Napoleon Pasha Under the Service of His Majesty

[Incanian]

In 1795, Napoleon Bonaparte was planned to be sent to Constantinople under the Ottoman Empire, and Selim III to reform, and train the Ottoman Military and Artillery. He, however, days before the journey, stopped a Parisian mob and was kept in France to stay.

But What if Instead, Napoleon was sent to the Ottoman Empire, either because he doesn't put down the mob, or he's sent regardless, and he greets Selim III, and becomes an officer in the Ottoman Empire, and helps in Selim IIIs modernization process?

Discussion

 

[123456789blaaa]

Not much probably. Being a foreigner in the artillery doesn't provide a lot of paths to advancement and his arrogant personality would be an awful fit for the Ottoman political environment. It's just not the right environment that would allow the full expression of his talents. The OE itself would also benefit far more from a different geopolitical situation than any one officer-however talented.

Now India on the other hand...

 

[Incanian]

Not much probably. Being a foreigner in the artillery doesn't provide a lot of paths to advancement and his arrogant personality would be an awful fit for the Ottoman political environment. It's just not the right environment that would allow the full expression of his talents. The OE itself would also benefit far more from a different geopolitical situation than any one officer-however talented.

Now India on the other hand...

He could reach some paths as if he does his job well, he can be promoted far better, and while his arrogant behavior is a bad thing, the Ottomans under Selim III will have so many conflicts, like the Wahabists, Russians, and Serbians that he definitely has the ability to show his military skills. And since he won't be invading Egypt, he's already making Selim IIIs modernization job even easier.

 

[NegusNegast]

Is the Ottoman army properly equipped for Napoleon's tactics to really shine? After all, a great general doesn't mean much unless you have a great army as well, and OTL he had the fortune of being in France, which had one of the best armies in the world. I'm not sure if the Ottoman army was capable of similar feats at the time, at the very least not before disbanding the Janissaries.

As was previously mentioned, he would do great in India, especially Mysore. The Mysorean army was already pretty well equipped and trained, and they were receptive to European advisers OTL.

 

[Incanian]

Is the Ottoman army properly equipped for Napoleon's tactics to really shine? After all, a great general doesn't mean much unless you have a great army as well, and OTL he had the fortune of being in France, which had one of the best armies in the world. I'm not sure if the Ottoman army was capable of similar feats at the time, at the very least not before disbanding the Janissaries.

As was previously mentioned, he would do great in India, especially Mysore. The Mysorean army was already pretty well equipped and trained, and they were receptive to European advisers OTL.

They wouldn't shine like in France obviously, but he has the capabilities to modernize the Ottoman Military like he had been sent to help do. The Janissaries are a problem, the main thing in the way of reform, and if Napoleon could get the Janissary problem gone soon under Selim III, he could begin the uncontested reformation of the Ottoman military. As to how he'd do it, is up to interpretation. I believe he could do it, however.

If the order is restored to France, France (With the Franco-Ottoman alliance) could send help to overthrow the Janissaries and gain a useful ally.

That's just my opinion though.

 

[NegusNegast]

They wouldn't shine like in France obviously, but he has the capabilities to modernize the Ottoman Military like he had been sent to help do. The Janissaries are a problem, the main thing in the way of reform, and if Napoleon could get the Janissary problem gone soon under Selim III, he could begin the uncontested reformation of the Ottoman military. As to how he'd do it, is up to interpretation. I believe he could do it, however.

The issue is that military reform requires more than just better training for the soldiers. It requires new equipment and a reformed taxation system to pay for the new army, just to name a few factors. Around the time that Napoleon was alive, the area of the Ottoman Empire under the actual control of the Sultan was very small-some even say only the environs of Istanbul-while the rest was controlled by highly autonomous governors. That's not a situation that is conducive to raising funds or manpower for a reformed military.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

Is the Ottoman army properly equipped for Napoleon's tactics to really shine? After all, a great general doesn't mean much unless you have a great army as well, and OTL he had the fortune of being in France, which had one of the best armies in the world. I'm not sure if the Ottoman army was capable of similar feats at the time, at the very least not before disbanding the Janissaries.

As was previously mentioned, he would do great in India, especially Mysore. The Mysorean army was already pretty well equipped and trained, and they were receptive to European advisers OTL.

Revolutionary France diden't have the best army in the world; they had the biggest, thanks to leveeing the population vs. the small professional forces in use by their counterparts, and a significantly less top-heavy and tested officer crops. While the Turkish military was hardly innovating beyond Fredrickian tactics, they were in the middle of a system-wide reform, and the presence of Nappy would at the very least turn that reform in a more artillery-heavy direction who's effectiveness could be demonstrated in later campaigns. In all liklihood, this would result in a tactical evolution which, while still in the field of introducing more combined-arms tactics, would be more centered in eastern Europe and focused on firepower/co-ordination vs. maneuver.

 

[NegusNegast]

Revolutionary France diden't have the best army in the world; they had the biggest, thanks to leveeing the population vs. the small professional forces in use by their counterparts, and a significantly less top-heavy and tested officer crops. While the Turkish military was hardly innovating beyond Fredrickian tactics, they were in the middle of a system-wide reform, and the presence of Nappy would at the very least turn that reform in a more artillery-heavy direction who's effectiveness could be demonstrated in later campaigns. In all liklihood, this would result in a tactical evolution which, while still in the field of introducing more combined-arms tactics, would be more centered in eastern Europe and focused on firepower/co-ordination vs. maneuver.

They didn't have the best army, but their military tactics weren't just human wave attacks either; they definitely inherited a lot of their military power from Bourbon France.

 

[Incanian]

The issue is that military reform requires more than just better training for the soldiers. It requires new equipment and a reformed taxation system to pay for the new army, just to name a few factors. Around the time that Napoleon was alive, the area of the Ottoman Empire under the actual control of the Sultan was very small-some even say only the environs of Istanbul-while the rest was controlled by highly autonomous governors. That's not a situation that is conducive to raising funds or manpower for a reformed military.

Well, if we get rid of the Janissaries, that could happen as to where we can restore the Sultans power within the empire, and an army that is now actually doing something, unlike the Janissaries, who were getting out-beaten by the other modernized powers, the new Ottoman army could now better enforce its power in the autonomous provinces, and instead, the Ottomans can place them under more secular control, therefore tax them, pay for a better army that does better in combat, that can win wars easier. If Napoleon can even just lay a foundation quicker for Selim III, he'd be a great usage for the empire.

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

Is the Ottoman army properly equipped for Napoleon's tactics to really shine? After all, a great general doesn't mean much unless you have a great army as well, and OTL he had the fortune of being in France, which had one of the best armies in the world. I'm not sure if the Ottoman army was capable of similar feats at the time, at the very least not before disbanding the Janissaries.

As was previously mentioned, he would do great in India, especially Mysore. The Mysorean army was already pretty well equipped and trained, and they were receptive to European advisers OTL.

The Nizam-I Cedid forces already exist or about to exist. Those troops were meant to be equivalent of Western Troops.

 

[123456789blaaa]

The issue is that military reform requires more than just better training for the soldiers. It requires new equipment and a reformed taxation system to pay for the new army, just to name a few factors. Around the time that Napoleon was alive, the area of the Ottoman Empire under the actual control of the Sultan was very small-some even say only the environs of Istanbul-while the rest was controlled by highly autonomous governors. That's not a situation that is conducive to raising funds or manpower for a reformed military.

The reform program envisioned and implemented by Seim III and the reformers was very comprehensive and encompassed mulitple spheres of government like taxation/diplomacy/the navy/etc. They even saw the problem of the capitulations and trade imbalance strangling industry and how the Christian minorities were incentivized to maintain this. I've been doing a bunch of reading on the subject and it's pretty impressive. The main problem was that geopolitical factors (mainly caused by Napoleon) overstressed the system at precisely the point when the reformers were most vulnerable, causing the reformer's overthrow by the people.

 

[EMT]

The reform program envisioned and implemented by Seim III and the reformers was very comprehensive and encompassed mulitple spheres of government like taxation/diplomacy/the navy/etc. They even saw the problem of the capitulations and trade imbalance strangling industry and how the Christian minorities were incentivized to maintain this. I've been doing a bunch of reading on the subject and it's pretty impressive. The main problem was that geopolitical factors (mainly caused by Napoleon) overstressed the system at precisely the point when the reformers were most vulnerable, causing the reformer's overthrow by the people.

This is a pretty good summary of the situation. The Ottoman Empire spent half the 18th century and most of the 19th with a reform-minded, pragmatic, and arguably even idealistic ruling class that got hampered through geopolitics more than anything else.

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

This is a pretty good summary of the situation. The Ottoman Empire spent half the 18th century and most of the 19th with a reform-minded, pragmatic, and arguably even idealistic ruling class that got hampered through geopolitics more than anything else.

And consider that since the rule Mustafa II, the attempts to reform were halted until Mahmud II. That is good for 120 years of time. Who knows what it could achieve if the reform was made earlier.