What if the Ottomans resisted Napoleon III's demands over the Holy Places in 1850s? No Crimean War?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if the Ottomans had turned down Napoleon III's demands to grant more power over the Holy Places to Catholic clergy in the 1850s?

In OTL, Napoleon III's demands were part of the descent into the Crimean War. They sparked Russian counter-demands, then Russian intervention, then Ottoman pushback, then ultimately a Turkish-British-French coalition against Russia.

All in all, the Crimean War did not work out badly for the Ottomans.

Even so, I could imagine a Sultan and Viziers seeing French demands, and their acceptance, as dangerous moves, provocative to the Eastern Orthodox populations of the Ottoman Empire, and to Russia.

I could imagine them trying to deflect or ignore French demands, simply to avoid rocking the boat with the Orthodox clergy and populace and Russia. Orthodox Christians far outnumbered Catholics in the OE, and Russia had shown itself as the more dangerous enemy, closer to home and capable of holding its gains. The Sultan and Viziers could estimate that in an absolute worst case, the French might invade a province or two, but that surely the other powers of Europe would help the Ottomans expel the French as in the days of Napoleon I, or expel the French proxies, as in the second Ottoman-Egyptian War.

If the Ottomans do this, what happens? Do they go longer period without experiencing a war with Russia? Do they keep their fleet lost at Sinope?

How do the French respond to the rebuff? They did send ships into the Black Sea if I remember correctly.

Paul Kennedy has explained how during the Crimean War, France's status as a "hybrid" land and sea power, usually a source of headaches throughout history, was actually an advantage in this period.

Would Napoleon III go so far as to invade Constantinople? Or Syria-Palestine? Or Tunis or Libya?

What would Palmerston's reaction be if the French did that? What would the Russian reaction be?

Obviously, Palmerston was very Russophobic before and during OTL's Crimean War (although not really so much in 1848-49), but just a little over a decade earlier, Britain had sided *with* Russia against the French-supported Muhammad Ali.

Or if the French refrained from any military aggression, would the French limit retaliation to refusing to educate Ottomans or sell arms or provide advisors. If the French took this course, and the Ottomans lost this favored source of "technical support" could the Ottomans count on British, Dutch, Prussians, Austrians and other Europeans to make deals for weapons and technical training?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
OE = abbreviation for Ottoman Empire.

Is there a way for the OE to deflect or evade French demands as politely as possible, (no slapping of envoys with a fly whisk, no rude letters) such that Napoleon III moves on to greener pastures? Or is Napoleon III going to be set on serious punishment of the Ottomans for not submitting to his demands?
 
I'd love to give my detailed response to this, but its far too late to give the depth it needs. Will do so as soon as I have the time to.
 
Really, Napoleon III cared about the preservation of the Ottoman Empire, but the Ottomans really didn't want to deal with the Tsar, and Napoleon III's religious squandering. If the Ottomans accepted, the Orthodox population would be pissed they sold them out for some Fancy Catholics in Western Europe, and help build anti-Ottoman sentiments. If they didn't accept, France wouldn't support Ottoman development programs, and in a future Russian endeavor not get as much French support as they'd like (they'd still support the Ottomans in military confrontation to get favorable terms with Britain) but the French will stray further and further away from the Ottomans.

If the Ottomans resisted the demands, Napoleon III won't be aggressive over the Ottomans, but he will attempt to route Catholics around him in other ways. I kind of think of Napoleon III as my domestic term of a Pan-Catholic, but I belive he would try other Catholic projects in Africa, Asia, and America. The Ottoman Christian demand was one step into getting Catholics, and also French on his side.

Nicholas I had been ruling for a good amount of time, and he might not have had the ambitions of taking land from the Ottomans right now. He already fought Persia in the last Russo-Persian war, a great Russian victory, making Persia rid itself of all its Caucasus territory. Even if not Ottoman, it was something and there are alternate places of expansion, such as the First Opium War, revealing a China that while not weak, would be up to carving by the Russians to increase power in the Far East. However, without the Crimean war, the Russians won't have suffered such a straining defeat to force them to modernize the economy, and military, which we could see no sale of Alaska.

As for Sinope, the disaster there was mainly because it was a sneak attack, and the Ottomans didn't know the Russians would send tons of battleships to a port full of frigates, and corvettes. The Ottomans had battleships, but they weren't in Sinope to guard. Without Sinope, those ships aren't destroyed but could be a good thing or bad thing for the Ottomans. Without the defeat in Sinope, there wouldn't be an incentive for the Ottomans to spend money to modernize, strengthen, and increase its fleets. During the reign of Abdulaziz, he borrowed a lot of loans from European powers to do just that, and many say that after he spent ALOT of money on the navy, the Ottoman navy was one of the strongest in the world, behind Britain, and France to keep Russia bottled in the Black Sea.

Napoleon III can't invade Constantinople, and wouldn't want to. The British couldn't force the straits in the Anglo-Turkish war in the Napoleonic era, and I doubt France could. If they did try, they'd expect hundreds of thousands of professional Ottoman Soldiers ready to fend them off till they're last breath.

Napoleon Bonaparte failed to take Syria, so Napoleon III might try to pry the Ottomans with some concessions in Syria for French rights for any future plans of conquest of Syria when the time is right, or for his successor. While Libya is a bit too far, Tunisia would be perfect, as they were currently taking Algeria, and taking Tunisia might be easy for them as retaliation.

If France isn't supporting the Ottomans much anymore, I could definitely see Prussia giving support to the Ottomans much earlier. If it also means Russia would be distracted in the East for a few more years with a more modernized Russia, and leave Prussian affairs alone, that would be great for them.

But don't say "educate" the Ottomans. Sounds a bit Euro-Centric, and it's not like the Ottomans were dumb.

You also forgot Austria in all this. Austria won't have the position to betray Russia, and the Russo-Austrian alliance will probably still be in effect.

This supports my Prussian-Ottoman thesis, as with an Austria allied with Russia, having a modernized Ottomans as a counterweight to the Russians so the Prussians can focus on uniting Germany, and dealing with Austria themselves.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
It seems like FillyofDelphi has something to say. And Alex Milman might have an opinion too.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
If the Ottomans resisted the demands, Napoleon III won't be aggressive over the Ottomans, but he will attempt to route Catholics around him in other ways. I kind of think of Napoleon III as my domestic term of a Pan-Catholic, but I belive he would try other Catholic projects in Africa, Asia, and America.

Hmm, well, might he pick a fight with a Catholic-persecuting Vietnamese Emperor earlier? In OTL he made that move only after the Crimean War, in 1858. Where else would a Catholic cause be at stake?

Papal States ? got it, but he did protect Latium/Lazio in OTL, and it would not be in additional danger for awhile.

Ireland? Would violate his "don't piss off Britain" policy

Poland? They did not have a revolt until 10 years later, and France had no way of getting there

Earlier intervention in Mexican internal strife? Probably too dangerous to try before the US Civil War breaks out.

Were any other parts of Latin America, especially South America, experiencing disorder and undertaking anticlerical policies at this time, that the French could militarily "punish"?

The Ottoman Christian demand was one step into getting Catholics, and also French on his side.

...indeed...

Napoleon Bonaparte failed to take Syria, so Napoleon III might try to pry the Ottomans with some concessions in Syria for French rights for any future plans of conquest of Syria when the time is right, or for his successor.

Yes, well eventually even in OTL the French intervened to champion the Maronites in Lebanon in 1860. Perhaps they do something bigger or more permanent

While Libya is a bit too far, Tunisia would be perfect, as they were currently taking Algeria, and taking Tunisia might be easy for them as retaliation.

Maybe so -
 
Hmm, well, might he pick a fight with a Catholic-persecuting Vietnamese Emperor earlier? In OTL he made that move only after the Crimean War, in 1858. Where else would a Catholic cause be at stake?

Papal States ? got it, but he did protect Latium/Lazio in OTL, and it would not be in additional danger for awhile.

Ireland? Would violate his "don't piss off Britain" policy

Poland? They did not have a revolt until 10 years later, and France had no way of getting there

Earlier intervention in Mexican internal strife? Probably too dangerous to try before the US Civil War breaks out.

Were any other parts of Latin America, especially South America, experiencing disorder and undertaking anticlerical policies at this time, that the French could militarily "punish"?



...indeed...



Yes, well eventually even in OTL the French intervened to champion the Maronites in Lebanon in 1860. Perhaps they do something bigger or more permanent



Maybe so -

he didn't conquer it until 1887, but if he seeks to increase the influence of France in Vietnam if protecting Christians under the Ottoman Empire under French rule doesn't work, Asia might be a good place to increase French domination. We could see a French colonization of Vietnam finish in the 60s or 70s, which in case of a Sino-French war, could see a decisive French victory.

In South America, there isn't much to do, as many larger wars happened during the Crimean war, but the Paraguayan war is happening 10 years from now, and Napoleon III could do something there. But being Catholic, none of them were really doing anticlerical policies.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Anybody thinks that Incanian and I are underestimating what France might do to the Turks if they defy Paris?
 
Top