No GNW (or “Peter goes South”)

In general, the breakdown of the Ottoman order by the end of the 18th century, resulting in the problems with local elites (ayans) followed by ethnic disorders in Serbia and later Greece, was in large part the rest of stresses caused by the wars with Russia from 1768 onward. With the more peaceful and prosperous Russian-Turkish relations of TTL there's no particular probability of the events resulting in the Serbian and Greek rebellions and the disorders that followed such as the breakaway of Egypt.

Actually while Russia did play the part in breakdown of the Ottoman order it was not the only actor and internal problems of the Ottoman empire can't really be ignored (otl Austrian backed renegade Janissary Osman Pazvantoğlu was defeated by Serbians under Sultan's banner so there were internal problems with Janissaries and with, or without Russia empire was in need of the reforms and Janissaries and Serbians were bound to clash which was a cause for Serbian revolt otl) . Regarding Serbia, without Russia Austro - Turkish war of 1735-39 never happened which means that Serbia remained under Austria for much longer (over 50 year's) and was enjoying relative autonomy and economic prosperity (same thing happened otl in much shorter time and then Serbian population jumped from around 120ks to 400k and Belgrade became Ottoman second largest city with population over 100k, over fifty years of Habsburg rule left even bigger impact ), so when Ottoman empire attacked the Austrians in 1771-72 and regained those lands it was quite a shock for the Serbs to return under the Ottoman rule and given that Serbs were always cooperating with Austrian invasions Ottomans couldn't simply return things to how they were thus there was need for autonomy (at the time of war of 1771-72 Mustafa the III was the Sultan and that guy did some military reforms otl, he was Fredericks fan and started a war against Russia otl, in TTL relations with Russia were good so Austria exhausted from seven year war (given that Russia stayed out of it) was obvious target ). Regarding Egypt? Sultan's peace there was actually disturbed by the Napoleons invasion, something that happened otl and had nothing to do with Russia.

As for the Greeks? While Greek revolution was largely inspired by the Serbians it is important to note that they were inspired even more by the French revolution and had their base in Greek diaspora despite Greeks having relatively good position in the empire (entire upper echelon of the Church was Greek, they were part of Ottoman administration and were controlling good part of the trade) .
 
Last edited:
Technically you don't even need to use same timeline, big part of the reason why Muhammed Ali attacked when he did was because of the losses in Greek revolution and the need to rebuild his army and navy (beside his position in Egypt being unsure, something that will be even more threatened with stronger Ottoman empire), you could theoretically have him move in Syria shortly after the Greek rebellion catching the Ottoman's off guard while their army is still in Europe pacifying the region, this in turn would give Ottomans even less time to recover from the revolution and build up their land force's (especially if until that moment they focus on building up the navy which needs time and money ).

Edit: Otherwise you did say that Austria will reform it's army and have a go at the either Russia, or France? Maybe have Austrians attack the Russians, or Ottomans between 1809- 11? Either way if Ottomans are involved there will be losses, especially if you put Charles on that front, pair that up with Ottomans feeling secure on Balkan frontier after Austrian defeat and focusing on navy , pair that with upcoming Greek revolution in 10 or so year's and you more , or less have weakened Ottoman army , especially if Egypt attacks ahead of schedule . You don't have to Nerf Mahmud II, or the Ottoman's, you just need to have trouble's coming their way paired with some miscalculations .
This is all good but my problem with the Austrian-Russian (plus whoever) war is that, besides a pure revenge) so far I could not come with a meaningful and realistic purpose for such a war on the Austrian side. There is very little in the terms of a common border and what could be Austrian expectations in the terms of getting somewhere meaningful in Russia? Unlike OTL 5th coalition, they can’t expect any meaningful support from the German states and, unless they are trying to occupy the Danube principalities (with the Ottomans holding the straits is it useful?) it is hard to imagine some expected gain. The Brits can come into the picture during the age of the steam warships (open the Danube and other grand schemas).
So, the Russian-Austrian war does not look very convincing within the next few years.
Perhaps Franco-Austrian war in Italy?

Anyway, I’m considering Franco-Russian closer links. Perhaps a deal regarding the interests in the Ottoman Empire/Egypt. The Greece is tricky but is there a serious reason for anybody’s direct involvement, especially if Russia stays out of it?
 
Actually while Russia did play the part in breakdown of the Ottoman order it was not the only actor and internal problems of the Ottoman empire can't really be ignored (otl Austrian backed renegade Janissary Osman Pazvantoğlu was defeated by Serbians under Sultan's banner so there were internal problems with Janissaries and with, or without Russia empire was in need of the reforms and Janissaries and Serbians were bound to clash which was a cause for Serbian revolt otl) . Regarding Serbia, without Russia Austro - Turkish war of 1735-39 never happened which means that Serbia remained under Austria for much longer (over 50 year's) and was enjoying relative autonomy and economic prosperity (same thing happened otl in much shorter time and then Serbian population jumped from around 120ks to 400k and Belgrade became Ottoman second largest city with population over 100k, over fifty years of Habsburg rule left even bigger impact ), so when Ottoman empire attacked the Austrians in 1771-72 and regained those lands it was quite a shock for the Serbs to return under the Ottoman rule and given that Serbs were always cooperating with Austrian invasions Ottomans couldn't simply return things to how they were thus there was need for autonomy (at the time of war of 1771-72 Mustafa the III was the Sultan and that guy did some military reforms otl, he was Fredericks fan and started a war against Russia otl, in TTL relations with Russia were good so Austria exhausted from seven year war (given that Russia stayed out of it) was obvious target ). Regarding Egypt? Sultan's peace there was actually disturbed by the Napoleons invasion, something that happened otl and had nothing to do with Russia.
Muraviev’s mission to Muhammed Ali and the Sultan, as described by himself, could be material for a rather entertaining comedy.
As for the Greeks? While Greek revolution was largely inspired by the Serbians it is important to note that they were inspired even more by the French revolution and had their base in Greek diaspora despite Greeks having relatively good position in the empire (entire upper echelon of the Church was Greek, they were part of Ottoman administration and were controlling good part of the trade) .
So if, say, Russia does not encourage its own Greeks (a lot of them in the Southern Russia, heavily engaged in all types and levels of business and even being represented at the high administrative levels) to get involved in the …er… “revolutionary” activities, this leaves which countries?

IIRC, the Austrians arrested Ypsilanti so what about France? Were the Greeks of any serious influence there or was it just usual excitement about “just cause”, etc.?
 
Actually while Russia did play the part in breakdown of the Ottoman order it was not the only actor and internal problems of the Ottoman empire can't really be ignored (otl Austrian backed renegade Janissary Osman Pazvantoğlu was defeated by Serbians under Sultan's banner so there were internal problems with Janissaries and with, or without Russia empire was in need of the reforms and Janissaries and Serbians were bound to clash which was a cause for Serbian revolt otl) .

I'd be the last to disagree that even under the best of circumstances the Ottoman Empire would be facing strong headwinds at the start of the 19th century due to structural problems and ethno-religious tensions.

In terms of the specific circumstances that caused the Empire to be in such a pitiful state in 1800 and that led to the early Balkan Christian uprisings, however, the short version of current thinking, at least is I understand it, goes something like this.

The military effort of the wars against Russia, especially the 1768-1774 one, required enormous financial and human resources from Turkey. High taxation impoverished the rural population, causing abandonment of villages in some areas, damaged traded, and exacerbated existing problems of abuse of tax farms and other forms of delegated authority. There was also high human loss from battle and disease and material devastation in parts of the Empire. All of this was made worse by the humiliation of defeats and unfavorable peace treaties. The result of this was a gradual breakdown in the social order and loss of control by the center over the local ayan elites. Osman Pazvantoğlu and Ali Pasha of Ioannina were just two of the most notable of many local warlords during the period.

It was this breakdown of social order that directly led to the first Serbian rebellion, as Janissaries, the official local Pasha, and local ayans all fought and competed with each other in the Sanjak of Smederevo. It was the abuse of the local Serbs, who at one point appealed to the Sultan himself for support, by the Janissary faction that led to the uprising. Even after that, the Ottomans would probably have restored control fairly quickly were it not for yet another Russo-Turkish war breaking out.

Similarly, the Greek War of Independence broke out in a disorderly setting, involving actors such as the aforementioned Ali Pasha. Moreover, the Ottomans were unable to mount an effective military response in the early days of the revolt because the Sultan was in conflict with his rural ayans who traditionally provided levies for the army. The result was the reliance on irregular Albanian mercenaries in the first years and the subcontracting of the war to Muhammad Ali of Egypt after the first initiative produced mixed results at best.
 
Muraviev’s mission to Muhammed Ali and the Sultan, as described by himself, could be material for a rather entertaining comedy.

So if, say, Russia does not encourage its own Greeks (a lot of them in the Southern Russia, heavily engaged in all types and levels of business and even being represented at the high administrative levels) to get involved in the …er… “revolutionary” activities, this leaves which countries?

IIRC, the Austrians arrested Ypsilanti so what about France? Were the Greeks of any serious influence there or was it just usual excitement about “just cause”, etc.?

Well while Filiki Eteria was founded in Odessa they didn't really bear much sympathy from the Greeks in Moscow at which point founder's of the society migrated to Constantinople so theoretically even with Tsar's disapproval idea of reborn Byzantine Empire, or independent Greek state could still be born and like in otl migrate to the Constantinople (Two original founder's were born in the Ottoman empire, while third was born in Italy and they emigrated to Russia so Tsar's disapproval shouldn't really change their goals).

Otherwise precursor of Filiki Eteria was Ellinoglosso Xenodocheio (they even shipped 40k weapons to the Greek revolutionaries ) founded in France /Paris so the cause was more, or less spread out across Europe (basically like with Russia and Ottoman empire there were people for it and against it, for example Ioannis Kapodistrias who was Russian minister at the time was initially against the revolt)
Otherwise Greek independence had support among Wealthy Americans and European Aristocrats, for example London Philhellenic Committee raised 800k £ to finance the revolution. Any member of above organizations could take the rein's.
Perhaps Franco-Austrian war in Italy

Problem with that would be that Austria won't go in alone, even otl they were supported by UK, Portugal, Sicily and Sardinia (we all know who among these was important and who financed this) and war was largely inspired by French occupation of Spain which convinced Habsburgs that Napoleon can't be trusted and they counted that France will be preoccupied with Spain.

Otherwise attempts were made to ally with Prussia and Russia, but they failed.

Basically without British financing and backing them and harsh financial situation following Revolutionary Wars and GPW i don't see Austria engaging France. Now that I think about it i don't see the engaging Russia either if all they have to gain is prestige and some territories in the Balkans.

So that leaves only Prussia and focus on HRE, or internal reforms in the empire proper.

I'd be the last to disagree that even under the best of circumstances the Ottoman Empire would be facing strong headwinds at the start of the 19th century due to structural problems and ethno-religious tensions.

In terms of the specific circumstances that caused the Empire to be in such a pitiful state in 1800 and that led to the early Balkan Christian uprisings, however, the short version of current thinking, at least is I understand it, goes something like this.

The military effort of the wars against Russia, especially the 1768-1774 one, required enormous financial and human resources from Turkey. High taxation impoverished the rural population, causing abandonment of villages in some areas, damaged traded, and exacerbated existing problems of abuse of tax farms and other forms of delegated authority. There was also high human loss from battle and disease and material devastation in parts of the Empire. All of this was made worse by the humiliation of defeats and unfavorable peace treaties. The result of this was a gradual breakdown in the social order and loss of control by the center over the local ayan elites. Osman Pazvantoğlu and Ali Pasha of Ioannina were just two of the most notable of many local warlords during the period.

It was this breakdown of social order that directly led to the first Serbian rebellion, as Janissaries, the official local Pasha, and local ayans all fought and competed with each other in the Sanjak of Smederevo. It was the abuse of the local Serbs, who at one point appealed to the Sultan himself for support, by the Janissary faction that led to the uprising. Even after that, the Ottomans would probably have restored control fairly quickly were it not for yet another Russo-Turkish war breaking out.

Similarly, the Greek War of Independence broke out in a disorderly setting, involving actors such as the aforementioned Ali Pasha. Moreover, the Ottomans were unable to mount an effective military response in the early days of the revolt because the Sultan was in conflict with his rural ayans who traditionally provided levies for the army. The result was the reliance on irregular Albanian mercenaries in the first years and the subcontracting of the war to Muhammad Ali of Egypt after the first initiative produced mixed results at best.

Regarding Greece, i do agree that Ottomans should be able to put the revolt down relatively quickly , especially because relations with Russia should stop some of the worst excesses like execution of the Patriarch and other anty revolutionary members of the Greek elite, but i see revolution still happening (as i said above there were enlightened people across Europe and within the empire that though that they know better and there were those initially against it ).

As for Serbia, as said before Serbia at this point was more or less part of Habsburg dominion for over fifty years where it enjoyed relative self governenace and economic prosperity so even without the crisis in the empire just reverting back to how things were back then would be hard (economic prosperity under the Ottoman's was what kept the region pacified at the peak of the empire, plus TTL rebellion against the Sultan never really happened and Janissaries going renegade isn't out of the picture).

Otherwise while wars with Russia played role in the decline of the empire things were mostly fine internally and remember after the loss of Hungary to Austria and Crimea to Russia empire still managed to keep the frontier for quite some time with only small losses to Russia and tit, for tat with Austria and if we follow the logic of costly wars Russia and Austria engaged in those to (seven years war being chef example, or Napoleonic wars for France) but they still managed to retain great power status, ultimately the real problem was lack of the reforms that kept the empire behind it's European rivals which reflected internally (Janissary system was in decay and it needed to go out, war, or no war by 1800 system would decay all the same) . Generally the first real loss for the empire was Egypt during Napoleonic wars and it turning to a vassal state opposed to it being the province (Crimea for all matter's was insignificant economically and was a vassal, same with Hungary and as said ultimately front in the Balkans stabilized, plus once again remember those Russo - Turkish were also costly for Russia and resulted in little to no gain, Egypt on second hand was most valuable province of the Empire).
 
Last edited:
plus once again remember those Russo - Turkish were also costly for Russia and resulted in little to no gain

Exactly, these wars were prolonged shoving matches that were exhausting for both participants, but more so for the weaker Turkish side. Turkey always bounced back from earlier defeats, even the lost of Hungary, but it never really recovered after 1774, despite its lucky respite in 1791 (against Austria) and compromise peace in 1792 (against Russia).
 
Exactly, these wars were prolonged shoving matches that were exhausting for both participants, but more so for the weaker Turkish side. Turkey always bounced back from earlier defeats, even the lost of Hungary, but it never really recovered after 1774, despite its lucky respite in 1791 (against Austria) and compromise peace in 1792 (against Russia).

I would say that war of 1787 - 92 says otherwise as Ottomans felt confident to provoke a new war and still got away with small territorial loss while also fighting Austria at the same time and giving it severe economic headache down the line. The real loss from which empire never recovered was ultimately loss of Egypt (things were in decline even there ) which deprived the empire from important economic base and dent in taxation pool that needed to be filled up , from then on wars against Russia simply became to expensive to maintain and internal decay needed to be addressed which prompted reforms.
 
Last edited:
I would say that war of 1787 - 92 says otherwise as Ottomans felt confident to provoke a new war and still got away with small territorial loss while also fighting Austria at the same time and giving it severe economic headache down the line. The real loss from which empire never recovered was ultimately loss of Egypt (things were in decline even there ) which deprived the empire from important economic base and dent in taxation pool that needed to be filled up , from then on wars against Russia simply became to expensive to maintain and internal decay needed to be addressed which prompted reforms.

While Egypt was certainly potentially valuable, I'm not sure the Porte was receiving a great deal of that value in the form of taxation / tribute payments from the local Mamluks since at least the middle of the 18th century. I believe even Muhammad Ali kept up tribute payments at the traditional level, so I'm not sure how much the Sultan actually lost. The outlying provinces were always problematic, but disorder in the Balkan and Anatolian core was fatal.
 
While Egypt was certainly potentially valuable, I'm not sure the Porte was receiving a great deal of that value in the form of taxation / tribute payments from the local Mamluks since at least the middle of the 18th century. I believe even Muhammad Ali kept up tribute payments at the traditional level, so I'm not sure how much the Sultan actually lost. The outlying provinces were always problematic, but disorder in the Balkan and Anatolian core was fatal.

Ottomans held Egypt only nominally, but in reality it was more, or less independent state (with it's own army and fleet, forces that weren't loyal to the Ottoman state) , otherwise as said disorder in the Balkans and Anatolia was a thing in the making for centuries and it was mostly internally driven but loss of Egypt and it's financial base kinda made problem explode as now taxes would be needed to raised to supplement the loss and finance it's army (which was becoming obsolete long before and was making itself into a noble class of sort ) which in turn meant unsatisfied population. It wasn't coincidence that Russia started making real gains in the Balkans after Ottomans lost it's most valuable province because every defeat from then on became to hard to mask.

Now not to say that Russians and Austrians didn't play role in this, war of 1787-92 was a 6 year precursor to loss of Egypt (though then again Ottomans started it themselves) so any financial loss from that was harder to recover from and army needed to be rebuilt (it's just that there was a huge hole in the budget).
 
How things went wrong in OTL
198. How things went wrong in OTL



Without understanding certain OTL things the alt-development will be looking as one more “grand piano in the bushes” [1] and I want to maintain at least some degree of a plausibility. 😉

Below is a production of cast iron in the thousands of puds.
ГодыBritainRussia
17201037610
17251040815
17301047957
175013422009
176016473663
177019525106
178024406718
179048807957
180095169908

0000cb4y

As you can see, for the second half of the XVIII century Russia was ahead of Britain after which its production pretty much leveled with a slight annual growth and started accelerating only after 1860 “returning” Russia to the 4th/5th places only in 1900/1910.
During the same period of 1820-60 the British production increased 10-fold.

The obvious question is what went wrong with the Russian metallurgy?

The reasons were numerous but the most important one was the system that was created by Peter I and kept “improving” all the way to the second part of the XIX. Contrary to a popular slogan “the government did not pay enough of attention” it was other way around. The government started paying a lot of attention under Peter and kept paying it with the results well-known.

By the early XVIII there were 2 main areas of the metallurgic industry in Russia:
  • Ural
  • Region “Beyond Moscow” - the metallurgy production in European Russia outside 100 versts circle around Moscow. Within the circle only the light industry was permitted.
The government was directly (for the state-owned production) and indirectly in charge of the industry. With the XVIII production based almost exclusively on a charcoal each enterprise [2] had to get its own area that had mine(s), forest, river (both power source and transportation) and the serfs. All that had been given by the state and if an enterprise changed the owner, it still remained under the state’s umbrella. The regional state representative was controlling the situation and the plant owner needed an official permission for setting up the new furnaces, digging the new mines, buying the major pieces of equipment, purchasing another plant, purchasing serfs, etc. The enterprise also had to pay tax per pud of a produced metal. OTOH, besides granting “the means of production” (land and the serfs) the state maintained prohibition on the foreign iron imports.

While an enterprise owner was in charge of the infrastructure within his own territory, the state was not responsible for the communications between that territory and outside world, which made closeness of the rivers even more important, especially if these rivers were tributaries of the major water artery. In OTL only later (too late) there was a joined effort of the major Ural-based companies to build a railroad connecting them to the “outside world”. The “beyond Moscow” region was better located as far as the communications were involved and seems to be more dynamic in adopting the innovations. Probably because its plants usually did not own the areas as extensive as those of Ural and had to be more productive.

During the XVIII and early XIX the system was doing just fine. The equipment and technological processes were comparable to the top European level, the power supply had been based mostly a water power and the horses and was not noticeably behind. The work force was cheap and this was compensating for the taxes and high transportation costs. The quality of the Russian cast iron was high (low % of phosphorus) maintaining it as a valuable export item, demands of the domestic market had been fulfilled. There was no reason to change anything in a fundamental way. The new steam engines had been purchased and built domestically and installed but in this area the smaller enterprises outside Ural had been much more aggressive.

Coming of the age of steam coincided with another problem: the forests, even on the Ural, did not last forever causing a need to start switching to a coal and in the traditional area of the Ural metallurgy there was mostly a low quality brown coal that required additions of the coals from the areas outside the region, aka development of the transportation and this cost money.

And the money were a separate issue. The privately owned metallurgic enterprises had been owned by the individuals/families, not by the shareholders. And the pattern was the same across the board. The founder often was a merchant or specialist in metallurgy or a smith. If the enterprise was successful, within a couple of generations or even sooner the current owners were considering enterprise just as a cash cow, not being competent or too interested in the technology and leaving management to the hired hands. The owners were joining the high (or not too high) society, getting the titles (the “top” was “Prince San Donato”), collecting art, becoming philanthropists, horticulturists and pretty much everything else except getting a technical education or being competent administrators. Many of them even did not bother to visit their their plants for years. The expensive life styles required cash and cash spent on the porcelain dinnerware in Paris would not be available for purchasing equipment.

Anyway, why bother with the expensive mechanical stuff if the serf labor was much cheaper even if the productivity was much lower. As a result, the innovations had been creeping in on a timely fashion [3] but not necessarily in the needed quantities.

So by the early 1800s technologies were pretty much the same but was there an interest to expand the production? AFAIK, very little of it. The Russian Empire was very slow in adopting to the age of stream and the huge domestic consumers of all types of iron, the railroads and steamships, were a matter of the future. Why? It seems obvious that Russia with its huge distances and a heavy river traffic should jump into the bandwagon ahead of a big part of Europe but this did not happen.

AFAIK, to a great degree it was due to the combination of the overly intrusive state and a shortage of funds.

Extreme protectionism made it possible for the industrialists to keep ignoring the new developments or at least minimize their introduction. Actually, this problem was much more serious in the Ural region which was steadily losing its share of production to the more dynamic (and better located European region).

The funds were in a short supply both on the state and private level. The state, with its never ending wars, was short of money since the reign of Peter I (actually since forever). As for the private sector, the commercial banks were forbidden and the individual wealth was more often than not misspent. Then, until the reign of AII the modern publicly held companies were pretty much non-existent and raising funds for selling the shares was not available. And when they started appearing, the prominent role was played by the foreign banks and capitalists.

As I already mentioned in the early chapter, the first contracts to the steamships were governmental. The same goes for the first public railroads. Construction of the RR St-Petersburg - Moscow involved extensive research abroad, creation of a governmental commission, review by the Cabinet of Ministers (most of whom were against), review of a special committee (chaired by the heir to the throne and including numerous ministers), then creation of two directories, each responsible for research of its segment of a route, invitation of the consultants from the US and then transfer of the project to the Directorate of the Transportation with the creation of a special department. More discussions on governmental level about precise route and width of a gauge, etc.

When all the talks were done the route was broken into the segments of 50-60 km and development trusted to the contractors who were not answerable to the construction departments in the issues of expenses and working conditions. Taking into an account that these contractors were not going to manage the functioning railroad, their interest was only in buying the materials cheap and billing them at the top possible level. The labor force were mostly serfs “contracted” from the landowners, the free impoverished peasants, etc.

The construction of the St. Petersburg-Moscow Railway cost 67 million rubles. For comparison, the annual budget of the Russian Empire in 1842 amounted to 187 million rubles. There was the first alarm bell: it was planned that out of 79,000 tons of the rails 49,000 tons will be produced in Russia but in a reality only 800 tons were produced.

OTOH, production of the Russian locomotives based upon the US model picked up fast. The existing metallurgical plant had been put under the management of the American specialists in 1843 and by 1852 it produced 164 locomotives of various types, 239 passenger wagons, 1991 cargo wagons and 580 platforms. The first locomotive was ready in 1845.
1661042978991.jpeg

The excavation equipment (steam-based) also had to be bought in the US.
1661042937127.jpeg

Until management of the RR was transferred to the private company in 1868 all service had been done by a (specially trained) military personnel.

To make the long story short, the whole metallurgy-related industry had to be reformed in the early XIX but the process has to be started in the late XVIII.

ITTL we already have:
  • Serfdom is de facto minimized in the mid-/late-XVIII removing “seduction” of the cheap labor and stimulating the broader introduction of the steam-based technologies.
  • High quality coal and big deposits of the easily available iron in the Southern Russia got into the picture approximately century (more for iron) ahead of the schedule creating a new easily accessible industrial zone. And this zone is interested in getting into the age of steam ASAP.
  • Government is much less intrusive than in OTL, especially in the European Russia with its earlier reliance upon the coal and no huge “empires” Petrian-style.
  • The private banks are appearing in the late XVIII providing, when push comes to shove, the needed financial support and experience of the credit operations. A railroad company can raise capital from the banks and exploit the road afterwards so it will be interested in a high quality of the work.
  • The government is much better off financially, which may be helpful on various occasions.
  • Russia is much more active in a foreign trade and extensively using its merchant fleet.
  • The earlier introduction of both steam ships and the railroads creates a huge demand for the new types of production much earlier than in OTL.
Hopefully, these factors are enough to keep its heavy industry up to date and competitive without the whole schema being unreasonably close to the ASB.

_____________
[1] “A grand piano in the bushes” is a Russian idiomatic expression which is very close to “Deux ex machina” except that some absolutely unwarranted changes do not even require a divine intervention.
[2] Usually, every metallurgical enterprise was a set of the specialized plants (mines, charcoal production, furnaces, plants for making the final products, etc.). Each of them also had its own serfs assigned to it.
[3] The first practical Martin furnace was created in 1864 and the first furnace of that type was built in Russia in 1870. Pretty much was the same with the Bessemer process: few years of delay and by 1870 there were Russian own technologies suitable for the local types of a cast iron. Anyway, by that time Russia was lagging far behind.
 
Last edited:
That are some good numbers for the 18th century, beginning of the 19th, basically Russia catched up with British in 18th century (even having substantial lead from 1750) and started to fall behind in the 19th. Otherwise i assume Russian numbers are somewhat bigger ITTL? With Russia still having the lead, or at least keeping parity.

Otherwise French numbers will i suppose get paired with Belgium? Otherwise Rhineland is a little tricky because while French got it they never got Rhur (in 1850 region produced 11,500 tonnes of cast iron) but they still got Saar region.

400px-Ruhr_area-administration.png


15139_MAR11E_CH26_M26_01.jpg


Generally given the otl Prussian position after Imperial Recess of 1803

1803-DTL-FL1.png


if negotiations ITTL end a little bit differently (maybe sacrificing/exchanging one of it's other conclaves ? ) They could get whole region ?
 
Last edited:
That are some good numbers for the 18th century, beginning of the 19th, basically Russia catched up with British in 18th century (even having substantial lead from 1750) and started to fall behind in the 19th. Otherwise i assume Russian numbers are somewhat bigger ITTL? With Russia still having the lead, or at least keeping parity.

Otherwise French numbers will i suppose get paired with Belgium? Otherwise Rhineland is a little tricky because while French got it they never got Rhur (in 1850 region produced 11,500 tonnes of cast iron) but they still got Saar region.

View attachment 768348

View attachment 768355

Generally given the Prussian position after Imperial Recess of 1803

View attachment 768354

if negotiations end a little bit differently (maybe sacrificing/exchanging one of it's other conclaves ? ) They could get whole region which would put Prussia on it's otl path more, or less.
Well, without Nappy the readjustment of the territories should not happen at least on the OTL schedule so Prussia may not get the former ecclesiastic (and other) territories in the area at all or for a while. But, anyway, wouldn't it be a little bit too much to deprive alt-Prussia of its industrial development by no obvious reason besides pleasing the alt-French? We already provided alt-France with Saar and Belgium and, to quote William Wallace, “I brought you to the field, dance if you can”. 😜
 
We already provided alt-France with Saar and Belgium and, to quote William Wallace, “I brought you to the field, dance if you can”.

And let's not forget fertile lands of Rhineland.
Well, without Nappy the readjustment of the territories should not happen at least on the OTL schedule so Prussia may not get the former ecclesiastic (and other) territories in the area at all or for a while.

Technically all those prince's that lost land to France needed to be compensated via secularization of ecclesiastical principalities wich was done through imperial deputation ( basically readjustment of the territories) , just the thing is that without Napoleon around French victory wasn't as complete this time around and Austria actually had a pretty good performance which would generally mean that French had a lot less say over happenings in HRE and new government was more focused on peace and consolidation over holdings French gained (basically they needed to focus internally and wouldn't start any war's over this).

ITTL Russia on other hand is a lot more isolationist and didn't have alliance with Austria, nor Prussia (basically no hold over them , nor interest to interfere).

Basically in this TL imperial deputation would have been internal matter of HRE (and that means that stronger German state's eat up the smaller ones) and given that Prussia wasn't in war and was still fresh they could get a little bit more than in otl , this was even specified in ITTL peace treaty of Lunéville, basically "Austria gets Archbishopic Salzburg and whatever Emperor chooses within reasonable limit "(in Campo Formio that were some lands in Bavaria, but i don't believe that will fly with rest of HRE) and if Austria is getting something Prussia is probably getting something as well.

Generally even with the delay readjustment of HRE internal borders should have been done by 1805 (GPW), especially since both Austria and Prussia had seen themselves wronged and demanded recompense .
 
Last edited:
A little bit of everything
199. A little bit of everything
“Give me an army of Turks and I'll take the world hostage.”
“I can't even be considered a disciple of Sultan Mehmet Fatih (Conqueror), because I am a Loser who lost the lands conquered by me with a sword in my hands. As for Sultan Fatih, he is the Lucky One, whose conquered lands were transferred without losses from generation to generation.”

Napoleon
“War with the Ottomans? It is all French intrigues”
Gogol, ‘Auditor’

The Ottoman Empire.
Sultan Selim III died in 1809 from the natural causes to be succeeded by Mahmud II.

Soon I was invited to the Sultan. He sat immovable in a small room, clean and tastefully cleaned, on a canapé. His face is entertaining and inspires participation; but redness begins to appear at the ends of it, which, however, will not yet ugly him. He wears a small trimmed beard, a red fez on his head; his Cossack dress, over which he had a blue cloak.” [2]
1661112340140.jpeg

Mahmud was (or at least intended to be) a great reformer and he, indeed, introduced some important domestic reforms like closing the Court of Confiscations and abolishing the ancient rights of Turkish governors to doom men to instant death by their will; the Paşas, the Ağas, and other officers, were enjoined that "they should not presume to inflict, themselves, the punishment of death on any man, whether Raya or Turk, unless authorized by a legal sentence pronounced by the Kadı, and regularly signed by the judge." He even went as far as setting an example by regularly attending the Divan, or state council, instead of abstaining from attendance (which was a venerable tradition going all the way back to Suleiman I). His modernizations included the relaxation of much of the restrictions on alcoholic beverages in the Empire, and the sultan himself was known to drink socially with his ministers. By the end of his reign, his reforms had mostly normalized drinking among the upper classes and political figures in the Empire. [1]

Besides these formidable achievements, Mahmud continued modernization of the Ottoman army started by his predecessor. The foreign instructors had been invited (each of them trying to teach along the lines of his own army with the predictably messy results) but his main attention was toward creation of a powerful navy.

Training of the army continued but not enough attention had been paid to the physical condition of the recruits, their training and living conditions.

“In the gates of his palace there were about 50 regular infantrymen in two rows, skinny, untidy young people.
...
The Turks, introducing regularity in their troops, wanted to imitate Europeans in everything and did not guess to notice that the officers do not wear soldiers' overcoats and a coats.


In a guard house there were only 10 Turkish soldiers whose uncleaned guns were hanging on the walls, while the people were sitting half-bare on the floor. I asked the officer to show me rifle drill and marching. The unfortunate cinderellas were put at the front, and at the command of the officer of their 2nd Regiment of the 6th Company of Yuz-Bashi Ghassan made rifle exercises, and although they did not follow the rules with accuracy, I noticed in them the ability to do this matter and quite agility in handling the gun. You can't expect more from the young army; but the untidyness of clothes, hands, shoes and the gun itself cannot stop. People are very young and weak, but they move and perform everything with unquestioning submission and silence.
“ [2].

Egypt. After being (finally) officially recognized by the Porte and getting rid of the Mamelukes and other “problematic” elements Mohammed Ali proceeded with his reforms much more effectively than his superiors in Constantinople. To provide an economic base for his power he started with the change in the agricultural field, when he introduced manyvarieties of unknown seeds in Egypt, and experts and supervisors from many countries, suchas Syria, the Levant and Armenia, were also brought to cultivate these seeds, and establishing a monopoly made him the only grower of the new crops and he alone could deal with the merchants because the peasants had to hand over their crop to the government. One of the most important cash crops became sugar cane growth of which he actively promoted in Upper Egypt. By importing indigo seeds from Levant he turned its local production into a valuable export item. He exempted people from the rice producing provinces from a military service to increase its production. The cotton crop alone raised the value of the annual production in Egypt in one year(1823)by more than a sixth, providedEgypt with an income of more than thirty millions francs(1.14 million pounds). Again, quality of the item was improved by the import of the seeds from the areas with a high cotton quality. Much later, (in OTL) under the British pressure, he was forced to abolish the cotton trade monopoly. Egypt under Muhammad Ali in the early 19th century had the fifth most productive cotton industryin the world, in terms of the number of spindles per capita. The industry was initially driven by machinery that relied on traditional energy sources, such as animal power, water wheels, and windmills, which at that time were also the principle energy sources in Western Europe.

It all was taking time but even in the short term Mohammed Ali was in a good position to finance maintenance of an army and he proceeded with the task much better than his Ottoman sovereign.
1661131101246.png

The first and most difficult problem was personnel. Centuries-old statedom in Egypt of Ottoman Pashas and Mamluk "military lords" made the local Arab population completely unfit for military service. Muhammad Ali did not perceive fellah farmers as future soldiers capable of fighting and winning on the battlefield. In Egypt, as in other Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire, de jure was forbidden to recruit peasants for military service. In the Land of the Pyramids, the fellach was executed if weapons were found in front of him. Therefore, Muhammad Ali ordered his son Ibrahim to recruit and actually capture black recruits during the war of conquest in Sudan. But the slaves captured in Sudan had been dying en mass on the way from Asuan to Cairo and in 1821-24 it was possible to get only approximately 3,000 recruits. As a result, in 1822 Mohammed Ali issued an order to start recruiting the peasants of Upper Egypt. Initially, the conditions of military service were as attractive as possible. The conscripts had to serve for 3 years, after which they returned to their native villages with certificates guaranteeing against the second conscription. In total, 30,000 Fellahs were drafted into the army at the first stage of the reform. But Muhammad Ali was not going to refuse to "recruit" recruits in Sudan. He set the task of improving logistics, living conditions and treatment of Africans, thus reducing their losses. To reduce travel losses they had to be transported by the boats and food points should be organized in Aswan and Manfalut.

If the first task of the military reform was to recruit new soldiers, the second most important was to recruit an officer corps. Mohammed Ali sought to hire European officers as technical specialists, advisers in the army and teachers in military schools. Most of them had been French. But the basis of the officer corps in the combat units was the Turks (actually, predominantly the Albanians) and Mamluks. Having destroyed his competitors in the struggle for power, the Great Pasha replaced the "pick" with a "carrot" against those who showed loyalty and goth for serving him. He tried to create them the most favorable living conditions and form a political support in the Arab country of Turkish and Circassian officers alien to the Egyptians.

Understanding the weakness of the national identity of yesterday's Fellahs, Muhammad Ali set the task of Islamic indoctrination. The new army was named Jihadiyye Misriye (Egyptian Jihad).

Russia.
  • In 1810, a year after successful experience with the first Russian steamship by the imperial decree, the joint-stock company "Russian Society of Shipping and Trade" (ROPiT) was established with headquarters in Odessa. Initially, its fleet included 2 steamships built in Nikolaev but with the support of the government (loan, exemption from customs duties), ROPiT placed orders for the purchase of steamers in England and France and by 1818 had a fleet of 35 steamers serving twelve lines. Ten years later, in 1828, ROPiT already had 63 steamers, some of them, including one iron-built, [3] ordered in Britain and France, and 38 barges. By 1828, the company supported regular travel to twenty destinations, out of which six foreign ones, including Egypt and France. In trade with Turkey, ROPiT took a dominant position, exporting grain, alcohol, metal products, fabrics and much more through the port of Odessa to Istanbul. Coffee, tobacco, raisins, nuts, exotic goods went in the opposite direction. Among the domestic routes, ROPiT maintained an important crossing between Kerch and Taman.
  • Formally, the first steamship of the Baltic fleet was “Elizabeth”, completed in 1809. The Black Sea fleet got its first steamer in 1810. Both these ships were not the military ones: their task was to carry cargo and people and to tug the sail-ships.
1661133879718.png

The first steam warship was created at the Nikolaev shipyard. Its laying took place on March 29, 1813, and in 1815 the Black Sea Fleet was replenished with the first steamer, “Meteor”, armed with 14 guns, that is, it was adapted to combat operations.
1661134135737.png

The length of the steamer was 36.6 meters, width - 6.1 meters, draft - 2.21 meters. Two steam engines of the Bird plant with a total capacity of 60 nominal hp were installed on the steamer. A small draft was making it convenient in the case of the future coastal operations on the Black Sea.

The first steam warship of the Baltic fleet, “Izhora”, was built on Izhora Plant in 1816. The length of the steamer was 46.83 meters, width without sheathing - 6.7 meters, draft - 4.1 meters. A steam engine with a capacity of 100 nominal hp was installed on the steamer. The ship's armament consisted of eight 6-pounder carronades.

1661134695809.jpeg

The next year the Main Admiralty Wharf in St-Petersburg completed more powerful steamer-frigate “Bogatyr”. The displacement was 1,495 tons, the length was 56.66 meters, the width without sheathing was 9.75 meters, and the draft was 6.9 meters. An unbalanced steam engine produced by Izhora Plant with a capacity of 240-260 nominal hp was installed on the steam locomotive. The ship's artillery armament consisted of 28 guns: two 4-pound bomb guns mounted on turntables and six 24-pounder carronades on the upper deck, as well as twenty 36-pounder guns in a closed battery.
1661135261282.png

The first few years of exploitation revealed numerous problems with an idea of a paddle warship and the search of a better option began.

  • Construction of the railroads started putting brand new requirements to the Russian metallurgy to which the new plants of the Southern Russia were best suited to respond. The big old plants of Ural had to start with creation of a brand new supportive infrastructure including railroad(s) connecting them to the rest of the country and for a while the best thing they could do was to provide an adequate production of the rails for their own railroad. The old metallurgic plant of “Outside Moscow” group were so far more oriented on the production of domestic consumption items with the different requirements to the metal and technology and already were deep into the machine-building. The sharp raise of production by the new coal-based plants of the South allowed to fulfill the new needs (and to keep on pair with Britain 😜).
  • Social News (1810): A Plenipotentiary Ambassador of the French Republic, Citizen Lucien Bonaparte, arrived to Moscow. Accompanying him were his widowed sister Mme Pauline Leclerc nee Bonaparte and his younger brother Louis. 😂
French Republic. A French Ambassador on his way to the court of the Nguyễn dynasty landed in Singapore on 28 January 1811 and recognised the island as a natural choice for the new port convenient for the future French encroachments into the region. The island was ruled by Paduka Sri Sultan Abdul Rahman I Muazzam Shah ibni al-Marhum Sultan Mahmud Syah Alam (“call me simply ‘Sultan Abdul Rahman Muazzam Syah’l), the 16th Sultan of Johor, who just succeeded his father, Mahmud Ri’ayat Shah Zilu’llah fil’Alam Khalifat ul-Muminin ibni al-Marhum Sultan ‘Abdu’l Jalil Shah (just “Mahmud Shah III” for the friends and family) who had problems with the Dutch, the Bugis [4] and the members of his own council who preferred Sultan’s exiled elder brother, Tengku. With the help of council, Tengku was smuggled into Singapore and got an offer he could not refuse: recognition as “Sultan Hussein” (or rather Sultan Hussein Mua'zzam Shah ibni Mahmud Shah Alam), 125,000 francs annually for himself, plus 75,000 for his council. All this in exchange for a trifle: granting the French Republic a right to establish a trade post in Singapore. The formal treaty was signed on 6 February 1811. [5] In 1815 the treaty was upgraded leaving the whole island in the French possession.
1661138891936.jpeg

_______
[1] Besides this being obviously a move in a right direction, leading by a personal example in this specific case surely demonstrated that he had a potential of becoming a truly great leader. Just to underscore a global importance of the issue (hopefully, I’ll be excused for giving examples from the modern times), here are two examples from the distinctively different (and perhaps even opposite) cultures: (a) Gorbachev, practically overnight, lost whatever popularity he had by declaring a war on drinking in the SU; (b) the only two cases (as far as I can remember) during the last 30 years when the citizens of Massachusetts (one of the most liberal places in the US) voted in a reasonable way were (1) allowing to sell booze on Sundays (the law prohibiting this existed since at least 1781) and (2) abolishing an extra tax on alcohol. 😂😂😂😂
[2] Muravyev-Karssky “The Diaries”. This is about his visit of the Sultan Mehmed II on diplomatic mission in 1829.
[3] The first iron steamship to go to sea was the 116-ton Aaron Manby, built in 1821. So between that time and 1828 there is plenty of time to find out that the idea is practical.
[4] The local ethnic group that was seemingly very fond of the politics. It seems that in OTL they were actually on his side but I got lost in the names, circumstances and the titles. The important thing is that the Brits are screwed.
[5] Beating the Brits to it by 8 years. 😜
 
Last edited:
Excellent chapter, I think the British will soon begin to take notes of what happens in Russia. I wonder what is going on with the UK and the USA?.
 
Excellent chapter, I think the British will soon begin to take notes of what happens in Russia. I wonder what is going on with the UK and the USA?

At this point they'll be more concerned about France as through network of deals and alliances it's more or less taking control of all the routes to their Empire (Egypt, Cape of Good Hope and now Singapore).

Regarding the US, dynamic probably isn't as same as in otl because of surviving Spanish empire and Louisiana still kinda being in French hands (depending on if Purchase happens French might decide to keep New Orleans and give up the rest).

Regarding the Ottoman's, while i still see British trying to penetrate Ottoman market i don't see them trying to get into the Black Sea given the lack of the Otl naval lead , so i don't think that they'll seek conflict with Russia at this point, but they could be genuine about helping Ottomans reclaim Egypt.

Otherwise why is the ship named Elizabeth? She never ruled Russia ITTL (nor did she exist) , but it could be after some ITTL Russian princess?
 
Last edited:
Otherwise why is the ship named Elizabeth? She never ruled Russia ITTL (nor did she exist) , but it could be after some ITTL Russian princess?
We don't know the name of TTL wife of Alexander, but IOTL she was christened as Elisabeth Alexeevna.
And a Princess Elisabeth did exist TTL - a daughter of Peter I and Maria Kantemir.
 
With all the French shenanigans, Egypt and Suez doesnt "just" become the main artery towards India, it comes close to the only viable. That ought to scare them. I could certainly see a Britain that aims to create an anti-French/Dutch coalition unless they can claim other good options. Like perhaps investing more into https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radama_I and taking Madagascar, so the hop goes Walvis Bay to Toamasina port?
 
At this point they'll be more concerned about France as through network of deals and alliances it's more or less taking control of all the routes to their Empire (Egypt, Cape of Good Hope and now Singapore).

Yes, this is the whole point. Of course, besides just controlling the routes, they have to get some profits out of the whole schema.

Regarding the US, dynamic probably isn't as same as in otl because of surviving Spanish empire and Louisiana still kinda being in French hands (depending on if Purchase happens French might decide to keep New Orleans and give up the rest).

Louisiana was Spanish until 1800 and without Nappy will remain Spanish.
Regarding the Ottoman's, while i still see British trying to penetrate Ottoman market i don't see them trying to get into the Black Sea given the lack of the Otl naval lead , so i don't think that they'll seek conflict with Russia at this point, but they could be genuine about helping Ottomans reclaim Egypt.

Well, they are still the leading (more or less) naval power and its economy is growing. OTOH, the idea of getting control of the Black Sea was first proposed/tried by Urquhart in 1830s but did not find too much of a government’s support.

As I understand, there were 2 main factors behind it:
1. Steamships would allow easy sail upstream of the Danube opening the Austrian market.
2. Russia controlled the only navigational route in the Danube mouth and was making everybody’s life interesting by establishing quarantines and custom posts operating in a somewhat arbitrary manner. Not the case ITTL and the Ottoman-Russian relations are substantially different.

Urquhart’s idea was that by establishing the warehouses in the “critical” points (including Circassia - good luck with that idea) British will take a de facto control over the Black Sea because nobody would dare to touch its property or to intercept its ships. At that time even Palmerston found idea too risky and had to wait for a sucker, Little Nappy.

Otherwise why is the ship named Elizabeth? She never ruled Russia ITTL (nor did she exist) , but it could be after some ITTL Russian princess?
That’s simple: in OTL it was named after Alexander’s wife. 😜
 
Top