AHC/WI: Thirty Years' War extended 30 more years, blended into Great Turkish War? Worst war ever?

[Deleted member 97083]

The Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) was one of the most devastating wars that had ever occurred in Central Europe up to that point.

The Great Turkish War (1683-1699) was perhaps the second most devastating one after that, and lasted fifteen years.

Notably, the Ottoman Empire, despite being a huge power who you'd think would want to take advantage of the chaos in Germany, wasn't a huge factor in the Thirty Years' War.

So, what if the Thirty Years' War were extended, blending the massive conflict into the Great Turkish War? And making matters even more chaotic, this would also bring "The Deluge" of Poland (1655-1660) by Sweden and Russia, into the Thirty (now Ninety) Years' War. Though in this case the Deluge might happen earlier or later.

When would this total war end? Would the Ottomans win, becoming hegemon of Europe? Or was the Empire too decadent from corrupt Janissaries by that point?

 

[Intransigent Southerner]

Didn't the Ottomans not do much in the 30YW because of Shah Abbas and the Safavid invasion?

 

[Behemoth]

Didn't the Ottomans not do much in the 30YW because of Shah Abbas and the Safavid invasion?

IIRC, it was more than that. There are three things that had a profound effect on the Ottoman Empire during this time period and limited their involvement during the Thirty Years War. First, there were rebellions taking place in Anatolia and something had to be done in order to keep things from falling apart at home. Secondly, the administration at the time was not very effective. If we are going with the date that the war started (May 23, 1618), there were 4 sultans that were "in power." Osman II (1618-1622) ended up on the throne at the age of 14 and was murdered at the end of his reign. To put it simply, he screwed up by calling the Jannisaries cowards and statesmen ineffective. Mustafa I ruled prior to Osman II, was deposed, then regained the throne after Osman's death and would rule until 1623. He has been called the Deranged or the Mad due to his mental retardation. Murad IV (1623-1640) was involved in a war with the Safavids for most of his reign. The final sultan during this time period was Ibrahim (the Mad) who ruled from 1640 until 1648. Third, as you have mentioned, there was a war with the Safavids at the time that occupied the Ottomans attention.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

First of all, I don't think there was much more war to be fought in Europe by the time the Thirty Years' War ended. There were smaller wars between the French and the Dutch between the end of the Thirty Years' War and the Great Turkish War, but the first large war after the Peace of Westphalia was the Great Turkish War. It simply took that long for the German states to recover from the Thirty Years' War. It could become significantly larger if the Sun King simultaneously attacked the western Imperial provinces, but that would be exceedingly unlikely after the declaration of the new Holy League by Innocent XI.

Even if the Imperials were distracted by the French in the west, the Ottomans still would've had to contend with Poles, Croatians, Serbs, Lithuanians, Italians, and Russians, all of whom were fighting on friendly territory. While such a war wouldn't have been as disastrous for the Turks, their defeat would have likely been inevitable.

 

[Augenis]

There were smaller wars between the French and the Dutch between the end of the Thirty Years' War and the Great Turkish War, but the first large war after the Peace of Westphalia was the Great Turkish War.

The Deluge begs to differ.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Were any of the Northern Wars fought in the core of the Empire like the Thirty Years' War was?

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Were any of the Northern Wars fought in the core of the Empire like the Thirty Years' War was?

The Swedes did conquer Pomerania and Bremen.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

It will never become 'the worst war ever', as either the World Wars or the Mongol conquests would have to be the owner of that title. For 4th place though, quite likely if you have a century of everyone killing everything that moves.

On second thought, it might beat the mongols if it lasts that long.

- BNC

 

[carlton_bach]

Were any of the Northern Wars fought in the core of the Empire like the Thirty Years' War was?

Not for that long, but both Swedish and Saxon/Polish troops operated within the Empire's border and fought each other and each other's allies.

More significantly, Louis XIV's wars of conquest also took place there. The Northern Wars mostly struck areas that were peripheral to the empire politically ("kaiserfern"). The French invasions burned over areas that were traditionally considered the heart of Germany - Alsace, the Palatinate, the upper Rhine valley and ultimately Bavaria.

 

[avernite]

By the end of the thirty years war, about three powers in Western Europe were strong and healthy enough to continue that particular fight; two of them, France and Spain, continued fighting to prove that point, and the third, the Netherlands, pretty much won the war already. For Spain it is quite dubious if they were really healthy enough to continue.

Poland-Lithuania might be able to provide some additional distraction, but it'd have to be on the Imperial side to offset the fact that the Netherlands and France were both on the other side. And they'd have to somehow find the time between fighting the Turks and Russians. So I'm not sure if they were really that much healthier than most of the WEuropean powers.


So to get this continuation, I imagine you need a big cultural shift in the Dutch government aiming for some different kind of victory than 'take over Asian trade, take over European trade, and everyone who can attack us is too busy or broken to be a threat' - and even then, the most likely target, the Spanish Netherlands, would be possible to be fought over even without extending the 30YW.