I had another idea that could lead to an Anglo-Spanish alliance aimed at France: have the Spanish match, or more specifically a version of the Spanish match succeed. My idea is to have Felipe III's youngest daughter, Infanta Margarita Francisa (1610-1617) survive childhood. She's basically the same age as Charles I's OTL bride Henrietta Maria and as she's younger might not be opposed to marrying a heretic. Plus as the youngest daughter she's unlikely to be promised to anyone yet and would likely be an "acceptable" sacrifice for Felipe IV and Olivares. At the same time, we could also see a marriage later on between Henrietta Maria and Ferdinand III, which brings France further into the Habsburg web and also brings diverse blood into the family. Perhaps Mariana, the spurned Empress, could either marry into another Habsburg branch(perhaps to Archduke Leopold of Tyrol?) or to Elector Maximilian of Bavaria. It would give Spain influence in the Empire that's no dependent on their imperial cousins, keep Max from marrying his niece and give the Emperor another possible marriage alliance. Maybe to one of the Prince-Electors or an Electoral Prince?
Thirty years' war WI: Long-term effects of a Habsburg Victory?
- Thread starter Emperor Constantine
- Start date
I can't find any problems with those changes, and they do sound interesting. I think we are nearing the point where the question becomes what do the Habsburgs do when they have no real rivals. Do they stick together still or do they turn on each other. So many ties to each other back and forth that they end up being largely irrelevant.
I don't think we'd be at that point just yet. Franco-Spanish rivalry is unlikely to end any time soon: the feeling of being under siege by Spain would remain, as would France's own imperialism. The most we'd see would be a detachment from imperial/German affairs and a laser focus on the Netherlands and maybe northern Italy. I don't think that they'd end up turning on each other, not unless France is entirely neutralized.
Even if you gank Richelieu would it necessarily halt the rise of France? One time or later the Big Bad Blob will get its shit together could the Habsburgs and their outdated armies deal with it?
Also, one point that the TYW ended all religious conflicts was that it was definitive, the Habsburgs lost their ambitions of uniting christdom in Germany, recognized that the Princes could seek external help AND that said help was very useful, what is the relation between Vienna and the princes?
Note that I read most of the posts days ago and most of answers may be already answered, I apologizes in advance.
Also, one point that the TYW ended all religious conflicts was that it was definitive, the Habsburgs lost their ambitions of uniting christdom in Germany, recognized that the Princes could seek external help AND that said help was very useful, what is the relation between Vienna and the princes?
Note that I read most of the posts days ago and most of answers may be already answered, I apologizes in advance.
Halt? No. But delay? Oh definitely. Without Richelieu at the helm French centralization would grind to a halt, especially considering that the Huguenots would remain a force to recon with within the Kingdom. Now your right, eventually France get its sh#t together enough to challenge the Habsburgs,their population size alone makes that inevitable. But that doesn't mean that they would win. Also the Habsburg armies weren't that outdated: that's a myth that has little basis in reality. After all, Spain and Austria's armies did very well in the first half of the Thirty years' war.
The TYW may have ended religious conflict in the Empire but it also destroyed any hope of a unified German/Central European state. The Princes here wouldn't be able to make foreign alliances without being placed under the Imperial ban and risking their lands and holdings. I'd say the relationship between Emperor and estates would be one of Liege and vassals, as it should be. The Protestant states aren't going to risk challenging the Emperor again, not after the defeat of Denmark and the Edict of Restitution. The Catholics though, that's harder to figure out. We could see an attempt by Bavaria and the Wittselbach to gain the Crown, which would obviously cause civil war and could drag the French in later on the Bavarian side. Wouldn't happen overnight obviously. Most likely, with a permanent peace in the early to mid 1630s, any attempt by the Bavarians would be delayed until the 1650s or the death of Ferdinand III.
Hm, something else to think about is what a Bavarian civil war could do for the Empire: if the Habsburgs win they'd probably attempt to end any challenge to their rule permanently by making the Crown hereditary. Establishing the de-facto as de-jure. Of course, we could just as easily see the Wittelsbachs win, especially if the Spanish chose to side with their (in my idea) new in-laws.
And feel free to ask any other questions you might have. I find this topic fascinating and relish the opportunity to delve deeper into it.
I've thought of a few other ideas and questions around this idea. We've established the initial POD is a successful Spanish match, allying London and Madrid. Similar to OTL, this close association with a leading Catholic power forces the Stuarts to reinforce their Protestant credentials via military action. Here though, instead of an ill-attempted war with Spain, we'd instead see an earlier alliance with the Huguenots. So we'll have an Anglo-French war in the late 1620s, with discrete Spanish aid given to the English. After all, its easier to send support to your brother-in-law than directly to Heretics, realpolitik be damned. At some point the Duke of Buckingham dies, I'm thinking maybe some illness shortly after returning to England from Spain. Instead someone competent is in charge of the English expeditionary force, like the Earl of Essex (OTL Parliamentary army leader). The Anglo-Huguenot alliance eventually wins: I'm seeing the Huguenots secure gains in south-western France and around La Rochelle (the Province of Poitou and northern Guyenne to be more precise) at the expense of territory in Languedoc and Gascony. This way its a victory for the Huguenots, but not a total loss for the Royalists. I think this is the best starting point for a TL.
Now to the war itself and Sweden. From what I can tell Gustavus Adolphus was bound and determined to intervene in the Empire, French help or no. So I think we'd still see Swedish intervention in 1630, though TTL it would be weaker than OTL. Mainly due to no French support (financial and influential) and no beachhead at Stralsund. In fact the fall of Stralsund would make intervention more likely as Imperial control over all the major Baltic German ports means the nightmare of an Imperial Fleet will be made into reality. So if all else goes according to OTL plan (initial Swedish victories, fallowed by the death of the King and a crushing defeat later on) I think we would see the war in or around 1635, similar to the Peace of Prague but much more in favor of the Emperor. Maybe more redistribution of territory and a definite full implementation of the Edict of Restitution this time around. Not sure if Sweden would get anything other than major financial indemnities, especially if the Habsburgs are able to get Russia or Poland to put pressure on Stockholm's borders. Domestically the Empire will be stronger than ever, firmly under the Habsburg crown, perpetual taxes established, a budding Bureaucracy, the various estates reduced in power (banned from domestic and foreign alliances) and a standing army.
Now, not entirely sure how the army would be organized. At this point there were two major forces: the Imperial army, under the command of the Emperor, and army of the Empire, under the control of the Diet and imperial Circle assemblies. I think the best bet would be something similar to the Federal Army of the German Confederation (1815-1866): set quotas from each state (larger than the ones that developed under the circles), major fortresses across the Empire garrisoned by the Emperor's troops and mobilization if the Empire is attacked by a foreign power. Of course defining what constitutes an attack by a foreign power is ambiguous at best, so I'm guessing the Emperor would be able to call on a very large force as long as he isn't the active aggressor (well unless against the Turks: everyone was fine with attacking Infidels).
What I'm still trying to figure out are the Netherlands, the Commonwealth, Iberia and Hungary. So basically everything else. Something interesting I've thought of is the effects of Spain reconquering the Netherlands. More specifically the effects of the Spanish controlling the Dutch financial system, one of the most stable and advanced in the world. Would it be possible for Madrid to import Dutch financiers for the purpose of reforming Spain's flagging economy? Would this possibly lead to an economic revival in the Spanish monarchy or would we need even more radical changes for that to occur? At the least I think we could see the Dutch system brought to England by Calvinist refugees, potentially creating a Central Bank in London half a century earlier. Another potential change is Spain's centralization. If France doesn't support the revolt in Catalonia with troops, then chances are the Habsburgs are able to put down the rebellion. This could lead to something similar to the Nueva Planta decrees, which revoked and dissolved the privileges of the lands of the Crown of Aragon and annexed them directly into the Castilian Crown. I can definitely see Olivares do something similar if the largest/wealthiest land of the Aragonese Crown has been crushed and placed under occupation.
Finally (for now anyway!) Hungary. The Hungarian frontier with the Ottomans was more or less stable from the end of the Long Turkish war in 1606 to the last Siege of Vienna in 1683. Yes there was a short war in 1663-64, but it changed little and wasn't pursued all that hard by the Sublime Porte. Here I think were likely to see this front flair up into another war much sooner, possibly in conjunction with the Cretan war of 1645-1669. Now I'm not going to suggest something along the lines of a full blown crusade, like Valena and I did in A et D (despite how interesting it can be) but we would eventually see a Habsburg reconquest of Hungary like we did OTL. The question then becomes what happens to the Apostolic Kingdom? Does the Emperor keep the Holy Crown in personal union or does he detach it to a second son? OTL Hungary's reconquest helped make Austria a great power, but here the Empire is has been reborn into a power in its own right, so no major need to have a Kingdom outside the Empire. Thoughts on this and my other ideas?
Now to the war itself and Sweden. From what I can tell Gustavus Adolphus was bound and determined to intervene in the Empire, French help or no. So I think we'd still see Swedish intervention in 1630, though TTL it would be weaker than OTL. Mainly due to no French support (financial and influential) and no beachhead at Stralsund. In fact the fall of Stralsund would make intervention more likely as Imperial control over all the major Baltic German ports means the nightmare of an Imperial Fleet will be made into reality. So if all else goes according to OTL plan (initial Swedish victories, fallowed by the death of the King and a crushing defeat later on) I think we would see the war in or around 1635, similar to the Peace of Prague but much more in favor of the Emperor. Maybe more redistribution of territory and a definite full implementation of the Edict of Restitution this time around. Not sure if Sweden would get anything other than major financial indemnities, especially if the Habsburgs are able to get Russia or Poland to put pressure on Stockholm's borders. Domestically the Empire will be stronger than ever, firmly under the Habsburg crown, perpetual taxes established, a budding Bureaucracy, the various estates reduced in power (banned from domestic and foreign alliances) and a standing army.
Now, not entirely sure how the army would be organized. At this point there were two major forces: the Imperial army, under the command of the Emperor, and army of the Empire, under the control of the Diet and imperial Circle assemblies. I think the best bet would be something similar to the Federal Army of the German Confederation (1815-1866): set quotas from each state (larger than the ones that developed under the circles), major fortresses across the Empire garrisoned by the Emperor's troops and mobilization if the Empire is attacked by a foreign power. Of course defining what constitutes an attack by a foreign power is ambiguous at best, so I'm guessing the Emperor would be able to call on a very large force as long as he isn't the active aggressor (well unless against the Turks: everyone was fine with attacking Infidels).
What I'm still trying to figure out are the Netherlands, the Commonwealth, Iberia and Hungary. So basically everything else. Something interesting I've thought of is the effects of Spain reconquering the Netherlands. More specifically the effects of the Spanish controlling the Dutch financial system, one of the most stable and advanced in the world. Would it be possible for Madrid to import Dutch financiers for the purpose of reforming Spain's flagging economy? Would this possibly lead to an economic revival in the Spanish monarchy or would we need even more radical changes for that to occur? At the least I think we could see the Dutch system brought to England by Calvinist refugees, potentially creating a Central Bank in London half a century earlier. Another potential change is Spain's centralization. If France doesn't support the revolt in Catalonia with troops, then chances are the Habsburgs are able to put down the rebellion. This could lead to something similar to the Nueva Planta decrees, which revoked and dissolved the privileges of the lands of the Crown of Aragon and annexed them directly into the Castilian Crown. I can definitely see Olivares do something similar if the largest/wealthiest land of the Aragonese Crown has been crushed and placed under occupation.
Finally (for now anyway!) Hungary. The Hungarian frontier with the Ottomans was more or less stable from the end of the Long Turkish war in 1606 to the last Siege of Vienna in 1683. Yes there was a short war in 1663-64, but it changed little and wasn't pursued all that hard by the Sublime Porte. Here I think were likely to see this front flair up into another war much sooner, possibly in conjunction with the Cretan war of 1645-1669. Now I'm not going to suggest something along the lines of a full blown crusade, like Valena and I did in A et D (despite how interesting it can be) but we would eventually see a Habsburg reconquest of Hungary like we did OTL. The question then becomes what happens to the Apostolic Kingdom? Does the Emperor keep the Holy Crown in personal union or does he detach it to a second son? OTL Hungary's reconquest helped make Austria a great power, but here the Empire is has been reborn into a power in its own right, so no major need to have a Kingdom outside the Empire. Thoughts on this and my other ideas?
Agreed on all points, I like how much is changed depending on whether a Spanish or Portugese match occurs.
Could you point out where you have GA2's determination to intervene from? As I have mentioned earlier, Sweden can't really intervene unless both Russia and the PLC are occupied. IOTL this happened in the Smolensk War as a result of negotiations between the Sweden and Russia, which were pushed along by Richelieu.
I honestly think you can keep Sweden out of the 30YW if you disgrace Richelieu, either delaying or preventing the Russo-Swedish negotiations. If you can delay Swedish intervention for a couple years then it becomes too late to really intervene in the war, and more profitable to focus elsewhere. Sweden really doesn't have the resources to intervene in Germany unless they get the french subsidies, which are also tied to Richelieu.
The Imperial conquest of Stralslund would have several interesting effects, particularly because it signaled the end of Wallenstein's string of victories IOTL and the beginning of his fall from grace. Without the loss at Straslund Wallenstein remains one of the strongest actors in Germany and leaves Ferdinand without any reason to dismiss him. I think you might end up having Wallenstein take his place as a major player within the HRE power structures though I doubt he would directly challenge Habsburg power.
The loss at Stralslund does create serious issue for all actors in the Baltic, but I have a hard time seeing how the Scandinavian powers can really do anything about it. They may very well push for Stralslund to go as part of the Pommeranian inheritance or that it remain a free city. I think the second of those options the more likely, because it would be very hard for Ferdinand to truly challenge. If he starts mucking around with free city status and claiming free cities he may very well turn the free cities of Germany against him.
I think this sounds very interesting, though I would like to remind you that a reason for Protestant dissatisfaction with the Habsburgs was that the Habsburgs demanded aid against the Ottomans in the Long War. I think a Army of the Empire under the Diet, subdivided by Imperial Circle is likely to be the most palatable solution for all parties involved.
On Iberia and the influence of Dutch financial systems on Spain, I want you to take a moment and consider the PoV of the Spanish at this point. They have just defeated the heretics they have fought for the last century, I doubt they would be accepting them as part of Spanish high society or as part of the bureaucracy any time soon. I think it is more likely that as the Spanish and German Habsburgs start to strengthen their grip on their territories you will see a steady stream of refugees into Huguenot France, England/Scotland and Scandinavia. The fall of the Netherlands would be like a second fall of Constantinople in many ways, though likely with far more people involved.
I doubt you would see something like the Nueva Planta decrees since that simply wasn't part of the Habsburg way of rule. The Habsburgs were always rather adept at playing the numerous crowns and lands against each other for their own gain. The Bourbons brought with them the centralizing zeal that was instilled from Henri IV onwards. Each Dynasty has a couple of traits that kind of characterize them, with the Bourbons it is centralization while with the Habsburgs it is a tendency to function well in complicated and intricate realms they tied together through marriage. This is a broad generalization but it is a trend I think you can see throughout most of either family's rulers.
What are the likely butterflies from a Spanish match and how does it affect the Civil War in England? A victory in the Anglo-French war might also have significant impacts. Would we even see a Commonwealth appear by this point in time? Would royalist/parliamentary forces act differently if they had more experience from a longer and more successful war?
A last thought. If England aided Spain against the Dutch, would Dutch Calvinists flee to England? and what would the effects be on their coreligionists in England at this betrayal of the faithful?
The problem with having the Habsburgs retake Hungary is the same as during the pre-30YW period, If they move their focus south-east then they lose their grip on the north and west. The constant struggle of the Habsburgs up till 1648 was whether to focus on their German vassal states or to focus on their own empire outside of the Empire. If the HRE starts a centralizing process I have a hard time seeing the Habsburgs being able to justify conquests against the Ottomans to their vassals. This would bring them back to the position they were in before the war.
I actually think you might be able to improve the situation in the Ottoman Empire, is there a way of getting the Ottomans to end their practice of driving each other mad? If you can have a strong Sultan emerge at some point, maybe have Murad IV be more willing to compromise, maybe cut down on his brutality somewhat, and escape his death by cirrhosis i think there is something to build on. TBH I don't know too much about the Ottomans at this point in time, but I think there are a lot of opportunities hidden in there.
Something else to think about is the effect on Spain's war with the Dutch. OTL Madrid's terrible relations with England and France forced them to rely on the Spanish to send troops to the Netherlands. A route that was later closed thanks to the French and Savoyard alliance. Here, with an Anglo-Spanish alliance in place the sea route could be re-opened, allowing for much quicker and easier reinforcements to arrive from Spain. It could be a full naval route from La Coruña via the English Channel to Dunkirk, Brugge or another Flemish port. Or it could go La Coruña, a landing in maybe Bristol, a march to Dover and then sail down to the Spanish Netherlands. Either way it decreases the strategic importance of the Savoyards and Swiss and increases English influence without direct intervention.
Same source I'm going by for most of this: Thirty Years' War: Europe's tragedy. I haven't got to the Swedish intervention yet (just finished part one and am at the start of the Bohemian revolt) but from the parts I've read ahead on Gustav had wanted to get involved in Germany from at least 1627, maybe earlier. Oxenstierna had to persuade him to finish with Poland first. Later in 1630, before his landing in Pomerania, he engaged in more or less fake negotiations with the Habsburgs to force France to make a better offer alliance to him. Clearly Sweden's King was going to intervene in Germany with or without French aid: Richielieu didn't turn to Sweden until 1629 and after Lübeck, a full two years after Gustav's first mentioned desire for a German war. As to Russia, that part I don't get. Russia and Sweden were at peace from 1617 until 1655. I doubt Russia would launch an attack on Sweden during her German intervention due to the fear of a Polish attack while Moscow's forces are focused in Livonia and Ingria. So you might be overestimating Russia's potential role in all this.
That's similar to what I was thinking as well. Wallenstein here is the hero of the Empire and Catholicism, the man who's restored imperial rule in the North for the first time in over a century and has pushed imperial power farther than its been sense the Hohenstaufens, if not the Salians. The Prince-Electors wouldn't have the excuse or backing to convincingly push for his dismissal and Ferdinand has no reason to cave to their demands. And I agree: realistically the fear that Wallenstein would challenge Imperial power was fantastical at best. He'd definitely be a major player in politics and might act more autonomously than the Court of Vienna would like, but he's no threat to Habsburg dominance, if only because he'd never get the necessary support from the other Princes to do so.
As to Stralslund, I think making it a free city makes the best sense. It detaches it from Pomeranian and Brandenburger control, preserves the city's autonomy and places it under Imperial purview. Of course, considering the city's importance and resistance to imperial forces, I think its government would be gutted in favor of Imperialists and have to accept a permanent garrison.
From what I read in Thirty Years' war that's not entirely true. The Palatinate and its allies kicked up a fight over war with the Turks but most other Protestant states, including Brandenburg and Saxony, had no issue with voting subsidies for the war or sending troops. In fact there's a hole chapter on the subject. Basically a war with the infidel Turks was considered one of the only things that unified the confessional sects of Christendom. As for your idea, that's basically what existed OTL. I think it would remain similar but more expanded and with key strategic points (like the border or say parts of the Palatinate) garrisoned by the Emperor. Its in favor of the Habsburgs but still a compromise.
I think you might be overestimating things in regards to the Dutch. I mean yes Spain has spent the better part of half a century at war with the Dutch, but the Spaniards aren't blind to the dazzling success of their enemies financial system. Now that they've retaken control over the Netherlands there's no reason to not attempt to copy the system for Spain. After all, money and power are very attractive and I can easily see some of the Dutch willing to play ball with the Spanish. At the least Olivares and his circle would see the value of co-opting their returned subjects into Spain's empire. It probably wouldn't be popular, but necessary. Though on the flip side Spain would control the Dutch financial system, their wealthy trade lines and the East and West India companies. Reforms might not be as necessary if such wealth is under Madrid's influence, if not control. The financial changes alone would be fascinating to explore.
As to massive immigration, that would likely happen initially but not long-term. Look at Spanish religious policy in the Netherlands from the Archdukes onward. It was basically similar to that of the French towards the Huguenots after Richelieu's centralization policies: tolerated as long as there was no public worship. It wouldn't be popular in the North but much better than they feared. Plus I wonder what the population percentage of Protestants and Catholics actually was in the Republic at this time. I know that a lot of the rural population remained Catholic while the towns and cities were Calvinist but that's it. Not sure which had the larger population or by what percentage. As for refugees, it depends. Strangely enough there was tons of infighting between Lutherans and Calvinists during the era leading up to the War, almost more than between the Protestants and Catholics. The Lutheran states and England might be reluctant to take in too many refugees of a different religious persuasion, especially ones that could cause problems in their new countries.
To Spain's domestic woes, your probably right about no Nueva Planta but I do think we'd see the Aragonese lose some of their autonomy, especially in regards to taxes. After all the lands of Aragon payed practically nothing in regards to taxes OTL. Here they've revolted and been defeated: no need to have a status quo peace. Aragon's gonna be made to pay their fair share. IDK if it would be up to the Castilian level of taxes but certainly a few perpetual taxes outside of the estates' control. We could also possibly see Olivares' union of arms plan successfully implemented if the Aragonese estates are weakened. That in itself puts Spain on a much stronger military footing. I mean being able to realistically field a standing army of 140,000? It practically guarantees long-term Spanish success.
Of course I'm still unsure about Portugal. Clearly Portugal would be a hotspot in terms of tension and could potentially still revolt, but not entirely sure on the details. I had thought of having Infante Carlos (Felipe IV's brother) survive and take up his designated post as Viceroy in Lisbon, later leading the Portuguese to independence in a way not dissimilar to Pedro I in Brazil but he could just as easily be used to ease tension and bring about a closes Iberian monarchy. I'll have to work on this one.
England's gonna be a tough one to figure out. For one Charles's reign starts out with a major foreign victory, even if its not the one the militants want (restoration of the Palatinate). This, combined with the lack of Buckingham, means Parliament has no real leg to stand on to deny Tonnage and Poundage to the King. That in itself reduces some of the drama that dominated the early years of the reign. That being said, its a temporary band-aid at best. The issues between Crown and Parliament went back to Elizabeth I's reign and Charles had the luck of being the wrong person at the wrong time. Of course his willingness to fight fire with fire caused its own problems and I won't say Charles was merely the victim of circumstance, but the blame isn't entirely on him. Something else to consider is the massive Spanish dowry. At £600,000 it would be the largest one in English history (even larger than Catherine of Braganza's in 1662), a massive boost to the Stuart monarchy. Hell a smart move would be to use some of it to buy back lands from the nobility and increase the size of the crown estate. That would lessen the dependence on Parliament. Basically Charles would be dealt a much stronger early hand than OTL.
As to the civil war, harder to say. Conflict was inevitable but a full blown civil war was not. Maybe Parliament is easier to deal with without multiple defeats or just as easily Charles uses his victories as an excuse to rule without Parliament. Now assuming a civil war still happens, Charles is again stronger than OTL. He's closely allied with Spain, whose won in the Netherlands and has no obligations in Germany (not sure about a Franco-Spanish war though). Thus he can reasonably call on Spanish troops to assist, along with Spanish subsidies. Spanish veterans at the core of a Royalist army could make a big difference, not to mention we could see the English veterans side with the King and not Parliament. In all I'm not 100% on whether or not a civil war would still happen, but if so I think Charles stands a good chance at winning.
As to Dutch refugees, hard to say. While we'd probably see some refugees go to England and Scotland, I imagine Charles would want to limit them. No need to potentially strengthen the Puritans or other Calvinist leaning sects in England who are opposed to Royal policies. And yeah the English Calvinists would be pissed but they're still going to be excluded from power so long-term all they get is another propaganda piece. Hell the fall of the Netherlands might be popular in England among certain circles as it means the English can brake into the Dutch trade in the East Indies. Just a thought.
The more that I've thought about this I think your right. I don't see the Emperor starting a war but at the same time, if a situation like the siege of Vienna happens like OTL, I also don't see the Habsburgs making peace if they're successfully liberating Hungary. Sadly I don't know much about the Ottomans during this era, so I'll have to look into it for the rest. Though I do know that on the whole it was quite unstable (like three or so Sultans were deposed during the course of the Thirty years' war). Maybe Osman II pulls off his plans against the Janissaries?
That is certainly an interesting proposition, though I do think that the Spanish Road would remain a major artery for transportation for as long as possible, simply due to the challenges posed by transporting particularly cavalry by sea. This would help ease the logistical challenges posed by the fighting in the Netherlands and help the Spanish out along the way. If the Scheldt is cleared wouldn't Antwerp be a logical end point?
I always understood it as Gustav always wanting to intervene but that he was well aware that he would need some kind of support and a clear back to succeed. Without French support and Russia distracting the PLC I just can't see how he calculates any gains from intervening. I just don't see how he has a chance of success at this point in time with the situation as set forward. Do we even have an interest in Swedish intervention? I thought that the way we could get the Habsburgs to emerge victorious would be to keep the Swedes out of it. So maybe keeping them distracted for longer in the PLC would be a solution? I think we had extensive discussions on the way we could extend the PLC conflict, and once we get past the immediate aftermath of the Danish phase it is hard to see why Gustav would think there was an opportunity any longer.
In regards to Russia, I am not talking about Russia attacking Sweden, but rather the need from the Swedish side for a Russo-Polish war to keep the PLC distracted for long enough to allow for their intervention. A really fantastic source is Muscovy and Sweden in the Thirty Years’ War 1630-1635 by Ekaterina Porshnev which draws from sources in Russia and Sweden to really examine the relationship in detail and the role of the negotiations in allowing Sweden and Russia to act on the international stage without worrying about the PLC.
I am pretty sure Stralslund was already a free city at this point, having been part of the Hanestic league and a major competitor to Lübeck previously. Them having to accept an imperial garrison and the role of naval base seems sound enough. Just wanted to stress the importance of the role of free cities and their rights in the empire.
I remember reading that chapter and you are of course right, was conflating the Reformed with the Lutherans. Sorry. You are of course right, although I do think the Protestants would be hesitant about participating in taking land in Hungary for the Habsburgs. I think they might end up getting rather worried, asking whether the Habsburgs were going to rule the Empire or their growing Balkan lands.I think that while Olivares and a string of other Spanish leading politicians were willing to overlook heresy for real politique I think it would be very difficult to import the Dutch financiers or their expertise to help lead the Empire. I think them being exploited with heavy taxes and the like are more likely - ala Phillip II in the time up to the Revolt. Capturing the Netherlands would definitely be a boon, but I think you need to account for the completely ridiculous degree that many (particularly Castillians) took their superiority over all others. They viewed themselves as the supreme rulers of the world and had a hard time accepting other Catholics in important positions, it seems hard to reconcile that world view with then appropriating the methods of the heretics. Particularly when Spain just emerged victorious over them. They were proven right, as they had always claimed and known they would be.
I think the refugee streams would be more like what was seen following the Edict of Fontainebleau rather than the Edict of Nantes. This is not a country coming to a negotiated settlement to establish a equitable status quo, this is one party completely defeating the other. With the example of the Huguenot success in France from the Anglo-French War close in mind, I don't think the Spanish would leave any opportunity for something like the Revolt to ever happen again. This again goes into the whole Spanish mindset before and during this time period. This is particularly true because we do not have anything like Breitenfeld or Rocroi to disprove Spanish military superiority, in fact I would argue that position has been made even clearer with the results we are going for ITTL. Victors in war, particular in Civil Wars / Rebellions are rarely magnanimous and willing to learn from their opponents, unless it is to crush them.
Your ideas for Aragon are certainly interesting and I think that it would liekly end up working as you have suggested. Though again, I think we need to consider Castillan interests in punishing the Catalans.
Your suggestion on Portugal is interesting. If we have a Spanish Infante taking the throne, does he break with the family to do so or does he remain part of the Habsburg family alliance?
One last question on these points, what happens with the Dutch colonies at this point in time? Do the Spanish take them, or do the English sweep them up? Something completely different?
So based on all of this, it seems to me that the situation in England is changed so much that it is difficult to calculate what might happen. One point though, Charles I was one of the leading proponents for supporting the Winter King, so wouldn't that mean significant attachments remained in the Empire? Further, what would the reaction among the English be to a Spanish Habsburg Queen? I can't imagine it will be all that positive particularly when you take into account the history of enmity that had built up against the Spanish during and after the Spanish Armada. The connotations of a Spanish Match can't be too positive.
On the refugees, if Charles decided to limit them then where would they go. As I have written on earlier I think that there would be a significant number of refugees trying to escape the Spanish. If England and Scotland are largely closed off where do they go then? And what do they bring with them? What impact do they have wherever they end up?
What about having Osman succeed his father Ahmed I straight out of the gate, completely bypassing the reign of Mustafa the Mad and thereby keeping Mahfiruz Hatice Sultan, Osman's mother, as a power in the Harem. Osman's real weakness was that he had no one to argue on his behalf in the Harem where the power in the Ottoman Empire lay by this point in time. To really understand the Ottoman state at this point in time I think you need to understand the role of women in government (the period being known as The Sultanate of Women. I would suggest reading The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire by Leslie P. Peirce if you are interested in more info.
I think it might be interesting to have Osman take the throne that one year earlier (leaving his mother living and present in the Harem) thereby giving him a much better starting point. From there you could have him succeed in countering the Janissaries and survive the attempted coup. That would allow him to curb the Jannisaries and perhaps set up his proposed army of Anatolian Sekbans to take over the role of the Jannisaries. I don't know what the effects of this would be, but I think there is an opportunity for this to turn out really interesting.
I wonder if you could have Osman partner with Murad (Ottomans cooperating? Oh no! ASB!
) who could then later serve as a secondary military leader. Though more likely if Osman survives that long he kills off the remaining brothers he has left and the move to succession by seniority never occurs. It was Mustafa being placed ahead of Osman that changed the traditional method of inheritance practiced until then by the Ottomans. I think there is a lot of potential here, and it could go very interesting places. A more dynamic and engaged Ottoman Empire, maybe even curbing the Safavids early on, would have a lot of later effects.Richelieu did not abolish public Protestant worship. Under the Peace of Alès, the religious provisions of the Edict of Nantes remained in effect, but the political/militarily privileges (the right to maintain their own garrisons and elect their own representative assembly) of the Protestants were eliminated.
Last edited:
Yes and no. The Dukes of Mecklenburg sided with King Christian IV in the Danish intervention and were deposed for their treason. In their place Wallenstein was invested with the sequestrated duchies.
The Army of Flanders didn't use that much cavalry: for example, in 1582 the Army sat at around 60,000 but only used 4,000 cavalrymen. Plus you have to remember that the Spanish road was more or less permanently closed by 1622. At least aside from the Swiss passes. Having a faster naval route that bypasses French influence is a godsend. And yes Antwerp would be the logical port for the Spanish Netherlands once its reopened, but I'm estimating for before, from say 1622/23. Antwerp wouldn't be reopened for business until maybe 1628 or so, after Breda is recaptured.
I'm not to sure. From what I've read Gustav was quite impulsive and had to be restrained by Oxenstierna several times before the OTL intervention. Personally I think he'd take the risk of a Russian invasion and begin a Swedish intervention. The reason I wanted a Swedish intervention was to crush the Catholic league and end any potential rivalry between the Habsburgs and the Wittelsbachs. However, not sure I like that anymore. Now I'm thinking we keep the Swedish out of the war and let it end in 1630/31. Here Elector Maximilian marries a Spanish Infanta and brings Munich into Spanish orbit. In exchange for the marriage and Spanish support he's forced to bring Liga forces into the Dutch war on behalf of his new in-laws. I'm thinking that between the Army of Flanders, the Liga forces and the Imperial army attacking from three directions the Dutch Republic will fall. Of course we could see a negotiated fall between the Stadtholder and the Spanish government, something that surrenders Holland (practically impenetrable) in exchange for religious concessions and some guarantee for the House of Orange itself. Maybe they remain Stadtholders for Holland or some other hereditary title in the North? IDK I'll have to work on that.
I had thought about making the Time of Troubles last longer or flair up again, meaning that Russia's not in a position to do much of anything against Sweden once Gustav turns to Germany. But realistically I can't think of how to do that. I'll have to check out that book you mentioned, sounds interesting!
Stralsund was a Hanseatic town/city but not a Free Imperial city. That was a specific position giving a town or city autonomy from any territorial Prince and imperial immediacy, answering directly to the Emperor. Stralsund was still officially part of Pomerania and answered to its Duke, not Vienna. Sense the House of Griffins was about to go extinct its not like the Duke's objection to the detachment of Stralsund would mean much, assuming he would do so. I wonder if we could see the imperial Navy expand into the North sea later on, with Hanseatic towns like Hamburg, Bremen and Lübeck becoming major bases for the growing fleet. Hell the Hanseatic League was in perpetual decline so perhaps its organization could be incorporated into the new standing navy. Just a thought.
You don't necessarily have to import the Dutch early on: start out by applying their reforms to the whole of the reunited Netherlands. I think it would work as a first step sense the peoples of the Southern Netherlands had more in common with the Northerners than with the Spaniards. Trade would of course shift back to Spanish control, along with taxation. But considering the financial situation the Spaniards would be fools to destroy the Dutch banks when they could instead force them to provide loans to Madrid's government. Controlling the Dutch trade routes alone should help to stabilize Spain's flagging economy or at the least prop it up. At least I think this would be likely as long as Olivares remains in power. If he's forced out of power before being proved right then all bets are off. The comparison to Nantes' revocation is probably quite accurate, so we'd likely see them flee to the German states and Scandinavia, maybe even France (ironically enough) but probably not England. Or at least not as many.
Castilians are likely to back punishment for the Catalans. After all they've more or less single handedly funded the empire for decades, so likely the Castilians will have no problem in forcing the defeated Catalans to pay their fair share. And for Portugal, any independence move means breaking the family alliance. No way Felipe IV would tolerate his brother usurping his throne. Of course the Emperor could decide to still ally with Lisbon or remain neutral. A Portuguese House of Habsburg could mean the loss of Portugal is easier to accept for Madrid later on but would also likely mean no Franco-Portuguese alliance.
Finally the colonies: hadn't thought of them much. I'd say most are likely to fall to England, with the Caribbean islands and the South American lands going to Spain.
I had forgotten about the Palatinate and Charles I. I know that there was talk of the Palatinate being part of the Spanish dowry, being given to England who would then give it back to the Elector, but I can't remember much on that. And no a Spanish Queen won't be popular but neither was a French one. I'd say it wouldn't be much worse and might be better sense the Spanish Infanta brings much more with her(massive dowry and potential trade with Spain's empire). One other thing to consider is the likely absence of the Petition of Right, meaning the crown is able to raise forced loans/extra-parliamentary taxes, declare martial law in peacetime, force billeting of soldiers anywhere it chooses and imprison subjects without charging them. In effect the Crown remains stronger than OTL and could be able to drift more effectively towards absolutism or semi-absolutism.
As for refugees, still hard to say. I just think that Charles I is likely to try to limit Calvinist refugees coming to the British Isles as much as he can or try to limit it to moderate elites if possible. Maybe aim for the rich merchants and Bourgeois of the former Republic to move to London but that would probably be hit and miss. Some would head to London but most would either stay or flee to other states.The English would be walking a very tight rope at this point. They're favoring High Church policies (read crypto-Catholic), trying to prop up Protestant credentials, eliminate opposition at home from other sects and act as a safe place for Dutch refugees even though they profited from their fall. Hard spot to navigate but not impossible.
What about having Osman succeed his father Ahmed I straight out of the gate, completely bypassing the reign of Mustafa the Mad and thereby keeping Mahfiruz Hatice Sultan, Osman's mother, as a power in the Harem. Osman's real weakness was that he had no one to argue on his behalf in the Harem where the power in the Ottoman Empire lay by this point in time. To really understand the Ottoman state at this point in time I think you need to understand the role of women in government (the period being known as The Sultanate of Women. I would suggest reading The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire by Leslie P. Peirce if you are interested in more info.
I think it might be interesting to have Osman take the throne that one year earlier (leaving his mother living and present in the Harem) thereby giving him a much better starting point. From there you could have him succeed in countering the Janissaries and survive the attempted coup. That would allow him to curb the Jannisaries and perhaps set up his proposed army of Anatolian Sekbans to take over the role of the Jannisaries. I don't know what the effects of this would be, but I think there is an opportunity for this to turn out really interesting.
I wonder if you could have Osman partner with Murad (Ottomans cooperating? Oh no! ASB!
Hm, sounds interesting. what about killing Mustafa early, either by murder of illness? That way he's not available as a puppet in 1617 and instead Osman II is enthroned. That also eliminates his powerful mother as a player in politics. It might also be better to remove Kösem Sultan as well, sense she would be the principle leader of the opposition in the harem and considering her OTL career, I think she would be a real threat to Osman and his mother. Though I'm not to sure about this one. Really the issue was Mahfiruz Hatice Sultan's apparent fall from grace during Ahmed I's reign and the fact that she was never recalled during her son's reign. I'd say best scenario is to kill Mustafa and keep Hatice Sultan in favor.
As to the Janissaries, hard but not impossible. The key is getting your new troops in place before inciting them to revolt, as the Auspicious incident proved. If Osman can rid himself of the Janissaries early on, then chances are the Ottomans can avoid much of the domestic crises that dominated the next two centuries. But sadly I doubt we'd see an Osman/Murad alliance. The Ottoman Princes never trusted each other, for good reason, and I doubt they'd start now. Especially if Murad is more successful a commander than his older brother. That would make him too big a threat to leave alive.
Of course sooner or later a new Austro-Turkish war would break out and if it happens late in the century like OTL, than the Habsburgs are in a powerful position to liberate Hungary. I wonder if that would cause a shift in the Turks focus from the West to the east. It would be really cool to see them attempt to revive the old Islamic empires that dominated Persia, the middle east and North Africa. Just a thought.
OK I stand corrected. I think I was thinking of the personal reign of Louis XIV before Nantes.
I hadn't realized the disparity was that large, but I guess it makes sense when you consider the nature of warfare in the region. So Brugge prior to around 1628, and then Anterwerp after?
I think your suggestion for the HRE are interesting here, though would Maximilian be able to use the Liga against external forces who aren't attacking them? Or would he be limited to his own forces? If you can get a force attacking from the east against the Netherlands then they are in serious trouble and could very well fall excepting Holland. I think the suggested changes are reasonable, though I am not sure the House of Orange is going to be all that successful ruling over Holland once they surrender. Some might very well blame them for the entire mess.
The worry was never really Russia attacking Sweden, it was more about the PLC attacking Swedish lands while the King was in Germany. Without the Smolensk War launched by the Russians, then the Swedes have to worry about being attacked by the PLC and as such can't have their army running about willy nilly in Germany where it can't defend their territory. The thing to remember is that the Time of Troubles in Russia was, particularly later on, a conflict between Poland and Russia with the Polish crown prince claiming that he was Tsar of Russia as well. Until that ends, the PLC and Russia can't work together and are likely to go to war at the drop of a hat. The problem with the Smolensk War was IIRC that the Russians really weren't ready yet to attack and as such dragged out the period leading up to their attack and then once they attacked proved rather less successful than they had hoped. Without Russo-Swedish negotiations ensuring that the war happens, Russia would likely wait a 5-10 more years before launching a much more organized and effective campaign.
My mistake with the Stralslund classification, but a rejuvenated Hanestic League would be interesting. Might a growth in Imperial ship building prompt a similar mercantile boom? What would the effects of this be? Could they end up replacing the Dutch now that they won't be able to hold a monopoly on Baltic trade?
Without the Dutch to hog all the trade, might we see an early shipbuilding race between the Hanestics and Denmark to control the trade of the Baltic? All of this might actually end up boosting the finances of the Danish king significantly though it might just as easily lead to worse situation in Denmark.
By the way, is the plan for something similar to the Treaty of Lübeck being agreed at the end of the Danish intervention? Do the Danes or Swedes help with the defence of Stralslund as OTL? I think GA2 might actually go for it due to the limited investment needed to accomplish this and then participate in the Treaty of Lübeck to see if he can get anything out of the negotiations.
I think the most significant part of this is the "as long as Olivares remains in power." part. I think with his foreign policies largely a success you may very well see him turn towards the Castillians and try to get them to participate more actively in state affairs, since they had been increasingly relying on the work of their many dominions in his view. This could see Olivares challenges early on by a angered Castillian elite as compared to OTL where he was largely distracted with foreign policy most of the time. I could be completely off with this statement of course. Oh, what about having the Spanish turn towards the Barbary States after they prove victorious against the Dutch?
Would Maximilian or Ferdinand have accepted handing back the Palatinate at this point? I can see your point with the large dowry. What I was wondering was rather more regarding Charles' behavior towards Parliament at this point. Would he be able to enflame a rebellion after the degree of success he had achieved? What would he do if he didn't need to feud with Parliament for money to finance his adventures?
What about having Kösem Sultan overplay her hand when she asks Ahmed to have to have a woman in the Harem (speculated to be Hatice Sultan) beaten. Instead of granting her the request she is punished for the presumption and is either killed or removed in some other way, maybe have this occur a year early, in 1611, and thereby butterfly Murad IV and his younger brothers. AFAIK this was before her advocating for Mustafa's survival, which could then be used as the reasoning for Mustafa being killed. This leaves Kösem's son Mehmed, who was killed on Osman's order IOTL, as the only male child of Kösem. This then preempts the move to seniority inheritance.
With Hatice Sultan remaining in power Osman is much stronger positioned and all the chaos and corruption that occured under Kösem Sultan is prevented. This in turn greatly reduces the instability that followed.
I think Osman, if given the chance to grow and become more experienced, had serious potential that could ultimately make him a great leader. If he succeeds in his plans for the Janissaries (a big if), along with not having Kösem Sultan or Mustafa's mother to contend with, this would be laying the groundwork for a stable and successful Ottoman Empire. If we can prevent the Sultanate of Women and the chaos of the following centuries then the Ottomans look like they are headed towards a much brighter future.
Why not have the Austro-Turkish war happen earlier? Maybe in the late 1640s or during the 1650s? With an earlier end to the 30YW the Habsburgs might view a war against the infidels as a good way of ensuring the support of their vassals.
It would be interesting if the Ottomans could expand into Persia. The first half of the 17th century was basically spent at war with the Safavids or fighting internal unrest. Without the internal unrest the Ottomans may very prove even more successful than Murad IV was in his war against them. There is definitely a lot of potential here.
I was wondering something, the current Habsburg genealogy looks as follows:
Felipe III, King of Spain
Felipe IV, King of Spain m. Isabel of France
Carlos, Infante of Spain
Fernando, Cardinal-Infante, Governor of the Spanish Netherlands
Ana m. Louis XIII, King of France
Maria m. Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria
Margarita Francisca m. Charles I, king of England, Scotland & Ireland
Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor
Ferdinand III, King of the Romans m. Henriette Marie de France
Leopold Wilhelm, Archduke of Austria
Maria Anna m. ?
Cecilia Renata m. ?
Felipe IV had an Olivares induced paranoia about his brothers OTL. He truly believed Fernando wished to carve himself out a kingdom in the Netherlands, independent of Spain. If Fernando is somehow involved in retaking parts of the United Provinces for the Spanish, would this not look to Felipe as though Olivares is right?
Secondly, considering that Margarita is marrying at some point after her father's death, will her dowry be as large as you speculate it may be? She's the youngest sister of the most Catholic king, marrying a heretic king, meaning that her nieces (Felipe's longest surviving daughter by Isabel was Maria Eugenia (1626-1627)) are more important than what she is, impacting the size of her dowry.
Also, the HRE OTL as pointed out, seemed to have just been waiting for Élisabeth Renée de Lorraine, Electress of Bavaria to die so that he could replace her with his own Habsburg daughter, are Felipe and Olivares going to be prepared to wait that long for Maria to get married? Or might she be married elsewhere (where?) instead - AFAIK, Wladyslaw IV put a proposal in to marry Anne of Austria, and it was seriously considered for a time until Louis XIII beat him to it.
Which would then leave, at least one Austrian archduchess without a husband.
The Electoral Palatinate is in an interesting position. The Elector is in rebellion against his liege, the Emperor - but, if the emperor restores the territory (minus the bits he's thrown to Bavaria and what he wants personally) to young Friedrich VI, perhaps as a wedding present (if the Spanish match doesn't go through, and the emperor consents to the marriage between Cecilia (b.1611) and Friedrich VI (b.1614)), then does it not ensure that the Elector Palatine will at least be amiably disposed towards Vienna? True, he could see it that the land is his and he doesn't need the emperor to return it to him, but he is also the son of a traitor, which means getting the land back is more than he deserves.
Felipe III, King of Spain
Felipe IV, King of Spain m. Isabel of France
Carlos, Infante of Spain
Fernando, Cardinal-Infante, Governor of the Spanish Netherlands
Ana m. Louis XIII, King of France
Maria m. Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria
Margarita Francisca m. Charles I, king of England, Scotland & Ireland
Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor
Ferdinand III, King of the Romans m. Henriette Marie de France
Leopold Wilhelm, Archduke of Austria
Maria Anna m. ?
Cecilia Renata m. ?
Felipe IV had an Olivares induced paranoia about his brothers OTL. He truly believed Fernando wished to carve himself out a kingdom in the Netherlands, independent of Spain. If Fernando is somehow involved in retaking parts of the United Provinces for the Spanish, would this not look to Felipe as though Olivares is right?
Secondly, considering that Margarita is marrying at some point after her father's death, will her dowry be as large as you speculate it may be? She's the youngest sister of the most Catholic king, marrying a heretic king, meaning that her nieces (Felipe's longest surviving daughter by Isabel was Maria Eugenia (1626-1627)) are more important than what she is, impacting the size of her dowry.
Also, the HRE OTL as pointed out, seemed to have just been waiting for Élisabeth Renée de Lorraine, Electress of Bavaria to die so that he could replace her with his own Habsburg daughter, are Felipe and Olivares going to be prepared to wait that long for Maria to get married? Or might she be married elsewhere (where?) instead - AFAIK, Wladyslaw IV put a proposal in to marry Anne of Austria, and it was seriously considered for a time until Louis XIII beat him to it.
Which would then leave, at least one Austrian archduchess without a husband.
The Electoral Palatinate is in an interesting position. The Elector is in rebellion against his liege, the Emperor - but, if the emperor restores the territory (minus the bits he's thrown to Bavaria and what he wants personally) to young Friedrich VI, perhaps as a wedding present (if the Spanish match doesn't go through, and the emperor consents to the marriage between Cecilia (b.1611) and Friedrich VI (b.1614)), then does it not ensure that the Elector Palatine will at least be amiably disposed towards Vienna? True, he could see it that the land is his and he doesn't need the emperor to return it to him, but he is also the son of a traitor, which means getting the land back is more than he deserves.
Sounds about right. Well Brugge or Ostend. Those two are the only two coastal ports I can think of that could work.
Legally its questionable but Archduchess-Infanta Isabel lobbied the Liga relentlessly for assistance in the 1620s but the Elector always refused for fear of further inflaming the situation in the Empire. Plus technically the Dutch Republic was still part of the Empire and the Burgundian circle: it was just in revolt against its Sovereign. I know that Spain wanted to get the Emperor to place the Dutch under the Imperial ban to give their war more legitimacy but don't remember the details. I think that, between the Army of Flanders, the Imperial army and the Liga army, the Netherlands would be screwed. At this point Dutch had never had to fight on multiple fronts or at least not for any significant length of time. They'd have to constantly shift their forces around to try and counter the various armies. Especially on the Imperial-Dutch border, where defenses were quite weak when compared to the South. As to the Orange family, they'd be the best solution in a terrible situation. People would blame them sure but they wouldn't be able to do all that much.
I get what your saying. The Polish were a much bigger threat when compared to the Russians, especially due to the claims Sigismund III had to the Swedish throne and the residual support the Polish branch had. So the most we'd see would be Swedish troops at Stralsund and maybe some vague threats of intervention.While a Hanseatic revival would be cool its practically impossible by this point. The organization was a remnant of a bygone era and couldn't compete with the Dutch, English, Swedish and Danish. The fall of the Netherlands wouldn't mean the fall of the Dutch traders or merchants, they would just be under the Spanish flag. The Hanseatic League's only chance at remaining relevant would be to integrate itself into the emerging imperial state as the Empire's merchant marine and partial navy. It wouldn't be what the members would want, but they're options are basically gone by this time.
As to a trade war, again the Dutch aren't gone, just transformed. The Netherlands would still exist as a Spanish possession and would retain its dominant position in northern trade. They would just be under the Spanish flag. Of course, the Danish could deny the Spanish-Dutch traders access to the Baltic via their control of the Sound, creating a very messy situation. In which case the Danish could take control of some of the former Dutch trade. IDK how likely though.
To the treaty, I'm thinking a bit more in favor of the Empire. The Danish King's going to lose his Duchy of Holstein-Glückstadt and the territories jointed administrated to his cousin the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp. They'd also have to pay an indemnity to the Emperor and renounce the right to stand for elections in the various bishoprics. I think this is the best scenario with Stralsund under imperial control and the specter of an Imperial invasion of the Danish islands raised. But the rest would be like OTL: Danish-Swedish involvement at the Siege of Stralsund and the subsequent attempt by Gustav to try for a prize, so to speak.
Here the Castilian nobility wouldn't have as much of a leg to stand on or a stick to beat Olivares with though. OTL his dismissal was due to foreign policy failures and the uprisings in Catalonia and Portugal. Here he's overseen the reconquest of the Netherlands after over sixty years of war and restored Spain's dominant position in the world. I can't see Felipe IV losing confidence in him or being persuaded to dismiss him here. Basically he's like Richelieu after the Day of the Dupes. Hell we could see something similar to France happen in Spain: a reduction of the Nobility's power in favor of the Crown and government. At the least some of Olivares proposed domestic reforms are going to be put into practice and could even stick. And not sure about the Barbary states. I can see a focus on Morocco due to the various Portuguese enclaves there but the Barbary states are more of a maybe. Though the Spanish did launch campaigns against them under Charles V and Felipe II, so it might be in the cards after all..... have to do some research on that.
That could actually be a good starting point. Have the Spanish be willing to support a Palatinate restoration but the Emperor veto it. This leads to tension between Vienna and Madrid and a marriage between Ferdinand III and Henrietta Maria as a way for the Habsburgs to gain an alliance other than with Spain. In return Madrid cozies up to Munich, offering an Infanta to the Elector and gaining Liga forces in kind. For Charles though, not sure. Its a lot harder for the opposition to criticize policies when they've been successful. I think that Charles would always remain unpopular in certain circles but he's likely to be able to keep the moderates on side this time around. Parliaments also likely to be more generous if it feels that the King is popular and has enough money to ignore them as a way to remain important. Or at least that's my view.
I'd seen that story as well and its a very interesting starting point for the Ottoman empire. Have Kösem Sultan fall into disgrace from the incident and be sent to Edrine like Hatice Sultan was OTL. And totally agree with you on Osman II. I think he has a lot of potential, especially if he can stabilize the Janissary situation. The succession problems had more or less began to work itself out, in a bloody way, but perhaps we'd see a shift towards primogeniture instead of seniority. It would leave the Princes imprisoned yet alive like OTL but with a succession like the rest of Europe.
Not sure about when the war happen. I don't think the Habsburgs would want to be the ones to initiate another war with the Turks and risk another humiliation like the Long war that led to so much damage for the monarchy. Maybe have the 1663-64 war turn into an early Great Turkish war (1683-99)? That way the Austrians aren't launching the war but can still benefit from it. Now that could be really cool to see. Perhaps a Sultan decides to try to restore the ancient Abbasid Caliphate and aims to the east to due so. Maybe even have the proposed Ottoman-Mughal alliance go through and the two powers divide Persia's empire between them. It be a way to make up for the loss of Hungary to the Habsburgs. I'll have to look into this one.
The genealogy is about right, though I'm thinking of a few more Habsburgs: give Ferdinand II and Empress Eleonora Gonzaga a few kids, having Archduke Karl, Prince-Bishop of Wroclaw and Archduke Maximilian Ernst live longer to give the Imperial House more influence in the Church and maybe have Infante Alfonso Mauricio, Felipe III's youngest son, survive as well.
I think that some of the paranoia has been blown out of proportion. I mean if Felipe was so afraid of his brothers than why did he appoint Carlos as Viceroy of Portugal and general del mar (Admiral) or Fernando as Governor-General of the Netherlands? He just as easily could have kept them close at hand in Spain. Also its not like he gave any specific orders to keep them unmarried: for example there was tentative plans for a match to Christine of France and a Lorrainer Princess. From what I can tell the brothers were quite close, even though Felipe never fully trusted them. I'd recommend Raised to Rule: Educating Royalty at the Court of the Spanish Habsburgs by Martha K. Hoffman. Its on the education and roles of the children of Felipe III. I haven't read it yet but I've read the preview on Google and its quite interesting.
As to the dowry issue, I don't see the problem. After all, Mariana was the youngest daughter/sister of the Spanish Kings and was going to be provided with such a dowry OTL. Plus the marriage would take place in 1623, two years before Felipe IV and Isabel produced Maria Eugenia. At this point the only difference from OTL in the projected match is changing Mariana for Margarita (and the marriage happening of course), so I think your objections to the idea are unfounded. Of course we could just as easily flip it again and have Maria Anna end up as Queen of England. Having the English offer a sea route/ English land route as an alternative to the Spanish road could make a difference. Really either one is OK.
For the Electoral marriage, I've added a little scenario above. Also don't forget that Maria Anna didn't marry Ferdinand III until 1631, so if Electress Élisabeth dies early its basically the same as OTL time-wise. I'd also thought of having Archduchess Maria Anna instead marry Infante Carlos as a way of restoring relations after the proposed marriage of Archduke Ferdinand and Infanta Maria Ana falls through. While the Polish match could be interesting, I don't see the Spanish accepting. The Commonwealth just doesn't seem to be a likely candidate for a Spanish alliance. Its too far away and wouldn't bring any real advantages. I'd leave Poland for Cecilia Renata like OTL.
Finally the Palatinate. Its not gonna happen. Ferdinand II would never consent to restoring it to the Winter King or his heirs. Look at OTL: Friedrich V and his family were specifically excluded from all the various amnesties offered during the Thirty years' war. They were traitors who basically started the war,not to mention all the crap the Palatinate pulled in the years before the war broke out. I'd say they played a major role in eroding the moderate middle ground in the Empire and increasing Protestant paranoia towards Catholics. I can't see the Emperor restoring any territory to them unless forced to. And even if he did as a way to weaken the Bavarians, no way they would get the Electoral title back. Period.
Your thoughts on the situation in the Netherlands seem likely, and I can imagine the Orange family surrendering to retain a degree of power. What would the people who in OTL made up the Orangists and Republican (or anti-orangist) parties do in this situation? Would we see any of the lessons learned by Maurice transfer into the Spanish armies or would they feel that the traditional Tercio was good enough? Generally, what changes would all of this have to the military changes that occured in the period? I am guessing that without the Maurician/Gustavian successes and the later successes at Rocroi the Habsburgs retain the Tercio model as their primary military formation. i realize that during the 30YW neither model of army proved significantly more effective than the other, but I just wonder what happens when military technology begins to reach Louis XIV levels where muskets abound, and the Habsburgs are still running around in Tercios without having built up the experience and lessons learned from fighting against against the protestant military model of Gustavus Adolphus and Maurice/Frederick Henry.
In regards to the entire question of Dutch trade, I think that particularly many of the Dutch traders would be among the first to flee the Netherlands if it should fall to the Spanish. This is tied to the original causes of the 80YW and the likely fear that the Spanish will not only use punitive taxation to punish them, but actively milk the Dutch traders of all their income to pay of the various debts they had incurred over the course of the long conflict. I think it likely that many of the major Dutch traders would move their operations to Sweden and Denmark, with particularly Christian IV being likely to extend a welcoming hand as he did much earlier in his reign. The Danish trade fleets were only just beginning to develop in this period, and would only really take off properly after the loss of the Sound Tolls IOTL. What about having the Dutch traders (not all, but at least a significant number of them) move to Scandinavia then they simply continue their previous operations, likely from a safer position than the Netherlands TBH. This could lead to a trade conflict between Denmark and England instead of the historic Anglo-Dutch rivalry that occured IOTL. The Netherlands, particularly the traders of Antwerp, would likely still be a significant part of world trade. I just think you could have a lot of fun with setting up a Anglo-Danish trade rivalry. This would give Denmark an impetus to join the colonial race, with them maybe taking over some of the Dutch colonies in the East Indies, India and Africa where Denmark IOTL had some interests as well.
I doubt the Danes would block the Sound, much more likely to simply never offer the lower sound toll to the Spano-Dutch traders, thereby further increasing the finances of the Danish King. If you go with the brilliant but bipolar version of Christian IV of Denmark (which I think there is enough evidence to support), you could have him look at the losses from the 30YW as a message that he needs to focus on Scandinavia and reduce his interest in Germany. With the larger cash stream caused by a quicker end to the 30YW, less foreign policy blunders, a relatively peaceful Baltic region and a united Netherlands Christian could go even further with his domestic reforms and focus more on protecting what he had. With Sweden mired in a protracted war in the PLC, Denmark has time to make its reforms. You might even see Denmark funnel support to the PLC to lengthen the conflict between Sweden and Poland for as long as possible.
If Gustav goes for it in Germany, you might actually see Denmark pounce on Sweden the moment he dies. This would be a golden opportunity to reenact the Kalmar War and preempt Sweden's Golden Age. Denmark had historic ties with the Habsburgs and would likely be viewed as acceptable partners in the Baltic and North Sea by the Emperors. The Danes always were more likely to work with Catholics than the Swedes would historically AFAIK.
With the victories in the Netherlands would the uprisings in Catalonia and Portugal even happen? Maybe instead of launching due to the costs of war, you might see uprisings due to Olivares' attempts to centralize? Maybe, as you mentioned, give him a Richelieu-like role in Spain. By this I mean have him take a centralization focus on domestic reforms, and without the constant foreign wars be able to beat down any internal opposition to the reforms. You might actually be able to do your Bourbon-lite reforms then
. The Barbary states suggestion was mostly because I have a hard time imagining the Spanish not attacking the pirate state that is actively complicating the running of their Mediterranean holdings. Without the distractions of the 30YW, a protracted Manutan War, or the 80YW they would have the time and resources to turn against them. Maybe not enough to conquer them, but likely to go in and destroy port facilities, free captives and the like all under the auspices of war against the heathen to rally support behind.I like the idea of the two Habsburg branches experiencing tensions. This could be the set-up for two later power-blocks. One with Spain, England and the Italian States opposed by The Empire, France and Denmark in another power-block. This leaves the PLC, Sweden and Russia to continue long series of wars against each other with constantly shifting allegiances once one party appears more powerful than the other two (this being after Wladyslaw gives up his claim to Tsardom). You could then either have the Papacy traded back and forth between the two Habsburg branches or have Spain control it due to the Empire's and France's "leniency" towards protestants. This is more long-term and i haven't really thought it out in detail yet, but I think it might be an interesting direction to go with all of this.
With regards to Charles I have to agree, I doubt even he would be able to ruin things completely in this case and ITTL he would largely have been vindicated in his decisions. Maybe the underlying religious tensions exploding is simply pushed till later, or after his reign? Would Charles keep parliament running in this case? Or would he dismiss it for as long as possible and rule without their support for as long as possible?
I don't know if you actually have to go to primogeniture or seniority, I think you could actually just continue the practice of killing off sons/brothers when they get old enough to be a problem to yourself or your heir. The important part is to prevent the imprisonment practices of ottoman men and the like that became increasingly prevalent during this period and led directly to the numerous Sultan's who were driven mad and uneducated. The imprisonment of the Princes was what allowed first the Harem and later the Viziers to take power and introduced the instability and weak leadership that largely plagued the Empire thereafter.
With regards to Osman II, what about him failing in the Magnate Wars as per OTL, but when he then goes through with his removal and replacement of the Janissary Corp he succeeds due to his mother's presence in the harem in conjunction with a loyal Chief Eunuch allowing him control of that power-base. Then instead of closing the coffee-places as per OTL, he takes a year or two to build up the Sekban force, feigning preparations for war, which he then unleashes on the Janissaries. Not sure if this would work, but something like that - more thought out and successful anyway.
You could then have Osman lead his forces against the Safavid Empire in early 1623 which could then inspire Jahangir to expand the war with the Safavids which he IOTL ended up having to negotiate and end to. Jahangir and Osman then come into contact and start working out an alliance against the Safavids which could then later on expand. If you have the two parties go for an attempt at destroying the Safavids the war could well rage into the early 1630s, maybe having Shah Jahan lead the war effort against the Safavids (having been sent off because Nur Jahan is worried he could ruin her plans for retaining control of the leadership) and build a good relationship with Osman. My thought was that you could then have Osman aid Shah Jahan in winning the war of succession in 1627-1628 that followed Jahangir's death. As a price for helping Osman could then ask for a Mughal princess, breaking the custom established by Emperor Akbar of Mughal Princesses not marrying, and have him marry Jahanara Begum (who was basically everything you could ask for in a great empress to support a great emperor). The good relationship between Shah Jahan and his love for his favorite daughter would could then be used as argumentation for allowing the match. You now have what could become a very interesting story.
The butterflies now reach the Mughals
I don't have much to say to this beyond that I agree.
Found some information about the siblings of Ferdinand II that might be of use to you, @Emperor Constantine:
Maria Christine, Princess of Transylvania, was originally in love with Maximilian I of Bavaria, but due to political considerations, when her sister's marriage to Sigmund III of Poland was arranged in the mid 1580s, it was decided that she would be married off to her Bathori husband.
Katharina Renata was originally betrothed to Ranuccio I Farnese, but died before the marriage took place. In spite of Ranuccio's behaviour often being cited as why he married so late, Ferdinand II wrote of him: ""The Duke of Parma [Ranuccio I.] has been with me, he is a fine, fine gentleman, he has held himself so polite ... I should like him to be a son-in-law if it were God's will "
The brother who died in 1616, Maximilian Ernst, died of epilepsy, plus he was Hoch-Deutschmeister which meant that he wouldn't have been able to marry or have children legitimately.
Maria Christine, Princess of Transylvania, was originally in love with Maximilian I of Bavaria, but due to political considerations, when her sister's marriage to Sigmund III of Poland was arranged in the mid 1580s, it was decided that she would be married off to her Bathori husband.
Katharina Renata was originally betrothed to Ranuccio I Farnese, but died before the marriage took place. In spite of Ranuccio's behaviour often being cited as why he married so late, Ferdinand II wrote of him: ""The Duke of Parma [Ranuccio I.] has been with me, he is a fine, fine gentleman, he has held himself so polite ... I should like him to be a son-in-law if it were God's will "
The brother who died in 1616, Maximilian Ernst, died of epilepsy, plus he was Hoch-Deutschmeister which meant that he wouldn't have been able to marry or have children legitimately.
I think we'd see a lot of blame gaming among the factions as to just who is responsible for the Republic's fall. The factions themselves are awkward considering the Orangists generally supported the war and the Republicans/Regents were against it. The Orangists would simultaneously be discredited and the best hope of retaining some autonomy. At the same time the Regents would need to support Spain to retain trade with the Caribbean and the new world. A definite realignment would be due to happen. This could tie in well with the later emigration from the Netherlands.
The supposed inferiority of the Tercios has been blown out of proportion, at least in my opinion. They were still able to win battles up through the 1659 Battle of the dunes and Rocroi was not only a near thing but also a short-term defeat. However, yes I do think we'd see some incorporation of the Dutch regimental system. As for muskets, chances are that would be more of a gradual thing than OTL. After all, the French wouldn't necessarily have a better army as here they're not at war for 25 years. But once war breaks out between France and Spain I think we'd see both sides begin to incorporate new technologies and learn new lessons. Basically things are merely delayed. But a stronger Spain with saner leadership would be more likely to try new things in the face of a defeat or as a way to get the edge.
Interesting idea. How bout instead a three-way rivalry between the English, Dutch and Danish? I think that's more likely as chances are the Dutch would still remain a major player, loss of merchants or not. In this case they would merely be replaced with their Catholic counterparts. But I do like a English-Danish rivalry. It plays well with the traditional argument over which kingdom was the leading Protestant power. As to the sound, maybe. Remember that Sweden did a lot of trade with Spain during this time. So pissing off the Spanish could also piss off the Swedes and create a very bizarre bedfellow scenario. Of course, sense they're not raising the toll, its not technically a shot at Spain. I wonder if this could lead to an attempt at an early Kiel canal as a way to bypass the Danish entirely? If successful it would give the Empire a massive new revenue stream. Finally, I think there might not be as many fleeing as you would think. Fleeing to Denmark means they'd likely have give up the spice trade of the east indies and the New world/Caribbean trade: Spain would cut them off of both.
Now THAT would be really interesting! Hell if Christian IV's son the Prince Elect marries a bit earlier and produces a son, this ATL Prince could marry Queen Cristina. This would mean the Kalmar union is restored legally, not just by conquest. Of course that also means a war with the PLC, as the Vasas of Poland aren't likely to take the conquest of "their" other kingdom all that well. Could turn the Baltic into a three-way cold war between the Polish-Lithuanians, Danish-Swedes and the Russians.
With the victories in the Netherlands would the uprisings in Catalonia and Portugal even happen? Maybe instead of launching due to the costs of war, you might see uprisings due to Olivares' attempts to centralize? Maybe, as you mentioned, give him a Richelieu-like role in Spain. By this I mean have him take a centralization focus on domestic reforms, and without the constant foreign wars be able to beat down any internal opposition to the reforms. You might actually be able to do your Bourbon-lite reforms then
That's what I was thinking myself. Maybe we'd see a Spanish Day of the Dupes but I think Olivares would be able to retain the support of Felipe IV in such a scenario. We'd definitely see a more fair distribution of taxes across the monarchy, a larger standing army emerge across the empire and I'm thinking of a centralized Cortes of Aragon based on the Cortes Generales in Castile-Leon (by that I mean the dissolution of the various minor estates in favor of one major estates for the entire Crown). That should help the government run more smoothly, especially combined with control over Dutch financial institutions. As to the Barbary states, I think something similar to the British and US campaigns in the early 19th century is possible, if not quite likely.
Speaking of Richelieu, I wonder what happens to him? I mean does he remain in retirement, try to claw his way back into power or does he offer his services to another state? Richelieu in say England, Savoy or Bavaria could be highly interesting.
That sounds similar to what I'm thinking. However I don't think the Habsburgs would get to the point of being openly opposed to each other. Definitely tensions between the branches but not an open break. That leaves the dynasty vulnerable to French influence/power and in the case of the Empire could weaken their hold over the vassals, who could play Spain against the Emperor. Though I like the idea of a gradual drift in relations over a length of time that could lead to the emergence of eastern and western Habsburg power blocks. I could see France as a wild card in such a scenario.
As for England, the religious situation could be delayed indefinitely if handled carefully. I think we'd see something similar to the Clarendon code/laws emerge in the 1630s, giving the Laudian reforms legal backing. It would also help if the Calvinists can be associated with instability and radicalism. Make them less attractive to the populace. I think Parliament would remain like it was under James I and Elizabeth in this scenario, as here the Peers and MPs haven't ignored and humiliated the King. As long as they cooperate partially then the status quo would continue.
I don't know if you actually have to go to primogeniture or seniority, I think you could actually just continue the practice of killing off sons/brothers when they get old enough to be a problem to yourself or your heir. The important part is to prevent the imprisonment practices of ottoman men and the like that became increasingly prevalent during this period and led directly to the numerous Sultan's who were driven mad and uneducated. The imprisonment of the Princes was what allowed first the Harem and later the Viziers to take power and introduced the instability and weak leadership that largely plagued the Empire thereafter.
With regards to Osman II, what about him failing in the Magnate Wars as per OTL, but when he then goes through with his removal and replacement of the Janissary Corp he succeeds due to his mother's presence in the harem in conjunction with a loyal Chief Eunuch allowing him control of that power-base. Then instead of closing the coffee-places as per OTL, he takes a year or two to build up the Sekban force, feigning preparations for war, which he then unleashes on the Janissaries. Not sure if this would work, but something like that - more thought out and successful anyway.
You could then have Osman lead his forces against the Safavid Empire in early 1623 which could then inspire Jahangir to expand the war with the Safavids which he IOTL ended up having to negotiate and end to. Jahangir and Osman then come into contact and start working out an alliance against the Safavids which could then later on expand. If you have the two parties go for an attempt at destroying the Safavids the war could well rage into the early 1630s, maybe having Shah Jahan lead the war effort against the Safavids (having been sent off because Nur Jahan is worried he could ruin her plans for retaining control of the leadership) and build a good relationship with Osman. My thought was that you could then have Osman aid Shah Jahan in winning the war of succession in 1627-1628 that followed Jahangir's death. As a price for helping Osman could then ask for a Mughal princess, breaking the custom established by Emperor Akbar of Mughal Princesses not marrying, and have him marry Jahanara Begum (who was basically everything you could ask for in a great empress to support a great emperor). The good relationship between Shah Jahan and his love for his favorite daughter would could then be used as argumentation for allowing the match. You now have what could become a very interesting story.
The butterflies now reach the Mughals
Interesting stuff. Sadly the stuff on the Archduchesses aren't that helpful for me at this point as that's way to far back for my taste. Out of curiosity, what's your source on epilepsy for Maximilian? I haven't seen that before. My idea was for Maximilian Ernst to become one of the ecclesiastical Electors, either of Mainz (first choice) or Trier (second choice). This gives the Habsburgs more influence in the imperial Church and the College of Electors. Mainz would be the best choice but not sure if the Cathedral chapter would elect an Archduke or if the other Princes would be comfortable with a Habsburg as Emperor and another as Archchancellor of the Empire.
I just want to say to you guys this is one of the most educational and well formed thread I have ever since on this sights. Likes on the house
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Related question -- if the TYW is significantly shorter, how much devastation (demographic, economic, and cultural) is averted? How much had Germamy already lost by, say, 1630, compared to what was lost after 1635?