WI Ottoman royal line dies out in 1640?

Well Russia could invade Crimea and use it as a base in order to launch attacks in Ottoman Empire...

They did in OTL. The Crimea was useful for projecting Russian power in the region, but it's a much different thing to actually try to launch attacks from it - amphibious attacks against the center of Ottoman power are not a good idea. You may recall what happened when the greatest naval power tried it centuries later...
 
Well Greek, Serbian and other orthodox people in Balkans looked upon Russia for protection and hoped for liberation with their aid...
I'm not sure it was the case in 17h century. Russia was just too far. Even during Peter the Great's Prut's misadventure Balkan Slavs didn't believe in Russian ability.

Well Russia could invade Crimea and use it as a base in order to launch attacks in Ottoman Empire...
1640? Dubious. Remember that during this time Russian court refused to accept already conquered Azov fortress from Cossacks, as they considered it being too far and not worthy of effort. Russia was just reeling from Times of Troubles, couldn't do much against PLC during so-called "Smolensk War" and Romanovs were a new dynasty with rather dubious legitimacy. Taking on Ottomans at this point was just too much.

But they didn't. They didn't need protection, and they weren't stupid enough to imagine they'd get any from Russia. Some nationalists tried to get aid from Russia, but it rarely ever happened, because Russia didn't usually want independent Balkan states, it wanted to absorb the region, and the first step to doing that was the destruction of the Hapsburgs.

People have to be very careful about swallowing anachronistic propaganda lines. Russia claimed to be the "protector" of the Balkan Christians in order to increase it's influence over the Ottomans, not because it gave a shit about the Balkan Christians. And frankly, by any possible measure, the Ottoman Christians had greater economic and political freedom and prosperity than did Russia's own subjects.
Could you spare us rather dubious propaganda speeches from Turkish schoolbooks, please? Believe me, Ottomans amassed an amazing amount of bad blood in course of their Balkan adventure, and even bigger amount of anti-Ottoman propaganda had been created. You don't see much of it being posted here, don't you?
 
I'm not sure it was the case in 17h century. Russia was just too far. Even during Peter the Great's Prut's misadventure Balkan Slavs didn't believe in Russian ability.


1640? Dubious. Remember that during this time Russian court refused to accept already conquered Azov fortress from Cossacks, as they considered it being too far and not worthy of effort. Russia was just reeling from Times of Troubles, couldn't do much against PLC during so-called "Smolensk War" and Romanovs were a new dynasty with rather dubious legitimacy. Taking on Ottomans at this point was just too much.

Could you spare us rather dubious propaganda speeches from Turkish schoolbooks, please? Believe me, Ottomans amassed an amazing amount of bad blood in course of their Balkan adventure, and even bigger amount of anti-Ottoman propaganda had been created. You don't see much of it being posted here, don't you?

Turkish schoolbooks are very negative about the Ottoman Empire, so spare me your assumptions. The "bad blood" regarding the Ottoman Balkans was amassed after independence in nationalist historiography, not before. What I'm interested in is what was actually the case, not what 150 years of national indoctrination (on both sides) has inculcated.

Russia didn't even liberate it's serfs until 30 years after the Ottomans gave Christians legal (if not effective) equality. There is no comparison between the political liberties and economic level of the Ottoman Balkans in the 19th c and Russia - a fact not lost on a lot of European observers. The difference was that Russia was militarily strong and so it's flaws were glossed over due to balance of power concerns. The Ottomans were militarily weak, so it was convenient to exploit the imaginary "Turkish Yoke" for geopolitical purposes. Not that Ottoman rule was ideal, but nobody seems to have managed to do better.

When Russia was edging toward unprovoked war in 1877, the sectarian communities of the empire were unanimous (with the exception of the Protestants) in petitioning the Tsar to lay off. All preferred to pursue their national development within the context of the Ottoman Empire than within the Russian. And why shouldn't they? The Ottoman Empire was free-trade and they had religious autonomy. For all the flaws of the late empire, that was more than they were going to get from Russia.
 
Yes, sure, bashi-bazouks never existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_uprising

This is typical of the ridiculous hypocricy of all Islamophobes when discussing the Ottomans or any other Muslim state.

Why not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_commune

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_pogroms_in_the_Russian_Empire

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War

and I could go on forever.

Bulgarian romantic nationalists launched an uprising, and nobody ever mentions what the rebels did - which was to immediately attack Muslim villages and massacre their inhabitants. Nobody ever argues with the right of a state to repress a rebellion, unless of course it's the Ottomans. And yes, civilians were killed, again, not noteworthy unless it's the Ottomans.

The Wikipedia article is the usual one-sided nationalist nonsense. First of all, it's factually incorrect that nobody else investigated the massacres - a huge press corps was present, unanimously reporting that the stories were exaggerated and most of the missing were seasonal migrant workers who later returned home. This rebellion had virtually no support from the population - quite the opposite, nobody wanted to stir things up.

Another person who thinks Wikpedia makes them an expert.:rolleyes:
 
This is typical of the ridiculous hypocricy of all Islamophobes when discussing the Ottomans or any other Muslim state.

Why not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_commune

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_pogroms_in_the_Russian_Empire

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War
Because nobody denied that atrocities committed during any of said events (with possible exception of Pogroms, they were not that much worse than what Jews had to endure in Romania or Ottoman Empire in late 19th century or Poland and Romania in 1920s) were above certain level of "accepted cruelty" for the day and age, so to speak. BTW, I agree with you that Second Boer War was above and beyond accepted level of cruelty in modern world and nothing in modern world before Nazis quite compares. But yes, English gentleman' feces somehow don't smell as bad as Russian or Turkish ones for World Public Opinion.

Bulgarian romantic nationalists launched an uprising, and nobody ever mentions what the rebels did - which was to immediately attack Muslim villages and massacre their inhabitants. Nobody ever argues with the right of a state to repress a rebellion, unless of course it's the Ottomans. And yes, civilians were killed, again, not noteworthy unless it's the Ottomans.
Those ungrateful Bulgarians! They were so happy under Ottoman rule, they revolted to plunder and kill their overlords. Even more important, this was their customary behaviour times and again :)
 

Nikephoros

Banned
This is typical of the ridiculous hypocricy of all Islamophobes when discussing the Ottomans or any other Muslim state

Not everyone who disagrees with you is an Islamophobe. Quit trying to flamebait people.

I don't think anyone here is trying to say that Russia wasn't as brutal as the Ottomans, or superior because they aren't Muslim, etc. The list goes on.

Nobody is trying to persecute you.

But as for Russia taking advantage of a die out in 1640, impossible. IIRC, Moscow was burned by the Crimean Khanate not to long before, or after 1640.
 
Last edited:
I'm with Abdul on this.

17th cent. Ottoman is a world away from the dying 19th cent Empire.

Bazhi Bazouks? That was in 19th cent Bulgaria, NOT anywhere near in 1640 where at least in the OE religious difference is tolerated not stamped out (Spain) or enduring repeated conversion attempts (Russia)

As the empire decayed, the abuse against non muslims increased. Just the thing that launched the Serbian uprising.

Whereas as late as early 18th cent. the Greeks actually preferred Ottoman rule than Venetian one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman–Venetian_War_(1714–1718)
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Whereas as late as early 18th cent. the Greeks actually preferred Ottoman rule than Venetian one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman–Venetian_War_(1714–1718)

Better the Sultan's turban than the Pope's miter (One can look back to 1204, or earlier than that)

Which makes sense. The west had a long tradition of cruelty and perfidy, and the Greeks had a lot of institutional power under Ottoman rule, if I remember correctly about what Abdul has said before on this forum. Whereas, westerners tended to assert control over native peoples and treat them with little respect.

Admittedly though, I have little knowledge about the Ottomans
 
Last edited:
Better the Sultan's turban than the Pope's miter (One can look back to 1204, or earlier than that)

Which makes sense. The west had a long tradition of cruelty and perfidy, and
Although, to be fair, at their worst the Greeks and Muslims were just as cruel and perfidious.
 
Top