Ottoman Empire

I've been thinking about a what-if scenario where the Ottoman Empire hadn't collapsed, however, there's a lot I'm not sure about:

1) What events would have needed to change for it to remain?

2) How might it have affected World War 2?

3) How might it have affected modern history?

I'm going to guess that if the sultans had been stronger morally and not misruled the Empire might have remained, but I also suspect at some point the Empire might have ended up being more akin to the United States, with various states established within it under the rule of a particular local group but united with the Empire overall.

Thoughts?

Survival of Ottoman Empire even with post-1900 POD is possible altough difficult. The empire just needs reform itself and stay neutral on WW1 or CP should win Great War. WW2 of course would be then totally different if there even would be that.

Its affect for modern world depends when POD would be and what areas OE would control. If it control most of Middle East it could be quiet influental in Islamic world and might be economic and military power. But for this it would need much good luck.

Here's a thought -- I'm not so sure the "Ataturk model" is so helpful for reforming Ottoman society. I personally think the "winning ticket" is the Young Ottomans thought, if they can get a Sultan who supports them or if they can form a coherent political force. The thing is, they combined political and economic liberalism with national and religious identity. So you will have a more or less apolitical sufi-type traditionalist Islam coexisting with a slightly nationalistic political liberalism, German style. The whole secret is to not split the Turkish-Islamic society into 2 (or 4, if one considers the Kurdish issue), because then you get permanent tension (unless you think there is some merit to permanent tension).

Now, that's for political and economic success. If borders is what you want to save, you need to either avoid getting into WWI, or for the Empire's diplomats to refuse to sign the allied peace, and for its military elites to take the decision to fight to death. Might work. (This is essentially what the nationalist leaders decided - if they want the land, the allies should take it inch by inch till every single Turk is dead. The allies preferred to avoid that and gave up.)

As for 3.), the Ottomans may have committed genocide in the end, but in the 1840s, they decriminalized apostasy against Islam, then did the same for homosexuality in the 1850s. Even if you disagree with the latter (Edit: I don't, I believe that the Ottomans did well to allow loving and fulfilling relationships between people of the same sex to be consumnated), the former was a good thing, especially if it lasted till today.

The easiest way to do this would be to have the Ottomans win the 1876-7 War with Russia, which they almost did. This will ensure the Ottomans can continue their reforms, keep their Balkan Power base, pay off their debts (thanks to the additional territories), re-integrate Egypt (the British asked them to do so first but the Ottomans couldn't, hence the intervention) and basically just have more money overall to fund... well, anything they needed.

The latest is of course to simply have the Central Powers win WWI. France and Britain, the two major threats the empire will have been bankrupt and the various unequal treaties (like the capitulations) imposed shall be repudiated, again helping the financial prospects and pretty much ending the threat of depredations against the Ottoman state. There is also the possibility that Kuwait might be conquered which will in turn help cement Ottoman control over Arabia, and therefore- the oil (not that holding Iraq and Syria along wouldn't be quite a lot).

If you want a superpower Ottoman state, the answer is to have Selim crush the Janissaries in the 1790s, starting the Tanzimat decades earlier and allowing him to reform nearly unopposed (Europe is in the midst of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, so its not like they can or want to intervene).

How this affects the modern world, well- its tough to say but its certain the Middle East would be a much better place with better living standards being the norm. Probably First World. Also certainly Arab nationalism is butterflied away.

Dragos Cel Mare said:

In the 1840s, they decriminalized apostasy against Islam, then did the same for homosexuality in the 1850s. Even if you disagree with the latter, the former was a good thing, especially if it lasted till today.

Click to expand...

So denying homosexuals their human rights is a debatable option. Yeah, that's not offensive at all. :/

As for the actual topic, saving the Ottoman Empire should actually be really easy. I'm pretty sure they'd still be around if they just remained neutral in WW1. Of course, the further back you go, the more you can save.

Napoléon Caesar Augustus said:

So denying homosexuals their human rights is a debatable option. Yeah, that's not offensive at all. :/

As for the actual topic, saving the Ottoman Empire should actually be really easy. I'm pretty sure they'd still be around if they just remained neutral in WW1. Of course, the further back you go, the more you can save.

Click to expand...

I meant nothing offensive. What I meant is that several people in AH.Com itself (I won't name names) are against gay marriage, and they might object to me saying that the Ottomans decriminalizing homosexuality was an unambigious good, which I believe it is.

Here's hoping my clarification saves me from a ban.

Dragos Cel Mare said:

I meant nothing offensive. What I meant is that several people in AH.Com itself (I won't name names) are against gay marriage, and they might object to me saying that the Ottomans decriminalizing homosexuality was an unambigious good, which I believe it is.

Here's hoping my clarification saves me from a ban.

Click to expand...

I'd sure hope you don't get a ban or even a warning for that, since nothing you said was offensive.

OT: I feel like the Ottomans surviving could lead to a more stable Middle East. Sure, there'd be much more resentment against the Ottomans and probably a lot more terrorism directed at Istanbul rather than at the west, though of a nationalist nature rather than religious, but you'd have a central authority governing the entirety of Anatolia and the Mashriq (and at most, Egypt and Hedjaz, unless your POD is before the 1800s), assuming it's not an Ottoman rump state.

I can imagine the Balkans could go either way, more peaceful or less.

I certainly see such an Ottoman Empire secularising more and more over time, especially if it keeps ahold of the Balkan Christian regions.

If the Empire secularises more and more, due to the basic realities of sociology, you'll get a growing and growing religious opposition getting more and more anti-secular. I still think a compromise political solution would be best.

As for the Middle East, I kind of get the feeling that people here think it's fixable. I might be wrong but I think a lot of its problems are due to it's societies' tribalism and this tribalism is mainly due to the environment, i.e. the desert. And the desert isn't going anywhere. The Middle East would be a drag on the Empire and there would be a very real problem inside the Sunni community between the largely Sufi Turks and the largely non-Sufi, often anti-Sufi Arab-speakers. Bad stuff.

Loose the Middle East. Perhaps keep some of the Kurdish bits - maybe the oily bits, but don't go into the desert area, keep to the mountains. Keep Sinai. Have a vassal intalled and protected in the Hejaz, guarding the Holy Places in the Sultan's name. Run like hell from useless pirate nests like Lybia - unless you have massive amounts of money and you've run out of odalisques to throw it at. In that case, do sink your budget in the Lybian desert by all means.

Saving the Ottoman Empire for the sake of the Ottoman Empire is relatively easy and it necessarily involves keeping a lot of the Balkans - the good stuff (not the troubly W Balkans though). Saving the Ottoman Empire in order to save the Middle East... Not so sure. Of course, if the Ottoman Empire is safely beyond the Danube than it can think of conquering stuff it doesn't really need, like the Middle East, just for the prestige of it. But at this point the empire could really do without a place to get endlessly bogged down into.

(Of course the Ottomans were way better than westerners at understanding and thus managing the Middle East, basically by giving each tribe and sect it's own turf - the Chehabs had their turf, the Druze had their turf, several Kurdish tribes had their respective turfs, etc. But still it was one giant headache. Besides, the Empire can have influence there without directly ruling it. Seriously though, loosing the Middle East, minus some oily bits, might be a sure way to save the Empire.)

Quick Note: Egypt is (a bit) different. Egypt might be useful as a colony type territory for some time, but not to integrate.

Rum Medeniyeti said:

As for the Middle East, I kind of get the feeling that people here think it's fixable. I might be wrong but I think a lot of its problems are due to it's societies' tribalism and this tribalism is mainly due to the environment, i.e. the desert. And the desert isn't going anywhere. The Middle East would be a drag on the Empire and there would be a very real problem inside the Sunni community between the largely Sufi Turks and the largely non-Sufi, often anti-Sufi Arab-speakers. Bad stuff.

Click to expand...

Then the solution to this is to urbanize the place then and erode the cultural power of the Bedouins and other nomadic peoples. Education, wealth, mass media and intermixing are how you deal with tribalism in your society.

Loose the Middle East. Perhaps keep some of the Kurdish bits - maybe the oily bits, but don't go into the desert area, keep to the mountains. Keep Sinai. Have a vassal intalled and protected in the Hejaz, guarding the Holy Places in the Sultan's name. Run like hell from useless pirate nests like Lybia - unless you have massive amounts of money and you've run out of odalisques to throw it at. In that case, do sink your budget in the Lybian desert by all means.

Click to expand...

Uhhh.... What? Why?

Saving the Ottoman Empire in order to save the Middle East... Not so sure. Of course, if the Ottoman Empire is safely beyond the Danube than it can think of conquering stuff it doesn't really need, like the Middle East, just for the prestige of it. But at this point the empire could really do without a place to get endlessly bogged down into.

But still it was one giant headache. Besides, the Empire can have influence there without directly ruling it. Seriously though, loosing the Middle East, minus some oily bits, might be a sure way to save the Empire.)

Click to expand...

None of this makes any sense. The Middle East was the more loyal part of the Empire and rarely revolted.

If anything the Middle East is going to be the most important part as technology progresses and the effects of that means the power base of the Ottomans shifts southwards.

Quick Note: Egypt is (a bit) different. Egypt might be useful as a colony type territory for some time, but not to integrate.

Click to expand...

Why? Egypt is way, way too important to let go and it was always an integral region of the empire. There's no need for a colonial-type situation that will merely alienate the peoples living there.

Soverihn said:

Then the solution to this is to urbanize the place then and erode the cultural power of the Bedouins and other nomadic peoples. Education, wealth, mass media and intermixing are how you deal with tribalism in your society.

Click to expand...

Possibly - this seems to be happening under our very eyes in Egypt... for some 60 years now, with the breaking of the fellahin tribes through urbanisation. Still seems like a looong way to go.

Here's the thing though: not only Bedouins are tribal - fellahin and city dwellers too. Witness the Barghouti's of Ramallah, who are city dwellers. The Jabari's of Hebron, similarly. They don't marry with each other don't trust each other, have ancient enmities etc. A bit like Sicily during the worst times. No, wait strike that. It's actually worse, I think it's even worse than the clannish Albanians (by the way W Balkans is also a drain but you might need to be there to counter Italy). This is just a small example in a tiny piece of land. Think of this all over the Middle East with the exception of Tunisia and Egypt.

Soverihn said:

Uhhh.... What? Why?

Click to expand...

(1) It's not necessary geopolitically. (2) It's only useful for prestige and to be able to claim the Caliphate convincingly. (3) It costs a lot. (4) It doesn't produce much profit. (5) Its peoples fight with each other intermitently/constantly. (6) It's difficult to effectively administer due to geography. If your laws don't carry the same weight in any corner of the Empire as they do in central Bursa, you have a problem.

Soverihn said:

None of this makes any sense. The Middle East was the more loyal part of the Empire and rarely revolted.

If anything the Middle East is going to be the most important part as technology progresses and the effects of that means the power base of the Ottomans shifts southwards.

Click to expand...

Of course they're loyal! You're the big bad wolf Ottomans, no one will mess with you unless they're absolutely certain you will physically be unable to impale them all. But important? For what? Trade with India and SE Asia goeas around it. In fact all trade goes around it. It's peoples fight with each other if you don't make active efforts to stop it, which you'll be forced to intermitently/permanently. Whitness the whole Kurdish-Assyrian problem in the early 1800's threatening to destabilise the whole region of the Empire.

There is no power that can organise there which can threaten you at this point. The days of Salah ad-Din are well and truly gone, and even then it was an exception. The Middle East is simply not important. It will be important once more for a little while during the time oil is a thing but then, again, it will go back to not being important. Your potential enemies come to you via the Bessarabian Gap (Russians), W Balkans (Central European power, whether Austirans of whomever), the sea (whomever, at this time British) and perhaps from the Iranian plateau (like successful Afsharids).

Soverihn said:

Why? Egypt is way, way too important to let go and it was always an integral region of the empire. There's no need for a colonial-type situation that will merely alienate the peoples living there.

Click to expand...

Indeed, keep Egypt as long as you can. And I'm not saying to be a slavemaster, though if you're Ottoman you've been an actual slavemaster... Ahh, in any case you need to keep Egypt and its society well enough apart from your core because the people there are really different then in Anatolia and the Balkans and your Egyptian peasants will not get along with your Turkish and Pomak peasants. Egypt will however be a useful conduit for your trade with the Indian ocean and even after you let go of Egypt, after its population becomes too large to manage cleanly (or cleanly enough for your home public), you need to keep your Army and Navy in the Sinai for ever if possible.

PS: You have this problem with different peoples whenever you try to have a huge empire. I think this is why Russians limited Jewish residency to the Pale of Settlement. They did no know how the average Russian peasant and the average small-shtetl Jew will react to each other and they really did not want to find out.

Rum Medeniyeti said:

Here's the thing though: not only Bedouins are tribal - fellahin and city dwellers too. Witness the Barghouti's of Ramallah, who are city dwellers. The Jabari's of Hebron, similarly. They don't marry with each other don't trust each other, have ancient enmities etc. A bit like Sicily during the worst times. No, wait strike that. It's actually worse, I think it's even worse than the clannish Albanians (by the way W Balkans is also a drain but you might need to be there to counter Italy). This is just a small example in a tiny piece of land. Think of this all over the Middle East with the exception of Tunisia and Egypt.

Click to expand...

So send settlers. Displace them. Incentive them to move away from their homelands. Change their culture.

(1) It's not necessary geopolitically.

Click to expand...

It connects to 3 continents and is a nexus of trade. Gives you defensible borders in the Zagros and the Caucus. Lots of people which are potentially tax paying.

(2) It's only useful for prestige and to be able to claim the Caliphate convincingly.

Click to expand...

Lots of people can live there which are potential tax payers. Iraq had 12 million people before the Mongols came and was one of the wealthiest per capita regions.

Good producer of fruit, spices, coffee and other agricultural products given the right irrigation and investment. Along with Egypt and Bulgaria this can be the breadbasket of the Empire.

I'm of course ignoring the oil as that's just obvious. Saudi Arabia alone has the second largest oil production on Earth. Combined with Iraq, Kuwait, Egypt and Syria this will mean the Ottomans will be the undisputed producer of oil worldwide with Venezuela and Iran at a very distant second.

Oh and uh, tourism. The Mideast is very, very good for tourism. What with the whole Hajj thing.

(3) It costs a lot.

Click to expand...

Gonna need some evidence for this.

(4) It doesn't produce much profit.

Click to expand...

Because the Ottomans didn't invest in the region and left it utterly neglected, at best a march to protect against the Iranians.

(5) Its peoples fight with each other intermitently/constantly.

Click to expand...

How is this any different from Europe for most of its history?

(6) It's difficult to effectively administer due to geography. If your laws don't carry the same weight in any corner of the Empire as they do in central Bursa, you have a problem.

Click to expand...

This is the result of a century of decentralization in the 1700s due to a weak central government and the formation of regional power bases as the beys were left alone (and often you had a sort of feudalization occur). Eliminate this through rails, re-centralization, a powerful military and spreading wealth around in order to co-opt local populations into the Ottoman system.

Of course they're loyal! You're the big bad wolf Ottomans, no one will mess with you unless they're absolutely certain you will physically be unable to impale them all. But important? For what?

Click to expand...

Getting cheap labor, tax payers, agriculture, oil, bauxite, things Ive mentioned.

Trade with India and SE Asia goeas around it. In fact all trade goes around it.

Click to expand...

So why did Britain conquer Yemen? Why did they want Egypt?

It's peoples fight with each other if you don't make active efforts to stop it, which you'll be forced to intermitently/permanently.

Click to expand...

Literally no different from most of the world.

There is no power that can organise there which can threaten you at this point. The days of Salah ad-Din are well and truly gone, and even then it was an exception. The Middle East is simply not important. It will be important once more for a little while during the time oil is a thing but then, again, it will go back to not being important.

Click to expand...

And by then the empire would have made immense profits and benefited from having a population of 200 million plus.

Your potential enemies come to you via the Bessarabian Gap (Russians), W Balkans (Central European power, whether Austirans of whomever), the sea (whomever, at this time British) and perhaps from the Iranian plateau (like successful Afsharids).

Click to expand...

This is an argument for a strong military, not a withdrawal of core regions.

Indeed, keep Egypt as long as you can. And I'm not saying to be a slavemaster, though if you're Ottoman you've been an actual slavemaster... Ahh, in any case you need to keep Egypt and its society well enough apart from your core because the people there are really different then in Anatolia and the Balkans and your Egyptian peasants will not get along with your Turkish and Pomak peasants. Egypt will however be a useful conduit for your trade with the Indian ocean and even after you let go of Egypt, after its population becomes too large to manage cleanly (or cleanly enough for your home public), you need to keep your Army and Navy in the Sinai for ever if possible.

Click to expand...

So multiculturalism doesn't work?

Ok, then I'll tell Canada, India, Nigeria, China, America and a host of other nations they need to Balkanize immediately to ensure social stability.

Seriously you overestimate imperial overreach and the need for homogenous societies.

I have no idea what "multiculturalism" is supposed to mean. For some reason, Galicia didn't work until the Poles and Ukrainians were clearly separated and the Jews gone. No idea why. On the other hand Constantinople worked. But then the Ottomans had a strong hand in their own capital, like Singapore. I think minorities work if there is some similarity so that it won't prevent you from leveraging the full power of your core group of people, whatever that is.

India by the way is a good example. It works... in its own way but I can only see it going up at the moment, it's in a good place. Nigeria is the example I can give. It doesn't work, it won't work, it never worked. Only human suffering ahead. Ukraine though is the best example. It's like putting us (Romanians) and Magyars together today. Not a happy ending. Perhaps 200 years ago in the time of Rakoczy (for us and Magyars), or of Catherine the Great (for Ukrainians and Russians) but not today. Similarly, there is a specific timeframe for the Turks to do what needs to be done to keep Greeks on their side (by creating dissension between Greeks and the West, Greek-speaking Greeks and non-Greek-speaking Greeks, by compromise and concessions etc., by instigating some Greeks to fight the rebellious Greeks while providing relief to the civilian Greek population and other possible methods).

Besides these general points, the issues raised by the middle east are not exactly "multiculturalism" (what does that mean, really?).

Soverihn said:

So send settlers. Displace them. Incentive them to move away from their homelands. Change their culture.

Click to expand...

This is what Israel is currently doing in part of the Middle East. The Ottomans were harsh man, but not like this.

The basic problem is different though: It's too much trouble for too little. I've already said, you should keep, perhaps the kurdish bits to protect from Iran. In the rest of the region, if there is a place that is important for the Empire, give power to the tribes, since they're already there and already work (and the Ottomans did just this) and protect them from the other tribes. Basically what W imperialists did, plus with your expert knowledge in the region, drawing borders that would be good for the people of the region themselves. Nothing is gained by incorporating tham in the Empire.

Soverihn said:

How is this any different from Europe for most of its history?

Click to expand...

It's different. Every single place in this world is different from any other. Any single culture is different from any other. People are different, because wwe adapt to our respective environments and the environments are different.

In the Balkans, you'll have a short time of trouble, but after that the Bulgarians in your Empire will not randomly start attaking Greeks. In the A-H Empire, as much as we came to resent the Magyars, an inter-ethnic fight was big news, there were a few proeminent revolts (like Horea's). The Middle East is simply more volatile, for two reasons (1) it's flat; (2) resource pressure is much much higher, there just aren't enough resources for the entire population - the tribes don't go to war just for the fun of it.

Anyway, if you really put your mind to it, I guess there is a way, but I wouldn't do it. Personally, if I were the Emperor, I'd get another odalisque and invest the rest of the money in the Balkans - you can really industrialise the Balkans. Keep influence in the Middle East, of course, but don't get directly involved. My critique is, basically, you're kind of presenting a variant of the W Bush argument - surely the Iraqis can be taught "democracy". The Iraqis had other priorities, more pressing. When you're life is in danger one has to prioritise. Of course Ottoman rule will be better, less intrusive (unless we follow your advice and colonise the region with Slavs, Israeli-style - do you really think that will get the spirits less inflamed?). You can influence the region without geting your hand dirty. Why not save money? You don't really need any more than the Sinai (plus Suez) and a vassal in the Hejaz.

Anyway this is just what I would do. If you're Padisah, you can do as you please, but if you have a Parliament and a Grand Vizier they might make the same geopolitical arguments as I did. In fact, Ataturk made a version of this argument: let's just keep Turkey proper. The great loss was the Balkans and the fact that he was too secular too quick, or just way too secular. Present day Turkey plus the Balkans, with or without a "Greek" compliant minority, and not completely cut out by secularism from the Islamic world (by adopting, for instance the Young Ottoman line), would be very rich. And would have influence on the Islamic world, being able to counter the poisonous Wahhabism. (I think Erdogan was trying to build just that, he's just not up for the job, plus the Balkans are kind of lost for good...)

A QUICK NOTE: By my democracy comment, I don't mean Iraqis are inferior - far from it. I only mean that western systems of government were invented to solve specific European problems. Those problems do not exist in the Middle East. Instead the Middle East has other, different, problems, of its own. I really wish someday someone would make an anonymous poll among the citizens (not all residents just citizens) of Abu Dhabi (who, by the way, are all just one tribe - just like in all the other emirates, one emirate, one tribe). And ask them who they want for leader. I'm sure they would indicate their current leadership - you see, they consider their Sheykhs legitimate, all the more since they're related to the Emirs (4th, 5th cousin etc. the entire tribe - since they only marry within the tribe they're all related, so corruption is lower, because the Emirs actually care for their citizens). So my idea for the Middle East is a slightly Daoist one. Why oppose nature and try to change things? Just go with the flow and empower the tribes. The Ottomans did this. I only think it was not worth it financially. This thread is about how to make the Ottoman Empire great right, not how to fix the Middle East?...

Yeah, what's so important about Jerusalem, Mecca, Damascus and Mesopotamia?

EvolvedSaurian said:

Yeah, what's so important about Jerusalem, Mecca, Damascus and Mesopotamia?

Click to expand...

Important as long as you can hold them. Which the Ottomans will be hard pressed to do. If you cannot sustain your gains, they become useless.

Even though there might be great oil wealth in the Mid East a fairly good population base (Egypt), I seriously see the best course for the Ottomans is to simply control what it can in Turkey and north Syria and the rest of Kurdistan, rather than ruling the oil rich areas.

This is due to the fact that

The Ottomans claim the title of Khilafah, they need to stop this abd simply be "Sultan" or any other title. Sword of Islam or anything like that is fine just not Khilafah. As long as the Ottomans claim Khilafah, the Arabs will look at the Turk with supspicion. Because the Ottomans are obviously not strong and that the Ottoman royal family is obviously not related to or past of the Ahl Al-Bayt, making their Khilafah suspect and really inauspicious. If the Ottomans continue down the road of faking a Khilafah they will face a more disastrous fate than they did OTL. Then again if the ottomans rule the Mid East and they abolish the Khilafah, Arabs would be up in arms about it, lol a paradox. (Not even counting the fact that the Ottomans neglected the Shura council and Ulema, it Khilafah was illegitimate day one)


Then again how can the Ottomans become secular? Especially when they are outnumbered, outnumbered by people who currently are not interested in secularism. This brings us to the fact that the Turk is at a disadvantage (just as the Arab was in 900s AD) in order for him to rule he must be strong but to be strong (in a 1800 ish POD) requires modernisation and reform, but the Arabs who want strength cannot take reform and worse a reform from some upstart Turk who thinks he is part of the Ahl Al-Bayt.


The best bet for the Ottomans is to reform in peace while holding all Kurdish territory (Kurdistand and Rojava) nothing in Europe almost as much a paradox as Mid East, and possibly Armenia and Cyrus.

Rum Medeniyeti said:

I have no idea what "multiculturalism" is supposed to mean. For some reason, Galicia didn't work until the Poles and Ukrainians were clearly separated and the Jews gone. No idea why. On the other hand Constantinople worked. But then the Ottomans had a strong hand in their own capital, like Singapore. I think minorities work if there is some similarity so that it won't prevent you from leveraging the full power of your core group of people, whatever that is.

Click to expand...

My response was that is seemed your point made it seem out that due to inherent cultural and/or ethnic differences the Ottoman Empire would be seemingly hard pressed to pacify and generally hold these areas in the long term, to which I pointed out various examples that run counter to such a thing. Does the lack of homogeneity might make things more difficult to govern? Often times yes, but this is rarely I death blow.

India by the way is a good example. It works... in its own way but I can only see it going up at the moment, it's in a good place. Nigeria is the example I can give. It doesn't work, it won't work, it never worked. Only human suffering ahead.

Click to expand...

Nigeria works in practice but not in theory. Yet despite that the country is relatively peaceful, stable and with very high economic growth (petty insurrections in the north withstanding, but those will be dealt with soon enough). There's a reason is poised to become one of the G-20 in a few years.

Ukraine though is the best example. It's like putting us (Romanians) and Magyars together today. Not a happy ending. Perhaps 200 years ago in the time of Rakoczy (for us and Magyars), or of Catherine the Great (for Ukrainians and Russians) but not today.

Click to expand...

Nationalism does not have to be destructive (or a major force).

This is what Israel is currently doing in part of the Middle East. The Ottomans were harsh man, but not like this.

Click to expand...

No. Israel is when you go hardcore with this and try to move out an entire region. My idea was to do this in areas where there is much tribalism in the cities, as you suggested. Not the entire Mid-east. That would be logistically impossible.

The basic problem is different though: It's too much trouble for too little.

Click to expand...

Saudi Arabia makes around 800 billion dollars on oil revenue today. Combine this with possibly Egypt's, Kuwaits, Iraqs, Syria's, Yemen's, Sudan's and Libyas. This is well over 1 trillion dollars just on oil extraction alone (probably more since you'd only have one royal family to rob from the pot instead of about a dozen and better integration in the region meaning transportation costs are lower).

Not even talking about agriculture or mining or manufacturing or solar power or whatever. 1 trillion just on selling oil. I'd say that's plenty worth it.

I've already said, you should keep, perhaps the kurdish bits to protect from Iran. In the rest of the region, if there is a place that is important for the Empire, give power to the tribes, since they're already there and already work (and the Ottomans did just this) and protect them from the other tribes. Basically what W imperialists did, plus with your expert knowledge in the region, drawing borders that would be good for the people of the region themselves. Nothing is gained by incorporating tham in the Empire.

Click to expand...

Which is a very bad deal and would drastically undermine your prestige. Second, these places were already incorporated- they had been ever since Selim I conquered the Mamluks. Their elites were native to the Ottoman system, they weren't Turks from Thrace sent over to govern the local peoples as beys.

Much easier to simply have them as part of the incorporated Ottoman system, sending to the Parliament in Constantinople to get their issues represented. If need be, do some clientelism and patronage politics to keep the rowdy tribes in line while undermining the traditional clan problems via soft power politics (education, enticing opportunities, occasional military strikes, immigration and so forth)

It's different. Every single place in this world is different from any other. Any single culture is different from any other.

Click to expand...

European peoples got over fighting their neighbors non stop for centuries. If they can do it there's no reason the peoples of the Middle East cannot.

People are different, because we adapt to our respective environments and the environments are different.

Click to expand...

Jared Diamond pls go.

The Middle East is simply more volatile, for two reasons (1) it's flat; (2) resource pressure is much much higher, there just aren't enough resources for the entire population - the tribes don't go to war just for the fun of it.

Click to expand...

Japan is worse geographically, yet it manages to stay together. This is an argument on why a strong economy is important so you can buy the resources you need.

Anyway, if you really put your mind to it, I guess there is a way, but I wouldn't do it. Personally, if I were the Emperor, I'd get another odalisque and invest the rest of the money in the Balkans - you can really industrialise the Balkans. Keep influence in the Middle East, of course, but don't get directly involved. My critique is, basically, you're kind of presenting a variant of the W Bush argument - surely the Iraqis can be taught "democracy". The Iraqis had other priorities, more pressing. When you're life is in danger one has to prioritise.

Click to expand...

So improve the quality of life and things will calm down? Ok, that's doable.

Of course Ottoman rule will be better, less intrusive (unless we follow your advice and colonise the region with Slavs, Israeli-style - do you really think that will get the spirits less inflamed?). You can influence the region without geting your hand dirty.

Click to expand...

You're already involved. You have been since 1512 with the conquest of the Mamluks and the further expansions by Suleiman. What you're suggesting is they pull out of the region.

Why not save money?

Click to expand...

Because you lose out on way more in the long run.

You don't really need any more than the Sinai (plus Suez) and a vassal in the Hejaz.

Click to expand...

Why in God's name would the Ottomans leave a vassal in the Hedjaz? That's just giving away all the money that comes from Pilgramage and utterly destroying their credibility as the Caliph.

Anyway this is just what I would do. If you're Padisah, you can do as you please, but if you have a Parliament and a Grand Vizier they might make the same geopolitical arguments as I did. In fact, Ataturk made a version of this argument: let's just keep Turkey proper.

Click to expand...

Because The Ottomans just got dismembered in WWI. Keep them stronger (or the European empires weaker) and they won't suggest it.

The great loss was the Balkans and the fact that he was too secular too quick, or just way too secular. Present day Turkey plus the Balkans, with or without a "Greek" compliant minority, and not completely cut out by secularism from the Islamic world (by adopting, for instance the Young Ottoman line), would be very rich. And would have influence on the Islamic world, being able to counter the poisonous Wahhabism. (I think Erdogan was trying to build just that, he's just not up for the job, plus the Balkans are kind of lost for good...)

Click to expand...

Or you know, you could entirely undermine Wahhabism by not giving it a state.

Just go with the flow and empower the tribes. The Ottomans did this.

Click to expand...

When they couldn't rule directly. The modern era of technology and demographic changes alters this situation greatly, throwing the balance of power insanely towards the settled peoples. There is no reason for the Ottomans to not govern when this is a fight they can win, they can do better at and they can look more credible.

I only think it was not worth it financially. This thread is about how to make the Ottoman Empire great right, not how to fix the Middle East?...

Click to expand...

You need the latter to save the former.

Soverihn said:

Jared Diamond pls go.

Click to expand...

Indagare said:

I've been thinking about a what-if scenario where the Ottoman Empire hadn't collapsed, however, there's a lot I'm not sure about:

1) What events would have needed to change for it to remain?

2) How might it have affected World War 2?

3) How might it have affected modern history?

I'm going to guess that if the sultans had been stronger morally and not misruled the Empire might have remained, but I also suspect at some point the Empire might have ended up being more akin to the United States, with various states established within it under the rule of a particular local group but united with the Empire overall.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I recently did a similar POD. One of the themes was what if the Ottoman retained the Arabian peninsula well into the 20th century (after the discover of massive quantities of oil).

Given the horrific genocides of the early 20th century against the Greeks, Assyrians and Armenians, I shutter to think what would happen to the beduins of the then-lightly populated eastern arabian peninsula and Iraq if the Ottoman realized that so much oil would make them a world power again. I simply can't believe they would go quietly.

Perhaps after choosing to sit out WWI, there is an "Ottoman Oil Embargo" after an "Arab Genocide".

Soverihn said:

My response was that is seemed your point made it seem out that due to inherent cultural and/or ethnic differences the Ottoman Empire would be seemingly hard pressed to pacify and generally hold these areas in the long term, to which I pointed out various examples that run counter to such a thing. Does the lack of homogeneity might make things more difficult to govern? Often times yes, but this is rarely I death blow.


Nigeria works in practice but not in theory. Yet despite that the country is relatively peaceful, stable and with very high economic growth (petty insurrections in the north withstanding, but those will be dealt with soon enough). There's a reason is poised to become one of the G-20 in a few years.


Nationalism does not have to be destructive (or a major force).


No. Israel is when you go hardcore with this and try to move out an entire region. My idea was to do this in areas where there is much tribalism in the cities, as you suggested. Not the entire Mid-east. That would be logistically impossible.


Saudi Arabia makes around 800 billion dollars on oil revenue today. Combine this with possibly Egypt's, Kuwaits, Iraqs, Syria's, Yemen's, Sudan's and Libyas. This is well over 1 trillion dollars just on oil extraction alone (probably more since you'd only have one royal family to rob from the pot instead of about a dozen and better integration in the region meaning transportation costs are lower).

Not even talking about agriculture or mining or manufacturing or solar power or whatever. 1 trillion just on selling oil. I'd say that's plenty worth it.


Which is a very bad deal and would drastically undermine your prestige. Second, these places were already incorporated- they had been ever since Selim I conquered the Mamluks. Their elites were native to the Ottoman system, they weren't Turks from Thrace sent over to govern the local peoples as beys.

Much easier to simply have them as part of the incorporated Ottoman system, sending to the Parliament in Constantinople to get their issues represented. If need be, do some clientelism and patronage politics to keep the rowdy tribes in line while undermining the traditional clan problems via soft power politics (education, enticing opportunities, occasional military strikes, immigration and so forth)

European peoples got over fighting their neighbors non stop for centuries. If they can do it there's no reason the peoples of the Middle East cannot.


Jared Diamond pls go.

Japan is worse geographically, yet it manages to stay together. This is an argument on why a strong economy is important so you can buy the resources you need.


So improve the quality of life and things will calm down? Ok, that's doable.

You're already involved. You have been since 1512 with the conquest of the Mamluks and the further expansions by Suleiman. What you're suggesting is they pull out of the region.


Because you lose out on way more in the long run.


Why in God's name would the Ottomans leave a vassal in the Hedjaz? That's just giving away all the money that comes from Pilgramage and utterly destroying their credibility as the Caliph.


Because The Ottomans just got dismembered in WWI. Keep them stronger (or the European empires weaker) and they won't suggest it.


Or you know, you could entirely undermine Wahhabism by not giving it a state.


When they couldn't rule directly. The modern era of technology and demographic changes alters this situation greatly, throwing the balance of power insanely towards the settled peoples. There is no reason for the Ottomans to not govern when this is a fight they can win, they can do better at and they can look more credible.


You need the latter to save the former.

Click to expand...

The logic of just adding up income of the Mid East and giving it to Ottomans doesn't work, it's not like Ottomans even ruled the most economically sound areas ever. Ottomabs never ruled the interior of Arabia and wouldn't even try, it's notbtheir environment at all, literally everyone there will hate you. As well address the fact that the local leaders in these territories (who do not see the Ottomans as the true Khilafah) will demand the resources and large income from it. What will Ottomans do? They definitely cannot afford to start a war with the majority of the population. So they allow corruption and decentralization (like what otl Qing did) and they end up making far less income than combined total Mid East.

You also mention the Ottomans "Khilafah" earlier but when was their Khilafah ever legitimate in the eyes of the Arab? Never. So giving up Hedjaz is just a neutral move on the one it would give better relations with Arabs but on one hand (as long as the Ottomans play Khilafah) the giving up of the land would further undermine their power.