Good PODs for the Ottoman Empire surviving in the 19th century
- Thread starter Aaaaasima
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ottoman empire pods
The best-case POD for the Ottomans is for Selim III to reform the Ottomans at around the time of the French Revolution. Have him pull an Auspicious Incident on the Janissaries, and suddenly the Tanzimat can happen earlier. In this scenario, it's not unlikely that the Ottomans reconquer North Africa, as these reforms will be before Mehmet Ali Pasha came out of nowhere to turn Egypt into a powerhouse, and so will avoid Egypt falling independent in all but name.
@Golfman76 this subject has been discussed a bunch. Did you try searching on Google with site:alternatehistory.com? Abdul Hadi Pasha on this site has talked about an 1877-78 war PoD quite a bit.
That would help but it's not the best case PoD. Selim and his successors will still inherit the terrible geopolitical situation caused by the Napoleonic Wars. I've previously discussed Napoleon dying in Egypt and Sieyes instituting his oligarchical French republic as a PoD that would preserve the boost to reform caused by the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt, while still having a strong France that works within Balance of Power norms. Furthermore, the local elites and Jannisaries were only able to resist Selim because of the stresses caused by the Napoleonic Wars and Napoleons betrayal at Tilsit.
That would help but it's not the best case PoD. Selim and his successors will still inherit the terrible geopolitical situation caused by the Napoleonic Wars. I've previously discussed Napoleon dying in Egypt and Sieyes instituting his oligarchical French republic as a PoD that would preserve the boost to reform caused by the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt, while still having a strong France that works within Balance of Power norms. Furthermore, the local elites and Jannisaries were only able to resist Selim because of the stresses caused by the Napoleonic Wars and Napoleons betrayal at Tilsit.
No. They were resisting reform even before Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, and the Janissary problem would exist even without Napoleon's betrayal at Tilsit. There was a clear precedent for Janissaries deposing Sultans, anyways. They needed to go as early as possible.
They were resisting but Napoleons invasion exposed how weak the Ottomans were even to conservatives and gave a large boost to the reformists like Selim himself. The Janissary problem still existed and needed to be gotten rid of but they wouldn't have the opportunity to actually pull off a coup without the war and Tilsit (or something similar). Selim III was forced to compromise with local elites and the Janissaries at a time when he needed to be removing them because of the war and the threat of war. The Serbs for example, were swiftly crushed immediately after the war was over even without modernized troops and reform. How could local elites like Mehmet Ali solidify their hold on places like Egypt without the distraction of the wars and the coup? Hell, even after the coup, Alemdar Mustafa Pasha was able to depose the reactionaries and re-institute reforms. However, he had to send his troops to the front because of the continuing war with Russia. This left him vulnerable and allowed the Jannisaries to assassinate him. How could a thousand Jannisaries literally raid his house if the bulk of the army was at home? The longer Selim can reform, the more that the reformists can strengthen their position until it's safe to eliminate the Janissaries. Remember that it took around 18 years after his accession for Mahmud II to feel safe enough to eliminate the Jannisaries. This stuff takes time.
Also, I'm not just talking about the war and coup themselves but the entire geopolitical situation of things like a boosted Russia, a severely weakened France, and suppressed liberalism/instability in Germany/Italy.
Even then Ottomans have much problems what them have deal. Janissaries were just part of problem.
They pulled off coups as far back as 1622, and they were obviously the deal brokers, with the Grand Black Eunuch clearly being more powerful than the Sultan at times. I think you're offering too much credit to Tilsit here.
The Serbs were crushed because they were revolting against the local Janissary junta, not the Ottomans. It wasn't just the Serbs revolting, it was a de facto independent Janissary fiefdom rebelling as well.
They also attempted to rebel in an era before nationalism had really spread in the Balkans, when ethno-nationalism here was only existent in the Septinsular Republic. So, the motivation was not really here to be independent...yet.
It doesn't really. Osman II came close to abolishing the Janissaries in 1622, back when they were much more powerful. Hell, if Selim III had defeated the Janissaries in the 1807 coup, you would have probably seen them abolished.
What was really needed to abolish the Janissaries was to gather them in one place and kill them when they revolted. The appropriate tactics were required to abolish them, not time.
Yeah, that makes sense.
The fact that they pulled off coups doesn't mean that they could just do so whenever they wanted. Circumstances had to be right. The Janissaries hated the reform program long before 1808. Why didn't they coup the Emporer and reformists off before then? The Janissaries during this time period were heavily integrated into the general populace. Without the legitimacy and prestige of the reformists severely diminished by all the famine and suffering would they even have the cohesion to move against the Emperor? According to Ali Yaycioglu, author of Partners of the Empire: The Crisis of the Ottoman Order in the Age of Revolutions, it was the British fleets arrival at Istanbul (which turned into a siege), that triggered the anti-New Order revolution. Alemdar Mustafa was able to come back in the middle of a long and brutal war with Russia and suppress the Janissaries. He was only killed afterwards because the army had its hands full with fending of the behemoth of Russia and wasn't able to protect him. In the absence of war with Russia, how could the Janissaries even kill Selim III in the first place without being suppressed? Selim III would have had no big incentive to avoid pissing them off, he would have all the full modernized forces near him, and could have replicated the Auspicious Incident decades early.
They rebelled against the Janissaries at first but it alter turned into a general revolt. Actually, the reason it turned into a general revolt aiming at independence is because they were so successful against the Janissaries. The idea that a lack of ethno-nationalism caused them to not aim for independence is incorrect. They had a group identity and rebelled because of terrible conditions.
Did Osman II "come close"? I'm not familiar with him so I'd need to see your source. In any case, the ability to implement the appropriate tactics is based in the situation. Selim III was in the middle of a brutal war against the behemoth of Russia when the Janissaries revolted. Alemdar certainly couldn't kill them even after the danger had been clearly demonstrated.
ben0628
Banned
The Ottomans should have been more focused on becoming a naval power than land power.
1) Never expand the empire North of Serbia and Wallchia.
2) Focus less resources against Hungary and Austria and conquer Sicily and Southern Italy instead.
3) Establish proper and permanent control over North Africa (no auntonomy).
4) Destroy the Spanish and Italian Navies.
5) Keep up to date with mordern naval technologies and tactics.
6) Build a Suez Canal by 1700.
7) Invest more resources into conquering Yemen and Oman.
8) Colonize the Crimean peninsula, Socotra and Horn of Africa.
9) Attempt to assimilate minorities into Turkish culture.
10) Use wealth from colonies and canals to maintain naval supremacy.
Basically don't try to conquer Romania, Austria, Hungary, and Ukraine and instead use those available resources to establish yourself as a naval power in the Mediterranean Sea, Adriatic Sea, Black Sea, and Indian Ocean.
1) Never expand the empire North of Serbia and Wallchia.
2) Focus less resources against Hungary and Austria and conquer Sicily and Southern Italy instead.
3) Establish proper and permanent control over North Africa (no auntonomy).
4) Destroy the Spanish and Italian Navies.
5) Keep up to date with mordern naval technologies and tactics.
6) Build a Suez Canal by 1700.
7) Invest more resources into conquering Yemen and Oman.
8) Colonize the Crimean peninsula, Socotra and Horn of Africa.
9) Attempt to assimilate minorities into Turkish culture.
10) Use wealth from colonies and canals to maintain naval supremacy.
Basically don't try to conquer Romania, Austria, Hungary, and Ukraine and instead use those available resources to establish yourself as a naval power in the Mediterranean Sea, Adriatic Sea, Black Sea, and Indian Ocean.
@123456789blaaa, I must bow to your clearly superior knowledge about the Ottoman Empire. And thank you for that book reference, I’ll be sure to check it out.