Best point to destroy the Ottoman Empire in the early 19th century

[Nassirisimo]

Im toying with the idea of making a timeline about a world where the Ottoman Empire collapses some time during the 19th century. I assume this would be the best time to do it, as the Ottoman empire was actually a sick man before some of the reforms of Mahmud II (Nicholas I called it too late in actuality). Could Mahmud II dying early be a good POD?

Also, I wanted a plausability check. If the central Ottoman government fell, would we see a civil war between the Beys for control of the whole empire? Or would they be relatively content to carve out their own little Sultanates and only have the odd war here and there?

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Would a more successful Mohammed Ali be a start? The man seemed to have the capability, had it not been for the intervention of the Europeans, to conquer and replace the Ottoman Empire as the premier power in the Middle East.

 

[Caesar Australis]

I could see Napoleon bringing it about. Had he succeeded in his Syrian and Egyptian campaigns he might have decided to move on Constantinople, and not necessarily for France. He made a point of styling himself as a inclined to Islam whilst in the Middle East, and I wouldn't put it past him to formerly convert to Islam and proclaim himself Caliph if he captured Constantinople. From wiki, a letter he wrote to a sheikh: "I hope...I shall be able to unite all the wise and educated men of all the countries and establish a uniform regime based on the principles of the Quran which alone are true and which alone can lead men to happiness.". Certainly sounds like an attempt to style himself as a new Caliph to me.

Alternatively he could tackle them as Emperor of France. Either with Russia so as to console and distract Russia from it's humiliation at his hand and the economic harm of the Continental system, or subsequent to a successful defeat of Russia since almost all of continental Europe would be subdued and capturing Constantinople would position him to claim his empire as a renewal of the Roman one- also a crusade to terminate the Ottomans would have great propaganda value in lessening the resentment of public's at French dominance.

Muhammad Ali is the second best option, had France and Britain left him alone in his campaign against the Ottomans. He would have styled himself as a new Caliph had he captured Constantinople as well.

 

[Nassirisimo]

Would a more successful Mohammed Ali be a start? The man seemed to have the capability, had it not been for the intervention of the Europeans, to conquer and replace the Ottoman Empire as the premier power in the Middle East.

I guess so. Prehaps Muhammed Ali's dominions would be a bit reduced then the old Ottoman empire, as Russia and Austria may scramble to grab what they can from the empire, and im not sure is Muhammed has the power to stop them, but with some luck, he can get a majority of the Balkan holdings.

I guess initially, things would go better for the new empire, as they would have access to Egypt, which could be useful as a source of income, and Muhammed Ali and his son Ibrahim were quite able. The problem seems to come after Ibrahim, as Ali's dynasty degenrated into a group of incompetents, who lost their independence after a few decades due to poor policies and rising debt. This could have some bad repercussions, assuming they are not butterflied into being better leaders.

 

[Nassirisimo]

I could see Napoleon bringing it about. Had he succeeded in his Syrian and Egyptian campaigns he might have decided to move on Constantinople, and not necessarily for France. He made a point of styling himself as a inclined to Islam whilst in the Middle East, and I wouldn't put it past him to formerly convert to Islam and proclaim himself Caliph if he captured Constantinople. From wiki, a letter he wrote to a sheikh: "I hope...I shall be able to unite all the wise and educated men of all the countries and establish a uniform regime based on the principles of the Quran which alone are true and which alone can lead men to happiness.". Certainly sounds like an attempt to style himself as a new Caliph to me.

Alternatively he could tackle them as Emperor of France. Either with Russia so as to console and distract Russia from it's humiliation at his hand and the economic harm of the Continental system, or subsequent to a successful defeat of Russia since almost all of continental Europe would be subdued and capturing Constantinople would position him to claim his empire as a renewal of the Roman one- also a crusade to terminate the Ottomans would have great propaganda value in lessening the resentment of public's at French dominance.

Muhammad Ali is the second best option, had France and Britain left him alone in his campaign against the Ottomans. He would have styled himself as a new Caliph had he captured Constantinople as well.

The problem with that is that its easier to get Muhhamed Ali to succeed then Napoleon. Historically, Napoleon was cut off from re-enforcements from France, and was thrashed by Djezzer Pasha. He probebly had no realistic hope of even getting deep into Anatolia, never mind getting to Constantinople. The second Napoleon option seems more realistic, but it leaves the question of what happens when the Napoleonic empire falls apart.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

I guess so. Prehaps Muhammed Ali's dominions would be a bit reduced then the old Ottoman empire, as Russia and Austria may scramble to grab what they can from the empire, and im not sure is Muhammed has the power to stop them, but with some luck, he can get a majority of the Balkan holdings.

I pitched an idea in a thread of mines involving his son Ibrahim becoming Pasha of the Morea, as under a deal Muhammed Ali made with the Ottoman sultan, if he aided in crushing the Greek rebellion. Had the Greeks been crushed, I think the dynasty would have a much stronger position to take over the Ottoman Empire with a base in Europe.

I guess initially, things would go better for the new empire, as they would have access to Egypt, which could be useful as a source of income, and Muhammed Ali and his son Ibrahim were quite able. The problem seems to come after Ibrahim, as Ali's dynasty degenrated into a group of incompetents, who lost their independence after a few decades due to poor policies and rising debt. This could have some bad repercussions, assuming they are not butterflied into being better leaders.

I don't know much that can help make their successors more competent.

Stronger advisers?

 

[Nassirisimo]

I pitched an idea in a thread of mines involving his son Ibrahim becoming Pasha of the Morea, as under a deal Muhammed Ali made with the Ottoman sultan, if he aided in crushing the Greek rebellion. Had the Greeks been crushed, I think the dynasty would have a much stronger position to take over the Ottoman Empire with a base in Europe.



I don't know much that can help make their successors more competent.

Stronger advisers?

That idea might actually work well. Not too sure on how Muhammed's army would fair without Ibrahim leading it in Syria, but I think Muhammed was a competant enough leader himself, and having the Ottomans facing 2 fronts could help.

For the successors, im sure I could think of a few ideas of how to handle them.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

That idea might actually work well. Not too sure on how Muhammed's army would fair without Ibrahim leading it in Syria, but I think Muhammed was a competant enough leader himself, and having the Ottomans facing 2 fronts could help.

For the successors, im sure I could think of a few ideas of how to handle them.

Was Ibrahim a competent, capable commander? I would think he could handle Ottoman forces at bay in Europe and it's not to say that he would be alone. I'm sure there would be one or two governors wanting to defect and joined the Ali dynasty.

 

[Caesar Australis]

The second Napoleon option seems more realistic, but it leaves the question of what happens when the Napoleonic empire falls apart.

Most likely not an Ottoman revival, so it fulfills the terms of the OP. Since Napoleon would probably elevate the Greeks Christians over Muslims, I'm thinking a Greek(or "Greek" under some strongman of French origin) kingdom/republic centered in Constantinople is more likely then not if Napoleon's empire dissolves.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

Didn't the House of Osman come dangerously close to extinction in the early 19th century anyway? So if a certain sultan kicks the bucket early then bam, no Ottoman dynasty and an unstable empire.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Didn't the House of Osman come dangerously close to extinction in the early 19th century anyway? So if a certain sultan kicks the bucket early then bam, no Ottoman dynasty and an unstable empire.

The Ottomans did plan if their dynasty went extinct, for the House of Giray to take over.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

The Ottomans did plan if their dynasty went extinct, for the House of Giray to take over.

Didn't they then lose Ottomans' favor though ?

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Didn't they then lose Ottomans' favor though ?

You tell me. I have had it mentioned that they were favored to succeed the Ottomans should the dynasty go extinct at one point.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

You tell me. I have had it mentioned that they were favored to succeed the Ottomans should the dynasty go extinct at one point.

It's from wikipedia though, but I see no reason for anyone to hoax about this

More warfare ensued during the reign of Catherine II. The Russo-Turkish War, 1768-1774 resulted in the Treaty of Kuchuk-Kainarji, which made the Crimean Khanate independent from the Ottoman Empire and aligned it with the Russian Empire.
The rule of the last Crimean khan Şahin Giray was marked with increasing Russian influence and outbursts of violence from the khan administration towards internal opposition. On 8 April 1783, in violation of the treaty, Catherine II intervened in the civil war, de facto annexing the whole peninsula as the Taurida Governorate. In 1787, Şahin Giray took refuge in the Ottoman empire and was eventually executed, on Rhodes, by the Ottoman authorities for betrayal. The royal Giray family survives to this day.
Through the 1792 Treaty of Jassy (Iaşi) the Russian frontier was extended to the Dniester River and the takeover of Yedisan was complete. The 1812 Treaty of Bucharest transferred Bessarabia to Russian control.

 

[Intosh]

Im toying with the idea of making a timeline about a world where the Ottoman Empire collapses some time during the 19th century. I assume this would be the best time to do it, as the Ottoman empire was actually a sick man before some of the reforms of Mahmud II (Nicholas I called it too late in actuality). Could Mahmud II dying early be a good POD?

Also, I wanted a plausability check. If the central Ottoman government fell, would we see a civil war between the Beys for control of the whole empire? Or would they be relatively content to carve out their own little Sultanates and only have the odd war here and there?

My idea of a TL about a victorious Napoleon include a division of Europe / Med / Middle East into french and russian zones of influence. Napoleon will let Russia do as they want in the Balkans and the Black Sea zones...

So all the russian power will be diverted against the Ottoman Empire and soon Rumania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Constantinople will be in russians hands...

French will take their share in northern Africa and Egypt and probably the Levant (Lebanon, Syria, Palestine...). My idea is also to give Morrocco to Spain and Tunesia and Lybia to a united Italy...

This partition of the Ottoman Empire and its vassals state will probably last at least 50 years... The first half of the XIXth century...

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

The Ottomans did plan if their dynasty went extinct, for the House of Giray to take over.

How would the powers that be in the Empire deal with the Crimean Khans though?

Anyways, Mehmed Ali and Ibrahim aren't interested in leaving the Empire, they are however interested in taking as much power in it as they can. I won't go as far as to say that it would preclude an independent Egypt however. But it does mean it would take a lot of things going right for them to even think about independence.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

My idea of a TL about a victorious Napoleon include a division of Europe / Med / Middle East into french and russian zones of influence. Napoleon will let Russia do as they want in the Balkans and the Black Sea zones...

So all the russian power will be diverted against the Ottoman Empire and soon Rumania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Constantinople will be in russians hands...

French will take their share in northern Africa and Egypt and probably the Levant (Lebanon, Syria, Palestine...). My idea is also to give Morrocco to Spain and Tunesia and Lybia to a united Italy...

This partition of the Ottoman Empire and its vassals state will probably last at least 50 years... The first half of the XIXth century...

Wouldn't a unified Italy in a Napoleonic victory TL be de facto French territory due to the King of Italy being the Emperor?

 

[Keenir]

Didn't the House of Osman come dangerously close to extinction in the early 19th century anyway?

*nods*

reduced to a single Ottoman, thanks to the Jannissaries.

 

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

If ever there were a thread where I missed AHP's amusing reactions...

 

[Ridwan Asher]

If ever there were a thread where I missed AHP's amusing reactions...

Eh, he recognizes early 1800s as the best time to end Ottoman Empire. He always said that..... He just doesn't like when people attempt to end the empire with impossible means or regard the demise of the empire was possible in every single way....