I’m a high school senior and am currently enrolled in the class AP European History. Recently this semester, we did a simulation of diplomacy and war as a project where all members of the class became the leaders of most of the European nations ca. 1700 ending around 1720-30. We are doing another simulation based off the results of the first in the upcoming semester, however this will need to start after the Napoleonic Era (about 1815-1820ish) so there will be a nearly hundred-year gap between the end of the first and beginning of the second. I was hoping to find what would realistically happen based off the first simulation. Every deal and war is listed below with map of corresponding territorial differences. Remember, some actions may be implausible, but they have already occurred and cannot at this point be changed.

In Chronological Order starting at the PoD around 1700

Alliances and Treaties

· Sweden and the Netherlands signed a mutual defense treaty and trade deal

· Russia, Austria, Sweden, and Prussia all agreed to non-aggression (not entirely binding)

· The Ottoman Empire signed an anti-Safavid alliance with the Khanate of Bukhara and the Mughal Empire

· England and France allied (France broke this treaty)

· England signed an alliance with the Iroquois Confederacy

· Spain and France came to an agreement over the heir to Charles II of Spain (this fell through)

· Spain and France created an agreement to attack Portugal (this too feel through with Spain ceding all of its North American possessions and the Philippines to France)

· Before death, Charles II made Archduke Charles of Austria his heir.

· Austria organized an alliance of German states and Northern Italian States in opposition to Bourbon France

Wars and Territorial Changes

· Russia and Prussia declared war on Poland ending with a partition consisting of West Prussia to Prussia and the rest of Poland to Russia.

· Sweden defeated and absorbed Denmark and its colonies

· Prussia defeated Saxony and absorbed it

· Prussia was defeated by Bavaria, status quo antebellum outcome

· A joint Ottoman, Bukhara, Mughal, Dutch, and Russian effort defeated the Safavids with more Ottoman gains in Iraq, Russian gains on the Caspian coast, the Mughals gaining Balochistan, the Bukharans gaining some territory in northeast Persia and the Dutch getting the former Portuguese port of Hormuz.

· The Ottomans defeated the Sultanate of Morocco absorbing most of its territory except for the Tingitana Peninsula which was seized by Spain

· The Ottomans seized the island of Sicily

· France gained all Dutch territories in India and the aforementioned Spanish colonies

· Louis XIV was deposed by popular revolt which most countries of Europe supported, Minister of State Francois-Michel le Tellier Marquis de Louvois became the interim leader of France. In a bid for military support, Louis traded New France and Florida to Russia with Newfoundland going to Sweden. Both countries just seized these territories and then supported the revolt which was heightened by the loss of Louis’ support amongst the nobility.

· England and the Iroquois defeated Russia and took what was New France

· Revolutionary France seized Newfoundland and Florida with conflicting claims resulting

Royalty

· Frederick William I King of Prussia was successfully assassinated by the Austrians

· An attempt was foiled on Maria Theresa perpetrated by Prussia

· A failed attempt on Sultan Mustafa II culminated in the death of the future Sultan Mahmud I and consort Saliha Sultan, linked to Austria and Spain

· A failed attempt on Louis XIV ended with the death of Philippe I Duke of Orleans and his wife Elizabeth Charlotte Madame Palatine, linked to the Ottomans

· William III of England, Charles II of Spain, and Louis XIV all died of natural causes before 1710

· House of Bourbon was behind a failed attempt to assassinated Minister Louvois immediately after the revolution



upload_2018-12-30_20-39-5.png
 
First, how would France do with an early revolution?

And would Russia and Sweden try to enforce their claims, if so how would Revolutionary France fair against them?

What does France do with her new found colonies?

Does the tenuous peace last in Eastern Europe?

Who reaches the throne in Austria after Joseph dies?

What is the Ottomans' next move since the Safavids and Moroccans have been taken care of?
 
Well I’m really surprised the Mughals have been able to make such major gains here considering OTL this was the most turbulent period they ever went through- the year of four emperors, bodies of emperors being found mutilated in rivers, all parts of their empire establishing de facto independence even if mostly loyal to the centre. The Marathas are also ripping away at the husk of the empire.
I’m also surprised they signed an alliance against the Safavids, as it flies in the face of the traditional Mughal policy, which angrily refused Bukharan offers for an anti Safavid alliance because they respected them too much, and had strong familial ties. Additionally both the Safavids and the Mughals were more focused in the other direction and wanted to keep a stable border with each other more than they wanted expansion into the economically marginal lands around Afghanistan. Nevertheless, that’s whats happened, so I’ll try to figure out what’s been happening in India to allow for this to happen and how it affects Europe.

A Mughal empire that’s able to adventure abroad almost certainly avoided the disastrous reign of Jahandar Shah, and ideally his father Bahadur Shah, who earned the nickname Shah-I Bekhabar, the heedless king. I notice the map shows the Mughals in control of all of India, implying they’ve managed to neutralise the Marathas and incorporate them back into the imperial system, which could have happened if the Hindustani party in the Mughal court had won over the Irani party- perhaps this victory caused the souring in India- Iran relations that allowed for the alliance. Still, the anti Safavid is a very bad decision- the new territory is far from the empires core, and will be almost impossible to retain (the Iranian plateau is a fortress that is practically impregnable to outside influence, so this was probably an incredibly expensive war at a time when the empires coffers are at a historic low), and prestige from the victory is probably offset by the respect lost by breaking the alliance that the empire was born from (after all without the Safavids, Babur would probably have never founded the empire in India and stayed a minor timurid). I think the empire at this point has accelerated its indianisation now- they must pander to the Hindustani faction on all things. The pointless expense of this campaign means that the provinces will be even less likely to listen to Delhi- this empire seems set to become a decentralised Mughal commonwealth at least for now. However there are some key difference between the stability otl and ittl. Here, the military threat of the Marathas and aggrieved Hindustanis seems to have been negated and that means that overall India is much more stable. Also, the decentralisation probably helps in the long run, as it helps different subahs deal with their own issues independently. The key thing is that commerce throughout the empire is secure, as without this, Europeans won’t seek political power- otl they only began to look for political power when it became obvious local powers were either very weak or unable to secure their commercial interests. With India less turbulent, the success or failure of the empire (and thus the likelihood that Europeans will gain power) depends on how they manage to deal with the disastrous situation they’ve left in Iran. Otl, the Safavid collapse led to the Afsharids and the Durranis, two dynasties that wrecked the remnants of Mughal authority and the vital trade links across the Ganges and Indus River basins. If Iran stays weak, (or the Mughal army/ communication infrastructure/ leadership is halfway competent) then at most they’ll get the Iranian plateau reunited and reverse India’s untenable gains. If not, the atl of Nader shahs sack of Delhi would probably be even more devastating for the empire, expose its weakness to the world and bring the Europeans. Tldr, your Mughals have more support than otl but much much fewer resources.
By 1820, literally any number of things could happen. You could have a strong Mughal emperor who centralisés what he needs and pulls a Peter the great, making the empire secure in its rule of the entirety of India as it never was otl, and pulling it out of feudalism and into the modern, or you could have a puppet emperor who acts merely as a diplomatic arbiter between the almost completely independent subahs, or you could have the deposal of the imperial line and the complete balkanisation into de jure sovereign states all claiming imperium and fighting for supremacy and falling one by one to Europeans. And that’s not even getting into whether it’s the french or the British who win the contest for India, probably determined by whether revolutionary France is able to run its colonies in India for profit instead of focusing on empire building.
 
Interesting. So it seems India rolled the dice and didn't improve its situation by attacking the Safavids, but the events leading up to that attack could potentially help the Mughals in the long run. I'm still not sure how France would handle its colonial possessions in India however, or if they could truly dominate a more stable, Indianized Mughal Empire.
 
· Russia and Prussia declared war on Poland ending with a partition consisting of West Prussia to Prussia and the rest of Poland to Russia.

Why would they suddenly declare such a war if Russia just got its candidate on the PLC throne? Then, of course, goes obvious inequality of the spoils: West Prussia vs. in modern terms Belorussia, Lithuania, Western Ukraine and Poland.



· France gained all Dutch territories in India and the aforementioned Spanish colonies

· Louis XIV was deposed by popular revolt which most countries of Europe supported, Minister of State Francois-Michel le Tellier Marquis de Louvois became the interim leader of France. In a bid for military support, Louis traded New France and Florida to Russia with Newfoundland going to Sweden. Both countries just seized these territories and then supported the revolt which was heightened by the loss of Louis’ support amongst the nobility.

In all practical terms a successful popular revolt against Louis XIV was impossible especially if France is so spectacularly successful (getting all these colonies). Louvois was Louis' creature and Secretary of State for War and Minister for public buildings, not "Minister of State". An idea of him suddenly becoming a popular leader of the masses and revolutionary requires a big stretch of imagination. What's even worse, he died in 1691.

Now, "trading" New France and Florida to Russia clearly indicates that something is missing from your curriculum: Russia circa 1700 did not have any navy and no access to either Baltic or Black Sea so (a) how exactly would it get to these territories and (b) why would it be interested in them to start with? The answers are: (a) no way and (b) no reason whatsoever. Then "trading" implies getting something in return but besides having no interest Russia circa 1700 did not have money. :winkytongue:
 
Last edited:
Russia in 1700 is before Peter the Great established it as a great power. Most of Europe considered Russia an Asiatic power that lacked the ability to project any power in Europe beyond territories held by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Sweden and the Ottoman Empire. Russia has no coast and no fleet, both things Peter had set his mind and consierable strategic, economical and administrative skill to changing. Which means war against one or several of these powers. OTL he allied with Saxony (the Prince-Elector was also King of Poland-Lithuania) and attacked Sweden. He has no use for territories he can't reach and can't project power to Western Europe, which Western Europe knows - this is 1700, not 1814.

Karl XII of Sweden may look to acquire Norway, Courland and perhaps Danzig (to control more of the tolls on the Baltic trade). Sweden lacks the navy to project power in America - Newfoundland will be lost the minute France, the Netherlands or England/Great Britain decides Sweden should not have it, just like New Sweden was.

I also think you under-estimate the diplomatic world of the time - to promise something, take the reward and then betray that promise would make you pariah diplomatically - no-one would ecieve your envoys, no-one would listen to you and no-one would make deals with you. There's a reason everyone in Europe were so shocked at Hitler breaching treaty after treaty - for more than 1 000 years, honouring your diplomatic word had been standard. There's gotta be quite some more in it for any European ruler than a few odd colonies useless to them for them to betray a sovereign monarch and their own word like that.

If Sweden tries to annex Denmark, England/Great Britain and the Netherlands would go to war to prevent it - both are dependent on the Baltic Sea trade for tar, lumber and for the Dutch Polish, Russian and Livonian grain. Any one power controlling the Danish straits is a close to leathal problem for them - which is why the Dutch did intervene 1660 when Sweden did try to destroy and annex Denmark.

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth may be weakened by the Deluge of the 1650s and the decentralisation of the Sejm, but it is at this time not the state that was partitioned three times in the latter half of the 1700s - just 17 years prior the Commonwealth under Jan III Sobieski provided a large part of the forces that relieved the Ottoman siege of Vienna.

The partitions of Poland-Lithuania required Austria, Prussia and Russia to agree. At this time, Austria and Prussia do not consider Russia an equal partner to split things with, and Austria do not consider Prussia an equal partner (Austria holds the Holy Roman Empire, Prussia is just an elector).

If Russia and Prussia attempts to partition Poland-Lithuania, Saxony (whose Prince-Elector is also King of Poland and does not wish to lose that title) will attempt to prevent it, as will probably Austria, as it does not want to see Prussia gain a lot of territory outside the Empire. In such a scenario you have Austria, Poland-Lithuania and Saxony against Prussia and Russia, with the latter having a pretty bad army and mediocre leadership (it took 9 years of war against Sweden for the Russian army to be able to stand against the Swedes defensively in earthern fortifications and up to four times the Swedes' numbers) - Prussia will be defeated and occupied before Russian armies have punched through Lithuania - in 1654 it took the Russians a year to reach Vilnius.

Your scenario does not take into account the logistics of the time, the diplomatic and political reality of the time and looks more like Risk. Countries thought ahead by generations - allowing a country to take territory could mean they were stronger the next time you would fight them, and thus countries frequently went to war or threatened war, blockades or other hostile action to get others to llimit their gains in war.
 
Last edited:
I’m a high school senior and am currently enrolled in the class AP European History. Recently this semester, we did a simulation of diplomacy and war as a project where all members of the class became the leaders of most of the European nations ca. 1700 ending around 1720-30. We are doing another simulation based off the results of the first in the upcoming semester, however this will need to start after the Napoleonic Era (about 1815-1820ish) so there will be a nearly hundred-year gap between the end of the first and beginning of the second. I was hoping to find what would realistically happen based off the first simulation. Every deal and war is listed below with map of corresponding territorial differences. Remember, some actions may be implausible, but they have already occurred and cannot at this point be changed.

In Chronological Order starting at the PoD around 1700

Alliances and Treaties

· Sweden and the Netherlands signed a mutual defense treaty and trade deal

· Russia, Austria, Sweden, and Prussia all agreed to non-aggression (not entirely binding)

· The Ottoman Empire signed an anti-Safavid alliance with the Khanate of Bukhara and the Mughal Empire

· England and France allied (France broke this treaty)

· England signed an alliance with the Iroquois Confederacy

· Spain and France came to an agreement over the heir to Charles II of Spain (this fell through)

· Spain and France created an agreement to attack Portugal (this too feel through with Spain ceding all of its North American possessions and the Philippines to France)

· Before death, Charles II made Archduke Charles of Austria his heir.

· Austria organized an alliance of German states and Northern Italian States in opposition to Bourbon France

Wars and Territorial Changes

· Russia and Prussia declared war on Poland ending with a partition consisting of West Prussia to Prussia and the rest of Poland to Russia.

· Sweden defeated and absorbed Denmark and its colonies

· Prussia defeated Saxony and absorbed it

· Prussia was defeated by Bavaria, status quo antebellum outcome

· A joint Ottoman, Bukhara, Mughal, Dutch, and Russian effort defeated the Safavids with more Ottoman gains in Iraq, Russian gains on the Caspian coast, the Mughals gaining Balochistan, the Bukharans gaining some territory in northeast Persia and the Dutch getting the former Portuguese port of Hormuz.

· The Ottomans defeated the Sultanate of Morocco absorbing most of its territory except for the Tingitana Peninsula which was seized by Spain

· The Ottomans seized the island of Sicily

· France gained all Dutch territories in India and the aforementioned Spanish colonies

· Louis XIV was deposed by popular revolt which most countries of Europe supported, Minister of State Francois-Michel le Tellier Marquis de Louvois became the interim leader of France. In a bid for military support, Louis traded New France and Florida to Russia with Newfoundland going to Sweden. Both countries just seized these territories and then supported the revolt which was heightened by the loss of Louis’ support amongst the nobility.

· England and the Iroquois defeated Russia and took what was New France

· Revolutionary France seized Newfoundland and Florida with conflicting claims resulting

Royalty

· Frederick William I King of Prussia was successfully assassinated by the Austrians

· An attempt was foiled on Maria Theresa perpetrated by Prussia

· A failed attempt on Sultan Mustafa II culminated in the death of the future Sultan Mahmud I and consort Saliha Sultan, linked to Austria and Spain

· A failed attempt on Louis XIV ended with the death of Philippe I Duke of Orleans and his wife Elizabeth Charlotte Madame Palatine, linked to the Ottomans

· William III of England, Charles II of Spain, and Louis XIV all died of natural causes before 1710

· House of Bourbon was behind a failed attempt to assassinated Minister Louvois immediately after the revolution



View attachment 429208

If you are new to this forum, you going to find this quite a flat out impossible scenario. The sheer size of some of these states makes them unworkable. The Ottoman's would be struggling to manage their new territory had they under the rule of client states, in North Africa. Going into Iran would be insane considering the Ottomans would have to deal with a hostile population in a land that was beyond what was considered a backwater to them (Iraq).

Russia would have to deal with a very large Polish population, a long border with the Ottomans, and a newfound border in newly ruled lands with the Hapsburgs and Souse of Hohenzollern. The Mughals would have a hard time ruling most of India not to mention even trying to go back into Afghanistan. Sure you can't go back with what you have done for this simulation, but if we were to continue from reality a lot of these states are going to suffer from growing pains.
 
Russia in 1700 is before Peter the Great established it as a great power.

Actually, Russia did not really become a recognized Great Power until the 7YW or, arguably, War of the Polish Succession when Russian troops joined the Austrians on the Rhine. Russia of Peter still remained somewhat "exotic" from the Western perspective even after successes in the GNW.

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth may be weakened by the Deluge of the 1650s and the decentralisation of the Sejm, but it is at this time not the state that was partitioned three times in the latter half of the 1700s - just 17 years prior the Commonwealth under Jan III Sobieski provided a large part of the forces that relieved the Ottoman siege of Vienna.

The partitions of Poland-Lithuania required Austria, Prussia and Russia to agree. At this time, Austria and Prussia do not consider Russia an equal partner to split things with, and Austria do not consider Prussia an equal partner (Austria holds the Holy Roman Empire, Prussia is just an elector).

If Russia and Prussia attempts to partition Poland-Lithuania, Saxony (whose Prince-Elector is also King of Poland and does not wish to lose that title) will attempt to prevent it, as will probably Austria, as it does not want to see Prussia gain a lot of territory outside the Empire. In such a scenario you have Austria, Poland-Lithuania and Saxony against Prussia and Russia, with the latter having a pretty bad army and mediocre leadership (it took 9 years of war against Sweden for the Russian army to be able to stand against the Swedes defensively in earthern fortifications and up to four times the Swedes' numbers) - Prussia will be defeated and occupied before Russian armies have punched through Lithuania - in 1654 it took the Russians a year to reach Vilnius.

Your scenario does not take into account the logistics of the time, the diplomatic and political reality of the time and looks more like Risk. Countries thought ahead by generations - allowing a country to take territory could mean they were stronger the next time you would fight them, and thus countries frequently went to war or threatened war, blockades or other hostile action to get others to llimit their gains in war.

Very true. As far as Partitions are involved, such a thing simply did not make sense within framework of the OTL Peter's policies. His goal, after it became evident that there the former allies had no intention to do anything on his behalf at Karlowitz and that against the Ottomans he is on his own, was to get a port on the Baltic coast, initially Narva but appetites grew with the successes in the GNW, not a piece of a landlocked territory on the Russian-Polish border. Strictly speaking the 1st Partition did not make too much sense for Russia. Catherine II was more or less forced into it by diplomacy of the Old Fritz (supported by Catherine's main adviser of that time, Count Panin, who was obsessed with the "Northern Alliance") but in practical terms it meant that Russia (which at that time had the PLC as a de facto vassal state) is losing an influence over the PLC parts annexed by Austria and Prussia.
 
Top