This is an interesting thread. Will be hoping for the continuation of this discussion 
Ottoman Victory in 1877-78 War - Need Help
- Thread starter Abdul Hadi Pasha
- Start date
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I don't see how it's remotely possible that this could in any way whatsoever be a bad thing for the Ottomans. In OTL, the most productive provinces were stripped away, the enitre army was executed by the Russians, the empire was left with indefensible territory in Europe, and millions of Muslims were massacred or ejected, with mass-starvation and a huge refugee burden to be carried for decades. More importantly, many of the empire's Muslim populations lost faith in the empire's ability to protect them and Christian minorities, encouraged by the creation of Bulgaria, largely on Muslim-majority lands, were encouraged to begin terror campaigns to gain independence.
As for Russia, in OTL, even though they won, it took Russia a long time to recover financially and in spirit from the war, and you heard very little more of pan-Slavism. The defeat of an overtly pan-Slavist crusade is not going to lead to greater pan-Slavism, it's going to have the opposite effect, especially since most of the ruling class, including the Tsar, was dragged along in a movement they didn't really support. More importantly, pan-Slavism will be discredited in the Balkans, which are not going to be looking to Russia any time soon for inspiration and help. Other than at times Serbia, they didn't in OTL either.
The Ottoman Empire is a lot stronger, both in OTL and this ATL than people give it credit for. It did, after all, stand mano-a-mano against Russia for a considerable period of time in 1877-78, winning a large number of battles decisively, and that's after having just spend two years at war and undergoing some turmoil at the center. In any case, I don't think overconfidence is a trait that the Ottomans are going to have hobbling them, although greater confidence could lead to different outcomes in Egypt and Africa in general.
As for Russia, in OTL, even though they won, it took Russia a long time to recover financially and in spirit from the war, and you heard very little more of pan-Slavism. The defeat of an overtly pan-Slavist crusade is not going to lead to greater pan-Slavism, it's going to have the opposite effect, especially since most of the ruling class, including the Tsar, was dragged along in a movement they didn't really support. More importantly, pan-Slavism will be discredited in the Balkans, which are not going to be looking to Russia any time soon for inspiration and help. Other than at times Serbia, they didn't in OTL either.
The Ottoman Empire is a lot stronger, both in OTL and this ATL than people give it credit for. It did, after all, stand mano-a-mano against Russia for a considerable period of time in 1877-78, winning a large number of battles decisively, and that's after having just spend two years at war and undergoing some turmoil at the center. In any case, I don't think overconfidence is a trait that the Ottomans are going to have hobbling them, although greater confidence could lead to different outcomes in Egypt and Africa in general.
Last edited:
So if Russia is out of the picture in the Balkans would the Serbs have to rely on the Austrians? That could prove tricky because relations between the two countries were not great (look at WWI). So if we end up the the unusual situation of Austria guaranteeing Serbian independence, I could imagine a quite unusual alliance:
If the Ottomans can accept the loss of Wallachia and Moldavia they could ally against the Austrians who control Transylvania and protect Serbia. An opposition Austria would strain relations with Germany which would benefit relations with Britain. If we can keep Britain out of Egypt we could see this alliance system in the early 20th Century.
Britain
France
Ottomans
Romania
Italy
Germany
Austria
Russia
Serbia
Is that at all likely or do I have a fatal misunderstanding of late 19th century foreign relations?
If the Ottomans can accept the loss of Wallachia and Moldavia they could ally against the Austrians who control Transylvania and protect Serbia. An opposition Austria would strain relations with Germany which would benefit relations with Britain. If we can keep Britain out of Egypt we could see this alliance system in the early 20th Century.
Britain
France
Ottomans
Romania
Italy
Germany
Austria
Russia
Serbia
Is that at all likely or do I have a fatal misunderstanding of late 19th century foreign relations?
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I think "out of the picture" is a bit strong, but it seems to me that Slavic Nationalism, and probably all nationalism, has taken a bit of a setback.
If you look at what happened in the Treaty of Berlin, the Powers more or less gave their stamp of approval to the national principle by creating Bulgaria, even though the Bulgarians had done absolutely nothing to achieve it, and that it including wide areas where Bulgars weren't even a majority. That pretty much gave every little ethnic group license to strive for a state. Previously, Nationalism was more or less limited to certain large ruling peoples, like Germans and Russians, not 14 varieties of South Slavs.
With no dismemberment of the Ottoman Balkans, what does that do?
My feeling here is that Austria will try to dominate Serbia, probably mostly by economic penetration, and will regard Bosnia as a special sphere of economic activity. Serbia wasn't always hostile to Serbia - it depended upon who was in power.
Where alliances go depend upon so many factors it's difficult to project from one event, as it could go in many directions.
For example, maybe a stronger Ottoman Empire is in a position to more decisively intervene in Egypt in 1881 or 1882, regaining greater control over Egypt. That would necessitate intervention in the Sudan and Somali coast as well. That eliminates a great source of dispute between Britain and France. What would closer relations between Britain and France do to the Franco-Russian Entente?
What happenes when the Ottomans at the beginning of the Scramble for Africa control everything from Tunis to Lake Victoria? Is there even a Scramble? Or do the Powers use Ottoman rule to promote their economic interests in Ottoman Africa?
You could end up with weird situations like a war between the Ottoman Empire and Belgium over the Congo or Chad Basin, a larger Zanzibari state, or a continuation of the Three Emperor's Alliance, which might leaves a closer relationship between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia.
Or Russia could feel totally screwed over by everyone, particularly Bismarck, by the ATL Berlin settlement, leaving a bitter and isolated Russia (I doubt this - I don't think Bismarck would let this happen)...
There are a lot of possibilities. But the chances of a general war being ignited in the Balkans are much lower, I think.
If you look at what happened in the Treaty of Berlin, the Powers more or less gave their stamp of approval to the national principle by creating Bulgaria, even though the Bulgarians had done absolutely nothing to achieve it, and that it including wide areas where Bulgars weren't even a majority. That pretty much gave every little ethnic group license to strive for a state. Previously, Nationalism was more or less limited to certain large ruling peoples, like Germans and Russians, not 14 varieties of South Slavs.
With no dismemberment of the Ottoman Balkans, what does that do?
My feeling here is that Austria will try to dominate Serbia, probably mostly by economic penetration, and will regard Bosnia as a special sphere of economic activity. Serbia wasn't always hostile to Serbia - it depended upon who was in power.
Where alliances go depend upon so many factors it's difficult to project from one event, as it could go in many directions.
For example, maybe a stronger Ottoman Empire is in a position to more decisively intervene in Egypt in 1881 or 1882, regaining greater control over Egypt. That would necessitate intervention in the Sudan and Somali coast as well. That eliminates a great source of dispute between Britain and France. What would closer relations between Britain and France do to the Franco-Russian Entente?
What happenes when the Ottomans at the beginning of the Scramble for Africa control everything from Tunis to Lake Victoria? Is there even a Scramble? Or do the Powers use Ottoman rule to promote their economic interests in Ottoman Africa?
You could end up with weird situations like a war between the Ottoman Empire and Belgium over the Congo or Chad Basin, a larger Zanzibari state, or a continuation of the Three Emperor's Alliance, which might leaves a closer relationship between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia.
Or Russia could feel totally screwed over by everyone, particularly Bismarck, by the ATL Berlin settlement, leaving a bitter and isolated Russia (I doubt this - I don't think Bismarck would let this happen)...
There are a lot of possibilities. But the chances of a general war being ignited in the Balkans are much lower, I think.
Surely you mean Austria, or else Serbia has an interesting case of national self loathing
.Do you mean that the European Powers would expand the Ottoman empire's African holdings for use as a vessel for their own economic interests in the dark continent?
I like that idea but is that what you were saying? Just some clarification.
Also, how well was the Balkan population converting to Islam. I've heard some differing figures but how could a strong Ottoman presence affect such things?
I don't think that this defeat will cause a 1905 situation. I think Russian hasn't industrialized enough by 1878.
What I would think however is another post-Crimea settlement. In which Russia would probably be given figleaf but nothing more. Thus OE will NOT give anything that hasn't been lost anyway (Serbia, Romania, Montenegro)
Mainly because they won, and they were perceived as strong. In 1897...OE was dying. It's easy to threaten her.
This time I think it would be seen as a resurgent OE & that is in the interest of Austria-Hungary (AH) to befriend since she also feared Russia. Germany I think will be happy that Russia is out for the moment but will be neutral. Until Wilhelm II that is
Britain will be more than pleased to let things stay the same since it fits their policy just well. Weakened Russia, strong OE allied to Britain. As for France...well, she is weak & afraid of Germany & the Bear on Germany's back just got put back into the cage. I really DOUBT that France will make any noise.
Actually they might, so they can cuddle up to Russia. But seriously? i doubt that France would go to war against OE now.
As for Russia, she would spent the next generation with internal reforms like Alexander III had done & probably preapring for another round. Of course this would mean OE too would be preparing for war against Russia. As for Pan-Slavism, it will definitely take a setback. Soul-searching if you please, where it will go from there? I really don't know.
Would Russia save a Serbia threated by Austria all the while OE is still alive & getting stronger? I doubt it. It would take the form of the current Russo-Georgian conflict (Turkey must've been sweating ^^) , lots of rhetorics but no military intervention.
HOWEVER, I disagree with your life-extending scheme Abdul. I think those who die OTL should die too in TTL. Probably you can make this old useless pasha cashiered off or the Russians made one blunder somewhere?
just my $0,02
What I would think however is another post-Crimea settlement. In which Russia would probably be given figleaf but nothing more. Thus OE will NOT give anything that hasn't been lost anyway (Serbia, Romania, Montenegro)
Mainly because they won, and they were perceived as strong. In 1897...OE was dying. It's easy to threaten her.
This time I think it would be seen as a resurgent OE & that is in the interest of Austria-Hungary (AH) to befriend since she also feared Russia. Germany I think will be happy that Russia is out for the moment but will be neutral. Until Wilhelm II that is
Britain will be more than pleased to let things stay the same since it fits their policy just well. Weakened Russia, strong OE allied to Britain. As for France...well, she is weak & afraid of Germany & the Bear on Germany's back just got put back into the cage. I really DOUBT that France will make any noise.
Actually they might, so they can cuddle up to Russia. But seriously? i doubt that France would go to war against OE now.
As for Russia, she would spent the next generation with internal reforms like Alexander III had done & probably preapring for another round. Of course this would mean OE too would be preparing for war against Russia. As for Pan-Slavism, it will definitely take a setback. Soul-searching if you please, where it will go from there? I really don't know.
Would Russia save a Serbia threated by Austria all the while OE is still alive & getting stronger? I doubt it. It would take the form of the current Russo-Georgian conflict (Turkey must've been sweating ^^) , lots of rhetorics but no military intervention.
HOWEVER, I disagree with your life-extending scheme Abdul. I think those who die OTL should die too in TTL. Probably you can make this old useless pasha cashiered off or the Russians made one blunder somewhere?
just my $0,02
Last edited:
The Sandman
Banned
Do the Russians try to increase their influence in Persia, now that the assault on the Ottomans has been firmly rebuffed? Persia also had issues with the Ottomans, was also trying to modernize, and might be more leery of British influence if the British are seen as more openly friendly to the Sublime Porte.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
The situation in Romania was like this: the dynasty was German, the Liberals looked up to France and hated A-H, the Conservatives looked up to Germany and were more conciliatory towards A-H, the voters were pro-French, there was irredentism against A-H and Russia, Turkey was resented primarily because of its sovereignty (now gone), Germany because of its defeat of France and a railway concession dispute, Britain less so because of its advocacy for the Jews, Russia wanted southern Bessarabia, relations with the other Balkan states were good, and Bulgarians revolutionaries were based in southern Wallachia.
France at this point will feel even more uneasy about allying with Russia. If the increase in Ottoman prestige has an effect on the 1882 British intervention in Egypt then one of the sources of Anglo-French discord could disappear. But I doubt that Tunisia can be saved from French or Italian colonialism.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Surely you mean Austria, or else Serbia has an interesting case of national self loathing
Do you mean that the European Powers would expand the Ottoman empire's African holdings for use as a vessel for their own economic interests in the dark continent?
I like that idea but is that what you were saying? Just some clarification.
Also, how well was the Balkan population converting to Islam. I've heard some differing figures but how could a strong Ottoman presence affect such things?
Hee, I did mean Austria, although the sentence does still work the way I wrote it.
The population of the Balkans was about 43% Muslim in 1876. That percentage was going up, largely due to Muslim immigration from the Russian Empire and Christian emmigration to the Americas. I think that if the planned rail network had been completed it would have caused additional population movement from poorer areas of the empire to the more developed Balkans.
In Africa, I meant that the Ottoman position with Egypt is so commanding that they would have a huge head start. Between the Ottomans and Egypt, and throwing in Tunis, which would remain nominally Ottoman (it was given France at Berlin), the empire controls Tunis, Libya, Egypt, the Somali coast to Berbera, inland to Harar, the Sudan all the way into north Uganda, and some forward areas in what is today the Central African Republic and the Congo.
It would be fairly easy through the occupation of key oases like Bilma and Agades to control the Eastern part of the Sahara and reach into the Chad basin, perhaps decades ahead of Britain and France. Likewise, it would be possible to move West from the Sudan into the Congo Basin and again towards the Chad basin.
These are largely worthless regions, so I don't think anyone will regard them as a critical interest, but they do form a defensive perimeter for critical regions like Egypt and the Hijaz.
Italy in OTL was generally in favor of Ottoman expansion in Africa because it gave them more to take, and the other powers are unlikely to have much objection so long as the Ottomans keep slavery down, as they can then benefit commercially from increased security without having to pay the cost for the security.
Last edited:
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
The OE was not dying in 1897 - in fact everyone expected Greece to win, not get effortlessly smashed, and this victory finally made everyone understand that the empire was not going to just go away, but would continue to get stronger. That was behind German calculations in strengthening ties, and the Russians understood this as well - in fact, only the British really regarded the empire's demise as inevitable at this point, and even then Salisbury recognized it was around for the immediate future, his attempt to have it partitioned having been foiled by Abdul Hamid's diplomacy.
What do you mean by "life extending"? The War Minister was shot by a lone gunman while in a cabinet meeting in the Grand Vizier's home by a disgruntled courtier of the late Sultan. I don't think it's out of bounds to have that go differently, especially as it is my POD. Someone could just say, "WATCH OUT! HE HAS A GUN!" I'm not magically curing anyone of cancer.
What do you mean by "life extending"? The War Minister was shot by a lone gunman while in a cabinet meeting in the Grand Vizier's home by a disgruntled courtier of the late Sultan. I don't think it's out of bounds to have that go differently, especially as it is my POD. Someone could just say, "WATCH OUT! HE HAS A GUN!" I'm not magically curing anyone of cancer.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Huseyin Avni Pasha was assassinated by Çerkes Hasan (Circassian Hasan), a courtier of Sultan Abdul Aziz, who Avni was instrumental in dethroning. Abdul Aziz committed suicide a few days after his deposition, but it was widely suspected he had been assassinated.
Çerkes Hasan also had personal animosity towards Avni Pasha, who had just had him transferred to Marzuk, located in the southern deserts of Libya.
Avni was the only real counterbalance to Midhat Pasha, the Grand Vizier and leading liberal reformer. If Avni had lived, it might have given Sultan Abdul Hamid latitude to play them off against each other and gain greater control earlier, which I think would have been a good thing.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I think I recall that it was the railroad concession that was the real reason why Bismarck was holding the Jewish issue over Rumania's head.
Tunis would be difficult to save, but not impossible. In a TL where nobody gets any Ottoman territory (especially Cyprus to Britain), there is no offer of it to France at Berlin, no drive for it as a counterbalance to Britain's acquisition, and without the agreement of the Powers, it would be diplomatically difficult to engineer grabbing it in the 1880s. So long as nobody else (particularly Italy) tries to get it, the French will probably for a time be content with economic paramountcy. There would likely have been a dustup in Tunisia in late 1881 or 1882 over various issues that could have led to an Ottoman intervention, perhaps tolerated if the situation in Egypt had developed to France's advantage and satisfaction.
I want to save it, but I'm still trying to decide if it's possible or realistic. I think it can be if enough things go right...
Tunis would be difficult to save, but not impossible. In a TL where nobody gets any Ottoman territory (especially Cyprus to Britain), there is no offer of it to France at Berlin, no drive for it as a counterbalance to Britain's acquisition, and without the agreement of the Powers, it would be diplomatically difficult to engineer grabbing it in the 1880s. So long as nobody else (particularly Italy) tries to get it, the French will probably for a time be content with economic paramountcy. There would likely have been a dustup in Tunisia in late 1881 or 1882 over various issues that could have led to an Ottoman intervention, perhaps tolerated if the situation in Egypt had developed to France's advantage and satisfaction.
I want to save it, but I'm still trying to decide if it's possible or realistic. I think it can be if enough things go right...
Faeelin
Banned
So it wasn't like with Alexander, with angry students lining up to play whackaczar?
How common was assassination in the late Ottoman state?
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Not very, but all of them were really disastrous. There are three of note:
Huseyin Avni, for reasons I described.
Mahmud Şevket Paşa, who was the leader of the Young Turk coup - an older and wiser leader, he would have been in actual control and kept the empire out of WWI
Yusuf Izzeddin, heir to the throne, probably assassinated by the Young Turks because Mehmed V was very ill and Izzeddin wanted to end the war.
Ironically, the man who assassinated Huseyin Avni was part of Izzeddin's staff, although Iz was 17 at the time.
In the period following Abdul Aziz's deposition political life was a bit more chaotic so there were a few plots and assassinations - after that almost all assassinations were committed by Armenian terrorists.
Yes...but I always think that if we start extend someone else's life...well, I mean, Alexander II's life can be extended too...& who knows what would have come out of that. One too many variables.
Anyway, up to you, as you said; your own POD. Just think I might give a thought or something. How's the timeline BTW? How soon can we take a look of it?
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Yes...but I always think that if we start extend someone else's life...well, I mean, Alexander II's life can be extended too...& who knows what would have come out of that. One too many variables.
Anyway, up to you, as you said; your own POD. Just think I might give a thought or something. How's the timeline BTW? How soon can we take a look of it?
I largely agree with you - I am not even messing with Alex II because that would be like writing two TLs at once. But as a POD I don't mind - and occassionally, I'll extend someone if they died in an easily preventable way. For instance, Mehmed Kamil Pasha died because he fainted and fell down and hit his head. I don't mind extending him a bit. I probably wouldn't mess with someone who died of cancer, like Frederick III.
I need to do a little more research, but I should begin issuing the TL in a couple of months.
Yes...but I always think that if we start extend someone else's life...well, I mean, Alexander II's life can be extended too...& who knows what would have come out of that. One too many variables.
Anyway, up to you, as you said; your own POD. Just think I might give a thought or something. How's the timeline BTW? How soon can we take a look of it?
Though I'd like to add that, isn't it just very well save to butterfly away a certain historical figure from his/her disease they had caught IOTL if we were to set the PoD way back before the said person got his/her disease (if it's known when) ?
Just my two cents.
I read about some european people who served as pashas and commanders of Ottoman army during this time period. Specifically a Prussian who commanded the forces in Bulgaria before being superseded by Suleyman Pasha.
Probably he can play more decisive role in checking the Russian advances? Also, what is the possibility of Ottoman army crossing the Danube & Pruth? Thus bringing the war to enemy country....
Probably he can play more decisive role in checking the Russian advances? Also, what is the possibility of Ottoman army crossing the Danube & Pruth? Thus bringing the war to enemy country....
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Mehmed Ali Pasha (not the one in Egypt) was German - he converted to Islam and entered the military.
There were three very good generals in the war: Mehmed Ali, Osman Pasha, and Ahmed Muhtar Pasha (in the East) - they all did very well, but the strategic situation was relatively hopeless after the inaction of the first months, and Suleyman Pasha's waste of his army making frontal assaults in the Shipka Pass.
Even at this stage, a central leader could have saved the day by relieving Suleyman and placing his troops under the C-in-C in Bulgaria. The Russians were spread rather thin, and Mehmed Ali's offensive to relieve Plevna did surprisingly well before losing steam due to lack of numbers. Suleyman's army was around 40,000 men - these added to Mehmed Ali's could have driven the Russians back over the Danube.
The Ottomans were keen to have the Russians attack first and didn't want to invade enemy territory due to the impact this would have on opinion in the West, although they did land in Abkhazia in a fairly skillful amphibious attack - although this wouldn't have been possible in a more heavily defended area.
I think what the Ottomans should have done is placed an army in the Dobruja, and then occupied Galatz - this would have severed the only rail line leading south and would have threatened the communications of the entire Russian army. The Russians would either have had to take the city, which would have been nearly impossible, or leave enough troops to mask it - either way, their logistics would have been a nightmare. Dragging heavy artillery south would have been very difficult, provisioning the army very difficult, and it probably would have been necessary to build another rail line further West.
If they could prevent the Russians from crossing until they could get the whole army in better positions, the Russians would have been unable to succeed.
The main opportunity the Ottomans had, besides superior troops and armaments, was that the Russians had seriously underestimated them and not mobilized enough troops to win. They ended up having to mobilize double their initial force size, and it was still close.