An Idle Thought On Ottoman Turkish

Admiral Matt · Jun 14, 2007

One hundred and fifty years ago, next to noone in Italy spoke Italian. The peninsula was more of a linguistic mess than Iberia by an order of magnitude. Then two things happened. A government came to power that ruled all of Italy and derived the little legitimacy it had from the concept that it was a [N]ation, and the argument prevailed that 14th century Tuscan was somehow "real" Italian. Today Italian is indeed a language, and the dialects of the boot, though still preferred in conversation with family by 50% of the population, are not.

Let's say the Ottomans keep the Russians out of Astrakhan way back when, and finish building the Dneiper-Volga Canal. That will eventually mean the Caspian is their lake and involve them in Central Asia much more. At that point, unification of the Turks is no longer a stretch to imagine. The Ottoman governing class spoke a very distinct form of Turkish with very strong influences from surrounding languages. We'll call it Ottoman.

Ottoman (as came out when Atta tried to remove foreign influence from Turkish) had a great deal of words and concepts necessary for a modern society that were totally absent from Old Turkish and it's Azeri and Central Asian cousins. In a timeline with an Asia-focused empire ruling from the Med to (I'd expect) the Bering Straits, could we see one massive "Turkish" language, with an array of fading "dialects?"

Max Sinister · Jun 14, 2007

Ivan the Terrible conquered Astrakhan in 1556, and the Ottomans attacked it in 1569. That's your POD.

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy · Jun 14, 2007

First of all, one difference between the 16th century Ottomans and the 19th century Italians was their view on education. Second of all, nationalism is another. The French Revolution changed a lot of things.

And wasn't Persian the court language at that time?

Last but not least, I doubt the Ottomans will get east of the Aral Sea even if they concentrate all their expansionist efforts towards Central Asia. The local Uzbeks are good fighters and won't care much for the joint ethnic heritage.

Turkey has just too many rivals: Austria, Spain, Portugal, Poland-Lithuania, Persia, Muscovy, Venice, Malta, Morocco, the Papacy, Ethiopia. There's always going to be a war somewhere. If they break into Central Asia they'll have to face the Uzbeks and Turkmen. And if they defeat them they'll have to face the Mughals, the Oyrat Mongols and the Kazakhs.

It won't be like the Russian conquest of Siberia. And even the Russians backed off when faced with China. As for Central Asia, Russia didn't take on the Uzbeks until the 19th century, when they were divided and very outgunned, and still ended up giving autonomy to 2 of the 3 khanates.

Max Sinister said:
Ivan the Terrible conquered Astrakhan in 1556, and the Ottomans attacked it in 1569. That's your POD.

Is this for real? What more can you tell me? I came across some vague references to an Ottoman plan to aid Astrakhan when it was invaded, but that's about it.

Keenir · Jun 14, 2007

Admiral Matt said:
Let's say the Ottomans keep the Russians out of Astrakhan way back when, and finish building the Dneiper-Volga Canal. That will eventually mean the Caspian is their lake and involve them in Central Asia much more.

...balanced by their hold on the Balkans.
(which don't have hostile nomadic tribes)

At that point, unification of the Turks is no longer a stretch to imagine.

The Ottoman governing class spoke a very distinct form of Turkish with very strong influences from surrounding languages. We'll call it Ottoman.

don't we already do that?

Ottoman (as came out when Atta tried to remove foreign influence from Turkish)

out when - who??

as far as I know, there's nobody in Turkish history named Atta.

there's Attila, there's Ataturk, there's Alp Arslan....but no Atta.

In a timeline with an Asia-focused empire ruling from the Med to (I'd expect) the Bering Straits, could we see one massive "Turkish" language, with an array of fading "dialects?"

didn't work for Spanish, so why would it work for Turkic?

Keenir · Jun 14, 2007

VCS said:
And wasn't Persian the court language at that time?

not sure...but it was definately the language of poetry and literature (last I checked)

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy · Jun 14, 2007

Keenir said:
as far as I know, there's nobody in Turkish history named Atta.

Sounds like he meant Ataturk.

Anyway, my opinion is that the future for the Ottoman Empire lies in joining the colonial race in the Indian Ocean and trying to acquire Morocco so they can do the same in the Atlantic. I'd also recommend that they try to get some kind of deal with Venice where the 2 of them respect each other's Mediterranean possessions and trade; the Habsburgs never got along too well with the republic and this would deprive them of an ally in this theater.

On the northern frontier, my advice to the Turks is that they play Poland-Lithuania and Muscovy against each other, allying with one of them when the other gets too strong. And I'd tell them to get used to Cossack raids for the time being because it's more likely they'll switch their allegiance to Muscovy than accept any order from Warsaw to stop. In OTL that switch was one of the early steps in the rise of Russia and it broke the balance of power in the region, a break that was never fixed.

Max Sinister · Jun 14, 2007

VCS said:
Is this for real? What more can you tell me? I came across some vague references to an Ottoman plan to aid Astrakhan when it was invaded, but that's about it.

Found this on wikipedia.

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy · Jun 14, 2007

Max Sinister said:
Found this on wikipedia.

I went through wiki and found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selim_II said:
A plan had been elaborated at Constantinople for uniting the Volga and Don by a canal, and in the summer of 1569 a large force of Janissaries and cavalry were sent to lay siege to Astrakhan and begin the canal works, while an Ottoman fleet besieged Azov. But a sortie of the garrison of Astrakhan drove back the besiegers; a Russian relief army of 15,000 attacked and scattered the workmen and the Tatar force sent for their protection; and finally, the Ottoman fleet was destroyed by a storm.

Which is weird because I never came across any other mention of Muscovy ruling Azov at this time.

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Jun 14, 2007

First, there was a language called "Ottoman" (Osmanlica). Second, it most certainly did contain all the vocabulary it needed for modern life, and had the mechanism to generate more (the Ottomans used Arabic and Persian like we use Latin and Greek. Telescope is Greek, but the Greeks had no telescopes.)

Ataturk's reform was to change to the Latin alphabet, which is better for representing Turkish than is Arabic; he also wanted to make a big break with the Ottoman past - after a generation nobody could read the whole corpus of Ottoman written works. Also, it was an attack on Islam.

Let's say a Don-Volga canal is built - that would certainly extend Ottoman influence east, but you're not going to see a conquest - it's too far and too poor - and too powerful militarily. A canal there would be pretty hard to defend, as well.

On the other hand, the cultural ties between the Ottomans and Turkistan will be stronger. In OTL, Ottoman was more or less intelligible and vice versa with Central Asian dialects, and in the early 20th c, this was becoming more so. The Turkish reform and the Soviet policy of dialectifying has made that much less so, although a Turk can make out what a Central Asian is saying, but much less so vice versa.

I think the Turk's best bet would have been to NOT annex Hungary, which was too far and large to control, and instead leave it as a powerful vassal buffer state between the empire and the Hapsburgs. That would have removed the constant warfare with the Hapsburgs that drained the empire and caused it to be left behind. A buffer Hungary and a buffer Crimean Khanate would have been a strong shield behind which the Ottomans could have remained more centralized, and better able to respond to the impact of capitalism.

A historian pointed out that Mahmud II had to spend most of his reign becoming Peter the Great, whereas Peter began as an autocrat. If the empire had been centralized c. the Napoleonic Wars, things would have turned out a whole lot different.

It was also a mistake to restore the Patriarchate to such influence. This ended the trend towards conversion. If the Ottomans had Islamised the Balkans it would have been difficult to take it from them.

Keenir · Jun 14, 2007

VCS said:
Sounds like he meant Ataturk.

that's what I thought...but* I've been wrong before.

* = as you know.

Admiral Matt · Jun 15, 2007

Keenir: Sue me. It's a diminutive for Attaturk. Seeing as he's the only one of those people that was ever involved with fiddling with the Turkish language, I thought it'd be obvious.

Edit: Ah. Sorry. Nevermind.

Admiral Matt · Jun 15, 2007

VCS said:
Sounds like he meant Ataturk.

Anyway, my opinion is that the future for the Ottoman Empire lies in joining the colonial race in the Indian Ocean and trying to acquire Morocco so they can do the same in the Atlantic. I'd also recommend that they try to get some kind of deal with Venice where the 2 of them respect each other's Mediterranean possessions and trade; the Habsburgs never got along too well with the republic and this would deprive them of an ally in this theater.

On the northern frontier, my advice to the Turks is that they play Poland-Lithuania and Muscovy against each other, allying with one of them when the other gets too strong. And I'd tell them to get used to Cossack raids for the time being because it's more likely they'll switch their allegiance to Muscovy than accept any order from Warsaw to stop. In OTL that switch was one of the early steps in the rise of Russia and it broke the balance of power in the region, a break that was never fixed.

Uhm... You think they could do all that stuff at once? I think you're right on the Indian Ocean and the balance of power around the Ukraine, but I don't see them in the same TL! And Morocco and hence to competing in the Atlantic is... well... a bit much.

Admiral Matt · Jun 15, 2007

I don't know. I was imagining real conquest - as opposed to spread of influence - being something for the mid-to-late 19th century or later, when the balance of military power would be shifted.

If Hungary wasn't annexed might that not mean they take the Hapsburgs place as a source of constant conflict?

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Jun 15, 2007

Admiral Matt said:
I don't know. I was imagining real conquest - as opposed to spread of influence - being something for the mid-to-late 19th century or later, when the balance of military power would be shifted.

If Hungary wasn't annexed might that not mean they take the Hapsburgs place as a source of constant conflict?

No - the first seige of Vienna happened because Suleyman was supporting his vassal Hunyadi. Hungary would likely need Ottoman support to maintain it's independence from the Hapsburgs - and even if it did turn enemy it's a whole lot weaker than the OTL Hapsburg Empire.

Hungary was just too far from Istanbul and the population was entirely Christian (as opposed to the rest of the Balkans, which had a large Muslim population). It wasn't really a viable long-term possession.

Wow, I really misread your original post - you are right, Ottoman contained more specialized vocabulary than did the original Turkic, but the Central Asians had the same vocabulary. There were dialectical differences, but it would have been very easy for all that to gel into a single language - it was trending that way around 1900 as everyone was reading the same newspapers.

If the Ottomans built that canal, they would have been able to support Central Asia against the Russians, maintaining their independence into the 20th c - and at some point the mutual thread could lead to a pan-Turkic union.

I don't see outright conquest in the 16th c as being possible. The lines of communication are too long and unavailable in the winter. It would require steam technology and rail to really make a union possible.

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy · Jun 15, 2007

Admiral Matt said:
Uhm... You think they could do all that stuff at once? I think you're right on the Indian Ocean and the balance of power around the Ukraine, but I don't see them in the same TL!

They can if not distracted by a war with too many enemies. They could reduce friction with the Habsburgs, for instance, by recognizing their imperial title and not asking for tribute anymore - which they did in OTL after a long and useless war.

And Morocco and hence to competing in the Atlantic is... well... a bit much.

Not if they can get the corsairs to help. IMO they were one of the Turks' best weapon. I would've used corsair republics, basically: Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers (OTL states), a port or 2 in Morocco after I conquer it, Massawa, Aden, Basra, and an Ionian Sea port. Set them up for war and piracy but eventually get them to see that the future is in trade with the Americas, India and sub-Saharan Africa.

Just had an idea: I could try to tie the conquest of Morocco with my detente with Venice. Offer them something in exchange for their help. Ragusa, Antivari (if this is after they lost it), a port in Albania or western Greece, some hinterland for their Dalmatian possessions, I'll think of something. The Spanish would be furious.