Black Sea-oriented Poland

So, until 1466, Poland didn't have an outlet into the Baltic, that area being occupied by the Teutonic knights. But until 1478, they had the vassalage of Moldova.

What if, rather than reclaiming their Baltic coast, Poland had integrated Moldova the way it integrated Mazovia and Lithuania?

What are the implications of a more south-oriented Poland?

fasquardon
 
Poland is located in Vistula drainage basin and Vistula is the most important trade route. Baltic coast would always be priority. Also, declining Teutonic Order was easier opponent than rising Ottoman Empire. Poland keeping control over Moldavia require Ottoman screw.
 
Poland is located in Vistula drainage basin and Vistula is the most important trade route. Baltic coast would always be priority. Also, declining Teutonic Order was easier opponent than rising Ottoman Empire. Poland keeping control over Moldavia require Ottoman screw.

Mm. How big an Ottoman screw though? Would it work as well for the Ottomans to expand more at another end of their empire? (So Persia, the Caucasus or N. Africa.)

And how much of a hindrance is it if Danzig stays out of Polish hands? And does not controlling the Baltic mean that Poland has a better chance of avoiding being a serf-driven wheat exporter?

fasquardon
 
Mm. How big an Ottoman screw though? Would it work as well for the Ottomans to expand more at another end of their empire? (So Persia, the Caucasus or N. Africa.)

And how much of a hindrance is it if Danzig stays out of Polish hands? And does not controlling the Baltic mean that Poland has a better chance of avoiding being a serf-driven wheat exporter?

fasquardon

Those routes of Ottoman expansion face some severe geographic limitations to ease of expansion, and further moves into the Danubian River Basin would increase Ottoman motivations to contest Moldovia to secure both banks of the river's mouth. Maybe a greater naval focus and Spain/Aragon Screw could result in the Turks focusing on the Mediterranean (Earlier seizure of Venetian Empire, move on Sicily and Malta, breaking Naples from the Crown of Aragon and leading the the region splintering into something unthreatening) which could facilitate a focus on tighter and further control of the Maghreb (Morocco possible being clientized)
 
Mm. How big an Ottoman screw though?

A really BIG one so that they are nowhere in sight AND agreeing for a free merchant traffic through the Straits (or never took Constantinople).

Would it work as well for the Ottomans to expand more at another end of their empire? (So Persia, the Caucasus or N. Africa.)

Again: free traffic through the Straits and the Crimean Khanate is still too close to the Polish border.

And how much of a hindrance is it if Danzig stays out of Polish hands? And does not controlling the Baltic mean that Poland has a better chance of avoiding being a serf-driven wheat exporter?

It does not mean anything of the kind: Lithuania had been exporting grain via the Swedish-held Baltic ports and so did Tsardom. There would the the custom duties to pay and that's it. BTW, until The Treaty of Stuhmsdorf (1635) the Commonwealth had been paying Sweden 3.5% tariff on the merchandise passing through Danzig (hold by the PLC).
 
So, the outcome would be a Poland that was poorer and under more constant threat of the Ottomans and Crimeans, and it's unlikely that even in the canal-building age that Poland would get an outlet to the sea through Moldova?

I admit, the scenario that I was testing was a poor Poland building a canal in the 1700s or so to link the ports of Moldova to the Polish heartland and then becoming one of the powers expanding into the balkans during the Ottoman collapse.

fasquardon
 
So, the outcome would be a Poland that was poorer and under more constant threat of the Ottomans and Crimeans, and it's unlikely that even in the canal-building age that Poland would get an outlet to the sea through Moldova?

I admit, the scenario that I was testing was a poor Poland building a canal in the 1700s or so to link the ports of Moldova to the Polish heartland and then becoming one of the powers expanding into the balkans during the Ottoman collapse.

fasquardon

AFAIK, an idea of conquering Moldavia or at least putting it under the Polish influence had been quite popular since at least late XVI and the results were not too positive (especially when the PLC managed to get involved in at least one more war). Not sure what would be economic advantage of a positive outcome short of a complete Ottoman collapse (including losing Istanbul) by the early/mid XVII century. But even if all this works, what's the use of the "Moldavian ports"? The grain had been sold mostly in the Netherlands (IIRC, through Amsterdam) and getting it there through the Black Sea, Mediterranean, and all the way around Spain and France is a little bit like pulling teeth through the rectum. ;)

As for the expansion to the Balkans, this was of course a popular European idea fix the roots of which I can't quite explain (was there anything to loot? what were the benefits for the countries that were not too big naval powers or even heavily in the naval trade?) but an assumption of the Ottoman collapse means that the Hapsburgs would be there ahead of the Poles. Anyway, starting from the late XVII the PLC was not capable of even conquering Moldavia and in the 1700's could not take advantage of the Ottoman collapse even if it would happen.
 
Anyway, starting from the late XVII the PLC was not capable of even conquering Moldavia and in the 1700's could not take advantage of the Ottoman collapse even if it would happen.

With a PoD in the 15th Century, can we really speak so confidently of what Poland could do 2-3 centuries later?

And you seem to be under the impression that I proposed this scenario as a "better" alternative to OTL. That's not at all the aim.

Not sure what would be economic advantage of a positive outcome short of a complete Ottoman collapse (including losing Istanbul)

And did the Ottomans really exclude all foreign shipping from using the Bosporus? Surely taxing foreign trade was much more advantageous.

fasquardon
 
With a PoD in the 15th Century, can we really speak so confidently of what Poland could do 2-3 centuries later?

And you seem to be under the impression that I proposed this scenario as a "better" alternative to OTL. That's not at all the aim.



And did the Ottomans really exclude all foreign shipping from using the Bosporus? Surely taxing foreign trade was much more advantageous.

fasquardon

That's a good point and I don't have a definite answer. They captured the Genovese colonies in the Crimea and they did everything possible to prevent Russian naval presence on the Black Sea. By the Peace of 1739 all trade on the Black Sea had to be conducted by the Turkish ships. Only by peace of 1774 gave trade Russian ships the same rights in the Ottoman waters as the British and French. The main trade with Europe was going through Levant. French got trade privileges (including personal immunity, consular representation, lower custom duties) in 1535, the English in 1581, the Dutch in 1612.

Specifics on the import/export items, volumes of trade, etc. can be found in http://historic.ru/books/item/f00/s00/z0000062/st002.shtml (but it is in Russian) and it does not look like the Black Sea area (prior to the Russian conquests) would make too much sense for any of the sides involved.
 
With a PoD in the 15th Century, can we really speak so confidently of what Poland could do 2-3 centuries later?

And did the Ottomans really exclude all foreign shipping from using the Bosporus? Surely taxing foreign trade was much more advantageous.

fasquardon

Well, you did yourself say this is a poor Poland, which makes sense if you're feeding in the expenses of maintaining a large canal system in a sparsely populated area and lack a strong Baltic trade. The nation would also logically face more divided attention/security concerns, as SOMEBODY is going to be filling the vacum the lesser Polish presnce creates, and so put pressure on the northern border.

As for the trade, it's not that they don't let it through. Rather, it's a question if the high tolls leveed on a low profit-bulk good like wheat or rye would let the Polish merchants find a profitable market for what the landowners produce. That, and the trade would get cut off during any Ottoman-Polish conflict, meaning the Turks have a powerful trump to play to neutralize that potential threat, so odds are they're position in the Balkans improved fromOTL relative to Austria.

That's not even countingthe tangential benefits a Poland with stronger southern interests provides in redirecting or weakening Russian projection to the Turk's benefit
 
Well, you did yourself say this is a poor Poland, which makes sense if you're feeding in the expenses of maintaining a large canal system in a sparsely populated area and lack a strong Baltic trade. The nation would also logically face more divided attention/security concerns, as SOMEBODY is going to be filling the vacum the lesser Polish presnce creates, and so put pressure on the northern border.

As for the trade, it's not that they don't let it through. Rather, it's a question if the high tolls leveed on a low profit-bulk good like wheat or rye would let the Polish merchants find a profitable market for what the landowners produce. That, and the trade would get cut off during any Ottoman-Polish conflict, meaning the Turks have a powerful trump to play to neutralize that potential threat, so odds are they're position in the Balkans improved fromOTL relative to Austria.

That's not even countingthe tangential benefits a Poland with stronger southern interests provides in redirecting or weakening Russian projection to the Turk's benefit

Indeed. There is no indication (AFAIK) that the Ottomans would allow a transit trade unless they are forced to such a concession. Besides, the grain trade would be competing with their own trade with France from Levant (eventually, it was officially prohibited because it was damaging supply of Istanbul but never really interrupted).
At best the Ottomans would agree to the model which they initially accepted with Russia: all cargo had to be carried by the Ottoman ships (which means seriously cutting any expected profitability).

Scenario under which the alt-Poland is capable of creating conditions similarly to those which resulted in Kuchuk-Kainarji Treaty with Russia (1774) requires too many changes comparing to the OTL: alt-Poland as a sustainable military power capable to win a war decisively (not just the battles), to annex/subdue the Crimea and to start building ports and navy on the Black Sea.
 
At best the Ottomans would agree to the model which they initially accepted with Russia: all cargo had to be carried by the Ottoman ships (which means seriously cutting any expected profitability).

The trade to and from Danzig wasn't on Polish ships either. Poland didn't handle a significant portion of its sea trade on its own ships until the 20th Century.

So that's really no change.

As for the trade, it's not that they don't let it through. Rather, it's a question if the high tolls leveed on a low profit-bulk good like wheat or rye would let the Polish merchants find a profitable market for what the landowners produce.
Besides, the grain trade would be competing with their own trade with France from Levant (eventually, it was officially prohibited because it was damaging supply of Istanbul but never really interrupted).

Then again, there is a massive market in the Ottoman Empire. When did the trade between France and the Levant get prohibited Alex - it sounds like there was a demand for grain in Constantinople around that time at least?

I am currently reading an economic history of the Ottoman empire. I need to go further in before I can say more, but at this point I can still say that the trade route between Lvov and Constantinople was more important than the trade routes leading to the Mediterranean for Poland.

fasquardon
 
Last edited:
The trade to and from Danzig wasn't on Polish ships either.

That I can't tell besides the facts that (a) Danzig was a member of the Hanseatic League, (b) that it is an open question if what was exported from Danzig would be of interest to the Ottomans and (c) that the Ottomans did not have a big merchant fleet on the Black Sea.

So that's really no change.

Actually, there is: in OTL the Polish ports had been open to all foreign ships while in AH the Ottomans would have a monopoly on buying the Polish merchandise.



Then again, there is a massive market in the Ottoman Empire. When did the trade between France and the Levant get prohibited Alex - it sounds like there was a demand for grain in Constantinople around that time at least?

You are seemingly confused with what I wrote. There is a long list of the items that the French, Brits and Dutch had been importing and exporting. At some point selling grain (one out of many items) from Levant to France was prohibited but did not stop.

I am currently reading an economic history of the Ottoman empire. I need to go further in before I can say more, but at this point I can still say that the trade route between Lvov and Constantinople was more important than the trade routes leading to the Mediterranean for Poland.

Anything would be more important than non-existent Polish trade routes to the Med and as for the rest, "the Crimean Khanate, vassals of the Ottoman sultan, enthusiastically engaged in the locally destabilizing Black Sea slave trade resulting in the disappearance of some 2,000,000 individuals from this frontier region between 1500-1700 " http://poloniaottomanica.blogspot.com/p/overview-of-polishottoman-history.html ;)

On a more positive note, yes, it existed and in the late XV the Walachian merchants tried to divert traffic from Lwow-Akkerman line to their own territory. I found list of the items that the Ottomans had been selling to Poland and Muscovy ("oriental goods" and wine from Greece and Italy) but pretty much (so far) nothing about the Polish goods except for reselling the woolen cloth produced in Germany and Netherlands (most of the goods produced in Germany and Austria were going through Transylvania).
 
Top