It was actually one of the preliminary names of the Turkish Oil Company.
Osman Reborn; The Survival of Ottoman Democracy [An Ottoman TL set in the 1900s]
- Thread starter Sarthak
- Start date
Needless to say, I'm very glad about the developments in Armenia. It's about time the central government did something good on that front, one which can also perhaps significantly lessen the local population's resentment of it, which can make an enormous difference should the empire go to war with Russia.
Last edited:
Horseshoe
Banned
What the Ottoman plan regarding Libya in a major European war with either France and/or UK as enemies since its surrounded by their colonies/vassal's meaning the Ottoman have to either keep a major garrison in Libya with enough supplies for a few years or considered it lost at the begining of hostilities since either of Libya neighbor's (UK/Egypt and/or French) could invade them and both have large navies to keep the Ottoman from reinforcing Libya and blockade Ottoman ports/bases
The Ottoman Empire should stay neutral, although it is reaffirming its position as a great power, that takes time and the Empire is still weak.
Also, the Ottoman Empire has no real allies among the other great powers or even non-powers, all countries are looking for a part of the Ottoman Empire. Even if the Empire is on the winning side of the war, no power will want to strengthen the Ottomans, with the "valuable" loot shared among the winning European powers, the Ottomans would only have scraps or nothing of value.
It would be better for the Empire to remain neutral and participate in World War II, as a more solid and formidable power, it could demand concessions of its own (separate peace), if its "allies" do not want to give it an acceptable piece of the pie.
If the Ottomans participate in the First World War, they could enter at the end of the war, and take the winning side. After all, it is a long war with huge expenses and large numbers of deaths, the Ottomans could avoid the worst of the war.
PS: The Ottoman Empire also has a great threat in Italy and the Balkans, it cannot enter the war if these countries are neutral, it could get involved in a war on multiple fronts. It would be ironic (but possible) for Italy and the Balkans (minus Romania) to declare war on the Ottomans, and both sides are in their "little war" while the rest of the powers fight in the First World War. After all, with the other powers distracted and the Ottoman Empire neutral, Italy might consider this to be its chance for revenge, and the Balkans would seize this second chance.
PS2: Staying neutral would be useful if Russia falls into civil war as OTL, the Ottomans could expand into Russian lands and Russia could not really oppose (worn out by the great war and having a civil war).
Also, the Ottoman Empire has no real allies among the other great powers or even non-powers, all countries are looking for a part of the Ottoman Empire. Even if the Empire is on the winning side of the war, no power will want to strengthen the Ottomans, with the "valuable" loot shared among the winning European powers, the Ottomans would only have scraps or nothing of value.
It would be better for the Empire to remain neutral and participate in World War II, as a more solid and formidable power, it could demand concessions of its own (separate peace), if its "allies" do not want to give it an acceptable piece of the pie.
If the Ottomans participate in the First World War, they could enter at the end of the war, and take the winning side. After all, it is a long war with huge expenses and large numbers of deaths, the Ottomans could avoid the worst of the war.
PS: The Ottoman Empire also has a great threat in Italy and the Balkans, it cannot enter the war if these countries are neutral, it could get involved in a war on multiple fronts. It would be ironic (but possible) for Italy and the Balkans (minus Romania) to declare war on the Ottomans, and both sides are in their "little war" while the rest of the powers fight in the First World War. After all, with the other powers distracted and the Ottoman Empire neutral, Italy might consider this to be its chance for revenge, and the Balkans would seize this second chance.
PS2: Staying neutral would be useful if Russia falls into civil war as OTL, the Ottomans could expand into Russian lands and Russia could not really oppose (worn out by the great war and having a civil war).
Now I really want to use it in a TL/one off map.
The (1st) Great War and the (1st) Little War.
It has a nice ring. Kind of like the "Little Entente".
The Ottomans would find it difficult to survive any Great War, even one they were nominal winners of; the demands of Total War broke the far stronger* democratic institutions of Germany, shattered the more unified ethnicities of Austria-Hungary and Russia**, and almost crippled the economies of France and Britain- to say nothing of what happened to Italy.
Neutrality in a Great War- potentially coupled with the prestige of a victory over the Balkan Powers in a smaller conflict- would buy the Porte years of room for economic development, for its vulnerable democracy to bed in and for its military to complete reforms.
That isn't as immediately exciting as another military timeline, but if the goal is a surviving Ottoman Democracy I think it's the most plausible course.
Now- setting aside plausibility- one thing I would be interested in is to see if this timeline can do a 'surviving Ottoman Empire' scenario without a German victory in the Great War; that may well be the most plausible course of events, but as a general rule any timeline where the Ottomans make it to the middle 1920s has a German victory. Sometimes they shake things up by having a British and German victory. But still; it would be an interesting scenario to see how the Ottomans deal with (assuming events stay roughly on track) the collapse of the Russian Empire to their north and the Austro-Hungarians to their west.
That would also have dramatic implications on the peace- no Sykes-Pycot, no Greco/Turkish War, France far too bruised to make waves in the Middle East and looking for concessions elsewhere, some equivalent of the Chanuk Crisis where the Ottoman Democracy can prove how strong it has become by facing down the British Empire... I think it's an underexplored avenue.
* A relative term.
** Seriously, a relative term.
Neutrality in a Great War- potentially coupled with the prestige of a victory over the Balkan Powers in a smaller conflict- would buy the Porte years of room for economic development, for its vulnerable democracy to bed in and for its military to complete reforms.
That isn't as immediately exciting as another military timeline, but if the goal is a surviving Ottoman Democracy I think it's the most plausible course.
Now- setting aside plausibility- one thing I would be interested in is to see if this timeline can do a 'surviving Ottoman Empire' scenario without a German victory in the Great War; that may well be the most plausible course of events, but as a general rule any timeline where the Ottomans make it to the middle 1920s has a German victory. Sometimes they shake things up by having a British and German victory. But still; it would be an interesting scenario to see how the Ottomans deal with (assuming events stay roughly on track) the collapse of the Russian Empire to their north and the Austro-Hungarians to their west.
That would also have dramatic implications on the peace- no Sykes-Pycot, no Greco/Turkish War, France far too bruised to make waves in the Middle East and looking for concessions elsewhere, some equivalent of the Chanuk Crisis where the Ottoman Democracy can prove how strong it has become by facing down the British Empire... I think it's an underexplored avenue.
* A relative term.
** Seriously, a relative term.
^This, personally, I feel that the Ottomans should just not participate as a whole. Granted, I dunno if WWI will happen in the conventional way (which would effectively eliminate Serbia from contention), but a neutral Ottomans would prohibit Italy or the Balkans from using it as an excuse to gain GP aid to achieve their irredentist claims, or colonial claims in the case of Italy, at Ottoman expense.
On the subject of Ottomans in the RCW, I can see them establishing client states at Russia's expense if powerful enough (Azerbaijan comes to mind, though there are several others that I don't know of them all).
I would kill to see something like that, a surviving Ottoman Empire scenario that doesn't either equate to "Germany wins WWI lol" or "rump Ottoman state in Central Anatolia, while the rest of it is carved into Greek, British, Italian, French and possibly Armenian controlled states/colonies."
Yeah. Germany winning WW1 was really unlikely, like they had to somehow blow through the entirety of the BEF, Belgian Army, and French Army in record speed, and then spin around and defeat the Russian Goliath before it was fully warmed up...
Yeah, that isn't going to happen.
It would be interesting for a scenario where WW1 ends in a negotiated peace where Imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary survive but don't dominate Europe. The old balance of power system continues into the modern age.
I dunno, I'm really tempted to disagree, given how very touch and go the situation was, at least for much of the conflict. Given you're describing the Schlieffen plan, then yeah no, that plan was doomed to fail before it was even implemented, I don't even think Germany would've been able to beat France by itself in the same amount of time, if not faster than the stunt they pulled a generation before, let alone adding in British and Belgian forces into the mix. But overall I also think that, really up until the end it was kind of an either way scenario in Europe.
Now I'm not saying that the U.S. entry saved the Entente in WWI, because it was very inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, though I can find legitimate reasoning behind U.S. money being a much stronger contribution over U.S. manpower, but as far as the major players in Europe was concerned, their economies went to shit because of the war, and given outdated tactics causing massive loss of manpower, I can't say that Germany can't WWI as easily as the same being said with its more popular and much more lethal sequel.
I didn't say it couldn't, I said it was unlikely.
Germany literally couldn't win WW2 if it faces the same major opponents (UK, USA , USSR - sorry France you dropped out too soon to be major)
WW1 was a test of endurance, without the Americans it could've gone either way. WW2, Germany was doomed, who they were fighting and the way they were fighting, there was no path to victory for the Nazis.
Well, if the Tatars still form a majority or at least, a significant part of the population in Crimea, I can see the Ottomans doing something here, though maybe it's too far?
There are some breakaway states in the Caucasus too (aside from Azerbaijan), such as the Mountainous Republic, Armenia, and Georgia. With an influential Armenian minority, I wonder how the Ottomans will react.
Last edited:
indeed.
Kinda. If the Ottomans can get monetary returns or even reverse the economic capitulations, then that would be a huge boon.
germany was democratic and other than the italian minority in A-H, most of the A-H ethnicities were pretty united, so it's not a really relative term. Though you are correct, involvement in a great war so close to home could be very crippling.
indeed.
I do hope to shake things up regarding Ottoman stereotypes in alternate-history, and i won't be using the normal tropes!