What was the latest year that the Ottomans could've made a comeback?

[Doctor Imperialism]

When it comes to empires, the Ottoman Empire is one of my favorites, right up there with the Romans.

However, when the Ottomans began to fall, they fell hard.

Thus, I am asking: When do you think the latest year the Ottomans could have made a comeback is, and tranformed themselves from the "Sick man of Europe" to a modernized power?

 

[SavoyTruffle]

1877. That was a close run thing.

You could in fact say the 19th century was a success for the Tanzimat.

 

[Nassirisimo]

1914. Keep them out of world war 1, and theres a good chance they will eventually overtake alot of the European powers in the 20th century.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

1914. Keep them out of world war 1, and theres a good chance they will eventually overtake alot of the European powers in the 20th century.

I'd say that in post-1900, but hey.

 

[Thande]

Depends what you mean by a 'comeback'. If you mean 'remain a Great Power', late 18th century. If you mean 'survive', 1914. (The CPs could have won the war after that, but I tend to think that the Ottomans would not have survived the war without significant changes even if they were on the winning side, much like Austria-Hungary).

 

[Laurentia]

1914. Keep them out of world war 1, and theres a good chance they will eventually overtake alot of the European powers in the 20th century.

They might survive. But not overtake the Europeans.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

1914 at the very latest.

 

[Nassirisimo]

They might survive. But not overtake the Europeans.

Not the Europeans as a group, but it will eventually be more important then any of them (exept for Russia) individually. The GDP (nominal) of all the countries that were a part of the Ottoman Empire in 1914 combined comes to about $1,696,362,000 if my calculations are correct, which would make it a sizeable economic power, though not quite on the level of Britain, France and Italy. However, these countries have all gone through decades of very poor government, war, corruption and instability. An Ottoman government would take away some of these factors, and make others less severe, so we could expect greater economic growth.

If you want a great power though, you will have to go back to 1877. Assuming that they can keep the Balkans in those borders, and gain Egypt, they might have an economy around Japan's levels. This would be added to a considerable army, control of most of the worlds oil, and a important geographical position.

 

[Wendell]

Not the Europeans as a group, but it will eventually be more important then any of them (exept for Russia) individually. The GDP (nominal) of all the countries that were a part of the Ottoman Empire in 1914 combined comes to about $1,696,362,000 if my calculations are correct, which would make it a sizeable economic power, though not quite on the level of Britain, France and Italy. However, these countries have all gone through decades of very poor government, war, corruption and instability. An Ottoman government would take away some of these factors, and make others less severe, so we could expect greater economic growth.

If you want a great power though, you will have to go back to 1877. Assuming that they can keep the Balkans in those borders, and gain Egypt, they might have an economy around Japan's levels. This would be added to a considerable army, control of most of the worlds oil, and a important geographical position.

The problem with this analysis is that it assumes that the twentieth century proceeds on schedule despite the fact that Ottoman neutrality would have totally recalibrated the world war, and might have prevented a second from ever occurring. This means that decolonization and population decline happend more slowly if at all. So, if adding GDPs together is all that is necessary to make the Sublime Porte a power at the end of the twentieth cenury, then adding to Britain's the GDP ofg its colonies and to FRance the GDPs of its colonies will sink the Turks into irrelevance. I agree that the Ottoman Empire can do well, but it will be the leader of the Muslim World boxed in by the powers of Europe, namely Britain and France.

 

[Emperor of Halton]

The problem with this analysis is that it assumes that the twentieth century proceeds on schedule despite the fact that Ottoman neutrality would have totally recalibrated the world war, and might have prevented a second from ever occurring. This means that decolonization and population decline happend more slowly if at all. So, if adding GDPs together is all that is necessary to make the Sublime Porte a power at the end of the twentieth cenury, then adding to Britain's the GDP ofg its colonies and to FRance the GDPs of its colonies will sink the Turks into irrelevance. I agree that the Ottoman Empire can do well, but it will be the leader of the Muslim World boxed in by the powers of Europe, namely Britain and France.

It's entirely possible that a war akin to WWI would still take place, that would still potentially cause enough damage to the European powers. Also, had the Ottomans defeated the Russians in the 1877-1878 war that could inspire Muslim nationalists in a way they weren't in OTL (with a Muslim power defeating a white Christian power). Also, with possession of Egypt, Sudan and Arabia the Ottomans have control over the quickest route to British India and the Far East, and the Ottomans will have great potential to project power far into the Indian Ocean (having a much larger navy than in OTL).

 

[Nassirisimo]

The problem with this analysis is that it assumes that the twentieth century proceeds on schedule despite the fact that Ottoman neutrality would have totally recalibrated the world war, and might have prevented a second from ever occurring. This means that decolonization and population decline happend more slowly if at all. So, if adding GDPs together is all that is necessary to make the Sublime Porte a power at the end of the twentieth cenury, then adding to Britain's the GDP ofg its colonies and to FRance the GDPs of its colonies will sink the Turks into irrelevance. I agree that the Ottoman Empire can do well, but it will be the leader of the Muslim World boxed in by the powers of Europe, namely Britain and France.

Well, World War 2 might very well be butterflied away, but the Colonial system was not going to last forever, and its a stretch to see it last until the end of the 20th century. And its not just the modern GDPs, as the economies of these places would have more advantages then OTL, such as a better educated workforce, a bigger internal market, ect, while places such as India may not see as much economic growth as they did OTL (which was little enough until fairly recently). Even before World War 1, the seeds of destruction for the European empires were sown, World War 1 and 2 just speeded up the process.

 

[Wendell]

Well, World War 2 might very well be butterflied away, but the Colonial system was not going to last forever, and its a stretch to see it last until the end of the 20th century. And its not just the modern GDPs, as the economies of these places would have more advantages then OTL, such as a better educated workforce, a bigger internal market, ect, while places such as India may not see as much economic growth as they did OTL (which was little enough until fairly recently). Even before World War 1, the seeds of destruction for the European empires were sown, World War 1 and 2 just speeded up the process.

Such a claim could equally have been made and justified regarding the prospects for the Ottoman Empire. The difference is that Britain and France still have much of their clout if the remains of their empires whither away. That cannot be said to be true of the Ottoman Empire after 1914.

 

[Nassirisimo]

Such a claim could equally have been made and justified regarding the prospects for the Ottoman Empire. The difference is that Britain and France still have much of their clout if the remains of their empires whither away. That cannot be said to be true of the Ottoman Empire after 1914.

There were a number of important differences between the European empires and the Ottoman empire though. The Colonial empires of Europe were mainly based on keeping the colonies as resource extraction and captive markets, while the Ottomans regarded the Arab provinces as an integral part of the empire. Provided no major drives at Turkification are made, the Arabs are going to continue to see the Ottomans as the legitmate government, so it isn't exactly equally justified, as they were 2 very different beasts. As for the second point, I doubt the Ottoman empire could wither away, it is much more likely to be smashed apart like in OTL.

 

[Wendell]

There were a number of important differences between the European empires and the Ottoman empire though. The Colonial empires of Europe were mainly based on keeping the colonies as resource extraction and captive markets, while the Ottomans regarded the Arab provinces as an integral part of the empire. Provided no major drives at Turkification are made, the Arabs are going to continue to see the Ottomans as the legitmate government, so it isn't exactly equally justified, as they were 2 very different beasts. As for the second point, I doubt the Ottoman empire could wither away, it is much more likely to be smashed apart like in OTL.

Yes and no. While internally self-governing full independence only came to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa in the 1930's. Here, if the First World War is smaller, and there is no Gallipoli-like disaster (due to Ottoman, and thus possibly Bulgarian) neutrality, then it is not unreasonable to contend that Westminster retains its veto far longer in the settler colonies and dominions. THis does not even consider the growing British communities in Rhodesia and Kenya.

Similarly, at this stage in history, French colonialism is in a settler phase. The coastal portions of Algeria and the islands of New Caledonia are being settled more thoroughly by francophone communities. French Guiana similarly is being settled rather than exploited. This does not include the growing French communities in Ivory Coast and Gabon at this point in history (1910's).

Fundamentally, the resource extraction schemes that replaced settler colonialism following the independence/autonomy of most of the Americas was itself being replaced by a more progressive goal of modernizing and developing these colonies, a process disrupted slightly by the First World War, and destroyed by the Second.

Preventing "turkification" of the Empire is easier said than done, and while its population could grow, there is little to no prospect for territorial expansion after 1914 except in Arabia, Persia, or the Russian-held Caucuses, but the latter two are difficult to achieve so late in history.

 

[Wolfpaw]

I'd actually say 1914; there was no guarantee that the Empire was going to collapse. Once the Germans dragged the Ottomans into World War I the writing was on the wall. This is, of course, supposing that WWI still turns out as per OTL.

EDIT: Just went back over the thread and saw how unnecessary this post was

 

[Valdemar II]

Honestly people who expect the Ottoman Empire to evolve into a major power are rather naive. Yes it have access to a large if not a majority of the worlds oil supply. But that's not positive.

Here's a list of the world's seven biggest oil exporters

1: Russia
2: Saudi Arabia
3: United Arab Emirates
4: Iran
5: Kuwait
6: Nigeria
7: Venezuela

None of these are especially well functioning, only one has a diverse economy. In fact if we look at these countries there is in fact one country which may serve as a model.

Nigeria: Yes it's much less developed and well-functioning than OE is going to be, but it have the same problems, the oil is "produced" in an area with a distinct ethnic group far from the centre of power. The result has been continued conflict.
In the same way in OE the oil production will give incitement to the mostly Shia Arabs in the oil-producing area to continue rebel against the central government. Especially because the money from the oil sale will be used in western Anatolia.
The other problem is that OE is going to suffer from the Dutch Disease, nothing in the history of the Ottoman Empire indicate that a large influx of wealth will be used wisely like investments in the secondary sector, rather we will just see a increase in the import of European consumer and luxury goods. Through we may see a some wise investments in damms and other infrastructure. Of course the army will likely be in much better shape than Saudi Arabia, mostly because it will be recruit among Turks and Kurds and the continued conflict in the Arabic areas* will keep it in good shape.

*Fueled by the Iranians and some western countries (UK, USA maybe France? All depending on how close the Ottomans stay to Germany).

 

[Nassirisimo]

Honestly people who expect the Ottoman Empire to evolve into a major power are rather naive. Yes it have access to a large if not a majority of the worlds oil supply. But that's not positive.

Here's a list of the world's seven biggest oil exporters

1: Russia
2: Saudi Arabia
3: United Arab Emirates
4: Iran
5: Kuwait
6: Nigeria
7: Venezuela

None of these are especially well functioning, only one has a diverse economy. In fact if we look at these countries there is in fact one country which may serve as a model.

Nigeria: Yes it's much less developed and well-functioning than OE is going to be, but it have the same problems, the oil is "produced" in an area with a distinct ethnic group far from the centre of power. The result has been continued conflict.
In the same way in OE the oil production will give incitement to the mostly Shia Arabs in the oil-producing area to continue rebel against the central government. Especially because the money from the oil sale will be used in western Anatolia.
The other problem is that OE is going to suffer from the Dutch Disease, nothing in the history of the Ottoman Empire indicate that a large influx of wealth will be used wisely like investments in the secondary sector, rather we will just see a increase in the import of European consumer and luxury goods. Through we may see a some wise investments in damms and other infrastructure. Of course the army will likely be in much better shape than Saudi Arabia, mostly because it will be recruit among Turks and Kurds and the continued conflict in the Arabic areas* will keep it in good shape.

*Fueled by the Iranians and some western countries (UK, USA maybe France? All depending on how close the Ottomans stay to Germany).

1- Russia is a major power. One with more then its fair share of problems, but a major power nonetheless.

2- With a 1877 POD, the oil-rich Arab provinces (not all of them are in Shia areas) will be balenced out by the industrial Balkans. And if you avoid the Iranian revolution as it turned out OTL (using any of these POD's, I can't see how it would happen) then political Shiism will be much less of an issue as it is in our world. There is also going to be less pan-Arab nationalism, and without other motivators, places don't just break off to control resources. The Eastern provinces havn't broke off from the rest of Saudi Arabia despite having the oil.

3- There is nothing to suggest that the money would be unwisely spent either. About the most wasteful thing that the Ottoman Empire spent money on in the 19th century was Dolmabahçe palace, and much more was spent on things such as the army, navy, infrastructure, ect... Even for all the legends of Arab cases of Dutch disease, the Arab rulers of the Gulf have not spent all of the money on stupid things. There has been investment in education and the like. And this is with most of the Arab rulers not having centuries of rule and an established bureaucracy behind them, so they arn't going to spend it like the Saudis do.

4- The Ottoman army had a considerable Arab element in it too. 100,000 Arab soldiers fought for the Ottomans in World War 1 (as opposed to 15,000 in the Arab revolt). And the vast majority of the Arabs are not going to take orders from the Iranians and Westerners in order to revolt against what they see as their legitimate government (headed by their Caliph, no less).

There is no denying that the Ottoman state will continue to face problems, but I feel that you are being much to pessimistic about their future prospects.

 

[Valdemar II]

1- Russia is a major power. One with more then its fair share of problems, but a major power nonetheless.

Yes but it also have a much bigger and diverse economy

2- With a 1877 POD, the oil-rich Arab provinces (not all of them are in Shia areas) will be balenced out by the industrial Balkans. And if you avoid the Iranian revolution as it turned out OTL (using any of these POD's, I can't see how it would happen) then political Shiism will be much less of an issue as it is in our world. There is also going to be less pan-Arab nationalism, and without other motivators, places don't just break off to control resources. The Eastern provinces havn't broke off from the rest of Saudi Arabia despite having the oil.

I don't buy the whole avoid conflict in the Balkans, the flame may have come from the outside, but the gasoline was there already. For Shiism, well with the local oil money going to Constantinoble, well it's the recipe for creating a distinct local area to develop a strong national movement. It's no accident that the oil producing corner of Nigeria have one of the strongest seperatist movements, and surprisingly we do see the same problem in Saudi Arabia, the army just keep them down, and it's a lot closer to the Saudi centre of power than to the Ottoman one.

3- There is nothing to suggest that the money would be unwisely spent either. About the most wasteful thing that the Ottoman Empire spent money on in the 19th century was Dolmabahçe palace, and much more was spent on things such as the army, navy, infrastructure, ect... Even for all the legends of Arab cases of Dutch disease, the Arab rulers of the Gulf have not spent all of the money on stupid things. There has been investment in education and the like. And this is with most of the Arab rulers not having centuries of rule and an established bureaucracy behind them, so they arn't going to spend it like the Saudis do.

Try look up the economical history of the Ottoman Empire, it's one long history of failed investments and letting foreign countries monopolise internal trade in the Ottoman Empire and failing to invest in the secondary sector. For the Golf States investment, I honestly don't give them a good chance, Dubai is a good example of their failed investments, it couldn't survive without oil money from Abu Dhabi.

There is no denying that the Ottoman state will continue to face problems, but I feel that you are being much to pessimistic about their future prospects.

No it's me being realistic about their prospects. People find the Ottoman Empire cool, so they want it to survive and be big, well wanting it to be a world power isn't going to m ake it one.