WI Hamidian Parlimentarianism, or Shiny Happy Ottoman Empire

POD: September 1876

Abdul Hamid II, the young Sultan of the Ottoman domains, receives a leader of one of the more moderate (i.e. autonamist, rather than pro-independence/pro-Russian) Armenian factions. The latter has a few names, dates, and plans for outright revolt in conjunction with an invasion from the north. A few days of slightly frantic planning leads to a reasonably effective and limited purge (as opposed to a general deportation) coupled with some political reforms and P.R. moves. Hovhanes Pasha ended his days as the governor of the Eyalet of Ezerum and Abdul Hamid himself would speak at his funeral.

The reforms in Armenia inspired similar changes being proposed for much of Rumelia, but everything would up on hold when the Russians blew thier stack and invaded anyway. The treatment of the Armenians, and to a lesser extent the Bulgarians, as 'traitors to Christiandom' by the invading forces did more to restore the reputation of the Sublime Porte in the eyes of thier subjects and the West than anything the Sultan could have put through in such a short period of time, and several militias were formed to defend against the Russians.

In the aftermath of this the Ottomans (having regained control of Bosnia and limited the Cyprot concessions to a few bases) settled down to formally set up the miltiethnic, multiconfessional constitutionalism of the Young Ottomans. There are no further autonamous areas (the memory of what happens what _those_ are set up being too fresh) but the parlimentary seats from each eyalet are subpartitioned by millet and the Eucemenical Patriach kets strongarmed into appointing autocephalous Bosnian and Bulgarian Archbishops. Meanwhile the militias are reorganized as 'The Sultan's Own' regiments and receive various perks from COnstantinople. In the coming decades most of Abdul Hamid's OTL reforms get through along with increasing democratization at the local level and stronger anti-corruption measures. Local potential leaders are encouraged to come to court and receive honors/positions, while Jewish immigration from Russia and other mathologically anti-semetic places is encouraged (Salonica, Metro Constantinople, and the new levantine town of Tel Aviv being the main points of settlement).

Abdul the Great (at least that is what the Armenians call him, at least one Turkish nationist tried to assassinate him) dies in his sleep in 1918 and is widely eulogized, although it is not known how well his successor will continue the balancing act between Germany and Britan that consumed Abdul-Hamid's forgien policy.

Now what?

For that matter, how is the wider world affected?

HTG
 
The treatment of the Armenians, and to a lesser extent the Bulgarians, as 'traitors to Christiandom' by the invading forces did more to restore the reputation of the Sublime Porte in the eyes of thier subjects and the West than anything the Sultan could have put through in such a short period of time, and several militias were formed to defend against the Russians.

I really don't see this. The Russians never alienated the Bulgarians to such an extent in any of their previous invasions, you need to have a reason why they would now. And it wouldn't be the 1st time they lacked their full support.

There are no further autonamous areas (the memory of what happens what _those_ are set up being too fresh) but the parlimentary seats from each eyalet are subpartitioned by millet and the Eucemenical Patriach kets strongarmed into appointing autocephalous Bosnian and Bulgarian Archbishops.

Care to mention it?
 

Keenir

Banned
I find it hard to believe that the Turks could ever handle something like democracy.

[SUPREMELY EXTREME SARCASM....YOU'D BETTER HOPE ITS SARCASM]
yeah, the Turks are just like the Italians and the Scots: a bunch of hot-headed tribal warlords who are more interested in vendettas and counting their cattle, than in democracy.
[/THE ABOVE]
 

Faeelin

Banned
[SUPREMELY EXTREME SARCASM....YOU'D BETTER HOPE ITS SARCASM]
yeah, the Turks are just like the Italians and the Scots: a bunch of hot-headed tribal warlords who are more interested in vendettas and counting their cattle, than in democracy.
[/THE ABOVE]

The Scots gave the world Adam Smith and scotch, and the Italians launched the Renaissance. All the Turks did was destroy a thriving cosmopolitan civilization.
 

Keenir

Banned
The Scots gave the world Adam Smith and scotch,

:eek: You're right! I should've said "drunk hot-headed...""

and the Italians launched the Renaissance.

odd that they needed immigrants before they could do that.

All the Turks did was destroy a thriving cosmopolitan civilization.

so did the French, Germans, and English.
(repeated, in the latter case)


ps: wait, the Byzantine Emperor was a thriving cosmopolitian civilization? if you mean the 1000-1300s, it persecuted anyone it could; if you mean the early 1400s, it was one city!
 
Actually it wasn't...it consisted of territory around the City, some islands and a fair amount of territory in Greece.
But those areas were mostly rural- the only city was Constantinople- which really wasn't much of a city and was more ruins by that point.
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
But those areas were mostly rural- the only city was Constantinople- which really wasn't much of a city and was more ruins by that point.

His sentence gave the impression that the territory only consisted of Constantinople, which is what I wished to clarify the point about. And in fact Thessalonica was part of the Empire in the 1400s as well, before it was sold to Venice in 1423. So it was more than one city.


Sargon

A Timeline of mine: The Roman Emperor Who Lost His Nose
 
Last edited:

Keenir

Banned
His sentence gave the impression that the territory only consisted of Constantinople, which is what I wished to clarify the point about. And in fact Thessalonica was part of the Empire in the 1400s as well, before it was sold to Venice in 1423. So it was more than one city.

true...but my aim was to shatter his perception of 1450 Byzantium as a vast thriving empire which the Turks single-handedly destroyed.

apologies for the misunderstanding.
 

Keenir

Banned
First you mock the idea that the Byzantines were a cosmopolitan society; now you say their presence in Italy was necessary for the Renaissance.

Yes...and?*(what's your point?) Von Braun was neccessary for Americans to get on the Moon when they did, yet he was a Nazi.

genius and tolerance do not always go hand-in-hand.



* = technically, any immigrant, including the Jews, carried materials which spawned the Renaissance.
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
true...but my aim was to shatter his perception of 1450 Byzantium as a vast thriving empire which the Turks single-handedly destroyed.

apologies for the misunderstanding.

That's OK Keenir. I knew what you were getting at, and the Empire was indeed not thriving or vast at this point in time. However, just wanted to clarify things...well, you know me and Byzantium.... :p


Sargon

A Timeline of mine: The Roman Emperor Who Lost His Nose
 
The Renaissance began some time before the fall of Constantinople. Byzantine emigres certainly helped, but it was already a going concern.
 
His sentence gave the impression that the territory only consisted of Constantinople, which is what I wished to clarify the point about. And in fact Thessalonica was part of the Empire in the 1400s as well, before it was sold to Venice in 1423. So it was more than one city.


Sargon

A Timeline of mine: The Roman Emperor Who Lost His Nose

Well Salonika changed hands a few times, but in any case, Constantinople wasn't really a city anymore by 1453 anyway. It was a collection of stockaded villages amidst fields planted in ruins enclosed by a big wall.
 
Top