AHC: Ottoman wank

England is not that big, and it took centuries to unify anyway, so it's not some sort of unlikely scenario.

I don't get why Iberia would join the Ottoman empire at all, especially with a 18th century POD, makes no sense. The rest should be possible, although you have the Ottomans just overthrow centuries of trade routes building and colonial empires in a single swoop, which seems also unlikely at best.

17th century, and Spain's disasters all happened offscreen. I wouldn't look too hard into the details, it was a fifteen minute rushjob that left most things to allusion, as well as the amount of time over which things happened. That said, if the Ottomans did turn their full attention onto the Indian Ocean then yeah, they could definitely disrupt many trade routes via conquering or usurping trade posts to local powers considering how far away Europe is and the amount of time voyages took.
 

Deleted member 97083

Have Osman II be wildly successful in his attempt to curve the power of the Janissaries...
I think it could be interesting to have the Ottoman wank start later, during the reign of Mahmud II. The Ottoman Empire recovers from its first nadir at the Greek War of Independence. Despite the loss of Egypt and Greece, the Ottomans develop as a medium sized, urbanized/industrialized state with steady buildup of power and some lucky colonization on the margins. Meanwhile, a less astute but luckier Muhammad Ali Pasha of Egypt manages to conquer large swathes of Africa. It's in the 1860s or 1870s that the Ottomans march en masse into the Egyptian Empire and reincorporate it, as a colony with all the conquering done for them beforehand by the Egyptians. Just in time for the Scramble for Africa in which the Ottomans take the Congo and Ethiopia. The indebted Egypt itself provides resources for the main industrialized area from Turkey to Iraq. By the start of the 20th century, the Ottomans are ready to make massive conquests in Europe as part of World War One. In World War One, the typical Kaiserwank occurs, except the Ottomans are the ones making the main territorial gains, annexing all of the A-H Empire sans Austria.
 
I think you’re screwing the Ottomans, not wanking then.

Sorry, I seemingly misunderstood you: the only meanings of the word that I found were related to a certain sexual activity which does not require more than one person. So did you mean a maximum amount of ...er... pleasure which the Ottomans could inflict on themselves? ;)
 
I think it could be interesting to have the Ottoman wank start later, during the reign of Mahmud II. The Ottoman Empire recovers from its first nadir at the Greek War of Independence. Despite the loss of Egypt and Greece, the Ottomans develop as a medium sized, urbanized/industrialized state with steady buildup of power and some lucky colonization on the margins. Meanwhile, a less astute but luckier Muhammad Ali Pasha of Egypt manages to conquer large swathes of Africa. It's in the 1860s or 1870s that the Ottomans march en masse into the Egyptian Empire and reincorporate it, as a colony with all the conquering done for them beforehand by the Egyptians. Just in time for the Scramble for Africa in which the Ottomans take the Congo and Ethiopia. The indebted Egypt itself provides resources for the main industrialized area from Turkey to Iraq. By the start of the 20th century, the Ottomans are ready to make massive conquests in Europe as part of World War One. In World War One, the typical Kaiserwank occurs, except the Ottomans are the ones making the main territorial gains, annexing all of the A-H Empire sans Austria.
I feel like that if they lose Greece it would undermine the relationship between the remaining Greeks and the Ottoman state long-term, I'd avoid the creation of Greece and solve Serbia as well.
 
No Timur:

And the Italian states are much weaker. Venice is still recovering from choggia and the plague. Milan is about to collapse. Thr Church is still in schism. Sicily and Aragon are about to undergo a succession crisis. The Hundred Years war is only halfway through. The Hussite Wars are about to distract Hungary-Bohemia and Poland and Germany. If the Ottomans play their cards right and exploit Europes internal divisions they could be at the Alps by the 1440s.

Well, aside from just the western expansion, the Ottomans might have less trouble coming from the east in the long term. Without Timur, the Persian region's remains disunited in the wake of Ilkhanate collapse for at least a good while longer (plus, no Turkomen to revolt from). Without an Iranian power like the Safavids to check Ottoman eastward expansion and the constant expenditures of the Ottoman-Safavid wars, Ottoman dominance over the Middle East is far more secure and its borders perhaps stretching over the Zagros, no?
 
Sorry, I seemingly misunderstood you: the only meanings of the word that I found were related to a certain sexual activity which does not require more than one person. So did you mean a maximum amount of ...er... pleasure which the Ottomans could inflict on themselves? ;)

Yes
 
Then the recipe is simple: let all these troublesome Kurds, Arabs and Armenians go, declare themselves neutral state (like Sweden) and enjoy the life while getting the custom dues from the trade via the Straits and selling rahat lokum.

Except for the Kurds bit this is kind of what the Turkish Republic did, no?
 
I understand the general principle. But if you look at the map above, the OTL outcome seems pretty astonishing for that little state in 1300 to achieve. To go from that little rump to a huge empire is not a middle-ground outcome ; it was like a 98th or 99th percentile outcome. You can make the Ottoman state a bit stronger still but only by so much - it's a lot easier to make it weaker all along.

By this method, what may be considered a wank or screw may be entirely subjective and relies on what individuals feel like a wank without dissecting other facets of a state's society.

Having OTL as a middle-ground to gauge other timelines provide an objective spectrum of wank and screw rather than relying on subjective individual perspectives of history.

Anyways, for @Kaiser Wilhelm , an ealier POD in the 16th century, have Sultan Selim I slaughter Esma'il I during the Battle of Çaldiran in Safavid Iran. The Khanate of Bokhoro may be able to take anything east of Dasht-e Lut and Dasht-e Kavir whilst the Ottomans absorb the core regions of western and central Iran.
 
This is very simple. Keep it non, ASB, but wank the Ottoman Empire as much as possible with the latest possible POD. Preferably close to the 1900s.

Post-1878: Bosnia regained, Bulgarian coast and East Rumelia taken back, Nis taken back.

Abkhazia, Adjara, Poti taken back and Armenia and Azerbaijan taken (In case of Russian collapse).

Iranian Azerbaijan taken as soon as the Qajars are deposed. Ottomans agree to intervene against Mahdist in Sudan giving them Egypt and Sudan. Most of Najd is also open for occupation.
 
Is this possible

Perfectly possible. The Russians sendt insufficient troops and being halted at Plevna made it financing the war hard if not impossible. Had Suleiman Pasha's troops be given to Mehmed Ali Pasha, Plevne could have been relieved and the Russians driven over the Danube. In such case the Great Powers would intervene to solve it.
 
If you don’t mind!

Ottomans win the 77-78 war. There is a time to recover. In this case the Ottomans keep most of the Balkans. Intervention against the Mahdists results in Egypt being reincorporated. Tunesia being reincorporated as well. This results in lands between Tunis, Bornu and Somaliland being ruled by the Ottomans but without Ethiopia. A lot of empty land but still. Most of the Arab Peninsula taken as well. If Russia collapses the Southern Caucasus are open for occupation as well...
 
Yes they are. They happened, so we know they are possible. Ahistorical outcomes did not happen, so we don't even know if they are possible, never mind if they are likely.

Plus, almost all macrohistorical events happen for reasons, so the lottery analogy doesn't actually apply.

This is flawed logic. OTL is self-evidently possible, but that tells us only that its probability was greater than zero, not that it was greater than any other potential outcome.

And if I won the lottery, it's because I chose to buy a ticket - I had reasons to do that.
 
Last edited:
Yes they are. They happened, so we know they are possible. Ahistorical outcomes did not happen, so we don't even know if they are possible, never mind if they are likely.

Plus, almost all macrohistorical events happen for reasons, so the lottery analogy doesn't actually apply.
Miracle of house Brandenburg is what happened therefore it was clearly the most likely outcome.
That's your logic and it's piss poor.
There are many points in history where what was one of the least likely options happened.
 
Top