Barbary Wars lead to war with Ottomans

During the two US Barbary Wars, Tripoli and the Barbary States were nominally part of the Ottoman Empire.

With a POD after 1790 have either of the Barbary Wars end up in wars between the United States and the Ottoman Empire. Preferably this should not be part of a Pan European War started by other factors. (so US/UK/Coalition vs. Napoleonic France and the Ottomans started by Napoleonic efforts to keep Louisiana isn't what I'm looking for)

For bonus points have the 2011 military intervention in Libya (called by some the 3rd Barbary War) lead to Turkish intervention on the Qadaffi's side. :)
 
Last edited:

katchen

Banned
Instead of war with Ottomans and Barbarys, cooperation and trade

I have another idea. The United States from 1789 to 1814 was something of a pariah as far as European nations was concerned. Britain, France, Spain, all of the European powers were reluctant to diplomatically recognize the new United States or trade with it because they feared that the Republican virus would be catching (Republican France became an exception after 1780). On the other hand, the Barbary States routinely took captives--more white captives than they could ransom. And after 1782, the United States increasingly needed a market for it's cotton and wanted African slaves--which the Ottoman Empire and the Barbary States had for sale.
What if--instead of fighting the Barbary States, the United States cut a deal with them?
Instead of paying the usual tribute, the US could permit the Barbary States to sell it's white captives as bond servants and Africans as slaves in US ports. With guaranteed freedom of religion, Algerines and Moroccans and Ottomans and Egyptians would have no problem building mosques in American port cities. And having a base in the New World would enable the Barbary Corsairs to raid Spanish and Portuguese and British ports in the New World, meanwhile providing a market for US munitions makers and ship builders. And cotton growers. The Ottoman Empire consumed a great deal of cotton and had a much larger market for it than it could grow. The Ottomans could be a critical market for the Americans at a time when they were being shunned and embargoed by Europe, especially with China so far away. Who knows? The Ottomans might even be able to market naptha from rock oil (probably mostly from Albania rather than Iraq) for American lamps, competing with whale oil, as well.
The Ottoman Empire would be too far away for the US to engage in any full scale war with it during the early 1800s. But as a trading partner, leading to large scale settlement of Greeks, Lebanese, Slavs, Armenians and Jews as bonded servants in the South and Egyptian Copts as well as Ethiopians as slaves, along with free Muslim settlers throughout Eastern cities, this could be a major departure for the US.
The transportation of bonded servants rather than slaves could continue after 1808, since it apparently did at least into the 1830s OTL. And the US might act to protect Algeria from French invasion in the 1830s and Morocco later on.
 
I have another idea. The United States from 1789 to 1814 was something of a pariah as far as European nations was concerned. Britain, France, Spain, all of the European powers were reluctant to diplomatically recognize the new United States or trade with it because they feared that the Republican virus would be catching (Republican France became an exception after 1780). On the other hand, the Barbary States routinely took captives--more white captives than they could ransom. And after 1782, the United States increasingly needed a market for it's cotton and wanted African slaves--which the Ottoman Empire and the Barbary States had for sale.
What if--instead of fighting the Barbary States, the United States cut a deal with them?
Instead of paying the usual tribute, the US could permit the Barbary States to sell it's white captives as bond servants and Africans as slaves in US ports. With guaranteed freedom of religion, Algerines and Moroccans and Ottomans and Egyptians would have no problem building mosques in American port cities. And having a base in the New World would enable the Barbary Corsairs to raid Spanish and Portuguese and British ports in the New World, meanwhile providing a market for US munitions makers and ship builders. And cotton growers. The Ottoman Empire consumed a great deal of cotton and had a much larger market for it than it could grow. The Ottomans could be a critical market for the Americans at a time when they were being shunned and embargoed by Europe, especially with China so far away. Who knows? The Ottomans might even be able to market naptha from rock oil (probably mostly from Albania rather than Iraq) for American lamps, competing with whale oil, as well.
The Ottoman Empire would be too far away for the US to engage in any full scale war with it during the early 1800s. But as a trading partner, leading to large scale settlement of Greeks, Lebanese, Slavs, Armenians and Jews as bonded servants in the South and Egyptian Copts as well as Ethiopians as slaves, along with free Muslim settlers throughout Eastern cities, this could be a major departure for the US.
The transportation of bonded servants rather than slaves could continue after 1808, since it apparently did at least into the 1830s OTL. And the US might act to protect Algeria from French invasion in the 1830s and Morocco later on.

The problem is that after the first couple of years of this, both the U.S. Navy and the Barbary States would get curbstomped by the Royal Navy.
 
Kachen:

Do you have a citation for that? France and Spain were American allies in the war, while some of the early U.S. tariffs were an attempt to protect American businesses from British imports.

None of that seems to square with the U.S. being a pariah state the European monarchies refused to recognize or trade with.

According to this, France formally recognized the U.S. in 1777.
 
Getting back to the original question… to defend the Barbary States, the Ottomans would have to keep a good chunk of their fleet there full-time. To defeat that, the U.S. would have to build an even bigger fleet, which would mean a bigger military budget, maybe higher tariffs or taxes.

Of course, since we're talking about sea power, the real question is how the British would respond to this.
 
I have another idea. The United States from 1789 to 1814 was something of a pariah as far as European nations was concerned. Britain, France, Spain, all of the European powers were reluctant to diplomatically recognize the new United States or trade with it because they feared that the Republican virus would be catching (Republican France became an exception after 1780). On the other hand, the Barbary States routinely took captives--more white captives than they could ransom. And after 1782, the United States increasingly needed a market for it's cotton and wanted African slaves--which the Ottoman Empire and the Barbary States had for sale.
What if--instead of fighting the Barbary States, the United States cut a deal with them?
Instead of paying the usual tribute, the US could permit the Barbary States to sell it's white captives as bond servants and Africans as slaves in US ports. With guaranteed freedom of religion, Algerines and Moroccans and Ottomans and Egyptians would have no problem building mosques in American port cities. And having a base in the New World would enable the Barbary Corsairs to raid Spanish and Portuguese and British ports in the New World, meanwhile providing a market for US munitions makers and ship builders. And cotton growers. The Ottoman Empire consumed a great deal of cotton and had a much larger market for it than it could grow. The Ottomans could be a critical market for the Americans at a time when they were being shunned and embargoed by Europe, especially with China so far away. Who knows? The Ottomans might even be able to market naptha from rock oil (probably mostly from Albania rather than Iraq) for American lamps, competing with whale oil, as well.
The Ottoman Empire would be too far away for the US to engage in any full scale war with it during the early 1800s. But as a trading partner, leading to large scale settlement of Greeks, Lebanese, Slavs, Armenians and Jews as bonded servants in the South and Egyptian Copts as well as Ethiopians as slaves, along with free Muslim settlers throughout Eastern cities, this could be a major departure for the US.
The transportation of bonded servants rather than slaves could continue after 1808, since it apparently did at least into the 1830s OTL. And the US might act to protect Algeria from French invasion in the 1830s and Morocco later on.

Uh, WHAT???

Exactly who refused to trade with the U.S.? The British didn't even have a problem. Jefferson's solution of avoiding war by not trading with Europe at all wouldn't have worked if they refused to trade with the U.S. to begin with. (You can't make taking your toys and going home an effective tactic if no one plays with you in the first place.)

So the U.S. is going into the White Slave Trade AND opening mosques on the East Coast? I don't even know where to begin with that.

So the U.S. is going to not only trade with pirates, it is going to allow pirates to base themselves in American ports to raid other countries?

I find this bizarre ASB timeline interesting and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Just keep in mind that I find its plausibility somewhere between Sea Lion and George Washington earning American independence by personally beating George III in a wrestling match on Tower Hill.
 
George Washington earning American independence by personally beating George III in a wrestling match on Tower Hill.

King George was 6 years younger than George Washington, but I would imagine George Washington might have been in better Physical Shape. OTOH, GW died in 1799, and KGIII in 1820.

Does anyone have any feeling on what physical shape they were in during the years in question (1775 to 1789)?
 
The reason for the Barbary Wars, involving the USA, was that the Barbary States did not keep to the agreements they had made regarding not attacking mercantile traffic of certain nations. I doubt any mega grandiloquent treaty is going to fare any better, and I certainly doubt that the Dey of Algiers would even contemplate opening mosques in N America, it would be like asking the Archbishop of Canterbury why he wasn't funding a church on the Moon!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I have another idea. The United States from 1789 to 1814 was something of a pariah as far as European nations was concerned. Britain, France, Spain, all of the European powers were reluctant to diplomatically recognize the new United States or trade with it because they feared that the Republican virus would be catching (Republican France became an exception after 1780). On the other hand, the Barbary States routinely took captives--more white captives than they could ransom. And after 1782, the United States increasingly needed a market for it's cotton and wanted African slaves--which the Ottoman Empire and the Barbary States had for sale.
What if--instead of fighting the Barbary States, the United States cut a deal with them?
Instead of paying the usual tribute, the US could permit the Barbary States to sell it's white captives as bond servants and Africans as slaves in US ports. With guaranteed freedom of religion, Algerines and Moroccans and Ottomans and Egyptians would have no problem building mosques in American port cities. And having a base in the New World would enable the Barbary Corsairs to raid Spanish and Portuguese and British ports in the New World, meanwhile providing a market for US munitions makers and ship builders. And cotton growers. The Ottoman Empire consumed a great deal of cotton and had a much larger market for it than it could grow. The Ottomans could be a critical market for the Americans at a time when they were being shunned and embargoed by Europe, especially with China so far away. Who knows? The Ottomans might even be able to market naptha from rock oil (probably mostly from Albania rather than Iraq) for American lamps, competing with whale oil, as well.
The Ottoman Empire would be too far away for the US to engage in any full scale war with it during the early 1800s. But as a trading partner, leading to large scale settlement of Greeks, Lebanese, Slavs, Armenians and Jews as bonded servants in the South and Egyptian Copts as well as Ethiopians as slaves, along with free Muslim settlers throughout Eastern cities, this could be a major departure for the US.
The transportation of bonded servants rather than slaves could continue after 1808, since it apparently did at least into the 1830s OTL. And the US might act to protect Algeria from French invasion in the 1830s and Morocco later on.
This is both ridiculous and absolutely amazing. My head is spinning with ideas about a world in which this was allowed to happen. What a shame it probably never could. :(
 
The United States from 1789 to 1814 was something of a pariah as far as European nations was concerned. Britain, France, Spain, all of the European powers were reluctant to diplomatically recognize the new United States or trade with it because they feared that the Republican virus would be catching

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nations_by_date_of_recognition_of_the_United_States_of_America , France, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden recognized the US before the UK did (UK in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris). I'm not sure which other countries did major business in US Ports *or* than American merchants would feel restricted without access to.

Between 1783 and 1792, recognition came from the Papal States, Prussia, Morocco, Hamburg, Portugal and Denmark. That more or less covers *everybody* that did trans-Atlantic trade. Yes Austria was 1797 and Russia was 1803, and that *may* have been hesitancy to deal with a Republic, but I'm not sure that *really* hurt the USA in any significant way. The Netherlands or *any* of the central German States would have been happy to be intermediaries.
 
It would be interesting, if it came to war, if the us annexed that y coast as a territory, to make sure the pirateses never sailed again. ... probably asb, and they would discover that trying to hold a restive population down wasnt worth it....
 
Top