The Best Way to Prevent the 'Fall' of Ottoman Empire

[Rex Romanum]

What I mean as 'Ottoman Empire' was to be at least encompassing the present day territories of Bulgaria, Albania, Greece, and Turkey, and still using Constantinople (Istanbul) as its capital...
PS:
Even though the 'fall' of the Ottomans was happened after 1900, I posted this thread here because I think this would require pre-1900 PODs...

[King Gorilla]

Have the Ottomans establish a friendly vasselized Hungary to serve as a buffer between its Balkan holdings and central Europe. A secure northern border should allow the Ottomans enough wiggle room to knock out persia and secure the wealthest regions of the middle east, as well as given them the flexibility to safeguard Crimea and maintain the Black Sea as their private lake.

[Simon]

I don't adding extra territories like Italy, Persia or the Holy Roman Empire (which is kind of ASB time I would think) is really going to strengthen the Empire as it does nothing to address underlying weaknesses. Likewise colonies in the new world, look at how that turned out for Spain - initial financial boost leading into stagnation and then decline.

Rather than military victories I think you have to look more at the social side of things. As I understand things one of their major failings was not keeping up with things in the western world and realising when they had been surpassed. Sure they bought in western military expertise but other than that subject they slowly got more and more left behind in other areas. You'd need them to realise that they needed to reform and then actually carry through on that. It's all rather horribly complicated so I'm sure one of the resident Ottoman experts will be along in a bit to correct me. :)

[Anaxagoras]

I'm going to wait until AHP weighs in on this, and then say the exact opposite just to get on his nerves.

[Bottlestein]

Won't they have to get rid of the Janissary class after they stop becoming militarily useful? I was under the impression this was a major, reactionary millstone around the Empire's neck during the industrial revolution.

[wolf_brother]

Other: POD 1876 - Murad V isn't sick, with a longer lasting rule, and a reformed constitutional monarchy, including basic liberties for all subjects. Ottomans reformed as something along the lines of Austria-Hungary, however after centuries of rule under the Ottomans the empire would have a unifying cultural force that A/H did not.

Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78 still happens as per OTL, resulting in Serbia and Montenegro, and the United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia all breaking away. Bosnia and Sanjak of Novi Pazar are still lost to the A/H, and Cyprus to the British, as all per OTL fallout of Russo-Turkish War and Congress of Berlin. Somehow the constitution and constitutional monarchy isn't rocked too badly by these blows. Most likely a brief military coup, followed by a counter-coup of the OTL early Young Turks, with British and French backing, replacing Murad V on the throne or an equally Western-influenced Sultan.

With a constitution, basic civil liberties, and reforming bureaucracy and military, Bulgaria stays within the empire both de jure and de facto.

Ottomans are able to slowly but steadily regain somewhat control over their de jure provinces of Egypt and Sudan. This results in a different outcome regarding the Suez, with the British and French (the former especially) having heavy influence over Egyptian matters, but no British Invasion and occupation of Egyptian territories. As well, no conflicts between Ottoman and Egyptian armies over Syria.

Hamidian massacres never happen, as the Armenians have less reason to rebel after being granted most, if not all, of the liberties they were demanding by the earlier 1876 constitution. As well a constitution guaranteeing civil liberties means the army can't/won't attack the protesters for exercising said liberties.

A continued constitution means no coup by the Young Turks in 1908 to try and (re)create a constitution, and no chaos created by the rule of Committees.

No Italo-Turkish War and loss of Libya, because the Ottomans are not perceived to be the 'Sick Man of Europe' ITL. As well, no Balkan Wars for the same reason, and the Ottomans maintain a greater hold of South-Eastern Europe.

WWI still happens for some reason or another between 1910s-1920s, but I'm not sure which side the Ottomans go to. Hell, with a stronger Ottoman Empire, I'm not sure whose side anyone is on. The Ottomans are going to be against the Russians, and so are the Germans. The French are going to be allied with the Russians. But the Brits could go either way. And the Ottomans may not like the Russians, but they like the Austians just as badly, or worse, so Ottomans could stay out the CP, or stay out of WW1 altogether.

a) Ottomans in CP with Germany & Austria-Hungry vs Russia, France & British - Ottomans lose territory in Africa and Balkans, but are able to hold onto Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Arabia. Perhaps greater control/influence exercised over Egypt and/or Peria during/after this time. Reactionary coup takes place soon there-after, most likely leading to Fascism with Ottoman characteristics along the lines of OTL Italy. Perhaps a break-away theocratic (little 't') monarchy in Arabia, supported by Britain/France.

b) Ottomans in Entente with France, Russia and Britain vs Austria-Hungry & Germany - Ottomans (re)gain lost Austrian territories, and hold onto all already owned territories. Multicultural constitutional monarchy continues, both by its own power and momenteum and continuing support of France and Britain to maintain balance of power in Europe. Probable increased influence over Egypt and/or Persia, perhaps even leading to Egyptian reunification with the Ottoman Empire proper.

ab) Ottomans in Alliance Alpha with France and Britain ('Entente') vs Austria-Hungry, Germany and Russia in Alliance One ('Central Powers') - most likely Germany fights combined powers of France and Britain in the Western Front as per OTL, while both Austria-Hungry and Russia hammer the Ottomans in the Balkans, Black Sea, Eastern Mediterranean and Caucasus. Ottomans fall rapidly without British aid. Ottomans sue for peace and fold out of the war, losing territories and economic concessions in all of those areas. Ottomans limited to Anatolia proper; essentially OTL Turkey.

xy) Ottomans in Alliance Alpha with Britain and Germany ('Central Powers') vs Austria-Hungry, Russia and France in Alliance One ('Entente') - Same as above, though its Germany that gains the hammer brought down on it. Ottomans make offensive moves into the Balkans against the Austrians, hold the Russians at the Caucasus, perhaps even cross the Black Sea into Crimea. British and Ottoman strategy in this case is to hope that Germany can hold out as the anvil, while they hammer the 'Entente' forces from the rear.

c) Ottomans remain neutral in war. No territory gained, but no territory lost. Depending on how the war goes, they might gain Protectorates on the Black Sea and in the Balkans as Russia and Austria-Hungry fall apart around them (assuming Entente victory and Russian Civil War), or they re-gain complete control of Egypt (assuming CP victory). Most probable increased influence over Peria in this projection, possibly even out-right war and invasion, which would lead to its own set of possible butterflies.

d) Ottomans pull an Italy and join the winning side late in the war. They make minimal gains, and at the peace talks are granted nothing. No territorial loses though, and no break-up of the empire. However a Technocratic/Fascist regime most likely comes to power sometime in the next 20-30 years playing on the mythos of the Ottoman Empire of old and (re)gaining glories.

And I have no idea from there.

Yes, its all Ottoman-wank, but hey, even furniture needs a good wank every now and then ;) :cool:

[wiking]

Earlier modernization program and a victory against the Russians would help tremendously. Perhaps a greater willingness to abandon territory in the various Balkan wars and focus on holding what can be held. Not getting involved in WW1 would certainly help, as the empire could have survived to the present day without it methinks (perhaps wrongly).

[Ofaloaf]

The German advisers stationed in Constantinople prior to the Balkan Wars aren't total twits, and push for a program of upgrading old fortifications in Thrace and Albania. The First Balkan War doesn't go nearly as badly as OTL, the Balkan League gets exhausted and turns back to their time-honored traditions of bickering amongst themselves, and Turkey-in-Europe gets to remain at something near its pre-1912 borders.

Ottomans don't become active participants in World War One. No Arab Revolt, none of that harsh mandate claptrap, no ridiculously long time waging war.


Horray, crisis averted, and with post-1900 solutions at that. Because the Ottomans can survive without Athens and Sofia, and shouldn't be considered "lost" or "fallen" by then.

[mowque]

The German advisers stationed in Constantinople prior to the Balkan Wars aren't total twits, and push for a program of upgrading old fortifications in Thrace and Albania. The First Balkan War doesn't go nearly as badly as OTL, the Balkan League gets exhausted and turns back to their time-honored traditions of bickering amongst themselves, and Turkey-in-Europe gets to remain at something near its pre-1912 borders.

Ottomans don't become active participants in World War One. No Arab Revolt, none of that harsh mandate claptrap, no ridiculously long time waging war.


Horray, crisis averted.

...You been reading my TL over my shoulder?

[Ofaloaf]

...You been reading my TL over my shoulder?
I'm sneaky like that.

[The Sandman]

How about Suleiman being focused on naval affairs for some reason? Instead of conquering Hungary, he decides to finish driving Venice out of the Mediterranean by taking Crete. The naval expansion necessary for this helps extend and strengthen the existing Ottoman naval tradition, and decreases the ability of European powers to make trouble for the Ottomans in the Eastern Med.

If you can extend this shift in priorities to the Indian Ocean, probably by having the Spanish and Portugese respond to increased Ottoman strength in the Mediterranean by attacking hajjis on their way to and from Mecca, you've just given the Ottomans a chance to hook into the Indian Ocean trade network, with all the added wealth that entails.

[DirtyCommie]

Two things: The Ottomans needed to industrialize, then conquer Persia. It would have been much easier that way.

[Iori]

IOTL the Ottomans did'nt really need to do anything, they were perfectly capable of continuing to exist and had, starting in the first half of the 19th century began reforms.

The real problems the Ottomans had was other nations, be that Russia and Austria-Hungary in the 19th century who did'nt ike them on principle or France and Britain in the 20th century who simplywanted t dismantle it and add its territories to their own overly-large Empires.

Now, that said, your PoD is going to have to be before or literally right at the begining of the 19th century to keep all of Greece, otherwise the PoD can be much later.

[jycee]

WWI still happens for some reason or another between 1910s-1920s, but I'm not sure which side the Ottomans go to. Hell, with a stronger Ottoman Empire, I'm not sure whose side anyone is on. The Ottomans are going to be against the Russians, and so are the Germans. The French are going to be allied with the Russians. But the Brits could go either way. And the Ottomans may not like the Russians, but they like the Austians just as badly, or worse, so Ottomans could stay out the CP, or stay out of WW1 altogether.


Actually, I think that a TL were the Ottoman Empire remains part of the balance of power in Europe into the 1900s could be a TL without a Great War or at least a delayed one.
If Russia doesn't modernize and catch up as well, it will be considered the sick man of Europe instead. Remember Russia almost had its revolution in 1905 (could happen at any point in the first decade of the century), what if a strong Ottoman Empire gives some aid and pulls a few triggers to have its rival fall into revolution. Both the Ottomans and Germany will then be on the look out to see what they can carve up from the outcome.

France, & Germany might still have a rivalry going on. But this can be settled on the Imperial stage somewhere in Africa, or through one or two quick contained wars (depending on when they happen).

Britain acts like it always did only interfering to keep any power from gaining the opportunity to get too powerful, and playing the others to maintain a certain balance.

[Nassirisimo]

The Ottoman empire could survive up until this day even with a POD as late as 1914. There, they simply have to stay out of WW1. Or Join the allies. The Balkan wars can be won if the Ottomans have a stronger navy then the Greeks, and this would mean that a significant chunk of the Balkans would still be under Ottoman rule.

If the Ottomans could survive into the 1930's then their survival until the present day is assured, as they will have access to nearly all the Middle Easts oil, and it would be more likely to spend the money wisely then the current rulers of the area.

[Orko]

Hmm.... Well, had the Ottomans conquered Vienna in either one of the sieges, they would eliminate a major enemy AND be too large to conquer. Though they may also overstretch themselves that way, too. If they industrialise and reform, than they would be on par with the other European countries and may prevent some revolutions in the Balkans and decrease dissent from the Arabs.

[cbr]

The Ottoman empire could survive up until this day even with a POD as late as 1914. There, they simply have to stay out of WW1. Or Join the allies. The Balkan wars can be won if the Ottomans have a stronger navy then the Greeks, and this would mean that a significant chunk of the Balkans would still be under Ottoman rule.

If the Ottomans could survive into the 1930's then their survival until the present day is assured, as they will have access to nearly all the Middle Easts oil, and it would be more likely to spend the money wisely then the current rulers of the area.

I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny or stupid. First you say that the Ottomans could still rule the Balkans with a POD as late as 1914, yet you're saying that they need a stronger navy than Greece, but the First Balkan War started in late 1912 and even then the British, French and Italians were ripping parts of it almost daily, not to mention that in 1914 European OE was pretty much the same as modern day Turkey, by 1914 they weren't controlling anything in the Balkans.

You also say that OE should stay neutral or join the Entente in WW1, while staying neutral is certainly possible and might postpone its complete collapse, it wouldn't gain it anything either and as for joining the Entente, the chances of that are practically void since the Entente had Russia and the OE and Russia had competing interests. Not to mention that I don't think they'd be in any hurry to fight for the people that have been carving up former OE territory for themselves.

The idea that OE would have continued survival to this day if only they'd made it into the 1930s is amusing, baseless and completely against trend of the time, but amusing anyway. What makes you think that even if OE stay neutral in WW1, the British and the French wouldn't come back post war and continue where they left off pre war? They could make Iraq a protectorate like they did with Egypt and there wouldn't be anything OE could do.

[Troyer IV]

I went with the whole stop expansions and such... but if they had a new world colony to dump some of those unfriendly minorities, it could help later on...

That is, so long as the colony was meant to be sort of a penal colony - drop 'em off and leave them to their own devices for the most part; finding the most cost efficient way possible, both in transport and resource gathering.

[Simon]

Since Rex Romanum is asking for the Ottomans to keep Bulgaria, Albania, and Greece then the point of departure has to be 1821 or earlier, after the western intervention and Greece gaining its independence the Ottomans are never getting back in. Maybe if the Ottomans take more of a softly-softly approach, militarily beating the rebels and scrupulously avoiding any massacres, as well as taking steps to not antagonise the Europeans through silly actions like hanging the Patriarch but play them off against each other they can keep it a purely internal matter. With no European intervention they shouldn't have any trouble keeping the Greeks in line.

IIRC weren't the Balkans already majority Muslim and moving more towards that way under the Ottomans? It was only when various nations started breaking away or land annexed by countries like Russia and massacres of Muslims and ethnic cleansing happened that we get what we have today as the ethnic and religious makeup of the region. Industrialising and a bit of light reform should be enough to have them strong enough to at least defensively see off any Russian or Austro-Hungarian aggression. And since IIRC Bulgaria and the Danubian Principalities had the resource most needed for industrialisation it becomes something of a virtuous circle - modernise enough to hold onto them and continued ownership of them allows you to keep industrialising, continuing to build up your industry allows you to keep a hold of the provinces and keep industrialising, and so on and so on.


The real problems the Ottomans had was other nations, be that Russia and Austria-Hungary in the 19th century who didn't like them on principle or France and Britain in the 20th century who simply wanted to dismantle it and add its territories to their own overly-large Empires.
Wasn't that pretty much how everything worked back then? Plenty of countries hated each other and would like to take territory off the other, it was only because the Ottoman Empire was so weak that countries like Russia and Austria-Hungary could get away with it rather than any special malice. From what I can see it all eventually comes back to the Ottomans having to modernise their state to some extent and industrialise.

[Ofaloaf]

I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny or stupid. First you say that the Ottomans could still rule the Balkans with a POD as late as 1914, yet you're saying that they need a stronger navy than Greece, but the First Balkan War started in late 1912 and even then the British, French and Italians were ripping parts of it almost daily, not to mention that in 1914 European OE was pretty much the same as modern day Turkey, by 1914 they weren't controlling anything in the Balkans.
He said that the Ottomans could survive up to the present era with a POD as late as 1914, not that they'd be able to hold on to much of the Balkans. A lot of answers here aren't really meeting the OP's challenge head-on.
You also say that OE should stay neutral or join the Entente in WW1, while staying neutral is certainly possible and might postpone its complete collapse, it wouldn't gain it anything either and as for joining the Entente, the chances of that are practically void since the Entente had Russia and the OE and Russia had competing interests. Not to mention that I don't think they'd be in any hurry to fight for the people that have been carving up former OE territory for themselves.
French and British interventions dating back to 1878 had largely been forgotten-- in 1914, the Brits were even constructing ships for the Ottomans, though they seized these at the outbreak of the war and used them for themselves, which was part of why the Ottoman Empire joined the CP.

Mind you, Austria-Hungary had also nipped a fair bit of Ottoman territory for themselves as well IOTL, and Istanbul still fought alongside them in World War One.
The idea that OE would have continued survival to this day if only they'd made it into the 1930s is amusing, baseless and completely against trend of the time, but amusing anyway. What makes you think that even if OE stay neutral in WW1, the British and the French wouldn't come back post war and continue where they left off pre war? They could make Iraq a protectorate like they did with Egypt and there wouldn't be anything OE could do.
An Ottoman Empire that stays out of WWI is an Ottoman Empire that doesn't end up essentially at war with one country or another from 1911 to 1923. It is an empire that is a lot less worn-out, that has a lot more manpower than what it'd otherwise have, and would've had time to digest the lessons of the Italo-Turkish and First Balkan Wars to their benefit without having to fight even more wars in the meanwhile.

[Nassirisimo]

I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny or stupid. First you say that the Ottomans could still rule the Balkans with a POD as late as 1914, yet you're saying that they need a stronger navy than Greece, but the First Balkan War started in late 1912 and even then the British, French and Italians were ripping parts of it almost daily, not to mention that in 1914 European OE was pretty much the same as modern day Turkey, by 1914 they weren't controlling anything in the Balkans.

You also say that OE should stay neutral or join the Entente in WW1, while staying neutral is certainly possible and might postpone its complete collapse, it wouldn't gain it anything either and as for joining the Entente, the chances of that are practically void since the Entente had Russia and the OE and Russia had competing interests. Not to mention that I don't think they'd be in any hurry to fight for the people that have been carving up former OE territory for themselves.

The idea that OE would have continued survival to this day if only they'd made it into the 1930s is amusing, baseless and completely against trend of the time, but amusing anyway. What makes you think that even if OE stay neutral in WW1, the British and the French wouldn't come back post war and continue where they left off pre war? They could make Iraq a protectorate like they did with Egypt and there wouldn't be anything OE could do.
Well, im sorry I forgot to mention that the Balkan wars POD was at a different date then the WW1 POD. However, It is actually pretty easy for the Ottomans to survive if they do not enter WW1. First of all, the Italians, British and French were not "ripping parts of it almost daily". The Italians had an extraordinary amount of difficulty just taking Lybia alone, and they rarely had effective control over anything outside of Tripoli and Benghazi. The British only got Cyprus as a sort of reward for helping the Ottomans diplomatically against the Russians in 1878, and I cannot think of any examples of the French taking territory from the Ottomans in the 19th century.

And there was certianly not a trend towards an Ottoman collapse. The reforms of the 19th century were actually very successful. The reformed Ottoman armies had almost held off Russia in the Russo-Turkish war. They defeated Greece easily in the 1897 war. And the Balkan wars could have been won if the Ottomans had been able to get their armys from Anatolia to the battlefields in the Balkans by ship (although, to be fair, the poor Ottoman rail system was another important reason as to why the whole Ottoman army could not be deployed).

Edit- And Simon is largely right at thinking that the Greek war of independence is the needed POD for the Ottomans to keep all the territories required by the OP. Although I would argue that Greece could be kept if there is much less desire in Europe to support the Greeks. Not sure how this can be done though. Either way, up until the battle of Navarino, the Turks looked as if they would be able to defeat the rebellion, so if you remove the intervention in the conflict, it looks likely that the Ottomans could in it.

[cbr]

And there was certianly not a trend towards an Ottoman collapse. The reforms of the 19th century were actually very successful. The reformed Ottoman armies had almost held off Russia in the Russo-Turkish war. They defeated Greece easily in the 1897 war. And the Balkan wars could have been won if the Ottomans had been able to get their armys from Anatolia to the battlefields in the Balkans by ship (although, to be fair, the poor Ottoman rail system was another important reason as to why the whole Ottoman army could not be deployed).

And isn't that what every country wants from its army? To almost hold off the enemy or in the case of the Balkan war, to not even manage to get to the front. You're right those were minor problems, the reforms were GREAT SUCESS! it doesn't matter that the ottoman forces in the Balkans were scattered and if it wasn't for pressure from the western powers Russia would have taken Constantinopole.

Oh and by the way, the "almost held off" it had more to do with Russian mistakes than it had with the OE's reforms, if the Russians would have sent all the troops they should have over the Danube there wouldn't have been an almost anything.

[Nassirisimo]

And isn't that what every country wants from its army? To almost hold off the enemy or in the case of the Balkan war, to not even manage to get to the front. You're right those were minor problems, the reforms were GREAT SUCESS! it doesn't matter that the ottoman forces in the Balkans were scattered and if it wasn't for pressure from the western powers Russia would have taken Constantinopole.

Oh and by the way, the "almost held off" it had more to do with Russian mistakes than it had with the OE's reforms, if the Russians would have sent all the troops they should have over the Danube there wouldn't have been an almost anything.
The Russians in the Russo-Turkish war would not have been able to take Constantinople even if the western powers had not intervened. The army was on the point of collapse as it approached Constantinople, and the Russian economy was unable to continue supporting the war effort. As for the holding off point, at one point in the battle of Plevna, 30,000 Ottoman soldiers were holding off over 200,000 Russians. Sounds like the Ottomans were pound for pound better then the Russians. And the Ottomans in the Balkan wars were in the middle of a re-organisation of the army, which also contributed to the defeat. The re-organisation eventually proved to be successful as they were able to defeat the British and Russians in a number of battles in WW1.

[cbr]

The Russians in the Russo-Turkish war would not have been able to take Constantinople even if the western powers had not intervened. The army was on the point of collapse as it approached Constantinople, and the Russian economy was unable to continue supporting the war effort. As for the holding off point, at one point in the battle of Plevna, 30,000 Ottoman soldiers were holding off over 200,000 Russians. Sounds like the Ottomans were pound for pound better then the Russians. And the Ottomans in the Balkan wars were in the middle of a re-organisation of the army, which also contributed to the defeat. The re-organisation eventually proved to be successful as they were able to defeat the British and Russians in a number of battles in WW1.

Those numbers are fantasy, when Osman Pasha moved from Vidin to Plevna and started to fortify it, the turks actually outnumbered the russians and after a couple of russian assaults the numbers evened out, but since the russians had lower morale since they were repelled they started to siege it and asked the Romanians to help, only after the Romanian troops arrived at Plevna did they get a 5:1 ratio in manpower.

By the way since you seem to have a very romantic view of ottoman troops, 1 turk can take on 5 russians and all that, another reason the turks did as well as they did, besides the quite massive russian mistakes, was because they actually had more modern weapons.

[Don Grey]

Well there is a couple of things that need to go right for the ottomans which actualy could have gone the other way.

After sultan mehmet takes istanbul he doesnt reinstate the patriarch causing the rapid converstion rate to continue as much as it can.He also lives longer and goes for italy which was rich and weak and takes it because there was a window of oppertunity which isnt asb because its been discussed sevral times before(im not going to go back not it). Starts a program of masive naval advancement with the added knowladge of italy's naval engineers in a couple of decades we start seeing greater improvement.

The Siege of Malta (1565) is won making sure the central med gets under ottoman controle.Which also acts as a base of operaition for the western med.

Sultan selim brings proper reinforcements to the Russo-Turkish War of (1568–1570) and takes the city of astrakhan stoping the russian advance southwords. He also lives longer and finishes of persia making sure the eastern front is secure so they dont have to leave troops there could be used in the balkans.Naval expantion continues.

If these happen the battle leponto does not happen because norther italy states are at least a vessal by this point and they supplied the most ships. But if it does happen it could still have been easly won if it wasnt for the two stupid admirals that didintt like each other.Make them get along or have barbarossa live longer easy win.

Suleiman continue his expansion as otl but doesnt annex hungary instead vessalises it. In the seige of vienna we see better weather which was all that was need to win. The city falls and is copletly sacked as well as raiding parties are sent to neighboring lands for some more sacking. I dont think vienna will be held because of distance.But it will ofset the hapsburgs to such a degree that the balkan territories will be secure.Suleyman also continues the naval expantion program. And instead of selim the second the drunkard taking the throne his other fierce son mehmet takes the throne.Suleyman also gets rid of the jannisaries and finds another conscription alternative that excapes for the moment.

The Russo–Turkish War of 1686–1700 is also won making sure the black sea stays a private turkish lake.

If the Russo-Turkish War of (1710–1711) happens whch i doubt will but lets say it does.After the ottomans had surrounded the russian forces and defeated them instead of leting them go batlacı mehmet pasha kills peter the great.Thus knocking out the numericaly and resource suprior rival of the ottomans for quite some time.

The only way the for the ottomans to survive and not be cake for great powers to split apart when they get hungary is if it industrialises. Now we all know given the conditions of anatolia and middle east and north africa it doesnt have the resources to industrialise or the pop.Only the balkans can industrilise. So the point of the game is to have the ottomas keep the rich balkans and get as much of it as possible and other euro lands. Also the future is in the seas. The ottomans after getting control of eastern med and central med must continue to expand there navy as much as possble. So the future naval powers spain britian france think twice about chalanging them there.And perferbly convert as much of the caucauses and balkans as possible or make sure there loyal.

With these rich lands and larger pop still under ottoman rule they can continue to industrialise and make reformes. Every one thinks the ottomans couldnt refome wouldnt or wasnt fast enough. Every one forgets that the reason the westerners past the ottomasn was because the richness of there lands plus there large populations.They did try to industrialise and reform but it wasnt up to par with the europeans because because they didnt have the reasources. If fate had gone on the other way of the ottomans and the things i said happend then we would see a larger and much stronger ottoman empire then the otl.

Edit: But this is an ideal scenario m sure ottoman experts can give a much sipler answer.

[Nassirisimo]

Those numbers are fantasy, when Osman Pasha moved from Vidin to Plevna and started to fortify it, the turks actually outnumbered the russians and after a couple of russian assaults the numbers evened out, but since the russians had lower morale since they were repelled they started to siege it and asked the Romanians to help, only after the Romanian troops arrived at Plevna did they get a 5:1 ratio in manpower.

By the way since you seem to have a very romantic view of ottoman troops, 1 turk can take on 5 russians and all that, another reason the turks did as well as they did, besides the quite massive russian mistakes, was because they actually had more modern weapons.
You seem to misunderstand me. One of the reasons why the Ottoman soldiers at Plevna were pound for pound better then the Russians was their more modern weaponary. And I clearly stated that it was at one point during the battle. And the Ottomans did fight well, indeed, the Ottomans surrender was more due to a lack of ammunition and other supplies then anything else. Not quite sure why its so hard for you to give the Ottomans even a little credit though.

[cbr]

You seem to misunderstand me. One of the reasons why the Ottoman soldiers at Plevna were pound for pound better then the Russians was their more modern weaponary. And I clearly stated that it was at one point during the battle. And the Ottomans did fight well, indeed, the Ottomans surrender was more due to a lack of ammunition and other supplies then anything else. Not quite sure why its so hard for you to give the Ottomans even a little credit though.

I do give them credit, I give them credit for exploiting russian mistakes and they still lost.

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Abolish the millet system and establish legal equality amongst the Ottoman citizenry.

[Nassirisimo]

I do give them credit, I give them credit for exploiting russian mistakes and they still lost.
They didn't exploit them enough, apparently, but the war could have been a Ottoman victory, had certian things gone differently. I think AHP was doing a timeline about it, but I don't know what happened with it. Still, its all a moot point, because there was no way Greece was going back into the empire at this point, so you'd need a POD much earlier in the 19th century.

[Simon]

Although I would argue that Greece could be kept if there is much less desire in Europe to support the Greeks. Not sure how this can be done though.
I could well be wrong, Greek history being very far from one of my strong points, but wasn't the European response to the Greeks fairly hostile as they didn't want the situation in the region destabilised? Being a bit smarter and not hanging the Patriarch probably keeps Russia out since until then Alexander I had come out against the Greeks, this helps keep the British out since if the Russians aren't looking like getting involved unilaterally they wont worry about them expanding their influence. Avoid any major massacres, even if they were in response to Greek massacres, to stop the newspapers and public getting riled up and I think you might just be able to get away with no Treaty of London. The Greek revolt is put down and everything carries on status quo ante.

[Nassirisimo]

I could well be wrong, Greek history being very far from one of my strong points, but wasn't the European response to the Greeks fairly hostile as they didn't want the situation in the region destabilised? Being a bit smarter and not hanging the Patriarch probably keeps Russia out since until then Alexander I had come out against the Greeks, this helps keep the British out since if the Russians aren't looking like getting involved unilaterally they wont worry about them expanding their influence. Avoid any major massacres, even if they were in response to Greek massacres, to stop the newspapers and public getting riled up and I think you might just be able to get away with no Treaty of London. The Greek revolt is put down and everything carries on status quo ante.
Well, im not very knowledgeable in this area either, but as far as I know, opinion in Europe was split. Austria and some of the other conservative powers wanted to allow Turkey to defeat the Greeks in order to make sure that the region wasn't destabilised, but Britain and France were supporters of Greek independence (mainly due to their admiration for ancient Greek culture). Maybe what is needed is a combination of good behavior by the Turkish troops with less interest in Ancient Greece in Britain and France.

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Actually if it wasn't for the intervention, the Turks would have crushed the rebels and had them executed.

[GreatScottMarty]

1. Crush the Russians
2. Industrialization

Those two would have helped immensely. When I say industrialize I mean education, gradual democracy etc. In effect, full westernization (or at least 2nd Reich copy)

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

What I mean as 'Ottoman Empire' was to be at least encompassing the present day territories of Bulgaria, Albania, Greece, and Turkey, and still using Constantinople (Istanbul) as its capital...
PS:
Even though the 'fall' of the Ottomans was happened after 1900, I posted this thread here because I think this would require pre-1900 PODs...

I see a lot of people choosing "cease expansion and industrialize", but that doesn't make sense because the Ottomans stopped expanding long before the Industrial Revolution. It's not so simple to industrialize, and the cards were stacked against the Ottomans for many reasons.

Probably I would pick something different:

- Selim III doesn't lose his nerve in the Janissary Revolt, starting reform 40 years sooner. In OTL, he lost his nerve, and got deposed, leading to a conservative reaction. It took Mahmud II too much time to build up his power to the point where he could launch reform, and then too much effort had to be wasted stopping Egypt. If Selim's reforms had continued, that would have saved two generations and allowed the Ottomans to capitalize better on the Napoleonic Wars.

- Ottomans win war of 1877-78 with Russia. By then, Ottoman reform was in full swing; if the Russians could have been fended off, the Ottomans would have been well on the path toward being a constitutional liberal-democratic monarchy. Plus, parts of the Balkans were in a proto-industrial state - by WWI could have seen real industrial development.

[Mr. Magi]

How about they just reform earlier and more successfully to generate a national identity? Because from what I got, that was what gutted them later on.

[Don Grey]

I see a lot of people choosing "cease expansion and industrialize", but that doesn't make sense because the Ottomans stopped expanding long before the Industrial Revolution. It's not so simple to industrialize, and the cards were stacked against the Ottomans for many reasons.

Probably I would pick something different:

- Selim III doesn't lose his nerve in the Janissary Revolt, starting reform 40 years sooner. In OTL, he lost his nerve, and got deposed, leading to a conservative reaction. It took Mahmud II too much time to build up his power to the point where he could launch reform, and then too much effort had to be wasted stopping Egypt. If Selim's reforms had continued, that would have saved two generations and allowed the Ottomans to capitalize better on the Napoleonic Wars.

- Ottomans win war of 1877-78 with Russia. By then, Ottoman reform was in full swing; if the Russians could have been fended off, the Ottomans would have been well on the path toward being a constitutional liberal-democratic monarchy. Plus, parts of the Balkans were in a proto-industrial state - by WWI could have seen real industrial development.

I dont know if this would be enough. Selim the thirds seems a bit late. How would you capitalize on the ne nepolianic wars when you cant even fend of napoleon?

[htgriffin]

I see a lot of people choosing "cease expansion and industrialize", but that doesn't make sense because the Ottomans stopped expanding long before the Industrial Revolution. It's not so simple to industrialize, and the cards were stacked against the Ottomans for many reasons.

Probably I would pick something different:

- Selim III doesn't lose his nerve in the Janissary Revolt, starting reform 40 years sooner. In OTL, he lost his nerve, and got deposed, leading to a conservative reaction. It took Mahmud II too much time to build up his power to the point where he could launch reform, and then too much effort had to be wasted stopping Egypt. If Selim's reforms had continued, that would have saved two generations and allowed the Ottomans to capitalize better on the Napoleonic Wars.

- Ottomans win war of 1877-78 with Russia. By then, Ottoman reform was in full swing; if the Russians could have been fended off, the Ottomans would have been well on the path toward being a constitutional liberal-democratic monarchy. Plus, parts of the Balkans were in a proto-industrial state - by WWI could have seen real industrial development.

This... this works well. Considering your initial POD they may have done better in the various other 19th century wars.

I had a different idea:
Keep Hungary as a quasi-independent buffer state.
Keep the Jannisaries a non-hereditary meritocratic force. Do what needs to be done to get the Muslim subjects included in same.


HTG

[Ridwan Asher]

I dont know if this would be enough. Selim the thirds seems a bit late. How would you capitalize on the ne nepolianic wars when you cant even fend of napoleon?

Maybe that Ottoman can immediately regain Egypt this way ?

Of course that I said that without really thinking. If I'm wrong please correct me immediately... :o

[Russian Sailor]

Maybe that Ottoman can immediately regain Egypt this way ?

Of course that I said that without really thinking. If I'm wrong please correct me immediately... :o

I would like to see a tl of the ottoman empire being able to keep on par with european nations.

[Van555]

same dude same

I guess you could look in to that one guy... uh I forgot his name :o

[Cuāuhtemōc]

I would like to see a tl of the ottoman empire being able to keep on par with european nations.

Then you'll love my new and upcoming Ottoman time "The Ottoman Peace"

[Russian Sailor]

Then you'll love my new and upcoming Ottoman time "The Ottoman Peace"

wow awesome I just have a question when is it taking place?

Oh I hope my thread on the ottomans helped you.:o

[Cuāuhtemōc]

wow awesome I just have a question when is it taking place?

Oh I hope my thread on the ottomans helped you.:o

During the beginning of the Greek Revolution. It has love, sex, intrigue, betrayal, war, more sex and last but not least nuclear weapons. :p

[Russian Sailor]

:p:pDuring the beginning of the Greek Revolution. It has love, sex, intrigue, betrayal, war, more sex and last but not least nuclear weapons. :p
yah love sex more sex sex war more war and nuclear weapeons