|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Aug 26, 2017 0:48:34 GMT
Is that Spanish domination of Mexico and the isthmus pretty much from the start or coming from a later conquest? If the former then its diffcult not to see them taking at least Peru-Bolivia and N Chile as its far easier reaching them, especially the Inca heartland, from the isthmus rather than around Cape Horn. Also I doubt that even the mega Spain we're assuming here would be able to totally monopolise all the Caribbean islands as, presuming the sugar plantation culture develops their far too wealthy. I could see a powerful anti-Spanish coalition resulting to prevent that, especially if they already have the upper hand in the east Indies as well. If Spain is a late comer with a few Caribbean Islands, then as N Africa is secured and become a strong asset rather than a burden, they also start settling the Texas-Florida region and expand outwards from there. Possibly as far north as you suggest before a rival {Britain?] blocks further expansion and also southwards against a France established in central and southern America, but now declining. Their able to drive the French from Mexico and the isthmus and get some areas on the north coast of S America, plus probably clearing much of the Caribbean Islands but I suspect not all of them. Spain is still likely to be No.1 or No.2 in western Europe, especially if it has key areas in Africa and the Indian Ocean, including most of the East Indies. Even if say another power becomes dominant in India. However if it goes much further, unless the colonies start becoming burdens, their going to be so powerful that I think some coalition would be established against them. At least unless say a mega-German empire or something else, is seen as an even greater threat to the other European powers. Steve It might be from a later conquest after the areas around the OTL Deep South are conquered, they would then march southwards. Alternatively, they could pull off the same scenario from OTL with regards to the Spanish Conquest of the Aztecs but they would also try to consolidate their control around the Gulf of Mexico region. I could see France or even England snatching up a couple of islands away from them, particularly OTL Puerto Rico. The anti-Spanish coalition could consist of France, England and even the Ottomans joining them. I would think that Spain would have to be an early comer in order to secure their desired lands in the Americas. With regards to Brazil, France or England would be the best candidates to colonize it, although the French might have a bigger chance if England prefers to stick to its stomping grounds in Newfoundland. In Europe itself, it would have been a close run between Spain and France for the title of dominant power in Europe unless the German and Italian states have unified. |
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Aug 26, 2017 17:27:51 GMT
Is that Spanish domination of Mexico and the isthmus pretty much from the start or coming from a later conquest? If the former then its diffcult not to see them taking at least Peru-Bolivia and N Chile as its far easier reaching them, especially the Inca heartland, from the isthmus rather than around Cape Horn. Also I doubt that even the mega Spain we're assuming here would be able to totally monopolise all the Caribbean islands as, presuming the sugar plantation culture develops their far too wealthy. I could see a powerful anti-Spanish coalition resulting to prevent that, especially if they already have the upper hand in the east Indies as well. If Spain is a late comer with a few Caribbean Islands, then as N Africa is secured and become a strong asset rather than a burden, they also start settling the Texas-Florida region and expand outwards from there. Possibly as far north as you suggest before a rival {Britain?] blocks further expansion and also southwards against a France established in central and southern America, but now declining. Their able to drive the French from Mexico and the isthmus and get some areas on the north coast of S America, plus probably clearing much of the Caribbean Islands but I suspect not all of them. Spain is still likely to be No.1 or No.2 in western Europe, especially if it has key areas in Africa and the Indian Ocean, including most of the East Indies. Even if say another power becomes dominant in India. However if it goes much further, unless the colonies start becoming burdens, their going to be so powerful that I think some coalition would be established against them. At least unless say a mega-German empire or something else, is seen as an even greater threat to the other European powers. Steve It might be from a later conquest after the areas around the OTL Deep South are conquered, they would then march southwards. Alternatively, they could pull off the same scenario from OTL with regards to the Spanish Conquest of the Aztecs but they would also try to consolidate their control around the Gulf of Mexico region. I could see France or even England snatching up a couple of islands away from them, particularly OTL Puerto Rico. The anti-Spanish coalition could consist of France, England and even the Ottomans joining them. I would think that Spain would have to be an early comer in order to secure their desired lands in the Americas. With regards to Brazil, France or England would be the best candidates to colonize it, although the French might have a bigger chance if England prefers to stick to its stomping grounds in Newfoundland. In Europe itself, it would have been a close run between Spain and France for the title of dominant power in Europe unless the German and Italian states have unified. I don't know about that. It was the Caribbean that was settled 1st OTL then the Aztecs drew attention to the mainland and the Incas pulled it further south. Southern N America was settled pretty late and even New Orleans/Louisana seems to have attracted less settlers that Quebec. It might be that if France was the 1st power to dominate the region it might follow a different course but I think the sea current generally direct travel to either the Newfoundland/St Lawrence or the Caribbean areas from Europe. As such if they were going the southern route I would expect the Caribbean to be settled 1st, followed by the rich empires. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Aug 27, 2017 20:57:29 GMT
What drew the Spaniards to the Incan Empire in the south was the exploration of areas that became OTL Panama. The smallpox disease that killed Atahualpa's father is what triggered the Incan Civil War in the first place. So it might be possible that the conquest of the Incan Empire might be delayed or played out differently. Of course, if the Spaniards wanted to expand on their Florida holdings ITTL, they'd secure the Caribbean islands and the surrounding lands around the Gulf area. In this case, it would be the Deep South plus Mexico, Central America and maybe the northern area of South America, especially OTL Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and the Guyanas.
However, I could also see the possibility of the Incan Empire surviving a lot longer if the Spaniards chose not to make contact with the native tribes that inhabit the Incan Empire. The PoD of avoiding the contact between Pizzaro and the native tribes of the Inca Empire would not be enough. Either Atahualpa or Huascar have to kill each other before the civil war breaks out or one of them has to die from disease.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Aug 28, 2017 15:57:07 GMT
What drew the Spaniards to the Incan Empire in the south was the exploration of areas that became OTL Panama. The smallpox disease that killed Atahualpa's father is what triggered the Incan Civil War in the first place. So it might be possible that the conquest of the Incan Empire might be delayed or played out differently. Of course, if the Spaniards wanted to expand on their Florida holdings ITTL, they'd secure the Caribbean islands and the surrounding lands around the Gulf area. In this case, it would be the Deep South plus Mexico, Central America and maybe the northern area of South America, especially OTL Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and the Guyanas. However, I could also see the possibility of the Incan Empire surviving a lot longer if the Spaniards chose not to make contact with the native tribes that inhabit the Incan Empire. The PoD of avoiding the contact between Pizzaro and the native tribes of the Inca Empire would not be enough. Either Atahualpa or Huascar have to kill each other before the civil war breaks out or one of them has to die from disease. If their the 1st major player in the Caribbean, but then wouldn't they sooner or later and probably the former, get drawn to the rumours of massive wealth in Mexico and then trade links, weak through they were, with the Incas? Rather than settling the lands east of the Mississippi 1st. Which are both less attractive for loot and would really need a lot of settlers which I thought we agreed would be unlikely to be available in the early days if their putting so much effort into N Africa and the eastern routes to Asia. Also I thought we were assuming that Spain would hence be a relative latecomer to thje Caribbean, with probably the French taking the lead. In which case I would suspect they would take the path the Spanish took OTL, following the loot toward the reports of big wealthy empires to conquer. Plus even if they didn't have the religious fervor that Spanish did OTL the nature of the Aztec religion especially is likely to prompt conftrontation. Although with different characters involved it could take a different route and if somewhat different in dates you aren't going to have the confusion of the newcomers with Quetzalcoatl - although checking Wiki there seems increasing doubt about that being a factor. As such it would be the French taking Mexico and probably then Maya and whoever does that is almost certainly the 1st contact with the Incas by the west. Given that smallpox and other such old world diseases were spreading I believe before the Spanish arrived OTL I think their still likely to destable the Inca empire, although possibly without triggering the OTL succession conflict. I would expect the Spanish, once their secure the western Med, to start getting involved in the Caribbean region as its great potential sugar wealth becomes inportant and then north to N America and possibly driving the French from Mexico say if they got powerful enough. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Aug 29, 2017 4:04:14 GMT
I almost forgot about that, I'm sorry. It's just that I'm mixed with the maps that I constantly have to redesign all over again in response to the threads I've been making, both here and in otherhistory.
Yes, if Spain does colonize the Caribbean region, then they might not have a chance to conquer the Aztecs and Incas with the French taking them instead. However, wouldn't the French also need Caribbean colonies to give them access to the rest of Latin America though? I also suspect that if Spain were to expand north from the area of the OTL Deep South, they might try to expand into the rest of the East Coast. There is a possibility that the English or British colonization of North America might be exactly like the French colonization of the Americas. Thus, I am seeing a musical chair in this case: France colonizing the territories that Spain colonized IOTL, Spain colonizing the territories that Britain colonized IOTL, and England/Britain colonizing the territories that France colonized IOTL.
France would have to secure a foothold somewhere in either OTL Venezuela to acquire that foothold, or it will have to acquire several islands before reaching Latin America. I would suspect that the French conquest of the Aztecs and Incas might be just as brutal as the OTL Spanish conquests, but they wouldn't force the native tribes in Latin America into slave labour. If France sticks to its methods ITTL from OTL, they might actually create more opportunities for bigger alliances with various native tribes that would be friendly to its interests. Traditionally, the French colonized parts of North America for its fur, so I would suspect that they would build themselves a huge empire based on agriculture and resource extraction. The same as the Spanish, but far more humane. You might even see the Incas introduce tomatoes and potatoes to the French, and French cuisine would definitely change a lot from OTL. The Columbian Exchange will benefit France greatly in this case.
Coupled with the possible Franco-Ottoman alliance (if they would still exist ITTL), it seems that the Ottomans might also benefit from the Columbian exchange as well. You might be able to see maize cultivation occur in such diverse climates within the Ottoman Empire, from Egypt, to the Levant and modern day Iraq to even Anatolia and the Balkans. Seeing as Spain might also benefit from the Columbian Exchange as well, maize would certainly grow in North and West Africa as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Aug 29, 2017 20:50:51 GMT
I almost forgot about that, I'm sorry. It's just that I'm mixed with the maps that I constantly have to redesign all over again in response to the threads I've been making, both here and in otherhistory. Yes, if Spain does colonize the Caribbean region, then they might not have a chance to conquer the Aztecs and Incas with the French taking them instead. However, wouldn't the French also need Caribbean colonies to give them access to the rest of Latin America though? I also suspect that if Spain were to expand north from the area of the OTL Deep South, they might try to expand into the rest of the East Coast. There is a possibility that the English or British colonization of North America might be exactly like the French colonization of the Americas. Thus, I am seeing a musical chair in this case: France colonizing the territories that Spain colonized IOTL, Spain colonizing the territories that Britain colonized IOTL, and England/Britain colonizing the territories that France colonized IOTL. France would have to secure a foothold somewhere in either OTL Venezuela to acquire that foothold, or it will have to acquire several islands before reaching Latin America. I would suspect that the French conquest of the Aztecs and Incas might be just as brutal as the OTL Spanish conquests, but they wouldn't force the native tribes in Latin America into slave labour. If France sticks to its methods ITTL from OTL, they might actually create more opportunities for bigger alliances with various native tribes that would be friendly to its interests. Traditionally, the French colonized parts of North America for its fur, so I would suspect that they would build themselves a huge empire based on agriculture and resource extraction. The same as the Spanish, but far more humane. You might even see the Incas introduce tomatoes and potatoes to the French, and French cuisine would definitely change a lot from OTL. The Columbian Exchange will benefit France greatly in this case. Coupled with the possible Franco-Ottoman alliance (if they would still exist ITTL), it seems that the Ottomans might also benefit from the Columbian exchange as well. You might be able to see maize cultivation occur in such diverse climates within the Ottoman Empire, from Egypt, to the Levant and modern day Iraq to even Anatolia and the Balkans. Seeing as Spain might also benefit from the Columbian Exchange as well, maize would certainly grow in North and West Africa as well. No problem. I often find, especially with similar threads on different sites I have to think carefully which discussions I'm actually replying to and what's been said on that thread. Very easy to get matters confused. However I was thinking that Spain, because of its involvement in N Africa, would be a late-comer to the Americas, which was why I was thinking France would probably replace it in middle America and from there Peru. Spain OTL wasn't able to monopolise the entire Caribbean with the Dutch, English and French all either occupying islands or taking them from the Spanish and especially when the wealth of sugar plantations is realised every major naval power will want a silice of that action. I could see the English possibly starting at Newfoundland and working down to the St Lawrence and then at least New England. While I think they would try and gain a foothold in the Caribbean because its so wealthy, I doubt they would have the resources to get heavily involved, at least unless either France and/or Spain are seriously weakened, or possibly as part of an alliance. Spain [in this scenario] and France are likely to be the big guys, at least until industrialisation takes off and possibly longer if it occurs in other ways. As such I could see Spain gaining prominance in much of the Caribbean, possibly also taking much of Mexico from France - although possibly not if the French have a more tolerant attitude to the locals - and in the southern US with an eventual bound with the British somewhere around Virginia say? A lot would depend on whether the Spanish colonisation was largely estate owners and aristocrats [in the Americas] as OTL or, possibly affected by the different experience in the Med, having a lot more lower level settlers, in which cases numbers might be much larger than OTL. In that case you might ultimately see the Spanish, or their colonial territories in the Americas, winning ground more dramatically against both the French to the south and the English/British to the north. It might end up becoming TTLs superpower. If however the Spanish immigrants are predominantly landowners and the like, possibly with large black slave plantations as the native Americans are likely to not really recover from the initial disease pandemics and invasions. In that case the Spanish empire could end up more fragile. I doubt the French would be that much more tolerant in Mexico between the massed human sacrifice of the Aztecs and their militant nature but its possible in the Inca lands and also possibly in Mayan areas, Which might see the latter 'controlled' indirectly but markedly earlier than OTL as I believe they were very difficult for the Spanish to overrun, especially once they realised there wasn't great wealth there. However I'm interested as to why you think they woild be more tolerant than OTL Spanish? They were in OTL French N America, but that could be because both French settlers and native population/wealth were pretty low. Hence there weren't great clashes over land or wealth. If their getting massive mineral wealth from say the Bolivian silver mines where are they getting the labour from? Similarly, even after a bloody conquest, Mexico is likely to have a large population so either the French become basically an aristocratic class, which would make them unpopular in the longer term or try and replace them with French settlers, which would be very bloody. Steve |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Aug 29, 2017 23:11:27 GMT
I would assume that the French would have been more tolerant than the Spaniards because of the colonization process that was done in North America IOTL, but I have no further clue as to what kind of atrocities the French had committed against other peoples in the Caribbean islands under their control or against Africans.
If the English had expanded on their control of the St. Lawrence region and New England, they could also be in a position to gain control of the entirety of the Mississippi River area. However, that would depend on whether or not the Spanish would have the strength to expand into that same region. It is true that there is also a possible chance of France losing some territory to the Spaniards, but that is only if Spain intends to build itself a Caribbean empire. Yes, France would be able to somehow compete with Spain for control of the Caribbean region, but it would also depend on the level of naval power that those nations possess.
The Spaniards would have more access to low level settlers if they didn't ban the Catalans, Portuguese or other non-Castillian subjects of the Spanish Empire from immigrating to the Spanish colonies. The preference for Castilians was one of the major reasons why the white Spanish population in Latin America wasn't as huge as the white populations in the British American colonies. The possession of North African territory will definitely help build up another population base from which they could use more people to ultimately colonize more Spanish territories in the Americas.
Another question is, does France also get Brazil, or would Spain keep it because of Portugal? I meant because of Portugal's entry into an earlier Iberian Union, would Brazil somehow go to Spain?
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Aug 30, 2017 19:04:33 GMT
I would assume that the French would have been more tolerant than the Spaniards because of the colonization process that was done in North America IOTL, but I have no further clue as to what kind of atrocities the French had committed against other peoples in the Caribbean islands under their control or against Africans. If the English had expanded on their control of the St. Lawrence region and New England, they could also be in a position to gain control of the entirety of the Mississippi River area. However, that would depend on whether or not the Spanish would have the strength to expand into that same region. It is true that there is also a possible chance of France losing some territory to the Spaniards, but that is only if Spain intends to build itself a Caribbean empire. Yes, France would be able to somehow compete with Spain for control of the Caribbean region, but it would also depend on the level of naval power that those nations possess. The Spaniards would have more access to low level settlers if they didn't ban the Catalans, Portuguese or other non-Castillian subjects of the Spanish Empire from immigrating to the Spanish colonies. The preference for Castilians was one of the major reasons why the white Spanish population in Latin America wasn't as huge as the white populations in the British American colonies. The possession of North African territory will definitely help build up another population base from which they could use more people to ultimately colonize more Spanish territories in the Americas. Another question is, does France also get Brazil, or would Spain keep it because of Portugal? I meant because of Portugal's entry into an earlier Iberian Union, would Brazil somehow go to Spain? It might be that if Spain encouraged Spaniards, from all areas, to migrate to N Africa to help secure that region, this could well develop a precedence , both for settlement from Spain and also from the settlers in N Africa. Possibly also from Italian lands, if their securely inside the Spanish empire by this time. This could provide a source of unity within the empire and also mean 'Spain' can send a lot of settlers westwards. With the French as I say I think there were push and pull factors for the low level of settlers in their lands OTL. Both there seemed to be a reluctance to encourage widespread migration to the colonies [and I believe a complete ban on French Protestants], which meant there wasn't massive demand for lands and the relatively low population of the natives meant there wasn't a great need for a large army to keep them supressed or capacity for large estates. I'm thinking that if they end up occupying Mexico and then Peru, the high population of those regions, even after the disease pandemics could well change that. If there are large estates established and also mining using native labour you could end up with the French empire looking fairly similar to the OTL Spanish one in its policies. Furthermore, given the different climates of Spain and France north of the Med a lot of 'Latin America' may be less suitable for French settlement. I'm not saying that this would happen but I think its at least a possibility. You could end up with markedly larger French settlement but they could have a lot of competition with the locals unless they end up in less settled areas, say like Texas. If Britain got the northern region, ending up controlling the Great Lakes area, then their likely to want to get access to the Mississippi. However if we are assuming both a powerful Spain in Europe for longer and substantial settlement in the OTL 'Old South' region that is going to mean major victories over the Spanish [which might be possible with allies] but also either expelling or absorbing a pretty large Spanish speaking population. Hence I suspect in this scenario that neither Britain nor Spain would be likely to dominate N America and I think two powerful states would be established in the region. [Possibly with a 3rd in a more powerful Mexico if it gets a better deal this time with leadership and/or less pressure from the north because both Spanish and British great powers are busy with each other.] Not sure with Portugal. If there's an equivalent of the Treaty of Tordesillas, only this time possibly between France and Portugal, then depending on the borders drawn Portugal and then Spain after the union between the two then Spain is still likely to have a Brazil. Note that our Brazil established spreads some way west of the demarcation line and this may happen in TTL as well. However I don't know what would happen in TTL as this would mean S America would be largely split between two large and often antagonistic powers rather than two powers on amicable terms until ~1700. As such there could be more clashes between French and Spanish interests in the region. Gods there are a hell of a lot of things to consider as possible butterfly and results in TTL! Not to mention results elsewhere. For instance if Spain ends up clearly dominating the Med and virtually monopolising the western Med this is likely to mean its the power that Britain will vie with if/when the RN starts becoming very powerful. Similarly a more powerful Spain with control of the East Indies and quite possibly other areas in the east what happens to the Cape, India and possibly Egypt when a canal is built there. Going to be a lot of sources of conflict. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Aug 30, 2017 20:05:26 GMT
In North Africa, you might be able to see an earlier emergence of an alt-Pied Noirs consisting of Spaniards, Italians, Portuguese and possibly Christian refugees fleeing from the Ottomans who don't want to stay loyal to the Sultan (though it would be very few of them). An earlier development of Pied Noir culture might also be helpful in the long run if they're used to the hot climates, because that can also help them adapt to the climates of Latin America, while France wouldn't be able to adapt to such harsh climate.
I also suspect that the French might actually be more comfortable in the good chunk of South America, given its mountainous terrain in the Andes Mountain ranges, and even in areas like Patagonia and Aracaunia. Those areas might have a similar climate to that of central or northern France. Furthermore, given the possibility that the French could also lose one of the two major conquests in this scenario, I believe that the French could easily hold on to their territories in South America. French settlement in areas around OTL Peru, Bolivia and Chile might also be a possibility as well, and if those lands have good grazing grounds, cattle ranching would be one of France's premier agricultural expertise in that area.
It might also depend on whether or not England and Spain would have an alliance or be hostile to each other. If there is an Anglo-Spanish alliance, then there could be negotiations where Spain can cede the Mississippi River region to England in exchange for getting more of the Eastern Starboard. If England and Spain are hostile to each other, then you could possibly see that river region become a major war zone between the two competing powers. I can easily see expulsion happening by the English on the Spanish population in the disputed regions, unless England remains Catholic.
French and Spanish clashes can also occur over Mexico as well, and it might also depend on how the French would populate the OTL Texas region, as well as Mexico. If there aren't any more French settlers colonizing the Mexican lands of OTL, then chances are that the Spaniards would succeed in dislodging the French from northern Mexico, but may fail to conquer most of northern Latin America. Of course, there is an option of sending Italians to populate the French colonies, but odds are that they (the Italian would-be colonists) may prefer to settle in the Spanish colonies instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Aug 31, 2017 19:20:52 GMT
In North Africa, you might be able to see an earlier emergence of an alt-Pied Noirs consisting of Spaniards, Italians, Portuguese and possibly Christian refugees fleeing from the Ottomans who don't want to stay loyal to the Sultan (though it would be very few of them). An earlier development of Pied Noir culture might also be helpful in the long run if they're used to the hot climates, because that can also help them adapt to the climates of Latin America, while France wouldn't be able to adapt to such harsh climate. I also suspect that the French might actually be more comfortable in the good chunk of South America, given its mountainous terrain in the Andes Mountain ranges, and even in areas like Patagonia and Aracaunia. Those areas might have a similar climate to that of central or northern France. Furthermore, given the possibility that the French could also lose one of the two major conquests in this scenario, I believe that the French could easily hold on to their territories in South America. French settlement in areas around OTL Peru, Bolivia and Chile might also be a possibility as well, and if those lands have good grazing grounds, cattle ranching would be one of France's premier agricultural expertise in that area. It might also depend on whether or not England and Spain would have an alliance or be hostile to each other. If there is an Anglo-Spanish alliance, then there could be negotiations where Spain can cede the Mississippi River region to England in exchange for getting more of the Eastern Starboard. If England and Spain are hostile to each other, then you could possibly see that river region become a major war zone between the two competing powers. I can easily see expulsion happening by the English on the Spanish population in the disputed regions, unless England remains Catholic. French and Spanish clashes can also occur over Mexico as well, and it might also depend on how the French would populate the OTL Texas region, as well as Mexico. If there aren't any more French settlers colonizing the Mexican lands of OTL, then chances are that the Spaniards would succeed in dislodging the French from northern Mexico, but may fail to conquer most of northern Latin America. Of course, there is an option of sending Italians to populate the French colonies, but odds are that they (the Italian would-be colonists) may prefer to settle in the Spanish colonies instead. The development of an Pied Noir culture plus also possibly a number of local converts from Islam could well be useful in Spain conquering/colonising warmer climes, possibly especially OTL N Mexico and related areas of the US. France could find the Andean region more comfortable, especially for settlement and would also probably prefer even more areas such as Argentina and possibily parts of southern Brazil if they get that far. However given their OTL colonisation of much of Africa and also French Indo-China we can't rule out lasting presence in jungle or desert type areas. I would say, that especially if Britain manages to develop roughly as OTL, with a limited monarchy and powerful commcial/colonial centre - which is far from certain - Britain will be powerful enough to be a rival to Spain and France, although I suspect it would be a slightly weaker power until industrialisation begins. As such there would be continual manouvring between the three powers depending on their realtive strength both in Europe and abroad as well as other powers in Europe. One other thing to consider is would there be any other significant colonial powers who might compete to a greater or lesser degree? We seem to be concluding that Portugal will be peramently absorbed into Spain and that the Bungundian lands will go to Austria, which in the short term means no Netherlands. However could something emerge there later or if Austria keeps control of the full Netherlands [OTL Belgium and Netherlands] might it be a significant player and if so where and to what degree? With proposed Spanish strength in the Med and S Italy, unless this later breaks up I can't see an independent Italian unity state. You might get a unified Germany, probably centred on Vienna, or it permamently split, possibly with Saxony or Brandenburg providing the core of a N German state. However even if say Scandinavia was unified under Sweden [most probably] I don't think it would have the resources to be a major player, especially since it is most likely to be looking east, towards Russia. I think that Spain would be unwilling to cede control of the Mississippi valley to Britain, especially if they gained power in Texas and points west and south as that would split their territory, Could see in times when relations are good between the two agreement on free passage, possibly with some tariffs and limitations, but anything more would require a military victory I suspect. However tension over the northern borders could restrict the Spanish surge in the Americas that France keeps more of its orginal empire than it otherwise might. Also I'm not sure what happens with OTL Venezeula/Columbia? That might be a suitable place for a 4th power to establish itself possibly. We seem to be assuming that Britain and Spain will be heavily colonising their parts of the Americas but unclear what will happen with the French? Could well be dominant in Argentina and possibly Chile and Uruguay region but the high native populations in Peru-Bolivia and Mexico [depending on who ends up in charge of the latter] are likely to deter large scale settlement in those regions. Also a lot of the Andean platuaex is very high which would be another barrier to European settlement. Two other points: a) We are moving some way from the OP about how the POD affects the Ottoman empire.  b) It seems to have become a dialogue between just the two of us. Hope I'm not elbowing my way in too much? Steve |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Aug 31, 2017 20:14:30 GMT
That's fine.
We seem to be getting off track, so we should go back after I answer these questions that you provided.
I would honestly think that with a stronger France, would the French be willing to ally with the Turks at all? Given that Western Europe will be a lot more powerful than IOTL, I could see the Ottomans hunkering down for a long war ahead. Unfortunately we might see a more anti-Semitic Ottoman Turkish government, which would not bode well for the Jews residing in the Levant under Turkish rule. IOTL there was a plan made by the English to launch a joint campaign against Spain alongside the Ottomans. If anything, the English might actually be the one to take France's place as the premier European partner against the Catholic powers. However, Spanish control of North Africa would mean that Morocco would be conquered in its entirety much sooner, making English overtures to the Islamic world a lot harder. I also wonder if the Protestant Reformation would be split into the Austrian and English schools in this case.
Austria would definitely be the big enemy of the Ottomans, so I suspect that Hungary would be a major battle ground. The Austrians have more resources and they're much closer to Hungary, but given the potential route the Hungarians go in the Reformation, the Hungarian Protestants might go along with Protestant England. If Hungary remains Catholic, then it would be natural for them to choose a Hapsburg monarch for the Hungarian crown. I could see the HRE being centralized by Vienna if they won't have to worry about inheriting the Spanish territories. Heck, they might take the lead in the Protestant Reformation if the Pope remains pro-French. (The Sack of Rome of 1527 could be delayed or butterflied away)
With the Ottomans hemmed in North Africa and the Middle East, they might be able to expand on their control deeper into the Libyan mainland and the Arabian Peninsula. It would initially be useless for now, until the industrial revolution and the early 20th century where the discovery of oil would be a huge boon to the Turks, plus the deposits of boron. It might also make the task of defending their empire a lot easier in terms of logistics. In addition, it would make the resettling of any Muslims fleeing from Russian rule a lot more interesting, especially in case Muscovy Rus'/Russia may conquer the Crimean Khanate a lot sooner, along with the other Tatar statelets.
I also think that it might also be possible for France to lose one of its major colonies in the Americas to Spain or England, and if France does focus more on settling the Andean territories, then the only piece of territory with a tropical climate on it would be the area roughly around OTL Colombia and Venezuela. Then again, the French colonization of Africa and Asia didn't involve a lot of French colonists settling in (probably hundreds, but not thousands), and they were mainly utilized for resource extraction and other agricultural production. French Indochina for example, was established as a network of protectorates. So I suspect that France might only be able to establish protectorates in colonies where they can't find settlers to colonize.
Scandinavia would be a huge wild card, depending on whether or not they would be aligned with Poland-Lithuania or Russia. If they remained allied with Poland, then they would pose a threat to Russia and at the same time be on and off with their alliance with the Ottomans. IOTL the Ottomans didn't recognize the partitions of Poland and had excellent relations, although at times Poland-Lithuania and the Turks have also fought each other. In any case, the relations between the Ottomans and the rest of Europe would vary on their interests and needs:
1) Franco-Turkish relations: As mentioned earlier, it may depend on how strong France is and how weak her enemies are. Without the Hapsburgs in Spain, France has no need for an alliance with the Ottoman Empire. However, the French might play a minor role as the protector of Ottoman Catholics living under Turkish rule (but in this case the Ottoman Catholics might prefer to flee to either French, Austrian or Spanish territory).
2) Spanish-Turkish relations: Definitely terrible, as Spanish domination of the Western Med will always result in them being at loggerheads with the Turks. I suspect that the Ottoman sultans might place less emphasis on land expansion and place more emphasis on improving their naval technology and producing more ships to combat the combined navies of Catholic Europe.
3) Austro-Turkish relations: Just as terrible as Spanish-Turkish relations, but can get even worse because of Hungary. If the Hapsburgs get Hungary, then that might go a long way with expanding their potential alliances with Scandinavia, Poland-Lithuania and Muscovy Rus'/Russia. They are also the chief rivals of the Turks and the Austrians might also play a decisive role in centralizing the Holy Roman Empire. In any case, you could see Austria as leader of the HRE claiming the role as successor to the Western Roman Empire, and Russia already claiming the role as the successor to the Eastern Roman Empire.
4) Scandinavian-Turkish relations: Depends on whether or not they would have Russia as their common enemy. Other than that, they might also become another potential ally of the Russians (IOTL the Kalmar Union under Denmark's leadership formed an alliance with Russia and even offered them territory in exchange for suppressing the Swedish separatists, but reneged on that).
5) Russo-Turkish relations: Just as terrible as either the Spanish-Turkish relations or Austro-Turkish relations, but can get a hell lot worse because of Ottoman Turkey's patronage over the Crimean Khanate. It would also depend on the relations between Orthodox Christians living within Turkish territory and the Sultanate as well. Because it is almost inevitable for Russia and Ottoman Turkey to fight each other, it would be natural for the Russians to form an alliance with the Persians.
6) Anglo-Turkish relations: May be similar to OTL Franco-Turkish relations, but even stronger commercially. If England becomes full blown Protestant, then they would view the Turks as natural allies in the fight against the Catholic Church, although that might also earn them the enmity of continental Europe.
7) Polish-Turkish relations: May be as bad as Spanish-Turkish relations, but could also be beneficial if their enemy is Russia, just like the relations between Scandinavia and the Turks. In rare cases, the Poles could also ally themselves with the Russians against the Turks, as it was demonstrated in the 1686 conflicts as part of the Holy Alliance.
It's good that we're discussing this because no one else is willing to jump in.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Sept 1, 2017 20:41:37 GMT
I'm not sure that England would replace the French as the most probable ally to the Turks. It lacks the power, at least before the industrial age, especially with a so much more powerful Spain, which would restrict its access to the Med. Highly unlikely to see a British Gibraltar or Malta for instance. Also even presuming Spain ceases to be Hapsburg I could see it being friendly with the Austrian dynasty as they have common enemies in the Turks, which is likely to see France still seeking to boost the Turks. [As well as contining to see themselves as threatened by being surrounded.] As such I suspect that France is still the most likely chief Turkish ally, although possibly even less open that OTL. Also if France makes the early gains in the Americas and gets what are seen as the richest territories you might even see a France boosted by American gold and silver getting to the Louis XIV stage earlier, with it being seen as the major threat to the balance of power in Europe. Especially if possibly France is heavily supporting the smaller German states to prevent the Hapsburgs dominating Germany too much and possibly unifying it. As such in the earlier stages I would expect the basic lines of conflict being France and Ottomans [even if informally] v Spain and Austria with England/Britain and other powers in relatively minor roles and possibly switching between the two blocs depending on the circumstances. I would agree say that the Ottomans hunker down, plus if France makes the early running in the Americas then Spain probably doesn't get farther than say Tunisia or at most Tripoli [the one in Libya obviously. ] The Ottomans seek to hold their territory while Spain increasingly looks west to challenge France. [Rather than possible earlier suggestions of effectively a new crusdaring period possibly going into Egypt and the like. North and East Europe is probably at least as messy as OTL. Sweden, Poland and Russia when the 1st two were at their heights were sqabbling between each other, with also the Swedes fighting the Danish. The biggest external damage to Poland was probably by the Swedish attacks during the deluge period, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(history). As such and with the Turks to the souith and also interactions with the Austrian empire and other groups a lot of combinations could occur. However sooner or later Russia, if not really bashed down and splintered, is going to seek to drive both south and west, leading to clashes with its neighbours. One other big uncertainty is how the reformation goes. We have a more moderate Spain but its unlikely to go Protestant. However if we're assuming it becomes the dominant power in the western Med and securely controls southern Italy its going to have the independent Italian states rather nervous. Doubly so if on friendly terms with an Austrla with a significant presence in the north. Politically the most important of those states is of course the Papal states so at least some Popes are likely to be quietly seeking to undermine both powers in Italy. This might at time, include open alliance with France which other Italian states, such as Milan, Tuscany and Venice could well also be members of. However if France went Protestant that might change things drastically, although I think that unlikely. One possibility might be that while France and Spain stays predominantly Catholic an Hapsburg might go Protestant to boost its control in German, its heartland. [Using the wider term here including Burgundian lands and Bohemia]. This would enable the empire to maintain support in the Netherlands, Bohemia etc if those regions go largely Protestant, as well as seizing church lands, which was an important motive for many rulers in the period. It would be a drastic change however and is likely to end close links with Spain. Which would mean less pressure on France for instance. Not sure what would happen with the British Isles as while there was an undercurrent towards reform it was very much change that prompted Henry VIII to break with Rome, which made England going Protestant much easier. If this doesn't happen and we don't have the Dutch revolt then unless at least one of the great powers goes Protestant the counter-reformation may be a lot more successful in its territorial gains and Protestant Europe being only a relatively fringe area or even totally suppressed. There are so many posibilities to consider and just about anything could happen. I was planning only a short reply but once again it bloomed [or bloated] into this post! Steve |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Sept 1, 2017 21:30:23 GMT
I'm not sure that England would replace the French as the most probable ally to the Turks. It lacks the power, at least before the industrial age, especially with a so much more powerful Spain, which would restrict its access to the Med. Highly unlikely to see a British Gibraltar or Malta for instance. Also even presuming Spain ceases to be Hapsburg I could see it being friendly with the Austrian dynasty as they have common enemies in the Turks, which is likely to see France still seeking to boost the Turks. [As well as contining to see themselves as threatened by being surrounded.] As such I suspect that France is still the most likely chief Turkish ally, although possibly even less open that OTL. Also if France makes the early gains in the Americas and gets what are seen as the richest territories you might even see a France boosted by American gold and silver getting to the Louis XIV stage earlier, with it being seen as the major threat to the balance of power in Europe. Especially if possibly France is heavily supporting the smaller German states to prevent the Hapsburgs dominating Germany too much and possibly unifying it. As such in the earlier stages I would expect the basic lines of conflict being France and Ottomans [even if informally] v Spain and Austria with England/Britain and other powers in relatively minor roles and possibly switching between the two blocs depending on the circumstances. I would agree say that the Ottomans hunker down, plus if France makes the early running in the Americas then Spain probably doesn't get farther than say Tunisia or at most Tripoli [the one in Libya obviously. ] The Ottomans seek to hold their territory while Spain increasingly looks west to challenge France. [Rather than possible earlier suggestions of effectively a new crusdaring period possibly going into Egypt and the like. North and East Europe is probably at least as messy as OTL. Sweden, Poland and Russia when the 1st two were at their heights were sqabbling between each other, with also the Swedes fighting the Danish. The biggest external damage to Poland was probably by the Swedish attacks during the deluge period, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(history). As such and with the Turks to the souith and also interactions with the Austrian empire and other groups a lot of combinations could occur. However sooner or later Russia, if not really bashed down and splintered, is going to seek to drive both south and west, leading to clashes with its neighbours. One other big uncertainty is how the reformation goes. We have a more moderate Spain but its unlikely to go Protestant. However if we're assuming it becomes the dominant power in the western Med and securely controls southern Italy its going to have the independent Italian states rather nervous. Doubly so if on friendly terms with an Austria with a significant presence in the north. Politically the most important of those states is of course the Papal states so at least some Popes are likely to be quietly seeking to undermine both powers in Italy. This might at time, include open alliance with France which other Italian states, such as Milan, Tuscany and Venice could well also be members of. However if France went Protestant that might change things drastically, although I think that unlikely. One possibility might be that while France and Spain stays predominantly Catholic an Hapsburg might go Protestant to boost its control in German, its heartland. [Using the wider term here including Burgundian lands and Bohemia]. This would enable the empire to maintain support in the Netherlands, Bohemia etc if those regions go largely Protestant, as well as seizing church lands, which was an important motive for many rulers in the period. It would be a drastic change however and is likely to end close links with Spain. Which would mean less pressure on France for instance. Not sure what would happen with the British Isles as while there was an undercurrent towards reform it was very much change that prompted Henry VIII to break with Rome, which made England going Protestant much easier. If this doesn't happen and we don't have the Dutch revolt then unless at least one of the great powers goes Protestant the counter-reformation may be a lot more successful in its territorial gains and Protestant Europe being only a relatively fringe area or even totally suppressed. There are so many posibilities to consider and just about anything could happen. I was planning only a short reply but once again it bloomed [or bloated] into this post! Steve That is all right. Protestantism could also be entrenched in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe if England remains Catholic. Poland-Lithuania has a history of religious tolerance, although there are some areas where they did display a sense of religious intolerance, particularly towards the Orthodox population of Ruthenia and White Ruthenia (or Belarus if you want to call it). Austria going Protestant is also a distinct possibility, although if they are also caught up in some minor dynastic struggle, then there is also a good chance that the Holy Roman Empire might have a new leader that may replace Austria. Saxony, Bavaria or some other western German state could be the ones to place the Austrians. With the Hapsburgs in Austria going Protestant, there would be less pressure for France to face off against the Austrians, leaving them to fight the Spanish by their lonesome. However, it would also depend on which side England will take in the fight between France and Spain. If we're still going by the normal route of England going Protestant, then chances are that they would prefer to stay neutral so they can make money selling stuff to both sides. In a sense, the English could be the ones to take the role of the Dutch from OTL in addition to its own OTL role as the United Kingdom. Protestantism could also be tied with English (or later on, British) national identity if only England experiments with Protestantism while the rest of Continental Europe except for Russia and Ottoman Turkey would suppress the movement. A strong Poland-Lithuania would also be in the best interests of Scandinavia as a whole (or depending on how the Swedes do in their independence wars against Denmark). By denying the Russians their access to the Baltic, they could also hem in the Russians by making sure they don't get any gains in Europe. A strong Poland-Lithuania might also act as the arbiter of the rest of Eastern Europe, and they could even be the empire that could lead a crusade into the Balkans to liberate the Orthodox Christians under Turkish rule, although what I said earlier about the Turks being more reliant on Orthodox Christian merchants in the absence of the Jews, that would be a difficult thing to promote. If the Hapsburgs are also hostile to Russia, then I also see the potential emergence of a Central European bloc consisting of the HRE, Hungary, Poland-Lithuania and Scandinavia. France in possession of American gold and silver would be a huge force to be reckoned with, but I honestly hope that they play smart with their treasure and not bankrupt themselves like what the Spanish did IOTL with their gold. If they were smart, they'd place a tax on the American gold and silver that they've mined. In this case, they could even be in a position to colonize Australia from their South American bases, although it would depend on the Spanish position in Central Africa or Southern Africa. I think that the British could also be in position to colonize southern Africa, just to get into the Far East. If the Ottomans are constantly facing threats from all sides, they might take a page out of Spain's book and constantly improve on their military prowess. There may be enough incentive to innovate on certain military technologies, and the Ottomans might also invest in building fortifications along strategically important regions. Belgrade would be heavily fortified, with additional Turkish built fortresses in areas like Srem, Zemun, Smederevo and Negotin. You could also see Turkish frontier strongholds emerge in northern Bosnia, northern Bulgaria, the Dobruzha area like Tulcea, Silistra and Galati, as well as in Montenegro, Albania, eastern Bosnia, the Sandzak region and Dalmatia. They'd also invest in improving their navy as well, and with a merchant fleet to help with its trade with the rest of the world, the Turks would be all set. |
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Sept 4, 2017 16:06:56 GMT
Damn it. I'm certain I wrote a reply to this but it seems to have gone missing. No doubt some finger problems on my part. Try and remember what I wrote.
IF Austria went Protestant, possibly because it was already popular in Bohemis [their richest province OTL] Burgundy/Netherlands [which is even richer, if that goes Protestant] and Austrian Hungary, then they would clash with the more conservative groups such as Bavaria and the Papacy. Plus their likely to lose influence in N Italy, giving the French more success there - although a lot of Italians might still prrefer using the Austrians as a deterrent to avoid durect French rule. However they may win some kudos with already Protestant areas such as Saxomy and would also possibly be able to absorb a lot of church lands. There could be serious conflict in the HRE with both stance Catholics and some Protestant groups opposing the emperor getting too powerful. Also it raises the question of which form of Protestantism and how many other groups would be ofended by their choice? Furthermore it almost certainly means a cooling of relations, at least, with Spain. However it might well be an option for an emperor to conisder if it looks like most of greater Germany is going Protestant.
If Austria went Protestant then depending on whether France was concentrating on western expansion, contesting the Med with Spain or looking to go eastwards a but I would expect at least some tension between France and Austria, even if the latter goes Protestant. Apart from anything else, if Austria gets the Burgundian inheritance it has some very rich lands on the French border which historically were part of the French realm. Also like other powers it won't want Austria to get too powerful. Also if there is a Protestant element in France they may look to Austria for assistance. I think, presuming France isn't riven too much by internal fighting, it would concentrate on what it considered the main threat. Which might be Spain or Austria. It would welcome a Protestant Austria as a way of splitting Austria from Spain but that might not mean lasting goodwill between the two.
If Poland [including Lithuania] stayed strong, which would probably mean a stable dynasty avoiding too much power going to the nobles and/or prolonged and destructive conflict with Sweden then that would be a big potential change. They would still have problems with their strong Orthodox population in the east, even if Poland managed to stay fairly tolerant religiously but, especially in loose alliance with a powerful Sweden they might well be able to keep Russia from the Baltic and possibly even east on the Dniper. Also if Poland and Sweden avaoid major conflict between themselves Sweden might win a lasting victory over Denmark. Which however could prove a problem if such a Sweden sought to impose Sound Dues and also looked like monopolising the Baltic stores for shipbuilding this would be seen as a major problem for the bnaval powers. Plus we're assuming here a fairly long lasting 'alliance' between a Catholic and a Protestant nation so this could be dodgy.
I'm not sure that a French monarchy would be that much more responsible financially than Spain, especially if their clashing heavily with a Spain that dominates the eastern trades and after its clearted western N Africa the western Med they could be after every source of funds they can get. However they do have a bit more 'home' resources in terms of their home provinces agriculture I believe so that might help. Plus if their 1st in developing plntations in the Americas for sugar and other such goods that could give them an alternative source of funds. Think the problem is less going bankrupt, although this is pretty much what happened in the run up to the French revolution, than in the inflation and over-dependence on funds from colonial precious metals, which undermined the Spanish economy OTL.
As you say, seeing themselves under markedly greater pressure earlier could prompt the Ottomans to reform before they get too fossiled. Especially if this occurs before they switch to a policy of heirs to the throne being isolated in the harum. This might mean at a later stage you see an Ottoman revival, or at least after losing the W Med and Hungary earlier they hold their own. Especially if this means thier able to support the Crimean Tartars this would further impede Russian development, although their also likely to clash with Poland.
Depending on the circumstances I can't see the Ottomans getting heavily involved in the western trade. Their still likely to be at odds with Spain and with the latter have Sicily-Malta-Tuniais and Gibraltar this would mean any such trade would be limited and highly vulnerable to outbreaks of war. However a more vigerous and technologically advanced Ottomans, who are also threaten by Spain in the Indian Ocean might seek to construct a Suez Canal, which would considerably change matters. [There may be some problems with wind and currents in the Red Sea before steam engines become reliable but it would give Turkey a central position in terms of naval conflict especially with Spain. Plus with other powers later in the Indian Ocean. It might also mean their able to do more damage to the Persian empire if they can get a large fleet controlling the Gulf and threatening their coastline.
Anyway initial thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Sept 5, 2017 5:25:25 GMT
That would be possible, and it might also be possible for Austria to conquer Venice entirely as well, eliminating a potential Ottoman ally there. However, the Ottomans might also opt to bolster the Ragusa Republic in the event that Venice were to be lost, and in time they might also try to entice the Ragusans to be annexed into the Ottoman Empire, giving them another Adriatic naval base and maritime port from which they can engage in trade with the Europeans. Centralization of the HRE would definitely be a good way to settle the scores with various Princes who are opposed to him. Alternatively, the Emperor could do what Henry VIII did and start his own church where Catholic and Protestant rites are combined, but in theory they could be independent from the Pope if the Vatican remains under French influence (there were times when various Popes were pro-French). I could also see the possibility of the Italian peninsula being split into the pro-Austrian north, with Milan being the potential leader there, and the Spanish controlled south where Spanish influence reigns supreme.
I could see a three way rivalry emerging between France, Spain and Austria. With Austria going Protestant and Spain remaining staunchly Catholic, France might be compelled to have an informal alliance with the Ottomans. IOTL it took Suleiman I to approach the French for an alliance, although that alliance didn't go anywhere further than he intended to. Spain and Austria are outright rivals of the Turks and of each other, so Europe will be far more divided for a couple of decades to come. If Austria did go Protestant, then Bavaria might also be in trouble if it is surrounded by Protestant statelets. There is also a slight chance that Bavaria might also go Protestant, or they might also supplant Austria as the dominant Catholic German state in the HRE (if the HRE had undergone a Counter-Reformation process).
A Polish-Swedish alliance could still break apart, but the only thing that might unite them would be a possibility of an alliance between Denmark-Norway and Russia. IOTL it was the Danish-dominated Kalmar Union that established relations with Russia, though that didn't last long. Here, a stronger Polish-Swedish alliance could allow Denmark to reinforce its relationship with Russia. In addition, Sweden might also have other enemies that it could piss off besides Russia and Denmark.
Right, so the establishment of plantations that would generate a lot of profit from the production of agricultural goods in their colonies would have helped France more in the long run, and especially if those agricultural products would also help improve France's demographics as well. Improving their demographics would also help them in the long run, especially if they need more settlers to colonize their territories in Latin America, although they would most likely be attracted to the territories that have similar climate to where they came from. The Andes mountain ranges and Patagonia would be a good place for lots of French settlers to set up shop.
True about the Crimean Tatars, although the Crimean Khanate is an irritant that would have to be dealt with sooner or later, by either Poland or Russia, as the Crimean Tatars are often raiding Polish or Russian territory for slaves to capture in order to export them into various slave markets. Muscovy/Russia was already busy trying to subdue the other Tatar khanates that splintered in the aftermath of the Golden Horde's collapse, primarily the Nogai Horde, Kazan, and Astrakhan. Plus it would also help secure their southern flank if the Crimean Khanate was subdued. I guess the presence of the Crimean Tatars would be the only thing that would bind Poland and Russia in an informal alliance; otherwise, they're going to hate each other.
If the Ottomans constructed their version of the Suez Canal, then that would easily improve their chances of extending their naval power right into the Red Sea area and into the Indian Ocean without relying on the Persian Gulf for security. However, that doesn't mean that Persia will neglect their naval power in the region, especially if they're sharing both a land and maritime border with the Ottomans. I suspect that this is where the alliance between Russia and Persia would come into handy. At the same time though, the Ottomans could also try to search for a new trade route into the East if they're constantly butting heads with Spain. They even launched an expedition into western Sumatra IOTL, so chances are that they might pull off the same stunt, either with Aceh, or even the Malacca Sultanate. However, getting involved with the Malacca Sultanate could potentially result in a war with the Ming Chinese, as Portugal found out the hard way.
Actually, in this possible scenario the Spanish might potentially colonize parts of Cambodia, southern Vietnam and even parts of Thailand instead of the Philippines, with that leaving to either the French or various pirates operating in the region. IOTL the Spaniards tried to conquer Cambodia, but failed to do so. Here, they might have a much better chance of conquering them.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Sept 5, 2017 18:51:40 GMT
That would be possible, and it might also be possible for Austria to conquer Venice entirely as well, eliminating a potential Ottoman ally there. However, the Ottomans might also opt to bolster the Ragusa Republic in the event that Venice were to be lost, and in time they might also try to entice the Ragusans to be annexed into the Ottoman Empire, giving them another Adriatic naval base and maritime port from which they can engage in trade with the Europeans. Centralization of the HRE would definitely be a good way to settle the scores with various Princes who are opposed to him. Alternatively, the Emperor could do what Henry VIII did and start his own church where Catholic and Protestant rites are combined, but in theory they could be independent from the Pope if the Vatican remains under French influence (there were times when various Popes were pro-French). I could also see the possibility of the Italian peninsula being split into the pro-Austrian north, with Milan being the potential leader there, and the Spanish controlled south where Spanish influence reigns supreme. I could see a three way rivalry emerging between France, Spain and Austria. With Austria going Protestant and Spain remaining staunchly Catholic, France might be compelled to have an informal alliance with the Ottomans. IOTL it took Suleiman I to approach the French for an alliance, although that alliance didn't go anywhere further than he intended to. Spain and Austria are outright rivals of the Turks and of each other, so Europe will be far more divided for a couple of decades to come. If Austria did go Protestant, then Bavaria might also be in trouble if it is surrounded by Protestant statelets. There is also a slight chance that Bavaria might also go Protestant, or they might also supplant Austria as the dominant Catholic German state in the HRE (if the HRE had undergone a Counter-Reformation process). A Polish-Swedish alliance could still break apart, but the only thing that might unite them would be a possibility of an alliance between Denmark-Norway and Russia. IOTL it was the Danish-dominated Kalmar Union that established relations with Russia, though that didn't last long. Here, a stronger Polish-Swedish alliance could allow Denmark to reinforce its relationship with Russia. In addition, Sweden might also have other enemies that it could piss off besides Russia and Denmark. Right, so the establishment of plantations that would generate a lot of profit from the production of agricultural goods in their colonies would have helped France more in the long run, and especially if those agricultural products would also help improve France's demographics as well. Improving their demographics would also help them in the long run, especially if they need more settlers to colonize their territories in Latin America, although they would most likely be attracted to the territories that have similar climate to where they came from. The Andes mountain ranges and Patagonia would be a good place for lots of French settlers to set up shop. True about the Crimean Tatars, although the Crimean Khanate is an irritant that would have to be dealt with sooner or later, by either Poland or Russia, as the Crimean Tatars are often raiding Polish or Russian territory for slaves to capture in order to export them into various slave markets. Muscovy/Russia was already busy trying to subdue the other Tatar khanates that splintered in the aftermath of the Golden Horde's collapse, primarily the Nogai Horde, Kazan, and Astrakhan. Plus it would also help secure their southern flank if the Crimean Khanate was subdued. I guess the presence of the Crimean Tatars would be the only thing that would bind Poland and Russia in an informal alliance; otherwise, they're going to hate each other. If the Ottomans constructed their version of the Suez Canal, then that would easily improve their chances of extending their naval power right into the Red Sea area and into the Indian Ocean without relying on the Persian Gulf for security. However, that doesn't mean that Persia will neglect their naval power in the region, especially if they're sharing both a land and maritime border with the Ottomans. I suspect that this is where the alliance between Russia and Persia would come into handy. At the same time though, the Ottomans could also try to search for a new trade route into the East if they're constantly butting heads with Spain. They even launched an expedition into western Sumatra IOTL, so chances are that they might pull off the same stunt, either with Aceh, or even the Malacca Sultanate. However, getting involved with the Malacca Sultanate could potentially result in a war with the Ming Chinese, as Portugal found out the hard way. Actually, in this possible scenario the Spanish might potentially colonize parts of Cambodia, southern Vietnam and even parts of Thailand instead of the Philippines, with that leaving to either the French or various pirates operating in the region. IOTL the Spaniards tried to conquer Cambodia, but failed to do so. Here, they might have a much better chance of conquering them. Austria might be able to take out Venice but it was a tough nut historically and fought off numerous attacks by assorted powers and alliances. Also if the Austrians are knee deep [or higher] in fighting unrest in the HRE and also clashing with the French and Turks they might not have the time and resources until those probably more pressing conflicts are resolved. I would expect, at least in the short term, that the Austrians going Protestant would lose them a lot of power and influence in N Italy. [Irronically Venice, which was often in conflict with the Papacy itself, might be the least hostile power, especially if it found Austrian pressure on the Turks helped it hold onto its eastern Med colonies. To a degree the two powers could cover each other's flank by providing a safe boundary]. Although Spain might be a more important ally against the Turks as their the ones carrying out a maritime war against them. There is bound to be rivarily between the three main continental powers, especially with disputed borders. However if Spain and Austria are split over religion I would say this makes a Franco-Ottoman alliance less likely as its not feeling as surrounded. More likely especially when the wealth of the Americas come in France could be taking the offensive, probably against Austria to gain the Burgundian lands and especially if Austria has split from the Papacy. Although a strong and persistant threat from France as well as the Turks could be a major factor in bringing some German states into supporting Austria, as long as it didn't push centralisation too far. [I realise I'm possibly contradicting myself here to a degree but I see ITTL it being more of France being a foe of opportunity. It should be noted that while going Protestant has some advantages for Austria, if influential areas such as Burgundy and Bohemia have gone Protestant, it also has big disadvantages. Most independent Protestant states in the HRE will still oppose the emperor getting too powerful while the dynasty loses support from the Catholic lords. More importantly it will alienate the Papacy, most of N Italy, which is very wealthy and important in resisting French expansion in the region and possibly most of all Spain. Apart from Spain not having the same reasources, at least early on, as OTL it won't be giving Austria the political, diplomatic and military support it gave OTL. As such Austria, with internal enemies, plus surrounded by France, N Italy, the Turks and possibly Poland will have a very tough time. As you say a Danish-Russian alliance could be one thing to keep Sweden and Poland on friendly terms, even if their religions differ. Think we're on slightly different tracks with France. The advantage of the slave plantations in the Caribbean and neighbouring areas was that they generated huge wealth. High value products like sugar especially, rather than general foodstuffs. [That's why when France had to choose in 1763 between regaining Canada or Guadalope the latter proved a lot more attractive]. Greater wealth and merchant trade would help France boost its home population anyway, so that would fit in. In terms of population and settlement I think Argentina and possibly some parts of northern Mexico are the best bets for France. The Andes could be less welcoming due to their very high altitude in many areas. Although they could possibly settle the coasts and lower levels and have allies help maintain control of the higher regions. Elsewhere the jungles and diseases being brought in from the old world, which thrived there, make large scale European settlement difficult. However the fact the Andes and central valley of Mexico already have pretty high population densities. Things could go any one of dozens of ways in eastern Europe and I wouldn't rely on the Crimean Tartars not lasting at least several generations more as a significant power if the Turks reform and modernise earlier and more effectively. Their obnoxious enough to their neighbour to probably go down eventually but they did provide some of the Ottomans best forces so they are likely to be supported. In the miss-mass of conflicting and often transitive alliances who comes out on top could be highly uncertain. Agree that Spain and the Ottomans could well have some powerful naval conflicts in the Indian Ocean and related waters. Which could leave the area uncontrolled enough that other contentors could emerge later, as Britain did OTL. Doubt China would be a major factor as by the POD its already under the Manchu and they tended to be inward and continental looking in outlet. At least unless the Spanish really intruded militarily on their empire, which I suspect would be unlikely. [Although TTL it will be the French that will have the silver stockpiles that the Chinese prized.] However unless the Ottomans maintain technological and social parity with the main European powers I would expect that ultimately the Spanish would win out over them. [If they didn maintain partity that is a whole different boardgames as they then have a larger total population and a much better geographical position than Spain.] |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Sept 6, 2017 5:39:05 GMT
Do you think the Italian states might try to centralize as well, given that the potential route the Austrians would go and the fear of French domination would prod them to centralize some more? Because between Austrian overlordship, French domination or Ottoman vassalage, or for that matter, Spanish hegemony, the Italian states in the north are gonna need to come up with something to help them survive. With regards to the Ottomans, they might also want to take out their Venetian rivals if they want to prevent them from hindering on their plans to dominate the Med and Adriatic.
France might also opt for an alliance with Sweden and Poland if the alliance with the Turks don't work out, as the HRE was practically the common enemy of any nation that wasn't supporting them. However, a Franco-Polish-Swedish alliance might push the HRE into the arms of Denmark and to a lesser extent, Russia. The Austrians and Danes would be nervous at such a prospect of an alliance, and the French would also feel uneasy if England were to align itself with Denmark and the HRE, just to pick a fight with France.
At this point, would it be farfetched to say that a Protestant Austria might have a shot at actually forming a partnership with Russia? Polish power was the one thing that formally united the HRE and Russia against it, but other than that they had no formal contact. Of course, a stronger Russo-Danish alliance might also result in the Russians itching to launch an alt-Petrine reform based on Denmark and Austria, and to a lesser extent, some of the other German states that would be itching to dethrone Austria as the leader of the HRE. (Saxony or Hesse)
French colonization of "Latin America" could be restricted to the coastlines and lowlands while their native allies would have control over the higher regions. Actually, in this case the French might also have a chance to create their alt-Metis mixed ethnicity population if they went up into the highlands, though unlike OTL where Fur Trades were the primary cause of the formation of the Metis, I don't see any economic benefit of French settlers intermarrying say, Mapuche people. However, in place of the Fur Trade, perhaps farms that focus on cultivation of potatoes and cotton would be the replacement.
It would also depend on the region in question, especially if the French would also practice slavery as well as the rest of the Western European colonial powers.
As for South Africa though, because the English, French and Spanish would be too busy with the Americas and there isn't a Dutch Empire that will exist, would it be safe to say that South Africa could become one of those colonies funded by private companies backed by the state?
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Sept 6, 2017 16:01:21 GMT
Do you think the Italian states might try to centralize as well, given that the potential route the Austrians would go and the fear of French domination would prod them to centralize some more? Because between Austrian overlordship, French domination or Ottoman vassalage, or for that matter, Spanish hegemony, the Italian states in the north are gonna need to come up with something to help them survive. With regards to the Ottomans, they might also want to take out their Venetian rivals if they want to prevent them from hindering on their plans to dominate the Med and Adriatic. I suspect they have too many rivarlies and old hatreds to unify, plus if one power started to achieve this by force then not only would the others resist but external powers would probably do as well to keep the area weak and divided. However you might see a loose alliance from time to time, which under the right circumstances could possibly become a lasting feature. I think this would probably need the destruction of either Genoa or Venice, most likely the former as the two were bitter rivals in the eastern Med. Not sure that the Ottomans would be capable of crushing Venice, especially if being hard pressed by a stronger and successful Spain. Although if Spain doesn't push into the eastern Med you could see the Turks serious weaken Venice by taking their eastern possessions, which might cause serious economic problems. Not sure what approach Venice would take when increasingly pinned between two such titans although if the Turks offered some ability to continue trading in eastern spices and the like they could quite possibly obtain a friendly neutrality from Venice. Either way, presuming the Turks aren't totally defeated and Spain secures the two sicilies as well as N Africa the Adriatic could be a bitterly contested region. Possibly more likely Poland than Sweden if we have a Protestant Austria as at least they have religion in common. Also Sweden as a northern naval power would be less concerned about a powerful Austria unifying Germany, to some degree. However it would mean probably alienating the Turks and I think, provided they don't upset religious sensibilities by making it too obvious, France would prefer Turkey as an ally. Both are likely to have tensions with Spain and Austria so it seems a more natural fit. What I think is that France would be more oppertunistic in such connections, possibly also the Turks. Poland, other than when relieving Vienna and when clashing with Tartar raiders seemed more concerned with Russia and also whoever was strongest among Denmark and Sweden because they controlled Polands maritime trade and also were rivals in the eastern Baltic. As such I doubt Poland would be that greatly involved in struggles in 'Germany' and points west. While France was the traditional enemy for England and the English monarchy still had a formal claim on the French throne England was willing to consider friendships with France at times. However they are the more likely enemies, especially if the French empire in the Americas prompted clashes over English settlement and trade/raiding. Not sure what the French word is for fleet but could have a French Armada in TTL, although that might be more difficult to resist due to geography. Could have assistance from the empire, or at least the Hapsburg's Netherlands forces in such a clash. Might also at other times have England providing some support to the Burgundian provinces in resisting French encroachment as a way of keeping French forces tied down. Hence thinking about it could see a more continous Austrian-English alliance in TTL. Might also be a trigger for England to follow Austria into reformation. It would probably depend on Polish reaction to Austria going Protestant. If they are fairly flexible and will to turn a deaf ear to Papal demands for presssure against the heretics, even while formally denouncing them, then its likely that the two powers would be able to live largely side by side. That gives one secure border for both of them which would be very helpful for both powers. If they go heavily into the counter-reformation and pressurise Austria, or possible Protestant allies then Austria might well turn to Russia but I don't think it was that powerful until ~1660 compared to Poland, and the latter may have been more to the pounding Poland took from the Swedes and a weak monarchy. If Austria goes Protestant, in part to hold Burgundy/Netherlands and Bohemia, I doubt any Protestant state in Germany are likely to supplant them, or even try. They might oppose Austria aims to make the empire more coherent but if threatened by Catholic powers from west, south and possibly east their more likely to see Austria as their key defender. Bavaria might make a bid if it stays Catholic and could be a valuable ally to France as it was OTL in the 18thC. Possibly another state which since Austria goes Protestant stays Catholic as a result. Could well be possible. Doubt potatoes would be that important as they can easily be grown in Europe. Could cotton do well at such high altitudes, which presumably also means cooler tenperatures? Also I think it was pretty destructive of the soil, at least as cultivated by the southern US OTL which might be a problem. I think they would practice African slavery in the Caribbean, as they did OTL. It makes a hell of a difference in terms of their profitability I think. In some areas of mainland Latin America the Spanish importanted Africans as the church insisted that the native Americans shouldn't be enslaved. [Plus also the rate at which they were being slaughtered by brutal forced labour]. If we presume that the French monarchy also accepts a similar instruction from the Papacy their likely to use slaves as well in corresponding areas. Don't think there were many in Mexico or the Andean region, even for the mines, but more places like Grande Columbia and the Caribbean possessions. Well OTL it was effectively controlled by a private company, i.e. the Dutch East Indies Company, at least until Britain took it over.  You might just see a 'Dutch' company from the region, since it had a trading history, just operating under Austrian rule. In which case a large commercial community here could also help keep Austria more progressive economically. Although again in the early years the Cape is just a stepping stone to the wealth of the the spice islands and later India. Furthermore Spain is going to be more difficult to expel from it than Portugal was OTL, because of its much greater wealth and power. Ditto with the East Indies themselves as I suspect it would be likely any 'Dutch' would be unable to expel the Spanish. Unless possibly in combination with the Turks, which I suspect would be unlikely. As such I think any Dutch, or other additional players, might be forced say towards India, China or Japan. Although this would be difficult with the East Indies in hostile hands. You might end up with the 'Dutch' either supplanting or being the main rivals to the British in India and/or Australia rather than the French as OTL. Steve |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Sept 7, 2017 5:54:50 GMT
For the Andean region, they might imitate the old Incan system of unpaid labour that most of its citizens were required to perform once a year, or something along those lines that the Spaniards adopted IOTL. Unlike IOTL as I may have mentioned earlier, there wouldn't be any economic incentive from intermarriage between French settlers and South American native tribes. Cattle or llama ranching might make sense, although what good to the French is the llama?
I could imagine the South African region becoming populated by German speaking people subsidized by various private corporations dealing with colonization schemes. I could see an analogue to the British East India Company or some other Dutch based company pulling some strings to get more settlers to build ports and harbors in coastal regions of southern Africa. However, I may also see a huge negative potential for new slave markets, which would definitely make the slave trade all the more tragic.
Another possibility for France to populate the highlands of the Andes region and Patagonia would have been to invite some people from faraway lands like Scotland and Switzerland to help with any alpine based agriculture there, although the Scots in this scenario would have preferred to settle in English owned lands. In this case, a few Nordics would have been a better alternative, but then again France might have some mountainous regions (Pyrenees comes to mind, so technically some inhabitants of the Pyrenees who may be attracted to the prospect of alpine ranching in French Andes).
The Turks would also be in danger of bankrupting themselves from heavily investing in a chain of fortresses along their borders with Hungary and the rest of Catholic Europe if they hunkered down. That's also not counting the usual Janissary bonuses that are paid for whenever a new Sultan ascends into the throne, as well as paying their salaries. Eventually the Sultan and a few Pashas might be compelled to push forward an ambitious military reform that went awfully bad for them, and I'm talking about creating a new army from entirely Turkish speaking peoples of Anatolia, as well as the Middle East and North Africa (the one Osman II tried and failed, and only succeeded during the reign of Mahmud II IOTL). Unfortunately, none of Europe would be willing to give the Turks a helping hand in modernizing their military, and even Russia and Persia acted like gunpowder empires most of the time. A few mercenaries in Turkish service might suffice, but most of them would rather help the Persians or Russians than the Ottoman Turks.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Sept 7, 2017 16:30:37 GMT
For the Andean region, they might imitate the old Incan system of unpaid labour that most of its citizens were required to perform once a year, or something along those lines that the Spaniards adopted IOTL. Unlike IOTL as I may have mentioned earlier, there wouldn't be any economic incentive from intermarriage between French settlers and South American native tribes. Cattle or llama ranching might make sense, although what good to the French is the llama? Sounds possible. There may not be economic incentives for intermarriage but there will probably be normal human ones, especially since I suspect relatively few French women will make it to the Americas, especially in the early years. One thing where Frence might have an edge here compared to OTL Spain is I'm not sure they would have the same highly stratified society that Spain ended up with in the colonies. This might well mean more popular support for French rule, or at least less opposition. If anything like the OTL French revolution happens and the ideas of the revolution are spread to the Americas this could have a dramatic effect. You might end up with a 'French' state/empire which has its heartland in the Americas. Although its likely that corruption and differing interests could well tear things apart at some stage. Its a possibility although OTL the DEI company wasn't particularly encouraging of settlers, other than the minimum needed to provide supplies for ships heading east. If only because as a commercial company they didn't want the expense of actually governing a settled colony. I don't know if an alternative version in OTL would have any incentive to do things differently. Although possibly if there was more hostility between the company and rival powers, most likely possibly Spain or England, there might be a desire for a stronger colony that can defend itself more. It was because of this limited interest in encouraging settlement that the population was relatively low and occupying a small region until Britain took over in 1815. It was only because Britain wanted a more hands on approach and especially the question of slavery coming up that prompted the Great Trek. Without that it could be markedly longed before white colonists move inland and then start finding gold and diamonds. [Not aware of any cases of the locals finding or using any of either which might have been noticed by a colonial power and prompted interest in finding out where they came from.] If they do move inland and start large scale mining [or possibly other activity] before slavery becomes increasingly politically unacceptable then that could mean there is a large market for slaves in the region. Especially since slaves used for mining, at least in ancient times when it was more common, tended not to last long, meaning demand for new slaves is large. Worst still if using slaves for such roles in S Africa prompted that occurring elsewhere it could both enlarge and extend the duration of slavery. For instance I know one large mine-owner in Califormia during the gold rush from 1849 was bitter about how many hired minerworkers stole gold from him and it was suggested he replaced them with slaves. Fortunately he was an ardent abolistist so didn't go with the idea but at the worst you could see slavery becoming important for mining across much of the European colonies, which could provide even more economic groups in favour of it continuing.  I had to grin at that. Very much depends on when, if and how well the union of England and Scotland occurred. Also what the religious afilations involved where. Apart from not partuicularly encouraging emigration OTL the French monarchy AFAIW strongly opposed any ideas of their Huguenot population settling in the colonies and I suspect they would be no less hostile to Protestants from other countries. Therefore while they might encourage settlement from some areas those would almost certainly be Catholics only. One point that occurs here is that, if Austria goes Protestant, then many Huguenots who OTL fled to England and its colonies might end up in the western Austrian territories [i.e. Bugundy/Netherlands] instead and could be useful in helping hold them. Presuming of course that also France stays overwhelmingly Catholic but has a substantial Protestant minority. Also it avoids the question of what denomintion all those Protestant sects are. For instance I think in the Netherlands and Hungary they were largely Calvanist while in Bohemia and probably in Austria more likely to be Lutheran. A significant factor, especially if they also needed a larger navy, both because they lack their Maghreb forces and because Spain has a larger navy to oppose them. While the sort of trace italienne fortifictions that developed to protect major positions from gunpowder weapons were hugely expensive. You could probably find some mercanries from Europe who would help, or some nations that would support such moves but the big problem would probably be the janissaries and the fossilisation of Ottoman society. An earlier set of heavy defeats prompting pressure for reform might ease the latter problem but the janissaries seriously delayed reforms OTL and caused a lot of destruction before they were finally crushed. Possibly if the crisis was greater you might get a skilled sultan establishing a coalition of forces to defeat them earlier and if they also cleared out a lot of corruption from the buracracy that would be huge boosts. If they managed to do this they might not rely totally on people from the clearly Turkic area of the empire but could probably rely on people from the Arab and Egyptian areas and possibly, provided they keep religious intolerance under control even some of their Christian subjects. |
|
You might just see a 'Dutch' company from the region, since it had a trading history, just operating under Austrian rule. In which case a large commercial community here could also help keep Austria more progressive economically. Although again in the early years the Cape is just a stepping stone to the wealth of the the spice islands and later India. Furthermore Spain is going to be more difficult to expel from it than Portugal was OTL, because of its much greater wealth and power. Ditto with the East Indies themselves as I suspect it would be likely any 'Dutch' would be unable to expel the Spanish. Unless possibly in combination with the Turks, which I suspect would be unlikely. As such I think any Dutch, or other additional players, might be forced say towards India, China or Japan. Although this would be difficult with the East Indies in hostile hands. You might end up with the 'Dutch' either supplanting or being the main rivals to the British in India and/or Australia rather than the French as OTL.