Starrting with 1900 have the Ottoman empire survive untill today .
How could it change the world if it was still around.
It depends however, how they use their new riches. Saudi Arabia is rich, but would you say they use their money especially wisely?
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?
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.
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?
- 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.
..., and tried to replace Islam with Kemalism, which lacks the solace and philosophical breadth of Islam...
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...
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.
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 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.