Ottoman 'Meiji restoration'

Already in the 17th century the Ottoman Empire slowly started to decline. In the mid 19th century the Ottoman Empire was declining in power rapidly. They were facing increasing nationalism of the various peoples in the Empire and foreign threats as well. The Russians wanted the Bosporus and the Western European powers were threatening the Ottoman possesions in Africa. When WW1 started the Empire was about half the size of what it had been at been only half a century earlier.

How do we get the Ottomans to pull of a Meiji somewhere between 1850 and 1900? What could be an incentive for them to do that? What happens to them if they actually do pull of a succesful 'Meiji' during that time period?
 
Modernization of any sort would have been very hard to have done since at some point something would have raised the hackles of the religious caste of the Empire.
 
We'd need a Turkish version of Stalin. Was there any such person in the Ottoman royal family at that point? It's a either that or a smack in their faces (like disastrous war) which would force 'em to reform. A third option is a TL were the last few sultans are very different personalities.
 

maverick

Banned
Did you just say Stalin?:confused: they need a Stalin?

I'd agree with an earlier Ataturk, or a better series of Viziers...but the ottoman Empire needed Iosif 'Lets kill millions of people for the shit of it' Stalin?
 
Did you just say Stalin?:confused: they need a Stalin?

I'd agree with an earlier Ataturk, or a better series of Viziers...but the ottoman Empire needed Iosif 'Lets kill millions of people for the shit of it' Stalin?

Oh, he didn't do it just for the fun of it. He did it because the grain exports from Ukraine made incredible amounts of money, allowing Stalin to buy industrial equipment and hire foreign experts to industrialize the Soviet Union... Being a big part of how they were able to beat the Germans in WWII.

Anyway, the two biggest problems I see for the Ottomans are nationalism and European colonialism. The nationalism problem is similar to the problem that Austria-Hungary faces. But Austria-Hungary doesn't have to deal with hungry European powers taking most of its territory (well, I suppose in a way it does, but not in the same way that the Ottoman Empire does).

I think I might start a game of Victoria as the Ottoman Empire... I've been meaning to for awhile.
 

maverick

Banned
Oh, he didn't do it just for the fun of it. He did it because the grain exports from Ukraine made incredible amounts of money,

And the 7 million ukranians that were starved to death in the process were just happy to see mother Russia become a world power...

Anyhow...how about an Ottoman victory in the war of 1878? there's a thread about that elsewhere...
 
And the 7 million ukranians that were starved to death in the process were just happy to see mother Russia become a world power...

Hey, I'm not saying it was a good thing or the right thing -- it's just unfair to say he did it for no reason. He killed plenty of people, but he had reasons for most of them (albeit they were crazy reasons that no sane person would ever think up). I'm also pointing out that the U.S. benefited greatly from that particular genocide. People need to put things in perspective.

Also, seven million is a bit inflated compared to what statistics I've heard. However, this is completely off topic by now.
 

maverick

Banned
I'm also pointing out that the U.S. benefited greatly from that particular genocide. People need to put things in perspective.

Oh well, as long as the U.S.benefits, why not kill millions of people? its not like the indians complained...

All right, I'm sorry, last off-topic remark...
 
Do we have to have this discussion every two weeks? The idea that the empire was "rapidly collapsing" in the 19th c has been discarded by historians for at least 50 years now. Maybe we can catch up.

The Ottomans did have a "Meiji Restoration", it was called the Tanzimat, and was ultimately successful in that Turkey emerged from it. Where it was less successful than Japan's efforts was because it was directly adjacent to the centers of power of ALL the major powers, whereas Japan is an Island all the way on the other side of the planet.

The Ottoman Empire gained in cohesion and power immensely during the 19th c, to the point that it put up a better fight one-on-one against Russia in 1877 than France did against Germany in the Franco-Prussian War, and by WWI was able to roundly defeat the British and hold off assailants on seven fronts against overwhelming numbers for three years.

If it had been as isolated from outside interference as Japan, it would have been less successful anyway due to the lack of ethnic homogeneity, but successful nevertheless.
 

Keenir

Banned
When WW1 started the Empire was about half the size of what it had been at been only half a century earlier.

How do we get the Ottomans to pull of a Meiji somewhere between 1850 and 1900? What could be an incentive for them to do that?

the Young Turks fall on their faces before losing the Balkans.

Modernization of any sort would have been very hard to have done since at some point something would have raised the hackles of the religious caste of the Empire.

actually, by 1850 (the time mentioned in the OP), the Janissaries had been gotten rid of.

I'd agree with an earlier Ataturk, or a better series of Viziers..

every time one got into office, the foreign consulates would demand the guy's predecessor be returned to the office.
 
actually, by 1850 (the time mentioned in the OP), the Janissaries had been gotten rid of.

Wasn't talking about the Janissaries to begin with and knew that they had been done away with. I recommend Ralston's Importing the European Army as an excellent jumping off point for the examining the accumlative hurdles facing modernizing extra-European socities. I know he examines Egypt, but I also think he has a chapter on the OE.
 
As others have mentioned the Ottoman Empire did sort of have its own Meiji Restoration: the Tanzimat, which did generate tremendous progress during the mid-19th century. A positive POD for the Ottoman Empire would be somehow avoiding the reign of Abdulhamid the 2nd. He was a conservative ruler whose reign is associated with the end of the Tanzimat and the first constitutional era in the 1870s. Reform would not be revived until the Young Turk revolution in 1908. Thirty crucial years were thrown away thanks to him. If a more pro-reform Sultan was in power instead of him the Ottoman Empire could have continued to make progress to the end of the 19th century and beyond.

Another significant problem in the era was the conflict with Russia, the Russo-Turkish war of the 1870s was a disaster, but as has been explored in another AH thread on these boards, that might have gone the other way. So a good way to have the Ottoman restoration succeed might be to have a different Sultan under whom the Tanzimat never ends and different tactics are employed allowing a victory or at least less severe defeat in the war with Russia. Strengthening the Tanzimat's success might also have the effect of reducing the OE's problem with ethnic nationalism, as one of the major goals of the reform era was Ottomanism: the creation of a Ottoman civic nationalism which would allow all the subjects of the empire to share in one national identity and remove the Millet system.

Still, it needs to be said that a successful Ottoman reform effort is a lot harder than a Japanese one. The OE was surrounded by hostile stronger powers and not isolated like Japan. Foreigners had a lot more influence in the OE, they came to control the empire's finances and, as another poster mentioned, engineered the removal of reformist viziers. The OE has a much bigger problem with internal rebellions, which were often supported by foreign powers. Significantly the Japanese were far less likely to oppose the commands of the emperor whom they considered divine and felt they must always obey, whereas the Ottoman sultans faced much more internal opposition and were repeatedly removed when they attempted to make major changes.
 
Not really that hard to accomplish. All you need to do is to either avoid the first world war(Obviously, this is easier said than done) or have the ottomans somehow decide to remain neutral. When the 1920s happens we get the oil wealth coming online combined with the continuing of the reform done by the Young Turks.
 
I don't agree with this at all. Abdul Hamid II ended the development of liberal-democratic institutions in the center (but not the provinces), but continued reform with far more energy and ability than the Tanzimat statesmen did. Under him, the empire finally achieved financial stability, and his very skillful diplomacy kept the empire out of war for his entire reign and allowed rapid economic and human development.

Frankly, I think the empire would have ended without him. The assessment of his reign, at least by Middle East scholars, has over the last few decades shifted heavily in his favor - 19th c sources are hostile because he was able to resist European control.

I think the key is the war with Russia. That was a blow that ended any pretense of the Ottomans being a power and left it's statesmen hostage to foreign pressure, i.e. the Russians blocking any rail building in the east.

As others have mentioned the Ottoman Empire did sort of have its own Meiji Restoration: the Tanzimat, which did generate tremendous progress during the mid-19th century. A positive POD for the Ottoman Empire would be somehow avoiding the reign of Abdulhamid the 2nd. He was a conservative ruler whose reign is associated with the end of the Tanzimat and the first constitutional era in the 1870s. Reform would not be revived until the Young Turk revolution in 1908. Thirty crucial years were thrown away thanks to him. If a more pro-reform Sultan was in power instead of him the Ottoman Empire could have continued to make progress to the end of the 19th century and beyond.

Another significant problem in the era was the conflict with Russia, the Russo-Turkish war of the 1870s was a disaster, but as has been explored in another AH thread on these boards, that might have gone the other way. So a good way to have the Ottoman restoration succeed might be to have a different Sultan under whom the Tanzimat never ends and different tactics are employed allowing a victory or at least less severe defeat in the war with Russia. Strengthening the Tanzimat's success might also have the effect of reducing the OE's problem with ethnic nationalism, as one of the major goals of the reform era was Ottomanism: the creation of a Ottoman civic nationalism which would allow all the subjects of the empire to share in one national identity and remove the Millet system.

Still, it needs to be said that a successful Ottoman reform effort is a lot harder than a Japanese one. The OE was surrounded by hostile stronger powers and not isolated like Japan. Foreigners had a lot more influence in the OE, they came to control the empire's finances and, as another poster mentioned, engineered the removal of reformist viziers. The OE has a much bigger problem with internal rebellions, which were often supported by foreign powers. Significantly the Japanese were far less likely to oppose the commands of the emperor whom they considered divine and felt they must always obey, whereas the Ottoman sultans faced much more internal opposition and were repeatedly removed when they attempted to make major changes.
 
Top