alternatehistory.com

For since a long time I began to observe it, there have been several misconceptions adhered by many people about Ottoman Empire. Though misunderstandings, they have been pretty popular, and certainly the lack of publication of the accurate factoids has been behind the forming of this current condition we're facing. But that doesn't stop me somehow, from being curious about which misconception that is the most popular ;)

- Ever naturally Anatolian-based entity.

Blame the Ottomans for losing towards the Russians in 1878 for this. Prior to that, the Ottomans based their main source of power in the Balkans, whether in terms of man power or in economy. Only few already aware that ever since around 14th-15th century Ottoman holdings in the Balkans had been having large muslim population. They may be very well were minority from the PoV of religious proportion during those times, how over in the terms of socio-cultural group they were the largest of the Balkan region during those times, and that continued well until the late 19th century. It was true that they originated in Anatolia, but Bursa was just like what, 100 kilos from Constantinople ?

Only after 1878, did the empire begin to shift its power base towards Anatolia.

- Dominated by ethnic Turks.

The ethnic and cultural roots might be very well originated from Turkic stock. Apparently most, if not all of the time the Ottoman Imperial elites were largely ignorant on the concept of ethnic identity at the very least. They were largely accommodating towards most socio-ethnic-religious groups that resided within the empire. Ottoman Empire rose from one of the small beyliks during the turbulent era of the Ghazi Emirates Period. That, and the Ottoman proximity towards Greek Byzantine ruled Constantinople may had contributed to the universalist nature of the Ottoman state in later days. It was the fact indeed that Ottoman Sultans and princes were often married to Greek Princesses. Also, there wasn't even a coherent concept of a Turkish ethnic identity. During the Ottoman times, whenever people saying "Turk", it would most likely mean the Anatolian rural peasants. The elites of the empire were using a different uh... 'dialect' that contained heavy amount of loanwords from Arabic and Persian and even some Greek, unlike the more Turkic highlander peasants.....

Though maybe not all ethnic groups were perfectly equal, but the top was certainly NOT dominated by the Turks. It wasn't even very obvious which ethnic group was the most dominant, and I would suspect that there was none. I would argue it was the Balkan muslims though which were the "most existing". Hope The Pasha will correct me if I'm wrong about that though.

- The Osmanli Dynasty was the Empire itself.

This one is quite bothersome stereotype. But we can never forget that it was one of the longest lasting dynasties in the 2nd millenia, if not the longest. They were indeed the one who started the empire, who developed it into a strong empire, and the fact that they managed to last their hold onto the empire until the end of the empire itself, sometimes by brutal means. Sentimentally, they were synonymous indeed with the empire. However, it wouldn't be possible to have their empire lasting as long as IOTL, without building a large, organized state-machinery that certainly was far from managable by them alone, and could have certainly managed to survive even without the Osmanlis. And certainly, if unlikely, there were times that the fall of the Osmanlis from the Topkapi was plausible, maybe even possible.

More or less, this misconception is somewhat forgivable. Still a bothersome misunderstanding though.

- Asiatic-oriented, instead of European-oriented state.

Related to the point #1. As it has been mentioned that during its time as a petty beylik, they were more eager to follow their proximity toward Constantinople, leading its expansion into the Balkans. To the east, the Karamanids and the all the Sheep tribes (if they were already there) were to strong, to far, and still yet to be interesting for the little still-infant Osmanli beylik back then in her early days.

Maybe all this misunderstanding about which one was the Ottoman power base has been caused by little to none information about how exactly was the earliest Balkan large muslim community formed ?

- The Backward, Medieval State among the industrializing nations of 19th-20th century. The Old, Sickman of Europe

This is perhaps, almost certainly in fact, the most popular and the least questioned stereotype among stereotypes about Ottoman Empire. The 19th century Ottoman Empire, only recently woken up from a period of stagnation, did face many troubles and the need to reform, and they were actually quite optimally successful in it, for the conditions she was under. With controlling mostly arid land and diverse and sparse population, surely the empire couldn't have pulled as much industrialization as Japan. But it only needed a few more bad luck that resulted in her lost towards the less well-prepared Russians invaders in 1878, which caused the later's underestimation towards the former justified, and ultimately the stamping as "Sickman of Europe" toward her. In case about the empire's confrontation against the era's contemporary modern ideas of national principle, that defeat contributed large boost on the later's position over the former, but even that is often exaggerated. They managed to stay around in the Balkans until 1911 when the Balkan Wars erupted. And in her Asian territories, only the Armenians that eventually become a real problem. All the Arabs-wanting-independence issues, frankly has been never convincing. They did became quite demanding. Wasn't it because of the Imperial attempts to appease them post-1878, that they became more demanding ? At the furthest, they demanded an great autonomy under a dual monarchy, didn't they ? Even on that I suspect only the Arabian elites in the military that demanded it.

In terms of the modernization of its governmental system and democracy, it performed quite well. There was indeed a halt on democratization during Abdul Hamid II's reign, but that was only at the center, while in provincial level and below liberalization continued to proceed. Never forget to note that they managed to do all that under the bothersome pressure by European powers, which apparently were not in agreement with the Ottomans about how the Empire should've reformed...

All in all, if it was a sickman, Ottoman Empire must had had an incredibly fierce immunity and regeneration system. But that strong of an immunity and regeneration system apparently wouldn't be guaranteeing her surviving the mortal British conquest, as OTL has proved.

P.S. : About the governmental system, that needs to be given special notice, I think. It was a "parliamentary democracy-ish", that I think indicated that there was a significant level of critical filteration in adopting western ways to conduct modernization. I don't know the details, but this seems to be suggesting that, had the Empire survived, by today we might be seeing a unique form of an Ottoman-style Parliamentary Democracy.....





Now, which one is the "most popular" ? :D Somehow I'm convinced to bet for the last option though.... :rolleyes: However I'm secretly hoping for a surprise :p:D
Top