How long would the Ottomans survive?

the ASBs demand blood!

Only Gustav Stresemann can save us now!

you are well within your rights to do so.

It does apply to Scotsmen as well, right?

;)wait, you're not an Iranian sympathizer, are you? I mean, Persia invented the things 3,000 years ago. (wow, trousers are almost as old as the Jews!);)

I'm most definately an Iranian sympathiser. I don't like the present government a bit, but I have buckets of sympathy for the people of Iran, which I think is an incredibly fascinating country.

Whoops, I forgot this thread had descended into self-parody! I mean, "Bwahahaha! My masters in Tehran will be most pleased! Inshallah!"

OK, OK I wasn't entirely saying "Hitler would crush the Ottomans". Though I guess it did look like it, and yeah maybe I miss used the term Blitzkrieg. But I was just thinking about how in OTL the military advances led to powers like France being destroyed quite easily. It seems like an attachment to stupid defensive warfare is to likely for a country to fall into. Unless they keep entirely up to date on military techniques.

As far as the Ottomans are concerned they already deserved or not had the reputation of the "sick man." Until that reputation is gotten rid of, every expansionist country will be plotting to invade.

Let's think about this. Blitzkrieg is the doctrine of attacking the enemy at one or a few decisive points with overwhelming land and air power and forcing a breakthrough, then advancing with spearheads of wholly mechanised combined arms formations with lavish air support, without regard to the flanks, in order to devestate the infrastructure in the enemy's rear and so render his forward units unable to fight effectively. They can then be encircled in pockets by infantry and destroyed comprehensively.

For one thing, the Germans didn't always do this. The campaign in Poland was conducted according to the older Prussian principles of "Decisive Manouvre". There were quite a few encirclements, but that was inevitable given the shape of the border and the Poles having to deploy right on it. But none of the hallmarks of actual Blitzkrieg were there: the armour was mostly used in a supporting role, there were not sweeping advances without regard to the flanks, and in general strategy was based more on overwhelming power, particularly in artillery, than on any tactical masterstrokes. The very radical Blitzkrieg that brough such dazzling success in 1940 was hardly the only plan up for consideration.

For another thing, how exactly does one pull this trick on Istanbul? The place is physically impossible to encircle, unless you may have happened to conquer Asia Minor, which is a huge bitch to do. The kind of place that Istanbul is, where you have a narrow peninsula than the enemy has to cross, is anathema to Blitzkrieg. The Russians demonstrated rather dramatically at Kursk that adequately prepared and supported infantry placed deeply where the enemy has to attack them can make mince out of armoured spearheads.

Sorry for ranting, but Blitzkrieg is a pet issue of mine.
 
Last edited:
the nation that coined that name, though, was Tsarist Russia - who hoped that it would distract the other nations from the fact that Russia was on its last legs.

Russia had structural problems but "last legs" is a bit rich. Without WW1 there would be no reason that it'd ever really fall.

But I guess a good Otto-defense requires a vast and unreasonable underestimation of Russian abilities.
 
That raises an interesting point. New Zealand was the first country in the world to implement universal female suffrage in 1893.


Sargon
Depending upon one's requirements regarding independence for calling something a country, Finland was the first Nordic country to have female suffrage (1906). But Abdul's basic point still stands- the Ottoman Empire wasn't exactly alone in not having female suffrage in 1914, so how that could be evidence of the Empire's weakness and inevitable collapse is rather hard to see.
 
Russia had structural problems but "last legs" is a bit rich. Without WW1 there would be no reason that it'd ever really fall.

Agreed.

But I guess a good Otto-defense requires a vast and unreasonable underestimation of Russian abilities.

It does? The essential topic here seems to be "could the Ottomans have survived by staying neutral in WW1?", to whcih the answer is clearly yes. I don't see why we have to underestimate Russia to reach that conclusion, and I don't see what Russian capabilities have to do with debates vis veils, eunuchs at all.
 
Russia had structural problems but "last legs" is a bit rich. Without WW1 there would be no reason that it'd ever really fall.

But I guess a good Otto-defense requires a vast and unreasonable underestimation of Russian abilities.

Not really. The Ottomans benefit from the border with Russia being in a horrendously mountainous area where logistics prohibit the employment of large forces. That has always allowed the Ottomans to hold out fairly well there against the Russians and made the Balkans necessarily the main theater of war - but in 1914 there are a lot of countries in the way.

In a post-WWI environment the Ottoman would only have to defend themselves at one point, and presuming having stayed out, the Russians will be in no condition to attack them for a long, long time.

But to the point you were responding to, the fact remains that Russia did collapse after 3 years of war, whereas the Ottomans didn't after 12 (by which I mean the polity suffered no collapse or revolution, as opposed to being partially militarily dismembered).
 
I too would like to see some sources provided to back up some of the claims made in this thread by certain individuals (and you know who you are!). If people have been reading about this topic, then surely it is not that difficult to provide the titles of books and the names of the authors concerned, and/or of any relevant primary sources or other documents if those have been read too?

It is pretty much expected and polite behaviour to cite sources to back up claims when challenged in such a debate.


Sargon

Certain users have been um, quick, to take apart everything I've written and nitpick. While I do have an avid interest in Ottoman history, I'm no expert nor do I presume to be one. And no-I can't backup my claims for most things. Apologies to anyone I've offended.
 
Certain users have been um, quick, to take apart everything I've written and nitpick. While I do have an avid interest in Ottoman history, I'm no expert nor do I presume to be one. And no-I can't backup my claims for most things. Apologies to anyone I've offended.

I'm accepting the apology, but you have to appreciate that you came across very badly in, for example, alleging that their were no important women in Ottoman history, and then claiming when you were shown to be wrong that they were all evil connivers who damaged the state. It makes you seem, quite frankly, like a bipolar nutter. Can anyone be blamed for contradicting thinsg which are obviously false?

And some of your remarks were pretty damn offensive. You claimed to be hapy to see the Ottomans go for the sake of institutes you misunderstood or that were alreads abolished, but what did the destruction of the Ottoman Empire bring about? Thousands of deaths among the whole population of Anatolia from the war and the subsequent Greek invasion, the ethnic cleansing of Turkey's Greeks and Armenians and Greece's Turks (and by consequence many of the Bulgarians). A fascist regime in Turkey, and later a Marxist insurgency ruining Kurdistan. Colonial exploitation of the Mashriq, leaving in its wake nasty dictatorships in Syria and Iraq, and then the present Iraqi FUBAR. Sectarian violence in Lebanon, ethnic cleansing and an intractable conflict in Palestine, Saudi Arabia in Saudi Arabia. Even the greatest (sane) Ottoman-skeptic in the world can hardly suggest that a continued Ottoman empire could have been any worse.
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
Depending upon one's requirements regarding independence for calling something a country, Finland was the first Nordic country to have female suffrage (1906). But Abdul's basic point still stands- the Ottoman Empire wasn't exactly alone in not having female suffrage in 1914, so how that could be evidence of the Empire's weakness and inevitable collapse is rather hard to see.

Maybe I was misunderstood old chap,, I did not mean a point in terms of the Ottoman Empire, I meant in terms of being reminded about women's suffrage because Australia was mentioned and the post was in that context. ;)

I have quite an interest in the Ottoman and Byzantine empires as most can tell you here so just to be clear, I'm not disputing AHP's point on that item. ;)

Certain users have been um, quick, to take apart everything I've written and nitpick. While I do have an avid interest in Ottoman history, I'm no expert nor do I presume to be one. And no-I can't backup my claims for most things. Apologies to anyone I've offended.

Apology accepted old chap. :) Actually one can learn a lot from people here if one is willing to meet them halfway, as I myself have found. :eek: ;)


Sargon
 
Last edited:

Keenir

Banned
Russia had structural problems but "last legs" is a bit rich. Without WW1 there would be no reason that it'd ever really fall.

entirely plausible - but WW1 brought them down.


But I guess a good Otto-defense requires a vast and unreasonable underestimation of Russian abilities.

no, not really....just pointing out that Russia was closer to collapse than the Ottomans were.
 

Burakius

Banned
Somehow I find it really weird that having a veil is seen as "backwards" or not "modern". I always find it funny to mention "modern". U see "modern" is the thing that is chosen by the ruling country/organisation etc. Anno 2009 this still is USA, hence a veil is not "modern". Its ridiculous to call a veil backwards sinds I think its civilized, pretty and very normal.
 

Onyx

Banned
Holy Crap
I just finished Batman Arkham Asylum
THen I went down here and saw like a ton of posts on here.
Did this thread had flame war or something?

Dammit Abdul what have we told you! :D j/k

But damn we're on the five now? wtf happened....
 
But to the point you were responding to, the fact remains that Russia did collapse after 3 years of war, whereas the Ottomans didn't after 12 (by which I mean the polity suffered no collapse or revolution, as opposed to being partially militarily dismembered).

Well, if Turkey had the Polish Border and a hostile Germay on the other side of it, I doubt it'd hold out for 12 years.

Every event is shaped by its circumstances, is what I'm trying to say.

@IBC: Sarcasm, friend. It's a remark about how one and the other are often connected in the alt-hist setting.

no, not really....just pointing out that Russia was closer to collapse than the Ottomans were.
Yes, and considering how the point is unnecessary, misleading, and close to outright wrong, I don't see how it helps.
 

Keenir

Banned
Well, if Turkey had the Polish Border and a hostile Germay on the other side of it, I doubt it'd hold out for 12 years.

Turkey had the Balkan nations, Russia, Persia, Greece, Egypt (with Britain) on the borders...and was a short boat-ride away from Italy, the rest of Russia, Britain (on Cyprus).

that's a heck of a lot more enemies than Russia had.
 
that's a heck of a lot more enemies than Russia had.

Yes. But none of them were Germany across some really flat ground.

Are you making a serious point or just being facetious? Because you don't actually have a serious point, you do realise?
 
Well, if Turkey had the Polish Border and a hostile Germay on the other side of it, I doubt it'd hold out for 12 years.

Every event is shaped by its circumstances, is what I'm trying to say.

The Russian polity collapsed under the strain of war after 3 years, whereas the Ottoman didn't after 12. I'm not talking about military defeat. In fact, Russia wasn't defeated militarily, whereas the Ottomans were, which point is more relevant to the topic of the thread.

People assume the Ottomans were just sitting around decaying in their medieval ways waiting for the right moment to just collapse, but in reality they had quite a bit of institutional vitality and dynamism.
 
Last edited:

Keenir

Banned
Yes. But none of them were Germany across some really flat ground.

I say again - Persia and Egypt. (and the ocean from Greece and Cyprus are a lot flatter than the mountains through the Balkans)

Are you making a serious point or just being facetious?

any facetiousness is accidental; I can't do it intentionally.

Because you don't actually have a serious point, you do realise?

I was making a list of all the Ottomans' enemies. how are enemies not serious?:confused:
 
I have to agree with the first part. Although some national identities had emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, these didn't always conflict with allegiance to the Sublime Porte. Countries like Egypt, with its semi-independent status, did develop a distinct identity.
You say the Ottomans assimilated the Arabs pretty well-well they could have done a better job. They failed to impart the Turkish language beyond the the elite in each dominion (good for the Arabs I guess). The Ottomans failed to develop and imprint a distinct national identity on any of its subjects. To this day I cannot figure out what the ancestors of present-day Jordanians/Lebanese/Syrians considered themselves to be. Had they done so-and not sided with the Central Powers in WWI-it's not improbable to say that the Turkish Republic now would stretch from the Sudan to Tripoli to Baghdad. I say Turkish Republic because the Ottoman system was outdated and far from sustainable. It was inevitable that it would collapse. The point is-had the Arabs been better assimilated-they would have remained in union with the Turks.

That happens not to be the case.

They imprinted a perfectly satisfactory identity (or rather, used an already imprinted one). It's called Islam. The people in those areas, and indeed, the people in modern Turkey, thought of themselves and still think of themselves as Muslims first. National identity is secondary at best. Since the Ottomans were the Caliphate - i.e. the government mandated by Islam - they had no problem reconciling petty linguistic differences with their subjects. Why would they? Islam comes first.

In fact a Turkish Republic would be a lot more likely to fail and break up than the Ottomans ever were, since it would switch national identity to something that Arab and Kurd citizens would have no place in.
 
Last edited:
Okay. Nevermind.

Sometimes I am just so glad that I didn't think I knew anything when I joined up.... Seven years ago?

Sure, I had a History Channel understanding of the flow of history, but gahhh could it have been worse.
 
Now that we're done talking about harems and other silly things, here are what I think are the principle problems facing the empire:

1. Imperialism. WWI probably nearly eliminated this threat, but then if the Ottomans had stayed out, would the Entente have won much faster? It's certainly possible. That might leave this problem in place.

2. Nationalism. The following:

a. Armenian. Armenian terrorism had been a big problem for three decades prior to the war. This is going to be an ongoing problem, and probably a festering sore for a while. The aim of Armenian revolutionary organizations was to provoke reprisals from the Ottomans, which would lead to foreign intervention and the creation of an Armenian state, ala Bulgaria. The war would probably remove the potential for this, and it might lead the Armenians to pursue other strategies. If they continue the terror attacks, you could see some real ugliness. This is not a nationalism that can succeed, as Armenians were a small minority in almost every place they lived. On the other hand, if an Armenian state is formed if there is some sort of Russian collapse, that could become a real problem.

b. Greek. Much more peaceful than the Armenians, the large and prosperous Greek population has the neighboring Greek state to support it, which is problematic. The War allowed the Ottomans to force Ottoman nationality on the Greek minority (many of them held Greek or European nationality), and again there are not enough Greeks to launch a secessionist movement.

c. Kurdish. Not much of a problem, as it hasn't been a serious threat to Turkey.

d. Arab. This is the one that is a huge issue. Arab nationalism prior to the War was almost entirely a Christian affair. If there is a triumph of nationality in the peace settlement as in OTL, that could encourage Arab separatism. Also, Young Turk centralization and secularization policies had deeply antagonized the Arabs. While I don't really see the Young Turks holding onto power, there may still be an impetus for autonomy. Most likely this could be dealt with by granting greater power to local government structures.

e. Turkish. This could potentially be a large problem, too, as the Turks are the predominant ethnic element in the empire, and a drift towards ethnic nationalism here could seriously alienate the other groups.

3. Russia. A big question mark. This is very difficult to speculate about. If some sort of communist state develops, it could be a very real and persistent threat, using separatists to try to destabilize the empire as the USSR did with the Kurds during the Cold War. I think the appeal of communism for Ottoman populations is very limited; mostly confined to the Christians. If Tsarist Russia holds it together, in the short-term, friendly relations with the Ottomans will be extremely desirable. In the long-term there could an impetus for Russia to expand into the Middle East.
 
Top