|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Sept 23, 2017 2:50:50 GMT
Having the Ottomans conquer the entire Caucasus region would be extremely difficult, due to the mountains. Having more Armenians within the Ottoman Empire could give the Turks another potential source of income, if the Armenian merchants would be more reliable in managing the economy as effectively as their Greek counterparts. Georgians within the Ottoman Empire isn't implausible, given that very few Georgians were in Ottoman service, among them an Ahmet Pasha who briefly served as Beylerbey of Egypt.
The Ottomans will also develop an insane amount of siege mentality with the Hapsburgs, Spain, Poland-Lithuania, Russia AND Persia gunning to take it down completely. That's gonna have a huge effect on the Ottoman sultans too, and the Christian-Muslim relations will be subjected to severe testing from outside forces. In addition, a PoD this much might even butterfly the Circassian conversion to Islam, and that will definitely have another big effect on the development of Russia and Ottoman Turkey. Another potential area of this PoD would have been the survival of the Georgian statelets, which will yet once again, change the entire dynamics of the Caucasus.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Sept 23, 2017 10:57:51 GMT
Having the Ottomans conquer the entire Caucasus region would be extremely difficult, due to the mountains. Having more Armenians within the Ottoman Empire could give the Turks another potential source of income, if the Armenian merchants would be more reliable in managing the economy as effectively as their Greek counterparts. Georgians within the Ottoman Empire isn't implausible, given that very few Georgians were in Ottoman service, among them an Ahmet Pasha who briefly served as Beylerbey of Egypt. The Ottomans will also develop an insane amount of siege mentality with the Hapsburgs, Spain, Poland-Lithuania, Russia AND Persia gunning to take it down completely. That's gonna have a huge effect on the Ottoman sultans too, and the Christian-Muslim relations will be subjected to severe testing from outside forces. In addition, a PoD this much might even butterfly the Circassian conversion to Islam, and that will definitely have another big effect on the development of Russia and Ottoman Turkey. Another potential area of this PoD would have been the survival of the Georgian statelets, which will yet once again, change the entire dynamics of the Caucasus. If they have control of the Black Sea as OTL then do they need to openly control the Caucasus region? Rather control the lower Don and Volga and use sea transport and the plains north of the Mts. Have some sort of loose control over more rugged regions to simply minimise raids and unrest in the area should do. I would suspect this would probably make the Circassian's more likely to convert as their going to be under greater Ottomans influence for longer. Not sure whether here your talking about if Spain goes beyond Tunisia or not? However all those powers were opponents to the Turks anyway and it didn't stop many of them fighting among themselves. Especially if the empire looks less threatening to the west, due to losses in the Med and possibly an earlier lose of Hungary [which I think we were considering if Austria went Protestant?] then Austria may be looking more to the west and Spain overseas, while Poland may be not exactly disappointed with the Turks hammering the Russians. Also if western forces are trying to push into the Balkans, and provided the Ottomans stay reasonably tolerant the empire could look a lot more welcoming than Catholic [or Protestant Austria/Hungarian] rule to the Orthodox populations of the region. Not to mention that France and any Muhgal empire are potentially useful allies. It all depends on how the assorted populations interact. Likely the Ottoman empire is going to fall at some point. Also that Russia comes to dominate the northern Caucasus, provided their not blocked from both the Black and Baltic Sea. However timing and events could be significantly different from OTL. Having them get a 2nd breath and internal reforms after losses to Spain in the Med could mean they are a significant player, rather than a declining sick man, for longer. Plus of course what's happening elsewhere in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Sept 25, 2017 15:32:47 GMT
In the event that the Ottomans did fall, would we see a Polish style partition of the Ottoman lands though? As far as I know, the ones who may benefit the most would be the Balkan Christian states (albeit with significant Muslim minorities), the Hapsburgs (who would try to exert influence, to no avail), Russia (occupying the Caucasus and bits of Anatolia would have helped them a bit, but not by much), Persia (free to expand their influence into Mesopotamia) and the Mameluks (regained their independence, more like).
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Sept 26, 2017 20:23:02 GMT
In the event that the Ottomans did fall, would we see a Polish style partition of the Ottoman lands though? As far as I know, the ones who may benefit the most would be the Balkan Christian states (albeit with significant Muslim minorities), the Hapsburgs (who would try to exert influence, to no avail), Russia (occupying the Caucasus and bits of Anatolia would have helped them a bit, but not by much), Persia (free to expand their influence into Mesopotamia) and the Mameluks (regained their independence, more like). Sounds reasonable. I agree that Austria is unlikely to expand greatly beyond Hungary, partly because of commitments elsewhere and partly because, whether its Protestant or Catholic its unlikely to be that welcome in Orthodox areas. Russia is likely to be the big winner, especially if it gets control of the straits, although this might be difficult with an Ottoman collapse much earlier than OTL. You might just see a Greek revival that includes relevant parts of Anatolia, which would mean Russia has a rival as the leading Orthodox power. [While Russia is markedly larger its likely to be more distant and have less prestige]. Its likely however that if all the powers gain as you suggest, there's going to be at least a sizeable Turkish state in Anatolia and possibly the Balkans while areas such as Syria and Palestine could be either independent or contested by several powers. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Sept 29, 2017 3:01:06 GMT
I wouldn't count on a Greek revival yet since there aren't any claimants on the long dead Byzantine throne. However, you could get a Serbian dynasty that could unite the Orthodox regions of the Balkans instead of an ethnically Greek dynasty.
I think with a France that might also develop a siege mentality, they would become far more militaristic and industrious.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Sept 29, 2017 20:01:39 GMT
I wouldn't count on a Greek revival yet since there aren't any claimants on the long dead Byzantine throne. However, you could get a Serbian dynasty that could unite the Orthodox regions of the Balkans instead of an ethnically Greek dynasty. I think with a France that might also develop a siege mentality, they would become far more militaristic and industrious. Greece when it became independent OTL picked up a new monarh/dynasty so that could happen TTL, especialy since I think we're having it occur a couple of centuries or so earlier when monarchies were pretty much universal. [Other than Switzerland and possibly the Netherlands, although the latter may not exist in TTL.] Quite possible with France if it feels threatened on all sides rather than expanionist itself. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Oct 3, 2017 4:29:44 GMT
That is true, and I might even see the French try to maximize their territory to what it might look like the borders of the First French Republic or even the First French Napoleonic Empire.
|
|
|
|
Post by MinnesotaNationalist on Oct 3, 2017 4:57:07 GMT
Wait, so I haven't been paying much attention to this thread, but how did we go from Spain still having Jews, Ottomans being weaker, to France gobbling up everything east of the Rhine?
|
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Oct 4, 2017 1:21:30 GMT
Wait, so I haven't been paying much attention to this thread, but how did we go from Spain still having Jews, Ottomans being weaker, to France gobbling up everything east of the Rhine? Sorry for the huge clutter. Here is what we've been discussing so far: 1) Spain having its Jews mean some butterflies on the rest of Europe. 2) Lack of Jews inside the Ottoman Empire possibly resulting in them becoming more reliant on Greek and Armenian merchants. 3) Possible dynastic links and natural alliances aimed at France makes them paranoid enough, Putin style, to want to expand its borders. 4) Effects on the rest of Eastern Europe from an Ottoman Empire that has better Christian-Muslim relations, especially Russia and Poland. |
|
|
|
Post by MinnesotaNationalist on Oct 4, 2017 2:21:58 GMT
Wait, so I haven't been paying much attention to this thread, but how did we go from Spain still having Jews, Ottomans being weaker, to France gobbling up everything east of the Rhine? Sorry for the huge clutter. Here is what we've been discussing so far: 1) Spain having its Jews mean some butterflies on the rest of Europe. 2) Lack of Jews inside the Ottoman Empire possibly resulting in them becoming more reliant on Greek and Armenian merchants. 3) Possible dynastic links and natural alliances aimed at France makes them paranoid enough, Putin style, to want to expand its borders. 4) Effects on the rest of Eastern Europe from an Ottoman Empire that has better Christian-Muslim relations, especially Russia and Poland. I know I might be jumping in a bit late, but wouldn't Spain having Jews mean it's stronger (even if slightly so)? And most of France's path to the Rhine is blocked by Spanish possessions, meaning France would be in for a rough time. |
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Oct 4, 2017 14:46:06 GMT
Sorry for the huge clutter. Here is what we've been discussing so far: 1) Spain having its Jews mean some butterflies on the rest of Europe. 2) Lack of Jews inside the Ottoman Empire possibly resulting in them becoming more reliant on Greek and Armenian merchants. 3) Possible dynastic links and natural alliances aimed at France makes them paranoid enough, Putin style, to want to expand its borders. 4) Effects on the rest of Eastern Europe from an Ottoman Empire that has better Christian-Muslim relations, especially Russia and Poland. I know I might be jumping in a bit late, but wouldn't Spain having Jews mean it's stronger (even if slightly so)? And most of France's path to the Rhine is blocked by Spanish possessions, meaning France would be in for a rough time. I think, if not confusing this with another thread, as there are several about on related projects: a) Spain being more tolerant means they avoid a lot of the infighting of OTL and possibly even get involved in securing the Maghad permanently, supressing the Babary pirates permanently. b) France is possibly the nation that 1st colonies the central and southern Americas, gaining the gold and silver. With Spain coming in later but more successfully in the Caribbean and southern US while Britain and possibly a Austrian/Netherlands also being a significant contender. Basically France and Spain swap places. c) The Burgundy/Netherlands region stays with the Austrian Hapsburgs rather than ending up with the Spanish branch, who instead secure most of Italy, especially in the south as they pretty much monopolise the western Med. d) Think this was the thread [MB?] where we also assume that possibly the Austrians go Protestant, to increae popularity in assorted areas - Netherlands, Bohemia, Hungary and actually drive the Turks out of the latter a bit earlier. e) After considering a pretty much totally Turkish collapse I think we swung more towards the defeats being a reality check and hence reinvigorating the Ottomans in eastern Europe and them linking up more successfully with their Orthodox citizens. As I said there have been 2-3 threads MB started on this period and at least one of the others started with an earlier and more successful Portugal/Spain union, which also further delays Spanish moves westwards as they work further on the drive east around Africa. This would be markedly stronger and possibly they keep the east Indies and even control of the Indian Ocean for quite a while. [This would also mean their fighting the Ottoman navy on two fronts]. We have also bounced around with assorted ideas on the impact on assorted other states, England/Britain, the Scandinavians, Poland and Russia but of course just about anything could happen. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Dec 7, 2017 3:53:28 GMT
What I should have touched based on this scenario would have been for France to become a major power in the Americas, but Spain builds a colony that would look like OTL Confederate States in term of territory. I would honestly think that a more mercantile Spanish Empire would be much richer and would be more likely to utilize its American resources to possibly continue its Reconquista.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Dec 7, 2017 10:54:28 GMT
What I should have touched based on this scenario would have been for France to become a major power in the Americas, but Spain builds a colony that would look like OTL Confederate States in term of territory. I would honestly think that a more mercantile Spanish Empire would be much richer and would be more likely to utilize its American resources to possibly continue its Reconquista. I think it would have been weaker in the shorter term because there is a lot of quick wealth in the Aztec and Inca empires, especially but not just the mineral wealth. In the longer terms substantial settlers colonies such as suggested will probably produce greater wealth and strength - provided they can keep their loyality. However I doubt that would affect a reconquest of the Magheb as that is likely to come before any substantial American colonies. Unless your talking about a possible later stage, say in the 17/18thC, where 'Spain' seeks to push on into Egypt or the Levant? In fact, IIRC were talking about a state that has Iberia, most of Italy and much of the Magheb securely which would make American colonisation much more practical as it supplies the settlers and wealth and Spain in those circumstances could become the continetal giant that France was OTL. Although I'm not sure about coal supplies so early period industrialisation could be a problem for it. Unless again the American colonies come in here. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Dec 20, 2017 6:01:13 GMT
What I should have touched based on this scenario would have been for France to become a major power in the Americas, but Spain builds a colony that would look like OTL Confederate States in term of territory. I would honestly think that a more mercantile Spanish Empire would be much richer and would be more likely to utilize its American resources to possibly continue its Reconquista. I think it would have been weaker in the shorter term because there is a lot of quick wealth in the Aztec and Inca empires, especially but not just the mineral wealth. In the longer terms substantial settlers colonies such as suggested will probably produce greater wealth and strength - provided they can keep their loyality. However I doubt that would affect a reconquest of the Magheb as that is likely to come before any substantial American colonies. Unless your talking about a possible later stage, say in the 17/18thC, where 'Spain' seeks to push on into Egypt or the Levant? In fact, IIRC were talking about a state that has Iberia, most of Italy and much of the Magheb securely which would make American colonisation much more practical as it supplies the settlers and wealth and Spain in those circumstances could become the continetal giant that France was OTL. Although I'm not sure about coal supplies so early period industrialisation could be a problem for it. Unless again the American colonies come in here. Most likely the 18th century, as Spain would by then build up its resources and have enough soldiers to finish off the Reconquista. In this case, they might also want to take a bite out of southern France in order to connect it to their Italian holdings, but if this fails, then they might as well try to build up their portion of southern Italy as a primary candidate to unify the Italian peninsula under their control......or alternatively, France takes a huge bite out of northern Italy. With only Central America under Spanish control during the early 1500s to 1700s, the Spaniards would have to open their colony to immigrants coming from not only Iberia, but Italy and even the Sephardic Jewish community as well. |
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Dec 20, 2017 19:47:20 GMT
I think it would have been weaker in the shorter term because there is a lot of quick wealth in the Aztec and Inca empires, especially but not just the mineral wealth. In the longer terms substantial settlers colonies such as suggested will probably produce greater wealth and strength - provided they can keep their loyality. However I doubt that would affect a reconquest of the Magheb as that is likely to come before any substantial American colonies. Unless your talking about a possible later stage, say in the 17/18thC, where 'Spain' seeks to push on into Egypt or the Levant? In fact, IIRC were talking about a state that has Iberia, most of Italy and much of the Magheb securely which would make American colonisation much more practical as it supplies the settlers and wealth and Spain in those circumstances could become the continetal giant that France was OTL. Although I'm not sure about coal supplies so early period industrialisation could be a problem for it. Unless again the American colonies come in here. Most likely the 18th century, as Spain would by then build up its resources and have enough soldiers to finish off the Reconquista. In this case, they might also want to take a bite out of southern France in order to connect it to their Italian holdings, but if this fails, then they might as well try to build up their portion of southern Italy as a primary candidate to unify the Italian peninsula under their control......or alternatively, France takes a huge bite out of northern Italy. With only Central America under Spanish control during the early 1500s to 1700s, the Spaniards would have to open their colony to immigrants coming from not only Iberia, but Italy and even the Sephardic Jewish community as well. Bit rusty on this as a while since I posted here but I was assuming that the Reconquesta, including up to about Tunia/Tripoli [the Libyian one that is  ] would probably be completed by ~1600, while say FRance was conquering the Aztecs and probably the Incas. Then it would take a bit of time to absorb this and probably between ~1650-1750 they really start settling what's now the SE US. Those eastern lands, plus a unified Iberia and much of Italy would give the population base for effective large scale settlement in the Americas. - Sorry realised your saying the same. I'm assuming that such settlement would be open to pretty much all people in the greater Spanish empire, rather than just Castile. Unless by completing the Reconquita your talking of pushing on through Egypt towards Jerusalem? |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Dec 21, 2017 3:00:54 GMT
I thought that Spain would have the OTL southern United States and Mexico while France would have Southern America. However, with enough butterflies, the French could be the ones to conquer the Aztecs instead of the Spanish. Or more likely, since Spain in this case might also acquire Portugal's colonial empire, they might become more dominant in South America instead.
And I doubt that completing the Reconquista would require the capture of Jerusalem. I was thinking more on the lines of Spanish conquest of the entire Moroccan Empire, plus expansion into sub-Saharan Africa.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Dec 21, 2017 18:43:34 GMT
I thought that Spain would have the OTL southern United States and Mexico while France would have Southern America. However, with enough butterflies, the French could be the ones to conquer the Aztecs instead of the Spanish. Or more likely, since Spain in this case might also acquire Portugal's colonial empire, they might become more dominant in South America instead. And I doubt that completing the Reconquista would require the capture of Jerusalem. I was thinking more on the lines of Spanish conquest of the entire Moroccan Empire, plus expansion into sub-Saharan Africa. Well its your thread but I was assuming that the French would get Mexico, or at least the central valley as the Aztecs basically provide the initial boost of wealth that prompts further invasions and eventually the Incas and their silver mines. If France doesn't get Mexico they might never push south. Possibly if they have the lower isthmus but that is poorer and with its jungle terrain and the fractured nature of the Mayan tribes I think it took a lot longer to subdue. Agree that the Reconquista wouldn't go that far east but as far as Tunis I would expect, if the region is to be conquered at all I would expect most of it would be secured by ~1600, even if still fairly rebellious in many places. |
|
|
|
Post by MarshalBraginsky on Dec 22, 2017 5:10:47 GMT
I thought that Spain would have the OTL southern United States and Mexico while France would have Southern America. However, with enough butterflies, the French could be the ones to conquer the Aztecs instead of the Spanish. Or more likely, since Spain in this case might also acquire Portugal's colonial empire, they might become more dominant in South America instead. And I doubt that completing the Reconquista would require the capture of Jerusalem. I was thinking more on the lines of Spanish conquest of the entire Moroccan Empire, plus expansion into sub-Saharan Africa. Well its your thread but I was assuming that the French would get Mexico, or at least the central valley as the Aztecs basically provide the initial boost of wealth that prompts further invasions and eventually the Incas and their silver mines. If France doesn't get Mexico they might never push south. Possibly if they have the lower isthmus but that is poorer and with its jungle terrain and the fractured nature of the Mayan tribes I think it took a lot longer to subdue. Agree that the Reconquista wouldn't go that far east but as far as Tunis I would expect, if the region is to be conquered at all I would expect most of it would be secured by ~1600, even if still fairly rebellious in many places. That is true. This is something that I would have to think over a lot. |
|
] would probably be completed by ~1600, while say FRance was conquering the Aztecs and probably the Incas. Then it would take a bit of time to absorb this and probably between ~1650-1750 they really start settling what's now the SE US. Those eastern lands, plus a unified Iberia and much of Italy would give the population base for effective large scale settlement in the Americas. - Sorry realised your saying the same. I'm assuming that such settlement would be open to pretty much all people in the greater Spanish empire, rather than just Castile. 
