WI: Italy conquers entire Ottoman realm 1911

Pat, I'ld like to buy an ASB.



The Italians got Libya and a group of islands centered on Rhodes, and one key reason for that minimal achievement was that Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia all decided to jump the Ottomans together.
 
Pat, I'ld like to buy an ASB.



The Italians got Libya and a group of islands centered on Rhodes, and one key reason for that minimal achievement was that Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia all decided to jump the Ottomans together.

I'm sorry Grimm, but at $300 a ASB you are knocked below $0.

There are forty two ASBs on the puzzle.

The Ottomans would have to completely surrender to achieve this outcome, which is...not going to happen here. Period.
 

The Sandman

Banned
The Ottomans shrug, say "well, beats having to actually buy a navy", and just block the Italian ships in. Then starve them out. Or just capture them when the Italians decide to blow through their supply of marines and ammo launching an assault on Constantinople.

So, how do you think the Ottomans will use their shiny new navy?

And yes, this is less ASB than the OP was.

I'd also like to add, for the record, that the Italians haven't successfully conquered anything that required a real fight since the Western Roman Empire fell. I'm of the opinion that Italy, especially Italy between 1896 and 1945, probably couldn't have launched a successful invasion of San Marino without somebody else helping them out.
 

Nietzsche

Banned
The Ottomans shrug, say "well, beats having to actually buy a navy", and just block the Italian ships in. Then starve them out. Or just capture them when the Italians decide to blow through their supply of marines and ammo launching an assault on Constantinople.

So, how do you think the Ottomans will use their shiny new navy?

And yes, this is less ASB than the OP was.

I'd also like to add, for the record, that the Italians haven't successfully conquered anything that required a real fight since the Western Roman Empire fell. I'm of the opinion that Italy, especially Italy between 1896 and 1945, probably couldn't have launched a successful invasion of San Marino without somebody else helping them out.

Pretty much. Everything since Rome has been a plunge into....something. Because I don't know if it ends.
 

Baskilisk

Banned
Italian navy appears off Constantinople on September 30th 1911, and bombards the city. Italian sailors then come ashore and capture the city. (this actually happened in Tripoli on September 28th)

Shocked by Italian military prowess, and concerned about rumblings from the Balkans, and Arab provinces, the Ottoman Sultan agrees to hand over Libya to Italy, and an Italian protectorate over the rest of the empire
I think the OP is just looking for a new Roman Empire setup. With minimal effort.
 
The Ottomans shrug, say "well, beats having to actually buy a navy", and just block the Italian ships in. Then starve them out. Or just capture them when the Italians decide to blow through their supply of marines and ammo launching an assault on Constantinople.

So, how do you think the Ottomans will use their shiny new navy?

And yes, this is less ASB than the OP was.

I'd also like to add, for the record, that the Italians haven't successfully conquered anything that required a real fight since the Western Roman Empire fell. I'm of the opinion that Italy, especially Italy between 1896 and 1945, probably couldn't have launched a successful invasion of San Marino without somebody else helping them out.

Okay, I admit it. I posted because I wanted somebody to be "shocked by Italian military prowess". Seeing as I didn't expect it to be a major European power, Ottomans seemed a good choice.

That said, I do not agree that A > B > C is the only factor in history. Just because Britain and France couldn't break the Ottoman defenses in 1915, doesn't mean that Italy couldn't under different circumstances (say total surprise?) in 1911.

e.g. Iraq defeated Iran in 1988 (as the then objectives of the Iran-Iraq war, as opposed to the 1980 objectives). The USA defeated Iraq easily in 1991. Therefore the USA should have been easily able to conquer Iran in 1991? Hmmm....
 

nbcman

Donor
@SunilTanna

If the US focused our full military and industrial output in '91, it would have been a curbstomp. However ruling Iran would be another issue altogether (refer to OTL Iraq).
 

Hashasheen

Banned
I'm only responding to this post because this is incredibly ASB and as an advocate for the Ottomans, I feel obligated to respond. (you are really lucky Abdul hasn't seen the thread yet)

Okay, I admit it. I posted because I wanted somebody to be "shocked by Italian military prowess". Seeing as I didn't expect it to be a major European power, Ottomans seemed a good choice.
You know how American's rag on France's military and as a nation? That's pre-WW1 and WW1 Italy. They barely captured Libya, were little more than a bloody distraction on their front against the Austrian-Hungarians (a military that wasn't exactly top-notch in and unto itself) They are infact the only European power to be defeated by an African state, and in most fronts and wars they have been, they haven't exactly been the Ultramarines.

That said, I do not agree that A > B > C is the only factor in history. Just because Britain and France couldn't break the Ottoman defenses in 1915, doesn't mean that Italy couldn't under different circumstances (say total surprise?) in 1911.
... Yes it does. Britain and France were first-class naval and ground powers. It took Britain, France, Russia, and Arab rebels to bring it down, and even then, they were embarresed on several occasions (the infamous Gallipoli affair as the biggest). Total suprise doesn't work as you want it to, because of the distances and logistics involved not to mention the crappy nature of the Italian military. I don't think they've had a decent general since the one who unified Italy.

e.g. Iraq defeated Iran in 1988 (as the then objectives of the Iran-Iraq war, as opposed to the 1980 objectives). The USA defeated Iraq easily in 1991. Therefore the USA should have been easily able to conquer Iran in 1991? Hmmm....
That is an incredibly flawed example. The USA controlled the air and did not bother continuing into Iraq proper. Iran would have definitly put up more of a fight, and instead of OTL invasion of Iraq, it would be like OTL Soviet invasion of Afganistan. Also Iraq and Iran never beat each other, it was a stalemate.
 
That's pre-WW1 and WW1 Italy. They barely captured Libya, were little more than a bloody distraction on their front against the Austrian-Hungarians (a military that wasn't exactly top-notch in and unto itself).

Still, the italians did manage to defeat the Ottoman empire, acquiring Lybia, Rhodes and the dodecanese in less than an year, while the rest of the entente took four years to beat the ottomans. Choosing the right time IS important, you know...
Mind you the italian army wasn't the best for sure, but wasn't either the rag tag most of you think. Maybe some reading should be in order...

I'd also like to add, for the record, that the Italians haven't successfully conquered anything that required a real fight since the Western Roman Empire fell. I'm of the opinion that Italy, especially Italy between 1896 and 1945, probably couldn't have launched a successful invasion of San Marino without somebody else helping them out.

See the point above and please stop from spurting racist idiocy, thank you.

Going back to the thread, it would have been very stupid to try to take Istanbul by surprise. A part from the huge problem of the Dardanelles, the main argument is that, military speaking, taking a place is the easy part, keeping it is the hard one (see for example the problems US and allies have today in Afghanistan and Iraq). And Italy, or for the matter any other european power of the time, could have never kept the whole ottoman empire alone.
Besides trying such a move would have provoked a reaction among the other powers. The ottoman empire was the sick man of Europe because the major powers had not decided yet how to break it and divide the spoils
among themselves. Go figure if they would have let Italy to do it. Even trying to provoke rebellions among the ethnic groups (Arabs, Armenians, you choose...) would have met with resistance.

So the whole idea is quite impossible. Italy could have gained more land during the 1911 war, but it would have been a rather improbable evenience.
 
Okay, I admit it. I posted because I wanted somebody to be "shocked by Italian military prowess". Seeing as I didn't expect it to be a major European power, Ottomans seemed a good choice.

Yeah, the Ottomans were a fairly substantial power, and, in 1911, had more European territory than, say, Belgium. We'd better look elsewhere for somebody to be curb-stomped. East Africa? Howsabout Ethiopia?

Yeah, oops. I don't ascribe to national military stereotyping as some people here seem to, but I'm not stereotyping when I say that in the early 20th century, the Italian military was crap, I'm stating scientifically observed fact.

That said, I do not agree that A > B > C is the only factor in history. Just because Britain and France couldn't break the Ottoman defenses in 1915, doesn't mean that Italy couldn't under different circumstances (say total surprise?) in 1911.

I'm rather inclined to agree. Britain and France received a bloody nose from the Ottomans OTL, whereas the Russians, until their political collapse, put up a good showing, but that doesn't mean the Russian army was better than the western Entente's and did a better job against Germany. It was differant circumstances.

Think logically, though. You've foisted the exact same circumstances that humbled two of the greatest militaries on the world on a less-than-stellar one.

There is no way to achieve surprise in a fleet action against Constantinople based at Rhodes. Look at the map. Those straits? You can see across 'em, especially if you're in a well-armed fort.

e.g. Iraq defeated Iran in 1988 (as the then objectives of the Iran-Iraq war, as opposed to the 1980 objectives). The USA defeated Iraq easily in 1991. Therefore the USA should have been easily able to conquer Iran in 1991? Hmmm....

Splendidly bad example, as others have pointed out. I can write an essay on why there is no comparison if you want.

I don't think they've had a decent general since the one who unified Italy.

Diaz did some good work with the steaming mound of crap Cadorna had left him, but that's the only one I can think of. And ironically, I don't think Garibaldi was ever a general in the official Italian army!
 
Think logically, though. You've foisted the exact same circumstances that humbled two of the greatest militaries on the world on a less-than-stellar one.
Well, if I've understood it correctly, the Ottoman Army was a good bit less good in 1911 than it was in 1914- most armies are less good when they are in the middle of a major re-organisation. But, of course, the Italians had that going for them in OTL's 1911, when they didn't try to conquer the entire Ottoman realm, and were far from succeeding, in any case, so...
 
Still, the italians did manage to defeat the Ottoman empire, acquiring Lybia, Rhodes and the dodecanese in less than an year, while the rest of the entente took four years to beat the ottomans. Choosing the right time IS important, you know...
Mind you the italian army wasn't the best for sure, but wasn't either the rag tag most of you think. Maybe some reading should be in order...

I've read some material and I disagree with stereotype, but timing isn't the question here, logistics is. It was impossible for the Ottomans to re-enforce and resupply Libya or Rhodes, and given that they did a pretty astounding job of holding onto Libya as it was. So the Italians were, at a much greater cost in blood and treaure than anyone had estimated, able to occupy two targets that were basically lost causes anyway and have one of them formally ceded. Big deal. "Less than a year" is hardly an impressive timeframe for such an undertaking.

Whereas the Entente went up against the Ottomans in their logistically-continuous heartland, with predictable results.

See the point above and please stop from spurting racist idiocy, thank you.

Quite.

Going back to the thread, it would have been very stupid to try to take Istanbul by surprise. A part from the huge problem of the Dardanelles, the main argument is that, military speaking, taking a place is the easy part, keeping it is the hard one (see for example the problems US and allies have today in Afghanistan and Iraq). And Italy, or for the matter any other european power of the time, could have never kept the whole ottoman empire alone.

We say that much in the Turkish War of Independence, and that was against an exhausted and battered third of the empire as it was in 1911.

Besides trying such a move would have provoked a reaction among the other powers. The ottoman empire was the sick man of Europe because the major powers had not decided yet how to break it and divide the spoils among themselves.

*Dons fez*

Let's get serious.

The Great Powers had no desire to break the Ottoman Empire and divide the spoils in 1911, which was why the criticised the Balkan League for being irresponsible, which of course they were. Only Russia actually had anything to gain from this. Austria would oppose it with all its strength, which meant Germany would too. Britain and France had nothing to gain from its demise. At this point not even Russia was interested.

Anyway, after 1908, the Ottomans weren't the sick anything.

Go figure if they would have let Italy to do it.

That much is true.

Even trying to provoke rebellions among the ethnic groups (Arabs, Armenians, you choose...) would have met with resistance.

Hoo, boy.

I could write you an essay about why the Italians were in no position to do either of those things, why the former was pretty well impossible, and why the latter was not any serious threat to the Ottoman state.

I could disembowel you and display your head as a warning to the enemies of the Padishah.

But I won't. Instead, I'm going to invite you to revise your opinions on the stability of the Ottomans in 1911.

So the whole idea is quite impossible. Italy could have gained more land during the 1911 war, but it would have been a rather improbable evenience.

I disagree. Any Italian attacks on places where the Ottomans had functioning logistics would have been costly failures, even without the inevitable Great Power intervention.

Well, if I've understood it correctly, the Ottoman Army was a good bit less good in 1911 than it was in 1914- most armies are less good when they are in the middle of a major re-organisation. But, of course, the Italians had that going for them in OTL's 1911, when they didn't try to conquer the entire Ottoman realm, and were far from succeeding, in any case, so...

So, yeah. Any anyway I'm kind of saying that the quality of armed forces isn't the only factor: "circumstances" refers to the other factors against any invader, like the excellent geo-strategic defenses.
 
I've read some material and I disagree with stereotype, but timing isn't the question here, logistics is. It was impossible for the Ottomans to re-enforce and resupply Libya or Rhodes, and given that they did a pretty astounding job of holding onto Libya as it was. So the Italians were, at a much greater cost in blood and treaure than anyone had estimated, able to occupy two targets that were basically lost causes anyway and have one of them formally ceded. Big deal. "Less than a year" is hardly an impressive timeframe for such an undertaking.

But THIS is exactly my point. In a war you should go for targets that you can realistically conquer and keep. It's quite stupid to try to take what you can't hold to, you know? And less than an year is a good timeframe for any military operation pre WW2. By the way, the italians did manage to occupy Smyrne too, if memory serves me well...

The Great Powers had no desire to break the Ottoman Empire and divide the spoils in 1911, which was why the criticised the Balkan League for being irresponsible, which of course they were. Only Russia actually had anything to gain from this. Austria would oppose it with all its strength, which meant Germany would too. Britain and France had nothing to gain from its demise. At this point not even Russia was interested.

I would be not so sure about this. There were resources to be exploited and strategic locations to occupy. After WW1 the entente occupied a good part of the former Ottoman empire under the pretense of the mandates, instead of letting the arabs to have it. So they did have an interest, after all...

Anyway, after 1908, the Ottomans weren't the sick anything.

So the italians did have some merits when they defeated the empire...

Hoo, boy.

I could write you an essay about why the Italians were in no position to do either of those things, why the former was pretty well impossible, and why the latter was not any serious threat to the Ottoman state.

All rigth kid, why don't you write an essay about the difference between the verbs "to try" and "to succeed". Are you aware of the "slight difference" between them? I'm afraid not. I wrote that they could have attempted such a move, never that they could have pulled it off. Do you understand now, kid?

I could disembowel you and display your head as a warning to the enemies of the Padishah.

Should I be scared? If you were trying to be witty, I'm afraid you failed completely.
Now, run away, before I let my gurkhas on you :p

I disagree. Any Italian attacks on places where the Ottomans had functioning logistics would have been costly failures, even without the inevitable Great Power intervention.

Like Smyrne? Listen, kid, the italians were lucky during the 1911 war because they attacked when the empire was in the middle of a huge re-organisation. But choosing when and where attack an enemy is a good part of strategy. Maybe the italians could have gained more land, you can always fare better in a war, but it would have been rather improbable, in my opinion (mind you, weirder things have happened...)
 
But THIS is exactly my point. In a war you should go for targets that you can realistically conquer and keep. It's quite stupid to try to take what you can't hold to, you know? And less than an year is a good timeframe for any military operation pre WW2. By the way, the italians did manage to occupy Smyrne too, if memory serves me well...

Sorry if I've misunderstood you, but you seemed to be saying that the Italians could have taken more, and I'm arguing that this is not the case. You were also making a reference to "timing" which I didn't fully understand but was attempting to adress.

I haven't seen any other reference to Smyrna, but its possible, I suppose, if briefly.

And I'm not saying the Italians were going at a snail's pace, just that the 1-year/4-years thing was a false comparison.

I would be not so sure about this. There were resources to be exploited and strategic locations to occupy. After WW1 the entente occupied a good part of the former Ottoman empire under the pretense of the mandates, instead of letting the arabs to have it. So they did have an interest, after all...

This was after we had ended up at war with them, and we were hardly just going to give everything back. Another upshot of the war was the creation of Estonia with British military support. Is that grounds to claim that free Estonia was a goal of British policy in 1911?

So the italians did have some merits when they defeated the empire...

They were still getting a bloody nose from an enemy that could not realistically retain Libya owing to logistics.

All rigth kid, why don't you write an essay about the difference between the verbs "to try" and "to succeed". Are you aware of the "slight difference" between them? I'm afraid not. I wrote that they could have attempted such a move, never that they could have pulled it off. Do you understand now, kid?

There is no need to be condescending. I don't believe you know my age.

Now, maybe I acted in haste, but as you can tell I'm an Ottomanist and a great deal of anti-Ottoman nonsense gets said about the situation of the Arabs and Armenians in 1911, and I was worried you'd fallen victim to those all-too-common misconceptions. I'm sorry if I misjudged, but my post was intended, from "dons Fez" onward, to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

Should I be scared? If you were trying to be witty, I'm afraid you failed completely.
Now, run away, before I let my gurkhas on you :p

Tongue was firmly in cheek. If I was trying to intimidate people with my fictional scimitar, that would have been rather ridiculous. And sorry, but interpreting it that way is also rather ridiculous.

Like Smyrne? Listen, kid, the italians were lucky during the 1911 war because they attacked when the empire was in the middle of a huge re-organisation. But choosing when and where attack an enemy is a good part of strategy. Maybe the italians could have gained more land, you can always fare better in a war, but it would have been rather improbable, in my opinion (mind you, weirder things have happened...)

Of course it is, but I can't see the Italian succeeding in any more than temporary occupations anywhere in Asia. In Europe not only does much the same apply, but the Balkan League would intervene. The Italians could try and carry military operations further, but their finances were in a parlous state already. Taking into account military, economic, and diplomatic factors, I don't think they could have taken any more land than they did.
 
They did, hence the need to acquire Turkey. Unfortunately there was too much Greece. Happens a lot when you're Russian for a meal and go for the cheap stuff. You're much better off having a meal that gives you a reason to Polish the fine China.

What a wierdo...
Genoa? I don't.
 
Top