AHC/WI: Make the Great Turkish War as Disastrous as Possible for the Ottomans

[phil03]

What it says on the title. In OTL The Great Turkish War was the Ottomans' first significant and it is fair to say they never truly got back to where they were before the Second Siege of Vienna but they nonetheless managed to recover well enough from it and remained very much a great power until after their defeat against Catherine the Great's Russia later on, and perhaps even latter according to some.

Might the war have turned even worse for the Porte though? Could the Venetian's and Russians' ambitions for greater territorial cession then they got have been satisfied? Could the Habsburgs have managed to keep some of the lands they occupied during the war in OTL but which weren't given to them after Karlowitz? Could territories who never were in play OTL end up on the table in some ATL?

 

[UnaiB]

@Vitruvius

 

[Vinization]

Having Buda fall in 1684 rather than 1686 probably would've increased the Holy League's momentum, but even so something needs to be done to keep France from attacking the Austrians, which forced them to take pressure off the Ottomans IOTL. According to Wikipedia Louis XIV went through a painful operation in 1686, perhaps he could die at that moment and leave the French throne in the hands of the 25 year old Grand Dauphin? I don't know what he was like, plus it's not as if he'd be a child king in this scenario, so no potentially unstable regency and all that.

As for the Russians, their biggest problem was logistics rather than the enemy, so perhaps the could take over the lands north of Perekop if they sort out their supply situation. @alexmilman

 

[alexmilman]

Having Buda fall in 1684 rather than 1686 probably would've increased the Holy League's momentum, but even so something needs to be done to keep France from attacking the Austrians, which forced them to take pressure off the Ottomans IOTL. According to Wikipedia Louis XIV went through a painful operation in 1686, perhaps he could die at that moment and leave the French throne in the hands of the 25 year old Grand Dauphin? I don't know what he was like, plus it's not as if he'd be a child king in this scenario, so no potentially unstable regency and all that.

As for the Russians, their biggest problem was logistics rather than the enemy, so perhaps the could take over the lands north of Perekop if they sort out their supply situation. @alexmilman

The main Russian reason for joining the League was the Polish agreement to cede Kiev forever (it was in the Russian temporarily by Andrusovo Treaty, not that this meant to much in practical terms). As I understand, the reason for the Perpetual Peace of 1686 was PLC’s problem with financing the war (as I understand after Vienna the Polish army was not anymore subsidized by the Hapsburgs and went to fight on a different theater, anyway). So, in the case of a spectacularly successful League the whole problem may not exist and Tsardom is remaining neutral.

As far as your idea is involved, as stated it would not work because it was impossible to hold an open steppe. However, by the end of the war Russians held not just Azov, which they kept, but also Kerch and Taman, which they returned by the Treaty of Constantinople. So perhaps they could hold them. OTOH, at Karlowitz both Hapsburgs and the PLC acted against the Russian interests so I’m not sure if this is plausible.

 

[Vitruvius]

Its certainly possible. There's some opportunities in the 1680s. As mentioned, the Austrians could take Budapest sooner which would speed up the liberation of Hungary. I've argued that Leopold should come to an accommodation with Apafi and leave him alone in Transylvania and focus on taking the Turkish garrisons north of the Danube. The Austrians could take the whole of Pannonia before moving south of the Danube. The 1690s will always be tricky as the Austrians will have to divert so many resources to fight the French in the west but I think it would have been possible to consolidate and defend their grip on northern Serbia.

The problem would be in abandoning the rebelling Bulgarian Catholics in NW Bulgaria and Serbs in southern Serbia and Macedonia. Maybe if the whole campaign advances more quickly they can secure those areas before the French attack but realistically quicker Austrian advances in the east will probably just cause the French to attack sooner in the west as the whole point was for Louis to attack before the Austrians could achieve victory against the Turks. So it would probably be best to avoid pushing the French to war too soon, for example if a wider war breaks out before the Glorious Revolution it would be harder to build the anti-French coalition without William of Orange on the English throne.

Regardless, once war with France does start further gains in the east will be almost impossible. So as for a final peace, I think the Austrians could definitely have secured something along the lines of what they got at Passarowitz (minus Oltenia but with more of Serbia) as they captured all that and more in 1688-89 IOTL. So probably a bigger version of the Serbian Kingdom they held OTL in the 1720-30s.

Maybe if the Austrians conquer enough of Serbia they can force the Ottomans to abandon Bosnia as well but that's hard to say. The Venetians would ironically probably prefer the Ottomans to retain Bosnia. The Ottomans were pretty effective in reinforcing Bosnia after Karlowitz such that Austrian campaigns there in the 18th c were ineffective. So it could be their only opportunity to secure Bosnia for the foreseeable future.

As for the Poles, perhaps Sobieski could use the Polish army on something more productive than trying to conquer Moldavia. If the Poles could retake Kamieniec under Sobieski perhaps they could then negotiate something re Moldavia in the final peace (the Ottomans renounce their overlordship of the Danubian principalities in favor of Poland). And if the Poles aren't invading Moldavia Leopold might feel less pressure to secure Transylvania (partially done OTL to forestall Polish influence) allowing him to reach a settlement with Apafi.

Aside from that I don't know what else the Poles could take. They got Kamieniec OTL at the negotiating table. I don't know if Ochakiv is realistic for them or not given their precarious control over right bank Ukraine. And its probably a little early to try and secure the Black Sea steppe. I don't know if the Poles are up to the task in the period in question with the Crimean Khanate still somewhat a threat and I don't know that Poland could organize effective settlement like the Austrians were able to do in their military frontier districts (Germans were generally more effective colonizers in the east). So any gains may just end up expanding the territory controlled/inhabited by Cossacks. Someone with more knowledge on Poland can hopefully jump in and comment on that.

I don't think Venice is really in a position to take much more than it did OTL, which it proved unable to hold anyways. Though its certainly fun to imagine Albania Veneta or Candia being restored its probably unlikely.

 

[Fehérvári]

Thököly and his Kuruczes coming to terms with the Habsburgs and joining their ranks after Vienna could be a notable early blow to the Ottomans. This combined with an agreement with Apafi could allow the Habsburgs to create strong and loyal local army which could stay in the area and continue fighting even after the French attack.