of prolonged military campaigns on land to capture them. The Carribean however was fair game, so we can see the English, French and Dutch getting in on the action in the 16th and 17th centuries. The reason why the English started to colonize North America in the 17th century had little to do with the resources of the land, and a lot to do with the religious persecution occuring during the Counter-Reformation at this time.

He asked support to Portugueses and British. I never heared he asked to Turks as well. Do you have references?