Is it possible that an Political Revolution occurs within the Ottoman Empire? And, what would it be like?
Revolution in the Ottoman Empire
- Thread starter DinodudeEpic
- Start date
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Well something like 1848 was avoided in the Ottoman lands - mostly due to it not being very industrialized though it had problems in concerns to nationalism. Don't know if it's possible.
Political revolution, yes.
Political revolution identical to the sort you'd see in a Western or, say, East Asian country? No.
Industrialization won't cut it, though clearly it would add tensions. Keep in mind, the late Ottomans were more industrialized than most of the petty states of Eastern Europe. Russian-style Socialism did not succeed there due to proletarian tensions. It capitalized (heh) on two things: [1] Force of arms - the Baltic, Moldova, Poland, Hungary, and East Germany. [2] Land redistribution - Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Albania.
Number two is key. Eastern Europe had large farming classes working other people's land who were quite enthusiastic about the Russian model. They were the primary source of support for the regimes into the '50s. Unfortunately for revolutionaries, Islamic law and Ottoman policy both prevented big land owning classes from forming. The Ottoman peasant had it pretty good compared with the Hungarian one, and little interest in losing his position to collectivisation.
Even in modern Turkey, Islam is more important as a source of identity than Turkish nationalism. And that is after more than two centuries of reform with Europe as a model and nearly a century as a secular republic. What you won't get is an atheistic republican or Marxist sort of revolution similar to the French or Russian.
The only way to get those is in a Khmer Rouge sort of situation, where political ideologues across the border have overwhelming strength to back a tiny clique of native loonies. That's not really practical with a big place like the empire - you'd need EdT's FWR tag-teaming with the Soviet Union or something equally silly.
Arguably, there were several political revolutions in the Ottoman Empire - they were just ignored by the West. When they kept the Caliphate (virtually guaranteed) and stayed in one piece, few outside commentators saw the event as a revolution. Only the rise of the Young Turks and Attaturk's efforts are conventionally seen as what they were, and I suspect if the empire had lasted the YTs would have been forgotten as well.
Any revolution in the empire - as opposed in a left-over fragment of it's center - would probably most resemble the Iranian model. If a secularizing dictatorship was running the place - alternate Young Turks could arguably qualify - then an Islamic Revolution with strong democratic overtones and calls for the restoration of power to the Caliph could be in the offing.
Political revolution identical to the sort you'd see in a Western or, say, East Asian country? No.
Industrialization won't cut it, though clearly it would add tensions. Keep in mind, the late Ottomans were more industrialized than most of the petty states of Eastern Europe. Russian-style Socialism did not succeed there due to proletarian tensions. It capitalized (heh) on two things: [1] Force of arms - the Baltic, Moldova, Poland, Hungary, and East Germany. [2] Land redistribution - Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Albania.
Number two is key. Eastern Europe had large farming classes working other people's land who were quite enthusiastic about the Russian model. They were the primary source of support for the regimes into the '50s. Unfortunately for revolutionaries, Islamic law and Ottoman policy both prevented big land owning classes from forming. The Ottoman peasant had it pretty good compared with the Hungarian one, and little interest in losing his position to collectivisation.
Even in modern Turkey, Islam is more important as a source of identity than Turkish nationalism. And that is after more than two centuries of reform with Europe as a model and nearly a century as a secular republic. What you won't get is an atheistic republican or Marxist sort of revolution similar to the French or Russian.
The only way to get those is in a Khmer Rouge sort of situation, where political ideologues across the border have overwhelming strength to back a tiny clique of native loonies. That's not really practical with a big place like the empire - you'd need EdT's FWR tag-teaming with the Soviet Union or something equally silly.
Arguably, there were several political revolutions in the Ottoman Empire - they were just ignored by the West. When they kept the Caliphate (virtually guaranteed) and stayed in one piece, few outside commentators saw the event as a revolution. Only the rise of the Young Turks and Attaturk's efforts are conventionally seen as what they were, and I suspect if the empire had lasted the YTs would have been forgotten as well.
Any revolution in the empire - as opposed in a left-over fragment of it's center - would probably most resemble the Iranian model. If a secularizing dictatorship was running the place - alternate Young Turks could arguably qualify - then an Islamic Revolution with strong democratic overtones and calls for the restoration of power to the Caliph could be in the offing.
Last edited:
Well, they had the Young Turk revolution 1908 OTL, that started the Second Constitutional Era (1908-1913), which actually was the 2nd attempt to democratize the Ottoman Empire. The first being the First Constitutional Era 1876-78 (that also was established through a military coup).
Well, I was thinking about having a Bourbon-style Ottoman Empire with the Sultun as the King, Janissaries as the nobles, the French Republic as the source of the ideas (like how the French aided the Americans.), have some arab nationalism in the population, and have some bad weather and economy in the Ottoman Empire. So, the result would be a French style revolution with a year-long civil war.
(Yes, it is kinda crazy, but at least it isn't another confedrate victory alt. history.)
(Yes, it is kinda crazy, but at least it isn't another confedrate victory alt. history.)
scholar
Banned
The Ottomans weren't Arabs nor were their Emperor's Sultans. (It'd be akin to calling Queen Elizabeth a Duke) Also the French supported the Americans on a purely tactical basis of going against the British. Had the Americans, be Spanish or Dutch, the French wouldn't give a damn or actually attempt to conquer the Americans. The Ottomans ruled a large multi-ethnic population, centered around Turkic peoples in Anatolia. Arabs were an entirely different ethnic group. Turks were remnants of Mongolic peoples. Foreigners colonizing normally Greek and Armenian lands.
Last edited:
I already know that arabs are a seperate group from Turks. I was thinking about having the Ottoman Empire be replaced by the Arab Republic.
Also, the French Republic actually had relations with the Ottomans(After Napoleon's failed invasion of Egypt.), also the Ottoman Empire's monarch is the Sultan. The Ottomans also had horrible relations with the Austria.
Also, the French Republic actually had relations with the Ottomans(After Napoleon's failed invasion of Egypt.), also the Ottoman Empire's monarch is the Sultan. The Ottomans also had horrible relations with the Austria.
scholar
Banned
Which would be met with the exact same problems of a Turkic republic ruling over an Arab region. At the height of nationalism this would not happen.
Never said the French didn't have relations with the Ottomans, the Ottomans had established themselves in European politics since their conflicts with the Hapsburg and with their vice-like grip over the Mediterranean. Though both are now god, they remained active, at least, in European and Islamic politics. The main relations with the Ottomans were mainly to counter, at first, the Austrians, and then the Russians. Similar to why Napoleon III supported Sardinia-Piedmont in their war against Austria, even though Napoleon backstabbed them.
The Ottoman's ruler is an Emir, a Caliph, a King, a Duke, an Emperor, and several other titles that are rather long. After taking control of the Greeks, Emperor was given to their title. They were Emperors in the same way the British monarchs were Emperors for a time in India. Though, perhaps, Sultan is more proper I would still call them Emperors as that's been in their titles ever since they conquered Constantinople.
Where did I say the Ottomans were Buddy-buddy with the Austrians?
I mean no offense...
Never said the French didn't have relations with the Ottomans, the Ottomans had established themselves in European politics since their conflicts with the Hapsburg and with their vice-like grip over the Mediterranean. Though both are now god, they remained active, at least, in European and Islamic politics. The main relations with the Ottomans were mainly to counter, at first, the Austrians, and then the Russians. Similar to why Napoleon III supported Sardinia-Piedmont in their war against Austria, even though Napoleon backstabbed them.
The Ottoman's ruler is an Emir, a Caliph, a King, a Duke, an Emperor, and several other titles that are rather long. After taking control of the Greeks, Emperor was given to their title. They were Emperors in the same way the British monarchs were Emperors for a time in India. Though, perhaps, Sultan is more proper I would still call them Emperors as that's been in their titles ever since they conquered Constantinople.
Where did I say the Ottomans were Buddy-buddy with the Austrians?
I mean no offense...
Don Grey
Banned
This is mainly it. As you can have a revolution just not something so extreme that it would change the very fabric of what makes the ottomans ottoman.Some things like teh french republic revolution or the russion red wouldnt happen. The republic was only formed because the ottoman empire exsisted in name only.And the monarchy had become useless parasites and there caliphate title had become irrelevent.
See the problam is that just cant happen as its a little to cracy for reason explained above by matt.
The term mainly used buy turks is padishah. Means king of kings lord of lords highest honor you can get.Sultan is actualy lesser title. Basicaly padishah is the islamic term for emporer.
Last edited:
(It's OK. It's just a debate over if the Ottoman Empire can have a revolution.)
I never said that you said that Austria is buddy-buddy with the Ottomans. (I was making a new argument.) It's just that I find the French-Austrian-Ottoman relationship during Napoleon's time to remind me of the American-British-French relationship during the Revolutionary War.
The Ottoman rulership has a lot of titles, but Sultan is the original one.
I can also see some other nationalist revolutions happening too if this hypothetical revolution happens. So, the actual Arab Republic is actually smaller then then the Ottoman Empire. (Maybe the Ottoman Empire survives with Rumelia and Anatolia.)
Edit: Thanks for telling me that the name for the Turkish Emperor is Padishah.
I never said that you said that Austria is buddy-buddy with the Ottomans. (I was making a new argument.) It's just that I find the French-Austrian-Ottoman relationship during Napoleon's time to remind me of the American-British-French relationship during the Revolutionary War.
The Ottoman rulership has a lot of titles, but Sultan is the original one.
I can also see some other nationalist revolutions happening too if this hypothetical revolution happens. So, the actual Arab Republic is actually smaller then then the Ottoman Empire. (Maybe the Ottoman Empire survives with Rumelia and Anatolia.)
Edit: Thanks for telling me that the name for the Turkish Emperor is Padishah.
Last edited:
But the events of OTL did occur for a reason, and we need to consider them. The idea of a republican form of government only started to gain traction in the Arab world well after the empire was dismembered and divided between colonial powers. It was not (as in Europe, North and South America, Russia, and East Asia) initially a popular philosophy based on attaining rights for some large, put-upon demographic.
Instead, it was a standard case of decolonization. The Ottomans had utterly failed, and with them the old framework of the entire region. Reversion to kingdoms wouldn't necessarily work and would be "backward." Republics and "modern" ideologies were a way of being taken seriously and a sign that post-Empire, the Arab world had been exposed to a great deal of Western Culture under the Mandate system. Even then, the Arab world wished to do just that. Even today you see a situation where there is relatively little support for any sort of secular republican model.
You can not get the more and earlier in a vacuum!
The United States had hundreds of years' observation of Dutch and Italian republics, a cultural identification with republican Greece and Rome, and the recent model of the Calvinist Republic in Britain to draw on. France had all the same, had politically incorporated the recent Corsican Republic (very much noted by contemporary European thinkers), and had a slew of officers and soldiers who'd fought for the American Republic.
What do the Ottomans have?
They conquered an Imperial Roman successor state. They have literally zero Islamic models of republics to draw upon. They are aware that Europeans govern themselves with quite a number of weird systems. They just don't have the basis for it. When the (First) Republican French were occupying Egypt and attempting to print propaganda they ran into the problem that there was no word for republic in Arabic. The idea did not exist.
You also have the geographical issue. The empire was a serious of long stretches of vulnerable coastline with little population. The exceptions to this were: The Balkans, which had their own.... issues. Iraq, less vulnerable by sea but with any competent Persia a severe threat. Egypt, heavily populated but not terribly defensible. The center.
Any revolution that retains a majority of the empire in a single piece is going to have to originate in the center. Moreover, it can not relinquish the monarchy and achieve even partial success. There are just too many centrifugal forces at work. Unity was predicated on the Ottomans being "The Empire" in lands where everyone expected there to be an empire.
Any revolution outside of the center is going to remain a localized affair. Egypt could indeed lay hands on a fair bit away from the Nile, but even shooting for "all the Arab bits" would be far beyond its grasp.
What you're talking about is sort of like a Russian Revolution in a situation where the Russian Empire had been run from the Ukraine, except, no, that's not right, Russia is a country. The empire was long strips and curves of arid farmland, vulnerable to the sea and backed by Bedouin-haunted desert.
I feel compelled to say again. Revolution? Sure. The Western-style revolution you posit? Not. Going. To. Happen.
There is no demographic that would support it. Only a clique of foreign-educated crazies would think it would be a good idea or could work. Such a group would not have successfully held a significant portion of the state together. I'm not clear that such groups existed, not in this timeframe.
Instead, it was a standard case of decolonization. The Ottomans had utterly failed, and with them the old framework of the entire region. Reversion to kingdoms wouldn't necessarily work and would be "backward." Republics and "modern" ideologies were a way of being taken seriously and a sign that post-Empire, the Arab world had been exposed to a great deal of Western Culture under the Mandate system. Even then, the Arab world wished to do just that. Even today you see a situation where there is relatively little support for any sort of secular republican model.
You can not get the more and earlier in a vacuum!
The United States had hundreds of years' observation of Dutch and Italian republics, a cultural identification with republican Greece and Rome, and the recent model of the Calvinist Republic in Britain to draw on. France had all the same, had politically incorporated the recent Corsican Republic (very much noted by contemporary European thinkers), and had a slew of officers and soldiers who'd fought for the American Republic.
What do the Ottomans have?
They conquered an Imperial Roman successor state. They have literally zero Islamic models of republics to draw upon. They are aware that Europeans govern themselves with quite a number of weird systems. They just don't have the basis for it. When the (First) Republican French were occupying Egypt and attempting to print propaganda they ran into the problem that there was no word for republic in Arabic. The idea did not exist.
You also have the geographical issue. The empire was a serious of long stretches of vulnerable coastline with little population. The exceptions to this were: The Balkans, which had their own.... issues. Iraq, less vulnerable by sea but with any competent Persia a severe threat. Egypt, heavily populated but not terribly defensible. The center.
Any revolution that retains a majority of the empire in a single piece is going to have to originate in the center. Moreover, it can not relinquish the monarchy and achieve even partial success. There are just too many centrifugal forces at work. Unity was predicated on the Ottomans being "The Empire" in lands where everyone expected there to be an empire.
Any revolution outside of the center is going to remain a localized affair. Egypt could indeed lay hands on a fair bit away from the Nile, but even shooting for "all the Arab bits" would be far beyond its grasp.
What you're talking about is sort of like a Russian Revolution in a situation where the Russian Empire had been run from the Ukraine, except, no, that's not right, Russia is a country. The empire was long strips and curves of arid farmland, vulnerable to the sea and backed by Bedouin-haunted desert.
I feel compelled to say again. Revolution? Sure. The Western-style revolution you posit? Not. Going. To. Happen.
There is no demographic that would support it. Only a clique of foreign-educated crazies would think it would be a good idea or could work. Such a group would not have successfully held a significant portion of the state together. I'm not clear that such groups existed, not in this timeframe.
Last edited:
Ok, thanks for educating me about the situation of the Ottoman Empire. I was just wondering if the Ottoman Empire can have a revolution.
It was sort of awesome to see the Ottoman Empire's leadership getting guillotined though. (Is there a place for crankish/insane alt. histories?)
It was sort of awesome to see the Ottoman Empire's leadership getting guillotined though. (Is there a place for crankish/insane alt. histories?)
Don Grey
Banned
Again correct. You seem to know your way around the ottomans.
Some sidenote:
The only reason republics were even thought of was because of western cultural influence that came with nationalisn/nation state idea. As that kinda revolves around the republic idea. Nationalisn is not only alien to islam its also anathema as far as sheria is concers nationalisn is defind in islam as "tribalism" which is a grave sin. Even though when we look back at history if we realy look closely we can see arabs neither fully understood nationalism or republics/nations states. And they were quite keen on leaving islam as an important factor in administration.
For example the "arab revolt" so exagretaed as it is laughable. What was it like around 20.00 beduins (bediuns a group of people real arabs would be cought dead with) fighting for british gold and promise of land out of a population of aroun 7-8 million arabs.Lead by a just oppertunistic Sherif of one city an "illegatimate monarch" with imperial ambitions and delusions of graunder. And when he tryed to claim the caliphacy he was kicked out the house of saud because as far as arabs are concered his a "pretender" that too "infedel" gold and fought against the Padishah.
These are just some of the reason why extrem revolution cant happen. But whats ironic is it was the turks the least that wanted a republic and nation state (they were pro-empire) and they are the only onse the succeeded in doing it.
Its hard to get the house of osman to guillotined as the head of the family is the calpihate who carried the mantel of islam for centuries and protect most of the muslim world from what people of the era would deem "infedels/crusaders". They were by far the strongest longest lasting and greatest islamic dynesty you cant realy guillotine them especialy when there still holding the caliphate title.
scholar
Banned
I'm fairly certain they took this title after they conquered Constantinople, so they were already Emperors by the time they took the title "King of Kings"
scholar
Banned
I also don't really think it's the case that the Ottomans had no problems with Nationalism because it barely existed, but rather it had trouble exerting it's influence on it's muslim neighbors. There were are large number of Sunni Muslims inside the Indian Subcontinent and Indonesia, as well as a large amount of Islamic Kingdoms stretching from Morocco to Sokoto, and everywhere in between. The Ottomans were not unifying all of Islam, not even all of Sunni Islam, but rather just a geo-political sphere of influence that it's controlled over the centuries. The Ottomans' followers in Arabia may have had very little rebellious intentions, but the Ottomans had trouble getting more people into it's fold. If I'm wrong I'd be more than willing to be corrected, I am no where near the expert on the Ottomans that you appear to be.
Don Grey
Banned
I'm fairly certain they took this title after they conquered Constantinople, so they were already Emperors by the time they took the title "King of Kings"
yes most likely after the conquest of C-town.
I also don't really think it's the case that the Ottomans had no problems with Nationalism because it barely existed, but rather it had trouble exerting it's influence on it's muslim neighbors. There were are large number of Sunni Muslims inside the Indian Subcontinent and Indonesia, as well as a large amount of Islamic Kingdoms stretching from Morocco to Sokoto, and everywhere in between. The Ottomans were not unifying all of Islam, not even all of Sunni Islam, but rather just a geo-political sphere of influence that it's controlled over the centuries. The Ottomans' followers in Arabia may have had very little rebellious intentions, but the Ottomans had trouble getting more people into it's fold. If I'm wrong I'd be more than willing to be corrected, I am no where near the expert on the Ottomans that you appear to be.
It didnt have a problam nationalism with in its muslim areas just christian and that has to do with general decline for verious reason.
The ottomans started losing there range of influence as they declined naturaly. You cant realy influence the muslims in india when you cant even keep the western powers out f your internal affairs same goes for north africa as it lost its territory through war as it declined. While it was at its hight it couldnt go much father because of the logistical implications involved in those eras. And there main focuse was europe christian lands not muslims. As it was politicaly difficult going to war will a sunni nations. Hence why morroco was never conquered then factore in the distance plus the gains for the cost of taking it doenst look very apatising.Same goes for subsaharan muslim regions as there was nothing to gain and the logistics involved was difficult. Plus they didnt care much for it.The only reason arabs lands were taken was because they were so weak they could resist and took most of the middle east in one campaign.
I never said all of islamic world but most of the islamic world. As for sunnies thet took most of it atleast the most important areas anatolia leventian regions arab paninsula north africa muslim areas of the caucasus. Those areas contain the holy land mecca and medina. You dont get more important then that. The rest aws a matter of distance logistics total gains for total costs in taking it plus they werent there real focus area. Which was europe.
So i have to disagree with your analysis as i dont think your factoring in the big picture and just taking the last days in acount for general ottman history.
Maybe I should make this alt. history be just for fun, and not really care about historical accuracy. (And even say that it's just for fun in the thread description.)
As for the Osmen dynasty, they were actually very ineffective rulers from at least the 19th century.
I do agree now that historically, it would be more accurate to have either have a secular dictatorship or an Islamic Republic Although that usually ends up in a dictatorship anyways if it's going to be a theocracy, it would have to be in a modern-day Greek-like situation to remain as a republic. (Have a state religion, but have tolerance for other faiths.)
Another thing that can happen historically would the Ottoman Empire fracturing as result of the revolution in at least 3 pieces. (Creating a civil war.)
(If there is any way for a secular republic to form, tell me. If not, tell me a place where to put alt. histories that have no fantasy elements, but are historically inaccurate.)
As for the Osmen dynasty, they were actually very ineffective rulers from at least the 19th century.
I do agree now that historically, it would be more accurate to have either have a secular dictatorship or an Islamic Republic Although that usually ends up in a dictatorship anyways if it's going to be a theocracy, it would have to be in a modern-day Greek-like situation to remain as a republic. (Have a state religion, but have tolerance for other faiths.)
Another thing that can happen historically would the Ottoman Empire fracturing as result of the revolution in at least 3 pieces. (Creating a civil war.)
(If there is any way for a secular republic to form, tell me. If not, tell me a place where to put alt. histories that have no fantasy elements, but are historically inaccurate.)
Last edited:
The ASB forum is where it goes. It always seems weird, putting highly implausible non-fantasies or geographic or asteroid-related PODs in with all those threads on Nazis-Turn-To-Half-Orcs, but them's the rules.
Keep in mind, an Islamic Constitutional Monarchy on the model of OTL's Iranian Republic is possible. It would need to be a response to a very different set of events than we saw in OTL, but could certainly happen, and indeed could leave the Caliph as a figurehead at the nominal head of state and faith. Something like a super-Pope, as it were.
Keep in mind, an Islamic Constitutional Monarchy on the model of OTL's Iranian Republic is possible. It would need to be a response to a very different set of events than we saw in OTL, but could certainly happen, and indeed could leave the Caliph as a figurehead at the nominal head of state and faith. Something like a super-Pope, as it were.