Most likely borders if ottomans collapse in 1880s

I've seen it said on here and SHWI that the 1880s and 1890s were a period of vulnerability for the Ottoman empire, so let's run with it. The empire falls apart in the early 1880s to a mix of external pressure plus internal pressure.

What do the borders look like afterwards? The first thing I can think of is they'd likely keep the bit of Thrace turkey has OTL for the simple reason that they didn't lose it even with the disaster of WWI/attempts to impose the treaty of sevres. So, one of the post-ottoman states would be some sort of monarchial turkey with similar borders to OTL. What else comes out of the imperial wreckage? Also, what gets colonized by european powers? One sort of out there idea is the British taking advantage of the fact that they have troops near Suez to grab the holy land*, start inviting jewish immigrants in from Russia out of a sense humanitarianism and strategic reasons -- wanting to have another loyal colony near by to ensure even more security for suez.

Lebanon would likely end up a french protectorate too imo.

* In post-1900 in the monarchial Israel thread I briefly mused on the possibility of an *Israel with a more reactionary setup potentially coming up as an outcome if you get earlier british involvement in the holy land.Perhaps with the right timing this POD steers the large jewish immigration of 1890-1924 to british *Israel/the republic of israel instead of the US as a butterfly. NYC would still get the polish immigration so still get the kielbalsa and reuben sandwiches in NYC delis but hollywood would look unrecognizable.
 
How does it collapse exactly ? At this time, the Ottomans had lost control of most of their European territory, and yes, they still had Albania, as well as Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace, Aegean Islands and, in theory, Crete (though it was de facto under Great Powers control). And yes, both the local inhabitants and the Balkan nations wanted them out. However, Ottoman control over Anatolia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and parts of Arabian peninsula was quite stable. Not without problems (mostly ethnic and religious ones), but stable.

Ottoman complete collapse is not so obvious to achieve, even in late 19th century.
 
- Rump Turkey in Anatolia and Thrace, supported by Russia (being largely under Russian influence)
- Bulgaria and Serbia divide Macedonia, Kosovo to Serbia
- Greece gets only smaller parts of Macedonia but more of Epirus + Crete
- the Levant attached to either Egypt or an own Kingdom of Syria (no Israel) (under French Influence).
- Mesopotamia the same, minus Mosul Vilayet, as another Kingdom (under British Influence)
- Albania as an Italian or Austro-Hungarian Protectorate
- Libya to Italy
- Hejaz and Yemen to the local dynasties

Armenia is tricky. It did not have enough Armenians to have an own state and too much angry neighbours to destroy it. But this dis not halt the Conference of Berlin to draw the Bulgarian borders in Muslim majority regions. Also the call for a creation of Armenia was rejected in 1878. This depends on the friendlyness of the new regime to Russia. Being a good vassal? No Armenia. Being hostile? Armenia happens. Kurdistan is as likely as Albania... 0... unlike Albania, they are too deep in land, far from the Sea to be a functioning protectorate. It would be torn apart as soon as it is created and would be a failed state for various reasons.

I find it hard for the Ottomans to collapse in the 1880s. It wasn't decentralised or exhausted to collapse (they never collapsed). But the risk of being torn apart was really likely... so your PoD: Ottomans mismanaging the Bulgarian Crisis so another Russo-Turkish War breaks out.
 
The question in all of this is who gets Istanbul/Constantinople. You know Greece will lobby hard for it and Russia will be adamant to free Constantinople from the Turks and return Hagia Sophia to Orthodoxy.
 
The question in all of this is who gets Istanbul/Constantinople. You know Greece will lobby hard for it and Russia will be adamant to free Constantinople from the Turks and return Hagia Sophia to Orthodoxy.

The new Turkish State will rule it. They own it and they'll keep it. But they'll need Russian support which is easy, keep the straits open for trade and closed for war.

Greece can lobby whatever they want but they'll have to fight the Bulgarians and then the Turks. The 1880s Greece is in no position to enforce it.
 
Last edited:
The new Turkish State will rule it. They own it and they'll keep it. But they'll need Russian support which is easy, keep the straits open for trade and closed for war.

Greece can lobby whatever they want but they'll have to fight the Bulgarians and then the Turks. The 1880s Greece is in no position to enforce it.
I don't know Russia really wanted that strates, that's why every other European country tryed in various and unproductive ways to keep this from happening becuse Russia is going to use this one way or another to control the strates (especially as like 80% of Russia's trade gos throe it) which is going to lead to a war, and if nothing else Russia wants a week power controlling the strates (aka weaker then modern day turkey) that it can bully.
 
- Rump Turkey in Anatolia and Thrace, supported by Russia (being largely under Russian influence)
- Bulgaria and Serbia divide Macedonia, Kosovo to Serbia
- Greece gets only smaller parts of Macedonia but more of Epirus + Crete
- the Levant attached to either Egypt or an own Kingdom of Syria (no Israel) (under French Influence).
- Mesopotamia the same, minus Mosul Vilayet, as another Kingdom (under British Influence)
- Albania as an Italian or Austro-Hungarian Protectorate
- Libya to Italy
- Hejaz and Yemen to the local dynasties

Armenia is tricky. It did not have enough Armenians to have an own state and too much angry neighbours to destroy it. But this dis not halt the Conference of Berlin to draw the Bulgarian borders in Muslim majority regions. Also the call for a creation of Armenia was rejected in 1878. This depends on the friendlyness of the new regime to Russia. Being a good vassal? No Armenia. Being hostile? Armenia happens. Kurdistan is as likely as Albania... 0... unlike Albania, they are too deep in land, far from the Sea to be a functioning protectorate. It would be torn apart as soon as it is created and would be a failed state for various reasons.

I find it hard for the Ottomans to collapse in the 1880s. It wasn't decentralised or exhausted to collapse (they never collapsed). But the risk of being torn apart was really likely... so your PoD: Ottomans mismanaging the Bulgarian Crisis so another Russo-Turkish War breaks out.

Speaking of Armenia, what about Assyria? Clearly the Russians would also try to work to make sure an Assyrian state is created as well.
 
Borders would be determined by the inevitable Balkan War, if not World War, that follows.
 
Bulgaria would be pushing for the borders drawn at San Stefano. If this Ottoman collapse happens before the Russo-Bulgarian break in 1885, they might manage it. Obviously, the Greeks will be less than pleased, especially if Sofia nabs Salonika, but they may not be in a position to stop them.

The Macedonia/Kosovo front may become a struggle between Serbia (backed by A-H), Bulgaria (with Russia in its corner) and possibly an Albanian state (with Italy supporting). If the British can be persuaded to back the Greeks, there's a wonderfully messy four sided proxy struggle in the making.
 
Top