Juan of Tunisia

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Sep 12, 2008

Gonzaga said:
But could the Spanish have held not Tunisia, which would be extremely unlikely, but only the city of Tunis, as they did with Oran? Of course, the conquest would not be permanent, but if John of Austria and more Spanish troops are busy there it would have some consequences elsewhere, especially in Netherlands.

What would be the point? You're stuck dealing with supplying and defending a permanently besieged city, all of the trade of which will divert to Tripoli, which will probably cause most of the population to leave.

maverick · Sep 12, 2008

Well this was a non-starter...I wish people had told me sooner...

But now the idea of an Ottoman civil war intrigues me...perhaps in the 1700s...is this possible? would it involve the Janissaries and the aupicious incident of 1820 or the Young Turks in the late 1800s? maybe something earlier between traditionalists and reformists?

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Sep 12, 2008

maverick said:
Well this was a non-starter...I wish people had told me sooner...

But now the idea of an Ottoman civil war intrigues me...perhaps in the 1700s...is this possible? would it involve the Janissaries and the aupicious incident of 1820 or the Young Turks in the late 1800s? maybe something earlier between traditionalists and reformists?

The Ottoman Empire was more centralized than most states until the latter part of the 18th c. Civil wars were vanishingly unlikely, especially since Sultans didn't hold all that much power. It's not like the Ottomans were a horde of barbarians looking to mince each other climbing for power. They did it by climbing up the bureaucratic ladder.

By the Auspicious Incident, there was only one male member of the House of Osman, so a civil war was literally impossible, altough if he had died before a son came of age the empire might have collapsed, but it still would not have experienced a civil war - the bureaucracy would either have installed the the Crimean Khan or Mehmed Ali as Sultan and hoped for the best.

The Civil War after Beyazid I's death was a salutory lesson, and even that wasn't that much of a civil war - basically the heirs struggled for position until the "establishment" decided which one would be best and lined up behind him.

The issue is that in a state where all power is concentrated in Istanbul, and no particular power center elsewhere, it's all about controlling the capital and the bureaucracy.

However, there was one power center that did matter, Egypt - and essentially the "wars" between Egypt and the Ottomans in the early 19th c were a civil war. Various Ottoman statesmen and military men changed sides, the fleet joined Egypt at one point, etc.

maverick · Sep 12, 2008

I was aware of the war between Egypt and the central government, and that was actually a part of my TL "The Fallen Prince"...

I was nonetheless curious about an earlier war...

In any case, since the war between Mehmet Ali and the Porte was always the most likely and interesting scenario...and at one time Ali and his son actually had the option of marching on the capital after having seized Konya...but would have than been possible? the great powers would surely interfere...

But what would the Ottoman Empire under the House of Ali look like? modernization? expansion? collapse? capital moved to Alexandria ?(unlikely)

Solarius · Jun 7, 2009

A habsburg Tunisia would be so cool, though I doubt that it would survive.

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Jun 7, 2009

maverick said:
I was aware of the war between Egypt and the central government, and that was actually a part of my TL "The Fallen Prince"...

I was nonetheless curious about an earlier war...

In any case, since the war between Mehmet Ali and the Porte was always the most likely and interesting scenario...and at one time Ali and his son actually had the option of marching on the capital after having seized Konya...but would have than been possible? the great powers would surely interfere...

But what would the Ottoman Empire under the House of Ali look like? modernization? expansion? collapse? capital moved to Alexandria ?(unlikely)

If Mehmed Ali were somehow installed as Sultan (and I don't think this is possible through conquest - it would have to be through the death of Mahmud II), then the empire would probably look about the same, except it would be a lot harder to keep it together because Mehmed Ali didn't have the legitimacy of the Ottoman dynasty.

He would be out of his league versus the bureaucracy, and even if he did somehow manage to master it, he would probably quickly destroy the empire, since his motive was greed. His administration of Egypt and all his modernization programs were designed to extract as much money as possible out of Egypt with which to line his pockets.

If he were established as Sultan, that might change his attitude, since his desire for money and power were probably intended to raise his position in the context of the Ottoman world, and you can't get much higher than Sultan. Still, the Ottoman reforms of the 19th c were designed with the long-term in mind, and Mehmed Ali's were very short-term in conception. I think if you have TL with him in power you can pretty much send it any way you want.

It might send the Ottoman Empire down a more pro-French trajectory than it had in OTL (as opposed to pro-British).

I think it's pretty dubious that Mehmed Ali would have had any chance of seizing Istanbul after his victory at Konya. First of all, it's really well defended, not to mention across a body of water. Second, the powers, particularly Russia and Britain, would never allow it.

Most likely there would have been a standoff for a while while Mehmed Ali slowly bled to death financially, as Konya would have given him only an extent of the poorest portion of the empire with massive expenses to defend it. Syria, generally richer than Eastern Anatolia, was already a huge drain on Egyptian resources.

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Jun 7, 2009

Don Juan, BTW, just installed a puppet Muslim ruler in Tunis - he didn't really "seize" it as a Crusader state.

The Sandman · Jun 7, 2009

One thing no one seems to be thinking of: as long as the Ottomans are going to be sending a larger number of troops than in OTL and a fresh fleet westward to deal with Hapsburg pretentions in Tunis, why wouldn't they follow it up by having a go at Malta, or possibly even going for Sicily as an example of why not to annoy the Empire?

I mean, how would the "morale boost" from Lepanto change if the Ottomans are taking Sicily away from Spain a year or two later?

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Jun 8, 2009

The Sandman said:
One thing no one seems to be thinking of: as long as the Ottomans are going to be sending a larger number of troops than in OTL and a fresh fleet westward to deal with Hapsburg pretentions in Tunis, why wouldn't they follow it up by having a go at Malta, or possibly even going for Sicily as an example of why not to annoy the Empire?

I mean, how would the "morale boost" from Lepanto change if the Ottomans are taking Sicily away from Spain a year or two later?

Lepanto didn't save Cyprus...

The Sandman · Jun 8, 2009

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
Lepanto didn't save Cyprus...

Yeah, but that didn't stop it from being played as a victory by Spain and company. Gets harder to do that if the Ottoman Navy 2.0 comes back for more and the Spanish can't stop it this time.

Julius Vogel · Jun 8, 2009

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
If Mehmed Ali were somehow installed as Sultan (and I don't think this is possible through conquest - it would have to be through the death of Mahmud II), then the empire would probably look about the same, except it would be a lot harder to keep it together because Mehmed Ali didn't have the legitimacy of the Ottoman dynasty.

He would be out of his league versus the bureaucracy, and even if he did somehow manage to master it, he would probably quickly destroy the empire, since his motive was greed. His administration of Egypt and all his modernization programs were designed to extract as much money as possible out of Egypt with which to line his pockets.

If he were established as Sultan, that might change his attitude, since his desire for money and power were probably intended to raise his position in the context of the Ottoman world, and you can't get much higher than Sultan. Still, the Ottoman reforms of the 19th c were designed with the long-term in mind, and Mehmed Ali's were very short-term in conception. I think if you have TL with him in power you can pretty much send it any way you want.

It might send the Ottoman Empire down a more pro-French trajectory than it had in OTL (as opposed to pro-British).

I think it's pretty dubious that Mehmed Ali would have had any chance of seizing Istanbul after his victory at Konya. First of all, it's really well defended, not to mention across a body of water. Second, the powers, particularly Russia and Britain, would never allow it.

Most likely there would have been a standoff for a while while Mehmed Ali slowly bled to death financially, as Konya would have given him only an extent of the poorest portion of the empire with massive expenses to defend it. Syria, generally richer than Eastern Anatolia, was already a huge drain on Egyptian resources.

I was just reading about Ali this weekend - do you know if anyone has used him as the starting point for a timeline?