What if the PLC, Danubian Principalities, and Crimean Khanate are teleported to the Pacific in 1600 AD?

[Buba]

Oh ... OK. I had a senior moment and somehow misread your post to mean exporting food to Russian Central Asia, and not the several hundred Russians on the Okhotsk Sea coast.

 

[ATP]

Why so? They import English, German, Swedish guns and mercenaries through ports in the Caucasus (in Georgia) that lets them hold stronger against Ottomans now and Russians later? It seems to me, long run Russians will be able to give them *too much attention*, and if Ottomans are dealing with Habsburgs who lost 30 Years War, Ottomans could be a bigger challenge and that could include cutting off their Georgian/Caucasian ports.

Becouse Russia would be occupied with Sweden not wasting time on fighting Poland,and Ottomans would still have HRE to deal with.
So,Persia would get less attention from them.

Oh, you mean Shimabara Catholic rebellion in Japan? Or something else?

The same.They could not win,but could be evacuated.

Well, it wouldn't open up Japan. It would sour Japan-Polish relations. Japan would seen Poland as subversive. But with exile/refugees living in Poland, that's interesting. Japan would try to restrict trade to the Dutch, and there would be a market for Japanese goods in Poland, not just from nobles, but from the Japanese refugees who can afford such things. Although some would have skills to produce some Japanese crafts in country.

I think Korea was at least as closed as Japan, but there were some historic converts, maybe some of them take refuge in Poland.

Japan - true,we would have no meant to open them,and probably buy what we need from China and Korea.
Maybe Korea would use that as opportunity to become more independent - you mentioned lack of wars for our warrior caste - here,they could serve in Korean army.
I bet,that combo of polish calvary and german/hungarian style infrantry would be as deadly for chineese,as it was for anybody else in Europe OTL.

 

[raharris1973]

1600
Why would the Maritime Powers attack the Ottomans? For all we know they could be busy shipping in African slaves (replacing previous supplies from PLC and Russia) and loving it.

On reflection, it brings up the question, why wasn't there much of historic slave trade of Europeans selling sub-Saharan Africans to Muslim customers in the Mediterranean, Middle East and North Africa? There was hardly any to my knowledge. North African Barbary pirates still found it more "economical" rewarding to acquire sub-Saharan slaves through traditional caravan routes and do pirate at sea captures for European Christian slaves when sea based voyages to sub-Saharan Africa or purchases from European sellers would have been completely viable, for any slaves used in actual field labor or construction labor.

My guess is there was a degree of pirate labor efficiency in attacking close Mediterranean villages, and white Christian Europeans had a higher economic ransom value, and it diversified the harem more than just taking all sub-Saharan Africans, and also you would expect a different set of potential skills in a slave when you bought or land-raided from the Sahel versus raided ships or villages in Italy, Spain, France.

To the extent the Ottomans simply need to replace lost farm labor and soldier labor that is not getting captured from Eastern Europe, they may be interested in buying from European slave sellers of sub-Saharan Africans, but during the era of the Atlantic slave trade only a limited number of sellers, or countries may allow the practice of selling African slaves to the Ottomans be legal for limited amounts of time. Because there was a certain degree of moral controversy about the slave at all times in the Reformation and Enlightenment era Christian world, with people often having to use, "well at least we'll expose these heathens to Christianity" as a thin justification for slavery, pretty often. It is a really hard argument to make if you are selling to Muslim buyers. Especially if they turn around and make soldiers of them. Then Christendom is neither doing "good", nor doing "well."

 

[Buba]

Good points.
Issues I see with expanding sales of sub-Saharan negroes to Ottomans by Europeans:
- the "moral" issues you mentioned;
- the triangular trade was profitable, hence no pressure to expand and invent a new one;
- established businesses model between NA and Ottomans and thus the high cost of breaking into a new market;
- buying from Barbary States may have been a form of subsidy to them keeping them afloat and a thorn in the side of Christendom;
- the Arab East African Slave Trade already existed and could increase deliveries;
- labour shortages could be overcome by corvee.

Naturally, points nos.1-3, that's nothing that higher profit margins would not overcome. Spain and Portugal, maybe France would have more scrupoules, particularly as they are Frontline States. I imagine British and Dutch Negro trafficing to Ottomans going brRRT the moment it becomes proifitable enough.

 

[ATP]

On reflection, it brings up the question, why wasn't there much of historic slave trade of Europeans selling sub-Saharan Africans to Muslim customers in the Mediterranean, Middle East and North Africa? There was hardly any to my knowledge. North African Barbary pirates still found it more "economical" rewarding to acquire sub-Saharan slaves through traditional caravan routes and do pirate at sea captures for European Christian slaves when sea based voyages to sub-Saharan Africa or purchases from European sellers would have been completely viable, for any slaves used in actual field labor or construction labor.

My guess is there was a degree of pirate labor efficiency in attacking close Mediterranean villages, and white Christian Europeans had a higher economic ransom value, and it diversified the harem more than just taking all sub-Saharan Africans, and also you would expect a different set of potential skills in a slave when you bought or land-raided from the Sahel versus raided ships or villages in Italy, Spain, France.

To the extent the Ottomans simply need to replace lost farm labor and soldier labor that is not getting captured from Eastern Europe, they may be interested in buying from European slave sellers of sub-Saharan Africans, but during the era of the Atlantic slave trade only a limited number of sellers, or countries may allow the practice of selling African slaves to the Ottomans be legal for limited amounts of time. Because there was a certain degree of moral controversy about the slave at all times in the Reformation and Enlightenment era Christian world, with people often having to use, "well at least we'll expose these heathens to Christianity" as a thin justification for slavery, pretty often. It is a really hard argument to make if you are selling to Muslim buyers. Especially if they turn around and make soldiers of them. Then Christendom is neither doing "good", nor doing "well."

In OTL,Ottomans get slaves mainly from Tatars,who get them either from Poland or Moscov.Now,with tatars gone,they lost main source of slaves.Which is problem for them.

Good points.
Issues I see with expanding sales of sub-Saharan negroes to Ottomans by Europeans:
- the "moral" issues you mentioned;
- the triangular trade was profitable, hence no pressure to expand and invent a new one;
- established businesses model between NA and Ottomans and thus the high cost of breaking into a new market;
- buying from Barbary States may have been a form of subsidy to themm keepign them afloat and a thorn in the side of Christendom;
- the Arab East African Slave Trade already existed and could increase deliveries;
- labour shortages could be overcome by corvee.

Naturally, points nos.1-3, that's nothing that higher profit margins would not overcome. Spain and Portugal, maybe France would have more scrupoules, particularly as they are Frontline States. I imagine British and Dutch Negro trafficing to Ottomans going brRRT the moment it becomes proifitable enough.

But,our british and dutch friends would help with that problem.Slaves are slaves,they do not need to be white !