The Arabic people had been under the Turks for so long, they had a vested interest in the country and were regarded as equals.
There's a saying where I come from. "That works just fine, right up until it doesn't."
The Arabic people had been under the Turks for so long, they had a vested interest in the country and were regarded as equals.
As much as I hate to say it, Arabs stayed pretty loyal to the Ottomans through the war. It was only the bedouins and those bought that turned to the Allies. Also, those identities never existed until 19w0, and even then were rather shakey until the late 40's.I'm not persuaded by the notion that the Ottomans would have pulled through. They were essentially ruling a series of Arab nationalities - Iraqi's, Syrians, Palestinians, Jordanians and Arabians without particularly close ethnic or linguistic ties to the Ottoman.
Bulgaria wasn't. The Ottomans had their chance to absorb all major groups in the empire rather well I think (well, besides the Armenians) and they were on the path to doing so. Only the educated Christian urbanites held any real objection to the Ottomans and their rule.These nationalities and population centres substantially outnumbered the Ottoman Turks. I can't see the Ottomans avoiding a collision course. I note that in Europe, the Ottoman holdings had been steadily dismembered by nationalist uprising that they were consistently unable to cope with. .
Not really. Outside the Sharif of Mecca, such a thing was unknown. An Arab would refer to his village, town or city, and little else. Tribal issues also dominated.Arab nationalism was arguably on the rise,
No it doesn't. All those Pans- have their own time periods. Arabism was more in the 60's and 50's and was shown to be a failure due to egotistical strongmen battling for influence.and Pan-Arabism dates back to other pan-national movements - Zionism, Pan-Slavism, Pan-Italianism, Pan-Germanism.
While I heartily welcome this in any TL, I'm slightly more realistic. The Arabs wouldn't randomly get shafted by the Turks. They're Ottoman citizens as well, they'd get their cut of the profits and the benefits.So, sooner or later the Arabs were going to strike out on their own, if nothing else. Nor do I see the Arabs as really being all that enthusiastic about their oil wealth bypassing them and going to Istanbul
The big difference might be that the Arab revolt might result in the creation of an Arab superstate, or superstates - something ruled from Baghdad or Damascus.
Why? I recall them being rather loyal to the Turks, serving as counter-guerillas against the Armenians, who remained the only home-grown opposition in the region.Even without the Arabs, the Kurds would end up being a major challenge, particular since the Ottomans would incorporate the Kurdish populations of Syria and Iraq as well as Turkey.
They invested, but so did everyone else. Frankly, these investments helped them against the Russians and their Armenian project.Finally, even without WWI, the Colonial powers were still biting off bits and pieces of the Ottoman, and would have likely continued to try and do so. France was already invested in Syria and Lebanon. The brits were already invested in Palestine.
Bulgaria and the Ottomans were good allies, and neither would have entered WW1 without the other. Serbia has no border with them now, and Macedon is a small shitty country with no military worth mentioning. The Ottomans also have the benefit of not going through 4 years of war with the Allies, and possessing larger forces and a less devastated population. The only reason they won OTL was because of Turkish high command failures that boggle the mind as to the scale of ineptitude.And there's a likely prospect of a Balkan league war - Attaturk's new country was able to fight off the Greeks. But an Ottoman fight against Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedon, etc. might well lead to an erosion of anatolian territories.
There's a saying where I come from. "That works just fine, right up until it doesn't."
As much as I hate to say it, Arabs stayed pretty loyal to the Ottomans through the war.
Also, those identities never existed until 19w0, and even then were rather shakey until the late 40's.
The Ottomans had their chance to absorb all major groups in the empire rather well I think (well, besides the Armenians) and they were on the path to doing so.
Only the educated Christian urbanites held any real objection to the Ottomans and their rule.
No it doesn't. All those Pans- have their own time periods. Arabism was more in the 60's and 50's and was shown to be a failure due to egotistical strongmen battling for influence.
While I heartily welcome this in any TL, I'm slightly more realistic. The Arabs wouldn't randomly get shafted by the Turks. They're Ottoman citizens as well, they'd get their cut of the profits and the benefits.
The only reason they (allies) won OTL was because of Turkish high command failures that boggle the mind as to the scale of ineptitude.
Austria is pretty much destinted to collapse because of its multi-ethnic, multi-national composition. If they tried centuries before to start assimilating their subjects, then they might have continued. However, I think the Habsburg Empire would have collapsed in the end. It would have been like the mess in Bosnia, only on a much bigger scale.
That's a rather racist means of describing citizens of Baghdad or Damascus, don't you think?
Your argument, as nearly as I can tell, is that Arab nationalism is somehow created out of nothing by WWI. That's hardly the case.
The Ottomans had lost control of Egypt, in part because of Arab nationalist movements,
and in the early 19th century, Egypt had vied for power over Arab territories in Palestine and even into Syria, with the Ottomans.
Nationalist uprisings of various sorts were hardly confined to Europe. The British had had to struggle, for instance, with a Sepoy rebellion.
The reality of the Ottoman Empire was that the Turks were an ethnic minority in their Empire, ruling as economic and political hinterlands regions which were rival urban centres in their own right.
The citizens of Baghdad or Damascus were as numerous, as educated and as ambitious as the citizens of Istanbul.
It's not hard to imagine or assume that centrifugal forces would be at work on the Ottoman Empire.
Indeed, its a fairly irrational leap of faith to assume that absent WWI these forces would not be at present.
To compare the Ottoman Empire to other contemporary non-western states - Ethiopia, Persia, Thailand and China, what is most significant about these states, their big difference from the Ottomans, is that while several of them might be considered 'Empires', ruling constituencies lording it over subject peoples and lands, nowhere else was it so lop sided, and nowhere else were there rival urban polities.
Take Persia and Ethiopia for example. Both were national groups - the Farsi and Amhara, who had conquered and ruled over their neighbors. The Farsi of Iran may have consituted 50% of the population, the Amhara somewhat similar. But for the most part, they outnumbered their subjects. And more importantly neither the conquered peoples of Iran or Ethiopia had their own rival polities, metropolitan centers, economic and political zones to rival or challenge the Imperial one.
The Ottoman Turks, as I've pointed out, were a minority in their own Empire, and this Empire incorporated not merely hinterland communities, but rival urban metropolitan complexes. Egypt had challenged the Ottomans in the 19th century. Inevitably, Syria and Mesopotamia would challenge in the 20th.
There's a difference between winning a battle with a superior army, and winning a war which proves far too costly. The Soviets lost Afghanistan not because they were ever defeated anywhere, but because the war never ever went away, it just kept costing and costing, and eventually it just wasn't worth it.
Not really. I'm merely making the assumption that in the absence of WWI, cultural and economic forces would continue to operate, and that many of these would have found their own pathways. While the Ottoman's might have had more options to save themselves, the tide was against them.
Except they're not Subject people, they're citizens of the empire.But generally don't subject peoples tend to remain loyal during wartime?
Which degenerated over time in the MIddle East.Nevertheless, we're not talking about ignorant peoples digging in the dirt with sticks. We're talking about urban centres who preceded most European cities, places with incredibly long traditions of literacy, sophisticated politics, and organized economic activity.
They had Parliament of some sort I think. As for how they absorbed it, they basically expanded and provided the services and good any successful country needs to maintain the loyalty of its citizens over so many decades.And the Kurds, and so on. I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about here. The Ottoman Empire was never a democracy. It never had a constitution, or a bill of rights, or a federal system, or substantive mechanisms for local rule or representation. So how were they going to relate to or 'absorb' all major groups?
Except this wasn't some ethno-centric goverment like Imperial 30's Japan. Arabs were citizens and had positiions of relative influence and power. They weren't the Roma in modern-day Hungary.This is the problem with Empires. Someone has to be in charge. And that means everyone else is not. There are the people that rule, and then there are the people who are ruled. As long as the people that rule have the advantages (population, economic clout and infrastructure), the people who are ruled have to lump it or find their own accommodation and place in the Empire. When the people who are ruled have their own set of toys, inevitably, they find they'd rather not be ruled.
Considering I lived my life here and this is my area of expertise for the most part, I'm pretty confident.You got the polling data, huh?![]()
But it's the only serious effort made. 19th century Pan-Arabism was little more than a joke and only a dream by the Sharif of Mecca. Neither his sons nor any other dynasty actually attempted to accomplish this.The Pans all have their own time periods, but their roots are solidly in the 19th century, and derived from pretty much the same set of intellectual baggage, which in turn derived from the American and French revolutions. Mid-20th century Pan-Arabism isn't what we're talking about.
Why doesn't Alaska secede, since they've got all the oil and the infrastructure is already there? Your working on the assumption they're going to just wake up one day and say "Fuck the Sultan. I want to be my own ruler." Human nature doesn't work like that.Because the Ottoman was a democratic federation with a strong constitutional framework that made sure that local interests received fair treatment. And because Arabs could look at their oil wealth and figure that 15% was a fair cut, as opposed to 100% if they could break away?
I was talking about the military command in the Balkan wars, not WW1. The military chose the opposite tactics and strategies to carry out the war than what would have gotten them a draw or a win. It wasn't a matter of incompetence, rather that they were unable to adapt in time to win back the campaign.Sure. But if we avoided WWI, the high command and ruling elites would magically get a clue?
I dunno, seems to me that human intelligence and competence, all other things being equal, is a constant. The Ottoman High command was not naturally incompetent, and they weren't magically incompetent just for this occasion. Rather, they were the product of an Ottoman system of elite rule that had evolved to protect and promote incompetence.
If you agree that the Ottoman Empire was its own worst enemy in WWI, then it seems to me that you have to agree that the Ottoman Empire was going to be its own worst enemy without WWI.
But generally don't subject peoples tend to remain loyal during wartime? There's a lot of propaganda about supporting the Empire. There's usually a lot of jobs and economic activity connected with supporting the war effort. The imperial hand tends to rest lightly so that people are generally feeling pretty good about the Empire. Taxes will rise, but generally this doesn't happen early on and may not be significant until late stages, if ever.
Nevertheless, we're not talking about ignorant peoples digging in the dirt with sticks. We're talking about urban centres who preceded most European cities, places with incredibly long traditions of literacy, sophisticated politics, and organized economic activity.
And the Kurds, and so on. I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about here. The Ottoman Empire was never a democracy. It never had a constitution, or a bill of rights, or a federal system, or substantive mechanisms for local rule or representation. So how were they going to relate to or 'absorb' all major groups?
This is the problem with Empires. Someone has to be in charge. And that means everyone else is not. There are the people that rule, and then there are the people who are ruled. As long as the people that rule have the advantages (population, economic clout and infrastructure), the people who are ruled have to lump it or find their own accommodation and place in the Empire. When the people who are ruled have their own set of toys, inevitably, they find they'd rather not be ruled.
This isn't any kind of radical argument. This is just human nature and history at work.
You got the polling data, hunh?![]()
The Pans all have their own time periods, but their roots are solidly in the 19th century, and derived from pretty much the same set of intellectual baggage, which in turn derived from the American and French revolutions. Mid-20th century Pan-Arabism isn't what we're talking about.
Because the Ottoman was a democratic federation with a strong constitutional framework that made sure that local interests received fair treatment. And because Arabs could look at their oil wealth and figure that 15% was a fair cut, as opposed to 100% if they could break away?
Sure. But if we avoided WWI, the high command and ruling elites would magically get a clue?
I dunno, seems to me that human intelligence and competence, all other things being equal, is a constant. The Ottoman High command was not naturally incompetent, and they weren't magically incompetent just for this occasion. Rather, they were the product of an Ottoman system of elite rule that had evolved to protect and promote incompetence.
If you agree that the Ottoman Empire was its own worst enemy in WWI, then it seems to me that you have to agree that the Ottoman Empire was going to be its own worst enemy without WWI.
If George W. Bush has taught us anything, it is to never underestimate the ability of idiots to take a position of overwhelming advantage and to piss it all away.
One could argue that if Roman Empire never got sacked, it would still be around today, and that if Isaac Newton hadn't died of something or other, he'd still be gamboling around apple trees. So theoretically, without WWI, the Ottoman Empire might have survived. But that's hardly a guarantee.
If someone wants to go through the trouble of doing a formal timeline showing an Ottoman Survival, well and good.
But its not a foregone conclusion. In my view, not even a very good bet.