| A Surviving Ottoman Empire | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 13 2017, 11:50 PM (161 Views) | |
| Basil Fawlty | Feb 13 2017, 11:50 PM Post #1 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Several questions about the plausibility of a modern Ottoman state, in quick succession: Assuming it could survive the turmoil of the early 20th century, what obstacles would the Ottomans need to overcome in the late 1910s/20s to achieve enough stability to survive the Great Depression? We'll assume the Balkan Wars are a given here and that all European territory outside the Constantinople-Adrianople perimeter is lost. By the same token, Turkey must not join the Central Powers in WWI. The development of oil resources in Arabia, Mesopotamia and the Levant would give the Ottomans much greater sway in international affairs, but also make them a prime target for colonial empires and revolutionary movements. How much would the discovery of new oil from the 1920s through the 1960s tend to promote Arab nationalism and how much would it reinforce centralization? Certainly, the Sultan would want to hang on to economically valuable regions, but what realistically could be done to promote integration? Assuming for the moment all this could be dealt with, would there be any advantage to having an unified economy (that is, all within one nation) rather than the dozen or so petroleum states that emerged in the gulf post-1919 and post-1945? Would this encourage more rapid development or hinder it through the absence of competition? Finally, how does the Sublime Porte deal with the particularly thorny question of Zionism within the context of contemporary Islamic attitudes? |
![]() |
|
| John | Feb 14 2017, 12:32 AM Post #2 |
|
Short answer: Nothing. Not-so-short answer: The Ottoman Empire was finished well before the 20th Century. It needed to manage differently or avoid things that occurred in the 19th and probably 18th Century as well. The emergence of nationalism was unavoidable. The decline of the importance of the overland trade routes was unavoidable, making it impossible for them to afford a large empire. Islam being a stick in the mud for technological advancement and creating the kind of society that could compete with the West was unavoidable. By the time you get anywhere near the 20th Century, the Ottomans are finished. Edited by John, Feb 14 2017, 12:33 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Feb 14 2017, 12:40 AM Post #3 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Well. That makes the exercise simpler. ![]() Was nationalism really an unavoidable built-in feature? I know so little about the Arab Revolt and Arab history, I can't say. Many modern nation states like Syria, Jordan, and Iraq are all British creations (though there is a good case to be made for the distinct cultural areas). Where did the nationalism come from? The Ottomans don't need to be a superstate or compete with Britain, France, Germany, and the United States. They just need to survive as a rump state and hang on to most of the Levant, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and have nominal suzerainty over the Arab gulf states. |
![]() |
|
| John | Feb 14 2017, 01:56 PM Post #4 |
|
By World War I, the Ottoman Empire was very weak, but there was a realization that petroleum was going to be a major economic commodity in the future. I don't think the great powers were going to permit the Turks to hold onto these areas where I think it was common knowledge that prospectors were going to find vast reserves of petroleum. If they didn't get stripped of these territories during World War I, it was going to happen elsewhere down the line. On nationalism, I can't really go into a whole lot of depth on the subject here, but suffice it to say, I believe there is a very strong connection between population density, technological advancement, world trade, and centralized government (among other things) that promotes nationalism among the various populations. I don't think it is really possible to contain that over the long term. Even wealthy empires have had trouble doing so. |
![]() |
|
| Lelouch | Feb 14 2017, 04:39 PM Post #5 |
|
I think your undervaluing the main trait of the Ottoman Empire, it was the sole Political Power within Islam. The Modern Arabic States were created from the Tribes within the Interior of Arabia that were not within the De Jure Ottoman Empire, and without the help of the British Empire they are not a realistic or credible threat to the Ottomans. If it held Mesopotemia, The Gulf, Mecca & Medina, and the Levant into the 1940s, it would be able to snowball into the modern day. However, this is in a situation where the British are simply to busy to invade/carve them up as OTL. If it didn't happen in WW1, it would happen in the 1920s-1930s, or in WW2. Britain wanted to devour the Ottomans, and nothing was going to stop them in the end. Assumming however that the Ottomans were not invaded/carved up by Britain, it would inevitably find itself in conflict with the Soviets, who would see a fragile empire that was resource rich yet technologically backwards, unless some sort of Kemalist or similar revolution occurred transforming it into a more Modern Parliamentary Monarchy. |
![]() |
|
| John | Feb 14 2017, 05:14 PM Post #6 |
|
"I think your undervaluing the main trait of the Ottoman Empire, it was the sole Political Power within Islam." I don't agree. The prestige of the Sultan had long faded by the 20th Century. The Young Turks were working their magic prior to World War I. The European powers were already picking at the carcass of the Ottoman Empire. The Empire was finished. |
![]() |
|
| Lelouch | Feb 14 2017, 05:17 PM Post #7 |
|
I agree on the premise that the Empire was finished as the British Empire was going to devour it, there was no stopping that. However, I disagree on any thoughts that it would of collapsed on its own, after the Balkan Wars, it had hit some sort of equilibrium that would of kept it alive until it started to recover. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Feb 14 2017, 07:29 PM Post #8 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
The British and others had already carved it up by 1913, from Libya and Egypt to the lost Balkan territories. Your comment on equilibrium makes me wonder if there was a point at which they (the Great Powers) would have had enough, due to being occupied elsewhere or simply not having the interest in further acquisitions. The main petroleum discoveries outside of Iraq occurred in the 50s and 60s and there isn't much reason to control the interior of modern Saudi Arabia aside from oil. Would it be conceivable for the Turks to build up a pro-Allied stance during the Great War that at minimum lets them avoid the crippling losses of @? I think they'd probably end up losing a lot of independence regardless; the British and Russians would want free access through the straits to ensure supply lines remains open. The British would probably end up occupying parts of Mesopotamia and perhaps Palestine for security reasons. I don't remember the exact legal situation with Kuwait, but I believe it was a de facto British protectorate by that point that became de jure after the declaration of war. Essentially, Turkey would need to do something like China did with the colonial spheres of influence. Only it doesn't have the population advantages of China or the physical size. |
![]() |
|
| Petar | Feb 14 2017, 08:18 PM Post #9 |
![]()
The General
|
Well, it depends on what you mean by Ottoman Empire. If you mean Ottoman Empire with its pre-Balkan War borders, absolutely impossible. If you mean the Ottoman Empire as in Anatolia + the Middle East, it is possible in the short run, but there would be sooner or later various independence movements popping up as the country modernised, and an equivalent of the middle class appears in the Middle Eastern territories. Of course, this requires the Ottomans either staying neutral in the Great War (unlikely) or joining the Entente (very unlikely). Without that, and without being propped up by the UK/France/Russia, all bets are off. We can't really use European national models for what happened to the Ottoman Empire in OTL, for obvious reasons; but it is easy to say that, if it were to modernise, it would happen along the European lines of economic development, and here some similarities could be found. Hroch's ABC schema of the development of nationalism would probably very much apply in these cases, which might even lead to similar developments as in Eastern Europe (which would be interesting, to say the least). |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Feb 14 2017, 08:40 PM Post #10 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
It would be possible to keep Syria and Mesopotamia, but very, very difficult up against the French, Italians, Germans, Russians and British. The closer you get to the Anatolian core, the easier it gets. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · History · Next Topic » |








2:39 PM Jul 11