WI pre-1900 partition of Ottoman Empire

[Rob]

I'll provide a list of PoDs based on OTL proposals, quoted from L. Carl Brown's "Middle East Politics: Old Rules, Dangerous Game"



1781-1782 Catherine’s approach to Austria, proposing an overall partition and a reconstituted Greek Empire ruled from Constantinople by her grandson. (my note: what was Austria going to get?)



1799-1801 Tsar Paul’s overtures to France
(my note: what was France going to get?)


1806 Russian suggestion that Britain take Egypt while Russia would get the prncipalities of Moldavia and Wallachia
(my note: imagine the 19th century if those takeovers were confirmed by this TL's equivalent of the Congress of Vienna. And before we get to that, does this agreement make Tilsit impossible? Or change the war of 1812 in Russia?)


1807 Talks for a general Ottoman dismemberment between Napoleon and Tsar Alexander at the time of the Tilsit negotiations


1829-1830 French Premier Polignac’s ambitious plan for a general realignment of the boundaries of Euope (a veritable “waltz of territories” as one cynic put it) coupled with partition of the Ottoman Empire.


1876 Bismarck’s plan to settle European disputes by way of Ottomam partition
(my note: who was supposed to get what?)

1895-1896 The Salisbury partition initiatives with Germany

[Alex Milman]

Post by Rob
I'll provide a list of PoDs based on OTL proposals, quoted from L. Carl Brown's "Middle East Politics: Old Rules, Dangerous Game"
1781-1782 Catherine’s approach to Austria, proposing an overall partition and a reconstituted Greek Empire ruled from Constantinople by her grandson. (my note: what was Austria going to get?)

Time table is questionable: there were wars of 1768 - 74 and 1787 - 91 (in which Austria participated). AFAIK, the "Greek project" belongs to the 1st of these wars. There was a non-zero chance to take Istanbul (combined attack from both land and sea) but restoration of the Greek Empire was more or less a pipe dream: Russia simply did not have enough troops.

At some point I commented on a plausibility of a greater scope of the Russian operations in 1787 - 91. Realistically, Russia could conquer Moldavia. In OTL Austria was interested in Walachia but had been beaten so let's say Russia gets both.

Austria could get Serbia and Croatia (Laudon was successful on that theater).

Post by Rob
1799-1801 Tsar Paul’s overtures to France
(my note: what was France going to get?)

A pissed-off Britain. :-)

Post by Rob
1806 Russian suggestion that Britain take Egypt while Russia would get the prncipalities of Moldavia and Wallachia

AFAIK, in 1806 Russia was a little bit too busy fighting Napoleon to have adequate numbers on the Ottoman front. How Brits could be useful at that time I have no idea. When a serious fighting with the Ottomans started (1808), it was after Tilsit so there is no need to explain that the Brits could not be allies.

Post by Rob
(my note: imagine the 19th century if those takeovers were confirmed by this TL's equivalent of the Congress of Vienna. And before we get to that, does this agreement make Tilsit impossible?

After defeat at Friedland Tilsit was pretty much inevitable (in some form): Russia could not keep fighting Napoleon.

Post by Rob
Or change the war of 1812 in Russia?)
1807 Talks for a general Ottoman dismemberment between Napoleon and Tsar Alexander at the time of the Tilsit negotiations

If Nappy could believe that Alexander is sincere and if Alexander did not keep demonstrating that he is not, then Russia could conquer <whatever>. I'm not sure if Nappy was seriously interested in the acquisitions in that region so it would be mostly about keeping Alexander off his back.

Post by Rob
1829-1830 French Premier Polignac’s ambitious plan for a general realignment of the boundaries of Euope (a veritable “waltz of territories” as one cynic put it) coupled with partition of the Ottoman Empire.

Serious European engagement would be needed.

Post by Rob
1876 Bismarck’s plan to settle European disputes by way of Ottomam partition
(my note: who was supposed to get what?)

Russian Chancellor Gorchakov had been foolish enough to announce that Russia wants absolutely nothing and is going to go to war just to maintain its honor.

A-H wanted Bosnia and Herzegovina but did not want to go to war.

[Rob]

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Rob
I'll provide a list of PoDs based on OTL proposals, quoted from L. Carl Brown's "Middle East Politics: Old Rules, Dangerous Game"
1806 Russian suggestion that Britain take Egypt while Russia would get the prncipalities of Moldavia and Wallachia

AFAIK, in 1806 Russia was a little bit too busy fighting Napoleon to have adequate numbers on the Ottoman front. How Brits could be useful at that time I have no idea. When a serious fighting with the Ottomans started (1808), it was after Tilsit so there is no need to explain that the Brits could not be allies.

The part I find even more interesting in the 1806 idea than Russia in the Danubian principalities is the British sticking around in or coming back to Egypt and staying from the beginning of the 19th century.

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Rob
(my note: imagine the 19th century if those takeovers were confirmed by this TL's equivalent of the Congress of Vienna. And before we get to that, does this agreement make Tilsit impossible?

After defeat at Friedland Tilsit was pretty much inevitable (in some form): Russia could not keep fighting Napoleon.

Post by Rob
Or change the war of 1812 in Russia?)

[Alex Milman]

Post by Rob

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Rob
I'll provide a list of PoDs based on OTL proposals, quoted from L. Carl Brown's "Middle East Politics: Old Rules, Dangerous Game"
1806 Russian suggestion that Britain take Egypt while Russia would get the prncipalities of Moldavia and Wallachia

AFAIK, in 1806 Russia was a little bit too busy fighting Napoleon to have adequate numbers on the Ottoman front. How Brits could be useful at that time I have no idea. When a serious fighting with the Ottomans started (1808), it was after Tilsit so there is no need to explain that the Brits could not be allies.

The part I find even more interesting in the 1806 idea than Russia in the Danubian principalities is the British sticking around in or coming back to Egypt and staying from the beginning of the 19th century.

Did they have necessary troops?

Post by Rob

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Rob
(my note: imagine the 19th century if those takeovers were confirmed by this TL's equivalent of the Congress of Vienna. And before we get to that, does this agreement make Tilsit impossible?

After defeat at Friedland Tilsit was pretty much inevitable (in some form): Russia could not keep fighting Napoleon.

Post by Rob
Or change the war of 1812 in Russia?)

[Rob]

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Rob

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Rob
I'll provide a list of PoDs based on OTL proposals, quoted from L. Carl Brown's "Middle East Politics: Old Rules, Dangerous Game"
1806 Russian suggestion that Britain take Egypt while Russia would get the prncipalities of Moldavia and Wallachia

AFAIK, in 1806 Russia was a little bit too busy fighting Napoleon to have adequate numbers on the Ottoman front. How Brits could be useful at that time I have no idea. When a serious fighting with the Ottomans started (1808), it was after Tilsit so there is no need to explain that the Brits could not be allies.

The part I find even more interesting in the 1806 idea than Russia in the Danubian principalities is the British sticking around in or coming back to Egypt and staying from the beginning of the 19th century.

Did they have necessary troops?

I do not know, that is a good question. I also don't know if they had started using Indian Sepoys for duty outside of India yet.

They had enough to do one or two short ground campaigns in Egypt to help finish off the French.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Rob
I do not know, that is a good question. I also
don't know if they had started using Indian Sepoys
for duty outside of India yet.

Indian Army troops served on the Peking Expedition
of 1860. Sir Harry Flashman wrote that when he saw
what the Chinese had done to some British army
prisoners (including Indian Army men), he wanted to
take the Chinese officials responsible to India,
and "turn them over to the wives and daughters of
our Afghan troopers."

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 15:03:39 -0500, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Rob
I do not know, that is a good question. I also
don't know if they had started using Indian Sepoys
for duty outside of India yet.

Indian Army troops served on the Peking Expedition
of 1860. Sir Harry Flashman wrote that when he saw
what the Chinese had done to some British army
prisoners (including Indian Army men), he wanted to
take the Chinese officials responsible to India,
and "turn them over to the wives and daughters of
our Afghan troopers."

Sounds like George McDonald Fraser had read Kipling's The Man Who
Would Be King where the Brits are told the Afghans turn their
prisoners over to their women. Naturally the Brits think that's a
lovely idea until one of them asks what the women do and is told "Why
sahib - they cut their bollocks off!"

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by The Horny Goat
Sounds like George McDonald Fraser had read
Kipling's The Man Who Would Be King where the Brits
are told the Afghans turn their prisoners over to
their women. Naturally the Brits think that's a
lovely idea until one of them asks what the women do
and is told "Why sahib - they cut their bollocks off!"

That would be a line from the movie, not the story.

Of course Fraser read Kipling. Including this couplet
from the poem " The Young British Soldier":

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains..."

[ronaloooo]

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