AHC/WI: An Ottoman Sultan version of "Peter the Great", i.e. Europhile modernist...

Not sure if serious.


Hook: You want constitutional reform, you need the state looking at states with constitutions - unlike Spain.

And I wonder if the sultan would be willing to compromise some of his absolute power here. That's where I see the most obvious tricky parts.

Noted. UK, then?

Because when it was attempted by the greatest most tolerant Muslim emperor ever Akbar it was a failure that lasted only his lifetime. Attempts to create a religion to unite a nation from the top down generally end up failures.

Agreed.
 
Not sure if serious.

Not knowledgeable enough to be serious, hence the emoticon. But I'm curious as to why it is impossible. Intra-Christian schisms have been remarkably virulent, yet the overarching concept of Christianity has not broken down, and has frequently permitted alliances of convenience against non-Christian foes. Christians persecuted the crap out of Jews, but the concept of "Judeo-Christian culture" gained currency as soon as it was useful to people in power. Why couldn't a sufficiently powerful group of people establish "Abrahamism" as a concept of convenience? The Ottoman Empire would seem an ideal laboratory for such an experiment.
 
Not knowledgeable enough to be serious, hence the emoticon. But I'm curious as to why it is impossible. Intra-Christian schisms have been remarkably virulent, yet the overarching concept of Christianity has not broken down, and has frequently permitted alliances of convenience against non-Christian foes. Christians persecuted the crap out of Jews, but the concept of "Judeo-Christian culture" gained currency as soon as it was useful to people in power. Why couldn't a sufficiently powerful group of people establish "Abrahamism" as a concept of convenience? The Ottoman Empire would seem an ideal laboratory for such an experiment.

In a sense, your examples are not examples of 'bridging the gulf'. Protestants and Catholics have not, to this day, agreed to a common set of rules - they have just agreed to live and let live. Same with Jews and Christians.

I wouldn't say Abrahamism isn't a theoretical possibility, but I'd wager that by the 19th Century there is wayyyy too much bad blood between Islam and Christianity for any union of the two to work. The instability of the 19th Century Ottoman Empire is truly something to behold.
 
Converting to Christianity is probably ASB and would be both unnecessary and counter-productive.

Now, what with a luckier Selim III. Say that in 1795 he hires a young disgraced French general called Napoleone Buenaparte to reform his military. Selim III tried to build a modern army (nizam-i jedid) in OTL but was overthrown by the Janissaries.

In TTL, the nizam is both larger (50.000 men) and better trained, and its commander is both able and willing to act on his own should the need arise. When the Janissaries make their move in 1806, they are crushed. After that, of course, Selim III is utterly dependent on Napoleone who soons becomes Grand Vizier...:rolleyes:
 
Converting to Christianity is probably ASB and would be both unnecessary and counter-productive.

Now, what with a luckier Selim III. Say that in 1795 he hires a young disgraced French general called Napoleone Buenaparte to reform his military. Selim III tried to build a modern army (nizam-i jedid) in OTL but was overthrown by the Janissaries.

In TTL, the nizam is both larger (50.000 men) and better trained, and its commander is both able and willing to act on his own should the need arise. When the Janissaries make their move in 1806, they are crushed. After that, of course, Selim III is utterly dependent on Napoleone who soons becomes Grand Vizier...:rolleyes:

Firstly, welcome to the board!

Secondly... all the awesome in this post is unreal.

I'm not sure any of that is plausible (though I'm wont to doubt it), and the butterflies from no Napoleonic Wars are devastating to anything remotely resembling our history making it a tough sell... but thanks for getting my brain going!
 
Firstly, welcome to the board!

Secondly... all the awesome in this post is unreal.

I'm not sure any of that is plausible (though I'm wont to doubt it), and the butterflies from no Napoleonic Wars are devastating to anything remotely resembling our history making it a tough sell... but thanks for getting my brain going!


Well, Napoleon was disgraced in 1795 (pushed aside into the Bureau of Topography of the Committee of Public Safety then removed from active service in september) and he asked to be posted in Istanbul, with the intention to enter the Sultan's service. As for Selim III, he was a reformer but his reluctance to use armed force against his own people doomed him.

Now, of course, the butterflies are massive (the royalist coup of october 1795 might succeed, to begin with)
 
Turn the clock WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Before 18th century,boy.

It was widely speculated that Ahmet,Selim I's bro,is more western(Due to Ahmet's foreign relations) than Selim,and Selim I managed to use that accusations to rally more troops against his bro during the civil war.

Well,datas regarding Ahmet is little to none,and his potrayal on Assassins Creed:Revelations is mostly based on speculations-on "Who Ahmet is."



Or,we could have a more-western Suleiman.

And there's Selim III.
 
Going back to Selim the Grim?

"More western" is not necessarily better in the early 16th century, when the Ottoman state is the strongest and most effectively organized polity in this part of Eurasia.

In fact, I'd argue a sultan more interested in the western examples of "state" would be worse.


Hook: Possibly the UK, but there's the rub - a ruthless modernizer is probably going to look at the neutered state of what we call a constitutional monarchy in the 21st century as a bad thing. Might get some ideas from it, but it would definitely be tricky.
 
Going back to Selim the Grim?

"More western" is not necessarily better in the early 16th century, when the Ottoman state is the strongest and most effectively organized polity in this part of Eurasia.

In fact, I'd argue a sultan more interested in the western examples of "state" would be worse.


Hook: Possibly the UK, but there's the rub - a ruthless modernizer is probably going to look at the neutered state of what we call a constitutional monarchy in the 21st century as a bad thing. Might get some ideas from it, but it would definitely be tricky.
Well,what we need is to TAKE OUT SELIM THE GRIM,and let Ahmet take the throne instead.
I know,it'll possibly modernize the Ottomans,but takes out their Islamic Influence.
 
Well,what we need is to TAKE OUT SELIM THE GRIM,and let Ahmet take the throne instead.
I know,it'll possibly modernize the Ottomans,but takes out their Islamic Influence.

Except that it won't modernize the Ottomans. The Ottomans in that period are modern (as far as anyone of the era is) - more so than the West.

Whatever Ahmet's qualities may or may not have been.
 
Except that it won't modernize the Ottomans. The Ottomans in that period are modern (as far as anyone of the era is) - more so than the West.

Whatever Ahmet's qualities may or may not have been.

Yeah,too sad that Selim frantically tries to destroy every evidence of the lives of his Bros.

Too sad.

Well,not modern,but more "Western-ish.
 
Yeah,too sad that Selim frantically tries to destroy every evidence of the lives of his Bros.

Too sad.

Well,not modern,but more "Western-ish.

Would adopting embracing greek culture qualify? Because I could kind of see that happening given how involved ethnic Greeks where in raising the sultans.
 
Top