Make the Ottoman Empire survive
- Thread starter Ward
- Start date
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
As per ArKhan.
If the Young Turks stay in power, their policies will cause problems in the Arab portion of the empire, but I think without the war they would have been out. In any case, with completion of the Baghdad Railway the Ottomans will be in a very strong position militarily to deal with any internal dissent. Oil revenue will be increasingly helpful, and by the 1940s will solve most of the endemic financial shortfalls that were the Ottoman's most significant problem.
Max Sinister
Banned
It depends however, how they use their new riches. Saudi Arabia is rich, but would you say they use their money especially wisely?
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
In an Ottoman Empire comprising it's 1914 extent, oil wouldn't become the entire basis of the economy, so it's unlikely to be as distorting. Also, the Ottomans weren't a minor beduin dynasty with radical fundamentalist inclinations - nor would there be the equally distorting conflict over Israel.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Would there be any sort of Ottoman Reconquista ? There's Ibn Saud to bash on the head, and what about Egypt and the Soudan, and what about Libya where the Italians haven't really got themselves a proper foothold until the later 1920s ? And of course the Dodecanese...
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
If there were an attempt to reconquer lost territories, IMHO the first attempt would be in the Balkans: Thessaloniki. Macedonia, Epyrus. Maybe even lower Bulgaria and Caucasus. I do however believe that this would void the chief assumption of TTL: the Ottomans need at least one generation of economic growth, and of reorganising Mesopotamia and Syria. Not to mention that oil resources would be coveted by whomever wins WW1 (if there is a WW1 here), and that Russia (czarist, communist or whatever) would always be the bugbear in the north. Now if the Ottomans manage to hold to the concept of peace through strength, and forget any dream of reconquering the Balkans, they might succeed in implementing in-depth reforms. Possibly the most awkward issue to solve concerns the relations with Greek and Armenian minorities, and how to convince them to willingly participate in the renovation of the empire.
There is one thing I am wondering about. If I understand it correctly, without WWI, the Ottoman Empire will be freed of traditional enemies, if only briefly, and with the emergence of petroleum industry, the Middle East would provide the cash the Ottomans need to modernize and reform into a modern state.
If this is so, than it seems to me that the Ottoman Empire might be heading in the same direction that Iran followed in the last half of the 20th century. On the one hand, the empire would have a growing class of urbanized professionals, whose Western educations have not only led them to distain their poorer countrymen as superstitious bigots, but have led them to embrace Western ideas (such as the command economy) that have done so much damage elsewhere in the developing world. At the same time, the more traditional elements of Ottoman society will look at the policies these people promote, and rapidly come to the conclusion that the people advising the Sultan are, in essence, soulless demons out to destroy all that is good and pure in the world and replace it with corruption and vice. An oversimplification, yes, but one that accurately describes a lot of what happened throughout the non-Western world in the 20th century.
Or is there something about the Ottomans that I’m missing?
If this is so, than it seems to me that the Ottoman Empire might be heading in the same direction that Iran followed in the last half of the 20th century. On the one hand, the empire would have a growing class of urbanized professionals, whose Western educations have not only led them to distain their poorer countrymen as superstitious bigots, but have led them to embrace Western ideas (such as the command economy) that have done so much damage elsewhere in the developing world. At the same time, the more traditional elements of Ottoman society will look at the policies these people promote, and rapidly come to the conclusion that the people advising the Sultan are, in essence, soulless demons out to destroy all that is good and pure in the world and replace it with corruption and vice. An oversimplification, yes, but one that accurately describes a lot of what happened throughout the non-Western world in the 20th century.
Or is there something about the Ottomans that I’m missing?
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I'm not sure how that would work - maybe that would be the most desirable territory, but I can't believe they would be so unrealistic as to think they would be allowed to have any of that back - I would think Eastern Thrace at best.
The Caucasus seems a decent bet if Russia should happen to collapse, and there would certainly be an effort to absorb as much of the Arabian peninsula as possible. The Saudis would in for a big can of whoop-ass if the Ottomans stayed out of WWI.
I think Syria was in decent shape by the 20th c, and Mesopotamia would have been easier to control and develop with the Baghdad RR completed.
As far as resources go, abolition of the Capitulations will remove the mechanisms of European economic penetration, oil revenue will help with the capital problem, the war will lead to a favorable balance of payments which would allow the debt to be written down (also a mechanism of foreign interference).
For the most part, the Greeks and Armenians were engaged in economic development - the number of Armenian discontents was actually pretty small. The problem would be to find some way to deal with the bifurcation of the burgeoise into commercial/economic Armenians & Greeks and military/bureaucratic Muslims - without kicking out the former or creating conditions that lead them to emmigrate. As it was, Turkey was set back an entire generation, if not more, by the loss of the commericial an mangerial expertise lost with the Greeks and Armenians. Continued economic development will disproportionately favor the Armenians and Greeks, which would lead to a reaction, if not as dramatic as what happened in OTL.
The Caucasus seems a decent bet if Russia should happen to collapse, and there would certainly be an effort to absorb as much of the Arabian peninsula as possible. The Saudis would in for a big can of whoop-ass if the Ottomans stayed out of WWI.
I think Syria was in decent shape by the 20th c, and Mesopotamia would have been easier to control and develop with the Baghdad RR completed.
As far as resources go, abolition of the Capitulations will remove the mechanisms of European economic penetration, oil revenue will help with the capital problem, the war will lead to a favorable balance of payments which would allow the debt to be written down (also a mechanism of foreign interference).
For the most part, the Greeks and Armenians were engaged in economic development - the number of Armenian discontents was actually pretty small. The problem would be to find some way to deal with the bifurcation of the burgeoise into commercial/economic Armenians & Greeks and military/bureaucratic Muslims - without kicking out the former or creating conditions that lead them to emmigrate. As it was, Turkey was set back an entire generation, if not more, by the loss of the commericial an mangerial expertise lost with the Greeks and Armenians. Continued economic development will disproportionately favor the Armenians and Greeks, which would lead to a reaction, if not as dramatic as what happened in OTL.
Last edited:
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
The difference is that the Ottomans began the process early in the 19th c and moved at a more reasonable pace, and already had a reasonably developed, diverse economy, and relatively modern political and legal systems. The Third World was largely cast into the wind by former imperial masters with arbitrary borders and no common history.
Also, by WWI the Ottoman Empire had a parliamentary system with only a figurehead monarch. While new on the imperial level (except for a brief period in 1876-77), representative institutions had been established in the middle of the 19th c on the provincial level - so there is really no comparison between the Ottoman Empire and the third world as far as the seriousness of the obstacles to overcome. The Ottomans' were relative military weakness and lack of money. Staying out of WWI would go a long way to overcoming both.
There is also no comparison between the legitimacy of the Ottoman government and that of the Shah - for that matter, even the Turkish Republic has in many regards never matched the legitimacy of the empire.
Also, by WWI the Ottoman Empire had a parliamentary system with only a figurehead monarch. While new on the imperial level (except for a brief period in 1876-77), representative institutions had been established in the middle of the 19th c on the provincial level - so there is really no comparison between the Ottoman Empire and the third world as far as the seriousness of the obstacles to overcome. The Ottomans' were relative military weakness and lack of money. Staying out of WWI would go a long way to overcoming both.
There is also no comparison between the legitimacy of the Ottoman government and that of the Shah - for that matter, even the Turkish Republic has in many regards never matched the legitimacy of the empire.
A very interesting post - I'm not looking to pick holes but several of your points intrigue and confuse me
I'm not quite sure what you mean here.
Can you compare the overall level of democracy to other European powers (forgive my ignorance) was the level of democracy similar to that of Germany? Britain?
What bestowed this legitimacy? Continuity?
I'm not quite sure what you mean here.
Can you compare the overall level of democracy to other European powers (forgive my ignorance) was the level of democracy similar to that of Germany? Britain?
What bestowed this legitimacy? Continuity?
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
In order:
- Well, take for instance, Chad. It's composed of Wadai, which was a fiercely independent Muslim sultanate dominated by the Sanusi order, 1/3 of Bornu, which was the oldest state of Africa but was partitioned between Germany, France, and Britain (Chad, Cameroon, Nigeria), several Christian and Animist regions, etc. For that matter, Nigeria - 1/3 of Bornu, the Sokoto Caliphate, Christian kingdoms, etc. They have no historical, ethnic, linguistic, economic, or political coherence.
The Ottoman Empire at least had 650 years of common history and economic integration and political centralization.
- Beginning in 1908, the Ottoman Empire was more democratic, albeit much less politically stable, than Germany and Russia, with an elective parliament and a figurehead monarch. As the empire was plunged immediately into severe crises and wars for the rest of its history, its hard to say where this would have gone.
- Legitimacy from continuity - continuity matters! Over that long a period governing institutions evolve in a long period of negotiation with local powers and to suit local conditions. One single dynasty throughout its entire existence, Islamic Caliphate, etc. The Republic tore away the Islamic veneer of the empire, forceably severed everyone from their roots in the past, and tried to replace Islam with Kemalism, which lacks the solace and philosophical breadth of Islam and has taken on an insecure, xenophobic and shrill character - and as Turks are increasingly labelling themselves Muslims first and Turks second, there is an identity crisis developing and a divide between the secular nationalist elite and the countryside.
- Well, take for instance, Chad. It's composed of Wadai, which was a fiercely independent Muslim sultanate dominated by the Sanusi order, 1/3 of Bornu, which was the oldest state of Africa but was partitioned between Germany, France, and Britain (Chad, Cameroon, Nigeria), several Christian and Animist regions, etc. For that matter, Nigeria - 1/3 of Bornu, the Sokoto Caliphate, Christian kingdoms, etc. They have no historical, ethnic, linguistic, economic, or political coherence.
The Ottoman Empire at least had 650 years of common history and economic integration and political centralization.
- Beginning in 1908, the Ottoman Empire was more democratic, albeit much less politically stable, than Germany and Russia, with an elective parliament and a figurehead monarch. As the empire was plunged immediately into severe crises and wars for the rest of its history, its hard to say where this would have gone.
- Legitimacy from continuity - continuity matters! Over that long a period governing institutions evolve in a long period of negotiation with local powers and to suit local conditions. One single dynasty throughout its entire existence, Islamic Caliphate, etc. The Republic tore away the Islamic veneer of the empire, forceably severed everyone from their roots in the past, and tried to replace Islam with Kemalism, which lacks the solace and philosophical breadth of Islam and has taken on an insecure, xenophobic and shrill character - and as Turks are increasingly labelling themselves Muslims first and Turks second, there is an identity crisis developing and a divide between the secular nationalist elite and the countryside.
From 1908-1913 you could say it was sort of democratic, but after the coup in 1913 which put the Triumvirate in power, the Ottoman Empire was effectively a dictatorship ruled by Enver Pasha, Talaat Pasha, and Jemal Pasha. If the Ottoman Empire had avoided the Great War, I doubt the Triumvirate would have listened to Parliament at all. They probably would have just ignored the Parliament, or they might have dissolved it after it no longer suited their needs.
Would you mind elaborating this? Please
Im thinking of the Ottoman's way of employing islam in uniting the empire. Also how this affects non muslim groups.
Btw, Im starting to be realy intrigued by the Ottoman Empire from all of your positive postings.
But the it is very possible that your version is only one of the approaches to the OE...
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
The "Triumvirate" thing is always exaggerated. In any case, their power was because of the wars - if the Ottomans had not entered, they almost certainly would have been kicked to the curb. Dissolving parliament would have led to their immediate overthrow.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
It's certainly not the only approach - you can just go to Wikipedia if you want an endless stream of vitriol against the late Ottoman Empire.
However, it is the consensus view of Mid East historians since the 1960s-70s, and a little later for Mid East historians from Turkey.
In 1839 an Imperial Rescript was issued mandating that all citizens of the empire, regardless of faith, were legally equal. It took a while for that to seep into practice, and in some regards (for instance military service), it never really happened.
After the 1877-78 war with Russia, the population of the empire was overwhelmingly Muslim, and Abdul Hamid II abandoned Ottomanism ("Ottoman Nationalism") for Islamism, which accented his position as Caliph and strove to promote Muslim unity as the only way of preserving the empire at that time.
In 1908, there was a revolution which led to a constitutional regime and the readoption of Ottomanism. As the CUP was interested in centralization, they pushed the use of Ottoman Turkish as the language of government, which alienated speakers of other languages, and they also promoted a Muslim burgeoisie, as Christian businessmen generally held foreign nationality which exempted them from most taxes and put them under the protection of foreigners - and their advantageous situation was both of less benefit to the empire than it could be as well as a huge source of resentment. Removing these advantages would decrease resentment, but also probably lead to some emmigration of Christians. However, they are not in sufficient numbers to really challenge Ottoman power, and hopefully reform and development would lead to increasing equity and the breakdown of arbitrary exercise of power.
If not for the war, the balance of economic power would have shifted towards Muslims, and the empire would have gone through a lot of internal turmoil as the government continued its rapid reform movement. But it would have been able to do this without foreign interference, or a whole lot less of it, which would have made successful rebellion impossible - and rebellion in general much less likely because of this.
However, it is the consensus view of Mid East historians since the 1960s-70s, and a little later for Mid East historians from Turkey.
In 1839 an Imperial Rescript was issued mandating that all citizens of the empire, regardless of faith, were legally equal. It took a while for that to seep into practice, and in some regards (for instance military service), it never really happened.
After the 1877-78 war with Russia, the population of the empire was overwhelmingly Muslim, and Abdul Hamid II abandoned Ottomanism ("Ottoman Nationalism") for Islamism, which accented his position as Caliph and strove to promote Muslim unity as the only way of preserving the empire at that time.
In 1908, there was a revolution which led to a constitutional regime and the readoption of Ottomanism. As the CUP was interested in centralization, they pushed the use of Ottoman Turkish as the language of government, which alienated speakers of other languages, and they also promoted a Muslim burgeoisie, as Christian businessmen generally held foreign nationality which exempted them from most taxes and put them under the protection of foreigners - and their advantageous situation was both of less benefit to the empire than it could be as well as a huge source of resentment. Removing these advantages would decrease resentment, but also probably lead to some emmigration of Christians. However, they are not in sufficient numbers to really challenge Ottoman power, and hopefully reform and development would lead to increasing equity and the breakdown of arbitrary exercise of power.
If not for the war, the balance of economic power would have shifted towards Muslims, and the empire would have gone through a lot of internal turmoil as the government continued its rapid reform movement. But it would have been able to do this without foreign interference, or a whole lot less of it, which would have made successful rebellion impossible - and rebellion in general much less likely because of this.
Would you mind elaborating this? Please
Im thinking of the Ottoman's way of employing islam in uniting the empire. Also how this affects non muslim groups.
Btw, Im starting to be realy intrigued by the Ottoman Empire from all of your positive postings.
But the it is very possible that your version is only one of the approaches to the OE...
Been there, done that, not interessted. While I generaly am found of Wikipedia, there are quite a few areas that I do not bother with...
Could you elaborate about Ottomanism vs. Islamism? From your last post I tought the Islam part were positive???? Does that imply that Ottomanism was bad?
If OE does not loose the war in 77-8 and OE keeps atleast Thrace (we have discussed this before and you pointed at Thrace as the minimun for OE to hold on to), how would Ottomanism develope? Or is the turn to Islam unavoidable?
Okay, sure they might have some trouble in the early years, but I think that without a doubt they would make a come back. An industrialized Ottoman Empire, newly rich from the oil boom would become a force to be reconded with later on. It would also be better for the world at large. All the problems in the middle east began AFTER the empire fell apart.
The arbitrary borders drawn in the European colonial offices are not the only reason for the backwardness and the problems of Africa, but have certainly contributed to the woes of the continent. Same thing is also true for Middle East
I'm not completely sure your position is completely consistent re. the democratization of the OE after 1908. My point is that the empire worked (with a lot of ups and downs - but ultimately worked) under a regime of separate religious millyets which was substantially a kind of apartheid (without the negative overtones of the word, at least after the reforms of 1830, but still apartheid: separate development). Moving to introduce a real democratic or semi-democratic system would have thrown a spanner into the works, mostly for the reasons you mentioned (double citizenships for non-moslems, foreign interference and also the natural desire for the moslem citizens to fill up positions which were remunerative in terms of income or social position). Therefore either the OE devolves into a state where religion is completely separate - similar to western democracies in principle - or sooner or later there will be a major crisis (and an ugly one, I'm afraid). I do not see any obvious solution. Possibly the POD should be quite far in the past (early 1800s at least: no war of greek independence), with the OE transforming itself into a kind of federal empire - if it was ever possible, which I doubt.
The barb against kemalism is a bit overdone. Kemal pasha did what he could to save a situation already compromised: he did not destroy the empire, he gave birth to the republic, which is substantially different.
Rockingham
Banned
No Italo-Ottoman war, therefore no Balkan wars, therefore the balkan issue subsumed by ww1, make ottomans remain neutral like Italy until the victor is apparent, then they join in 1916-17 andd pick up some scraps. Russia probaly is in civil war by 1917 or 1918, but not toppled(maybe civil war continues till 1919 or later. I see Serbia being denied croatia bosnia, maybe just some minor border gains and coastal tertory. Bulgaria if on CP side is spilt again, east rumelia to ottomans, the remainder demilitarised. Maybe kuwait and cyprus are brought under defacto, not just de jure, rule, and influence over egypt increases. Possible persian partition later on.