Syrian Revolt
- Thread starter JasonXO
- Start date
-
- Tags
- greece ottoman empire syria
If they did so with any real support from Europeans, the ruling elite would would certainly be Syriac/Aramaic Christians, but it'll probably be a question of (more or less voluntarily) population exchanges (could see a number of Armenians moving there, specially from Kharpert and Diyarbekir, doing the Hamidian massacres if that aren't butterflied) if it'll also be a ethnoreligious majority.
They'll probably be just far enough away from Europe that they can dodge getting grafted a second son as a European king, although if they go with a monarchy (which seems the obvious choice, but probably somewhat depends on the exact details of the revolt), they'll probably be leaned on to marry into other Christian royal families from Europe (diaspora nobility from Balkans?)
They'll probably be just far enough away from Europe that they can dodge getting grafted a second son as a European king, although if they go with a monarchy (which seems the obvious choice, but probably somewhat depends on the exact details of the revolt), they'll probably be leaned on to marry into other Christian royal families from Europe (diaspora nobility from Balkans?)
Not happening Aramaics were already small minority in Syria and not powerful at that.
Not likely. The idea of pan-Arabism is non existent in the 1820s and 1830s. As Mehmed Ali also did not change the elite language to Arabic this would be unlikely.
- Not possible
- Majority Sunni Islamic (+75%)
- No. I can't think of any noble leaving Europe for Syria.
Yeah, Europe have never raised a small minority with little power, to be the ruling elite in a more or less overt protectorate *nods wisely*
That is true but the really small amount of Aramaics among rather... angry pissed off Muslims will end in Civil War.
I suppose you could have some Druze revolt catch on among Damascus's disaffected urbanites (laid-off Janissaries, soldiers upset about not having pay, proto-Nahda intellectuals) and then take the province by storm, something like what happened with the 1925 Syrian Revolt. This is all the more likely if the Ottomans suffer some catastrophic defeat in the Levant (e.g. loss of Iraq to the Afsharids or Mecca to the Egyptians) that makes Constantinople's security umbrella seem less valuable.
In that case, though, the urban/landowner elites are likely to dominate any new Syrian state through varying degrees of alliance with Druze notables, who even in OTL could command large, loyal, and well-armed military forces. This doesn't however, necessarily imply Muslim dominance-- a large contingent of Christian landowners (Armenians, successful Syriac families, Maronites) lorded it over plenty of Shi'a peasants along the Mediterranean coast. So the three most powerful groups are likely to be urban Sunnis, the Druze, and urban Christians. I can't see the form of government being anything other than a Muslim monarchy (see: Muhammad Ali) but it's likely the founders of this Syrian state would have some early disputes over whether a Druze of some illustrious lineage or a sayyid Sunni gets to be the first Sultan. Feudalism would likely remain a prominent social problem, with rural Christian and Shi'a populations suffering the most because of it.
While it is within Europe's power to create minority-led native protectorates, it's hard to see that being the outcome of a Greek-style Syrian War of Independence. It's maybe possible if European State X intervenes at the war's midway point (maybe a point at which the Syrian revolt was starting to falter) under the pretext of saving Christians and then forces the Ottomans to make Syria a mega-Lebanon. Even then, ensuring unchallenged Christian dominance would likely require State X to invade their new protectorate and militarily break the power of competing groups-- at which point the "independent" Syrian state will owe more to European intervention than to its original revolt. Both actions would tank the Ottomans' relations with State X completely, because while the Ottomans could reconcile themselves to losing such marginal lands as Bosnia and Libya in the 20th century, they might not be able to accept losing the old homeland of the Umayyads in the 19th century.
In that case, though, the urban/landowner elites are likely to dominate any new Syrian state through varying degrees of alliance with Druze notables, who even in OTL could command large, loyal, and well-armed military forces. This doesn't however, necessarily imply Muslim dominance-- a large contingent of Christian landowners (Armenians, successful Syriac families, Maronites) lorded it over plenty of Shi'a peasants along the Mediterranean coast. So the three most powerful groups are likely to be urban Sunnis, the Druze, and urban Christians. I can't see the form of government being anything other than a Muslim monarchy (see: Muhammad Ali) but it's likely the founders of this Syrian state would have some early disputes over whether a Druze of some illustrious lineage or a sayyid Sunni gets to be the first Sultan. Feudalism would likely remain a prominent social problem, with rural Christian and Shi'a populations suffering the most because of it.
While it is within Europe's power to create minority-led native protectorates, it's hard to see that being the outcome of a Greek-style Syrian War of Independence. It's maybe possible if European State X intervenes at the war's midway point (maybe a point at which the Syrian revolt was starting to falter) under the pretext of saving Christians and then forces the Ottomans to make Syria a mega-Lebanon. Even then, ensuring unchallenged Christian dominance would likely require State X to invade their new protectorate and militarily break the power of competing groups-- at which point the "independent" Syrian state will owe more to European intervention than to its original revolt. Both actions would tank the Ottomans' relations with State X completely, because while the Ottomans could reconcile themselves to losing such marginal lands as Bosnia and Libya in the 20th century, they might not be able to accept losing the old homeland of the Umayyads in the 19th century.
I suppose you could have some Janina like situation for a while if some powerful governor can play off both the Ottomans and Egypt
I can imagine the Arabicspeaking Christians becoem in charge due to *contacts* .
Maybe due to wish to be distinguished from the Arabs, they try to adopt Aramaic as their language. In a few decades, the whole Antiochian Church becomes Aramaic speaking.
Nowadays, you have the whole Orontes valley speaking Aramaic, as well as the western half of Damascus province.
Maybe due to wish to be distinguished from the Arabs, they try to adopt Aramaic as their language. In a few decades, the whole Antiochian Church becomes Aramaic speaking.
Nowadays, you have the whole Orontes valley speaking Aramaic, as well as the western half of Damascus province.
jocay
Banned
No, because there is no desire, either from the masses or the ruling class to separate themselves from the Ottoman Empire. Syrian or Arab nationalism only began to develop around the 19th century due to the perception that western Europe's successes had been a result of patriotism and the influx of Christian missionaries and educators, prompting the establishment of secret societies. What you COULD have is have a faster collapse of the Ottoman Empire and an ambitious enough governor decides that it's in his best interests to go rogue and he seeks European allies to legitimize his status as an independent ruler. You'd get a Khedive-esque state in Syria with special accommodations granted to Europeans and the Christian minorities living there.
Who is going to keep them in power? This isn't Bulgaria or Bosnia were the percentage were about equal where you could rely on native Christian in support. In the Levant that is not the case. Especially when the Christians aren't concentrated in some specific region. Maybe Mount Lebanon but that is too small to effectively control the Levant.