Make the Ottoman Empire survive
- Thread starter Ward
- Start date
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Abdul Hamid ended liberal democratic reform on the imperial level, but he continued development of elective insitutions at the local level.
The millet system was dead by 1840 (as a means of political organization). It only continued after that point as a system to regulate religious affairs and charitable funds. Elections to provincial assemblies and the Ottoman parliament were not based on any millet structure.
The problems I described and you did below were a result of Ottoman weakness - dual citizenship was only useful because of the Capitulations - their abolition would make that cease to be an issue.
The desire to build a Muslim commerical middle class was also due to the Capitulations, because these had caused a Christian one under foreign control. Besides and/or because of these handicaps, Muslims generally had no interest in commerical activity, because agriculture, bureaucracy, and military were generally more lucrative for them. Without the Capitulations, Muslim entry into the commerical world would have (and did in OTL) happened.
The first parliamentary period 1877-78 worked very well, with no issues around ethnic separatism. The second time 1908-1922 was a little more fractious, but then the parliament suddenly was given a lot of power in very chaotic circumstances - but even then there were no separatist parties or movements in parliament.
I think you may be underestimating how separate religion really was by the late empire - which is very. Kemal didn't just make all that up - the basis for what he did was already there. I'm not sure how a federal structure could work - everyone was totally jumbled together. Without a strong overlaying structure, everyone would fight for control over the smaller units.
I stick to my barb about Kemalism. I know that Kemal was doing his best, but the system he created devolved over time into something more inflexible and intolerant than what it replaced, and its oppressiveness has led to the rejection of the identity it tried to create by a majority of Turks.
The millet system was dead by 1840 (as a means of political organization). It only continued after that point as a system to regulate religious affairs and charitable funds. Elections to provincial assemblies and the Ottoman parliament were not based on any millet structure.
The problems I described and you did below were a result of Ottoman weakness - dual citizenship was only useful because of the Capitulations - their abolition would make that cease to be an issue.
The desire to build a Muslim commerical middle class was also due to the Capitulations, because these had caused a Christian one under foreign control. Besides and/or because of these handicaps, Muslims generally had no interest in commerical activity, because agriculture, bureaucracy, and military were generally more lucrative for them. Without the Capitulations, Muslim entry into the commerical world would have (and did in OTL) happened.
The first parliamentary period 1877-78 worked very well, with no issues around ethnic separatism. The second time 1908-1922 was a little more fractious, but then the parliament suddenly was given a lot of power in very chaotic circumstances - but even then there were no separatist parties or movements in parliament.
I think you may be underestimating how separate religion really was by the late empire - which is very. Kemal didn't just make all that up - the basis for what he did was already there. I'm not sure how a federal structure could work - everyone was totally jumbled together. Without a strong overlaying structure, everyone would fight for control over the smaller units.
I stick to my barb about Kemalism. I know that Kemal was doing his best, but the system he created devolved over time into something more inflexible and intolerant than what it replaced, and its oppressiveness has led to the rejection of the identity it tried to create by a majority of Turks.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Ottomanism was an attempt to create an Ottoman nationalism - a sense of Ottoman citizenship and loyalty, that was cosmopolitan and equal, and included everyone, regardless of faith.
The war separated separated most of the Christian-majority areas from the empire, and left the state to care for millions of displaced refugees - and the creation of Bulgaria, which had done nothing to earn its own independence (there had been a feeble and largely ignored revolt which had been quicky put down), and including large areas where Muslims has been in a majority, which gave great impetus to all minority groups to try to get their own countries and undermined the concept of multi-national entities.
Islamism was similar to Ottomanism, but was aimed at Muslim unity under the Caliph, which was felt to be more compelling to the remaining population, which had a strong sense of being besieged by Christian powers, and as the appeal of Islamism and the Caliphate went beyond Ottoman borders, it doubled as a useful diplomatic lever to use against Britain and France, which both ruled large Muslim populations.
So I don't think it was particularly a bad thing, but a victory in 1877-78 would probably have been viewed as a validation of Ottomanism and led the empire to continue down that path.
The Young Turks turned from Ottomanism to Turkism, but only very late in the war when it was clear that the Arab provinces were most likely permanently lost. Even then, the term "Turk" was very nebulous. Many people confuse their aim of centralization with Turkism, because it promoted the use of Ottoman Turkish as the state language - but it didn't have much to do with ethnic nationalism, any more than "English Only" initiative do in the USA.
The war separated separated most of the Christian-majority areas from the empire, and left the state to care for millions of displaced refugees - and the creation of Bulgaria, which had done nothing to earn its own independence (there had been a feeble and largely ignored revolt which had been quicky put down), and including large areas where Muslims has been in a majority, which gave great impetus to all minority groups to try to get their own countries and undermined the concept of multi-national entities.
Islamism was similar to Ottomanism, but was aimed at Muslim unity under the Caliph, which was felt to be more compelling to the remaining population, which had a strong sense of being besieged by Christian powers, and as the appeal of Islamism and the Caliphate went beyond Ottoman borders, it doubled as a useful diplomatic lever to use against Britain and France, which both ruled large Muslim populations.
So I don't think it was particularly a bad thing, but a victory in 1877-78 would probably have been viewed as a validation of Ottomanism and led the empire to continue down that path.
The Young Turks turned from Ottomanism to Turkism, but only very late in the war when it was clear that the Arab provinces were most likely permanently lost. Even then, the term "Turk" was very nebulous. Many people confuse their aim of centralization with Turkism, because it promoted the use of Ottoman Turkish as the state language - but it didn't have much to do with ethnic nationalism, any more than "English Only" initiative do in the USA.
Been there, done that, not interessted. While I generaly am found of Wikipedia, there are quite a few areas that I do not bother with...
Could you elaborate about Ottomanism vs. Islamism? From your last post I tought the Islam part were positive???? Does that imply that Ottomanism was bad?
If OE does not loose the war in 77-8 and OE keeps atleast Thrace (we have discussed this before and you pointed at Thrace as the minimun for OE to hold on to), how would Ottomanism develope? Or is the turn to Islam unavoidable?
Oddball
Monthly Donor
Som basicaly Ottomanism-Islamism-Turkism is the "same," but gets lesser and lesser inclusive as territories and capabilities diminishes...
This is were I have some problems understanding
Why is the creation of Bulgaria so bad, especialy since minorities in Greece, Serbia/Montenegro and Romania also gained independence???
Is it becuase large numbers of muslims came under christian rule? Wasent that also the case with the Serbia and Greece also (not Romania IIRC)? Or to a lesser degree?
Rockingham
Banned
I think the loss of the christian population had a worse effect on the ottoman empire then the loss of muslims in christian majority regions.Som basicaly Ottomanism-Islamism-Turkism is the "same," but gets lesser and lesser inclusive as territories and capabilities diminishes...
This is were I have some problems understanding
Why is the creation of Bulgaria so bad, especialy since minorities in Greece, Serbia/Montenegro and Romania also gained independence???
Is it becuase large numbers of muslims came under christian rule? Wasent that also the case with the Serbia and Greece also (not Romania IIRC)? Or to a lesser degree?
By the way, you forgot bosnia
Oddball
Monthly Donor
Nope. Did not forget them but:
They did not gain independence, but came under another multiethnic empire
Should have clarified that Im talking 1876-77 here
Rockingham
Banned
I know. I thought you were referring to independance from Ottoman Empire, not become an independant state. Bosnian's did gain independance fom ottomans, and came under austria-hungary insteadNope. Did not forget them but:
They did not gain independence, but came under another multiethnic empire
Should have clarified that Im talking 1876-77 here
If you understand my meaning
Which you dont seem to.
Oddball
Monthly Donor
I know. I thought you were referring to independance from Ottoman Empire, not become an independant state. Bosnian's did gain independance fom ottomans, and came under austria-hungary instead
If you understand my meaning
Oh, I do understand what you mean, but I think we differ about the word independence
Rockingham
Banned
"independant from the ottomans" is what I said.Oh, I do understand what you mean, but I think we differ about the word independence
Anyway, the importance is that the ottomans lose the territory, thats what the TL s about. I don't see whether bosnia is an independant nation mattering, so long as its not part of turkey...
Oddball
Monthly Donor
Christ, chill down mate...
It might not matter in the specific TL, but in my question to Abdul it matters a lot
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I think the three are quite different - the first is purely secular, the second is based upon an appeal to religion, which CAN lead to problems, and the third is ethnic nationalism, which ALWAYS leads to problems.
The creation of Bulgaria was particularly problemmatic because half the population in 1877 was Muslim, and many of the Christians weren't Bulgarian.
Serbia, Montenegro, Greece and Rumania were by 1877 largely homogeneous (they had already disenfrachised, expelled or massacred their minorities)
What caused Bulgaria to be created was that Bulgarian terrorists massacred some Muslim villagers trying to provoke an Ottoman response, which it did - the resulting crushing of the rebellion led to Christian deaths (3-4 thousand, exaggerated in the press to 15,000, and now by nationalists to 150,000), and caused all of Europe to abandon the "barbarous Turk".
So creating Bulgaria, allowing, or even participating in the massacre and expulsion of over a million Muslims demonstrated to other people that even if they're weak in numbers, they can get their own country if their Christian. That led to the Armenians developing similar terror organizations (although most Armenians were integrated and productive members of society), and revival of the Greek "Megale Ideal" (recreation of the Byzantine Empire), and endless terrorism in Macedonia instigated by all the Balkan countries, who all wanted it.
But also, the Treaty of Berlin was the decisive triumph of the National Principle, fatal to multi-sectarian and multi-ethnic states.
The creation of Bulgaria was particularly problemmatic because half the population in 1877 was Muslim, and many of the Christians weren't Bulgarian.
Serbia, Montenegro, Greece and Rumania were by 1877 largely homogeneous (they had already disenfrachised, expelled or massacred their minorities)
What caused Bulgaria to be created was that Bulgarian terrorists massacred some Muslim villagers trying to provoke an Ottoman response, which it did - the resulting crushing of the rebellion led to Christian deaths (3-4 thousand, exaggerated in the press to 15,000, and now by nationalists to 150,000), and caused all of Europe to abandon the "barbarous Turk".
So creating Bulgaria, allowing, or even participating in the massacre and expulsion of over a million Muslims demonstrated to other people that even if they're weak in numbers, they can get their own country if their Christian. That led to the Armenians developing similar terror organizations (although most Armenians were integrated and productive members of society), and revival of the Greek "Megale Ideal" (recreation of the Byzantine Empire), and endless terrorism in Macedonia instigated by all the Balkan countries, who all wanted it.
But also, the Treaty of Berlin was the decisive triumph of the National Principle, fatal to multi-sectarian and multi-ethnic states.
Som basicaly Ottomanism-Islamism-Turkism is the "same," but gets lesser and lesser inclusive as territories and capabilities diminishes...
This is were I have some problems understanding
Why is the creation of Bulgaria so bad, especialy since minorities in Greece, Serbia/Montenegro and Romania also gained independence???
Is it becuase large numbers of muslims came under christian rule? Wasent that also the case with the Serbia and Greece also (not Romania IIRC)? Or to a lesser degree?
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
That's debatable. Serbia and Bulgaria declined economically both absolutely and in relation to much higher Ottoman growth. Bosnia, on the other hand, as wel as the remaining Ottoman Balkans, experienced rapid and healthy growth.
Oddball
Monthly Donor
Hmm, yes thats what I tried to say...
Thanks Hmm, ok.
How about this:
The Ottoman army gets its collective ass together and stops the Ruskies at Donau, except in Dobrudja. The war drags on for two years in Dobrudja and the Caucasus with severe casulties on the Rusian side.
Then there is a peace conference where Ottoman is a real participant.
Russia shows up having failed to lick the Ottomans, who again feels confident after a succesfull defenece. Other Europeans still is "pissed" at the Ottomans after the alleged massacers that started the whole mess to begin with.
If the Ottomans in this situation "willingly" cedes parts of the Balkan, would that be acceptable?
A rump Bulgaria around Sofia, Bosnia to Austria and bits and pices to Greece, Montenegro and Serbia. Gradual population exchange is agreed on.
Situation is looking a bit like OTL, but with an active Ottoman cedeing christian majority land willingly after successfull defence.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
The Ottomans will not willingly cede one square inch of territory. If they were, what would have been the point of fighting Russia?
Also, the war can´t go on for 2 years - If Russia failed to make headway, they would have been forced to give up for financial and morale reasons.
Also, sympathy swung back to the Ottomans once the war started - especially after the defense of Plevna.
Also, the war can´t go on for 2 years - If Russia failed to make headway, they would have been forced to give up for financial and morale reasons.
Also, sympathy swung back to the Ottomans once the war started - especially after the defense of Plevna.
Hmm, yes thats what I tried to say...
Hmm, ok.
How about this:
The Ottoman army gets its collective ass together and stops the Ruskies at Donau, except in Dobrudja. The war drags on for two years in Dobrudja and the Caucasus with severe casulties on the Rusian side.
Then there is a peace conference where Ottoman is a real participant.
Russia shows up having failed to lick the Ottomans, who again feels confident after a succesfull defenece. Other Europeans still is "pissed" at the Ottomans after the alleged massacers that started the whole mess to begin with.
If the Ottomans in this situation "willingly" cedes parts of the Balkan, would that be acceptable?
A rump Bulgaria around Sofia, Bosnia to Austria and bits and pices to Greece, Montenegro and Serbia. Gradual population exchange is agreed on.
Situation is looking a bit like OTL, but with an active Ottoman cedeing christian majority land willingly after successfull defence.
Oddball
Monthly Donor
Be nice Abdul
You dont always have to defend the Ottoman to death you know... Im just interested in creating a scenario where OE can keep the core area in the Balkans while still be able to have those other independent states. I would also like to do this without to mutch resentment later
Is this possible?
Rockingham
Banned
If the Ottomans win we would see the reverse happening... Romania would be split, Ottoman control over it strengthened, and minor territory seceded to Ottoman proper. Serbia would also shrink, and lose some autonomy, monenegro might be annexed ourtright9they were small) or at least become a tiny rump state incapable of challenging the ottomans to any extent...Be nice Abdul
Im just interested in creating a scenario where OE can keep the core area in the Balkans while still be able to have those other independent states. I would also like to do this without to mutch resentment later
Is this possible?
Russia might lose as strip of land in Europe or some territory in the Caucasus (more likely), but the real benefit to the Ottomans might be the Russians taking some of their debt and creation of demilitarised border zones in bessarabia and caucasus.
Oddball
Monthly Donor
Is "winning" even within grasp of OE?
In my scenario I had more of a draw in mind, but then that would probably be a strategic victory to OE. But not to a extent that OE can gain territory.
Rockingham
Banned
Well, they did "win" against Serbia, they did very well in the Caucasus, give the war a bit longer, and they might push russians back. They made some stupid blunders in the balkans, they could of at least contained the Russians along the Danube, and made some minor crossings.Is "winning" even within grasp of OE?
In my scenario I had more of a draw in mind, but then that would probably be a strategic victory to OE. But not to a extent that OE can gain territory.
And time is on the Ottomans side....over the war, the opinion of the powers started to shift towards the Ottomans, and the Russian public were unhappy after 6 months of war,and a clear victory...
If the ottomans can hold the Russians at the Danube for a year or 2, probaly drive them back a bit, and make significant gains in the caucases, the heavy russian casualties and civil unrest will force the russians to make peace. I don't see anything less then the Russians taking most or all of the Ottoman debts and the freedom of the Ottomans to do what they want in their own territories, they will then be able to enact enough reforms to make them a serious gret power.
After all, beating back Russia is no mean thing....
As for the strip of Caucasses land..well why not
Not exactly valuable territory.
Oddball
Monthly Donor
Okay, so maybe a win is possibel but is it a good thing?
Even Abdul seems to agree that reforms in OE was needed. And winning versus Russia aint the best way of insigating reforms.
IMHO a draw with acceptable territorial losses would both give the incitament to reform while not devastating the territorial positions.
Even Abdul
seems to agree that reforms in OE was needed. And winning versus Russia aint the best way of insigating reforms.IMHO a draw with acceptable territorial losses would both give the incitament to reform while not devastating the territorial positions.