Ottoman Empire

Ask the Abbasids how illegitimacy while claiming to be the Al Mu'minin worked for them as their real power was crushed and were subjugated for 300+ years. Do not doubt the strength that theology has on a religious society.

What SvoHljott said. Where were these massive rebellions and constant instability in the Ottoman Middle East in their 400 years of controlling the area? And a society is only as religious as it isn't prosperous.
 
There were Turkish majorities in parties of what is now Greece (e.g. Rhodopes), but it didn't stop the Greek take over. The problem is that without ethnic cleansing of some sort, you're always going to end up with the Christian Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs etc rising up and when they ally against the Ottomans, with the backing of Christian European powers (Austria, Russia etc) - the Ottoman Balkans are always screwed.

I think the Ottomans had actually industrialised to some extent, if I am not mistaken. An earlier POD (preferably before their real decline, so 1700 at the latest) could see a much better off Ottoman Empire in the 19th/20th century.

FYI, I don't think at any point did the Ottomans need to 'pull a Meiji' - they were never that far behind the European powers technologically. They just need to shake up a bit.

I know little Byzantine/Ottoman history. What I think happened is that the Byzantines lost control of Anatolia after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, which led to the Greek speaking Christians that lived there becoming Turkish speaking Muslims over the following few hundred years. Albania and Bosnia were under Ottoman rule for shorter periods of time but the majority of them became Muslims if not Turks. Why couldn't the same happen in mainland Greece, the islands and Cyprus where the Ottomans were under Ottoman rule for longer?

With sufficient time and incentives the conquered adopt their conquerors language and religion so that they think they are Turks rather than Greeks.

What I was aiming towards was for the Ottoman Empire to still include mainland Greece, the islands (including Crete) and Cyprus in 1910 and be rich enough to afford a navy strong enough to deter or even defeat Italy. Ottoman industry would also be advanced enough and large enough to build dreadnoughts and aero engines on the same scale as Italy at the time.
 
I know little Byzantine/Ottoman history. What I think happened is that the Byzantines lost control of Anatolia after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, which led to the Greek speaking Christians that lived there becoming Turkish speaking Muslims over the following few hundred years. Albania and Bosnia were under Ottoman rule for shorter periods of time but the majority of them became Muslims if not Turks. Why couldn't the same happen in mainland Greece, the islands and Cyprus where the Ottomans were under Ottoman rule for longer?

With sufficient time and incentives the conquered adopt their conquerors language and religion so that they think they are Turks rather than Greeks.

What I was aiming towards was for the Ottoman Empire to still include mainland Greece, the islands (including Crete) and Cyprus in 1910 and be rich enough to afford a navy strong enough to deter or even defeat Italy. Ottoman industry would also be advanced enough and large enough to build dreadnoughts and aero engines on the same scale as Italy at the time.

The problem is, Albania and Bosnia had entirely different situations. First, lets make sure it's clear, Bosnia has never had a Muslim majority - it has a Muslim plurality of around 40%, with a split between the Catholics and Orthodox Christians. Albania also has a significant Christian minority of around 20% which is smaller than it was in the past in proportion to the Muslims (who are currently at around 55-60%). In 1800 it was roughly 65% Muslim to 35% Catholic and Orthodox.

The Albanian conversion success was largely due to the Church hierarchy almost entirely leaving Albania during the conquest, most fleeing to the Papal State. I think Bosnia had a similar situation, but the lack of orthodoxy and unity in the church (what with the existence of the Catholics, Orthodoxy and the Bosnian Church) made it easier for Islam to make inroads. Even then, the Islam practiced in Albania is not always the typical Hanafi school, but also the Bektashi Sufis.

Don't forget that until the population exchange in 1923, Muslims made up around 15% of the Greek population, with higher percentages in different regions - I think (off the top of my head) that Crete's Muslim population was more than half before it was given to Greece.
 
What SvoHljott said. Where were these massive rebellions and constant instability in the Ottoman Middle East in their 400 years of controlling the area? And a society is only as religious as it isn't prosperous.



Yes when the Ottomans have the power to keep everyone scared but a nation is never guaranteed to be strong forever. Perhaps you should read my full post and see what happens when a Caliph displays Kufr (in some cases people can take certain decisions or losses, Shurha, as being Kufr Akbar).
 
You can't really compare the Abbasids (who fell for a variety of reasons, not just 'illegitimacy' - btw, even after the loss of most of their territory and subjugation by the Seljuks, they continued to hold influence for hundreds of years until the Mongols wiped the floor with them in 1258 - they almost acted like Popes to the Sunnis prior to that, and who knows how that would have gone had they survived) to the Ottomans, who live in two entirely different times with two entirely different sets of circumstances.



The Abbasids did assume sort of a pope role but after the first crusade they had been an actual power in Iraq often times seeking to reclaim its former glory all the while attempting to stay off the Kwarzemshahs and combat the Nizari. As far as the legitimacy of the Abbasids after the chaos of Samarra, it is near abysmal according to the Sunnah and in historical records, bc tell me who performed Bai'ah to the Abbasids in 1000s-1258? Also what Islamic army came to save the Caliph? Either ways, the Ottomans have much to learn from the Abbasids. The Abbasids supported the noble Mu'tazalites and fell into decadence and did not fulfill its role in regards to the Shariah and Hadood therefore it's power began to unravel, because who believes in an Al Mu'minin who is addicted to opium, indulges in orgies with other Mu'tazalites and defends the a group that publicly makes what is Haram Halal and openly practices Bidaa in religion. Yes the Ottomans have much to learn from this, as it can happen to them as well.
 
Yes when the Ottomans have the power to keep everyone scared but a nation is never guaranteed to be strong forever. Perhaps you should read my full post and see what happens when a Caliph displays Kufr (in some cases people can take certain decisions or losses, Shurha, as being Kufr Akbar).

We saw the Ottomans fall apart and be 'unable to keep everyone scared'. The great Muslim rebellion had to be incited by local warlords and backed by foreign intervention and required the Ottoman army to be both wrecked and busy on other fronts in order to succeed. If the Ottomans survive, who exactly is going to be knocking on the door of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East after World War I if they stay out, what with everyone bled dry?

I'm really lost as to what you're suggesting. The Ottomans have held the title for centuries; where exactly were these swarms of pious individuals looking to relieve them of their title in that time?
 
I've been thinking about a what-if scenario where the Ottoman Empire hadn't collapsed, however, there's a lot I'm not sure about:

1) What events would have needed to change for it to remain?

2) How might it have affected World War 2?

3) How might it have affected modern history?

I'm going to guess that if the sultans had been stronger morally and not misruled the Empire might have remained, but I also suspect at some point the Empire might have ended up being more akin to the United States, with various states established within it under the rule of a particular local group but united with the Empire overall.

Thoughts?


1) Just not have it losing a war so disastrously like it did. Russo-Ottoman in 1877-78 could've been won with better leadership, since they really excelled over the Russians in all other fields. On WW1, now that's really the war the empire should've avoided, but even that one was tied to leadership. Had Ahmet Sevket Pasha survived Armenian assassination, he would be strong enough to lead the Young Turks and steer the empire away from the path towards war.

2) Ottoman survival will roll into an alt-WW2 that's beyond our recognition, if happen at all. But for the sake of argument, let's use 1914 borders and assume Nazism still rises into power. I think Ottoman Empire will take neutrality stance not unlike OTL Republic did. I doubt the empire will have as much bend towards fascism as the Republic did, but the military will remain a potential danger to civilian rule.

3) For one thing, no Israel, no Saudi Arabia, no Kemal, meaning no Pahlevi dynasty, meaning no Islamic Republic. Islamic world will benefit greatly from its survival and political Islam will keep its prestige and remain a progressive force. US will not be tied to Middle eastern affairs since there's obviously no need for that. In context of Cold War with Russia (if still happens), capitalist bloc will gain a powerful member that will significantly restrict the spread of communism (again, if still happens). India will also be affected since the muslims will have less incentive to form Pakistan. The biggest consequence will be that Islam will be part of global establishment, instead in opposition to it, but still remain an independent force in its own right. In middle east itself, its rule will make it more urbanized and industrialized on the expense of local tribal cultures, for better or worse. But expect a lot less ethno-sectarian frictions. Animosities will still be there, but the wealthier Ottomans get, the better contained they will be.
 
Last edited:
We saw the Ottomans fall apart and be 'unable to keep everyone scared'. The great Muslim rebellion had to be incited by local warlords and backed by foreign intervention and required the Ottoman army to be both wrecked and busy on other fronts in order to succeed. If the Ottomans survive, who exactly is going to be knocking on the door of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East after World War I if they stay out, what with everyone bled dry?

I'm really lost as to what you're suggesting. The Ottomans have held the title for centuries; where exactly were these swarms of pious individuals looking to relieve them of their title in that time?


The Ottomans fell abruptly and did not have centuries of decadent rulers who ruled the Mid East. All I was saying is that the Ottomans are chained to the Sunnah and Shariah not necessarily that they will meet the exact fate of the Abbasids, as well any little thing you change in history can lead to new problems, who knows what you and others are cooking up for the Ottomans could lead to this sutuation or a situation similiar to OTL Mid East.

Now let me ask questions, how does being the Caliph help the Ottomans at all? Or does it hinder them in their situation?
 
As for 3.), the Ottomans may have committed genocide in the end, but in the 1840s, they decriminalized apostasy against Islam, then did the same for homosexuality in the 1850s. Even if you disagree with the latter (Edit: I don't, I believe that the Ottomans did well to allow loving and fulfilling relationships between people of the same sex to be consumnated), the former was a good thing, especially if it lasted till today.
The law on decriminalizing apostasy was (like most other laws against the traditional positions of the Muslims in the Empire) a meaningless law that existed only on paper. The reality was that a Muslim who converted to Christianity was likely to be lynched and the authorities would do nothing to prevent this. As an illustration of the powerlessness of such laws is the events in 1876, when both the German and French consuls in Thessaloníki were murdered by an enraged mob (which had been incited by the authorities in the city) because they were trying to protect a Christian girl from being forcefully converted to Islam. If the Ottoman Empire could not protect such important foreign citizens, what chances would a Muslim apostate have?
 
The law on decriminalizing apostasy was (like most other laws against the traditional positions of the Muslims in the Empire) a meaningless law that existed only on paper. The reality was that a Muslim who converted to Christianity was likely to be lynched and the authorities would do nothing to prevent this. As an illustration of the powerlessness of such laws is the events in 1876, when both the German and French consuls in Thessaloníki were murdered by an enraged mob (which had been incited by the authorities in the city) because they were trying to protect a Christian girl from being forcefully converted to Islam. If the Ottoman Empire could not protect such important foreign citizens, what chances would a Muslim apostate have?

The girl was influenced, rather then forced, to convert, and police was present at scene to protect the consulates, and lynched along with them. But I agree that this incidents highlighted the real popular animosity against christians among Ottoman muslim population that the Ottoman government didn't always have the balls to check. Like in Hamidiyan "Massacre" of Armenians in the capital, that massacre was "simply" him ignoring the mob killings. Abdul Hamit chose to deal with European pressure rather then drawing ire from the muslim populace that could've endangered the legitimacy of his despotic, paranoid rule.
 
For a stat enacting tariff barriers in the 18th and 19th century would be good. OtL the Issue the Otto's faced was that during competition with east asian and south asian silk the Ottoman silk and cotton industry collapsed in the 18th and early 19th century. Britain and France averted that collapse by enacting tariff barriers and flooding the markets with cheap goods which further destroyed Ottoman manufacturing. So what you need is the Ottomans to pass tariffs rather than attempt free trade.

The next big thing needed for the Ottos is developmental projects in Anatolia. Many turks, Arabs, Greeks, Serbs, Bosnians, Albanians, etc were still livng tribally lifestyles and so the government needs to find some way to increase urbanizatin and literacy rates across the empire not just in one or two areas and somehow turn that tribal structure into a settled urban one with a focus on manufacturing.

Coal will be the biggest issue but I think if the Otto's can align themselves with the UK against the russian bear and napoleanic france then they would have access to buying coal from UK. Germany also later one Ruhr is discovered and Belgum too maybe.

Finnally loans. they must not take copious amounts of foreign loans for their modernization program rather they should focus on domestic loans by taking loans for the Phanariots and other rich banking families of the eastern Mediterranean ad the black sea.
'Not to ention they need to establish a central banking system, get rid of the janniseries. In all honesty the Otto's should simply enact a string of defensive fortreses in Moldavia and Romania as well as the caucus like otle and abandon the crimea to Russia and in wars against the RUssians stick to a defensive position and let the Russians bleed themselves dry trying to take well fortified forts.

Finnally the Otto's should auotnomize Arabia cause it is a resource sink for them(at least till the mid 1900s) and thereby stifle arab nationalism in the bud.

In terms of Egypt they have to keep it which I think they can with a more modernized army and better transportation. Railroad building is also key and the Ottomans should turn away from focusing on agriculture to focusing on manufacturing and trade like the Byzantines did. Essentially the difference between Ottomans and Byzantium was that the Byzantines were fundamentally a trading manufacturing empire while the Ottos were an agricultural one. If that agricultural mindset can shift somehow than I can see the Ottomans retaining a dominant trading position in the medditeranian and thanks to price and commodity convergence even if alternative routes to asia are used the Ottomans can still make a profit. OTL for example, in the short term in terms of pepper sales portugal had big advantage versus Venice due to discovery of cape route but with a century said advantage dissipated and prices converged.

The above changes I mentioned are simply a start for the Ottos but if these above things can be passed then I can see the Ottomans retaining their great power status. Also religious and cultural equality would go a long way to keeping the balkans from rebbeling and that is key becaus emuch of Ottoman manufacturing, trade and finance was based in the Balkans and the Levant.
 
The Ottomans do have access to coal though. Turkey, Greece, and Bulgaria have the 17th, 18th, and 21st largest coal deposits in the world. That sum would place it in 10th place over Brazil and under Poland. For comparison, the UK is ranked 20th. And it's all of the same type of coal found in Britain too. Really, the only thing limiting the Ottomans is being able to easily access it, much like the Russians.
 
Last edited:
The girl was influenced, rather then forced, to convert, and police was present at scene to protect the consulates, and lynched along with them. But I agree that this incidents highlighted the real popular animosity against christians among Ottoman muslim population that the Ottoman government didn't always have the balls to check. Like in Hamidiyan "Massacre" of Armenians in the capital, that massacre was "simply" him ignoring the mob killings. Abdul Hamit chose to deal with European pressure rather then drawing ire from the muslim populace that could've endangered the legitimacy of his despotic, paranoid rule.
If under influenced you mean coerced, that would be somewhat correct. Also no account of these events describes police being present.
I agree that anti-Christian violence was often popular and this is why I question the idea that the Ottoman authorities was especially interested in checking attacks on Christians, if they weren't complicit in them as was the case too often, including in the Hamidian massacre.
 
John7755, the perspective you're presenting regarding the Caliphate is a modern one. I've seen Salafists argue like that.

Late Ottoman Islamism (let's call it Tanzimat Islamism), either Hamidian or of the Young Ottoman type, is very different. Ottoman society was not a puritan one, but rather a "cavalier" one (for lack of a better analogy). Ottoman ulama were not very literalist. In fact the traditionalists opposed to Tazimat happened to be from among the most un-"orthodox" Sufis. In fact the Bektashis were most opposed to it, and the Bektashis aren't even Sunni if we're to talk facts (of course, the Ottomans had been treating them like Sunnis).

There is no evidence that there was any opposition to the Caliphal position of the Ottomans, other than the Wahhabi revolts in Najd, which were triggered by the Ottoman (near) suppression of the slave trade. In fact it's astonishing how even in the hour of its decline, the House of Osman maintained authority in the entire Muslim World as Caliphs, as far as Indonesia and India.

If you want to know the Ottomans' approach to theology, Shari'a and the Sunnah, you should probably drop Ibn Taymiyyah and pick up Ebu s-Su'ud Effendi.

By the way, while the Ottomans more or less claimed the Caliphate from 1453 (having earlier, as you mentioned, claimed the title of Amir al-Mumineen), between Selim II and the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, there is a conspicuous absence of the Caliphal title. It's as if for a loong, loong time, the Muslim wolrd had forgotten about it. After having been claimed after the Conquest of Constantinople and until the downfal of the Mamluks, the title almost disappeared only to be resurrected by the clever Ottoman diplomats, some of them Christian, at Küçük Kaynarca.

But, if my memory serves me correctly though, after the downfall of the Mamluks the only Muslim sovereigns who had the Khutba done in their own name and not in the Ottomans' were the Mughals. This ought to do it in elucidating who was considered legitimate up to 1924. Of corse, in my opinion, dropping the title and losing their Arab posession would be beneficial for both the Osmanogullari and the Turks in general (but with the Ottoman government having a big say on where exactly the Imperial border will be, not like what happened in OTL).
 
Last edited:
Top