Deleted member 67076
Mahmoud II dies before having kids. At the time he was the sole surviving Ottoman clan. Being a dynastic state, the empire simply won't last without him.
Of course not. We all know that Napoleon's goal all along was to restore rightful clay to his homeland.
If you get the right coalition together you can basically do it any time you want.
For example; if Austria either never loses Silesia in the war of Austrian Secession or gets it back in the Seven Years' War, Prussia ends up drastically weakened. This releves a whole lot of pressure from Austria, who is then free to make an agreement with Russia about the division of the Balkans. Have France distracted by some other war (like for example with Britain) and after that just have the Austro-Russian alliance win big in the war and reach Constantinople. The two powers divide the Ottoman's former European posessions between themselves, either by annexation or setting up client states. At this point the Ottoman Empire has taken such a savage loss that further partitions of its Middle Eastern and African territories should happen fairly easily.
Spain and France were consistently allies. Russia and France were consistently allies. It's not very hard to imagine a situation where Napoleon would turn on France and draw in Austria, Russia, and Spain for a mass partition. Just because it was never considered IOTL doesn't mean circumstances couldn't change.
Agreed. It was the Prussians that propped up the Ottoman from 1763 to 1791. Otherwise, Austria and or Russia would have overrun the Ottoman's European proncinces.
the remainder of Greece, Macedonia, Thracia and Bulgaria would become a renewed Greek Empire under Catherine's grandson Constantine (the younger brother of later Tsar Alexander I.)