Best case scenario for ottoman empire?
- Thread starter Rockingham
- Start date
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
Turkey was pretty big too. Bigger than Austria and Prussia. Bigger than Britain and France if you don't count the colonies.
Perception's besides the point. On the eve of their invasion of Silesia nobody thought Prussia would ever amount to anything.
They had no interests in China, unlike Japan. Again, were they even interested in joining the alliance? And we were discussing the 1850s.
Max Sinister
Banned
I think that if the Austrian Habsburgs hadn't inherited Burgundy first and Hungary, Bohemia and Spain later (or if the latter hadn't the Aztec and Inca gold), the Turks might've come further. They could've picked up Hungary first, Austria later, and then one German state after another.
Italy's another possibility. They already had Otranto, and if Mehmet hadn't died, or the succession had been less chaotic, they could've knocked out the Sicilies. The other Italian states are too small...
(BTW: I used this concept in my Chaos TL. The Seljuks make it to Austria, Salzburg and Rome, but can't go further, because England-Castille-Portugal and France - which kings often become HREmperors ITTL - now decide to fight them. Abdul, what do you think about it?)
Italy's another possibility. They already had Otranto, and if Mehmet hadn't died, or the succession had been less chaotic, they could've knocked out the Sicilies. The other Italian states are too small...
(BTW: I used this concept in my Chaos TL. The Seljuks make it to Austria, Salzburg and Rome, but can't go further, because England-Castille-Portugal and France - which kings often become HREmperors ITTL - now decide to fight them. Abdul, what do you think about it?)
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
True, but they regained interest and made a lot of progress throughout the 19th c, which is the main reason Russia went to war in 1877.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Yes, and i'm thinking the european islam should have a few unique differences to its middle east counterpart. More liberal, more like albania and turkey's otl islam(effectively supportive of secular democratic government). And yes, I know people will disagree about albania, but it's trouble's are cultural, not religious, and shared by it's christain counterparts.
It would have effectively have inherited the renaisance, the reformation(european islam)... how about the eqivalent of an ottoman renaissance and reformation, as well as significant reorganization of the government 3 centuries earlier...
I think you need to read up on the 19th c Ottoman Empire. It was undergoing a Reformation - it was called the Tanzimat. Islamism in the 19th c was optimistic and forward-looking. The basic view of an Islamist was that Western insitutions and ideas were fine, so long as they were adapted to the existing culture rather than adopted uncritically.
The progress of the empire, in terms of administrative and military reform, and growth of revenue and internal cohesion, was viewed with consternation in Moscow and to a lesser extent in Vienna, and this led to the Russian attack in 1877. The architect of this, Igntiev, felt that the Sick Man was getting too strong to deal with and that pan-Slavism would be dead without serious Russian action.
As it turned out, the Ottomans put up a much stronger defense than expected, and nearly beat off the Russians (the Ottoman army was better equipped and more experienced - and had just completed a major reform. The Russians attacked with insufficient numbers and actually got checked - they ended up having to throw their entire military at the empire to prevail).
If not for the assassination of the War Minister, which resulted in an 85-year old man in command in Bulgaria, there's a decent chance the Russian invasion would have been defeated and the empire would have remained intact, and been in a better posistion to deal with crises like the Egyptian situation. It would also have been impossible for France to seize Tunis, and the empire would be much, much stronger retaining the Balkan territories lost.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
The 1850's? Not really. They were militarily and territorially pwerful(hard power) but what they lacked was soft power. They were pretty bad of economically. They lacked popular support throughout much of the empire, let alone acceptance into the "greAt power" club in Europe. If they were still a great power in the 1820's why wern't they invited to the congress of vienna???? Sure, they had an empire and military thet would make any europen nation proud, but it was rapidly becoming decrepit, and wasn't even permitted into the congress of europe. It had no place in the europen order, ominated as it was by the holy allianceut simply, it takes more then army to make a nation a great power.
This is all just wrong. The empire was pretty weak in the Napoleonic era, and wasn't invited to Vienna, but the powers specifically committed to acceptance of the Ottomans to the Concert of Europe in the Treaty of Paris at the conclusion of the Crimean War, and attended all major, and some minor, conferences from that point forward.
The high point for the empire was 1854-1877. The empire was NOT becoming decrepid, it was rapidly reforming and it's economy and revenues were climbing at a rapid pace.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Um, what is doing Sevastopol in above sentence?
I think he meant Baku, but Iraq would be much better as it was way cheaper to extract oil there than Baku.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
Weren't they also running up a lot of foreign debt at this time, or am I confusing them with the Egyptians?
Rockingham
Banned
This is a good idea, especially if they made muslim iberia a vassal, and took morrocco for good measure. Could slow new world discovery a while, which harmed the ottoman economy. Also would be a base to attack portugal when ottomans were fighting them for indian ocean trade. However, as I said I wanted the pod to be no earlier then 1630.
Good idea though
Rockingham
Banned
-Exactly. If they intervened in thirty years war, however, they may be able to cement alliance with swedes and french, or at least with french and a strong alliance between sweden and france, amounting to a defacto alliance with sweden.
-Yes, but a lot poorer. Any way, thats beside the point, which was that the ottomans were lacking in finaces(although this was improving), their debt was piling up, they were becoming the "sick man of europe"
-No, it's not. Perception can be everything. NO power in europe would have tolerated half of what russia got away with doing to the ottomans if they had been christian and a recognized great power.
-Did Austria-Hungary really have intersts in Japan? Not much either, albeit more then ottomans
Please, nothing I said contradicts what you said. I was merely suggesting a reformation, due to conversion of more of the balkans , in the 17th century, as opposed to later on in the 19th century which is what happened. My aim is for most of the improvements you mentioned to happen earlier.
Yes, the actual reason for the uprisings that lead to this russo-turkish war were that the ottomans had imposed heavy taxes on the slav peoples, largely because of their near bankruptancy, largely caused by their reforms. The loss of a war, the war itself and the loss of some of their most valuable territories only served to hurt ottoman finances even more.
Last edited:
Rockingham
Banned
All right, so 3 main ideas
1)Muslim iberia occupied at some point by ottomans in iberian reconquista. Morrocco and much of southern iberia becomes ottoman vassal.
2)Ottomans intervene in thirty years war, make small gains. Main effect-The "religious liberation" of the resultant treaty extends to muslims and acceptance of muslim states. Alliance between sweden france and ottomans, which comes to play in the great turkish war or it's otl counterpart.This probaly gretly strengthens france and swedens future position in europe as well.
3)1850-1875
Minor changes in events, ottoman victory in 1877-78 war, better crimean treaty(restitution of destroyed ottoman ships, moldava and crimea back to ottomans, etc. or a stronger finacial revival avoiding bankruptancy could all work.
1)Muslim iberia occupied at some point by ottomans in iberian reconquista. Morrocco and much of southern iberia becomes ottoman vassal.
2)Ottomans intervene in thirty years war, make small gains. Main effect-The "religious liberation" of the resultant treaty extends to muslims and acceptance of muslim states. Alliance between sweden france and ottomans, which comes to play in the great turkish war or it's otl counterpart.This probaly gretly strengthens france and swedens future position in europe as well.
3)1850-1875
Minor changes in events, ottoman victory in 1877-78 war, better crimean treaty(restitution of destroyed ottoman ships, moldava and crimea back to ottomans, etc. or a stronger finacial revival avoiding bankruptancy could all work.
Rockingham
Banned
Another way for an ottoman victory is the russians not bowing to british pressure and a repeat of the crimean war, minus french support. France and Austria would be neutral. Ottoman empire would probaly be returned to its previous boundaries, maybe plus crimea and bessarabia depending on how badly russians are defeated. Russians probaly forbidden from having baltic or black sea navy as well, but ottomans permitted to. I would think more autonomy and retristrictions on how much serbs, bulgars and romanians could be taxed though. Maybe wallachia and moldavia are formally annexed, but conversely with more autonomy then before in some matters. Concessions from russia? Cypruss may become british possesion as per otl treaty however I would expect egypt to remain under firm ottoman control.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
They were, but in 1881 they negotiated a reduction that enormously reduced the burden. Most older histories will say the money borrowed was squandered, but that's typical Victorianism. It was mostly spent reforming the army and administration, as well as some RR building.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I wasn't insulting you, it's just that most people don't know anything about the Ottomans in the 19th c because most people just read Kinross which is nearly useless as a history of this period.
I think a reformation in the 17th c is extremely unlikely, given that the OE was still going pretty strong, and this period is too close to the highest point of the empire. All reformers were likely to take the position that what was needed was to fix the existing system to return it to its past efficiency, not replace it with an infidel system that had proved inferior for centuries. Remember that the Ottomans were able to beat Russia and Austria combined as late as the 1730s.
I think a reformation in the 17th c is extremely unlikely, given that the OE was still going pretty strong, and this period is too close to the highest point of the empire. All reformers were likely to take the position that what was needed was to fix the existing system to return it to its past efficiency, not replace it with an infidel system that had proved inferior for centuries. Remember that the Ottomans were able to beat Russia and Austria combined as late as the 1730s.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
I don't think the Romanians were taxed at all at this point, though I could be wrong.
That's a contradiction in terms, and it will never fly with Austria and France.
It didn't become a British possession, they just took over the administration. It was only after Turkey joined WWI that they annexed it.
King Thomas
Banned
The law of fratricide remains in effect so the Sultans who come to power have not spent decades of their lives locked up beforehand and are far more likely to be and stay sane.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
The whole "Sultans locked up" thing is really romanticized/orientalized in Western literature. The law of fratricide wasn't always a good thing either - it often meant the prince with the most evil and conniving mother ended up on the throne - in the case of Suleyman's successor, with disastrous results.
There were many very capable Sultans in the late empire - it's just that a strong ruler over a weak empire doesn't stand out as much as even a mediocre one ruling an empire at the peak of its vitality. Of the later Sultans, Mahmud II and Abdul Hamid II were perhaps amongs the greatest rulers of the dynasty, and most of the rest were reasonable or at least had strong Grand Viziers serving them.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I'm not sure when he means, but there was a symbolic tribute sent to Istanbul from the principalities and Serbia. Bulgaria, autonomous after 1878 had a more substantial tribute.
Rumania could not have been annexed by the Ottomans, nor would they have wanted to. The population was overwhelmingly Christian, and quite large. It was much better as a buffer state.
As for Cyprus, the Cyprus Convention of 1878 put it under British administration, but left it as sovereign Ottoman territory; the Ottomans still ran many aspects of administration, like education and some courts, and all revenue surplus to defense and government was remitted to Istanbul, and this was a significant amount, although in practice these funds went to pay off the Ottoman loan of 1856 which was guaranteed by Britain and France.
Rumania could not have been annexed by the Ottomans, nor would they have wanted to. The population was overwhelmingly Christian, and quite large. It was much better as a buffer state.
As for Cyprus, the Cyprus Convention of 1878 put it under British administration, but left it as sovereign Ottoman territory; the Ottomans still ran many aspects of administration, like education and some courts, and all revenue surplus to defense and government was remitted to Istanbul, and this was a significant amount, although in practice these funds went to pay off the Ottoman loan of 1856 which was guaranteed by Britain and France.
Riain
Banned
1650 was about the time that a) Europeans finally gained tactical mastery over the Ottomans on land, with things like light cannon and men like Gustavus Adolfus etc and b) the Dutch and others had an industrial and commercail revolution with powered machinery building the ships etc which were used by the first joint-stock company. How were the Ottomans going with things like advanced metalurgy and gun founding, and wind/watermill powered industrial processes? Did they ever have joint-stock companies like the east indies companies?