How to prevent French-Ottoman alliance?

Obviously, early POD could prevent it easily, but I'm thinking about something closer to 16th century. How could alliance between Ottoman Empire and Kingdom of France be avoided and even replaced by animosity? Is Habsburg-screw required for this? During Italian Wars France started to look for allies on eastern and southern flank of Habsburg lands, but initially these were Christian states. Louis XII in 1499 and 1500 made alliance (officially anti-Ottoman, in practice not exactly, but anti-Ottoman element wasn't bluff either) with Venice and Hungary and promised help against Ottomans to his eastern allies. Francis I also was looking for Christian allies on Habsburg's eastern flank-he tried with Poland and Hungary, but King of Poland lost enthusiasm for French alliance after Pavia (although very idea of getting closer to France was more his wife's idea). Hungarians OTOH generally expected, that Austrian support against Ottomans would be more valuable than alliance with distant France, and after Mohacs there was hardly any alternative for France's eastern ally against Habsburgs other than Ottoman Empire. So what and where should be changed to prevent that alliance?
France more successful in Italian Wars? How much more successful?
No Habsburg encirclement of France is required? Or at least less complete one (like Crown of Aragon remaining outside Habsburg control).
 
Last edited:
Obviously, early POD could prevent it easily, but I'm thinking about something closer to 16th century. How could alliance between Ottoman Empire and Kingdom of France be avoided and even replaced by animosity? Is Habsburg-screw required for this? During Italian Wars France started to look for allies on eastern and southern flank of Habsburg lands, but initially these were Christian states. Louis XII in 1499 and 1500 made alliance (officially anti-Ottoman, in practice not exactly, but anti-Ottoman element wasn't bluff either) with Venice and Hungary and promised help against Ottomans to his eastern allies. Francis I also was looking for Christian allies on Habsburg's eastern flank-he tried with Poland and Hungary, but King of Poland lost enthusiasm for French alliance after Pavia (although very idea of getting closer to France was more his wife's idea) Hungarians preffered. Hungarians OTOH generally expected, that Austrian support against Ottomans would be more valuable than alliance with distant France, and after Mohacs there was hardly any alternative for France's eastern ally against Habsburgs other than Ottoman Empire. So what and where should be changed to prevent that alliance?
France more successful in Italian Wars? How much more successful?
No Habsburg encirclement of France is required? Or at least less complete one (like Crown of Aragon remaining outside Habsburg control).

France having a modern army (infantry based) strong enough to beat the Hapsburgs would be useful and so would probably be switching the military effort to more reasonable targets like French Compte and the Flanders.

Earlier religious war in the HRE also would be helpful: something much closer to the 30YW than to the pathetic War of the Schmalkalden League. With the military conflict in the HRE going on for a couple decades France has enough time and chances to conquer the disputed territories along its North-Eastern and Northern border and the Hapsburgs are too weak to try to get them back with any chance of success. So you alt-Charles with all personal charm, diplomatic skills and mental flexibility of his son. And on the French side monarchs with the IQs above one of a butterfly (not sure that Charles VIII, Louis XII, France I or Henry II were on butterfly level brain wise, just trying to be nice). And the French alt-whoever should start building an army which is up to date and not based upon the gendarmes with no national 8nfantry.

Ah yes, France has to stay out of the Italian Wars, which was a dynastic idiocy to start with.
 
Being surrounded by Habsburgs on nearly all sides, plus a traditional enemy in England probably helped encourage France to think outside the box in seeking an alliance with the Ottomans, to say the least about their own follies in Italy. A Habsburg-free Iberian Peninsula would be a good way to prevent them from seriously considering an alliance, but they would absolutely have to play nice and not threaten Aragonese interests in southern Italy. Maybe throwing in Roussillon and Peripignan as a bonus towards a full blown alliance (complete with marriage) would help too.
 
Lack of Habsburg Spain should help IMHO. Spain and Ottomans had conflicts in Mediterranean region but Austrian Habsburgs had not even shared border with Ottomans before Mohacs. So no Habsburg Spain reduces intensivity of French-Spanish conflict and Habsburg-Ottoman conflict. Also, before getting Spain, which happened to enter its golden age, Habsburgs were not that powerful-during 1480s Matthias Corvinus humiliated them, beating them several times in battles and even conquered Vienna from them. With weaker Habsburgs not involved in Spain, would Sultan still be obsessed with getting Vienna?
 
18th C.-Spanish-French alliance against Barbary Coast? Have the corsairs do a capture of somebody important enough to raise indignation in Christendom to levels high enough to make it too embarrassing for Dutch or English to interfere. Then have France and Spain just decide to keep their acquisitions. Though they hadn't paid tribute for years, they were still under Ottoman suzerainty, enough to raise indignation against infidels.
 
18th C.-Spanish-French alliance against Barbary Coast? Have the corsairs do a capture of somebody important enough to raise indignation in Christendom to levels high enough to make it too embarrassing for Dutch or English to interfere. Then have France and Spain just decide to keep their acquisitions. Though they hadn't paid tribute for years, they were still under Ottoman suzerainty, enough to raise indignation against infidels.

By 18th century, the Barbary Pirates were more or less being targeted on Sea so their capture of someone important is... zero

Religious arguments for France are by that time gone
 
Obviously, early POD could prevent it easily, but I'm thinking about something closer to 16th century. How could alliance between Ottoman Empire and Kingdom of France be avoided and even replaced by animosity? Is Habsburg-screw required for this? During Italian Wars France started to look for allies on eastern and southern flank of Habsburg lands, but initially these were Christian states. Louis XII in 1499 and 1500 made alliance (officially anti-Ottoman, in practice not exactly, but anti-Ottoman element wasn't bluff either) with Venice and Hungary and promised help against Ottomans to his eastern allies. Francis I also was looking for Christian allies on Habsburg's eastern flank-he tried with Poland and Hungary, but King of Poland lost enthusiasm for French alliance after Pavia (although very idea of getting closer to France was more his wife's idea). Hungarians OTOH generally expected, that Austrian support against Ottomans would be more valuable than alliance with distant France, and after Mohacs there was hardly any alternative for France's eastern ally against Habsburgs other than Ottoman Empire. So what and where should be changed to prevent that alliance?
France more successful in Italian Wars? How much more successful?
No Habsburg encirclement of France is required? Or at least less complete one (like Crown of Aragon remaining outside Habsburg control).

- No Habsburgs surrounding them
- Hungary survives more or less intact aftee 1526
- The Ottomans ignore France and go on with their Italian Conquest anyway in the 1530s
 
- Hungary survives more or less intact aftee 1526
That is IMHO not impossible even with Mohacs. If Ferdinand Habsburg dies around 1526-1527 then Janos Zapolya would not have rival to the throne, and it was not Mohacs, but conflict between Zapolya and Ferdinand that lead to partition of Hungary. Without risk of Ferdinand taking Hungary Suleiman would not need to take Buda. Meanwhile Charles V would have serious problems after losing his right hand in Germany. Ferdinand was both loyal and competent and would be hard to replace. Troubles of Habsburgs could encourage Sigismund to return to plans of alliance with France.
Alternatively instead of Zapolya on the throne there could be another Jagiellon-if Sigismund has a son with his first wife Barbara Zapolya (sister of Janos) then instead of taking throne for himself Janos could support candidature of his Polish teenage nephew, who would be related not only to him, but also to previous Hungarian monarchs, thus could gain more support, teenager would wear the crown, while uncle Janos would be power behind the throne.
With Habsburgs weakened by death of Ferdinand France would not need Ottoman ally that much and with increasing troubles in Germany it could happen, that Habsburgs could lost Imperial throne.
 
That is IMHO not impossible even with Mohacs. If Ferdinand Habsburg dies around 1526-1527 then Janos Zapolya would not have rival to the throne, and it was not Mohacs, but conflict between Zapolya and Ferdinand that lead to partition of Hungary. Without risk of Ferdinand taking Hungary Suleiman would not need to take Buda. Meanwhile Charles V would have serious problems after losing his right hand in Germany. Ferdinand was both loyal and competent and would be hard to replace. Troubles of Habsburgs could encourage Sigismund to return to plans of alliance with France.
Alternatively instead of Zapolya on the throne there could be another Jagiellon-if Sigismund has a son with his first wife Barbara Zapolya (sister of Janos) then instead of taking throne for himself Janos could support candidature of his Polish teenage nephew, who would be related not only to him, but also to previous Hungarian monarchs, thus could gain more support, teenager would wear the crown, while uncle Janos would be power behind the throne.
With Habsburgs weakened by death of Ferdinand France would not need Ottoman ally that much and with increasing troubles in Germany it could happen, that Habsburgs could lost Imperial throne.
At that point is unlikely who you need Ferdinand’s death... Ferdinand was a lot smarter than Charles so if Hungary was a lost cause Ferdinand will concentrate his energies in securing Bohemia for himself and marrying one of his daughters to the young King of Hungary
 
At that point is unlikely who you need Ferdinand’s death... Ferdinand was a lot smarter than Charles so if Hungary was a lost cause Ferdinand will concentrate his energies in securing Bohemia for himself and marrying one of his daughters to the young King of Hungary
As smart guy Ferdinand would know, that Hungary ruled by Zapolya (directly or indirectly) is danger for Austria. Habsburg supporters were decimated at Mohacs and Zapolya, known for his anti-Habsburg stance, talked with French envoys even during reign of Lajos II. So taking Hungarian throne was a way to secure Austria. Suleiman demanded from Louis II to allow Ottoman forces to pass through Hungary, something, that young king controlled by Habsburg agents refused, but what if anti-Habsburg monarch of Hungary agrees for Sultan's terms? Then Ottomans could march straight to Vienna, so Ferdinand could not easily give up his claim to Hungarian throne.
 
As smart guy Ferdinand would know, that Hungary ruled by Zapolya (directly or indirectly) is danger for Austria. Habsburg supporters were decimated at Mohacs and Zapolya, known for his anti-Habsburg stance, talked with French envoys even during reign of Lajos II. So taking Hungarian throne was a way to secure Austria. Suleiman demanded from Louis II to allow Ottoman forces to pass through Hungary, something, that young king controlled by Habsburg agents refused, but what if anti-Habsburg monarch of Hungary agrees for Sultan's terms? Then Ottomans could march straight to Vienna, so Ferdinand could not easily give up his claim to Hungarian throne.
I said Ferdinand need first to secure a wedding to an Habsburg princess for the young Jagiellon king (either his eldest daughter or if the age difference is too big one of his Danish nieces). If Hungary is a lost cause as his wife’s cousin had much more support than him better trying to make him an ally instead of an enemy
 
Still, simply early death of Ferdinand is easiest option.

Especially taking into account Janos Zapolya would have more to say in Hungary than young king and his even younger wife.
 
Still, simply early death of Ferdinand is easiest option.

Especially taking into account Janos Zapolya would have more to say in Hungary than young king and his even younger wife.
Likely not for long time.

Another way can be having Ferdinand II of Aragon living longer than Emperor Maximilian I (but Eleanor where will be will married (most likely Poland unless Henry VII lived until 1512 and so Eleanor married Henry VIII) and who will be Karl V’s Empress?)
So Max died at the OTL date in 1519 while Ferdinand survived until 1521.
Here Ferdinand with Charles already elected as Emperor will be able to persuade the Cortes of Castile and Aragon to disinherit him in favor of his younger brother Ferdinand, already adult, Spanish born and raised and married to an Iberian princess (aka Isabella of Portugal).
With Ferdinand as King of Spain, Karl will keep Germany but as he was totally against marrying Anne of Hungary here she is Maximilian’s childless widow.
Naturally relationship between two brothers who had never meet each other and with Karl who likely will make well clear his sentiments in having his mother’s inheritance stolen from him (because Karl will do it) will be at least much tense so Spain and Austria-Burgundy will not have a strong alliance (if they had any).
With Anne widowed at 15 years old is pretty likely who Zapolya will be able to marry her and Karl will be unable to do anything for preventing Zapolya to take Hungary after Mohács.
 
Last edited:
Top