"quand le chat n'est pas là, les souris dansent" France intervenes in Egypt, not America, in 1770s

[raharris1973]

Another problem is the French already had another plan they were considering in 1777. It was a purposed invasion of Ottoman Egypt, which French agents viewed as a favorable target. And with the British focused on the Americas, the rich Levant is a tempting target. Especially when Russia recently trounced the Ottomans. And Egypt provides a way to aid French interests in India ad damage British ones.

So what if the French invaded Egypt in 1778 instead of getting into a war with Britain and allying with the Americans. Given France's own capabilities, and the capabilities of local and the wider Ottoman forces, what's the most favorable settlement France could impose in the Middle East, and how long might it take? Could the French on the other hand fail miserably in their pre-Napoleonic, pre-Levee en Masse phase of military development?

 

[Faeelin]

The Russian experience suggests the Turks and Mamlukes wouldn't be a problem for France. I wonder if this is the death knell of the Ottomans, actually.

 

[Sevarics]

Would they just creat client states are do you see actual French colonies?

 

[raharris1973]

Would they just creat client states are do you see actual French colonies?

It would probably go in stages, with a client relationship set up at first, as seemed to happen in most instances of non-settlement colonization. Just a guess.

 

[raharris1973]

I wonder if this is the death knell of the Ottomans, actually.

Interesting. Is that because the French can smash Ottoman forces and grab a food source with Egypt (and maybe the Levant), and the Ottomans won't be able to rally back from the knock-on instability, and the other Europeans don't do anything to counteract the French because they can't (the busy British) or don't want to (everybody else)

Who picks up the spoils and how do things go down through the early 1800s?

A division like this:

France gets Egypt, the Maghreb and Levant (maybe w/ Spain getting some of Algeria)

Persia gets Mesopotamia (if they are strong enough, alternate winners might be Wahhabists, the French* or local warlords)

Anatolia breaks into 1 or more Sultanates, Russia expand in the Caucasus maybe even into Armenian eastern Anatolia

Russia takes Moldavia and eastern Thrace

Austria takes the rest of the Balkans with Greece becoming multiple principalities

*this would be big for France but still not as extensive or populous as British India

 

[Sevarics]

If the French took Egypt and the Levant, how soon could they feasibly build a Suez Canal

 

[Autocrat]

So what if the French invaded Egypt in 1778 instead of getting into a war with Britain and allying with the Americans. Given France's own capabilities, and the capabilities of local and the wider Ottoman forces, what's the most favorable settlement France could impose in the Middle East, and how long might it take? Could the French on the other hand fail miserably in their pre-Napoleonic, pre-Levee en Masse phase of military development?

As long as France has a competent command then they will be able to defeat the Ottoman forces. OTL this army unlike Napoloen's will have secure supply lines, reinforcements, a greater bankroll, etc. Levee en Masse was not vital to the invasion of Egypt, because Levee en Mass basically produced a massive army, which is not needed to conquer Egypt.

The Russian experience suggests the Turks and Mamlukes wouldn't be a problem for France. I wonder if this is the death knell of the Ottomans, actually.

I am not sure about death knell, but potentially it could be. Depends on the next Russo-Ottoman War.

Would they just creat client states are do you see actual French colonies?

It really depends on the interactions between the Mamlukes, the local Ottoman governor, and the French.

Interesting. Is that because the French can smash Ottoman forces and grab a food source with Egypt (and maybe the Levant), and the Ottomans won't be able to rally back from the knock-on instability, and the other Europeans don't do anything to counteract the French because they can't (the busy British) or don't want to (everybody else)

Who picks up the spoils and how do things go down through the early 1800s?

A division like this:

France gets Egypt, the Maghreb and Levant (maybe w/ Spain getting some of Algeria)

Persia gets Mesopotamia (if they are strong enough, alternate winners might be Wahhabists, the French* or local warlords)

Anatolia breaks into 1 or more Sultanates, Russia expand in the Caucasus maybe even into Armenian eastern Anatolia

Russia takes Moldavia and eastern Thrace

Austria takes the rest of the Balkans with Greece becoming multiple principalities

*this would be big for France but still not as extensive or populous as British India

The loss of Egypt's agriculture will not cripple the Ottomans. Egypt's imimportance was as major financial piece of the Ottoman Empire and provided a lot of revenue. But even with its loss the Ottomans are not crippled, just endangered. And the main opponents of a French seizure of Egypt would be he occupied Britain (ARW) and Prussia (WBS)

Who picks up the spoils depends a lot on the next rendition of the Russo-Ottoman conflict. If Russia can draw Austria into the conflict and Austria can not flail, then that would spell the end of the Ottoman Empire. If Austria does flail or isn't involved, then Russia will just make some gains, but be restricted by having to deal with Sweden and probably the PLC.

Should Russia and Austria jointly meet success against the Ottomans than you would see Austria and Russia make significant Balkan gains and a revived Byzantine Empire under Prince Constantine. After that the Ottomans basically collapse having lost so much and so big. And other powers pick up the pieces.

If the French took Egypt and the Levant, how soon could they feasibly build a Suez Canal

The Suez Canal might occur some years earlier, but not by much.

 

[Yanez de Gomera]

Mmm... very intriguing scenario! I suppose that the expedition will have also the holy lands as objective. Clearly we are very far from the crusades, but just look at the casus belli for the Crimean War... Controlling Jerusalem would give great prestige to France although other Catholic countries, namely Austria and Spain might want a say in the administration of it. Holding the Levant might however prove itself to be tricky if Russia and Austria don't collaborate agai st the Ottomans.

Consequences of the pod that will be inho very interesting to wxamine will be chiefly:
1-effects on the French budget and hence the Revolution. Will Louis xvi style himself king of Jerusalem? (He had a claim on it iirc)
2-the British reaction: could they come to a compromise with the continentals, ally eith the Ottomans and declare war to France?
3-cultural effects: egyptomania will become stronger a couple of decades before than otl...

 

[Faeelin]

Interesting. Is that because the French can smash Ottoman forces and grab a food source with Egypt (and maybe the Levant), and the Ottomans won't be able to rally back from the knock-on instability, and the other Europeans don't do anything to counteract the French because they can't (the busy British) or don't want to (everybody else)

My thinking isn't so much food sources, but it sets off the jackals. Every European power (save maybe America, which is occupied), will want compensation, right? Russia's attacks on the Ottomans will be encouraged, the Austrians will be even more desperate to grab territory in the Balkans... [/QUOTE]

 

[Urcea]

I have to wonder if this might have the same effect. A colonial uprising is bad, but they might have to begin diverting serious resources to prevent the entire continental order being thrown out with the bathwater.

 

[Viriato]

Britain and both France were jockeying for an alliance with Russia, and it seemed that by Catherine II's reign that France was more successful. France had traditionally supported the Ottoman Empire, but after the diplomatic revolution, with the Austrian alliance, there were attempts by the Austrians to get France to agree to an attack on the Ottomans. The French evaluated the Ottoman defences during the period and found them to be in poor shape. Hence there was the thought that France should get the spoils of Egypt, Syria and Cyprus the empire's inevitable collapse. Spain and Naples too along with Genoa and Tuscany were seen as powers that might want to join in an eventual carving up of Ottoman holdings in North Africa. Mostly because they faced the onslaught of attacks from the Barbary pirates. Indeed Spain had sent expeditions against Algiers during the period, with the most notable being in 1783.

The Russians and Austrians for their part wanted to partition the Ottoman territories in the Balkans with Russia taking control of the Bosporus. Had the revolutionary wars not occurred in 1792, both powers might have gone after more territory than they did in the Treaty of Jassy.

The British too seemed to think that the Ottomans were too weak to defend themselves and were concerned of whether or not they should go to war over the Ottomans. The British formed the Triple Alliance in 1788 with the United Provinces and Prussia. William Pitt (the Younger) wanted to pursue a hard line policy against Russia, so the Russian Ambassador in London began bribing the opposition. The Dutch were unwilling to go to war, as they were extensively invested in the Russian Empire, particularly holding treasury notes. Sweden went to war with Russia in 1788, but this too was resolved by 1790, so they were out. Only Prussia wanted war, and it seems that they wanted to make gains in the Baltics.

Perhaps an earlier war in the 1770s would have led to a situation where France, Austria, Russia and Spain were at war with Great Britain, Prussia, the Netherlands and possibly Sweden. Such a war might have effects on events in America. For instance, if there is fear of a French attack, the settlers might be more likely to support the British Crown, whereas if there is still a revolt, the French and Spanish will aid them.

 

[Autocrat]

Britain and both France were jockeying for an alliance with Russia, and it seemed that by Catherine II's reign that France was more successful. France had traditionally supported the Ottoman Empire, but after the diplomatic revolution, with the Austrian alliance, there were attempts by the Austrians to get France to agree to an attack on the Ottomans. The French evaluated the Ottoman defences during the period and found them to be in poor shape. Hence there was the thought that France should get the spoils of Egypt, Syria and Cyprus the empire's inevitable collapse. Spain and Naples too along with Genoa and Tuscany were seen as powers that might want to join in an eventual carving up of Ottoman holdings in North Africa. Mostly because they faced the onslaught of attacks from the Barbary pirates. Indeed Spain had sent expeditions against Algiers during the period, with the most notable being in 1783.

The Russians and Austrians for their part wanted to partition the Ottoman territories in the Balkans with Russia taking control of the Bosporus. Had the revolutionary wars not occurred in 1792, both powers might have gone after more territory than they did in the Treaty of Jassy.

The British too seemed to think that the Ottomans were too weak to defend themselves and were concerned of whether or not they should go to war over the Ottomans. The British formed the Triple Alliance in 1788 with the United Provinces and Prussia. William Pitt (the Younger) wanted to pursue a hard line policy against Russia, so the Russian Ambassador in London began bribing the opposition. The Dutch were unwilling to go to war, as they were extensively invested in the Russian Empire, particularly holding treasury notes. Sweden went to war with Russia in 1788, but this too was resolved by 1790, so they were out. Only Prussia wanted war, and it seems that they wanted to make gains in the Baltics.

Perhaps an earlier war in the 1770s would have led to a situation where France, Austria, Russia and Spain were at war with Great Britain, Prussia, the Netherlands and possibly Sweden. Such a war might have effects on events in America. For instance, if there is fear of a French attack, the settlers might be more likely to support the British Crown, whereas if there is still a revolt, the French and Spanish will aid them.

Even after the Diplomatic Revolution the French still supported the Ottomans, most notably in the Russo-Ottoman War of 1768. That however changed as you say with the reports of the early 1770s which combined with Russia's victory over the Ottomans painted the picture of a very weak Ottoman Empire. I think it is notable to point out that all the Spanish-Tuscan attempts against the Barbary Corsairs failed.

And the reason behind the Russians and Austrians taking limited gains had little to do with the French Revolution. It had more to do with the fact that the Austrians had militarily been defeated by the Ottomans and their empire was teetering on collapse with internal tensions at a high.

I think you are taking things out of context. France didn't need the Austrians to launch an attack against the Ottomans. In fact the Austrians were already occupied with the War of the Bavarian Succession (so was Prussia and Saxony). Meanwhile Russia had so recently fought the Ottomans that they were unlikely to charge into another major war so fast (the amount of preparations and expense would be enormous). Also the British and Dutch relations were on a low ebb in the 1770s, unlike the more favourable situation in the 80s. And Sweden at this time was still aligned with Russia, it was only Gustav's coup that brought Sweden into an alliance with Prussia. So I don't think a continental war over the Ottoman Empire is at all viable.

 

[Faeelin]

I think you are taking things out of context. France didn't need the Austrians to launch an attack against the Ottomans. In fact the Austrians were already occupied with the War of the Bavarian Succession (so was Prussia and Saxony). Meanwhile Russia had so recently fought the Ottomans that they were unlikely to charge into another major war so fast (the amount of preparations and expense would be enormous). Also the British and Dutch relations were on a low ebb in the 1770s, unlike the more favourable situation in the 80s. And Sweden at this time was still aligned with Russia, it was only Gustav's coup that brought Sweden into an alliance with Prussia. So I don't think a continental war over the Ottoman Empire is at all viable.

The War of Bavarian Succession didn't start until 1778, right?

 

[raharris1973]

Yes, the war didn't break out until July 1778, and the lead-in to it couldn't have begun more than a few weeks before "On 30 December 1777, Maximilian Joseph, the last of the junior line of Wittelsbach, died of smallpox, leaving no children."

This discussion makes me wonder what could have happened if when the Diplomatic Revolution had occurred, if the Austrians were willing to shelve vengeance over Silesia for a bit, if the French, Austrians and Russians could have done a dogpile on the Ottomans instead of attacking Prussia and Britain? Looking into the period also shows how the years 1739-1768 were an anomolous 30 year gap in the Russo-Turkish wars.