The Rebirth of the Ottoman Empire

[MerryPrankster]

The Suez Canal provoking World War II. Interesting.

I was going to suggest a possible analogue to the Anschluss in which France absorbs the entire Walloon state during the leadup to the war, but I guess that's not going to happen.

 

[Don Grey]

Great update cant wait to hear about what happens in the WW2. But im concerd about it a little.You have britian france russia spain on the entente. The central powers only have germany ottoman empire AH. Japan is to bussy with america. And if america joins entente central powers might not make it out standing. But im sure the war will be epic on all sides .

The up side is while most of the entente has had horrible economies plus never ending internal problams and some in slight stagnation in the case of britian the central powers were booming.Another upside would be the central powers will be highly mechanized with large airforces because they control most of the world oil supply while it will probably be a crippiling facter for entente as they seem to control none if at all any. Oil will never be a problam for the CP especialy with the rail systems installed connecting there empires. If the entente use the tacktics of world war one such as mass infantry formations they will be steam rolled over and relentlessly bombarderd by the airforce.And from what i have noticed no one besides the british actualy have a proper navy to combat central power navies.

Have the germans equaled or surpassed the royal navy that was there dream after all. Have the austrians invested in there navy could be realy usefull in the med.Particularly what is the military state of the ottomans. How is there imperial: navy,army,airforce and armoured division doing? They should be purducing there own military assents by know. Atleast i hope they have been mass producing tanks and planes by now or they will get zerged to death but the russian.

If japan is getting oil from the ottomans unless america blockades japan completly they will perform much better then the OTL. But there fall cant be stoped they have bitten more then they can chew. I dont think even with the entire industrial compacities of the CP combine couldnt beat the americans in production.So japan sadly seems screwed. Other important factore what is the state of italy and scandanavian nation possible possible lesser power allies maybe.

Edit: Just looked at the map again its funny and sad that russia's mass numbers wont help her so much in this TL because here western borders border all 3 of her enemies that havent gone throught problams she has been in.Plus the ottomans are also at the south and the japanese are right on her ass. But like always i bet mother russia will put on a good show never underestimate cold hard determination of bear. But she will be trying to climb a 90 degree angel wall so i dont expect what happened in the OTL to happen again.

 

[Don Grey]

The Suez Canal provoking World War II. Interesting.

I was going to suggest a possible analogue to the Anschluss in which France absorbs the entire Walloon state during the leadup to the war, but I guess that's not going to happen.

That would have been cool to and then the ottomans could nationalize the seuz.As germany gets mad at what the french did the ottomans can nationalize the seuz as retaliation to what france angering every one else then every one joing up in support of there respective groups can go at it.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

Ok I made a quick map of the world in 1940, before the war...and I'm glad to say I've finally fixed Namibia...

 

[Summoner]

Great update but I have some concerns that France seems to be getting away with murder. Rearmament under the noses of the Entene is plausible. Growth of PNPF: plausible. Even a Second Borbon Restoration is plausible. But a French-Spanish anschluss that goes uncontested? Not only was this the reason for the War of Spanish Succession in 1700s but also part of casus belli for Franco-Prussian war a century later?

You mentioned Ottoman arming Muslim groups in India. There will be some pressure on India with Ottoman Persia right next door. What about Ottoman influence into Central Asia, Siberia and China? Home to other Muslim/Turkic groups.

If the Ottomans keep their power and Influence in India after the war, I imagien the upcoming partition of India to be more aggressive and catering to the Muslims. We might even see the retention of an independent Hyderabad Muslim state right in the middle of India.

USA will probably get involved in this war although the isolationist tendencies will still run strong.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

I want to know the conditions in how the Ottomans are able to maintain such a huge empire in a short time. It's no criticism to call it a wank, it just seems to be an observation.

 

[Don Grey]

Great update but I have some concerns that France seems to be getting away with murder. Rearmament under the noses of the Entene is plausible. Growth of PNPF: plausible. Even a Second Borbon Restoration is plausible. But a French-Walloon anschluss that goes uncontested? Not only was this the reason for the War of Spanish Succession in 1700s but also part of casus belli for Franco-Prussian war a century later?

You mentioned Ottoman arming Muslim groups in India. There will be some pressure on India with Ottoman Persia right next door. What about Ottoman influence into Central Asia, Siberia and China? Home to other Muslim/Turkic groups.

If the Ottomans keep their power and Influence in India after the war, I imagien the upcoming partition of India to be more aggressive and catering to the Muslims. We might even see the retention of an independent Hyderabad Muslim state right in the middle of India.

USA will probably get involved in this war although the isolationist tendencies will still run strong.

Those are intresting questions. Though i hope the US doesnt get involved.Thats just to fricking much for the central powers how ever strong they may be. The only way is if the central powers have the italians and scandanavians plus any other alllies they can get and immediatly wipe the floor russia spain and france. Starve britian into surrender and use there combine navys trying to stop the yanks from landing and tire them out into an uneasy armistice (in the proses destroying there own empires).Because if the yanks form beach head in europe and africa it overs. Because the CP cant fight all the other powers and then take on america(a nation untoched by war) it just cant be done. Even if they make a nuke they cant get it over there. I just hope there are some colony battles.

 

[Don Grey]

I want to know the conditions in how the Ottomans are able to maintain such a huge empire in a short time. It's no criticism to call it a wank, it just seems to be an observation.

If you read the updates and conversations then you will understand how.And abduls explanaition was quite clear and short. Plus theres only a touch of wankage no one said there isnt any.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I want to know the conditions in how the Ottomans are able to maintain such a huge empire in a short time. It's no criticism to call it a wank, it just seems to be an observation.

You know, you're a troll. Read the scenario - it clearly explains it. If you have a question or issue with a specific point, that's one thing, but a contentless complaint like this is lame.

It's not "so fast", it's 65 years, and of that entire map, very little of it didn't start Ottoman at the beginning of the scenario. The additional African territory is all Sahara - it amounts to the acquisition of a couple of oases. The only wankish elements are acquisition of Iran and the British Arabian protectorates.

 

[Saepe Fidelis]

You know, you're a troll. Read the scenario - it clearly explains it. If you have a question or issue with a specific point, that's one thing, but a contentless complaint like this is lame.

It's not "so fast", it's 65 years, and of that entire map, very little of it didn't start Ottoman at the beginning of the scenario. The additional African territory is all Sahara - it amounts to the acquisition of a couple of oases. The only wankish elements are acquisition of Iran and the British Arabian protectorates.

Alright, easy. We all love a good Ottoman Empire TL but let's not turn into fanatics here, he raised a legitimate point.
Sure, the change in the Ottoman Empire is very fast, but given reforms described and a move towards democratisation then I'm sure it could be dont-the Ottoman Empire's weak political situation was what held it back a lot-crap Sultans (not all of them but there were a few) and rebellious army officers meant that its industrial and economic potential were not reached.

I'm not a fan of the Empire annexing Persia though, I agree that a sphere of influence makes sense and I'mm happy with that. However, I think we underestimate the differences between Sunni and Shia. I hate to use an OTL example, but look at Iraq. The factionalism was so bad there that for awhile we considered balkanising it into three separate states-that's how much animousity there is. Sure, things have probably changed ITTL; a more liberal empire etc., but I don't think the memory of Sunni Sultans slaughtering Shia will subside swiftly (I love alliteration).

You've explained the military plausibility and I'm open to that, but an occupation is different than a conquest. Other than that point, however, this TL is really good and refreshing-better than Entente gang rape or a Russia wank.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

1) Alright, easy. We all love a good Ottoman Empire TL but let's not turn into fanatics here, he raised a legitimate point.
Sure, the change in the Ottoman Empire is very fast, but given reforms described and a move towards democratisation then I'm sure it could be dont-the Ottoman Empire's weak political situation was what held it back a lot-crap Sultans (not all of them but there were a few) and rebellious army officers meant that its industrial and economic potential were not reached.

2) I'm not a fan of the Empire annexing Persia though, I agree that a sphere of influence makes sense and I'mm happy with that. However, I think we underestimate the differences between Sunni and Shia. I hate to use an OTL example, but look at Iraq. The factionalism was so bad there that for awhile we considered balkanising it into three separate states-that's how much animousity there is. Sure, things have probably changed ITTL; a more liberal empire etc., but I don't think the memory of Sunni Sultans slaughtering Shia will subside swiftly (I love alliteration).

1) People always call Pasha a fanatic but never me !!

In seriousness, Pasha wasn't talking about supporting Ottoman Persia there, as his last sentence obviously shows us. He just wants to point out that you shouldn't overlook that sans Persia, Ottoman territory there is all perfectly doable. Yes, Ottoman Empire that still have its elite army that otherwise was butcered by Russia IOTL, can reconquer Egypt and expand to Sudan, where they can get extra manpower source to be used to expand some more to the west of it, which was and still is way less populated than Sudan. The later wouldn't be inevitable though, and that didn't happen ITTL's scramble for Africa, only after WWI. British Arab protectorates will be tad harder, but certainly still easier than annexing Persia.

2) Persia I agree won't be very holdable, but it's really more about logistic and population than religion. Sure, that's a factor, too. Thing is, you are just assuming here that Sunni-Shia relation has been always in the way Sunni-Shia interaction is running in Iraq right now. While Sunni and Shia Islam have been always two different domains, the border between them haven't always been stagnant. It was pretty fluid between Mongol conquest of Baghdad until Ottoman-Syafawi Wars. Even then after Ottomans stopped to consider Shias non-muslims, and certainly aimed in the long term for uniting both denomination under single religious authority(this was in similar way Russia was aiming for Constantinople though). Yes, Persians will not bowing down to that, as long as they have the strength to keep standing before the Ottomans....

Yes, I agree that Persia is not annexable, but Sunni-Shia relationship ITTL 20th and 21st century can be much less antagonistic compared to OTL's case, if not very equal....

 

[Saepe Fidelis]

1) People always call Pasha a fanatic but never me !!

In seriousness, Pasha wasn't talking about supporting Ottoman Persia there, as his last sentence obviously shows us. He just wants to point out that you shouldn't overlook that sans Persia, Ottoman territory there is all perfectly doable. Yes, Ottoman Empire that still have its elite army that otherwise was butcered by Russia IOTL, can reconquer Egypt and expand to Sudan, where they can get extra manpower source to be used to expand some more to the west of it, which was and still is way less populated than Sudan. The later wouldn't be inevitable though, and that didn't happen ITTL's scramble for Africa, only after WWI. British Arab protectorates will be tad harder, but certainly still easier than annexing Persia.

2) Persia I agree won't be very holdable, but it's really more about logistic and population than religion. Sure, that's a factor, too. Thing is, you are just assuming here that Sunni-Shia relation has been always in the way Sunni-Shia interaction is running in Iraq right now. While Sunni and Shia Islam have been always two different domains, the border between them haven't always been stagnant. It was pretty fluid between Mongol conquest of Baghdad until Ottoman-Syafawi Wars. Even then after Ottomans stopped to consider Shias non-muslims, and certainly aimed in the long term for uniting both denomination under single religious authority(this was in similar way Russia was aiming for Constantinople though). Yes, Persians will not bowing down to that, as long as they have the strength to keep standing before the Ottomans....

Yes, I agree that Persia is not annexable, but Sunni-Shia relationship ITTL 20th and 21st century can be much less antagonistic compared to OTL's case, if not very equal....

I wasn't calling him a fanatic for supporting an overlooked and underappreciated empire, I was calling him a fanatic because he called someone a troll for raising a legitimate point. Politeness is free and name-calling isn't necessary, even when discussing the Ottoman Empire.

 

[Don Grey]

I wasn't calling him a fanatic for supporting an overlooked and underappreciated empire, I was calling him a fanatic because he called someone a troll for raising a legitimate point. Politeness is free and name-calling isn't necessary, even when discussing the Ottoman Empire.

The point is he didnt start out as asking a legitimate question he remarked about a wank which he didnt bother to explaine but others did. Only after he was called out on his remark he had to change it.

To make something clear about the ottomans. Annexastion of arabia isnt that hard. The british were not that welcome inthose areas and given the state of the ottomans its not that hard. Persia is another matter. But it has far less to do with shia religioun then the cultural ,stratigic and military reasons.Thats why only a portion was annexed then the rest was taken over by economic means.Onkel made a good call on that.

The ottoman position on the map is perfect for expantion if the ottomans are strong if there weak its a curse.The ottomans are big for the same reason the russian is always huge.Almost everything east of the ural and in central asia is practicaly empty with pockets of civilization.Thats why russia is always big onthe map it wasnt that dificult to conquer empty area filled with people not as advanced as you are.So no one naturaly makes a fuss about it.Most of the areas were ottoman when the TL began. And still most of the areas are empty with pockets of urbanazation.The victory of the russo-turkish war give it the breathing room the ottomans need plus prestige to secure its intrests and was able to keep its rich balkan territories.With the new added prestige and german investment gave the ottoman the economic boost it needed so it could continue on its own.The establishment of railroads and comunication systems has made movment of forces and money flow through the ottomans vast lands far easer and definatly more productive plus efficient something they lacked in the otl.

Unlike the europeans the ottomans could not profit from its imperial domains for lack of cohesiveness.Other things stemps from sevral presistant misconceptions such as ottomans were the sick man of europe. Thats wrong it was actualy russia that coined the term in an attempted to hide its own problams.As even russia was winning in otto front of otl ww1 they still colapsed while the ottomans never technicaly colapsed they were rip apart by force by the entente then dismanteld by the republicans(even after the occupation the ottoman goverment was still fuctioning).A nother thing the ottomans are not a colonial empire like the europeans there old school where land is taken then cultivated for economic reasons infrustructure is estamblished then the people are taxed and everyone can make good use of goverment institution and projects and wealth is spread out as best it can through all of its imperial domains.The euros on the other hand took national reasourse and wealth from the conquerd and sent it to the mother country.So it isnt Turks conquering and subjugating foreigners and taking there wealth. Its an excepted islamic empire with a legitmate monarchy (they have earned there status in the eyes of muslim comoners by fighting "christian europe" for hundreds of years).They have earned there right to be a monarchy through great achivments unlike other muslim monarchs.So its more of a muslim people intergrating other muslims lands to form one singular islamic super-state. With pockets of christians ofcourse. But with out the lose of prestige and economic troubles of the OTL the christian minorites have no reason to revolt or resist.Because now they have complet equal rights and a conseption of imperial citizenship plus muslims christians and jews with in the empire have gotten along for hundreds of years its only the problams of the otl that caused the tragedes of the past even the armenians were nick named "the the loyal people".

All onkel has done is cleverly fine tune events to strengthen the central goverment and economi plus create cohesiveness with in the empire by fixing only a hand full of problams. By which making the course of this TL possible (with a touch of wankage that is exceptable). The the unimaginable oil wealth alone would fix alot of problams and cream the pants of todays leaders that have oil issues.The ottomans just have a lot of things going for them right now.And if others suspiciouse of ottomans success botherd to read the updates and conversations with out bais we wouldnt be having this converstaion.

 

[Saepe Fidelis]

Don Grey: I'm not arguing about the annexation or dominance over arabia; after all, the spirit of Arab nationalism hasn't been stirred up in this TL by a TE Lawrence and there hasn't been a Nasser (yet) so I agree there.

But Persia is different. It has a large population with several urban centres; it has a distinct culture from the Ottoman territories (i.e. neither Arab nor Turkic nor European) and with a well established ruling dynasty as well as a ong history of independence and even regional hegemony.

Therefore I agree that annexing strategically important areas like the south Caspian coastline and Azerbaijan make sense, but annexing the entire area doe snot; all it will do is sap the energies of the empire with guerrilla warfare carried out by Shia groups (even if the mass of people don't care, there will be an insurgency who will damage vital infrastructure and will be hard to dispose of).

So I am in favour of having a kind of 'sphere of influence' in Persia-military garrisons, economic dominance and a client ruler as well as some territory exchange, I don't think that annexing Persia makes any sense, even for a wank.

 

[Don Grey]

Don Grey: I'm not arguing about the annexation or dominance over arabia; after all, the spirit of Arab nationalism hasn't been stirred up in this TL by a TE Lawrence and there hasn't been a Nasser (yet) so I agree there.

But Persia is different. It has a large population with several urban centres; it has a distinct culture from the Ottoman territories (i.e. neither Arab nor Turkic nor European) and with a well established ruling dynasty as well as a ong history of independence and even regional hegemony.

Therefore I agree that annexing strategically important areas like the south Caspian coastline and Azerbaijan make sense, but annexing the entire area doe snot; all it will do is sap the energies of the empire with guerrilla warfare carried out by Shia groups (even if the mass of people don't care, there will be an insurgency who will damage vital infrastructure and will be hard to dispose of).

So I am in favour of having a kind of 'sphere of influence' in Persia-military garrisons, economic dominance and a client ruler as well as some territory exchange, I don't think that annexing Persia makes any sense, even for a wank.

I agree persia is hard to deal with but the ottomans did it with soft power. And if russia and britian cant maintain influence (which they cant) then persia can not stand on its own. It will be sucked in economicaly by the ottomans.In this TL persia was annexed in all but name.onkel just made it complet. But that is actualy the only main wankage of this TL. Its not impossible given the state of the ottomans and the world. Remeber the ottomans didnt invade and take everything by force they put up a seriouse hearts and minds campaign.But i understand where your coming from.

 

[Saepe Fidelis]

I agree persia is hard to deal with but the ottomans did it with soft power. And if russia and britian cant maintain influence (which they cant) then persia can not stand on its own. It will be sucked in economicaly by the ottomans.In this TL persia was annexed in all but name.onkel just made it complet. But that is actualy the only main wankage of this TL. Its not impossible given the state of the ottomans and the world. Remeber the ottomans didnt invade and take everything by force they put up a seriouse hearts and minds campaign.

I know what you mean, and I agree about 'soft power' but there is a difference between economic dominance and outright annexation; unless national character and culture can be significantly altered in 20 years then I doubt the Persians will accept it and any Ottoman ruler worth his salt would know this-they have been fighting for the past 500 years after all

 

[Don Grey]

I know what you mean, and I agree about 'soft power' but there is a difference between economic dominance and outright annexation; unless national character and culture can be significantly altered in 20 years then I doubt the Persians will accept it and any Ottoman ruler worth his salt would know this-they have been fighting for the past 500 years after all

The ottomans never had a dominant culture that asimilated all. Its more of a combination of sevral diffrent culturse that live together in the medium called the ottomans empire.Yes the persian thing is ofcourse hard but remember that they have autonomy and persia is the wankage of the TL.

Edit: With out it ,it wouldnt be a ottomans reborn tl more of a same old same old. Ottomans can defend them selves again kinda thing.

 

[Summoner]

I'd love to see some South American action in this TL. Maybe a Zimmerman telegram type to the Argentines: Declare war on Britain in exchange for the Malvinas/Falklands.

The naval situation here is also interesting. Asuming Germany can get Scandinavia on their side, it will be easy to blockade Russia's northern ports on the Kola peninsula (murmansk etc...) The Baltic Sea is already out of the question and if German ships/subs can base and refuel in Norway, Russia's northern ports are sealed. Same for the Mediterranean/Black Sea. Ottomans will guarantee the straits stay closed. Russia's Far East ports could be blockaded as well by the Japanese, but would it really matter? I'm assuming that all centers of industry were west of the Urals and there was not much buildup around Vladivostok and surrounding regions. Even if cargo could be offloaded in Vladivostok or Petropavlovsk, is the Trans-Siberian railroad capable of supplying industrial centers to the west as well as shipping the finished goods back east for delivery.

Italy is another interesting point. Most likely better for them to stay neutral although probably not possible with a revanchist France at their doorstep. They better have fortified the Alps as well as beefed up their navy between the interwar years. The Eastern half of the Mediterranen is controlled by Brit/France, but I'd love to see Italy succeed at taking over the Balearic islands. What about Algeria? Sure it was annexed by Italy, but there are many French colonists there who Im sure who be just as revanchist as mainland Frenchmen. Revolt or insurrection? Could France really lead an army across the sahara and drive towards the coast? Or can British Navy assist the French in an amphibious landing at coastal cities (more likely to me).

I do think the Ottomans are in the best shape/location here. I predict an offensive from Crimea if they are quick about it and Russia doesn't overrun it first. Would be great to see Ottoman battleships pounding a Russian Crimean offensive from the Black Sea which should be a Ottoman lake at this point. Has the OE built up an equivalent to the Russian's Caspian flotilla? I would imagine so since they control Persia and value Baku as an oil producing center.

Germany and UK will probably fight several battles in Africa,. I cant see an army penetrating the dense Zaire rainforest in either direction, but maybe along the borders of Zambia, Rhodesia, Angola, Namibia and South Africa will see some action. Even Italy may invade from East African colonies and drive southwards with Germany driving eastwards in one big pincer movement, ejecting British and maybe Portugal from southern Africa. Madagascar will probably hold... This all depends on the Ottomans who will be a great help here... If the Ottomans have completed a north-south railroad from Alexandria Egypt to Italy's and Germany's colonies, resupply will be alot easier than sending it by sea and bypasses UK's naval efforts to cut them off. Ottoman naval strenght in this theatre will be critical. With Italy, Austria and Ottoman Mediterranean fleet, OE should have more spare ships and bases in the Indian Ocean to harrass UK efforts to resupply its southeaster African holdings. How about an Ottoman amphibious landing and takeover of either Seychelles or Maldives. Maldives might be alot easier since they are already Muslim and would give the Sultan a chance to test out his new title as Caliph. Would the Maldives accept the Sultan as a liberator? This would have the added effect of putting the Ottoman fleet right under the nose of British India. OE will need a huge navy to do all of this, but should have one anyway if they want to maintain control of their new empire. With all of the revenue pouring in from its oil wealth this should not be a problem. I think that the new naval contenders to UK's domincance will be the OE and Germany.

Western African with its patchwork of different colonial holdings will be a a tossup...France is in a precarious position as their only valuable African holdings are on the western coast with the rest being worthless desert.

Japan like in WW2 is going to throw French out of Indochina but will also take Phillipines provoking the ire of USA. For survival of Germany's side, they will need to instruct Japan to not anger USA and maintain it's neutrality. Even going as far as to break their alliance with Japan if they provoke the US. With Ottoman oil flowing to Japan, this desire to attach USA may be somewhat mitigated. Still, oil trade lanes from Persian gulf to Japan must be kept open and UK/Australia and Netherlands all maintain ships there. What will be Netherlands' roles?

Anyway, these are my observations but this TL is excellent and extremely intereting.. Great work OW!

 

[Summoner]

The point is he didnt start out as asking a legitimate question he remarked about a wank which he didnt bother to explaine but others did. Only after he was called out on his remark he had to change it.

To make something clear about the ottomans. Annexastion of arabia isnt that hard. The british were not that welcome inthose areas and given the state of the ottomans its not that hard. Persia is another matter. But it has far less to do with shia religioun then the cultural ,stratigic and military reasons.Thats why only a portion was annexed then the rest was taken over by economic means.Onkel made a good call on that.

The ottoman position on the map is perfect for expantion if the ottomans are strong if there weak its a curse.The ottomans are big for the same reason the russian is always huge.Almost everything east of the ural and in central asia is practicaly empty with pockets of civilization.Thats why russia is always big onthe map it wasnt that dificult to conquer empty area filled with people not as advanced as you are.So no one naturaly makes a fuss about it.Most of the areas were ottoman when the TL began. And still most of the areas are empty with pockets of urbanazation.The victory of the russo-turkish war give it the breathing room the ottomans need plus prestige to secure its intrests and was able to keep its rich balkan territories.With the new added prestige and german investment gave the ottoman the economic boost it needed so it could continue on its own.The establishment of railroads and comunication systems has made movment of forces and money flow through the ottomans vast lands far easer and definatly more productive plus efficient something they lacked in the otl.

Unlike the europeans the ottomans could not profit from its imperial domains for lack of cohesiveness.Other things stemps from sevral presistant misconceptions such as ottomans were the sick man of europe. Thats wrong it was actualy russia that coined the term in an attempted to hide its own problams.As even russia was winning in otto front of otl ww1 they still colapsed while the ottomans never technicaly colapsed they were rip apart by force by the entente then dismanteld by the republicans(even after the occupation the ottoman goverment was still fuctioning).A nother thing the ottomans are not a colonial empire like the europeans there old school where land is taken then cultivated for economic reasons infrustructure is estamblished then the people are taxed and everyone can make good use of goverment institution and projects and wealth is spread out as best it can through all of its imperial domains.The euros on the other hand took national reasourse and wealth from the conquerd and sent it to the mother country.So it isnt Turks conquering and subjugating foreigners and taking there wealth. Its an excepted islamic empire with a legitmate monarchy (they have earned there status in the eyes of muslim comoners by fighting "christian europe" for hundreds of years).They have earned there right to be a monarchy through great achivments unlike other muslim monarchs.So its more of a muslim people intergrating other muslims lands to form one singular islamic super-state. With pockets of christians ofcourse. But with out the lose of prestige and economic troubles of the OTL the christian minorites have no reason to revolt or resist.Because now they have complet equal rights and a conseption of imperial citizenship plus muslims christians and jews with in the empire have gotten along for hundreds of years its only the problams of the otl that caused the tragedes of the past even the armenians were nick named "the the loyal people".

All onkel has done is cleverly fine tune events to strengthen the central goverment and economi plus create cohesiveness with in the empire by fixing only a hand full of problams. By which making the course of this TL possible (with a touch of wankage that is exceptable). The the unimaginable oil wealth alone would fix alot of problams and cream the pants of todays leaders that have oil issues.The ottomans just have a lot of things going for them right now.And if others suspiciouse of ottomans success botherd to read the updates and conversations with out bais we wouldnt be having this converstaion.

Agree with your points. The Ottomans are in the position to do great things and have great allies with great financial and technical assets to help. Ottoman oil is a welcome asset to their allies too. This TL has the potential to be epic and even if there is a touch of wank (semi agree about Persia annexation), as soon as OE discovers nukes and has the rest of world by the "you know what" regarding it's oil wealth, it will be a superpower.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

But Persia is different. It has a large population with several urban centres; it has a distinct culture from the Ottoman territories (i.e. neither Arab nor Turkic nor European) and with a well established ruling dynasty as well as a ong history of independence and even regional hegemony.

Therefore I agree that annexing strategically important areas like the south Caspian coastline and Azerbaijan make sense, but annexing the entire area doe snot; all it will do is sap the energies of the empire with guerrilla warfare carried out by Shia groups (even if the mass of people don't care, there will be an insurgency who will damage vital infrastructure and will be hard to dispose of).

So I am in favour of having a kind of 'sphere of influence' in Persia-military garrisons, economic dominance and a client ruler as well as some territory exchange, I don't think that annexing Persia makes any sense, even for a wank.

And Pasha agrees with you :

You know, you're a troll. Read the scenario - it clearly explains it. If you have a question or issue with a specific point, that's one thing, but a contentless complaint like this is lame.

It's not "so fast", it's 65 years, and of that entire map, very little of it didn't start Ottoman at the beginning of the scenario. The additional African territory is all Sahara - it amounts to the acquisition of a couple of oases. The only wankish elements are acquisition of Iran and the British Arabian protectorates.