WI; Treaty of London 1518 signed by all.

[lionhead]

I don't post much in this forum and don't nkow much about pre-1900 history but i'll try something:

What if in 1518 Cardinal Wolsley manages to have all 20 leading countries(Christian) in Europe invited to London sign the treaty of London which was basically a non-aggression pact. What if, instead of only 7 countries signing they all saw there was a common threat to Christianity and Europe in the form of the expanding Islamic countries(especially the Ottomans) and actually signed and stopped fighting eachother.

I read in OTL only a few years after signing by 7 countries England and Spain attacked France but what if none of the 20 signed countries would attack eachother for decades or even centuries? What would the effect be on the population, the infrastructure, the wealth of Europe? Will the renaissance be even more impressive, even cause earlier technological breakthroughs(like central banking or earlier muskets)? or am i going too fast?

What if all 20 nations would declare a grand crusade against the Islamists? What could they gather and actually accomplish?

thanks in advance.

 

[Evan]

I'd say it's very unlikely. Consider the fate of the Holy League, which gathered several Christian countries (but not many others), won one crushing victory over the Ottomans, but disbanded very soon after. I think that's about as far as you could realistically see a 1500's-era crusade going. European states have far too many individual interests, and most monarchs - even Catholic monarchs who won't be arguing with the principle of papal leadership - are too secular to devote many resources to a crusade.

 

[Monty Burns]

You'd need ASBs to intervene and insure that such a pact holds merely 10 years.

Anyway, if all European powers would unite in a crusade and support that longer than just for the first victory and through the first distribution of fame and loot, I'd assume they'd conquer all countries around the Med.

Additionally, I would assume that millions would vanish in that. Many in outright barbaric massacres or when the inquisition steps in to "pacify" the newly conquered territories.

 

[lionhead]

Ah, yes. I see. I didn't realise secularism was high in those days, i thought leaders and generals in those days where all devoted Christians that would rally under 1 banner whenever it was threathend. The muslims had that more i think.

Basically the monarchs and also the religious leaders where only thinking about themselves, like all the peasants and nobles in those days(which is understandable) and wouldn't see the big picture of continued peace in Europe.

Fair enough.

 

[Elfwine]

Neither side had that.

And the big picture of continued peace doesn't suit the interests of kings squabbling over who has a right to what.

And most of all: There isn't a common threat. The Habsburgs have as much to worry about from France as the Ottomans, and the French by contrast have more to worry about from the English than the Ottomans.

 

[Flocculencio]

Ah, yes. I see. I didn't realise secularism was high in those days, i thought leaders and generals in those days where all devoted Christians that would rally under 1 banner whenever it was threathend. The muslims had that more i think.

Basically the monarchs and also the religious leaders where only thinking about themselves, like all the peasants and nobles in those days(which is understandable) and wouldn't see the big picture of continued peace in Europe.

Fair enough.

As Elfwine says, neither Christians or Muslims had that. Remember this is the same time period where France signed an alliance with the Ottomans (1536)