WI: Ottomans loses it's hold on the Middle East in the early1800s

The Ottoman Empire was the dominate empire in the Middle East (Besides Iran), that controlled the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina, and the Caliph. As it's grip on the Balkans and Africa collapsed because of European Powers, it maintained a hold on the Middle East until WWI in the 20th Century.

What if the Ottoman Empire lost it's Middle Eastern and Arabian lands, including the Holy Cities during the early 1800s? In it's place, are these nations:
1611283370403.png

1. Ottoman Empire- a rump state in Anatolia
2. Sultanate of Egypt- A nation taking place of OTL Khedivate of Egypt. Took over the Holy Land.
3. Emirate of Diriyah- Ruled by the House of Saud. Trying to take over the entire Arabian Peninsula
4. Mamluk dynasty of Iraq - Mamluk Dynasty of Iraq gains independence. Controls Baghdad
5. Kurdish Dynasties and Kingdoms- Former Kurdish vassals of the Ottomans, gained independence and banded together.

So with the collapse of the Ottoman control in the Middle East, how would this Effect Ottoman influence?
Would European dominate the Ottoman Rump-state?
Would the Ottomans lose it's position as Caliph?
Which nations would become the dominate power in the Arabian Peninsula?
 
OTL, Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt went on a tear throughout Ottoman Empire that follows your Sultanate of Europe map and part of the reason (maybe the biggest reason) why he had to back down and give up his conflicts was because the European powers decided to preserve the Ottomans. Maybe in TTL the European powers decide to just let the sick man of Europe die. In that case, I think the Ottoman rump-state will be reduced to Asia Minor. The Russians, Austrians, and British are gonna want to create a new balance of power and carve up Ottoman Europe to their liking. I just don't see a way the Ottomans can lose the Middle East and keep their European territories.

I agree with Noscoper that Egypt will become the new great regional power in the short term. They've just taken Ottoman territory and proven their armies capabilities. Whether or not they can keep up with other rising powers in the long term is harder to say.
 
OTL, Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt...
His father Muhammad Ali was in charge; Ibrahim was the field commander.
...went on a tear throughout Ottoman Empire that follows your Sultanate of Europe map and part of the reason (maybe the biggest reason) why he had to back down and give up his conflicts was because the European powers decided to preserve the Ottomans. Maybe in TTL the European powers decide to just let the sick man of Europe die...
The Egyptians did it twice; in 1831-33, and again in 1838-1840. In 1833, Russia intervened to save the Sultan, prompting intervention by Britain and France to limit Egyptian and Russian gains.

Suppose instead in 1833, Russia decides to cut a deal with Muhammad Ali, whereby Russia gets Pontus, Armenia, and Constantinople, while Muhammad Ali takes the rest of Turkey-in-Asia, and the rest of Turkey-in-Europe gets independence.

Hey presto!
 
His father Muhammad Ali was in charge; Ibrahim was the field commander.

The Egyptians did it twice; in 1831-33, and again in 1838-1840. In 1833, Russia intervened to save the Sultan, prompting intervention by Britain and France to limit Egyptian and Russian gains.

Suppose instead in 1833, Russia decides to cut a deal with Muhammad Ali, whereby Russia gets Pontus, Armenia, and Constantinople, while Muhammad Ali takes the rest of Turkey-in-Asia, and the rest of Turkey-in-Europe gets independence.

Hey presto!

Eh no... why would Egypt go for that? Mehmed Ali would lose legitimacy if he makes such a deal with non-Muslims, especially Russia. Leaving Muslims at the mercy of Russia, who already had a bad reputation. If Mehmed Ali adds a Muslim city such as Constantinople in an offer, he will be targeted. By both the UK and the Muslim Clergy. If you don't know it yet, the clergy was still influential in this period.
Let alone Nicholas I's nature of not willing to change the balance of things in the East.

Mehmed Ali wanted the Levant. Actual independence wasn't a dead set desire. Otherwise Egypt would have done it anyway between 1811 and 1833 don't you think?
 
The Ottoman Empire was the dominate empire in the Middle East (Besides Iran), that controlled the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina, and the Caliph. As it's grip on the Balkans and Africa collapsed because of European Powers, it maintained a hold on the Middle East until WWI in the 20th Century.

What if the Ottoman Empire lost it's Middle Eastern and Arabian lands, including the Holy Cities during the early 1800s? In it's place, are these nations:
View attachment 618694
1. Ottoman Empire- a rump state in Anatolia
2. Sultanate of Egypt- A nation taking place of OTL Khedivate of Egypt. Took over the Holy Land.
3. Emirate of Diriyah- Ruled by the House of Saud. Trying to take over the entire Arabian Peninsula
4. Mamluk dynasty of Iraq - Mamluk Dynasty of Iraq gains independence. Controls Baghdad
5. Kurdish Dynasties and Kingdoms- Former Kurdish vassals of the Ottomans, gained independence and banded together.

So with the collapse of the Ottoman control in the Middle East, how would this Effect Ottoman influence?
Would European dominate the Ottoman Rump-state?
Would the Ottomans lose it's position as Caliph?
Which nations would become the dominate power in the Arabian Peninsula?
Well there is the same PoD as all other PoDs for anything like an Ottoman Collapse: 1808. Mahmud II dies together with Mustafa IV during a Janissary Riot in November. A Giray is chosen as Sultan and some manages to gather support in the Balkans and Anatolia but loses anything beyond that. The Ottomans remain decentralized with the Ayans being very powerful so the Giray Sultan can't do much other than trying to consolidate power in the land he rules. But there is a problem here...

A). If this is the case, the Giray Sultan would move to the Middle East in the moment he has the strength to do so. Successful or not, it will not remain like this.

B). Assuming Egypt beats back the Giray Sultan (only Egypt can, the others are easy prey for either the Giray or the Egyptians), what stops the Egyptians from moving into Mamluk Iraq? Or vassalising the Kurdish Emirates? Mamluk Iraq isn't too different than Egypt so controlling that is economically viable for Egypt. And it prevents Shia Persia taking advantage and invading it.

So what I see is...
1. A resurgent Turkish Empire (if the house of Osman is extinct it isn't Ottoman anymore) retaking whatever lost. Successful or not is up to our assumptions

2. Egypt subjugates Iraq and most of the Kurdish Emirates, leaving former Ottoman Middle East divided between Mehmed Ali's Egypt (Fertile Crescent) and Giray ruled Empire (Anatolia). Only Nejd survives x amount of years until Egypt sees the Sauds as a danger. In this case, only the Kurdish Emirates remain autonomous though within both States.

If the Ottomans have definitely lost the Holy Cities, it is a matter of time until their position of Caliph is questioned by Egypt. Even if they won't claim it, they will not behave as the Caliph orders it.
 
If russia gets involved in Eastern Anatolia expect them to puppet or directly annex arminia
1611348606963.png

Unless eygipt is pro russian I would also expect russia to establish a small belt of buffer states between its self and eygipt if eygipt manages to get a strong ally with potential to be hostile to Russia (Britan or France seem more likly assuming a alt Russo Turkish war following the collapse of the ottomans.) Possible states for this succerity belt include a Christian Asserian state
1611348978356.png

And a lesser kurdistan made up of only the dark/light shaded green Kurdish inhabiting areas in order to accommodate the russian christan puppet state of Asseria, and the remainder of Iraq falling under control of eygipt or persia due to it being cut off from Ottoman overland control.
1611349129696.png

 
Last edited:
I am not understanding the implication here on how exactly Iraq would inevitably become part of Egypt when Iran is next door, is unified, and has a far more valid historical claim to the region than Egypt. Egypt doesn't need Iraq to become the next caliphate, heck they might declare themselves that without even controlling Hejaz.
 
how exactly Iraq would inevitably become part of Egypt when Iran is next door, is unified, and has a far more valid historical claim to the region than Egypt.
Iran is rather weak in this era and focused on the Caucasus or Afghanistan. Unless the wars with Britain and Russia are prevented it’s quite likely for Iraq or Egypt to take Khuzestan while Iran is busy.
 
Last edited:
Egypt emerges as a stronger power if it can hold onto Arabia, Egypt, and the Levant. Look for them to attempt expansion into the Sudan, Ethiopia, Tripoli/Barbary States, Crete, Cyprus, and potentially Lake Tchad. A larger version of Greece likely regains her independence as a Russian puppet as would Bulgaria while Moldova and Wallachia will merge earlier than OTL. Russia will nab Greater Armenia, Trabizond, and may push into Kurdistan - the Euphrates may become a border between Egypt, Russia, and Persia with Baghdad/Mamluk Iraq as an independent city-state between them all. Austria will suck up whatever territory it can while the British worry about the balance of power on the Continent and act accordingly. Ironically this may give rump Ottomania a chance to modernize earlier but not without riskung further intervention. Something like this but instead of Napoleon use Mohammed Ali instead:
 

Attachments

  • NapoleonicEgypt2.png
    NapoleonicEgypt2.png
    69.7 KB · Views: 34
Last edited:
Top