With the Crescent Above Us 2.0: An Ottoman Timeline

A most horrific chapter, but one that must be written - you cannot talk about the late Ottoman Empire without talking about the Hamidian massacres.

My thoughts on the Hamidian massacres is that, while it might be true that he did not directly order them, it was nevertheless state forces that did them (and the buck must stop with him), he did not do his duty to protect his citizens, and as you say he tried much harder to suppress news of the atrocities than to suppress the atrocities themselves. And even the low estimates of the number of Armenians killed - 100,000 - is quite massive. This would not be enough to convict him in some hypothetical war crimes tribunal, but it is more than enough to conclude that he is a bad leader who, frankly, has lost any right to run his nation.
 
Would russia be confident to go to war with the ottoman again though? I mean they got kicked in the butt ITTL but if britain is going against the Ottoman wouldn't they joined together?
The more reasonable option is the people inside the OE should push for more centralism and reformes ,and abdulhamid should try to stop the Kurds and any try to settle down the tribes
Or the European powers do something similar to the Ottomans that China experienced during and after the Boxer Rebellion.
 

Maudoldu00

Banned
Or the European powers do something similar to the Ottomans that China experienced during and after the Boxer Rebellion.
Oh no. That is the last thing for everyone with a single brain cell want. It just basically a gang rape if country is a human. It would have been near impossible for the ottoman to ever came back from that.
 
Oh no. That is the last thing for everyone with a single brain cell want. It just basically a gang rape if country is a human. It would have been near impossible for the ottoman to ever came back from that.
And what the European powers were doing to native populations in Africa and the America for the last 5 centuries wasn't?😕
 
My thoughts on the Hamidian massacres is that, while it might be true that he did not directly order them, it was nevertheless state forces that did them (and the buck must stop with him), he did not do his duty to protect his citizens, and as you say he tried much harder to suppress news of the atrocities than to suppress the atrocities themselves. And even the low estimates of the number of Armenians killed - 100,000 - is quite massive. This would not be enough to convict him in some hypothetical war crimes tribunal, but it is more than enough to conclude that he is a bad leader who, frankly, has lost any right to run his nation.
Whatever can be said about massacres/expulsions in "liberated" Rumelia and/or similar levels of brutality in the realms of Christian powers; it is impossible to pretend or claim in good conscience that the Armenians were badly done by in the latter third or so of the 19th century.

Or the European powers do something similar to the Ottomans that China experienced during and after the Boxer Rebellion.

Oh no. That is the last thing for everyone with a single brain cell want. It just basically a gang rape if country is a human. It would have been near impossible for the ottoman to ever came back from that.
I imagine the question is if the powers in question are concerned about Armenian civilian lives/Civil Rights or are they looking for an excuse to dismember the Ottomans.
 
on the Hamidian Massacres leading to a sorta Ottoman version of the whole Diplomatic Corp/Boxer War, let’s be realistic that’s not gonna happen.

For one the Ottomans can act as a counter balance to other nations ambitions.

Russia and France may ironically be the biggest proponents that the Ottomans should just be given the proverbial political slap on the wrist and told to clean up Eastern Anatolia. After all the 1878 war may have checked Russian territorial advancements but that doesn’t mean their gonna just cede influence to Britain and Austria in the Balkans and Middle East.

Theirs certainly weight to the idea that maybe the Ottomans can be pulled into the Franco-Russian sphere due Britain’s less than stellar conduct of being a friend to the Turks and with enough prodding and bribing they can worm their way in a position Britain once held. I imagine the Russian diplomat that sees the Black Seas Fleet start anchoring in Tartus getting a fat promotion and ruining the career Primrose’s career for allowing this to happen. After all Britain and Russia are in the Great Game and a Russian fleet now able to sail from Syria and make trouble in the Suez Canal is a devastating blow geopolitically.

And this doesn’t even cover France’s wants who would see the Ottomans as a key ally to encircle Austria. If France could get the Russians and Turks to agree that divided and weak Central Europe is also good for them it really gives Austria a shitty situation of war comes up cause now their defending Galicia, Croatia, and Tyrol/Slovenia if Italy switches sides, never mind if Serbia and Romania can be wooed over to invade and grab a chunk from the surrounded empire.

And if these thoughts can possibly run through a Russian diplomats head you can damn well be sure an Austrian, German or British one(opposed to Primrose) are thinking the same things and how to best avoid it.

The second reason is investment.

As we saw with that one interlude with the Frenchmen, countries have vested interests in the Ottoman Empire, China was different it literally was targeting foreigners, missionaries and foreign goods trying to expel the barbarians as it were. The Kurds haven’t raided a train carrying French goods or killed Catholic priests attempting to convert people. Their aren’t riots in the capital, Thessaloniki or Izmir targeting foreigners.

And while tragic it is a tragedy that’s far away and detached, and certainly theirs no reason to rock the boat that is European politics over this. After all the last two major times that happened was German and Italian unification and look at the two major nations that suffered for it. Why would Austria like to destabilize the Balkans when it’s so quiet with its neighbors being content Ottomans and destitute, weak and easily influenceable Serbia and Romania whose leashes are so easy to pull on it only takes the signing of a check to see attitudes in Belgrade change overnight. Certainly inviting unrest and upheaval over Armenia just isn’t worth it to one of Europe’s fastest growing economies, no it’s better to stay the course of peace and search for more diplomatic and less intrusive/destabilizing ideas for this humanitarian crisis.
 
Whatever can be said about massacres/expulsions in "liberated" Rumelia and/or similar levels of brutality in the realms of Christian powers; it is impossible to pretend or claim in good conscience that the Armenians were badly done by in the latter third or so of the 19th century.




I imagine the question is if the powers in question are concerned about Armenian civilian lives/Civil Rights or are they looking for an excuse to dismember the Ottomans.
The former is an excuse for the latter, especially for the Russians.
 

Maudoldu00

Banned
on the Hamidian Massacres leading to a sorta Ottoman version of the whole Diplomatic Corp/Boxer War, let’s be realistic that’s not gonna happen.
Yeah!! thanks Mr Berat2beti for giving your thought. I always found your reply in the old timelines to be helpful. It is great seeing you here explaining thing.
 
Will Abdullah be a recurring character like others? Hopefully the female he kidnapped isn’t someone's wife. It pains me to see women given as tribute even in 20th century. Just, how bad were the Kurds? Or was it just wayward bandits who took advantage of lax government control? Anyway, drak times ahead, for this TL as well as Ottoman empire.

Also it would be better if you at least gave reference to the verses of Quran/ hadith.
Probably not a regular character, but in all likelihood I'll be returning to him. It would definitely be a case of writing form the villain's perspective.

It's tempting to blame the Kurds for much of the oppression that fell on the Armenians in the late 19th century, but this was more due to the Kurds' status as nomads and the Armenians as settled farmers than anything else. Similar tensions existed in the Arab territories where Bedouin Arabs were seen as a perennial menace by both the Ottoman Authorities and the local settled Arabs.
It still would be horrifying if its an unmaried girl...
Imagine being forced to marry the man who killed and raped your friends and Family.
A completely horrifying situation. And one which happened all too much in history I suppose, and even these days to a lesser extent.
If this is getting any attention or press within the Empire outside of the back-beyond in question, I would like to think that a number of protesters/parliamentarians/etc. (not all of whom are Armenian) are raising all manner of fuss over the state of affairs on their own. At the very least, an official armed presence in the hamlets would be demanded (despite the probable counter-arguments concerning getting a garrison in every back-hills flyspeck).
The Empire as of 1894 still lacks a parliament, not having issued a constitution in 1876 (this was a retcon I made when I rebooted the timeline. Basically, I'd done quite a bit of further research, and amongst the ministers who had dethroned Abdulaziz, there wasn't any consensus for a constitution, and this deadlock was only broken when the conservative Hussain Avni Pasha was assassinated, which of course is the POD of the whole timeline). Nevertheless, there is a large Armenian presence in Constantinople and as in OTL there are protests against what has happened to their fellow Armenians.
Will there a more United front against ottoman atrocities than otl?
Would russia be confident to go to war with the ottoman again though? I mean they got kicked in the butt ITTL but if britain is going against the Ottoman wouldn't they joined together?
From the Russian point of view, victory was entirely possible but due to failures on their part, they had not attained it. I'm sure plenty of Russian generals would like the opportunity to prove themselves more able than their predecessors, however.
The more reasonable option is the people inside the OE should push for more centralism and reformes ,and abdulhamid should try to stop the Kurds and any try to settle down the tribes
The primary response of the Armenians in OTL was to support reformist elements such as the Young Turks, which seemed to work out well until that whole Armenian Genocide thing.
A most horrific chapter, but one that must be written - you cannot talk about the late Ottoman Empire without talking about the Hamidian massacres.

My thoughts on the Hamidian massacres is that, while it might be true that he did not directly order them, it was nevertheless state forces that did them (and the buck must stop with him), he did not do his duty to protect his citizens, and as you say he tried much harder to suppress news of the atrocities than to suppress the atrocities themselves. And even the low estimates of the number of Armenians killed - 100,000 - is quite massive. This would not be enough to convict him in some hypothetical war crimes tribunal, but it is more than enough to conclude that he is a bad leader who, frankly, has lost any right to run his nation.
There is the temptation to ignore them as is the case for many events in history and give it the "HOI Holocaust" treatment. I feel like it's a mistake to ignore history's atrocities, however, and perhaps there are too many timelines that discuss "population exchange" and the dominance of one ethnic group over the other without considering the human cost in getting their desired ethnic mix in an area.

Pinning responsibility is of course a great controversy in history even to this day. Intention is a key part, but even a lack of intention does not absolve one of responsibility. Though there is a great deal of difference between deaths in say, the Great Leap Forward compared to those in the Holocaust (that of policy failures vs intentional mass murder), those deaths are nevertheless the result of policy decisions by the country's leader. But I suppose that's a whole debate.
Or the European powers do something similar to the Ottomans that China experienced during and after the Boxer Rebellion.
Oh no. That is the last thing for everyone with a single brain cell want. It just basically a gang rape if country is a human. It would have been near impossible for the ottoman to ever came back from that.
So basically, they're gonna do it?
And what the European powers were doing to native populations in Africa and the America for the last 5 centuries wasn't?😕
I suppose in the case of China, there was already a precedent for European powers working together to impose their will on the country. The army that marched to Beijing in 1860 and destroyed the Summer Palace was a mixed Franco-British one, and the Triple Intervention that worked to limit Japan's gains in China in 1895 consisted of Germany, France and Russia. This may make a combination of powers arrayed against the Ottoman Empire a possibility, and it is hard to see how the empire could remain independent in that case. The best case scenario in the event of a combination of great powers may be to seek a protectorate status from Great Britain.

Still, the idea of the Great Powers looting the Topkapi palace is certainly a horrifying one.
Whatever can be said about massacres/expulsions in "liberated" Rumelia and/or similar levels of brutality in the realms of Christian powers; it is impossible to pretend or claim in good conscience that the Armenians were badly done by in the latter third or so of the 19th century.

I imagine the question is if the powers in question are concerned about Armenian civilian lives/Civil Rights or are they looking for an excuse to dismember the Ottomans.
Undoubtedly there was a lot of public sympathy for the Armenians (which of course was and in some ways, totally is mostly absent for Muslims in the same areas who were forced out of their home and massacred), but many of the great powers did indeed want an excuse to extend their influence within the empire.
on the Hamidian Massacres leading to a sorta Ottoman version of the whole Diplomatic Corp/Boxer War, let’s be realistic that’s not gonna happen.

For one the Ottomans can act as a counter balance to other nations ambitions.

Russia and France may ironically be the biggest proponents that the Ottomans should just be given the proverbial political slap on the wrist and told to clean up Eastern Anatolia. After all the 1878 war may have checked Russian territorial advancements but that doesn’t mean their gonna just cede influence to Britain and Austria in the Balkans and Middle East.

Theirs certainly weight to the idea that maybe the Ottomans can be pulled into the Franco-Russian sphere due Britain’s less than stellar conduct of being a friend to the Turks and with enough prodding and bribing they can worm their way in a position Britain once held. I imagine the Russian diplomat that sees the Black Seas Fleet start anchoring in Tartus getting a fat promotion and ruining the career Primrose’s career for allowing this to happen. After all Britain and Russia are in the Great Game and a Russian fleet now able to sail from Syria and make trouble in the Suez Canal is a devastating blow geopolitically.

And this doesn’t even cover France’s wants who would see the Ottomans as a key ally to encircle Austria. If France could get the Russians and Turks to agree that divided and weak Central Europe is also good for them it really gives Austria a shitty situation of war comes up cause now their defending Galicia, Croatia, and Tyrol/Slovenia if Italy switches sides, never mind if Serbia and Romania can be wooed over to invade and grab a chunk from the surrounded empire.

And if these thoughts can possibly run through a Russian diplomats head you can damn well be sure an Austrian, German or British one(opposed to Primrose) are thinking the same things and how to best avoid it.

The second reason is investment.

As we saw with that one interlude with the Frenchmen, countries have vested interests in the Ottoman Empire, China was different it literally was targeting foreigners, missionaries and foreign goods trying to expel the barbarians as it were. The Kurds haven’t raided a train carrying French goods or killed Catholic priests attempting to convert people. Their aren’t riots in the capital, Thessaloniki or Izmir targeting foreigners.

And while tragic it is a tragedy that’s far away and detached, and certainly theirs no reason to rock the boat that is European politics over this. After all the last two major times that happened was German and Italian unification and look at the two major nations that suffered for it. Why would Austria like to destabilize the Balkans when it’s so quiet with its neighbors being content Ottomans and destitute, weak and easily influenceable Serbia and Romania whose leashes are so easy to pull on it only takes the signing of a check to see attitudes in Belgrade change overnight. Certainly inviting unrest and upheaval over Armenia just isn’t worth it to one of Europe’s fastest growing economies, no it’s better to stay the course of peace and search for more diplomatic and less intrusive/destabilizing ideas for this humanitarian crisis.
The Ottomans were largely able to preserve their independence in OTL due to their ability to counter the interests of some great powers with the interests of other great powers. Plus it is worthwhile remembering that unlike almost any other non-European state, the Ottoman Empire could at least give a bloody nose to those who attempted military action against it.

So many European powers were interested in expanding into Ottoman lands (Austria had their idea of reinventing themselves as the Balkanmacht, Russia had her Pan-Slavism, France had its longstanding interests in Syria and Britain wanted to turn the whole damned thing into a protectorate after Salisbury), but were kept at bay largely due to diplomacy and their own conflicts. So perhaps they would be satisfied just with expanding their own spheres of influence.

Your point about the difference between the intercommunal violence in the Ottoman Empire and the Xenophobic violence in China is quite a good one. The great powers had millions of pounds worth of investments within the empire, and France was actually the empire's biggest investor right up until the First World War.

Austria was really of two minds, while the Hungarians were averse to any expansion (the last thing they want is more Slavs), some of the empire's politicians imagined expanding the empire down to Salonika. The Austrians seem unlikely to make the first move, but may react to what other powers do.
 
The Eastern Crisis of 1895
1650283776317.png

Fadıl Necmi; The Sublime Ottoman State: A History of the Ottoman Empire: Istanbul University Press

From Massacres to Rebellions - The Eastern Crisis of 1895

In isolation, the Sason Rising would be merely a particularly horrific case of intercommunal violence of the sort that was common in Eastern Anatolia toward the end of the 19th century. However, the uprising was not followed by a return to calm, but rather a wider uprising not only on the part of the Armenians but the Bulgarians too. The Sason rising had started when an Armenian village in the region was plundered, possibly by Kurdish tribesmen, and the Armenian population of the surrounding area protested this by refusing to pay taxes to the central government and with minor acts of violence toward local officials. The Ottoman government reacted harshly, sending soldiers, and provoking the Armenians into radical retaliation. Throughout the Sason district, Armenians who had been armed by the Dashnak Party and other revolutionary groups took up arms and banded together to fight the government forces. Some areas of the district held out for a month until they were finally subdued, and when reports of the massacre made their way to the international press, the outcry forced the governments of the Great Powers to send their own commission of enquiry to Eastern Anatolia.

Alone this was enough of a public relations nightmare for the Ottoman Government, but it would only pale in comparison to the events of 1894. Armenian Revolutionary Groups had been in contact with Bulgarian Nationalists since the 1880s, and in response to the events of Sason coordinated their efforts more closely. Observing the indignation seen even in countries thought friendly to the Ottoman Empire, both the Armenians and Bulgarians began to consider a change of tactics. Until this point, both had fought with the tactics of public opinion, appealing to Western powers to secure change within the Ottoman Empire, and they faced accusations that they entrapped the Ottomans into retaliation. H. F. B. Lynch, who journeyed throughout Armenia a few years after the events in question, described what he thought was the modus operandi of the revolutionaries: “The object of these men is to keep the Armenian cause alive by lighting a flame here and there and calling: Fire! The cry is taken up in the European press; and when people run to look there are sure to be some Turkish officials drawn into the trap and committing abominations.” Though taking away agency for atrocities from the Ottoman perpetrators of atrocities, this nevertheless sheds some light on the Armenian use of Ottoman countermeasures as a tactic in their struggle for nationhood.[1]

There has been limited study of the Dashnak archives, and it appears unclear as to whether a change from this type of provocateur tactics to those of seizing and holding territory was agreed upon beforehand by the Bulgarians and Armenians, or whether the Armenians simply observed Bulgarian success and emulated it. Regardless of how it was planned, the Vratsa Uprising of the 20th of April 1895 (a date certainly chosen for its significance) proved to be far more successful than the April uprising of 1876. Whereas before the Bulgarian Revolutionaries had hoped that the population would be inspired by their actions and rise up, now they had planned carefully in advance and had built up resistance cells in their targeted area. Ottoman garrisons were attacked, local commanders and officials were killed, and the rebels declared an independent Bulgaria. The Ottomans rushed troops to Sofia by railway to reinforce the beleaguered local forces, but rebels attacked the Sofia railway and forced the Ottomans to instead march troops by foot. Now the revolt spread, and soldiers were often ambushed while marching in columns. While the Ottomans remained in control of the larger cities and towns within Bulgaria, as well as areas of the countryside which were majority Muslim, their grip on the rest of the country was weakening by the middle of May.

The events in Bulgaria had not gone unnoticed elsewhere in the empire. In Van, Armenian revolutionaries followed a similar pattern to the Bulgarians and attacked Armenians who were seen as collaborators with the Ottoman government, going so far as to kill the pro-Ottoman Bishop Boghos Melikian of Van.[2] In Zeytun the Armenians took up arms as well, seizing control of the town and killing and expelling the Muslim population of the town. Outside of the Bulgarian and Armenian examples, the Ottomans found themselves challenged by a renewed revolt in Herzegovina and Crete, where nationalists agitated once again for separation from the Ottoman Empire, and in the case of Crete, Enosis or union with Greece. In just a few months, the Ottoman Empire had seen rebels take control of significant portions of the empire, and it would take some time for the authorities to assert control over these areas once again. Confronted with this mounting crisis and determined to restore control, Abdülhamid announced the partial mobilization of the Ottoman Army on the 2nd of June 1895. He also called upon local groups such as the Hamidiye irregular cavalry to do as much as possible to defeat rebels, and many such groups took this as a license to attack and rob their peaceful neighbours as well as rebels.[3]

Left to their own devices, the Ottoman Government might have been able to bring the revolutionaries to heel, albeit at a great cost to civilian lives and after some months of bloody fighting. As had been the case for other episodes of unrest it was not the military threat presented by the Sultan’s rebellious subjects that was the main challenge, but rather the reaction of the great powers to Ottoman attempts to quell these revolts. Already by the spring of 1895, stories of Ottoman atrocities, sometimes embellished but all too often true, were seen in newspapers across Europe. Abdülhamid was now nicknamed “Abdul the red” or “Abdul the damned” and was seen as the quintessential Eastern despot. Hook-nosed, hunched and with death whispering in his ear, Abdülhamid’s image as the great monster of the time in the minds of many in the West was solidified. With this image of the Ottomans circulating among the populations of the Great Powers, and with politicians and statesmen increasingly strong in their condemnation of the “Hamidian Massacres”, it seemed as if the conflict would escalate even further.

[1] – I do want to try and keep as balanced a view as I can here. The Armenian massacres and genocide of 1915 is a very touchy subject and has been on this very forum in the past. Recently the scholarly consensus has shifted toward acceptance of the events from 1915 as a genocide (even from scholars labelled as genocide deniers such as Edward J. Erickson), and this is a view I now hold. At the same time, I do think that some on the Armenian side of the debate tend to ignore the agency of Armenians within intercommunal conflicts in Anatolia and the suffering of Muslim populations. This of course does not excuse Turkish denial of the genocide or the massacres of Armenians, and I think that this is a debate that will no doubt continue to shift in the years and decades ahead. Anyway, this footnote is long enough as it is.

[2] – This happened in OTL as well. Van had a particularly high Armenian population and as such was not only protected from the first wave of massacres in the Hamidian massacres of OTL but was a focus of Armenian opposition to the Ottoman government until the genocide of 1915. Even then, however, the Armenians of Van went down fighting to some extent.

[3] – The Hamidiye were an irregular cavalry force designed to coopt the Kurdish tribesmen of Eastern Anatolia into defending the Ottoman State and serving as a Cossack-like force in the Ottoman army. They did not prove to be as effective a fighting force as the Cossacks though.
 
Last edited:

Maudoldu00

Banned
When I see the poster of Death talking to Abdul Hamid, it make me wonder.
I dont think Death (Grim Reaper) is evil or scary. They are the only being that neither good or bad. They are neutral. They are the most fair in giving treatment. Death to All is Neither Pleasure nor Suffering for Him.
It his job
 
. F. B. Lynch, who journeyed throughout Armenia a few years after the events in question, described what he thought was the modus operandi of the revolutionaries: “The object of these men is to keep the Armenian cause alive by lighting a flame here and there and calling: Fire! The cry is taken up in the European press; and when people run to look there are sure to be some Turkish officials drawn into the trap and committing abominations.” Though taking away agency for atrocities from the Ottoman perpetrators of atrocities, this nevertheless sheds some light on the Armenian use of Ottoman countermeasures as a tactic in their struggle for nationhood.[1]
Oh I am finding parallels of Armenian technique with Al Qaeda affiliated group's propaganda. In the light of American defeat and withdrawal from Afghanistan, Al-qaeda supporters were seen cheering for Laden on how his 'foresight' to bring US into Graveyard of empires by 9/11 was all but fullproof( of course totally ignoring the human and material cost in Afghanistan ) and how US is falling steadily into decline following their trillions spent and gaining nothing and how they will be forced to withdraw from other places( not a far off assumption actually) and the Muslims will rise and all because how America was forced to languish in graveyard of empires because some dudes flew planes into two towers. I can see Armenians ignoring their own losses for drawing ire of Turkish government apparatus to attract the attention of western world so that in the event of a possible Ottoman defeat, they can brag about how Mr X was great leader and how his rebellion brought about the decline and eventual destruction of Ottoman empire by forcing the west to have a look.

But that's where the similarities end, unlike Afghans I don’t see Armenians being able to achieve the feat without direct intervention from outside
 
Last edited:
H. F. B. Lynch, who journeyed throughout Armenia a few years after the events in question, described what he thought was the modus operandi of the revolutionaries: “The object of these men is to keep the Armenian cause alive by lighting a flame here and there and calling: Fire! The cry is taken up in the European press; and when people run to look there are sure to be some Turkish officials drawn into the trap and committing abominations.” Though taking away agency for atrocities from the Ottoman perpetrators of atrocities, this nevertheless sheds some light on the Armenian use of Ottoman countermeasures as a tactic in their struggle for nationhood.[1]
I have never actually looked at insurgencies like this before, but it makes sense. I am wondering if the Irish Independence movement will be taking notes from this approach.
 
I do want to try and keep as balanced a view as I can here. The Armenian massacres and genocide of 1915 is a very touchy subject and has been on this very forum in the past. Recently the scholarly consensus has shifted toward acceptance of the events from 1915 as a genocide (even from scholars labelled as genocide deniers such as Edward J. Erickson), and this is a view I now hold. At the same time, I do think that some on the Armenian side of the debate tend to ignore the agency of Armenians within intercommunal conflicts in Anatolia and the suffering of Muslim populations. This of course does not excuse Turkish denial of the genocide or the massacres of Armenians, and I think that this is a debate that will no doubt continue to shift in the years and decades ahead. Anyway, this footnote is long enough as it is.
While there was involvement by Armenians within intercommunal conflicts in Anatolia, I think it's worth noting that it was not from the common Armenians, but specifically from a certain fraction of the Armenian population - the middle class, specifically the upper middle class of Armenians. The Dashnaks and the Hunchaks were both formed by wealthy intellectuals well outside where Armenians lived, after all, and the average Armenian could not go outside that. The average Armenian who could not fight back was not truly represented by the revolutionaries who could, but yet suffered enormously at the hands of so-called "reprisals" because they were constantly viewed with suspicion - which of course pushed them into sympathizing with revolutionaries. Furthermore, within the Ottoman Empire the Armenians did not have the power of the state backing them, while of course irregulars and paramilitaries opposing them did, and this meant they had much less capability to "strike" in violence, and also that any intercommunal warring was bound to disproportionately hurt them to a far greater extent than the other way around.

So, I do think while there was Armenian agency, it was only of a specific sliver of the Armenian population, and also state backing of their opponents meant any reprisals in communal fighting could only be disproportionate.
 
there was Armenian agency, it was only of a specific sliver of the Armenian population, and also state backing of their opponents meant any reprisals in communal fighting could only be disproportionate
Only if Ottomans used more 'divide and rule' policy, a lot of unnecessary bloodshed would have been avoided.
 
Only if Ottomans used more 'divide and rule' policy, a lot of unnecessary bloodshed would have been avoided.
Only if ottomans just gave into the demands of Armenians. A far better solution then "divide and rule" Policy.
Especially since divide and rule isn't a bloodless solution itself most of the times.
 
Only if Ottomans used more 'divide and rule' policy, a lot of unnecessary bloodshed would have been avoided.
Divide-and-rule is a policy that can work for a time, but most of the time it eventually results in a collapse of ethnic cleansing and mass murder as the divisions it generates become too massive for any empire to manage. Also, Abdulhamid viewed himself as a champion of Islam, and naturally such a self-image would naturally preclude a divide-and-rule policy if one of the sides happens to follow Islam.
 
Top