Ottoman collapse 1808: what new states are created?
- Thread starter Fatt Shea
- Start date
What's to stop Ali Pasha of Ioaninna from advancing east to take Constantinople for himself?
Very little at first I suspect, and that's where I could see the British playing a key role, but Russia may get its act together and try to get there first.
How would the First Saudi State gain control of the Levant? As far as I know, the Al Saud were more interested in Mesopotamia than in the Levant, although they would certainly have been interested in taking Jerusalem given its significance in Islam.
If the First Saudi State did establish control over Jerusalem, it is easy to see potential for reaction in Christian Europe given that the Al Saud would certainly have destroyed Christian places of worship there. However, at this point in history the papacy — the logical focus of reaction to such desecration by the First Saudi State — was at a low point in its history, with Popes Pius VI and Pius VII both imprisoned by the French revolutionaries. So it’s possible that the historic churches of Jerusalem, which remained centres of Christian pilgrimage, would be completely destroyed and even that Levantine Christians would have been forced into exile in the nineteenth century (if someone would accept them).
According to the Succession Edict of 1807, Princess Esma Sultan was chosen as heir to the Ottoman Empire unless a male heir was secured. Esma Sultan's son, Nazif became second in line because Esma's husband was a third cousin and held the Ottoman title as well. This was accepted by all the provinces of the Empire, the tributaries and the Ulema of the Ottoman Empire as well. (source: ريفورمسوججيسسيونيديت) The premise itself is incorrect. That would have been more of an interesting situation in my opinion, for we would have had a female calipha
It was for the reason you stated for why they would try and conquer the Levant, the historical and religious significance of the cities there.
Plus I am curious to European reactions to see radical islam arise a century earlier than OTL, and how that would affect colonialism in Africa and the east indies.
Interesting, I've never heard of this edict. Got any more details about it?
This may have been the plan, but she could have also been killed under the circumstances given her own intriguing in 1807 and 1808. Furthermore, even if figures of influence have professed support for her possible succession, Maria Theresa could tell her how meaningless that is. Different country and century granted, but the same idea applies, only in this case the would-be woman ruler in question would be a widow. At best, this is a Theodora/Zoe situation from the Byzantine dynasty referred to as Macedonian, and not in its heyday either, but at its end. I'd add further that Esma Sultan's lifestyle would cause her real problems in short order without the protection she enjoyed in OTL from her reigning kin.
It's in Ottoman Turkish
Mahmud II spared Esma in 1808 because she was his sister, and in his piety could not come to be angry at her. You can't really change that facet of the man without changing his entire upbringing which needs a PoD further back. Mahmud II believed there had been a misunderstanding and that was why Esma had intrigued against him, and went to speak with her in private. According to the تهي ريوولتينفاووروفيسماسولتان Esma had intrigued because she feared that Mahmud II intended to kill Mustafa, which she could not allow, showing that in the end, it had indeed been a misunderstanding.
In the end, it is highly likely that if Mahmud II died in 1808 the scenario posits, then Esma would become Sultana-Calipha without much trouble. The armies were commanded by her cousins and her son commanded the navies. Her brother-in-laws were the Pashas of the Asian, African and Northern Rumeliote Vilayets and all had sworn loyalty to the Edict. There are no paper traces and no evidence at the time to suggest any sort of resistance to the idea of her succession barring the Arabian vassals in Jabal Shammar becoming uppity about a female Calipha in the future. Ironically it was the Iraqi Mamluks who threatened to burn Ha'il to the ground if they opposed Esma. The Mufti of 1807 also granted her popularity among the masses. And while it is true she lived a lavish and rather expensive life, the tall tales of promiscuity that were attributed to her by European historians have been discredited since the 1980s when Esma's personal notes were given to Ottoman historians by her great great great grandson. The promiscuity misattributed to her were done by her handmaidens in the name of Esma.
Furthermore, Mahmud II had believed there to be more resistance to the idea than there had been realistically and had basically purged every non-compliant member of the edict, and the court of Constantinople in 1808 was able to weather the storms of 1808 otl because it was so united behind the Imperial Family and is also the reason why no vilayet got any idea of rebellion at the same time. 99 times out of 100 if Mahmud II dies in 1808, Esma assumes the throne smoothly and without any trouble.
No doubt. I mean, are there any sources - in English or modern Turkish - where one can read more about the edict?
According to this Armenian report, in 1912 Armenians were only a slight majority in the Van region. Overall 38% of the population in their own homeland
If it's an 1808 breakup I could see Caliphates, Emirates, Sultanate etc based on geography rather than ethnicity in the Asian and African parts. In the European parts it would probably be based on what sort of linguistic, religious or patriarchic basis but with absence of Ottoman authority descending into a variety of conflicts over which bit of land belongs to who. In tandem A-H and Russia (subject to how much Napoleon is troubling them) may make a landgrab.
And as we are on the cusp of the Illyrian provinces being set up maybe the French join in. Maybe they also send their Mamelukes back to Egypt to set up a client state.
And as we are on the cusp of the Illyrian provinces being set up maybe the French join in. Maybe they also send their Mamelukes back to Egypt to set up a client state.
That part I understand clearly. The question I was asking is rather how the First Saudi State would conquer the Levant. I had always assumed that the Muhammad Ali dynasty would have been more likely to capture the Levant than the First Saudi State, although neither was based particularly close thereto. According to this map, the First Saudi State campaigned unsuccessfully to capture Damascus, but not Jerusalem, although Jerusalem is almost 200 kilometres further south in latitude than Damascus and nearer to the Najd as the crow flies. This does suggest to me that it would not have been easy for the First Saudi State to conquer the Levant.
Given what we observe today, where the Gulf monarchies are viewed as critical allies by the global capitalist elite because labour movements like strikes and unions remain entirely banned (as was the case worldwide before the workers’ movements of mid-nineteenth-century Europe) the probable outcome would be for Europe’s ruling classes to take to Wahhabism as an ally against its rising working classes. This could very easily have weakened labour movements in their cradle, because the effect of the capitalist class allying with the Gulf royal families since the 1973 oil crisis has been to critically weaken the power of labour globally. The danger, of course, is that Europe’s local ruling classes — unless they converted to Islam which I see as improbable given the power of the churches — would be stabbed in the back by the fanaticism of the Al Saud. There would surely be limits to the power Europe’s ruling classes — already attempting to develop colonial empires — would allow the Al Saud, and these limits would likely be much stricter than under the post-1973 geopolitical alignment.
The combination of the two points noted in the previous paragraph makes an assessment of how colonialism in Africa and the East Indies (what about Central Asia and South Asia??) would have developed quite difficult. Would the Al Saud have tried to expand into Africa and other parts of Muslim Asia even if European powers refused to accept this? Or would the Al Saud have compromised with spheres of influence that were quite restrict for them but allowed them to keep their power at home and in surrounding areas?
Last edited:
IMO it's a mistake to project modern economic phenomena onto the past like this. I think what you're getting at is the theory that the western working class's growing strength through the 19th century came (in part) from the importance of labour power in mining coal, which dominated the energy supply as western industrial economies grew, and that the Gulf States have helped weaken that power since the mid-20th century by supplying abundant oil, which has insulated energy supplies from labour activism. Unless you massively advance oil-extraction technology, though, this phenomenon is impossible to replicate during the "cradle" of labour movements. You have about a century of history after the PoD before northern Iraqi oil comes into play, and another 40-50 years on top of that before Gulf oil does.
There really isn't much of an alternative that this ATL Super-Saudi state can use for leverage, either. Before oil became a big deal, the region was basically significant for Western powers as a market to sell goods, as a waypoint on trade routes to Asia, and as the place sympathetic Christian minorities lived. The Saudi reputation for strict iconoclasm indicates that if they occupy the Levant, they would likely piss off local Christian minorities, meaning western powers, especially Catholic/Orthodox ones like France and Russia, would be hostile. I could see a situation where the French and Russians become hostile to the Sauds and seek to expel them from the Levant/Iraq, but the British react by quietly aligning with the Sauds to avoid France or Russia from posing a threat to Egypt (via Syria) or India (via Iraq). If they don't take the Levant, then I think they'd end up having much the same relationships as OTL Gulf States, i.e. loose ties to Britain due to trade with India.
As for Wahhabi Islam, I'm not sure how much the Saudis would be able to spread it outside the Saudi realm, as they wouldn't have the oil wealth which enabled its modern OTL spread. I'm also not sure how much appeal it would have - the 19th century is an entirely different world from the mid-20th century, and Muslims didn't have the same political/spiritual priorities. I could see greater suspicion and surveillance of Arab Muslim communities/institutions where unfriendly colonial powers suspect the spread of Saudi sympathies, but there were already quite a few anti-Western Muslim sects that resisted colonialism with violence in OTL (mostly Sufi groups like the Senussiya, and the Somali Dervishes), so the Wahhabis wouldn't be unique. TBH if the Wahhabis started gaining popularity as a means of resistance to anti-Saudi colonial powers, their puritanism and iconoclasm might just piss off other Muslims, especially Sufis, causing a divide which imperialists could exploit.
Being in a sticky wicket, the Austrians and Russians won't care about Boney, Boney and Albion will want a kingdom of Greece but won't agree on who rules it.
It will be a mess. Maybe a Franco-Russian vs Austro-British war, which the French win barely and we get a Kingdom of Greece with A Bonaparte and a Russian as King and Queen?
Maybe with time, but in this era there are three or so ethnic Albanian pashaliks exercising a measure of autonomy within the Greater Albania space.
I was thinking through missionaries throughout Africa and Asia. As I see them gaining traction in Central Asia against Russian incursions at least.
I was thinking a Austro-Russian alliance against Britain. Leaving the Cavendish ministry with reality of either choosing one European Hegemon over the other.