Plausibility Check : Ottoman Monarchy stays on the throne

I have been wondering for sometimes now whether the Ottoman monarchy can plausibly be staying legally as head of state after the defeat in WW1. From my understanding so far, it was only because of the last Sultan fought in the opposite side of that of Attaturk(which fought to drive out the occupiers) that the monarchy was possible to be abolished. Now, what if, say, it wasn't the case ? What will become of this country we know today as Turkey if it didn't become a Republic, but instead stay a monarchy ?
 

Don Grey

Banned
I have been wondering for sometimes now whether the Ottoman monarchy can plausibly be staying legally as head of state after the defeat in WW1. From my understanding so far, it was only because of the last Sultan fought in the opposite side of that of Attaturk(which fought to drive out the occupiers) that the monarchy was possible to be abolished. Now, what if, say, it wasn't the case ? What will become of this country we know today as Turkey if it didn't become a Republic, but instead stay a monarchy ?

Well then the monarchy can stay contrary to popular belief mustafa didnt hate the monarchy and orignaly had no intention of getting rid of it until the monarchy showed no intrest in trying to save the country actualy was on the other side trying to stop mustafa thus not only becoming useless but harmfull to the population. Change all that and the country becomes a consititional monarchy with the padishah as a figure head.

The country will basicaly be the same just with a ceremonial head of state nothing more.

Btw your challange is perfectly plausible as mustafa pleaded lots of times with the monarch to support his people. All you need is the osman dynesty to have some honor or back bone and show some sence of patriotisim instead of favoring his throne instead of his country and people and not being quite content with being a puppet of imperial powers. Though the caliphate title would be somewhat useless and they would just drop it to not complicate things. Though i dont see the point in keeping the monarchy it proved to be useless when the people need it thus irrelevent.
 
Really ? Turkey would have still become a laicite country ? o_O Won't that with the monarchy still around, radical anti-religion-ism won't be so relevant to be installed ? Especially since such was a reaction against the last Sultan's stance towards independence war......

I would agree that the monarch's Caliph status will be less meaningful, but I don't see any reason why it should be casted out. Besides with a legal status as a Caliph at least the muslim world would still have a symbol of unity in leadership, even if it will become more of a symbol..... But still I suspect it will make some bit of difference, won't it ?
 
I wonder if the butterflies would conspire to have pan-Islamists, hell, possibly even Pan-Arabs pledge their union to the Turks, rather then proclaiming separate Islamic Republics? I mean, nationalism tends to look back to the good ol' days, and by my count, those where the days of the Caliphates and the Ottoman Empire of the 15th and 16th century.
 
Well, that I want to make sure, besides on about how will Turkey develop this way.

Turkey will still shift deeper into secularisme I think, but it will be much more moderate compared to OTL Kemal's laiklik. Also there will be more obstacle for Kemal to purge his Islamist opposition too. Hell, I don't think he will have the reason to if the last Padishah had chosen his people instead...

And monarchy will still be Caliphate, but even that will be nominal, at least it will be for a while after WW1 I suspect. But still the fact remains that Caliphate still exists this way, and I'm eager to explore the possible outcomes that can be produced by this, especially regarding to Turkish foreign relations and the development of post-WW1 Muslim World in this scenario...
 
Last edited:
Probably good for Turkey if you can arrange it - constitutional monarchies tend to be more stable than sudden republics.

Will it remain a democracy throughout the interwar period ? Or some kind of an authoritarian regime will take over eventually ?

If the latter, what would be its ideology ? Laicite fascism as OTL seems to be out of question, but maybe some sort of Islamic falangism ? Or something else that my brain have failed to reach ?

Also, what will become of its foreign relations, especially with the west ?
 

Don Grey

Banned
Really ? Turkey would have still become a laicite country ? o_O Won't that with the monarchy still around, radical anti-religion-ism won't be so relevant to be installed ? Especially since such was a reaction against the last Sultan's stance towards independence war......

I would agree that the monarch's Caliph status will be less meaningful, but I don't see any reason why it should be casted out. Besides with a legal status as a Caliph at least the muslim world would still have a symbol of unity in leadership, even if it will become more of a symbol..... But still I suspect it will make some bit of difference, won't it ?

Well the country will still be laicite as the osman dynasty was very pragmatic when it came to religion and still were quite secular. With the reforms mustafa puts in which are bound to happen there will be there muslim radicals that dont think the country is muslim enough. Once you add in mustafa's ichy trigger finger when it came to islamist there will still be purges.

Well the caliphate title become meaningless because there arabs didnt respond. Plus to keep it you have to dominate majority of the muslim world including mecca medina and the holy lands. The caliph title isnt like the pope is very importants and hold a great deal fo power.To earn it you must be able to have great power. What remains of the ottomans was just turkey in no position to dominate the muslim world. And out of spite and nationalism and the help of foriegn powers other would claim the title as well thus causing problams.It best be droped.


I wonder if the butterflies would conspire to have pan-Islamists, hell, possibly even Pan-Arabs pledge their union to the Turks, rather then proclaiming separate Islamic Republics? I mean, nationalism tends to look back to the good ol' days, and by my count, those where the days of the Caliphates and the Ottoman Empire of the 15th and 16th century.

Yes but we must factore in the effects of nationalism after the ottomans lost plus the meddiling of foreign power that now control the arabs lands. The arabs would see the ottoman monarchy as former foriegn rulers.Even to this day with as a side effect of nationalism great deal of arabs see the ottomans as a turkish empire and and there rule over arabs lands as akin to "colonial" rule. So have to doubt that will happen.
 

Don Grey

Banned
Will it remain a democracy throughout the interwar period ? Or some kind of an authoritarian regime will take over eventually ?

If the latter, what would be its ideology ? Laicite fascism as OTL seems to be out of question, but maybe some sort of Islamic falangism ? Or something else that my brain have failed to reach ?

Also, what will become of its foreign relations, especially with the west ?

It is still quite possible to see laicite fascism and authoritarian goverment take place but no more then the otl.
 
1) Well the country will still be laicite as the osman dynasty was very pragmatic when it came to religion and still were quite secular. With the reforms mustafa puts in which are bound to happen there will be there muslim radicals that dont think the country is muslim enough. Once you add in mustafa's ichy trigger finger when it came to islamist there will still be purges.

2) It best be droped.




3) Yes but we must factore in the effects of nationalism after the ottomans lost plus the meddiling of foreign power that now control the arabs lands. The arabs would see the ottoman monarchy as former foriegn rulers.Even to this day with as a side effect of nationalism great deal of arabs see the ottomans as a turkish empire and and there rule over arabs lands as akin to "colonial" rule. So have to doubt that will happen.

1) This is news to me. I thought that Kemal's purge against the Islamist was only because the last Padishah had essentially killed the legitimacy of an Islamic state among Turkish people, not because he was laicitist in nature.

2) Will this be a certainty to happen though ?

3) I thought modern Arab nationalist identity was only possible due to European Colonialism and the lack of Caliphate.
 
Last edited:
Like the United States???

You think the US was a sudden republic? The colonies were effectively self-governing with a long history of coordinated action and experience with over a century of inter-province compromise. More than that, the combination of the recent English republic and the briefly shared monarchy of the Dutch pseudo-republic made the colonies one of the mostly ideologically prepped groups in the world. The shift was mostly one of name.

Compare that to 1917 Russia, 1789 France, or 1922 Turkey, which actually did find themselves suddenly becoming republics.

And, seriously. What do you expect? You put any country together that far outweighs anything else on its continent, have it geographically be an economic powerhouse par excellence, and throw in elections as safety valve on internal dissent. In those conditions any form of government would be stable!

You'll note that of the world's constitutional monarchies, a majority are stable and prosperous. Yet of the vastly larger number of republics in the world, a much smaller proportion are stable and successful. Try to find another as stable as the United States, especially if it's government is on the American model and not a parliamentary one. You won't find much.
 
Last edited:

Don Grey

Banned
1) This is news to me. I thought that Kemal's purge against the Islamist was only because the last Padishah had essentially killed the legitimacy of an Islamic state among Turkish people, not because he was laicitist in nature.

2) Will this be a certainty to happen though ?

3) I thought modern Arab nationalist identity was only possible due to European Colonialism and the lack of Caliphate.

1)Well yes the padishah's action realy put a bullet in for the islamic state but kemal did have a laicitist nature you must factor both of those in. And in this scenario the padishah will take a back seat to affair as he will be no more then a figured head.

2) There is a great possibilty for it to happen.

3)Well ofcourse that had been the main factor but they realy felt no loyalty to istanbul the monarch or the empire. If they did they would have fought more and fought harder as the turks kept on fighting even though the war was lost. If the arabs chose to unite under the ottoman banner they would answered the jihad call and even if the war was lost they could have gone on a never ending gurrila war just like the anatolians did. What im trying to say is they didnt care much for the empire and they dam well wont when nationalism effectively sets in through european colonialism.


3a)As for the caliphate its not an absence of a caliphate but the absence of a strong caliphate. The only way to get one is if said caliphate is supported by the muslim people.The ottomans controled the holy lands and mecca and medina and the arabs still didnt answer the call of jihad to defend the muslim lands from "infidel" rule.Caliphate requires loyalty something the arabs werent going to give. They chose oppertunism when the legitimate caliph need then most so i highly doubt they would show loyalty latter.
 
I imagine the Shariff of Mecca would still be stupid enough to declare himself Caliph.... and less Arabs will tell him to piss off if there is a Turkish Caliph.
 

Don Grey

Banned
I imagine the Shariff of Mecca would still be stupid enough to declare himself Caliph.... and less Arabs will tell him to piss off if there is a Turkish Caliph.


If i remember correctly he did try to take the title but no one recognized it.When he claimed the title of King of Hijas (which isnt even close to the calipacy title) in 1917 the genocide says he got international recognition.What the "fail" to state is he got the recognition from powers that were at war with the ottomans and that were alos christian. As for as the arabs were concernd he worked with "infedels" and betrayed the legitimate caliph thats why they got kicked out of the hijas by the saudis. The only reason the hashimets were able to become what they are today in jordan was because they could carry there hold support base to jordan(as Abdul state earler on this board).

The thing that people must realize is the caliph title is very powerfull and is very difficult to get. You can only get it through strength and great service to the "ummah". The ottoman dynasty got it through conquering good portion of the islamic world allong with holy places plus fighting "christendom" for centuries. And it took them many centuries and many victories for the ottoman to get it they didnt just come out and say im the caliph. They started as Emir's then became Sultan's then Padishah's then they got the caliphacy. While the hashemit royal family stems of a simple sherrif that got lucky because he acted as gun for hire for "infedels". Thats not going to win you any points amongst the muslims. Hence not even the arabs recognized it.

To give and example to earn the title the sherif of mecca (hussein bin ali) would have needed to kick out the british and french of the middle east to unite the arabs to gain enough credibility and legitamacy to claim the title or else he becomes a pretender.If it was easy to get many islamic monarchies would have already tried to claim it.
 
Last edited:
Top