|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Sept 8, 2017 5:32:04 GMT
Just out of curiosity: why were you satisfied by the bolded paragraph above?
Some of the Huguenots who fled to Prussia IOTL also contributed immensely to the textile industry, so I guess ITTL they might contribute more, if some of the Huguenots have valuable military experience. The Austrians and their "Dutch" companies could use them to settle some of southern Africa for commercial purposes, although with the growing strength of the Spanish in Africa, that might also translates to a more demand for a better defended colony to help keep the trade routes along the seas.
The only mercenaries crazy enough to help the Turks would be the ones who have fallen in love with Turkish culture long enough to convert to Islam and integrate themselves into the Ottoman society. A few English pirate mercenaries could also take up posts as Ottoman admirals, but only if their interests align with that of Ottoman Turkey's.
I'm not really sure if France had a hugely stratified racial caste during their later colonial period in Africa and Asia, although discrimination would have been commonplace. The mistreatment of the Huguenots by France could eventually backfire on them, especially if some of them do end up fleeing to Austria and England. There might be a few more new English noble families that would arise from Huguenot background.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Sept 8, 2017 21:29:19 GMT
Just out of curiosity: why were you satisfied by the bolded paragraph above? I think you mean amused rather than satisfied? It was the irony that if union between England and Scotland hasn't occurred then a lot of Scots would probably look to somewhere else than an English colony, although there is the advantage of a common language. Most especially French colonies, given the ald alliance, even if that's not formally in place. Very likely although if France is pressing the 'Austria' border hard they could be encouraged to stay in Europe and help fight their old persecuters. However can see them, since their already been uprooted, being more likely to be willing to leave Europe for new opportunities. THis might also include a colony in N America, possibly a larger and longer lasting New Amsterdamn. Which could further complicate matters there. However very likely a decent number might well be welcome in S Africa. I don't know as the Ottomans are still very rich and by definition mercanaries are in it for the money. Plus never underestimate personal antagonism towards one or more Ottoman enemies. Or a few nations possibly being willing to encourage some volunteers to establish links with the Ottomans, either for commercial/trading benefits or to enable them to pose a threat to a common enemy. That is my point. Spain seemed to have a pretty stratified, often heavily racial system but I'm less certain the French would do the same. As such I could see more loyalty toward the French empire, especially if their attacked by a power they mistrust. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Sept 9, 2017 19:24:55 GMT
I wanted to respond last night, but was too tired, so here is what I wanted to say:
A Huguenot presence in a place like New Amsterdam will definitely help the Dutch a lot, mainly because their expertise in the textiles industry would have boosted the Dutch mercantile trade. Their numbers might actually help sustain the New Amsterdam colony in that the Dutch could invite them to come and settle inside. That is, assuming that the "Dutch" acting under Austrian orders in an Austria that has gone Protestant, would actually give their consent. Otherwise, the Huguenots could have also settled in some of the English colonies or even in Scotland, assuming that Scotland would also go Protestant.
Another crazy idea that I had: would the Huguenots be willing to settle inside the Ottoman Empire's territories? I'm not sure if the Sultan would be willing to take in Huguenot refugees at this time, though IOTL the Protestants and the Ottomans had a common enemy in the Catholic Church and opposed the presence of idols. Given their expertise in the textiles industry once again, I think Ottoman textile industries would also benefit from the presence of Huguenots. However, this might require a careful planning on the part of the Sultan, especially if he intends to resettle Huguenots in Ottoman Rumelia or Anatolia.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Sept 10, 2017 19:59:51 GMT
I wanted to respond last night, but was too tired, so here is what I wanted to say: A Huguenot presence in a place like New Amsterdam will definitely help the Dutch a lot, mainly because their expertise in the textiles industry would have boosted the Dutch mercantile trade. Their numbers might actually help sustain the New Amsterdam colony in that the Dutch could invite them to come and settle inside. That is, assuming that the "Dutch" acting under Austrian orders in an Austria that has gone Protestant, would actually give their consent. Otherwise, the Huguenots could have also settled in some of the English colonies or even in Scotland, assuming that Scotland would also go Protestant. Another crazy idea that I had: would the Huguenots be willing to settle inside the Ottoman Empire's territories? I'm not sure if the Sultan would be willing to take in Huguenot refugees at this time, though IOTL the Protestants and the Ottomans had a common enemy in the Catholic Church and opposed the presence of idols. Given their expertise in the textiles industry once again, I think Ottoman textile industries would also benefit from the presence of Huguenots. However, this might require a careful planning on the part of the Sultan, especially if he intends to resettle Huguenots in Ottoman Rumelia or Anatolia. On that last point one question is what are Franco-Ottoman relations like? Presuming France is still in at least occasional conflict with Spain and/or Austria, even if the latter became Protestant, then its likely to find some common interests with the Turks. As such, unless France decides they would rather their Huguenots go to the Ottomans than risk them going to the Dutch/Austrians or English, they would probably not like the Ottomans giving refuge to them. Furthermore how easy would it be, even with French consent, for Hugonaots to reach the Ottoman lands, with hostile Catholic lands, or welcoming Protestant ones in the way and Spain probably in charge of the western Med. Agree that more settlers, either from Huguenots fleeing France or other Protestant Austrians [or other Germans], would make any such colony on N America significantly more successful. Plus given probable Austria support for such and the likihood of good relations between a Protestant England/Britain and Austria, less likely that the colony would be conquered by the British. As such, apart from any French lands in Mexico/California there could be three main colonial blocs in the region, Spanish, British and Dutch/Austrian. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Sept 11, 2017 2:19:57 GMT
Given that Spain and Austria (regardless of whether or not it has embraced the Reformation) will always be hostile to France, there would be a huge incentive for the French to include the Turks in any anti-Hapsburg coalition (although if Poland also joins the anti-Hapsburg coalition, it would be fighting alongside the same people who would raid Polish or Ukrainian territory for slaves to be captured and sold on the slave market). Franco-Ottoman relations may depend on how the military alliance will turn out. French military experts could be valuable for the Ottoman war machine, although that might only encourage the whole gang banging of France by Spain, Austria and even England.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Sept 11, 2017 18:26:43 GMT
Given that Spain and Austria (regardless of whether or not it has embraced the Reformation) will always be hostile to France, there would be a huge incentive for the French to include the Turks in any anti-Hapsburg coalition (although if Poland also joins the anti-Hapsburg coalition, it would be fighting alongside the same people who would raid Polish or Ukrainian territory for slaves to be captured and sold on the slave market). Franco-Ottoman relations may depend on how the military alliance will turn out. French military experts could be valuable for the Ottoman war machine, although that might only encourage the whole gang banging of France by Spain, Austria and even England. I think geography means there are natural pressures for two alliances, Franco-Ottoman and Spanish-Austria, although religious feeling could cause the latter a problem if Austria successfully goes Protestant. However I think England and later a possible Britain would probably prefer being the power on the outside, joining in as convienent. Not sure when the idea of a balance of power started developing and keeping any power/bloc from becoming too powerful but there's a definite interest for England in doing this. Especially if it means they can keep on trading and establising colonies while the other powers are knocking the crap out of each other. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Sept 12, 2017 4:36:17 GMT
Given that Spain and Austria (regardless of whether or not it has embraced the Reformation) will always be hostile to France, there would be a huge incentive for the French to include the Turks in any anti-Hapsburg coalition (although if Poland also joins the anti-Hapsburg coalition, it would be fighting alongside the same people who would raid Polish or Ukrainian territory for slaves to be captured and sold on the slave market). Franco-Ottoman relations may depend on how the military alliance will turn out. French military experts could be valuable for the Ottoman war machine, although that might only encourage the whole gang banging of France by Spain, Austria and even England. I think geography means there are natural pressures for two alliances, Franco-Ottoman and Spanish-Austria, although religious feeling could cause the latter a problem if Austria successfully goes Protestant. However I think England and later a possible Britain would probably prefer being the power on the outside, joining in as convienent. Not sure when the idea of a balance of power started developing and keeping any power/bloc from becoming too powerful but there's a definite interest for England in doing this. Especially if it means they can keep on trading and establising colonies while the other powers are knocking the crap out of each other. An Anglo-Hapsburg alliance in a Protestant Austria might actually be more effective in this case, and it would have certainly strengthen the Hapsburgs if there was a marriage match between a Tudor king or queen or prince or princess and a Hapsburg king, queen, prince or princess. Given that Spain and Austria might split in the event of the latter going Protestant, it might also reinforce the unity of the Iberian peninsula between the Spanish kingdoms of Castille, Aragon and Portugal. It might also help any Austrian colonial ambitions if England were also to help them out with securing any treaty port that could be controlled by the Hapsburgs. |
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Sept 12, 2017 19:17:19 GMT
I think geography means there are natural pressures for two alliances, Franco-Ottoman and Spanish-Austria, although religious feeling could cause the latter a problem if Austria successfully goes Protestant. However I think England and later a possible Britain would probably prefer being the power on the outside, joining in as convienent. Not sure when the idea of a balance of power started developing and keeping any power/bloc from becoming too powerful but there's a definite interest for England in doing this. Especially if it means they can keep on trading and establising colonies while the other powers are knocking the crap out of each other. An Anglo-Hapsburg alliance in a Protestant Austria might actually be more effective in this case, and it would have certainly strengthen the Hapsburgs if there was a marriage match between a Tudor king or queen or prince or princess and a Hapsburg king, queen, prince or princess. Given that Spain and Austria might split in the event of the latter going Protestant, it might also reinforce the unity of the Iberian peninsula between the Spanish kingdoms of Castille, Aragon and Portugal. It might also help any Austrian colonial ambitions if England were also to help them out with securing any treaty port that could be controlled by the Hapsburgs. Good point in that the two, because of England's initial weakness and Austria's limited maritime abilities, could be natural allies in helping to support each others colonies against the established powers. A split with the Austrian branch of the family could help concentrate 'Spanish' minds on the Iberian peninsula and related areas as you suggest. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Sept 13, 2017 15:23:07 GMT
Another natural alliance in this case would be England and Denmark, since they're both seafaring powers.
Would anti-Semitism also be rude inside the Ottoman Empire if there is no additional Jewish population?
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Sept 13, 2017 15:38:07 GMT
Another natural alliance in this case would be England and Denmark, since they're both seafaring powers. Would anti-Semitism also be rude inside the Ottoman Empire if there is no additional Jewish population? The 1st might depend on relations between Austria and Denmark. However its a definite possibility but would also mean that England & Austria might as a result be hostile to Sweden. Key point might be if either Denmark or Sweden looked like both controlling access to the Baltic and seeking to abuse this. Thinking of upping Sound Dues too much or trying to deny some powers access to the Baltic naval stores. If the Ottomans reform and stay fairly successful once drive from the Maghab and Hungary they could avoid the social decline and increasing religious bigotry and hence stay fairly tolerant. Although, I think we may have discussed this before, if Spain is a lot more tolerant the Jews might suffer as their seen as a possible disloyal population by the Ottomans. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Sept 14, 2017 4:18:22 GMT
Exactly my point, and Christian-Muslim relations within the Ottoman Empire would definitely improve if the Sultan relies more on Orthodox Christian merchant families to help run the Empire's finances. There might also be a rule within the Orthodox Church or there might not be, with regards to the issue of usury. However, I would definitely say that usury would be forbidden under Islamic law, so the Ottomans won't have to worry about the issue of usury since they would ban it. Unlike most of the banking systems, the Jewish banking system does allow the use of usury, but only between financial transactions between Jews and Gentiles (as Jews are forbidden to charge usury to other Jews in financial transactions).
Anglo-Austrian hostility to Sweden might also fit in with a possible French alliance with the Swedes precisely to counter that alliance. If there won't be a Netherlands to speak of, Denmark could do more of the colonizing for mercantile purposes than England. The two islands that Denmark controls would be desired by the Swedes, and alternatively, southern Sweden would be desired by the Danes as well. If Norway was kept within Denmark's sphere of influence, not only would they have a common border with both the HRE and Sweden, but with Russia as well. If Sweden does retain control of the Baltic, which may include Ingria, then Kola might gain a significant importance as the only useable port that Russia can use in the absence of Baltic ports.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Sept 14, 2017 20:08:34 GMT
Exactly my point, and Christian-Muslim relations within the Ottoman Empire would definitely improve if the Sultan relies more on Orthodox Christian merchant families to help run the Empire's finances. There might also be a rule within the Orthodox Church or there might not be, with regards to the issue of usury. However, I would definitely say that usury would be forbidden under Islamic law, so the Ottomans won't have to worry about the issue of usury since they would ban it. Unlike most of the banking systems, the Jewish banking system does allow the use of usury, but only between financial transactions between Jews and Gentiles (as Jews are forbidden to charge usury to other Jews in financial transactions). Anglo-Austrian hostility to Sweden might also fit in with a possible French alliance with the Swedes precisely to counter that alliance. If there won't be a Netherlands to speak of, Denmark could do more of the colonizing for mercantile purposes than England. The two islands that Denmark controls would be desired by the Swedes, and alternatively, southern Sweden would be desired by the Danes as well. If Norway was kept within Denmark's sphere of influence, not only would they have a common border with both the HRE and Sweden, but with Russia as well. If Sweden does retain control of the Baltic, which may include Ingria, then Kola might gain a significant importance as the only useable port that Russia can use in the absence of Baltic ports. With this bit are you thinking 20thC? Until Finland was lost to Russia in 1809 I think it was there was no land border with Norway and again once Finland became independent until after the Winter war. Even then it was pretty undeveloped up there. Ironically I remember reading in I think the 16thC and early 17thC the Swedes were calling on English merchants of the Moscovy Company, who traded via Arkangelsk IIRC, not to sell weapons to the barbarian savages of Russia because it was causing them concern. With the 1st paragraph it might depend on how much the Ottomans work with the Greek and other merchants. If they can find them suitable sources of funds and expertice then they might mistrust the Jews. [Especially since their rivals, for both reasons of competition and religion are likely to do what they can to damn the Jews]. If not they could continue to be friendly and tolerant to them regardless of Spanish tolerance. You might then even have a degree of competition with both powers seeking to 'win over' Jewish communities. [Although of course if one side decides the other is winning this contest it could turn on its own Jews. Or their own majority populations, whether Christian or Muslim could become hostile against the favour shown to the Jewish communities.] |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Sept 15, 2017 4:44:20 GMT
There is an actual border between Norway and Russia. It is located close to Kola and Murmansk. It is located at the very top of Scandinavia.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Sept 15, 2017 14:17:39 GMT
There is an actual border between Norway and Russia. It is located close to Kola and Murmansk. It is located at the very top of Scandinavia. There is now. However that is a relatively recent thing. Until Russia took Finland from Sweden Norway was some distance away. Also when Finland became independent after 1918 it had an Arctic coast until the Winter War IIRC. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Sept 20, 2017 6:00:30 GMT
Another thing to consider would be this: just how brutal would the Russian conquests of the Tatar khanates be like? Because the Crimean Khanate was basically an Ottoman ally, and having Crimea conquered early on with some significant help would have a major effect on the Ottoman Empire as a whole. In addition, even if Poland-Lithuania would oppose a Russian expansion into Crimean territory, they'd also have an interest in stopping the Tatar raids that went as far deep into Polish territory. Hurrem Sultan for instance, came from within what is now Western Ukraine, and the Crimean Tatars managed to go as far as Rohatyn. I would have also liked to see how a Russo-Turkish animosity would be bolstered by an earlier Russian conquests of the other Tatar statelets, namely Astrakhan, Kazan and the Nogai Horde.
However, could the Muscovite and later Russian state go a bit easier on their old Tatar enemies though? Some of the Tatar families who entered Russian service were former noble families of the fallen Khanates. It could also depend on how Christian-Muslim relations within the Ottoman Empire would go. If it went well as a result of the Ottomans relying more on their Orthodox Christian subjects to manage finance, then the Muscovites/Russians might have to emulate their practice when it comes to their relations with the Tatar Muslims.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Sept 20, 2017 9:55:35 GMT
Another thing to consider would be this: just how brutal would the Russian conquests of the Tatar khanates be like? Because the Crimean Khanate was basically an Ottoman ally, and having Crimea conquered early on with some significant help would have a major effect on the Ottoman Empire as a whole. In addition, even if Poland-Lithuania would oppose a Russian expansion into Crimean territory, they'd also have an interest in stopping the Tatar raids that went as far deep into Polish territory. Hurrem Sultan for instance, came from within what is now Western Ukraine, and the Crimean Tatars managed to go as far as Rohatyn. I would have also liked to see how a Russo-Turkish animosity would be bolstered by an earlier Russian conquests of the other Tatar statelets, namely Astrakhan, Kazan and the Nogai Horde. However, could the Muscovite and later Russian state go a bit easier on their old Tatar enemies though? Some of the Tatar families who entered Russian service were former noble families of the fallen Khanates. It could also depend on how Christian-Muslim relations within the Ottoman Empire would go. If it went well as a result of the Ottomans relying more on their Orthodox Christian subjects to manage finance, then the Muscovites/Russians might have to emulate their practice when it comes to their relations with the Tatar Muslims. To be honest I don't know. I was thinking that we were heading towards a reformed and hence stronger, if somewhat smaller, Ottoman empire and hence the Crimean Khanate at least would last longer. Have read, albeit a long while ago, that they provided some of the best troops to the empire in their last century of independence and of course keeping the Russians from the Black Sea greatly eased the Ottoman position so I could see them fighting hard to prevent this. The other Khanates might go down earlier if Russia was a bit stronger as their more difficult for the Ottomans to aid. I was thinking that they had already fallen but checking it was the 1550's and 1560s when Kazan and Astrakhan fell to the Russians so might be time for some aid. Although if we're assuming that the Spanish are kicking the empire out of influence in the Maghreb in the early 16thC that does require a quick bounce back by the Ottomans. However a revived empire could make taking the Crimean Khanate a good bit tougher. Especially if Russia didn't get to the baltic and hence have markedly better access to western trade, or simply the wealth of the Baltic region. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Sept 21, 2017 4:57:42 GMT
Having the Crimean Tatars stop the Russians from conquering them seem to be doable, but then there's also Poland-Lithuania who would have a hard time between choosing to let the Crimean Tatars be and continue to raid deep into Polish territory or actually doing something about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Sept 21, 2017 9:48:54 GMT
Having the Crimean Tatars stop the Russians from conquering them seem to be doable, but then there's also Poland-Lithuania who would have a hard time between choosing to let the Crimean Tatars be and continue to raid deep into Polish territory or actually doing something about it. I think provided that Poland remains a viable state and/or that Russian growth to great power status is only delayed rather than blocked totally [which might be difficult] then the Crimean Tartars are likely to be conquered eventually, or possibly simply bled out. However they stayed 'independent; until the 1790's. However checking the Wiki link, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Khanate#Decline, they seem to have been in trouble from the mid-17thC, although that was at least in part due to the related Ottoman decline. The comments on highly destructive Cossack raids seems to have been from the 1660's. It might be that a more powerful, at least in the east, Ottoman empire might delay the Tartar decline, although also avoiding the Kalmyk Khanate allying with the Russians could also be useful for them. However the destructive nature of warfare in the region, with slave attacks and devastating raids does seem to suggest they would go down sooner or later. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Sept 22, 2017 4:35:54 GMT
I asked this a long time ago in AH.com when I wasn't banned, but technically it was this: www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/possible-muscovite-conquest-of-the-crimean-khanate.254796/Technically the Crimean Khanate in "A More Personal Union" was conquered by Russia due to Denmark getting lucky with having extra funds for more mercenaries. However, I would think that even a strong Ottoman backing won't prevent Russia from taking Crimea. Heck, the first war between Russia and the Ottoman Empire in the 1560s over the Don-Volga Canal being constructed ended in a Russian victory! However, I would think that in this case, both Russia and Poland-Lithuania would view the Crimean Khanate as something that needs to be dealt with sooner or later. That's going to also create a possible enmity between Ottoman Turkey and Poland-Lithuania if it hasn't already. |
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Sept 22, 2017 10:32:45 GMT
I asked this a long time ago in AH.com when I wasn't banned, but technically it was this: www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/possible-muscovite-conquest-of-the-crimean-khanate.254796/Technically the Crimean Khanate in "A More Personal Union" was conquered by Russia due to Denmark getting lucky with having extra funds for more mercenaries. However, I would think that even a strong Ottoman backing won't prevent Russia from taking Crimea. Heck, the first war between Russia and the Ottoman Empire in the 1560s over the Don-Volga Canal being constructed ended in a Russian victory! However, I would think that in this case, both Russia and Poland-Lithuania would view the Crimean Khanate as something that needs to be dealt with sooner or later. That's going to also create a possible enmity between Ottoman Turkey and Poland-Lithuania if it hasn't already. It would depend on the circumstances, but of we're still assuming the Ottomans react to defeat in the west by reforming rather than starting to vegetate as OTL and maintain a decent succession method, rather than the heir being trapped in the harem until he becomes sultan they could possibly put up a more formidable fight for the Crimean. It would be important to them both for troops and simply to keep the Black Sea a Turkish lake. I think its possible that the Tartars might be pressed to end slave raids. According to the Wiki page I mentioned earlier there was an agreement with the Russians from ~1700 banning them from raiding Russian territory, although how fully they complied with this I don't know. Possibly if there was something like this with the Poles, whether or not it applied to the Russians? Also you still have the problems of the Cossack's going the opposite way and groups like the Kalmyk Khanate who seem to have done the Tartars a lot of damage as well. Just looked at the brief entry on the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1568-1570), and it seems like a right cluster-f**k for the Ottomans/Tartar force. Wonder if with better leadership and/or a bit of luck it might go the other way and the Turks effectively revive the Astrakhan Khanate, under their protection and build their canal? This, unless/until reversed would largely cut off the Russians from much of the lower Volga and related areas so could have a big impact on the development of both Russia and the Ottomans. Alternatively, if we have the Crimean Khanate falling a century or so earlier possibly the easiest step would be the Ottomans don't reform and faced with a powerful Spain on the rampage in the Med and possibly the Austrians and Poles in the Balkans, then you could have a faster collapse. Possibly even with western forces attacking Egypt, even if they don't stay any length of time. Steve |
|
