How much of a thorn in the backside were the Portuguese to the Ottomans?
>>1612286
Literally none at all. The Ottomans had no reason to care about the Portuguese at all. If anything they would want to befriend them to try and weaken the Spanish.
>>1612286
Why do muslisms fear muslims ?
>>1612286
Do you not even know that, incidentally, the portuguese AIDED ottoman expansion?
Because, see, egypt and the levant was ruled by the egyptian mamluks, who vomited wealth thanks to their dominance of the spice trade trough alexandria. Venice, who was a major stakeholder in this trade, also had their side; so attackimg them would have proven difficult.
But then, the portuguese manage to circumnavigate africa and establish a direct trade link from goa to lisbon. Of course the mamluks' trade avenue collapses. Venice (and even the ottomans) makes an attempt at helping them combat the portuguese' growing egemony, but ultimately they lose.
When this happens, venice is quick to cut every tie it had with them, and the ottomans are just as quick to turn on them and subjugate them in a "quick" war; thus resulting in the ottoman empire almost doubling its size.
>>1612286
probably half the reason they dont own half the world right now
that and human greed - collapse inevitable
>>1613689
>expelled them from india
So you're retarded. They muslims the portuguese found in india were not ottomans. Yes they did trade there, but not as early (and not even remotely as cospicuosly) as you make it sound. Reminder that the ottomans had no direcy sea link to india until their subjugation of the mamluks, which as I said was incidently aided by portuguese conquest of african and indian coasts. By the times the ottomans could establish in india, the portuguese were already there, and there to stay. Of course what you say is true, but also what I say about them aiding in the fall of the mamluks is.