Hungary without Ottoman/Habsburg Rule

Assuming Louis II survives Mohacs and has a heir after the battle, securing it from the Habsburgs. How would Hungary fare between the defeat of Mohacs in 1526 until... well... until the early 1800s? Would it develop as much as Germany?
 
Assuming Louis II survives Mohacs and has a heir after the battle, securing it from the Habsburgs. How would Hungary fare between the defeat of Mohacs in 1526 until... well... until the early 1800s? Would it develop as much as Germany?

Wasn’t there a real risk of it going the “Polish way”? Both Louis and his predecessor, Vladislav, did everything possible to destroy royal power in Hungary. If the Ottomans are defeated at Mohacs, where is a guarantee that they are not going to invade again few years ago? Hungary still does not have a modern army and the local aristocracy are not going to allow creation of a new one after the Black Army is disbanded.

Now, if we assume, as your scenario implies, that by whatever reason/means Hungary is safe from the future Ottoman invasions, then the royal power is still weak and it is not clear how this situation is going to change to the better. Not sure if the fact that it’s monarchs are wearing two crowns improves things (at least it seems that in the OTL these kings were more interested in the titles than in a real power). Louis had to pawn his jewels to buy food for his household so it is highly unlikely that he would find enough money for building an army which would make him independent.

Could it be developing economically within a framework of an existing and perhaps even growing political chaos? Well, if the cities and merchant class are strong enough this is possible but was this a case in the Hungary circa XVI? OTOH, experience of the war of the Austrian Succession probably points to the fact that the country, even after the Ottoman occupation and Racozi Uprising, had considerable financial and human resources.

How about changing your POD a little bit by passing the power from Matthias to his illegitimate son on an assumption that he is going to continue his father’s policies with some success. This would provide a strong royal power with an increasingly strong royal army and decreasing power of the magnates.
 
Matthias' son was not someone who would continue father's policy. He was weak person, (and he was bastard). John Albert is more likely to became Matthias 2.0 if he won struggle over Hungarian crown-doable:either dowager Queen Beatrice supports him-something that would happen if Vladislaus consumated his first marriage so Beatrice can't hope to remain Queen of Hungary as Vladislaus' wife. With Beatrice's money John Albert would pay mercenaries from Black Army, who IOTL fought for his brother. Or Istvan Bathory does not switch sides (he initially supported John Albert, but switched to Vladislaus' camp).
But even better POD would be death of Matthias in 1471. Yes, Matthias was not the best thing that could happen to Hungary. If he died (classic horse riding accident) in 1471 (that year Casimir IV of Poland tried to impose his second son, also Casimir, on Hungarian throne, but Casimir was defeated by Matthias, dead Matthias would not prevail ovet Cas).
Why it would be better? Matthias made enemies everywhere, under Casimir Hungary would have peaceful relations with Bohemia and Poland. And-Black Army backlashed. Hungary could not afford to pay for it in the long run. Unpaid mercenaries were ravaging countryside and selling castles to Turks. After authocratic reign of Matthias magnates decided that they need weak ruler more than oxygen. Vladislaus was backlash caused by Matthias' harsh rule.
 
Matthias' son was not someone who would continue father's policy. He was weak person, (and he was bastard). John Albert is more likely to became Matthias 2.0 if he won struggle over Hungarian crown-doable:either dowager Queen Beatrice supports him-something that would happen if Vladislaus consumated his first marriage so Beatrice can't hope to remain Queen of Hungary as Vladislaus' wife. With Beatrice's money John Albert would pay mercenaries from Black Army, who IOTL fought for his brother. Or Istvan Bathory does not switch sides (he initially supported John Albert, but switched to Vladislaus' camp).
But even better POD would be death of Matthias in 1471. Yes, Matthias was not the best thing that could happen to Hungary. If he died (classic horse riding accident) in 1471 (that year Casimir IV of Poland tried to impose his second son, also Casimir, on Hungarian throne, but Casimir was defeated by Matthias, dead Matthias would not prevail ovet Cas).
Why it would be better? Matthias made enemies everywhere, under Casimir Hungary would have peaceful relations with Bohemia and Poland. And-Black Army backlashed. Hungary could not afford to pay for it in the long run. Unpaid mercenaries were ravaging countryside and selling castles to Turks. After authocratic reign of Matthias magnates decided that they need weak ruler more than oxygen. Vladislaus was backlash caused by Matthias' harsh rule.

The main problem with your Polish proposal is that it still leaves Hungary without a royal army, which means that the power is in the hands of the magnates and we have a slightly modified version of the OTL scenario. The 1st option sounds better if John Albert or whoever else is a strong figure capable of curbing magnates' power. Of course, there should be a reliable source of money for the standing army, which was seemingly a problem even during Matthias' time.

As for Matthias, he was probably not the best case possible but perhaps close to the best realistic thing. If he was not wasting resources on wars with Bohemia and Hapsburgs and concentrated strictly on the Ottomans it would be even better.
 
Sigismund von Luxembourg has a male heir who's every bit as competent and pursues his reforms.

Boom, Hungarian Renaissance.
 

krieger

Banned
Wasn’t there a real risk of it going the “Polish way”?

"Polish way" developed way, way after XVIth century. During the rule of both Vladislaus and Louis, Poland was more centralized state than their Hungary. It wasn't nearing total decline like Hungary was. IMHO, with Jagiellons surviving in male line, we don't know if the things which contributed to demise of PLC will develop. Free election was introduced only after the death of Sigismund II, while the last male Jagiellon died without male heirs. If Hungarian line of Jagiellon dynasty survived, they'd be undeniable heirs of Sigismund II. Without union of Lublin and with union with Hungary and Bohemia instead, Poland could go in many possible paths. Henrician articles wouldn't also exist with surviving Jagiellons. So if Louis II left heirs, I'd argue that there would be no "Polish way" known from OTL since almost every ingredient of it had it's roots in royal election in the form introduced by union of Lublin.
 
"Polish way" developed way, way after XVIth century.
In context “Polish way” meant not what Poland was in the XVI century but how the PLC ended up: a weak monarchy with the real power in the hands of the magnates interested in their own power and not the good of the country. Basically, Hungary pretty much went this way and ended up being split between the stronger neighbors.
 
"Polish way" developed way, way after XVIth century. During the rule of both Vladislaus and Louis, Poland was more centralized state than their Hungary. It wasn't nearing total decline like Hungary was. IMHO, with Jagiellons surviving in male line, we don't know if the things which contributed to demise of PLC will develop. Free election was introduced only after the death of Sigismund II, while the last male Jagiellon died without male heirs. If Hungarian line of Jagiellon dynasty survived, they'd be undeniable heirs of Sigismund II. Without union of Lublin and with union with Hungary and Bohemia instead, Poland could go in many possible paths. Henrician articles wouldn't also exist with surviving Jagiellons. So if Louis II left heirs, I'd argue that there would be no "Polish way" known from OTL since almost every ingredient of it had it's roots in royal election in the form introduced by union of Lublin.
This. During 16th century Hungary was seen in Poland as example of country in disorder.

Although before Vladislaus took Hungarian throne Hungary was still stronger than Poland. Nothing worse than idiot Vladislaus and his retard son could happen to Hungary. And Vladislaus was price Hungary paid for Matthias. Matthias went too far IOTL opening too many fronts and making too many enemies inside country and abroad. He should create something cheaper than Black Army, something that would not ruin Hungarian treasure and would not cause magnates to look for weakest possible ruler once Matthias died.
 

krieger

Banned
In context “Polish way” meant not what Poland was in the XVI century but how the PLC ended up: a weak monarchy with the real power in the hands of the magnates interested in their own power and not the good of the country. Basically, Hungary pretty much went this way and ended up being split between the stronger neighbors.

PLC was not only a weak monarchy with the power in hands of magnates - it was a weak monarchy with the power in hands of magnates, where no one saw the problem and blamed powerless King for failures instead. What's more PLC's nobility recognized this disorder as a pillar of "state ideology". I doubt if something similar will happen in Hungary without Mohacs. Even during the weak rule of Vladislaus Hungarian nobility accepted vivente rege election - something which PLC's nobility would never do. Even if the effect would be similar, causes would be completely different.
 
I'm not surprised Hungarian and Bohemian nobility accepted VR election of Louis-perspective of another weak monarch was tempting. Polish nobility also accepted VR, King just have to pay massive price for it (although if not Bona's unpopularity it may be handed better, and Polish-Lithuanian Jagiellons had something their Hungarian cousins lacked-hereditary realm in Lithuania, best guarantion of securing elections). Louis' rule in Hungary was weak, while his rule in Bohemia was practically non-existent. Sigismund the Old and Sigismund Augustus were much stronger monarchs, even after Nihil Novi (which could be avoided easily with late 15/early 16th century POD).
 
John Albert getting the throne and solidifying royal power could make for an extremely interesting scenario. What I understand is that Turkish conquest was party influenced by the deplorable state of the Hungarian realm (easy pickings) and the danger of Habsburgs gaining power there. If Hungary is stable and out of the Habsburg sphere, could the Turks refrain from large campaigns against them? Of course raid would be a given, as is the occasional open war, but perhaps the Sultan would be content with Hungary as a buffer state, especially since they don't seem to be easy to conquer and keep? If so, what would be the main aim for the Ottoman state? Persia especially, or maybe further expansion into the Pontic Steppe? Central Asia? If Hungary is strong and remains as such, they will become exponentially harder to defeat and coupled with a presumed good relation with Poland, I can totally see the Turks focusing elsewhere. Should the Ottomans become weaker, I can see a strong Hungary trying to wrestle at least part of the Balkans from them, but that's way down the line.
 
I’ve heard so many times on here that conquering Hungary was a mistake and the ottomans would have had more manpower available for richer regions (especially Italy) had they not managed it- perhaps an independent yet not hostile Hungary leads to an ottoman Sicily or Naples? Could they vassalise the northern city states?
 
PLC was not only a weak monarchy with the power in hands of magnates - it was a weak monarchy with the power in hands of magnates, where no one saw the problem and blamed powerless King for failures instead. What's more PLC's nobility recognized this disorder as a pillar of "state ideology". I doubt if something similar will happen in Hungary without Mohacs. Even during the weak rule of Vladislaus Hungarian nobility accepted vivente rege election - something which PLC's nobility would never do. Even if the effect would be similar, causes would be completely different.
Taking into an account that by the time of Mohacs the Hungarian nobility managed to destroy the country’s defensive capacities, your doubts are neither here nor there. Of course, there were some differences with the PLC situation but result was the same: Hungary ceased to exist as an independent state.
 
Also something worth to note in context of Vivente Rege-strong ruler (Matthias) failed to secure throne for his son, while incompetent pawn of magnates (Vladislaus) succeeded in securing throne for his retarted son. Coincidence?
 
I’ve heard so many times on here that conquering Hungary was a mistake and the ottomans would have had more manpower available for richer regions (especially Italy) had they not managed it- perhaps an independent yet not hostile Hungary leads to an ottoman Sicily or Naples? Could they vassalise the northern city states?

That’s true but getting into Hungary was, at least geographically, a logical continuation of the process of getting into the Balkans. OTOH, at least formally, Soleiman invaded Hungary after he was publicly offended by its king. Not sure if at that time he was already planning attack on the Habsburg territories.

Invasion of the Southern Italy had its own logistical problems and, IIRC, by the XVI century Sicily and Naples were not among the richest areas of Italy.
 
John Albert getting the throne and solidifying royal power could make for an extremely interesting scenario. What I understand is that Turkish conquest was party influenced by the deplorable state of the Hungarian realm (easy pickings) and the danger of Habsburgs gaining power there. If Hungary is stable and out of the Habsburg sphere, could the Turks refrain from large campaigns against them? Of course raid would be a given, as is the occasional open war, but perhaps the Sultan would be content with Hungary as a buffer state, especially since they don't seem to be easy to conquer and keep? If so, what would be the main aim for the Ottoman state? Persia especially, or maybe further expansion into the Pontic Steppe? Central Asia? If Hungary is strong and remains as such, they will become exponentially harder to defeat and coupled with a presumed good relation with Poland, I can totally see the Turks focusing elsewhere. Should the Ottomans become weaker, I can see a strong Hungary trying to wrestle at least part of the Balkans from them, but that's way down the line.

In the absence of Habsburg Hungary and a chaotic rule in Hungary post Mohacs, the Ottomans will focus on either Italy and Persia. So, a more Mediterranean focussed Ottomans. Hungary wasn't in desire of the Ottomans. Ferdinands success drew them there. The result was that Ottoman rule in Hungary killed any ambition in Italy and Persia.

Hungary on the other hand is up to assumptions. Will it still get Protestant influences without Ottoman Rule? If so, it may affect the Protestants in the Holy Roman Empire. The Hungarian focus on the Balkans is limited. Less resources than Austria, closer centre to the Ottomans (which is dangerous). In a best case scenario they may get Belgrade back and get the Danubian Principalities as vassals, if there is a joint alliance with the PLC there. Also depending on the era of course. If Croatia is lost to the Ottomans post-Mohacs there is a very likely chance of Hungary and the Ottomans in conflict over the region.

An independent Hungary may likely focus on Dalmatia and the Holy Roman Empire.
 
In a best case scenario they may get Belgrade back and get the Danubian Principalities as vassals, if there is a joint alliance with the PLC there.
I also think these would be the main focus, and also realistic. The Danubian Principalities are useful buffers(could even be a good arrangement for the Ottomans), and Belgrade provides a defensible border. The latter also assumes continuous maintaining and expansion of the southern fort system. That could be a huge deterrent.
 
Hungary was a country with huge potential. Its enduring independence, strength, and stability are easier to achieve with a POD during the reign of Louis the Great though. That, or Ladislaus the Posthumous lives to adulthood and fathers children....
 
Top