Patchwork Europe?

[Faeelin]

Okay, the thread on breaking up France and England got me thinking.

We had, by the end of the renaissance/late middle ages, the following:

1) Germany. A patchwork of city-states and duchies. While some, such as bohemia and brandenburg, were fairly large, it wasn't until the end of the 15th century that a few large states began to emerge.

2) Italy. A patchwork of city-states, save for the Kingdom of Sicily.

3) Iberia. A series of kingdoms (Castille, Leon, Navarre, Aragon, Portugal) which unified partly by dynastic quirks.

4) France. While it was a unified state by the end of the middle ages, this was far from ineveitable, IMO. Had Louis IX been less successful, or had the capetians collapsed completely in the nadir of the HYW, the kingdom could have become as weak as Germany.

5) England and the British isles. While I can't see England dividing up, perhaps a more successful Scotland could take Yorkshire, making the balance of power more equitable?

6) Scandinavia. Pretty chaotic OTL.

So, let's say that France gets broken up, Castille and Leon remain seperate kingdoms, and Germany and Italy go as OTL.

What's the effect on Europe of no major nation-states, aside from on the peripheries, like England and Portugal?

 

[Falcon1976]

Well, no investment for Columbus seems likely. Constant little wars. Might end up like Africa north.

 

[wkwillis]

The Ottoman empire takes over?

 

[carlton_bach]

I'm not so sure there. Remember, both Germany and Italy with their patchwork states made out pretty well whenever the big guys didn't meddle in their affairs (which they. of course, almost constantly did). Without France, Spain, England and Sweden, no Thirty Years' War, for one thing. The economic landscape of Europe would be a radically different one, but not necessarily poorer.

Colonialism would go a very different route. Europeans could ruthlessly control large assets with smal investents (remember Portugal?), but I don't think we'll see the kind of large-scale settlement colonies we had OTL. More trade-based conquest, and more different colonies with greater chances for the natives to play one power against the other.

I think the big issue is: would these small states develop concepts such as sovereignty and legitimism similarly to modern Europe, and as it happened in Renaissance Italy? (in which case I see Europe's future as brighter rather than darker, and the rest of the world's, too, at least until the winner in the big 'Russia vs. The Ottomans' slogfest is found) Or would they continue to rely on traditional precepts of 'Bellum Romanum' and destroy each other's economic base in tit-for-tat raid and counterraid, as happened in parts of Germany? If the latter happens you WILL get Empires (if not necessarily nation states) simply because it makes economic sense.

 

[Susano]

Well, unless ome of them form tariff, measurement and currency unions, economically this is a catastrophe for Europe. The Rhineland for example suffered economically in the 17th and 18thc entury because it was split - too many tariff barriers, too many states with differing laws, etc etc etc. Thsi could happen to all of Europe sooner or later in such a scenario then...

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Russia was not a match for Ottoman power until the 2nd half of the 18th c. There is no Russian-Ottoman slugfest in this timeframe.

I think some sort of political unity is going to be required to meet the Ottoman threat - it doesn't seem possible to me that Europe will just sit around as petty states and be slowly swallowed up by the Ottomans. If there is no France, Spain, or Hapsburg state, expect the Med to be totally dominated by the Ottomans.

I'm not so sure there. Remember, both Germany and Italy with their patchwork states made out pretty well whenever the big guys didn't meddle in their affairs (which they. of course, almost constantly did). Without France, Spain, England and Sweden, no Thirty Years' War, for one thing. The economic landscape of Europe would be a radically different one, but not necessarily poorer.

Colonialism would go a very different route. Europeans could ruthlessly control large assets with smal investents (remember Portugal?), but I don't think we'll see the kind of large-scale settlement colonies we had OTL. More trade-based conquest, and more different colonies with greater chances for the natives to play one power against the other.

I think the big issue is: would these small states develop concepts such as sovereignty and legitimism similarly to modern Europe, and as it happened in Renaissance Italy? (in which case I see Europe's future as brighter rather than darker, and the rest of the world's, too, at least until the winner in the big 'Russia vs. The Ottomans' slogfest is found) Or would they continue to rely on traditional precepts of 'Bellum Romanum' and destroy each other's economic base in tit-for-tat raid and counterraid, as happened in parts of Germany? If the latter happens you WILL get Empires (if not necessarily nation states) simply because it makes economic sense.

 

[JHPier]

.. but I don't think we'll see the kind of large-scale settlement colonies we had OTL.

Why not? Nearly all of those were English and the biggest, New England, was the product of religious differences within the Church of England.

Or were you proposing that the Reformation did not come off?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Why not? Nearly all of those were English and the biggest, New England, was the product of religious differences within the Church of England.

Or were you proposing that the Reformation did not come off?

The Reformation would total the Church without big Catholic powers like Spain, France, and the Hapsburgs. You might see a Calvinist Hungary, and more of Germany would go Luthern, and parts of OTL France would likely end up Hugenot.

In this TL Britain is a far more important power, but they will be of little use against the Ottomans.

 

[Gladi]

Bright day
To Germany- local consolidations started earlier, for example Habsburgs came to power because they opposed power consolidation by Przemyslids, and then they consolidated themselves.

Next you are forgetting states of Hungary and Poland (powerfull!)

That said, Europe already is a patchwork of states and really things were not that bad and would not be that much worse only bit less crude and bit more interesting.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Bright day
To Germany- local consolidations started earlier, for example Habsburgs came to power because they opposed power consolidation by Przemyslids, and then they consolidated themselves.

Next you are forgetting states of Hungary and Poland (powerfull!)

That said, Europe already is a patchwork of states and really things were not that bad and would not be that much worse only bit less crude and bit more interesting.

Gladi, I have to disagree. Without Spain, Catholicism is in trouble, and also it will be very difficult to successfully oppose the Ottomans in the Med - you would likely see a Muslim Italy at the least.

 

[Gladi]

Bright day
There are four christian states in Iberia with about same degree of fidelity+ without union of three states maybe Moors will not be forced to invite Berbers.

All of Italy? Without any land route at all? I agree Turks may get south of it for a while, but will not be able to held it for long (plus how much Spanish ships were at Lepanto actually?). In my book Suleyman the Magnificient effectively destroyed his empire- jannisaries, harem, feudals- in many ways thanks to him Ottoman Empire was eaten from within, acquisition of Italy would not save it.

 

[Redbeard]

A Europe with no dominant national states will not necessarily mean a Europe not capable of unified action - on the contrary. Such a Europe will be the ideal playground for Imperial forces like the HRE. Without having to worry about its back on the European continent the HRE (or whatever it will call itself) will be able to roll back forces like the Ottoman Empire much before, and perhaps even shifting its "schwerpunkt" back to Constantinople.

NW Europe and the British Isles might still have a relatively free hand on the edge of known civilisation, but first of all the absence of France as a strong independent player will make the HRE a very strong factor everywhere, incl. in the Med., the Balkans and Asiaminor.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[LordKalvan]

A Europe with no dominant national states will not necessarily mean a Europe not capable of unified action - on the contrary. Such a Europe will be the ideal playground for Imperial forces like the HRE. Without having to worry about its back on the European continent the HRE (or whatever it will call itself) will be able to roll back forces like the Ottoman Empire much before, and perhaps even shifting its "schwerpunkt" back to Constantinople.

NW Europe and the British Isles might still have a relatively free hand on the edge of known civilisation, but first of all the absence of France as a strong independent player will make the HRE a very strong factor everywhere, incl. in the Med., the Balkans and Asiaminor.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Quite a reasonable analysis. In addition, a fragmented europe might be a very attractive environment for effective, medium-size players like Venice on one end and flanders on the other one

 

[Grey Wolf]

Well, I can't see Scotland taking YORKSHIRE, but a more successful Scotland just might swallow up large areas of Northumberland and Cumbria. The loss of Newcastle would be a great blow to England's shipbuilding and trade for a start, and if added to the power of Scotland at the time of James IV may well give the Scots the sort of boost and stability they require in order to properly match England in the sixteenth century.

Grey Wolf

 

[Redbeard]

Well, I can't see Scotland taking YORKSHIRE, but a more successful Scotland just might swallow up large areas of Northumberland and Cumbria. The loss of Newcastle would be a great blow to England's shipbuilding and trade for a start, and if added to the power of Scotland at the time of James IV may well give the Scots the sort of boost and stability they require in order to properly match England in the sixteenth century.

Grey Wolf

If having England stay divided well into rennaisaince it will also open up for a stronger Scotish-Scandinavian interaction. Imagine the Scotish throne being inherited by the King of Denmark-Norway or the Danish-Norwegian by the King of Scotland effectively creating a new Nort Sea Empire. In OTL England soon became too big to allow that, but in this scenario I could see it happen (or at least a lasting alliance). The distance to the HRE main interests will leave the entity alone for while.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

A Europe with no dominant national states will not necessarily mean a Europe not capable of unified action - on the contrary. Such a Europe will be the ideal playground for Imperial forces like the HRE. Without having to worry about its back on the European continent the HRE (or whatever it will call itself) will be able to roll back forces like the Ottoman Empire much before, and perhaps even shifting its "schwerpunkt" back to Constantinople.

NW Europe and the British Isles might still have a relatively free hand on the edge of known civilisation, but first of all the absence of France as a strong independent player will make the HRE a very strong factor everywhere, incl. in the Med., the Balkans and Asiaminor.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

That's just delusional. The HRE by the time of Ottoman ascendance would have been useless against them without the power of the Hapsburg Empire. No Spain and no Austia means a who world of hurt for Europe in the Med. Charles V ruled almost all of Europe, and even with that amount of focused power he was not only unable to "roll back" the Ottomans, he lost ground.

Beyond that, without great Catholic powers like Austria and Spain there would have been little chance of rolling back Protestantism, leaving Europe, and particularly the HRE, more fractured than ever.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Quite a reasonable analysis. In addition, a fragmented europe might be a very attractive environment for effective, medium-size players like Venice on one end and flanders on the other one

Only if you have no idea what the HRE was. A fragmented Europe would be an attractive environment for Muslim conquest.

 

[Redbeard]

Only if you have no idea what the HRE was. A fragmented Europe would be an attractive environment for Muslim conquest.

The PoD wasn't reducing Europe to something like a pre-historical tribal society, but removing a couple of dominant national states, one of them the eternal big pain in the b... of the HRE.

The HRE had no real meaning after the national state and also didn't survive many years after France with the revolution had taken an important step into becoming a true national state. The HRE was thriving on the patchwork and still was a strong central power, but in a way not giving meaning in the heyday of the national state.

It is interesting to what degree Europen powers played the "Turkish card" in order to keep the HRE and before that Byzantine bussy. Remove those national states and you have the HRE on steroids - Islam will risk being restricted to the Arabian peninsula and protestants to Lappland.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The PoD wasn't reducing Europe to something like a pre-historical tribal society, but removing a couple of dominant national states, one of them the eternal big pain in the b... of the HRE.

The HRE had no real meaning after the national state and also didn't survive many years after France with the revolution had taken an important step into becoming a true national state. The HRE was thriving on the patchwork and still was a strong central power, but in a way not giving meaning in the heyday of the national state.

It is interesting to what degree Europen powers played the "Turkish card" in order to keep the HRE and before that Byzantine bussy. Remove those national states and you have the HRE on steroids - Islam will risk being restricted to the Arabian peninsula and protestants to Lappland.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

I don't see how it's possible for the HRE to become a serious united power until quite late in history, and even then, it's not situated geographically such that it can seriously impede Ottoman expansion in the Med, and the natural geographical barriers will keep them and the Ottomans fronm delievering fatal blows to each other - the best that can be hoped for is saving Hungary, and even then probably not because it would be Calvinist without the Hapsburg Empire to keep everyone Catholic.

I don't see how the HRE had any relevance at all without the power of the Hapsburgs - without their power and wealth, the position of Emperor would be meaningless, and it would be too easy for an outside power like the Ottomans to exploit their differences.

We might note that despite both a strong Hapsburg Empire and a strong Russia bordering the Ottomans historically, and both hammering the Ottomans relentlessly for centuries, they weren't able to "roll them up", only reducing their core territories in times of huge crisis, as in the case of 1877-78 and the Balkan Wars. This was not just because the Ottomans had more vitality than the West assumed, but also because of diplomacy.

The whole justification for the Hapsburg Empire was resistance to the Ottomans - as it was only as a large unitary power that they were able to muster the resources to hold out.

It is unlikely that Mecklenburg would devote resources to fighting the Ottomans in the Balkans when they have Scandinavia and Catholicism to worry about, for instance.

 

[Redbeard]

I'm not sure I quite undestand what it is you're trying to say, but no matter what dynasty is ruling the Imperial system of Europe (HRE) it will have a much greater time without big national states. The first important PoD probably is different Westphalian Peace of 1648 not to that degree underlining/creating the modern concept of the national state. Look at a map of Europe before 1648 and you really have a patchwork, but also the climax of Imperial power. The French suffering a clear defeat in the socalled "French aera" of the 30 Years War will probably mean such a different peace. The absense of France as strong player will also mean a lot more opportunities for the HRE in Spain and in N. Italy, and here you have the basis for a HRE with interests going beyond the shores of Europe.

I don't see why the Ottomans should be able to withstand a stronger HRE, they were not that special. After all their greatest achievement was battering the walls of a city that long ago had had a great Empire but now by own decay had reached the end of the line anyway - but I doubt we will agree on that.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard