Selimian Success : The face of Ottoman Empire and the world ahead ?

Don Grey

Banned
Thanks for the correction.

However, my point still stands. Will Russia be still invading Ottoman Empire as often if it's an Ottoman Empire which doesn't have to deal with janissaries and ethnic nationalism ?

Yes i belive they will. Because even though the russians were winning the battles they were still taking high casualties.The problam is they had men to spare. Even if you get a stalemate or victories there still going to come. Because the ottomans cant threaten russia it self as in pose a threat to her well being or core territories while the russians can to the ottomans. What does she have to lose ,men which she has plenty of.

If the russians gets to georgia they know anatolia is in spitting distance so is azerbeijan. There going to say were so close to anatolia and cutting the ottomans of access to the caspian. So they are going to keep trying. Holding only the western coastal strips all the way from georgia to crimea isnt going to stop russia from wanting access to the black see while they control 2/3 of the land in the caucasus. All they would need to do is deliver a little nug and they would have thrown the ottomans into the black sea.Its like a man standing at the edge of a pear with a body builder behind him ready to push. If you dont control the land between the caspian and black see you dont control the black sea coast. Thats why i said hold everything up to and including crimea and astrakhan.Maybe the distance might make them think twice. Same goes for the balkans got to hold on to besserabia and hold the line from there. If they keep moving in deeper from there thats just going to create slav and orthadox ambitions.

Any battle you figth will have to be defensive and must be crushing victories with stagering causalties for russians as your at your end line for logistics at besserabia crimea and astrakhan but cant give way or else the dor opens. Russia must realize that any war with the ottomans will be bloody as hell and any yard they gain will bleed them dry. This is all you have as you cant threatin her core territories and you dont have the pop because its too late for islamization for the balkans and the caucasus. This is going to be difficult as it is because you will still have a large orthadox pop with a very large orthadox empire right across the border. Plus theres nappy but will get back to that latter.

As for the AH after it collapses you can grab everything in the balkans short of vienna and hungary up to and including what we know today as slovania. And if you play your cards right maybe even you can grab chunks off of hungary as there is nothing other then logistics stoping you from having your way in the balkans especialy not the balkanized remains of the former AH. More balkan and caucasus territory means more tax revanue and more reasource for industrialization.

But these carries problams in its own. As if you manage to industrialize properly you will be a very rich empire on par with great powers. But dont forget your richest territories either have christian majority or christians pularity. And once they get richer and better educated there going to get bitten from the nationalism bug wheather they want to or not. Sure foriegn powers probably can meddile in you internal affair in this scenario but you will still have to deal with internal ambitions. If you give them equal rights you will just fuel there nationalism and now they have the money education and means to be the fith column. If you dont they will just get angry as they are the wealthiest and most well educated being run by poor uneducated foriegn occupiers. Since you cant convert them into the numbers you need the future looks like one with constant strife. Remember valdemars post recipe for disaster.

As for russia only option is to weaken her before selim to get the results you need.

As for selim. The man has 10 years to get lost territory back from the balkans get up to and take astrakhan hold on to crimia then hold the line as mother russia isnt going to take this lieing down (i know that came out strange). Eradicate the janissaries cleanse jannissary loyalists in the goverment employ reforms build up the nizami-cedid in time and size to fight nappy in egypt all in ten years. That is if everything goes according to otl but we have changed so much i highly doubt that. Selim might have to fight nappy earler because with out the AH whats to stop nappy from going for belgrad after he burns vienna to the grounds. With no AH its alot easyer for nappy to take vieena and still have men to go for belgrad or maybe even istanbul. Lets go even earler with out AH its a one on one with nappy with the italian city states. It will be a walk in the park. I dont see your scenario playing out "realisticly" as nappy is a big fricking wild card in the game.

For your scenario to work you need a collapsed AH and a weakend russia.
But then you have taken out two key nappy opponents out of the game early on. The only realistic option i can see is the franco-ottoman alliance continues and its not ASB for it to happen. A selim calls the reformest grand vezir alemdar pasha to cleanse the balkans of jannisaries with his army then he calls the sipahis and other loyalists to cleanse istanbul and anatolia of jannissaries which the sipahis will be more then happy to do. Then he installs reforms with the technical help and officer training from france he modernizes the army. Nappy goes according to otl except the egyption campaign. He attacks AH but this time it collapses with ottomanhelp. Vienna is burned to the ground as usual but with ottomans attacking from the south. The french take what they want and what they leave goes to the ottomans most likely everything south of vienna and they gain some much needed loot.

With peter dead in the 1710-1711 russo-ottoman war alexie takes the throne. Russia is weaker and more conservative and less enthusiastic for modernization/reform etc but not out of the game yet. Then nappy goes for russia as usual again this time the otto's advancing from the south. With the technical help and officer aid from the french the ottos attack russia with the french.Napoleon wins moscow burns otto's gains some loot and take everything up to astrakhan with russia a shadow of its former power they can hold on to those regions and the balkan holdings are garrantied until late 19th century nationalism pops up.Until then ottomans dont go to war and stay put digesting what they have gained for decades if possible. Reforms continue standerdized education, rail when rail roads are invented, navy is reformed and rebuilt to its former glory to be on par with the rest.Modernization and industrialization continue perferably with a common langauge the ottos creat a common identity to unite the masses of there newly reborn empire. But this also has a down side because now france is a hegemon in europe only thing standing between them and total domination is britian.
 
Last edited:
Don Grey

You seem to be assumming that Christians in general will become more wealthy and educated than Balkan Muslims. I know that the Phanariot Greeks will be one of the most formidable groups, but you seem to be assuming that the general Slavic Christians will follow the suit immediately, and that they will be in the same camp with the Greeks.

As for the Russians, well yeah they have to suffer bloody defeat in their war towards Ottoman Empire. That's what I want the post-Janissary reformed Imperial military to do in a war against Russia.

And I'm not sure how wise would it be for Ottomans to expand back into Hungary in 19th century era. They will be much weaker than Austria-Hungary, sure, but I'm not sure that other powers would want to see Ottoman come back there. Not convinced that the Ottomans would see the incentive either, especially since I'm pretty sure that Hungary will most likely not going to expand towards Ottoman direction, if they would be expanding at all.....
 
By the way, what do you(all audience) think about what will become of Egypt and North East Africa in general without Napoleon invasion and Muhammad Ali's Khedivate ?
 

Don Grey

Banned
Don Grey

You seem to be assumming that Christians in general will become more wealthy and educated than Balkan Muslims. I know that the Phanariot Greeks will be one of the most formidable groups, but you seem to be assuming that the general Slavic Christians will follow the suit immediately, and that they will be in the same camp with the Greeks.

As for the Russians, well yeah they have to suffer bloody defeat in their war towards Ottoman Empire. That's what I want the post-Janissary reformed Imperial military to do in a war against Russia.

And I'm not sure how wise would it be for Ottomans to expand back into Hungary in 19th century era. They will be much weaker than Austria-Hungary, sure, but I'm not sure that other powers would want to see Ottoman come back there. Not convinced that the Ottomans would see the incentive either, especially since I'm pretty sure that Hungary will most likely not going to expand towards Ottoman direction, if they would be expanding at all.....

Well the balkan muslims will go the same way as the balkan christians but it doesnt change the fact that your wealthiest territotires still contain a christian majority or pularity. Anatolia and your arab holdings are still poor compaired to those regions.Im not saying it cant be pulled of its just that it will be somewhat defficult.

A post jannisary reformed nizami-cedid can do the job if its up to proper size. I dont want to blow the ottomans horn but the nizami-cedid was quite good.

As for the great powers they wouldnt want to see the ottomans expand anywhere or exist for that matter.Plus they cant do much at this point other then mumble about there displeasement. Im just trying to get you prime relestate here. With out AH your unchanlanged in the balkans nothing other then logistics is stopping you and you wont get another chance like this its like the reverst effects of the seconde vienna siege. No reason not to think big. But it your call your TL.


By the way, what do you(all audience) think about what will become of Egypt and North East Africa in general without Napoleon invasion and Muhammad Ali's Khedivate ?

With out nepoleon such ideas of nationalism isnt are indraduced in the middle east.Unlike other arab holdings egypt does rake in quite a bit of revanue and has potential.With out nappy egypt and east africa is far more stable and economicaly bennifical to the ottomans. Especialy with out the existence of that idiot muhammed ali and his little civil war like thing he did which caused more harm to egypt then good. With out nappy there is more direct control of egypt which will only get stronger in time. If the ottomans can get a base of operations in the horn of africa and in the future make the suez canal them selves then the possibilities of a stronger ottomans plus access to the indian ocean is very exciting.

BTW way when will you start posting this TL im very eager to see it.
 
BTW way when will you start posting this TL im very eager to see it.

Damn, apparently you have been waiting for a TL all this time.... :eek:


I'm actually more than willing to make this idea a TL, but I have my own competency in writing and also time against me.... :eek::( This thread is intended to be a discussion thread to pool in informations in the first place....


Anyway, I'm sorry to dissapoint you, Don Grey :eek: I should've made it clear earlier. But when all is set for me, I will create a TL out of this concept, even though by that time I may won't be the first at it.
 
Last edited:

Don Grey

Banned
Damn, apparently you have been waiting for a TL all this time.... :eek:


I'm actually more than willing to make this idea a TL, but I have my own competency in writing and also time against me.... :eek::( This thread is intended to be a discussion thread to pool in informations in the first place....


Anyway, I'm sorry to dissapoint you, Don Grey :eek: I should've made it clear earlier. But when all is set for me, I will create a TL out of this concept, even though by that time I may won't be the first at it.

Dang and i thought you were getting the TL ready. I thought thats why you were asking these questions my bad. And i was realy looking forward to it too. Wondering how you would pull of a selimian meji of sorts.
 
You guys are being too pessimistic about the empire. Regarding some previous points, it's not the case that you'd have rich Christian areas in the Balkans supporting poor Muslim areas. The Balkans were at least 43% Muslim in this area, possibly more, and there is a misconception that the center of the empire was Anatolia. It was not, until after 1878. The Ottoman Empire was fundamentally a Balkan-centered empire, with its principal economic and human resources located there.

Turkish historiography has tended to minimize the Balkans, while Balkan historiography has tended to minimize the role of Muslims.

Areas of the Balkans were by 1876 entering a proto-industrial state, with light industry flourishing and an economic growth rate much higher than the European average. After the Muslim population was exterminated, that all ended and the Balkan economies declined (except Bosnia, heavily subsidized by the Hapsburgs), becoming wholly peasant-based and overtaxing their land and stretching their budgets with prestige projects and military spending.

If Selim had had Mahmud II's fortitude, Ottoman reform would have had a 40 year head start over OTL. That would leave them nearly at pace with the general state of Europe instead of being 50 years behind, and would have been a big setback for petty nationalism, perhaps to the benefit of the Hapsburg Empire, which by the 19th c had no conflicting interests with the Ottomans, so a more stable Hapsburg Empire means a more stable Ottoman Empire.

In OTL, as the empire stabilized and reformed, Christian emigration was trending the Balkan population Muslim (as Muslims weren't welcome in the Americas), while railway development would have opened up the Balkans to settlement from the poorer Muslim areas, like Eastern Anatolia.

So I don't see any reason why the empire couldn't have survived with the Balkans intact all the way to the present. It was a close think even in OTL, and with a 40 year advantage, probably even likely.

The above is based on a POD in Selim's reign. Regarding all the discussion about earlier PODs, there's a lot of wild speculation going on there. I don't see how dismembering the empire could make it survive better. Most of the large European countries are former imperial states that integrated their peoples into more homogeneous nations. France was fundamentally a Parisian empire that created Frenchmen, and Italy was a collection of petty states with non-mutually intelligible dialects, etc.

There was a uniform Ottoman culture, which still survives in music and food, and given time, Ottomanism would have succeeded.
 

Don Grey

Banned
You guys are being too pessimistic about the empire. Regarding some previous points, it's not the case that you'd have rich Christian areas in the Balkans supporting poor Muslim areas. The Balkans were at least 43% Muslim in this area, possibly more, and there is a misconception that the center of the empire was Anatolia. It was not, until after 1878. The Ottoman Empire was fundamentally a Balkan-centered empire, with its principal economic and human resources located there.

Turkish historiography has tended to minimize the Balkans, while Balkan historiography has tended to minimize the role of Muslims.

Areas of the Balkans were by 1876 entering a proto-industrial state, with light industry flourishing and an economic growth rate much higher than the European average. After the Muslim population was exterminated, that all ended and the Balkan economies declined (except Bosnia, heavily subsidized by the Hapsburgs), becoming wholly peasant-based and overtaxing their land and stretching their budgets with prestige projects and military spending.

If Selim had had Mahmud II's fortitude, Ottoman reform would have had a 40 year head start over OTL. That would leave them nearly at pace with the general state of Europe instead of being 50 years behind, and would have been a big setback for petty nationalism, perhaps to the benefit of the Hapsburg Empire, which by the 19th c had no conflicting interests with the Ottomans, so a more stable Hapsburg Empire means a more stable Ottoman Empire.

In OTL, as the empire stabilized and reformed, Christian emigration was trending the Balkan population Muslim (as Muslims weren't welcome in the Americas), while railway development would have opened up the Balkans to settlement from the poorer Muslim areas, like Eastern Anatolia.

So I don't see any reason why the empire couldn't have survived with the Balkans intact all the way to the present. It was a close think even in OTL, and with a 40 year advantage, probably even likely.

The above is based on a POD in Selim's reign. Regarding all the discussion about earlier PODs, there's a lot of wild speculation going on there. I don't see how dismembering the empire could make it survive better. Most of the large European countries are former imperial states that integrated their peoples into more homogeneous nations. France was fundamentally a Parisian empire that created Frenchmen, and Italy was a collection of petty states with non-mutually intelligible dialects, etc.

There was a uniform Ottoman culture, which still survives in music and food, and given time, Ottomanism would have succeeded.

Well thats good to hear and good to see you post again.
 
In OTL, as the empire stabilized and reformed, Christian emigration was trending the Balkan population Muslim (as Muslims weren't welcome in the Americas), while railway development would have opened up the Balkans to settlement from the poorer Muslim areas, like Eastern Anatolia.

This has caught me curious.

What was the cause of Christian emigration ? Was it tied to the Empire's poor economy ?
 
This has caught me curious.

What was the cause of Christian emigration ? Was it tied to the Empire's poor economy ?
I'm curious too. I expect that much emigration to the Americas from the rest of Europe was driven by land hunger, but for emigrants from the Ottoman Empire I'd expect that would be less of a driver -- didn't the Ottoman Empire have a rather low population density?
 
I'm curious too. I expect that much emigration to the Americas from the rest of Europe was driven by land hunger, but for emigrants from the Ottoman Empire I'd expect that would be less of a driver -- didn't the Ottoman Empire have a rather low population density?

Well, yeah, but that was actually because little of those lands were actually productive.

Thing is, in this Selimian Ottoman Empire which should become more prosperous than OTL counterpart, won't that mean less incentive for the Christians to leave ?
 
Last edited:
Top