succesful reforms, no muhammad Ali Pasha, no Greek Revolt - bout the Ottomans

Well, if all those three things happen, can the Ottoman Empire survive as a strong European(ized) state?
Ofcourse, this is assuming that despite no military defeats and no competition by Muhammad Ali the Empire still feels the need to reform.
 
First reform of Ottoman Empire at late 18.century for westernizition must be disbandment of Janissaries and create a westernized new army.New Army may be Prussian or French style.
 
Well, if all those three things happen, can the Ottoman Empire survive as a strong European(ized) state?
Ofcourse, this is assuming that despite no military defeats and no competition by Muhammad Ali the Empire still feels the need to reform.

Sure it would. It was reforming at the time, it's just that Selim III was too weak to resist the conservatives. If he had had the character of Mahmud II, the empire would have had a 40-year head start and been a much stronger state in time for high imperialism.
 
Second would probably be to elavate christians to first class citizens. And with a stronger ottoman empire Tunis and Libya would not be lost and the Russians would either become weaker or stronger because of this.
 
While I know WWI as we know it will not happen, general European wars would probably continue to occur. Eventually those wars are going to become industrial scale. If they modernize earlier, how long will it take for the Ottomans to compete in such a conflict on a level similar to say, France?
 
But one of the reasons that Mahmud II was so intent on reforming was that he saw how Muhammad Ali is stronger and how he was defeated in Navarino by a smaller fleet. It drove him into further reforms.
Though help from the Prussians is very likely(they actually did help the Ottomans by sending Von Moltke and other officers). But will the wind of westernisation, without all those forces at work forcingh the empire into reform(remember that after the Battle of Nezib European powers intervened mostly on behalf of the Ottomans, and they will continue to do so and apply diplomatic pressure on the Empire to keep reforming), still prevail?
 
İf Sultan Mahmud II Khan succeed to the crown in 1789,westernization of Ottoman Empire would have been more successful.

Sultan Mahmud II Khan make a peace with Russia,Austria in 1792-1793.
After the peace began to reforms.

Disbandment of Janissaries in 1795-1797.

Create a New Army in 1797-1802.Name of may be Asakir-i Nizamiye (eng.Regular Corps)
(my favor Prussian model)

Centralization of Ottoman Empire in 1802-1810.After the late-1780's Ottoman Empire highly de-centralizated.

Build a westernized military industry in 1810-1820.
 
But without the chaos in post-Napoleonic Egypt Muhammad Ali could not have risen. Does Napoleon still invade in this scenario?
Also, Mahmud II was kind of inspired to reform by Selim III himself. I personally think that without Selim, Mahmud's reforms would have been much more limited.
Besides, we are also ignoring the huge debt that always existed in the Ottoman treasury. How do we solve that? Also I think that the time span is still too limited to allow for comprehensive reforms.
 
The French withdrawal left a power vacuum in the Ottoman Egypt.
Mamluk power had been weakened, but not destroyed, and Ottoman forces clashed with the Mamluks for power.
During this period of anarchy Muhammad Ali used his loyal Albanian troops to play both sides, gaining power and prestige for himself.
But this time Ottoman Empire may be much stronger than OTL.İn 1803 Newly created an army with Prussian advisors after the six years 1797,also generally in peace than OTL ,in ATL.
Sultan Mahmud II Khan may be ordered to Asakir-i Nizamiye for centralization of Egypt after French withdrawal in 1803.Also this Muhammad Ali have not powerful in Egypt on 1803.

Character of Sultan Mahmud II Khan much stronger than Sultan Selim III Khan and may be more succesful.I think Sultan Mahmud II Khan is second reformer after the Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Turkish History.

Debt is not a problem for Ottoman Empire I think.Still huge Empire this time;Syria,Iraq.Balkans,Anatiolia and small countries.Also Sultan may be create trade monopolies,also gains of centralization in ATL.

Time problem is serious but long time period Mahmud's rule in ATL solve a lots problems in OTL.
 
Money was always a problem for the Porte. Expecially after the 17th century. This is why the Il-Tizam(sp?) was so popular - it gave the Porte the money it needed swiftly. The Empire could not wait for the money, and since the economic situation required swift action the Iltizam was popular. It was ineffective in the long-run, though. And I am pretty sure that the Empire was on the verge of bankrupcy after the Crimean War, and the (costly) reforms of the Tanzimat did not help to ease the economic pressure.
Egypt history, though, may look alot different without Muhammad Ali Pasha, since without him the modernisation of Egypt will be a whole lot more limited.
 
Money was always a problem for the Porte until the mids 19.century.This is fact ı know.Iltizam is only practical method to collect tax not a problem.
Tanzimat reforms not effective ı agree with you only makeup changes.But a succesful and serious westernization military and economic sides many changes a good way to at empire.Also Tanzimat reforms done too late time.May be not too late for industrialization in 1800's.

So what do you do if become a life time Grand Vizier of Ottoman Empire.
 
Ottoman military reforms would've used aspects of both French and Prussian tactics. As for making Turkey stronger, its very likely, though you have to address the issue of the conservatives in the government, and the religious community. The clerics were so opposed to modernization and westernization that the attempts to reform were suppressed violently. Something would need to be done about the clerics in the Ulema.

Why else did it take a World War, and invasions by Armenians, Kurds, Italians and Greeks to have Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) finally achieve full reform? If not for those factors, Turkey today would still be governed by 13th century methods of combat, and government.
 
Ottoman military reforms would've used aspects of both French and Prussian tactics. As for making Turkey stronger, its very likely, though you have to address the issue of the conservatives in the government, and the religious community. The clerics were so opposed to modernization and westernization that the attempts to reform were suppressed violently. Something would need to be done about the clerics in the Ulema.

Why else did it take a World War, and invasions by Armenians, Kurds, Italians and Greeks to have Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) finally achieve full reform? If not for those factors, Turkey today would still be governed by 13th century methods of combat, and government.
Wrong. The 19th century and early 20th centuries were full of reform movements in the Ottoman Empire. Many of Ataturks reforms were based on earlier Tanzimat reforms. The clerics were also not the main form of opposition to reform in the 18th century, the Janissaries were, and these were neutralised after Mahmud II destroyed them.
 
Wrong. The 19th century and early 20th centuries were full of reform movements in the Ottoman Empire. Many of Ataturks reforms were based on earlier Tanzimat reforms. The clerics were also not the main form of opposition to reform in the 18th century, the Janissaries were, and these were neutralised after Mahmud II destroyed them.

I stand humbly corrected. But the clerics did influence the Janissaries in some of their revolts.
 
Top