Best point to destroy the Ottoman Empire in the early 19th century
- Thread starter Nassirisimo
- Start date
If the plot to kill both Selim and Mahmud had suceeded in 1808 and Mustafa was able to carry on the removal of reforms put into place by Selim then I can see the Empire descending into civil war, with each Bey out for himself.
Maybe if we give them a Sultan much weaker then Abdul Hamid II, but I'm not sure....
Also, a Greek Constantinople and Western Anatolia are a big no-no too. I chose this point anyway as it seemed more plausible then bringing down a relatively strengthened Ottoman empire lately. Its not that I hate the Ottomans, im actually a big fan. It just seems an interesting scenario to develop.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
You don't see Greek Constantinople and western Anatolia much nowadays though you still see it in one or two timelines.
What about a PoD where Russian army takes Constantinople in 1828?
In OTL 1840, 1853 and 1878, Britain interfered to defend Turkey, because of defence of balance of power. But the problem in first months of 1828 was that Britain had just fought battle of Navarin to defend Greeks. Turning round the public opinion to defend Ottomans would be hard and take time, so that insofar as balance of power is concerned their best chance would be to encourage the Greeks to act independent of their Russian protectors - saving Ottomans would be unpalatable.
On the other hand, purely logistically the Russian army at Constantinople has difficulties chasing Turks all the way to Sudan.
So, with Constantinople in Russian hands, what kind of rump Turkey are Russians going to settle for? What will be their next military objectives - Gallipoli and Troy, mopping up Turkish forces in Balkans, securing western Asia Minor for Greeks?
In OTL 1840, 1853 and 1878, Britain interfered to defend Turkey, because of defence of balance of power. But the problem in first months of 1828 was that Britain had just fought battle of Navarin to defend Greeks. Turning round the public opinion to defend Ottomans would be hard and take time, so that insofar as balance of power is concerned their best chance would be to encourage the Greeks to act independent of their Russian protectors - saving Ottomans would be unpalatable.
On the other hand, purely logistically the Russian army at Constantinople has difficulties chasing Turks all the way to Sudan.
So, with Constantinople in Russian hands, what kind of rump Turkey are Russians going to settle for? What will be their next military objectives - Gallipoli and Troy, mopping up Turkish forces in Balkans, securing western Asia Minor for Greeks?
I don't think that the Russians have the logistical ability to take or hold Constantinople at this point in time.
Not to mention that control of such a strategic location will shake up European geopolitics. Russian Constantinople means that Russia can control the Mediterranean if it put its effort into it.
SavoyTruffle
Not control. Various forces, most noticably the RN will prevent that. However it does make the Black Sea a Russian controlled lake and mean the Russians can threaten to sortie from the straits - provided they control all of them of course.
Steve
They had brought their army within 68 km of Constantinople in August 1829.
The Turkish fortresses like Varna had fallen. Constantinople did have walls, but being far in the rear of Turkish empire, the Turks had not bothered to modernise them after battering their way through in 1453.
So, instead of taking the peace terms of Adrianople, Russians decide to attempt storming Constantinople in earnest in September 1829.
Can Turks defend Constantinople?
Razgriz 2K9
Banned
Well, Constantinople could be furiously defended by the Ottomans, I'm going to surmise that the city will be fought in a siege, despite the primitive defenses from 1453.
The Russians, if they successfully took Constantinople, would've given harsher terms to the Ottomans. However, how successful the Russians would be, I do not know for sure.
The Russians, if they successfully took Constantinople, would've given harsher terms to the Ottomans. However, how successful the Russians would be, I do not know for sure.
Just a weird idea: IOTL, the Russians used "peace" in napoleonic Europe to expand. The Austrians on the other side used every possibility to do a rematch with Napoleon. What if the Austrians and Russians allied to expand on Ottoman costs to prepare for a rematch against Napoleon from a better situation? They could end up partitioning the whole Balkans.
An all-time-favourite POD of me was Russia and Austria doing that and also getting the straits - with the Austrians getting the Dardanelles and the Russians getting the Bosporus, grudgingly accepted by Napoleon to not anger the two most powerful enemies in the east, whereas Britain had no choice but to accept the fait accompli. Unluckily, I never came up with a relistic way to explain this...
An all-time-favourite POD of me was Russia and Austria doing that and also getting the straits - with the Austrians getting the Dardanelles and the Russians getting the Bosporus, grudgingly accepted by Napoleon to not anger the two most powerful enemies in the east, whereas Britain had no choice but to accept the fait accompli. Unluckily, I never came up with a relistic way to explain this...
Razgriz 2K9
Banned
To be honest, It would be possible if the POD was around 1787 during Russo/Austro-Turkish War (1787-1792) but instead continuing. Only problem is, this would prove difficult for Austria come time for the French Revolutionary Wars.
Good question. I largely agree with this:
The Ottomans would have thrown everything into the defense of the city. Yes, the defenses were obsolete, but so is the Russian military at this point if I recall correctly. Furthermore, Ottoman infrastructure is more apt to allow for reinforcements at this stage than is that of Russia. Also, Britain wants to keep the Straits open at nearly any cost.