|
|
Post by American hist on Dec 25, 2022 17:31:38 GMT
Perhaps this discussion belongs under a history discussion or not but has there been a time in Russian ottoman history where it was possible for a potential coalition or alliance or even economic good feelings between the 2 empires. Russia and the ottomans have had a long period of animosity toward one another more so than any other major European power unless mabey someone counts Italy which wasn't united for its history. Though to be honest Christendom and the Islamic world have specifically the ottoman empire not been known to think as highly of each other in the past. My awser Lincoln and the middle east article The ottoman sultan was most certainly pro union In my opion the Onley possibly way for a coalition between Russia and the ottoman empire would be if the American civil war turned into world war which isn't unlikely, but it demands context and another educational video helps provide more contect for people less aware of the historical background of European sympathy Howvwer during this time the ottoman empire had strongly supported the union cause along with Russia ironically or not. Ottoman empire perspective of the american civil war The tursk had already experienced civil war which its government was hoping to mondernize and gain more central authority which is the opposite of state rights or local souverity no matter how lofty or pragmatic or sincere those values were in the csa. Now their are comparisons to Russia emancipation of the serfs and lincolns empancapation of the slaves russia had sympathized with the union since 1861 the same was true with the ottoman empire. The facts remain the same that Russia wants to get even with the allies for the Crimean war and in military historian. Pentagon intelligence official colonel peter touras alternative history novel the Russians achieve a alliance victory in Britannia's Fist Trilogy hilo.hawaii.edu/campuscenter/hohonu/volumes/documents/Vol10x19TsarAlexanderIIandPresidentAbrahamLincoln.pdfThe very big problem for this alternative alliance is the ottomans made just find any excuse to go to war against Russia ,however me and my editor have toyed with the idea Russia and the otomans remain in the coalition by default until relationships become so bad perhaps ottomans and Russian camped clash into a fight that escalates into a gun fight intill eventually the coalition dissolves among the 2 powers and the ottomans join the British French csa alliance |
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Dec 29, 2022 9:17:15 GMT
But which opponent would threaten both of them at the same time so an alliance would make sense? Britain? France? A hypothetical Greater Germany?
As long as the Russians take Christianity serious and want Contantinople or even Jerusalem, this won't work out.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Dec 29, 2022 12:05:24 GMT
Perhaps this discussion belongs under a history discussion or not but has there been a time in Russian ottoman history where it was possible for a potential coalition or alliance or even economic good feelings between the 2 empires. Russia and the ottomans have had a long period of animosity toward one another more so than any other major European power unless mabey someone counts Italy which wasn't united for its history. Though to be honest Christendom and the Islamic world have specifically the ottoman empire not been known to think as highly of each other in the past. My awser Lincoln and the middle east article The ottoman sultan was most certainly pro union In my opion the Onley possibly way for a coalition between Russia and the ottoman empire would be if the American civil war turned into world war which isn't unlikely, but it demands context and another educational video helps provide more contect for people less aware of the historical background of European sympathy Howvwer during this time the ottoman empire had strongly supported the union cause along with Russia ironically or not. Ottoman empire perspective of the american civil war The tursk had already experienced civil war which its government was hoping to mondernize and gain more central authority which is the opposite of state rights or local souverity no matter how lofty or pragmatic or sincere those values were in the csa. Now their are comparisons to Russia emancipation of the serfs and lincolns empancapation of the slaves russia had sympathized with the union since 1861 the same was true with the ottoman empire. The facts remain the same that Russia wants to get even with the allies for the Crimean war and in military historian. Pentagon intelligence official colonel peter touras alternative history novel the Russians achieve a alliance victory in Britannia's Fist Trilogy hilo.hawaii.edu/campuscenter/hohonu/volumes/documents/Vol10x19TsarAlexanderIIandPresidentAbrahamLincoln.pdfThe very big problem for this alternative alliance is the ottomans made just find any excuse to go to war against Russia ,however me and my editor have toyed with the idea Russia and the otomans remain in the coalition by default until relationships become so bad perhaps ottomans and Russian camped clash into a fight that escalates into a gun fight intill eventually the coalition dissolves among the 2 powers and the ottomans join the British French csa alliance
I listened to a good chunk of the 1st video but its fairly way off on just about all points. For instance a) Britain and France - along with Savoy - went to war in support of the Ottomans after Russia attacked and destroyed an Ottoman fleet in the Black Sea. The vast bulk of the following war was on land and in the Black Sea - and elsewhere - the Russia fleet did virtually nothing. Russia had seemed a colossus because of its major role in defeating Napoleon with Russian forces ending up in Paris but it was a very backward country both militarily and economic. This is shown by the fact that Britain and France found it easier to supply their forces fighting in Crimea than the Russians did their own.
After the war and the humiliating terms imposed on a defeated Russia including it being banned from having any warships in the Black Sea the Russian Czar realised that the country needed a long period of reconstruction and development before it could play a significant military role again - let alone pay off the debts from the war. That was one reason why Russia was glad to sell the distant and costly burden of Alaska - plus possibly some real-politic in hoping to increase US hostility towards the UK. The Russian leadership knew they were not ready for a major war, other than possibly a localized land conflict with a neighbouring state for probably a couple of decades.
b) While France had picked at the edges of the Ottoman empire - in the guise of ending the Barbary coast piracy from 1830 Russia was the great threat to the Ottomans and they realised that. They could not afford Russia to get too powerful. Nor was it in their interest to see either France or Britain weakened as they relied on them for defence - at least unless they managed to gain a new protector and there simply wasn't any alternative until the Turko-German alliance that developed prior to 1914. As such there was no way that the Russians and the Ottomans were going to be on the same side in a major war and especially not against Britain or France.
c) Yes Russia sent fleets to N America in 1863 because it wanted to avoid them being isolated or destroyed if a new war occurred. This was over a crisis in Poland where a revolt against Russian rule was suppressed. Nothing to do with the USCW or any broader conflict and the Russian fleets were relatively weak by European terms so if a major conflict had started then they would have played little part in such a conflict.
d) Yes there was a European intervention in Mexico over debt defaults, and as it says Britain and Spain withdrew after those were resolved and Britain sought to persuade France to do likewise. Its a bit odd to say this was a few months after the USCW started as it was over two years into the conflict.
e) While there was a significant hostility towards Britain in the US - part of their creation mythos as to glamouise their founding fathers they had to paint the British as the bad guys - many had outgrown this by the 1860's and there were significant British/Canadian settlers in the US - as well as many who had volunteered to fight for the union in the conflict because of their hostility towards slavery. Coupled with the large level of trade between the two countries there was significant pressure for the US not to start a war with the UK even when it wasn't in a civil war itself. Lincoln nearly did so anyway because of sheer stupidity but fortunately for it the north avoided that disaster.
f) In term Britain had far more investments and interests in the north than the south and while some in Britain was worried about continued bombastic statements by the wilder elements of the US Britain didn't want war and was eager to see slavery reduced. [Albeit that for much of the war this wasn't a considerable issue in the war itself as the north hadn't made any commitment to end slavery.] It could be argued that a more real politic Britain should have taken the chance of reducing the power of the US during the conflict as it would likely have been better for the country in the longer term but that decision wasn't made.
g) If war between Britain and the US occurred - especially in the most likely trigger point with the illegal stopping of the RN mail steamer Trent by a union warship which Russia joined every other major state in deploring - it would have been a total disaster for the union. British trade would have been largely free as the union lacked the bases, steamships and guns for raiding and if they had tried privateering - which is often suggested in such scenarios that would have further isolated them in world opinion as they would have breached an international agreement they had themselves agreed to at the start of the CW to give them the high ground if the south made such a move. It would have been union trade driven from the seas - relatively low level raiding by the south achieved much of this OTL anyway. Plus a steadily tightening blockage which would also have crippled their coastal trade and deprived them of both revenue and imports - including items like guns, artillery, gunpowder, steel etc that were important for their war effort. The US would have struggle to make any attack on Canada - which would have been defended by the time such an attack could be launched by both well equipped local militia and British regulars as the crisis occurred early in winter and the UK started reinforcing Canadian defences as soon as it started and continued until the matter was resolved to Britain's satisfaction. The likely result - unless the union made peace with Britain quickly - would have been a heavy US defeat which if their lucky occurs quickly. The independence of the south including quite possibly some border states and a sizeable war debt for the US along with the devastation of much of its trade. Its economic development would also have been put back, probably by at least a decade and the need to react to the new geography coupled with mistrust with Britain is likely to further retard its development over the coming decades.
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Dec 29, 2022 16:36:37 GMT
I am unclear of what this discussion is about. However this is supposed to be about a ottoman Russian alliance. Well, it is beneficial to stop America's industrial progress while it still can. America became a mighty industrial power by 1900 potential intervention could stop this. For starters, it could at least weaker the party that leads or arguably the party that got them into this mess known as the American civil war.
The 19th-century Republican party favored faster industrial growth through protective tariffs, government spending on internal improvements, and certain banking policy.
However, while the south produced cash crops, particularly cotton grain is what Britain particularly sought after. I disagree mostly because northern investments could potentially be cihpened to the south where labor is cheaper along with the cost of living. New Orleans proved they exception for the south and its decline happened not just because of the American civil war but through a union victory.
However, it is plain fact the northern economy was superior to the south. I do not think it's implausible at all how an American civil war could have turned into a world war
Well, this video is an alternative history, not an educational video, but I don't see historical errors. Much of the unions resources were homegrown
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Dec 29, 2022 19:39:05 GMT
"stopping America's industrial progress"? Even if you wanted to do that, I think that chance was lost in the war of 1812.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Dec 30, 2022 16:38:33 GMT
"stopping America's industrial progress"? Even if you wanted to do that, I think that chance was lost in the war of 1812.
Stopping it yes. Even then would have been difficult although it could have lead to a much different US - possibly with its CW being between the minority of northern 'free soil' states seeking to prevent slavery being imposed on them by the dominant southern/central slave states.
However a defeat in a short war by Britain IF as a result the south wins its independence would cause a number of serious changes in the potential for the US. Especially if there were significant numbers of fire-eaters seeking 'revenge' against both powers. This would apply to a degree even if they never gained power. A longer war could be markedly more destructive of the US's future prospects although its likely still - unless it really, really screws things up - it would still be a prominent power in N America and the wider world.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Dec 30, 2022 16:49:33 GMT
I am unclear of what this discussion is about. However this is supposed to be about a ottoman Russian alliance. Well, it is beneficial to stop America's industrial progress while it still can. America became a mighty industrial power by 1900 potential intervention could stop this. For starters, it could at least weaker the party that leads or arguably the party that got them into this mess known as the American civil war. The 19th-century Republican party favored faster industrial growth through protective tariffs, government spending on internal improvements, and certain banking policy. However, while the south produced cash crops, particularly cotton grain is what Britain particularly sought after. I disagree mostly because northern investments could potentially be cihpened to the south where labor is cheaper along with the cost of living. New Orleans proved they exception for the south and its decline happened not just because of the American civil war but through a union victory. However, it is plain fact the northern economy was superior to the south. I do not think it's implausible at all how an American civil war could have turned into a world war Well, this video is an alternative history, not an educational video, but I don't see historical errors. Much of the unions resources were homegrown
I think the problems are its a bad choice. Any clash between Britain and the US could well bring in France on the British side, which would be even more of a union screw. Austria and Prussia are unlikely to get involved unless possibly Russia did but if so Austria at least would be opposing it and Russia is in no condition for a new war and has no real interest in supporting the union in what would be a lost cause.
On the primary issue of a Russian-Ottoman alliance this would be very, very difficult because of the differences in interests between the two nations, some of which I have already mentioned. The only time there has really been any co-operation between 'Russia' and 'Turkey' was in the immediate post 1918 period when both were pariah states and also interested in carving up the Caucasus region and suppress independence movements there. It would be really difficult to get an alliance, at least between something like equals. A situation where one [probably Turkey] was markedly weaker and ends up dependent on the other is possible but I don't think that's what your looking for.
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Jan 2, 2023 16:10:16 GMT
The Americans could at the very least be weakened though remember alternative history has at least almost no right or wrong answer especially when scenarios depend on the circumstances. Back to the Ottoman-Russian coalition, it has happened before. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ottoman_alliancerepository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/553132/sakulKahraman.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y It isn't likely that an Ottoman-Russian coalition could come about, but France and Britain are a threat to the ottomans. The Ottoman Empire was very pro union at this time and hasta reconcile the thought that confederate cotton will be a competitor. However, if those day under the USA 🇺🇸 good will they can ship their cotton to Northern industries. |
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Jan 2, 2023 17:09:35 GMT
Are there any possible points of divergence where relationships could have improved to the point of a temporary ottoman and Russian coalition before the American civil war? In my planned timeline, I have that the CSA for a more extended period of time the actual history has time to build up her armies and enjoy the peace before the war begins. It's interesting to point out that the us diplomat to the ottomans during the antibulm years was southern, as were many diplomats, including the dipolate to the Russian empire who became a close friend of the Russian monarch.
it
I don't want to give spoilers as its developing, and I don't want to derail the conversation either,but what could Russia and the ottoman empire have traded with the CSA along with other nations that possibly could affect the relationships of these nations before the civil war turns global. m. Russia’s foreign minister,Edouard de Stoeckl, was pro confederate and with the help of a former us ambassador to Russia who is a friend to the czar could perhaps persuade the monarch to trade with the CSA. The ships trading in Russia could just dop their goods in European wharouses, particularly in Britain that are stored until departure. The union diplomate before clay warned that the Russians are not going to recognize the csa ,but there is a legitimate fear of Russia trading with the CSA.
The
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795 
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Jan 2, 2023 22:47:36 GMT
Are there any possible points of divergence where relationships could have improved to the point of a temporary ottoman and Russian coalition before the American civil war? In my planned timeline, I have that the CSA for a more extended period of time the actual history has time to build up her armies and enjoy the peace before the war begins. It's interesting to point out that the us diplomat to the ottomans during the antibulm years was southern, as were many diplomats, including the dipolate to the Russian empire who became a close friend of the Russian monarch. it I don't want to give spoilers as its developing, and I don't want to derail the conversation either,but what could Russia and the ottoman empire have traded with the CSA along with other nations that possibly could affect the relationships of these nations before the civil war turns global. m. Russia’s foreign minister,Edouard de Stoeckl, was pro confederate and with the help of a former us ambassador to Russia who is a friend to the czar could perhaps persuade the monarch to trade with the CSA. The ships trading in Russia could just dop their goods in European wharouses, particularly in Britain that are stored until departure. The union diplomate before clay warned that the Russians are not going to recognize the csa ,but there is a legitimate fear of Russia trading with the CSA. The If you want to create that sort of alliance they need powers that threaten both sufficiently to put aside all of their differences. And that means major European powers. You probably also don't want to move it too far into the past, like say, Napoleon making peace earlier and succeeding in abdicating to his son. That then leading (somehow, probably with at least a dead Metternich somewhere) an Austro-French alliance that also draws in Prussia. But, far more importantly, you have to take Orthodoxy out of the equation in the European country that was by far the most influenced by religion at the time. More so than even the papal states. Because things like Greece will always draw in the Russians and then there's the rest of the Balkans. And, of course, the eternal goal of Constantinople. But, fortunately for us, Russia was pretty autocratic so the right Tsar could just do it. He would probably get assassinated, but we could have him being very lucky. He then sees the threat of the resurgent Napoleonic France and at some point France looks to some trouble in the Eastern Mediterranean that really scares the Ottomans? It's really hard because this is a less likely alliance than a French-German alliance in the early twentieth century. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jan 3, 2023 12:17:31 GMT
The Americans could at the very least be weakened though remember alternative history has at least almost no right or wrong answer especially when scenarios depend on the circumstances. Back to the Ottoman-Russian coalition, it has happened before. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ottoman_alliancerepository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/553132/sakulKahraman.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y It isn't likely that an Ottoman-Russian coalition could come about, but France and Britain are a threat to the ottomans. The Ottoman Empire was very pro union at this time and hasta reconcile the thought that confederate cotton will be a competitor. However, if those day under the USA 🇺🇸 good will they can ship their cotton to Northern industries.
a) Very true. AH can be very chaotic and just about anything can happen but if there is the sort of war your proposing, especially if France for opportunist reasons joins a war against the union its likely to be bad for the latter.
b) Unless your totally butterflied the Crimean war in 1860 the primary threat to the Ottomans would appear to them to be the admittedly checked for the moment Russian empire not the allies who had helped defend them against Russia.
c) The other issue is that unless there's a big war in Europe to draw in French and British forces even a Russo-Turkish alliance that decides to go to war against the western powers can do little to touch them. They simply have no naval power or other areas where they can affect the interests of the others. Most likely you could see possibly Egypt deciding to go fully independent instead of staying a formal subject state with Paris and London in this case quietly supporting such a move rather than opposing it. You would need some alliance that brings war to central Europe and hence draw in French and British resources to indirectly aid the union.
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Jan 20, 2023 16:32:19 GMT
Couldn’t the ottomans possibly hold off Russia 🇷🇺 if the Allie’s remained neutral?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jan 21, 2023 12:50:07 GMT
Couldn’t the ottomans possibly hold off Russia 🇷🇺 if the Allie’s remained neutral?
If your talking of a solely Russo-Turkish war - say because the western powers are tied up in a war in N America - then with the weakened state of Russia after the Crimean war and that its banned from having a navy in the Black Sea then the Turks should be able to hold for quite a while. IIRC in the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78, Russia added by assorted Balkan powers defeated the Ottomans but this was ~15 years earlier but a lot would depend on the circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Feb 9, 2024 22:12:20 GMT
I've decided to revive and expand this thread out of the excitement of the new thread about possible allies to the Ottoman Empire. alternate-timelines.com/thread/5056/ottoman-empire-foreign-protection-crimean?page=2&scrollTo=195729 Also with even more primary sources The British had allied with the Ottoman Empire out of their interest, which, in turn, benefited the Ottoman Empire. However, while Russia and the Ottomans have had historical hatred for each other, which wasn't going to change, the British and French were a silent, less obvious threat, as we would see when European imperialism made Egypt more Western through expansive modernization programs which allowed the ottomans to lose grip over their province although this gradual process began in much earlier before in the ottoman Egyptian war of 1833 www.touregypt.net/hottoman.htmBritain and France had a desire in Egypt, which the Ottomans needed to halt, for Russia frontally, their navy and army were weaker though much larger which they can focus on fighting. russian ottoman coaltionThe Russian Ottomans may have each other, but they were not an eternity of wars nonstop. If the Ottomans had already agreed to be under Lincoln's foreign power Union alliance, it would have been better for the Ottomans not to attack Russia when both regions could threaten India. dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/197566The Ottomans geographically threatened India and could raid British commerce along with helping union ships such as the USS Kearsarge. During the Napoleonic wars, the British felt his Egyptian campaign threatened Egypt this threat, while I don't find the rationale could be even greater under a Ottoman empire that has plans of building modern ships in America apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA400652.pdfwarsawinstitute.review/issue-2020/issue-3-2020/the-intricacies-of-unlasting-turkish-russian-alliances/Britain and France didn't intervene during the Russian-Ottoman War, which did weaken relationships with the Ottomans. Now on some logic, the Russians are becoming weaker. The Ottomans can pick them off later. The question is the West, not the Eastern powers. The Prussians are shaping into unification, and this could be stillborn now if they survive; the northern European state may invest in the ottomans along with rewards from the United States in exchange for Ottoman cotton, coffee, and silk which Let us remember the British defeated the Mughal Empire, and the French took over Sunni Muslim lands that were not a part of the Ottoman Empire. The Martian powers will half to blockade the Russians, the northern states, deal with northern Europe, and the Ottoman Empire. The allies may be stretched to a disadvantage, though still manageable. |
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Feb 10, 2024 1:47:54 GMT
"stopping America's industrial progress"? Even if you wanted to do that, I think that chance was lost in the war of 1812. Well most of America wasn’t even industrialized even by the standards for its time. Napoleonic wars is what fueled the industrial Revolution of eroupe. Industrialization also allowed for the possibility of the abolition of slavery because most of Britain’s wealth laid at home. Also the West Indies values decreased through several factors. However it was abolition that destroyed the economy of the Caribbean islands. Back to the Americans industrial America of 1860 was different to that of 1812 as the war. In fact, the War of 1812, the War of Independence, and the difficulty of trading with Britain pre and post-revolution particularly the Jeffersons Embargo Act encouraged fledging American industry with germinated with the benefit of protective tariffs. With the rise in Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Vanderbilt these industrial magnets who made their fortune benefit from the American war between the states may just check the Americans gradual prominence. I am well aware that the north is the breadbasket of Europe but high tariffs can lead to the rise of europe’s most essential items of life particularly for the working class and that is bread.However with British intervention they can even have influence in America politics such as forcing a lower tariff as part of the treaty. |
|
