DBWI: Swedish-Ottoman defeat during the Great Northern War?

As we all know, the naval ambitions of Tsar Peter I 'the Proud' of Russia were thwarted after twenty years of war with Sweden and the Ottoman Empire. The Great Northern War ended with Denmark surrendering Norway to King Frederick I of Sweden, and Russia becoming a Swedish client state. Meanwhile, the Swedes' Ottoman and Crimean allies extended their control over all of the Ukraine and until the Southern Volga -- including Saray-Batu (formerly Volgagrad), the capital of the Golden Horde, which fell to the Crimean Khanate. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth fell further into a decline from which it would never recover, and the Western powers would not be able to intervene, as the War of the Spanish Succession would not end until 1721.

But what would have happened if Tsar Peter, and his Danish and Polish-Lithuanian allies, had been more successful?
 
I suspect Charles would have won his famously quick victory against Denmark, as in OTL, and Narva too. However, I could see his campaign against Russia that followed Narva could have gone a lot worse just by chance. Also, not marrying Luise Dorothea of Prussia would have made his later campaigns against the PLC a lot harder. In addition, I could see Charles having to invade the PLC after Narva with no Prussia to distract them, as he would have left his back open to attack.
 
Would the Russians have allowed the first constitutional government in Europe to survive? Without Pylyp Orlyk’s constitution, I’m having a hard time figuring out where else in Europe constitutional republicanism and ideas on the separation of powers and popular sovereignty being enacted. Perhaps Greece? It could be a logical step forward for the United Kingdom or the PLC?
 
See, OTL, Charle's enabling of Prussia via dismembering the PLC gave Austria a massive rival eating up northeastern germany and the southern baltic, this enamored prussia to the french, and France and Germany are still allies today because of resentment of the Hapsburgs. Austria for their part buddied up to an absolutely petrified UK, whose land power was challenged by the Franco-German alliance, and Sweden could usually give it a real fight in the north and baltic seas-hell, they invaded Scotland once didn't they? This ended British Naval Superiority. the British, Austrians and Spain were called the Corpse Empires for a while, Britain only recovering when it was able to take spanish holdings in the carribean and yucatan during the Mexican Revolution. No Swedish victory in the great northern war, we could see a disunited Germany, a UK actually regarded as a Great Power (unlikely- Ireland was a massive food source and they were terrible to the Irish. theres a reason they rebelled during the Mexican revolution. and during The Great War, and most of the mid 1800s as a rule.)

Personally i'm curious about colonies. Svenska Västafrikacould (1) would look entirely different, to say nothing of Etiopien, or Korea. Sweden took these places with ease, having one of the best land armies in europe and a navy that by that point was second to none. Even then they struggled to subdue the Etiopien natives and had to wage a war against Japan for Korea. If not them, who could?

(1): (ooc otl Niger, Nigeria, benin, togo, ghana and mali)
 
Ethiopia was never truly conquered ad in fact, their resentment against Sweden led to the revolt against them and allowing Ethiopia to get all of the Horn of Africa after a couple of decades.

The Ottoman Empire meanwhile developed well i the long run. It kinda forced the Ottomans to make some much needed reforms to keep up with the Great Powers, including reforms to Islam. Those reforms pretty much made it more popular than Chrisitanity for a good while.
 
Ethiopia was never truly conquered ad in fact, their resentment against Sweden led to the revolt against them and allowing Ethiopia to get all of the Horn of Africa after a couple of decades.

The Ottoman Empire meanwhile developed well i the long run. It kinda forced the Ottomans to make some much needed reforms to keep up with the Great Powers, including reforms to Islam. Those reforms pretty much made it more popular than Chrisitanity for a good while.

Ehhh those "reforms" were just sort of a broader tolerance for local sectarian practices in lands on the Ottoman frontier, in the same way they accomodated the spread of Islam in Albania and Bosnia. I think there's a common misconception that the Islamisation of the Ukraine was the result of sweeping changes in the Islamic heartland, which it really wasn't. It's sort of just the Ottomans putting down roots in far-flung provinces.
 
Ehhh those "reforms" were just sort of a broader tolerance for local sectarian practices in lands on the Ottoman frontier, in the same way they accomodated the spread of Islam in Albania and Bosnia. I think there's a common misconception that the Islamisation of the Ukraine was the result of sweeping changes in the Islamic heartland, which it really wasn't. It's sort of just the Ottomans putting down roots in far-flung provinces.

I was referring to the reforms such as handling the different alphabets and modernizing them, like they went from using Arabic as their written language to a brand-new Turkish one based on the Slavic alphabet and even creating a new "westernized" Arabic alphabet (which was basically an updated version of the olf southern Arabic abjad). Also printing Quarans in said languages, getting rid of the jizya, allowing Islamic men (and later women) to marry outside of the faith (heck, agnostics and irrelgious people were the first to be ruled with this).
 
I was referring to the reforms such as handling the different alphabets and modernizing them, like they went from using Arabic as their written language to a brand-new Turkish one based on the Slavic alphabet and even creating a new "westernized" Arabic alphabet (which was basically an updated version of the olf southern Arabic abjad). Also printing Quarans in said languages, getting rid of the jizya, allowing Islamic men (and later women) to marry outside of the faith (heck, agnostics and irrelgious people were the first to be ruled with this).

There were precisely three qurans printed at all before Constantinople revolted- printing the Quran is something that was so taboo in this period that printing anything in Arabic was met with the death penalty for the preceding two centuries and the ban on the Quran specifically after this brief blip would last further for another century and a bit and as such is so far from the pod that you can’t really say that with that pod, it wouldn’t have happened. They did however around this time start copying out the Quran into the Pomak script, which was basically perso-Arabic with slight modifications for Slavic and Greek phonology. Arabic was and still remains one of the official languages of Turkey, although I will admit that they did begin to ape Mughal India of a few centuries ago with movements especially from Damat Ibrahim Pasha to reduce the importance of Arabic in religious studies in favour of Turkish which many more Balkan Muslims knew as well as Greek after a while. Honestly the influence that Mughal reforms had on this period is evident in the fatwas used to justify them- the jizya was abolished using a fatwa from Akbar’s court, thé interfaith marriages used an indian fatwa. Use of local scripts for official purposes on a provincial level was also due to the influence of India with the Turkish Cyrillic you mention being again a very 19th century development way after the Slavic masses had begun to learn either Turkish or Greek and didn’t want the religious connotations of the perso Arabic alphabet. As such you can’t really assess how this pod affects that.

Ooc: printing out qurans in any language is a big no no and otl the ottomans only started doing it in the mid 1870s, when they were pretty much forced to. There’s no reason that would change with higher rate of conversion or a stronger ottoman state. I’ve also tried to put some of the reforms you suggested into the wider Islamic context as otherwise they seem incredibly jarring and likely to provoke several revolts. Even using these precedents you come into the problems of why would they want to be following these precedents when the Mughal state is in such dire straits at the moment, but at least it’s not an out and out unprovoked reform that weakens the support of a core pillar of the state. Also, wouldn’t they be more likely to accommodate Greeks into the imperial culture than Slavs as the Greeks are a richer more centrally placed community with members exclusively dominating diplomatic posts and Greek is already the trade lingua franca amongst the Balkans so use of Greek lets you build support among far more people. Further Greek at least has some sort of prestige as the language of Rome, as compared to Cyrillic, the script of only peasants or the great hulking northern enemy.
 
Ahmed III would be deposed if the Ottomans lost. Since Mehmed IV and Mustafa II, the Janissaries got the taste of being kingmakers. One defeat and Ahmed III was living the remainder of his life as a captive. His successor Ibrahim II (1733-1774) continued his path of modernisation. Can't see Sehzade Mahmud or Osman dealing with reforms. Both were paranoid after being locked in the Palace.

Poland-Lithuania would have the opportunity to become a dominant power in Eastern Europe again had the Swedish-Turkish alliance not cut down Russia. How was Peter going to survive with his reforms anyway?
 
Is it possible that the PLC would be around today?
Probably not, given that the Lithuanians would always be the junior partners to the Poles. And effective as the Austro-Polish alliance has been, I can't see them successfully keeping down both the Hungarians and the Lithuanians in the long run.
 
As we all know, the naval ambitions of Tsar Peter I 'the Proud' of Russia were thwarted after twenty years of war with Sweden and the Ottoman Empire. The Great Northern War ended with Denmark surrendering Norway to King Frederick I of Sweden, and Russia becoming a Swedish client state. Meanwhile, the Swedes' Ottoman and Crimean allies extended their control over all of the Ukraine and until the Southern Volga -- including Saray-Batu (formerly Volgagrad), the capital of the Golden Horde, which fell to the Crimean Khanate. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth fell further into a decline from which it would never recover, and the Western powers would not be able to intervene, as the War of the Spanish Succession would not end until 1721.

But what would have happened if Tsar Peter, and his Danish and Polish-Lithuanian allies, had been more successful?
Just FYI, name “Volgograd” appeared only in 1961 and capital of the Golden Horde closest to the location of Tsaritsyn (founded in 1589) was Sarai Berke (on Akhtuba, 60 km from Tsaritsin’s site). Sarai Batu was located approximately 120 km to the North of Astrakhan and approximately 180 km from Sarai Berke. Needless to say that Crimea would not be able to establish control over all Ukraine because half of it belonged to the PLC. The same goes for expanding control over Southern Volga: Crimea could not do it alone and the Ottomans, if they tried, would be sabotaged by the Crimeans (as happened earlier). Not that the whole schema would be logistically feasible for the Ottomans in the early 1700.

As far as the client states are involved, Sweden circa 1700 did not have enough power to accomplish such a task even if Peter’s attempt to conquer the Baltic coast failed (just as was the case with his father’s attempt) and it is not even clear what “client” would amount to in practical terms.
 
Last edited:
Probably not, given that the Lithuanians would always be the junior partners to the Poles. And effective as the Austro-Polish alliance has been, I can't see them successfully keeping down both the Hungarians and the Lithuanians in the long run.
Bigger problem: Russia and the Ottomans in that world would tear them up like paper countries. We could actually see a lot of international unity in eastern Europe to avoid those, though considering the ottomans granted basically equal rights to everyone they conquered who paid taxes, I don't know. Hell, Sweden's border with the PLC as a whole scared them to a point that lesser nobles started phasing out the aristocratic military for full professionalism, and it worked for a while, they even expanded into the HRE some.

Until Sophia Den Store* rolled up with Prussia and her puppet Russia. Then the PLC, and with it the nations of Poland, Lithuania, and even Bellorussia were denied a state-or even autonomy, for 120 years.

Ooc: *=Catherine the Great. Her husband was originally going to inherit Sweden, so assuming he's still born as himself I can see her assuming power even there.
 

Dolan

Banned
. the British, Austrians and Spain were called the Corpse Empires for a while, Britain only recovering when it was able to take spanish holdings in the carribean and yucatan during the Mexican Revolution.

Anyway, just wanting to say about the state of British Empire today, for they have recovered much during the 19th century, and by 20th century, they are again major players in the World stage.

King George III The Visionary moved the Royal Residence to New England, initially staying at Boston before starting the ambitious New London project. Initially being thought as waste of money and cooing the useless colonial subjects by the Parliements, King George's resolve to bring the full potential of North America finally paid off handsomely in 19th century, which see the North American economic boom, and even until today, King George III remains as the most beloved King in North America.

Today the British Empire could be more correctly thought as American Empire, yet they still hold on British Islands proper by turning them into what is basically a glorified military garrison guarding some sentimental properties. Now, British America has about 750 million population-wise, while British Islands only hold about 15 million souls, and that is counting the externally troublesome Ireland, which hold 5 million souls.

Without being constantly threatened by Sweden, I would bet that North America would stay as underdeveloped, backward region, all while British Islands being crammed full of population.
 
Something that just occured to me- the ottomans let Sweden build the Suez canal to easily get to east africa and the asiatic colonies and take 15% of the taxes on its trade because of their century and a half. If not them, who builds the Canal? The turks had plans but never had the foreign benefactors to cover the whole cost because Sweden wouldn't do it before it had an asian colony.
 
Top