Modern Ottoman Empire

[Ran Exilis]

Yes, the Laz are Muslims who speak a Kartvelian language (the area has produced a few famous singers lately, like Kâzım Koyuncu), just as the Hemşinli are Muslims who speak a dialect of Armenian.

Just a little note to the Hemshinli; this name is commonly used to refer to the Western Hamshenis, that happen to be Armenian muslims that don't speak an Armenian dialect anymore, yet now speak a Turkish dialect that they call Hemşince.

There are two other groups of Hamsheni Armenians as well; the Northern and Eastern Hamshenis, which are both also known as Hamshetsi.

Both of them are culturally quite similar, and they both speak the same language, which is the Armenian dialect called Homshetsi or Homshetsi lizu by its speakers, although I should add to that that "Hemşince" is the usual Turkish naming for Homshetsi.

The only real difference between the Northern and the Eastern Hamshenis is that the Eastern Hamshenis are Sunni muslims, while the Northern Hamshenis have remained Christians adhering the Armenian Apostolic Church.

I do not have any clear statistics, but I remember that there are about 400,000 Hamshenis worldwide, of which about one half is muslim, the other Christian.

 

[htgriffin]

What needs to occur in the 19th century for the Ottoman Empire to get to the level of technology, culutre, or even military like France, England, or even America?

Not much. Most of Ataturk's non-cosmetic reforms were borrowed from Abdul-Hamid II, and the Empire was in much better shape in 1900 than 1800.

Perhaps if AH2 were not frightened into despotism by the invasions/revolts of the 1870s we could have had a multiethnic parliment to go with the structural and industrial reforms.

Hmm....

HTG

 

[Oddball]

With Abdul back in town, Im bumping this thread hoping he will take a look.

 

[Keenir]

Not much. Most of Ataturk's non-cosmetic reforms were borrowed from Abdul-Hamid II,

I'm curious how you define 'non-cosmetic'. (seriously, it helps to know what we're referring to, so we're not hurling conversation past one another)

and the Empire was in much better shape in 1900 than 1800.

Perhaps if AH2 were not frightened into despotism by the invasions/revolts of the 1870s we could have had a multiethnic parliment to go with the structural and industrial reforms.

that's a swell idea.....but you have to find a way to keep the Christian members of the Parliament to keep from using their votes (backed by the nations of Western Europe) to get yet more benefits for their religious communities.

so...no pan-Islamic movement, since the Parliament doesn't break down?

 

[Paul Spring]

Here's a more accurate map of the proposed partition of Turkey under the Sèvres treaty:

Oh my, they wanted to give control of Istanbul and the Bosphorus to Detroit?!

 

[Keenir]

Oh my, they wanted to give control of Istanbul and the Bosphorus to Detroit?!

now do you see why Inonu fought so hard to get Sevres rejected by the other Europeans??

 

[Paul Spring]

now do you see why Inonu fought so hard to get Sevres rejected by the other Europeans??

Yeah - getting carved up among imperialist powers is one thing, but that was going too far.

 

[fortyseven]

Oh my, they wanted to give control of Istanbul and the Bosphorus to Detroit?!

very funny Paul

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I think they would need to look towards Europe more and try to sever the more restricting beliefs in Islam. Not atheism, but a more secularized worldview for the time. A greater move to educate their citizens, coupled with the government pushing for the creation of heavy industries. Or forming trading/shipping companies especially for where they are situated they have great access to Europe, Asia and Africa.

Islamism in the 19th c was forward-looking and married to the idea of progress, not at all like today's Islamic fundamentalism, which is a totally different thing. There were no restricting Islamic beliefs. The Ottoman Empire was firmly committed to modernization and reformafter 1828. Education was the top priority (after surviving) of the Ottoman elite, and enormous progress was made in this direction. There is not a single "innovation" introduced by Ataturk that was not actually an existing Ottoman reform program (except of course abolition of the Monarchy).

In fact it was the SUCCESS at modernizing that provoked Russia's campaign to destroy the empire - while the West believed the Ottoman Empire would collapse on it's own, the Russians were convinced they needed to destroy it before it got too strong for them to handle.

For this scenario to work, all you need is for the Russians to lose the war in 1877-78. It was actually much closer than most people think - the Ottomans were better equipped and had better trained and experienced soldiers, and especially a superior (though smaller) artillery arm, and most importantly, the Russians severely underestimated the forces it would take to fight the empire. If not for the timing, and even WITH the timing, if the War Minister had not just been assassinated, the Ottomans could very well have held off the Russians.

That would have led to a huge boost in Ottoman prestige, a serious blow to pan-Slavism and the national principle, bought a lot of time to further strengthen the empire, and possibly brought the opportunity to modify the Capitulations, which were the mechanism of the Powers to interfere with an weaken the empire, especially economically. The Ottomans would also have remained a serious power, figured in the balance of power instead of being a pile of bargaining chips, and been strong enough to leverage their control of the Straits to be a serious player in places like Egypt and Africa and in European diplomacy.

 

[Faeelin]

Whatever happened to your TL on that?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Remember that in OTL, the Empire imploded mainly because of ethnic and especially religious tensions.

The Ottoman Empire did not implode in the slightest. It was violently dismembered by the Powers and relentlessly undermined by them. There is no part of the empire that was ever lost due to dissolution - it was always through external conquest, and the only time a great power was not directly involved was in the Balkan Wars, and that was a fairly unique set of circumstances.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Whatever happened to your TL on that?

Severely working on it - will be posted pretty soon. I keep finding myself researching endlessly to make it as accurate and realistic as possible - since I've been gone I've actually read over 300 books for this project (!!!) ranging from every conceivable aspect of 19th c Ottoman history to Bismarck's policies, the naval balance of power, general economic history, even East and Saharan African history. But I'm getting there...

 

[MerryPrankster]

In my Afrikaner TL (link in my signature), I've got an Ottoman Empire that survives the WWI-analogue with the Anatolian core intact (but loses everything else). There's a Kemal-analogue who's an Ottoman general who rebels, gives the reigning emperor the bowstring, and sets himself up as a sort of shogun (the dead emperor's son is a child).

He then rolls over Armenia and seizes what's now Azerbaijan from the Bolsheviks, although the Persians still have Mosul and thereabouts.

I shall have to keep an eye on this thread, although my situation is a tad bit different from y'all's.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

And in the WWI in OTL, the sultan/Caliph actually used his authority to declare the jihad againest the Allies,
hoping to start an immense rebellion in the vulnerable French and British colonies, as well as in Russian Central-Asia.

The attempt failed miserably, though, as almost no muslim actually started an uprising or any other form of hostile action to their colonial government. Most muslims also saw that this jihad was purely political, and had nothing to do with actual fighting in the name of Islam.

And as an interesting footnote: in case the Caliphate would be maintained,
what kind of effect would it have on modern often wahhabi-inspired muslimfundamentalism and political Islam?

The Jihad was a failure because the population correctly perceived that the war was one of aggression in alliance with Christian powers, not a DEFENSE of Islamic land - A Jihad MUST be defensive or it's not a Jihad.

If the Ottoman Empire had lasted, Wahhabism would have been a minor irritant unsupported by the power of a state, as it is today. The Ottomans controlled all the parts of the peninsula that produced food and water, and if not constantly threatened with destruction from without, would over time have tamed the interior of Arabia. In the later 19th c and early 20th, the Ottomans gained real and effective control over areas that had only been nominally ruled, like Jordan and Hasa (the East coast of Arabia).

 

[MerryPrankster]

The Jihad was a failure because the population correctly perceived that the war was one of aggression in alliance with Christian powers, not a DEFENSE of Islamic land - A Jihad MUST be defensive or it's not a Jihad.

How were the early wars of Islamic expansion Jihad, then? They were not defensive, especially once the Arabs got into India.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

There've always been Muslims in there.

(or are you saying that the Bulgar Turks were Christian?)

Actually a very large proportion of what is today Bulgaria had large Muslim MAJORITIES - the Black Sea coast, Dobruja (actually mostly now in Romania), and the lands along the Danube, had strong Muslim (mostly Turkish and Circassian) majority; south of the Balkan range they formed a plurality (not a majority, but larger numbers than either the Greeks or Bulgarians) and were only in a minority in the mountains and around Sofia. Muslims formed about 50% of the population. In Macedonia, Muslims also formed a plurality. In Bosnia, before 1877 Muslims were a majority or plurality in every district except Banja Luka, where Serbs were in a majority. I'm making a map to illustrate this.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

How were the early wars of Islamic expansion Jihad, then? They were not defensive, especially once the Arabs got into India.

The same way the Janissaries were "legal" under the Sharia - through interpretation. At the beginning, the justification was the threat posed by the surrounding states, but most Islamic conquests were opportunistic and the result of lack of resistance to raids which had been occurring for thousands of years. (The Devshirme, BTW, was justified thusly: Greeks were off-limits because they were "people of the book", but the Slavs had converted to Christianity AFTER Muhammed, so they were fair game for enslavement).

By the 20th c, it was established definitively that a Jihad was only legitimate for defense. That the Caliph was just a puppet by WWI did not help the legitimacy of the effort, either.

The Sharia is not like the Ten Commandments, that is, it is not unchanging - it is more like Common Law - it evolves through precedent, case study, and adaptation to local conditions and common sense.

For instance, the requirement to fast is lifted if you are pregnant, sick, or travelling (but you have to make up the time later). Likewise, masturbation is effectively acceptable. It's technically a sin, but permissable if it will help you avoid committing a worse sin, so you can pretty much always justify it. Maybe that's why Islam is growing so much faster thatn Christianity. And prison.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

An oligarchy dedicated to bringing change to the empire is EXACTLY what the Ottoman Empire had, and throughout the 19th c starting with Mahmud II had EXPREMELY capable leadership (except for between 1871 and 1877). Corruption is overstated and occurred everywhere. In the west it was just in different forms, like huge "commissions" for loans, and stuff that makes Halliburton look mild in comparison (for instance, the normally anti-imperialist Gladstone had half his wealth invested in Egyptian securities which surely inluenced him in favor of conquering Egypt).

The Ottomans were very much aware that too much of their resources were going into the army, but they had no choice as they were relentlessly assaulted by the Powers. Abdul Hamid spent quite a bit on education and professionalizing the bureaucracy; there is a good deal of evidence that he gave in to the Young Turks to avoid damage towhat he had spent so much time building.

The army was not at all weakened after the Crimean War (other than reduced in size, demobilization being necessary); it steadily gained strength and quality - in a work "Plevna" or "Gallipoli".

As I said, I think the Ottomans needed a big victory to buy the breathing room necessary to build up strength and modernize.

Definitely LESS corruption and start some kind of oligarchy dedicated on bringing change to the empire. I believe that OE's Muslim territories were still strong enough to be the core of the new empire.

What OE lack is capable leadership. Compounded with wide-spread corruption that saw the army weakened after Crimean War. Compare OE to Japan which built her economy, institutions to promote commerce & economy, competent beaurreucay and western army and navy.

Methinks OE too focused in reforming the army and neglecting the other. Not realizing that these are necessary for a new empire.

Under Omar Pasha in Crimea, Osman Pasha at Pleven & Kemal Pasha at Gallipoli, the Turks proved that -given good generalship & supplies- they can hold on their own.

So I think it's possible to transform OE. However it would take a massive effort & not just partial efforts like armed-forces (though it's important too).

cheers & be well,

Rad

 

[Leo Caesius]

Just a little note to the Hemshinli; this name is commonly used to refer to the Western Hamshenis, that happen to be Armenian muslims that don't speak an Armenian dialect anymore, yet now speak a Turkish dialect that they call Hemşince.

Thank you, I hadn't seen that Wikipedia page in a while, but it's nice to see that someone is keeping tabs on it.

Incidentally, I note that the article cites Bert Vaux, from whom I learned most of what I know about field methods. As it happens, his primary informant was from the Artvin province of Turkey (and thus an eastern Hemshinli, not northern), and was a Muslim, although he did work with Christian Hemshinli from Abkhazia and Boston, which is where I first met him. Just a little note on the Hemshinli: he uses Hemshinli as a generic term for all of the Armenians from the Hamshen region (legitimately, considering that those actually living in Hamshen use this term for themselves), and Homshetsma as a blanket term for the language they speak, not for just the northern ones (but you don't have to take my word for it; you can check his article, "Homshetsma: Language of the Armenians of Hamshen" for what he has to say about the dialect situation). The term Hemshinli is more commonly encountered in the literature about this group, although obviously those Orthodox Hemshinli living in Armenia and the rest of the former Soviet Union prefer not to use the Turkish term, and favor the Armenian version Homshe(n)tsi. The Wikipedia article that you're citing (without attribution, I might add) is unfortunately wrong in this regard.

It just goes to show that you have to be pretty careful when relying solely upon Wikipedia.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Yeah, but these Bulgarian Turks and Pomaks (Bulgarian muslims) were still not quite the majority (although they were a major minority...), and their presence didn't stop the Christian Bulgarians from declaring an independant Bulgaria in OTL, even though the European nations certainly played an important part in actually realizing that independance.

And don't underestimate the sheer strenght of the nationalism and will to be free of especially the Orthodox Christian peoples of the Balkans, which really was the main reason of the many Christian rebellions againest the Ottoman authorities. The European nations merely helped these local nationalists..

I couldn't diasgree more. Even Bulgarian historians will say openly that if Bulgaria became a country, it was totally without any effort exercised by the Bulgarians themselves.

I think you are dramatically OVERestimating nationalism, which was totally absent in the Ottoman Empire except in narrow intellectual classes. In 1875-6 the revolts in Bosnia were totally non-nationalist; they were over taxes exacerbated by a terrible famine, and were cross-denominational, including Muslims. The Bulgarian revolt was a pitiful rising that attracted no interest from the population and was confined for the most part to a terrorist campaign whose aim (successful at that) was to commit horrible outrages in an attempt to provoke counter-outrages, knowing the Powers would ignore massacres of Muslims as they always did. Bulgarian independence was achieved SOLEY through Russian agency. The Ottomans had successfully handled the deposition of two Sultans in three months, large (and heavily foreign-backed) revolts in large stretches of their territory, and crushed Serbia and held off Montenegro, while totally bankupt, SIMULTANEOUSLY - during the worst ecological crisis in their history (disastrous harvests throuhout most of the empire). After all that, they nearly held out mano-a-mano againt the entire Russian military. "Sick Man" my ass.