What would a suriving Ottoman Empire look like?

Here it is in my TL-

mowquelabelled.png

You know what ? We really need a map depicting Ottoman vilayets, for the sake of greater good.
 
Like this.:cool:

Someone had a week-long EU3 session.

Anyway, if the Ottoman Empire had survived, It likely would have Islamicised more of the Balkans (Bulgaria, I'm looking at you). By defeating Russia, it would have expanded influence in the Black Sea, continuing to control the Crimea. It would likely have expanded to incorporate the Islamic north Caucasus (chechnya, dagestan etc.), expanded further into North Africa, and Arabia if the oil was discovered, as well as waging a diplomatic war against British-backed Persia, the likely stakes of which would be Shiite Mesopotamia (Iraq). I imagine they would have influence in Muslim areas of SE Asia, such as Malaysia and Aceh. I don't think the Ottoman empire would secularise, as much of it's monarchy's authority came from religious hierarchy, at least in it's Sunni possessions. The Ottomans would also expand influence into The Horn of Africa, keep control of Egypt, and possibly create their own Suez Canal, getting them a lot of money. The Ottomans would also expand influence into Central Asia, if the Persians were beat and Russia kept at bay.
 
Was the OE that much more multiethnic than, say, Afghanistan, which has its ups and downs but seems to stay more or less together?
 
Austro-Russian pressure in the Balkans was just too much for the Ottomans.

A first start might be getting Austria to defeat Prussia for dominance of Germany, which means no Ausgleich (not under the same circumstances as OTL anyway) and Vienna's focus being directed north. And to do that it might be worth getting rid of Napoleon III - his geopolitical whims were counter-productive, a more logical French foriegn policy could see a Paris-Vienna-Copenhagen axis arrayed against Berlin in the 1860s/70s.

An early "self-strengthening movement" would also certainly help. Murad V was pro-French and inclined to democratic reforms, however he was quickly deposed in 1876, and lived under house arrest until 1904. It was his first moves that led to the brief 1st Constitutional Era under his successor Abdul Hamid II, while his ousting led to unrest throughout Empire, which helped provoke the Russo-Turkish War in 1877.

I have little knowledge about Murad and his overthrow but he had the support of the Young Ottomans, the multi-ethnic predecessor to the Young Turks. If you can keep him in power, you might postpone the war, or at the very least the Ottomans would be better prepared.

The big problem is the Balkans - Slavic nationalism will inevitably force the Empire out of the region due to European support.

Arab nationalism is relatively recent and fragile thing due to tribal and regional rivalries, so I can see a democratic Empire centred around Turkey and the Middle East having some staying power.

Murad was deposed because he was mentally incompetent. He suffered from acute stress and had breakdowns whenever under pressure.

His deposition in favor of Abdul Hamid had nothing to do with the Russian attack, which was motivated out of fear of the Ottoman revival in the 19th c.

Slavic nationalism was an issue, but it was not supported by Europe, only Russia. Nobody else had any interest in encouraging it - especially Austria-Hungary, which had a momentary lapse of sanity in 1877.

Without foreign intervention, the Balkan Slavs don't really have much chance, as they were divided into small nationalist blocks, whereas the Muslims had a much more unitary and loyalist outlook, and comprised 43% of the population. That balance would tip further in the Muslims' favor as rail lines made it affordable for people to move from poorer areas into the more economically developed Balkans.

Your idea for an Austrian victory over Prussia is a good one, as would be a French victory over Prussia. It was the latter that made the Russian invasion possible due to the temporary removal of France as a great power.

You could also have the Ottomans defeat Russia in the war, which was easily possible. The only ways the Russians were superior were in numbers and unity of command, and they didn't bring forward enough of their numbers. The Ottomans had superior experience, training, and equipment, but the untimely assassination of the Minister of War left the military leaderless, with rival pashas refusing to cooperate.

Historically, the Russians failed at first, and then had to strip their defenses elsewhere to overwhelm the Ottomans by sheer mass.
 
Arab nationalism will also overcome them. Just remember how strong the Pan-Arabic sentiment was during the 50's-60's-70's. The world will not tolerate Ottoman rule of Arab lands and Ottoman rule of Arabia will also become impossible because the people are just not cooperating. More than that, they actively oppose them.

There was no Arab nationalism during the Ottoman era, nor did any of the Arab territories join the "revolt" in WWI. It was the end of the empire that required a substitute for Ottomanism. The Arabs viewed the empire much like the Greeks did the Roman Empire. It was simply the government. When it ceased to exist, they had to find new ideologies, and Arab nationalism was the only one that made sense at the time.

Remember that "Arab" used to refer to just the beduin. Everyone else thought of themselves in local terms. They aren't all alike - not in culture, history, or even language.

For some of the outlying areas of the empire, which were treated more "colonially" like Yemen, long-term Ottoman rule might be a problem, if control can't be consolidated and the area modernized and developed. But the core areas of the Arab territories, like Greater Syria were integral parts of the empire, and virtually nobody even conceived of an alternative.
 
If nationalism doesn't develop on its own and take down the Ottomans, I'm quite sure foreign intelligence agencies are willing to back up groups to promote nationalism and cause a breakup of the empire. After all, I don't think the European powers and the US will take kindly in having to deal with the Ottomans when it comes to Mid-east oil.

Why? Isn't it better to deal with just one government instead of the nightmare of numerous unstable ones? Especially one that's been a reliable economic partner for centuries, and where you have established influence and relations?
 
Forced Turkification by the young Turk government from 1913 on led to increased ethnic tensions. At one point the Turks will become too dominant and the Arabs - now nationalistic - won't like it. And the Catalonians(as well as the Basques) are definitely causing some troubles for the Spaniards as many wish independance. The Basques even fought for it for some time, and they still do. Besides, Catalonians and Arabs aren't comparable. Also, the OE didn't have such a great level of control over Arabia. The Ottoman system was extremely corrupt and lacking in terms of Beuraeucratic manpower.

There was no forced Turkification. What there was was increased centralization, which meant more standard use of Ottoman Turkish. That was as you say causing tensions, but wouldn't have survived the Young Turks falling from power, which they would have if not for WWI.

The Ottoman system was not "extremely corrupt". It was somewhat lacking in bureaucratic manpower, but by the 20th c this problem was much, much reduced as the growing education system was better able to provide qualified candidates.

The Ottomans had very good control over Greater Syria, Libya, the Hijaz, and Northern Iraq, decent and growing control over Southern Iraq, lesser control over Yemen, and nominal control over the interior of Arabia - but they controlled both coasts, where all the food and water were, so the Saudis were at worst a nuisance, which would have been eliminated with the internal combustion engine.
 
You know what ? We really need a map depicting Ottoman vilayets, for the sake of greater good.

Here's the Balkans. This is a study of the population ratios. I think I've updated them slightly as I've gathered information, but it's essentially correct, and the vilayet borders are definitely correct.

Balkans1877popC2.png


And here's Anatolia:

turkeyadm1900.gif
 
Was the OE that much more multiethnic than, say, Afghanistan, which has its ups and downs but seems to stay more or less together?

It was definitely more multi-ethnic. Afghanistan is essentially Persian with some Turkic-types thrown in, but all with a Persianate culture. The Ottoman Empire was more diverse, with a myriad of ethnicities and faiths.

There are pluses and minuses - it has a much stronger and deeper state structure, a fairly strong sense of Ottomanness among most of the Muslims, which made control over the fractured nationalisms of the Balkans possible.

After 1878, I think Ottoman control over the remains of its Balkan territories was doomed. It was not strategically defensible. But before that, with the Danube as the first line of defense, with the Balkans as the second, it was very much possible to maintain.

A lot would have to go right for that to happen, but it was possible.

Retention of the Asiatic territories I would rate as likely - and probably close to certain if the empire had stayed out of WWI.
 
Here's the Balkans. This is a study of the population ratios. I think I've updated them slightly as I've gathered information, but it's essentially correct, and the vilayet borders are definitely correct.

Balkans1877popC2.png


And here's Anatolia:

Only got to know this recently. Thanks Pasha ! :)

However I'm still curious about the subdivision in the more southernly regions. Any advice on where I can get information about it ? Or has mowque's map explained it accurately enough ?
 

True. It's still a possibility. I don't think the Ottomans would be so willing to give in concessions to Western oil companies.

Dude. They gave concessions all the time. That was one of the defining features of their history in the 19th century.
 
Nationalism - as a problem for the Ottomans - seems to be a consequence of failure, rather than success.

That's my understanding of what has been said by those who have done more research.
 
Forced Turkification by the young Turk government from 1913 on led to increased ethnic tensions. At one point the Turks will become too dominant and the Arabs - now nationalistic - won't like it.

The rise of the Young Turks was not inevitable.

You are right that their policies would have created friction, but independence movements are right out unless the place gets involved in a total war. Then there still won't be a national revolt, only a few opportunists will ally with the enemy to try to improve their position. In other words, exactly what happened in OTL.

What you're missing is that even in OTL, religion is by far the strongest indicator of national identification in the Middle East, Turkey included. Despite existing in nation-ish units for 90 years, the people still tend to identify predominately with their faith, not their "country." And the head of the Islamic faith was the Caliph in Constantinople. It's natural to see Turkish Nationalists in charge of a state and assume that this indicates strong nationalism, but in fact much the opposite was true. The Young Turks were trying to create Turkish Nationalism, as later was Attaturk, and in large part they failed.

If the Young Turks had continued to alienate the Arabs for another decade or so, what you'd see is the provinces assuming more local autonomy. You wouldn't see independence movements because the only people who wanted independence were individuals in power locally (like the fellow who set up independent Egypt), not the people under them.

And the Catalonians(as well as the Basques) are definitely causing some troubles for the Spaniards as many wish independance. The Basques even fought for it for some time, and they still do. Besides, Catalonians and Arabs aren't comparable.

Actually, since 2001 the Basques have been quiet and the Catalonians quieter. What's left of the movement is old people still upset about the Nationalists cracking down on them. The younger generation could care less, and despite legal liguistic autonomy tend to choose to speak Spanish over their native tongue. What moves toward greater local independence you see there are often attributable to the EU - leaving Spain is less of a big deal if you're still in a larger framework. That said, there's currently more realistic moves for the independence of Scotland than those two.

And yes, they aren't comparable to the Arabs. The Arabs don't care for our idea of the nation state and had 1200 years of history of submitting to whichever group had the caliph, regardless of ethnicity or background.

Also, the OE didn't have such a great level of control over Arabia. The Ottoman system was extremely corrupt and lacking in terms of Beuraeucratic manpower.

Actually, they had more control immediately before WW1 then they ever had before. As for extreme corruption, that happens not to be the case.

You don't seem to be very well read on this topic, so I recommend you take the time to read up on it before painting yourself further into the corner. You'll find Wikipedia is a poor choice.
 

Don't have the Ottomans lose so much land during its last 100 years.

This.

Under the Ottomans, Anatolia was mostly a backwater, and the term Turk itself a rough equivalent to our "redneck." Just as you have people coopting the insulting term as a positive one in the modern US, the Young Turks were attempting the same in the early 1900s. Why they did this was because the nation was stripped of the Balkans - its heartland, and left with only the Arab, Turkish, and Kurdish bits, plus various Christian minorities. Anatolia was settled by refugees from the Balkans and Russian Caucasus, and the state had to "relabel" itself. Heck, Attaturk himself was Albanian.

Absent those losses, Anatolia remains the empty provinces in the middle, and the Ottomans retain a more cosmopolitan populace and more Balkan focus.
 
It would have to develop a kind of cosmopolitan ideology that counterbalances any growth of nationalism. The big problem is that their power center was in the Balkans, and in an age of nationalism while Muslims were at one point a lot bigger chunk of the Balkan population than they are now, the various Powers like Austria (in its forms) and Russia have obvious and vested interests in parlaying a mostly-Slavic region into nationalist states.

A more deep-set POD is the Greek Revolution, which if suppressed gives the Ottomans a lot more room to work with and no precedent of carving off chunks of it on a religious basis. However the butterfly effects of any POD in the 1830s will have major impact on the rest of Europe later on (for instance Metternichian conservatism will last longer without being so quickly undercut as it was IOTL).

I'd argue that Austria actually had exactly the opposite interests. I mean, Austria's allowance of 1878's events created Serbia and separated Bosnia-Herzegovina. The two places that together directly led to the states dismemberment. I'd also argue that Austria mostly tried to avoid just this, with 1878 being sort of a temporary error in judgement.
 
Top