Napoleonic Partition of the Ottoman Empire

Lets say that Napoleon successfully invades the Ottoman Empire for whatever reason. What I'm interested in is what the final peace deal would look like.

Here's what I think possible peace deals might look like - feel free to tell me if I'm wrong.

1. Limited peace (i.e. Austria, Prussia): Serbia, Montenegro, Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania (unified from Moldavia and Wallachia) are placed under members of the Bonaparte family, French generals, or client monarchs from Germany or Italy. Bosnia is put under direct French control, as are the Ionian islands, Crete, Rhodes, Cyprus, the Cyclades, and any other Greek island chains I forgot. Albania is either put under direct French control or given to Naples. A pliant cousin of the Osman family is placed on the throne, and the Ottomans are forced to accept France as perpetual protector of the Ottoman Christians and grant other significant concessions to France. Egypt and/or Palestine are possibly made French protectorates.

2 Total redrawing of borders (i.e. Italy, the former HRE): As above, but all the Arab territories of the empire are made French protectorates, with the more ungovernable ones being given independence under local leadership. Thrace, and the opposing sides of the Bosporus and Dardanelles are placed under a "Republic of Constantinople," while the remainder (Anatolia) is renamed Turkey and either branded a republic or given to a puppet monarch.

wormyguy said:

Lets say that Napoleon successfully invades the Ottoman Empire for whatever reason. What I'm interested in is what the final peace deal would look like.

Here's what I think possible peace deals might look like - feel free to tell me if I'm wrong.

1. Limited peace (i.e. Austria, Prussia): Serbia, Montenegro, Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania (unified from Moldavia and Wallachia) are placed under members of the Bonaparte family, French generals, or client monarchs from Germany or Italy. Bosnia is put under direct French control, as are the Ionian islands, Crete, Rhodes, Cyprus, the Cyclades, and any other Greek island chains I forgot. Albania is either put under direct French control or given to Naples. A pliant cousin of the Osman family is placed on the throne, and the Ottomans are forced to accept France as perpetual protector of the Ottoman Christians and grant other significant concessions to France. Egypt and/or Palestine are possibly made French protectorates.

Click to expand...

that's quite a bit more extreme then the peaces granted to Austria and Prussia, seeing as it's pretty much just leaving them with the borders of Modern turkey. Wasn't the center of power for the Ottoman state at that point Bulgaria? also, did Napoleon ever have enough naval dominance of the Med to effectively protect Greece and Albania without seizing Croatia from the Hapsburg's? the same thign applies even moreso for the Levant and Egypt, while Napoleon would probably love to regain Egypt, how would he ever garrison or control it? let alone protect from an assault from India up the Red Sea?

So, for this peace you'd pretty much need a situation where the French enjoy Naval dominance of the Mediterranean and the Hapsburg's have either been destroyed as a force or co-opted into loyal clients.

2 Total redrawing of borders (i.e. Italy, the former HRE): As above, but all the Arab territories of the empire are made French protectorates, with the more ungovernable ones being given independence under local leadership. Thrace, and the opposing sides of the Bosporus and Dardanelles are placed under a "Republic of Constantinople," while the remainder (Anatolia) is renamed Turkey and either branded a republic or given to a puppet monarch.

Click to expand...

this would pretty much require ndisputed hegemony of the European continent to implement with the tech of the time. as in, the D of Krakov being turned into a reborn PLC, Prussia being completely dismembered, Austria torn into component kingdoms and Brittan being forced from the Chanel.

King Henry said:

that's quite a bit more extreme then the peaces granted to Austria and Prussia, seeing as it's pretty much just leaving them with the borders of Modern turkey.

Click to expand...

The peaces given to Prussia, and especially to Austria, were not as lenient as they might have seemed to a modern observer. Prussia was forced to give up more than half its territory - including nearly all its Polish territory, and the crucial port of Danzig, the second leading city of Prussia. It was forced into an alliance with France. But that's just superficial. It might be better to look at the situation that the Treaty of Tilsit put Prussia in. Even disregarding the power of France, Prussia was now surrounded on both sides by the powerful Kingdom of Saxony (the Duchy of Warsaw being in personal union with it), also bordering the powerful Kingdom of Westphalia, Russia, and the still-powerful Hapsburgs. Prussia thus lost her ability to expand or exert influence over any of its neighbors, and was reduced from a second-rate to a fourth-rate power, unable to effect events at an international or even regional level.

Austria did not directly lose most of its territory, unlike Prussia, but the peace was arguably even more harsh. The dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire and its subsequent replacement with several powerful kingdoms in Germany meant that Germany, considered within the Habsburg sphere of influence, and loosely governed by them for centuries, was now totally denied to them. Austria went from being the most powerful state in central Europe to a third-rate power, and likewise lost its sphere of influence everywhere except in the lands to its south (the Ottoman Balkans).

Unlike Austria or Prussia, the Ottomans could not have been said to have had a sphere of influence - except for one inside (and in many cases not even reaching to) their nominal borders. A peace that neutered their ability to effectively work on the international stage, like those forced on Austria and Prussia, would thus require large losses of territory for the Ottomans.

Wasn't the center of power for the Ottoman state at that point Bulgaria?

Click to expand...

I was under the impression that it was northern Greece. In any event, 1829 showed that by this point the Ottomans were incapable of defending their Balkan provinces.

also, did Napoleon ever have enough naval dominance of the Med to effectively protect Greece and Albania without seizing Croatia from the Hapsburg's?

Click to expand...

Napoleon did seize Croatia from the Hapsburgs.

the same thign applies even moreso for the Levant and Egypt, while Napoleon would probably love to regain Egypt, how would he ever garrison or control it? let alone protect from an assault from India up the Red Sea?

Click to expand...

I'm merely referring to what I believe a final peace treaty would look like. There's no question that much of this territory will be quickly occupied by the British, often before the French are even able to establish a presence. I'm also assuming that this will be a quick, decisive "Austerlitz"-style peace, mainly fought in the Balkans rather than a Peninsular War-esque slog through Anatolia. It is worth noting that by this point Egypt and North Africa as a whole are essentially independent states.

So, for this peace you'd pretty much need a situation where the French enjoy Naval dominance of the Mediterranean and the Hapsburg's have either been destroyed as a force or co-opted into loyal clients.

Click to expand...

I'd agree with that - although I'd replace your and with an "or."

this would pretty much require ndisputed hegemony of the European continent to implement with the tech of the time. as in, the D of Warsaw being turned into a reborn PLC, Prussia being completely dismembered, Austria torn into component kingdoms and Brittan being forced from the Chanel.

Click to expand...

As a lasting peace, I'd certainly agree with you. As part of the Napoleonic Wars, I'd say that's a bit overconservative.

wormyguy said:

The peaces given to Prussia, and especially to Austria, were not as lenient as they might have seemed to a modern observer. Prussia was forced to give up more than half its territory - including nearly all its Polish territory, and the crucial port of Danzig, the second leading city of Prussia. It was forced into an alliance with France. But that's just superficial. It might be better to look at the situation that the Treaty of Tilsit put Prussia in. Even disregarding the power of France, Prussia was now surrounded on both sides by the powerful Kingdom of Saxony (the Duchy of Warsaw being in personal union with it), also bordering the powerful Kingdom of Westphalia, Russia, and the still-powerful Hapsburgs. Prussia thus lost her ability to expand or exert influence over any of its neighbors, and was reduced from a second-rate to a fourth-rate power, unable to effect events at an international or even regional level.

Austria did not directly lose most of its territory, unlike Prussia, but the peace was arguably even more harsh. The dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire and its subsequent replacement with several powerful kingdoms in Germany meant that Germany, considered within the Habsburg sphere of influence, and loosely governed by them for centuries, was now totally denied to them. Austria went from being the most powerful state in central Europe to a third-rate power, and likewise lost its sphere of influence everywhere except in the lands to its south (the Ottoman Balkans).

Unlike Austria or Prussia, the Ottomans could not have been said to have had a sphere of influence - except for one inside (and in many cases not even reaching to) their nominal borders. A peace that neutered their ability to effectively work on the international stage, like those forced on Austria and Prussia, would thus require large losses of territory for the Ottomans.
I was under the impression that it was northern Greece. In any event, 1829 showed that by this point the Ottomans were incapable of defending their Balkan provinces.

Click to expand...

Well, it appears I was a lot less well-informed on the subject then I though I was



Anyway, in the context of all the treaties within the Napoleonic wars, the first could probably happen, although probably not all of Bulgaria, but the second would pretty much require a complete occupation of the Empires European provinces, simply because it would pretty much be a complete destruction of the Ottoman state*. So it probably could happen, but it's effect would probably be almost entirely nominal without a huge expenditure of forces, which would be pretty disastrous for the French.

I'd expect more (2), and with Napoleonic partitions it's usually safer to bet on "crazy random".

If you read up on some of Napoleon's bizarre behaviour towards the locals during the Egyptian expedition, I would seriously expect him to annex Constantinople and the Straits to the French Empire and then have himself proclaimed Caliph in the Hagia Sofia. I know that sounds mad, but really.

Let's bring up everybody's favorite flavor of nationalism: that's right, the Jews! Napoleon is said to have promised to set up a Jewish protectorate in Palestine. While most people think that this is either hearsay or that he would never have gone through with it, it's something funny to think about.

Thande said:

I'd expect more (2), and with Napoleonic partitions it's usually safer to bet on "crazy random".

If you read up on some of Napoleon's bizarre behaviour towards the locals during the Egyptian expedition, I would seriously expect him to annex Constantinople and the Straits to the French Empire and then have himself proclaimed Caliph in the Hagia Sofia. I know that sounds mad, but really.

Click to expand...

Depending on when he in fact conquered Constantinople I think he would definitely do this. Bonaparte once said "I am the successor, not of Louis XVI, but of Charlemagne." and he meant it. He will no doubt take the title of "Kayser-i Rûm" or Caesar of Rome, and will annex Constantinople and the straights to the French Empire.

With Constantinople Napoleon can truly claim his succession to the Roman Throne as he is now the ruler of both what could be considered the Western and Eastern Roman Empire!

Napoleon would have crowned himself Caesar of Reunited Rome and Constantinople.

I made a few maps (assuming French victory in the Peninsular War):

My scenario #1:



My scenario #2:



My scenario #2, with French annexation of Constantinople and the straits:

You have to remember that the intellectual climate of the various Balkan nations was totally differant at this point.

Napoleon is unlikely to give a toss about a seperate state for Montenegro, a tiny territory ruled by a collection of hill clans under the nominal headship of an Orthodox bishop whos people all considered themselves Serb.

There was of course a Serbian movement that was just having its intellectual flowering at the time. However Croat "Illyrian" movement tended to consider the Serbs as "our funny Orthodox cousins needing instruction in western civilisation" and I can hardly imagine Napoleon being more sensitive to Serb sensibilities than the Croats.

Bulgaria's movement was still in its infancy. The literary revival had started in the lower church echelons, but serious political expression came after the Greek Revolt and was actually given a lot of prompting by the Ottomans. The Greek revolters included Bulgaria (and Serbia and the rest of it) in their zany schemes for a neo-Byzantine state (the original "Megali Idea" was basically the Ottoman Empire with "Ottoman Turkish" and "Islam" replaced by "Greek" and "Orthodoxy" and with the most unbudgeably Muslim bits jettisoned; Bulgarians were not enthusiastic). And there's a French map in the 1860s clearly intending to imply that Bulgarians are all actually Serbian available on Wikipedia. I doubt Napoleon would pull the "Bulgarian idea" as it existed in 1876 out of his hat.

The Greeks, on the other hand, had a very elaborate intellectual movement. It was quite western-looking (the Church leadership tended to be more insular and Russophile, other elements of the elite who could afford a western university education to be for the west: this was the root of the first Greek party system), and Napoleon liked to indulge in some wacky neo-classicism every now and again...

Of course this all assumes that Napoleon is actually going to invade the Balkans and set up puppet regimes. You have to remember that this is the core fo Ottoman power and a very big part of the population is Muslim (and of course the Orthodox Church was never really thrilled by Mns. Boneparte, although in the Balkans he didn't really enter their calculations). He's more likely to do it than to go imposing Muslim states on portions of England, since the Ottoman Empire was judged with a differant yardstick by the European powers, but it's stull unlikely.

Germaniac said:

Napoleon would have crowned himself Caesar of Reunited Rome and Constantinople.

Click to expand...

I don't know: both during and after the Egypt campaign (as late as his exile on St Helena) he said he was closer to being a Muslim than a Christian and tried (with no success whatsoever) to proclaim himself a Mahdi-like figure to the locals in Egypt. In contrast I don't think he had an opinion about Byzantium. It depends on the political climate at the time, but I think he would have himself made Caliph, especially since he still had ambitions to take India (and some of his plans in that area involving whipping up a jihad among India's Muslim states).

Thande said:

I don't know: both during and after the Egypt campaign (as late as his exile on St Helena) he said he was closer to being a Muslim than a Christian and tried (with no success whatsoever) to proclaim himself a Mahdi-like figure to the locals in Egypt. In contrast I don't think he had an opinion about Byzantium. It depends on the political climate at the time, but I think he would have himself made Caliph, especially since he still had ambitions to take India (and some of his plans in that area involving whipping up a jihad among India's Muslim states).

Click to expand...

Well, do note that today there are some theories and rumors that Napoleon converted to Islam some times before he died, and I actually happen to know some people here who believe the conversion happened.

I Blame Communism said:

You have to remember that the intellectual climate of the various Balkan nations was totally differant at this point.

Napoleon is unlikely to give a toss about a seperate state for Montenegro, a tiny territory ruled by a collection of hill clans under the nominal headship of an Orthodox bishop whos people all considered themselves Serb.

Click to expand...

I certainly agree that Montenegrins all considered themselves Serb. I put that in there to show that Napoleon is somewhat "out-of-touch" - he's denying these people self-determination in favor of restoring a small medieval principality.

There was of course a Serbian movement that was just having its intellectual flowering at the time. However Croat "Illyrian" movement tended to consider the Serbs as "our funny Orthodox cousins needing instruction in western civilisation" and I can hardly imagine Napoleon being more sensitive to Serb sensibilities than the Croats.

Click to expand...

Neither can I, but I was under the impression that Dalmatia was annexed for security reasons, and I doubt that Napoleon would have gone on an annexing spree in the Balkans.

Bulgaria's movement was still in its infancy. The literary revival had started in the lower church echelons, but serious political expression came after the Greek Revolt and was actually given a lot of prompting by the Ottomans. The Greek revolters included Bulgaria (and Serbia and the rest of it) in their zany schemes for a neo-Byzantine state (the original "Megali Idea" was basically the Ottoman Empire with "Ottoman Turkish" and "Islam" replaced by "Greek" and "Orthodoxy" and with the most unbudgeably Muslim bits jettisoned; Bulgarians were not enthusiastic). And there's a French map in the 1860s clearly intending to imply that Bulgarians are all actually Serbian available on Wikipedia. I doubt Napoleon would pull the "Bulgarian idea" as it existed in 1876 out of his hat.

The Greeks, on the other hand, had a very elaborate intellectual movement. It was quite western-looking (the Church leadership tended to be more insular and Russophile, other elements of the elite who could afford a western university education to be for the west: this was the root of the first Greek party system), and Napoleon liked to indulge in some wacky neo-classicism every now and again...

Click to expand...

Oh, I certainly understand that too. The thing is, Napoleon wanted to create states that were strong enough to defend themselves from invaders, but too weak to challenge him individually or as part as a coalition. While he certainly was a classical Romantic, I doubt that he would have wanted to create a strong Greek state that contained most of the former Byzantine Balkans, as this would both threaten his position in the region if they changed sides, and also challenge France's pretension to be the reborn Rome. I therefore believe that the Balkans would be partitioned among several states, and since other than the Ottomans, no country had reigned in that region other than the early medieval Bulgarian Empire, that's what I'd expect he'd create. Perhaps, in your opinion, it might make more sense to split it between Romania, Serbia, and Greece?

Of course this all assumes that Napoleon is actually going to invade the Balkans and set up puppet regimes. You have to remember that this is the core fo Ottoman power and a very big part of the population is Muslim (and of course the Orthodox Church was never really thrilled by Mns. Boneparte, although in the Balkans he didn't really enter their calculations). He's more likely to do it than to go imposing Muslim states on portions of England, since the Ottoman Empire was judged with a differant yardstick by the European powers, but it's stull unlikely.

Click to expand...

Of course it's unlikely. I've just been interested lately about how Napoleon would have ultimately redrawn the borders of Europe if he had become its undisputed master (I was planning to do threads about what he'd do to Austria and Russia after this). You see, I've been thinking about writing a short story set in "Napoleon's Europe."

Guys

Apart from Britain and the RN aren't we also forgetting Russia? For most of the period this was possible Russia and France were technically ally, albeit the links weakening. There had been some talk of an alliance to partition the Ottoman empire although the distances, the RN and probably the disagreement over who gets the straits meant it came to nothing.

However, if Napoleon tried doing a mass annexation without bringing Russia in and especially if he tried securing the straits you can be certain of a strong and hostile reaction from Russia. At this point it would probably lose heavily, especially since it would be trying to advance into the Balkans or possibly Germany. However a big war with Russia could well foul up such an attack on the Ottoman empire, even if no power other than Britain also gets involved.

This could get very messy for everybody in eastern Europe and the Balkans, at the very least. I think Napoleon would struggle for a longer campaign on great size in the Balkans, The weather may not be as bad but the logistics are probably no better than for Russia and once their been looted a few times by the French army the natives of all nationalities, tribes and religions are likely to be hostile. If this is before 1809 then once Boney starts looking weak Austria will probably look for a return match. With sizeable armies deep in the Balkans, Austria and Russia hostile and Britain supplying troops, gold and supplies I could see the wheels coming off very quickly.

Steve