Long-term effects of Amangkurat III?

Most people of the time seems to have believed Amangkurat III was an overall effective ruler, a potential threat to the Dutch and to West Madura. What if the Dutch did not pursue the First Javanese War of Succession and Amangkurat III remained on his throne? Could Mataram have avoided the collapse of the early 18th century?
 
Most people of the time seems to have believed Amangkurat III was an overall effective ruler, a potential threat to the Dutch and to West Madura. What if the Dutch did not pursue the First Javanese War of Succession and Amangkurat III remained on his throne? Could Mataram have avoided the collapse of the early 18th century?

In the long term - probably not, or not entirely.
The pattern of colonization and destruction of major non-European polities is so pervasive (only Siam managed to avoid it IOTL in the SEA region, and mainly because it was a useful buffer between French and British spheres) that it shows underlying power imbalances at work, which any single ruler is unlikely to be able to fix.
However, Mataram could delay its fate and eke out a better deal over the longer term (Hyderabad, rather than Marathas, so to speak), which would in turn weaken the Dutch wealth and grip over Indonesia. Also, a stronger and better defined Javanese political identity would have interesting long term effects.
 
@Falecius

In the First Javanese War of Succession the Javanese and Dutch were more-or-less equally matched in almost all military fields except for naval warfare. Even in the late 18th century, Dutch observers believed that if the two South-Central Javanese kingdoms (which didn't even control half of Java by this point) united, the VOC would be defeated. The primary cause of Mataram's collapse in the 18th century is its structural instability - as I think Victor Lieberman said, "there was no Dutch War of Succession" that the Javanese could take advantage of, while Mataram's last decades are full of civil wars. This is something that a ruler can change and Mataram may well endure like Aceh or the mainland states. Until the Industrial Revolution, that is, but that's already a century's worth of butterflies...
 
@Falecius

In the First Javanese War of Succession the Javanese and Dutch were more-or-less equally matched in almost all military fields except for naval warfare. Even in the late 18th century, Dutch observers believed that if the two South-Central Javanese kingdoms (which didn't even control half of Java by this point) united, the VOC would be defeated. The primary cause of Mataram's collapse in the 18th century is its structural instability - as I think Victor Lieberman said, "there was no Dutch War of Succession" that the Javanese could take advantage of, while Mataram's last decades are full of civil wars. This is something that a ruler can change and Mataram may well endure like Aceh or the mainland states. Until the Industrial Revolution, that is, but that's already a century's worth of butterflies...

Agreed - that's why I said "long term". To be clearer, a fate similar to Aceh's one is probably the best case for a luckier Mataram (one can expect Mataram to be facing more pressure anyway, simply because it was closer to the Dutch local powerbases). I would also suggest, however, that the sort of political instability that doomed Mataram was, to some extent, inbuilt in its political system.
 
the sort of political instability that doomed Mataram was, to some extent, inbuilt in its political system.
On the other hand, Restored Taungoo managed extremely well at reforming the system, as did late Ayutthaya. To be certain the Burmese were much better situated geographically than the Javanese (the Irawaddy, in particular, was a huge boon) but there's nothing extremely implausible even for Mataram.
 
Top