1640: The Ottoman Dynasty Goes Extinct and the Succession gets rocky

[raharris1973]

Historically, the Ottoman Dynasty came close to extinction in 1640 when Murad IV died and he reportedly was about to execute his brother Ibrahim (who became Sultan after his death) before his death, so what happens next if Ibrahim had been executed before Murad IV's death? AFAIK, the Girays would take over the Ottoman Empire if the Ottomans had gone extinct, but how stable would their rule be? What would an "Ottoman Empire" ruled by the Girays look like? Do the enemies of the Ottoman Empire take advantage of this?

Let's consider a worst-case scenario where governors especially in the majority Muslim provinces of Asia and Africa are not falling into line with the new dynastic set-up and forming break-away states all over the place.

Severe internal termoil and fragmentation causes probable interruption/preemption of Ottoman-Venetian War that started in 1645 and the invasion and Venice's loss of Crete.

There was no Ottoman participation in 30 Years War, so possibly no change to outcomes of war and Treaty of Westphalia 1648. The marginal effect of the Ottoman empire in internal turmoil or callpsing in on itself would just be to boost Habsburg confidence a bit, but it doesn’t really solve any of their near term problems or pay their bills.

Safavid Persia had just ceded back Iraq to the Ottomans in 1638 after occupying it for 15 years – it’s reasonable to assume they may want to reacquire it if the Ottomans fall into disorder just two years later.

To ensure the timeline is truly divergent, it’s best to make sure that when the Ottoman heirs all kill each other in 1640, power does not smoothly get picked up (at least empire-wide) by either the Giray Khans of Crimea or the Koprulu Viziers or both. That allows maximum fragmentation/weakening of the central empire.

I think European, African, and Asian developments should be considered equally.

 

[raharris1973]

But I still have more European points of reference:

1648 - This PoD may effect the Khmelnitsky rebellion – which could be defused if, with a crumbling Turkish frontier, the Polish King and Sejm allow the Cossacks free-for-all raiding of post-Ottoman lands. Also, Khmelnitsky may not have the effective Crimean allies that made him successful as he was if the Crimean Tatars are weakened or have spread themselves out claiming Ottoman official posts and fiefdoms in the wake of the Girays inheriting the Sultanate.

1652 – This in turn might avert the loss of some of Poland’s best military units to the Cossacks/Tatars in the battle and massacre of Batih, which could leave leave Poland less of a target in the first place, or at least better at defending itself, during the…

1655-1660 – Great Polish Deluge which saw the Swedes, Russians, Brandenburgers, and Transylvanians invade and devastate nearly all the PLC’s lands.

Regardless of any specific relief that the PLC gets, or if it gets no relief at all, the absence of a centralized coherent Ottoman Empire as we head into the 1660s means:

1663 - No Ottomans are there to declare war on the Austrian Habsburgs in 1663 and 1664

1669 - No Ottomans are there to accept a protectorate over the Cossacks of the right-bank Ukraine

1672 – No Ottomans are there to attack Polish Podolia

1676 – No Ottomans are there right-bank Ukraine to fight the Russians

1688 – No Ottomans are there to support Imre Thokoly in Hungary or besiege Vienna

Now does Ottoman absence mean that all those regions will be peaceful? Of course not. In theory, it is possible, though not likely, that the Crimean Tatar state could play the Ottoman role all on its own, at least in the Russian/Polish/Cossack conflicts. If they do not, which in my view the more probable scenario, the Poles, Muscovites, Habsburgs, and Venetians will probably be spending this part of the 1600s going on offensive wars or intervening militarily in former Ottoman lands.

 

[PsihoKekec]

It has a potential to create something similar to the Crisis of the Third Century, if some vassals decide not to accept the new dynasty, we wold see a series of internal wars that would also invite outside invasions.
Even if the changeover went smoothly at first, the new dynasty would be anything but secure for some time, they would have to do a major campaign to prove their worth and if it was not full success, the knives would be out.

I doubt Habsburgs would get involved significantly initially, due to 30 Years War, but Polish crown would, buoyed by magnates. Venetians might try to retake Cyprus if it looks like Ottomans Girays are in distracted enough.

 

[Buba]

A wonderful idea!
The potential for butterflies affecting the PLC is indeed huge. When Władysław IV died he was (supposedly) in the midst of war preparations to wage war on Turkey. Of course, getting the Sejm to pay for it was a different matter
Here, if the ex-Ottoman state goes up in flames in the '40s then things might change.
Fun fact - as part of Władysław's preparations in 1645 Janusz Radziwiłł - head of the Protestant half of House Radziwiłł, at that time the most powerful family in Lithuania - married the daughter of the then Moldavian Hospodar (with consent from Istanbul, BTW).
I fully agree that the Chmielnicki Rebellion might be butterflied away in its entirety, an immense change on OTL. No Muscovite War by 1654 (or maybe the Cossaks call in Muscovy earlier?), no 2nd Northern War of 1655-60, Prussia not being freed from vassal status, etc.

With no Ottomans backing up the Khanate Polish and/or Muscovite pressure - to eliminate the slaving raids - upon Crimean Tartars is likely. Simply not even trying to pretend that Zaporozhie and Don Cossaks are being held back by the authorities would be enough

 

[ATP]

In 1648 PLC managed to gather 30.000 strong army,not counting cossack for war with Turkey.We could do the same in 1640,but Sejm would be still against it.

But we indeed would be in better situation.
P.S Egypt would probably become independent again..

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

Possible results:

- Moldavia may become a part of an expanded Cossack Hetmanate like entity, or PLC creates an earlier proto-Romanian kingdom with any candidate as its king.

- Crimean Khanate would face more pressure from both PLC and Russia.

- Restoration of the Mameluke Sultanate, with expansion into the Levant and Anatolia.

 

[Buba]

- Moldavia may become a part of an expanded Cossack Hetmanate like entity, or PLC creates an earlier proto-Romanian kingdom with any candidate as its king.

I'd envision both Moldavia and Wallachia asserting themselves, maybe goining independent, maybe paying lip service to PLC, Habsburgs, whoever.
I'd not expect any sort of longer lasting subordination to Zaporozhian Cossacks.
Same applies to Transylvania and Ottoman Hungary - do the Austrian Habsburgs divert resources from Germany to the Pannonian basin? Fun times!

- Restoration of the Mameluke Sultanate, with expansion into the Levant and Anatolia.

Good point. Like in OTL under Ali
I wonder how easy would it be to for an Egypt-based polity to hold on to territory in the Balkans ...

 

[raharris1973]

Just as a point of reference, I'm going to post a list of the post-Westphalian Cabinet Wars Kabinnetskrieg
of the late 17th and 18th century that were coming up, so we could see how they would be strategically altered by a collapsing Ottoman Empire.

Since the Ottomans were usually a French ally, and a predominating feature of this period until the Diplomatic Revolution of 1756 was France and the Habsburgs (Spanish and later Austrian) being on opposite sides, I would think the overall effect should be pro-Habsburg. Since most of this time France was opposed to England, the effect should be pro-English too. Collapsing Ottomans should also have a pro-Romanov and correspondingly anti-Swedish effect (and therefore pro-Danish?) - although the triangular/quadrangular nature of Ottoman/Crimean vs PLC vs Cossack vs Muscovite relations are going to complicate things in unpredictable ways.

• the War of Devolution (1667-1668),
• the Franco-Dutch War (1672-1678),
• the War of the Reunions (1683-1684),
• the War of the Grand Alliance (1688-1697),

• the Great Northern War (1700-1721),
• the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714),
• the War of the Quadruple Alliance (1718-1720),
• the War of the Polish Succession (1733-1735),
• the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748),
• the Seven Years' War (1756-1763), and
• the War of the Bavarian Succession (1778-1779)

 

[Buba]

In how many of the above did Austria have a "hot" Turkish front?
Top of mind I'm certain that during the Grand Alliance, in the run up to and at start of the Quadrple Alliance, BETWEEN the Polish and Austrian succession wars, and between 7YW and Bavarian Succession War.