Ottoman activism in 1848?

[Rob]

Suppose the Sultan of the day believes he can be a power factor in these events. Whether he is actually right or wrong is another story.

Three options come to mind:

a) Minimalist: The Ottomans use their own forces to preemptively suppress the Moldavian and Wallachian uprisings before the Russians can get involved.

b) Adventurist: The Ottomans aid Kossuth's Hungary to gain an ally and weaken a neighbor.

c) Legitimist: The Ottomans offer to aid Vienna even faster than the Russians do, trying to avoid the separatist precedent, and in the feeling that Austria has become less of a threat (hadn't fought them for about 50 years, which was a lot in those days), Austria's Metternich advocated against intervention in the Greek Revolt, and further separatist precedents were bad.

While obviously it would be fun if they tried an initiative and it were successful, it could be equally fun to see them bite off more than they could chew.

One thing suggesting that a, b or c might not be a disaster a priori is that the Ottomans were decent enough combatants on land during the Crimean War, even if they got massacred at sea.

[jerry kraus]

Post by Rob
Suppose the Sultan of the day believes he can be a power factor in these events. Whether he is actually right or wrong is another story.
a) Minimalist: The Ottomans use their own forces to preemptively suppress the Moldavian and Wallachian uprisings before the Russians can get involved.
b) Adventurist: The Ottomans aid Kossuth's Hungary to gain an ally and weaken a neighbor.
c) Legitimist: The Ottomans offer to aid Vienna even faster than the Russians do, trying to avoid the separatist precedent, and in the feeling that Austria has become less of a threat (hadn't fought them for about 50 years, which was a lot in those days), Austria's Metternich advocated against intervention in the Greek Revolt, and further separatist precedents were bad.
While obviously it would be fun if they tried an initiative and it were successful, it could be equally fun to see them bite off more than they could chew.
One thing suggesting that a, b or c might not be a disaster a priori is that the Ottomans were decent enough combatants on land during the Crimean War, even if they got massacred at sea.

Rob, my understanding is that the Ottoman sultans were so isolated from political reality by the structure of government, that they were quite incapable of making refined political calculations of this type. Is this not so?

[Rob]

Post by jerry kraus

Post by Rob
Suppose the Sultan of the day believes he can be a power factor in these events. Whether he is actually right or wrong is another story.
a) Minimalist: The Ottomans use their own forces to preemptively suppress the Moldavian and Wallachian uprisings before the Russians can get involved.
b) Adventurist: The Ottomans aid Kossuth's Hungary to gain an ally and weaken a neighbor.
c) Legitimist: The Ottomans offer to aid Vienna even faster than the Russians do, trying to avoid the separatist precedent, and in the feeling that Austria has become less of a threat (hadn't fought them for about 50 years, which was a lot in those days), Austria's Metternich advocated against intervention in the Greek Revolt, and further separatist precedents were bad.
While obviously it would be fun if they tried an initiative and it were successful, it could be equally fun to see them bite off more than they could chew.
One thing suggesting that a, b or c might not be a disaster a priori is that the Ottomans were decent enough combatants on land during the Crimean War, even if they got massacred at sea.

Rob, my understanding is that the Ottoman sultans were so isolated from political reality by the structure of government, that they were quite incapable of making refined political calculations of this type. Is this not so?

Not so for the Abdul Hamid era, but that was much later.

Abdulmecid I was the Sultan at this time.

In any case, I was using the Sultan as the synonym for the state. What if the Ottoman government, Frand Vizier, whatever, decided to do 1, 2 or 3 above?

[jerry kraus]

Post by Rob

Post by jerry kraus

Post by Rob
Suppose the Sultan of the day believes he can be a power factor in these events. Whether he is actually right or wrong is another story.
a) Minimalist: The Ottomans use their own forces to preemptively suppress the Moldavian and Wallachian uprisings before the Russians can get involved.
b) Adventurist: The Ottomans aid Kossuth's Hungary to gain an ally and weaken a neighbor.
c) Legitimist: The Ottomans offer to aid Vienna even faster than the Russians do, trying to avoid the separatist precedent, and in the feeling that Austria has become less of a threat (hadn't fought them for about 50 years, which was a lot in those days), Austria's Metternich advocated against intervention in the Greek Revolt, and further separatist precedents were bad.
While obviously it would be fun if they tried an initiative and it were successful, it could be equally fun to see them bite off more than they could chew.
One thing suggesting that a, b or c might not be a disaster a priori is that the Ottomans were decent enough combatants on land during the Crimean War, even if they got massacred at sea.

Rob, my understanding is that the Ottoman sultans were so isolated from political reality by the structure of government, that they were quite incapable of making refined political calculations of this type. Is this not so?

Not so for the Abdul Hamid era, but that was much later.
Abdulmecid I was the Sultan at this time.
In any case, I was using the Sultan as the synonym for the state. What if the Ottoman government, Frand Vizier, whatever, decided to do 1, 2 or 3 above?

Well, on the whole, things couldn't have really worked out much worse for the Turks, could they? The British and the French weren't going to permit the total extermination and annexation of the Turkish Empire by the Russians, whatever the Turks did. So, I suppose a more activist policy might have been more to the advantage of the Turks, than otherwise. Possibly some earlier, better relations between Turkey and Austria-Hungary would have brought about some constructive improvement in the structure of the Turkish state itself. This would probably change the dynamics of Europe sufficiently to alter events somewhat. Possibly German reunification is delayed, or modified somewhat, if there are excellent relations between Austria and Turkey? That is, Austria would have a somewhat stronger hand, to affect and delay things a bit.

[Rob]

Post by jerry kraus

Post by Rob

Post by jerry kraus

Post by Rob
Suppose the Sultan of the day believes he can be a power factor in these events. Whether he is actually right or wrong is another story.
a) Minimalist: The Ottomans use their own forces to preemptively suppress the Moldavian and Wallachian uprisings before the Russians can get involved.
b) Adventurist: The Ottomans aid Kossuth's Hungary to gain an ally and weaken a neighbor.
c) Legitimist: The Ottomans offer to aid Vienna even faster than the Russians do, trying to avoid the separatist precedent, and in the feeling that Austria has become less of a threat (hadn't fought them for about 50 years, which was a lot in those days), Austria's Metternich advocated against intervention in the Greek Revolt, and further separatist precedents were bad.
While obviously it would be fun if they tried an initiative and it were successful, it could be equally fun to see them bite off more than they could chew.
One thing suggesting that a, b or c might not be a disaster a priori is that the Ottomans were decent enough combatants on land during the Crimean War, even if they got massacred at sea.

Rob, my understanding is that the Ottoman sultans were so isolated from political reality by the structure of government, that they were quite incapable of making refined political calculations of this type. Is this not so?

Not so for the Abdul Hamid era, but that was much later.
Abdulmecid I was the Sultan at this time.
In any case, I was using the Sultan as the synonym for the state. What if the Ottoman government, Frand Vizier, whatever, decided to do 1, 2 or 3 above?

Well, on the whole, things couldn't have really worked out much worse for the Turks, could they? The British and the French weren't going to permit the total extermination and annexation of the Turkish Empire by the Russians, whatever the Turks did. So, I suppose a more activist policy might have been more to the advantage of the Turks, than otherwise. Possibly some earlier, better relations between Turkey and Austria-Hungary would have brought about some constructive improvement in the structure of the Turkish state itself. This would probably change the dynamics of Europe sufficiently to alter events somewhat. Possibly German reunification is delayed, or modified somewhat, if there are excellent relations between Austria and Turkey? That is, Austria would have a somewhat stronger hand, to affect and delay things a bit.

...possibly so...

[ronaloooo]

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI