AHC/WI/PC: European Power Manages To Control The Levant For An Indefinite Period Of Time

With a POD after 1500 is it a possible a major European power can hold onto the Levant region for a long period of time? Which nation is most likely to pull this off? What would happen to the region if a European nation controls it and how are Muslims and the Ottomans affected as a whole?
 
Possible candidates for control of the Levant
  • France
  • Italy
  • Spain
  • Russia
These countries are ones I can see wanting influence over the Middle East, and that don't have to go a long way for it.
 
What do "holding" and "long period of time" mean? IOTL France and UK held significant sway at mount Lebanon and what would become Palestine already in 19th century.

A big problem is non-rentability of any such endeavour. Prior to 19th century any effort is better spent on India or Carribean.
 
What do "holding" and "long period of time" mean? IOTL France and UK held significant sway at mount Lebanon and what would become Palestine already in 19th century.

A big problem is non-rentability of any such endeavour. Prior to 19th century any effort is better spent on India or Carribean.
I think a more successful Napoleonic campaign of Egypt and the Near East could possibly make the Ottomans rescind control of Egypt, Syria/Lebanon and Palestine. However, this would in the long term lead to additional conflict with the Ottomans.
Actually, I think France, if it embarks on an integrative colonial path from the 1800s in the Near East, with lots of butterfly swatting, would end up being able to retain Lebanon as part of the France.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
There are probably lots of very straightforward possibilities to make this happen. But given that it's a challenge that's a bit out there anyway, let's go for something cool. Here's a POD post 1500: the siege of Vienna in 1529 succeeds. Let's for the moment assume that as a given (maybe the campaign goes somewhat differently, and the Ottomans get to the city before OTL's heavy rainfall and then sudden unseasonable snowfall really messes with their plans). The forces of Suleiman the Magnificent now pose a danger considerable parts of Europe. The world of Christendom is, at the very least, utterly shocked. Let's assume that Suleiman, being his own highly gifted self, manages to make serious territorial gains. At the end of the day, his campaign leaves him with his OTL gains, as well as OTL's Royal Hungary, Austria proper, Styria, Carniola, Slavonia and Croatia. (I think Suleiman could potentially push for even more than that, but this would leave him vulnerable to a counterattack from other European powers; I imagine he would take the aforementioned gains and then consolidate, rather than risk it all on a wild gambit.)

This outcome means that the Ottomans now directly threaten Venice, Tyrol, Bavaria, Bohemia and Moravia. And potentially many regions beyond. OTL's failed siege put a stop to Ottoman ambitions in Europe, for a time. It preserved, in many ways, some semblance of the status quo. But this kind of ATL scenario? This conquest into the "heart of Christendom"? This would demand an answer. And there, I believe, is an impetus for an eventualy counterattack. A new "reconquista", followed by... well... a new crusade, of sorts.

At any rate, this ATL would have the Ottoman's on everyone's minds as enemy number one. Culturally, intellectually and socially, the Christian-Muslim conflict would be played up far more than it was in OTL. There might be more of a Christian sense of unity against this feared external enemy. There is of course no way to predict how this would turn out. But since this is a challenge, let's make it interesting. Let's say that this outcome leads to a rather broad alliance between at least France, Spain, Portugal, the Italian states, Bavaria, and what remains of the Austrian Habsburgs' hereditary lands (basically Tyrol, Bohemia-Moravia and Silesia). Nominally, the HRE would also be part of this alliance, probably. Since this is also a time of internal religious struggle, however, and since the Protestant regions are generally situated further away from the Ottomans, I wouldn't count on much involvement from any Protestant region. (On the flipside, a common external enemy might make both Catholics and Protestants somewhat more ready to tolerate each other, so the hated muslim foe cannot prevail by exploiting their division.)

The purpose of these Christian powers would be to push back the Ottomans, to liberate south-eastern Europe from the muslim yoke, and ideally to give the hated enemy a sound kicking and... take back the holy land or something. hat last bit is probably more propaganda than something else, but... a firm alliance of major Christian powers, at the exact time those powers are getting really into colonialism and the wealth that entails, has a fairly good chance of succeeding. So they push back the Ottomans. Through a long and hard struggle, that lasts (intermittently) for over a century, and that only increases the hate they feel towards these conquerors, they eventually push the Ottomans entirely out of Europe. They take Constantinople. By that point, the whole thing has taken on a religious dimension; a life of its own.

And thus, it becomes almost inevitable that, rather than marching into Anatolia proper, the next step is the launch a campaign to take the Holy Land. Many call it a new crusade. In many ways, it is. And this, too, is a success. (Let us, for the sake of flair, assume that the city of Jerusalem is captured on September twelfth, 1683.) A considerable part of the Levant is captured. The Kingdom of Jerusalem re-founded. In this bitter war, the outcome of the campaign includes the mass expulsion of muslims from the (re?)conquered area. In the following years and decades, Christians settle there. All that happens even as this victory proves to be the alliance's last one. Internal animosity, colonial conflicts and various other factors (such as always arise) lead the alliance to fall apart or at least to lose its sense of purpose. Maybe even that fact that the object of all crusades is now achieved, and that the war to get there was so long and costly, plays a role. In any case, the Ottomans are much diminished. They cannot take back Jerusalem, or any part of Europe they previously held. But the European powers, at odds in various constellations and coalitions once more, cannot gather the will to destroy the Ottomans completely, either.

And so, the new status quo is preserved. The Kingdom of Jerusalem remains, until the present day, a part of Christendom, and culturally European in almost every way.
 
Last edited:
With a POD after 1500 is it a possible a major European power can hold onto the Levant region for a long period of time? Which nation is most likely to pull this off? What would happen to the region if a European nation controls it and how are Muslims and the Ottomans affected as a whole?

The Ottoman defeat outside Vienna in 1683 leads to a resurgence of interest in crusading throughout Christendom, conveniently at a time when Europe is starting to really pull ahead of the Middle East in terms of technology and military strength. The Ottomans go into a period of steady decline, helped along by various campaigns to liberate formerly Christian territory from the hands of the Turk, and after around 1750 or so they're weak enough for a European power to take and hold the Levant.

ETA: As for who'd take it, France is probably the best bet, since they're geographically well-placed and IOTL had interests in the area anyway. Historically their kings often allied with the Ottoman sultans against the Hapsburgs, although with the Ottomans in decline and much of Europe caught up in crusading fever such an alliance would increasingly be seen as a liability by French policy-makers, and they might prefer to turn against the Turks instead. Spain would be another contender: the Spanish had a proud tradition of conquering heathen lands ad majorem Dei gloriam, and although past their heyday were still probably the third or fourth strongest country in Europe. The other countries that might get involved would be Austria and Russia, although Russia's a bit far away to go conquering in Syria, whereas Austria traditionally wasn't much of a naval power and would probably focus more on increasing her territories in the Balkans.
 
Last edited:
A POD this late makes it quite difficult as the Ottomans will be quite capable of repelling any European incursions into the Levant before the 19th century. You need to cripple the Ottomans first.
 
Maybe France could make a Algeria on the Levant under the 2nd Ottoman-Egyptian War. Levant at that point are around 25% Christian, and if its controlled by a European power, it would likely get a influx Europeans. So we could see Muslims reduced to a plurality, and some groups like the Druze, Alawite and many of the Shias would likely prefer French rule.
 
Maybe France could make a Algeria on the Levant under the 2nd Ottoman-Egyptian War. Levant at that point are around 25% Christian, and if its controlled by a European power, it would likely get a influx Europeans. So we could see Muslims reduced to a plurality, and some groups like the Druze, Alawite and many of the Shias would likely prefer French rule.

During this time period the Shia and the Sunni were, for the most part, in harmony. If it is the French who colonizes the Levant they will likely elevate the Christians to minority rulers like they did with the Alawite in Syria. That could breed resentment among the other discriminated ethnicity and religions
 
Top