Altered maps VIII: World borders just got garbage-dayed

[ZeletDude]

Yeah, although I wonder why Britain doesn't seem to have control of Northern Ireland, the Boer part of South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, why Russia doesn't own Central Asia, and why the borders in Eastern Europe look so weird.



Regardless, the Ottoman Empire was living on borrowed time long before that point. Their end was inevitable.

The Boers were funded by Germany (I think anyway?) So they could have given them their land back in this peace treaty.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

let me explain the background: the Central powers get some great generals and completely rout the allies, and there were also a couple colonial wars increasing Ottoman and German Power, and the Ottoman empire is tottaly dependant on Germany. Mexico got a Military Genius wholed his poorly equipped troops to Conquer most of America.

yes, I know its impossible

heres how WWII would begin

 

[amadeus]

So in this alternate timeline, Austria-Hungary cedes Romania, Bosnia, and Serbia to the already petering-out Ottomans, and then said Ottomans go and conquer Ceylon and the Philippines. This after Britain surrenders India and the African colonies to Germany when Britain had superior naval power and larger garrisons to defeat the German colonial forces (Britain had about 250,000 in the Tanganyika campaign versus 3,000 Germans and 15,000 natives.) Not only that, but Japan surrenders its colony in Korea to Germany despite Germany having only 3,000 soldiers in the Tsingtao cession. Also, the Dutch invaded Malaya.

 

[ZeletDude]

let me explain the background: the Central powers get some great generals and completely rout the allies, and there were also a couple colonial wars increasing Ottoman and German Power, and the Ottoman empire is tottaly dependant on Germany. Mexico got a Military Genius wholed his poorly equipped troops to Conquer most of America.

yes, I know its impossible

heres how WWII would begin

What the ? No comments..

 

[Karalysia]

I'll concede you know more on the topic (The Ottoman Empire is an area I'm pretty vague on to be honest). Do you know the possibility of a civil war to overthrow the monarchy had they not lost in WWI?

What monarchy? It had already been overthrown by the Young Turks many years earlier and the CUP was in power in whats known as the Second Constitutional Era. There was a countercoup attempted against them which was crushed.

The CUP would later fall from power following defeat by Italy in Libya and be replaced by the Liberal Union, when following the defeat in the Balkan Wars the Young Turks would cease power again in a coup.

They then formed what can only be described as a triumvirate dictatorship with Enever Pasha, Talat Pasha, and Cemal Pasha. They weren't the most effective of rulers certainly, Enever Pasha in particular botched almost everything he involved himself in and was delusional particularly toward the end of the war with Pan-Turanian dreams of conquering the Cacuses and Central Asia. However the reforms and modernization did show notable sucesses, the army was becoming more effective and well equipped, and it was already playing a major role in the political scene. The Ottoman airforce was founded and the navy was being modernized, a European style civil code with prospects of civil rights and full equality for all Ottoman citizens was being formulated (This actually dates back all the way to the Tanzimat refomrs), there was some sort of Constitution with a parliamentary assembly of sorts, there was a degree of freedom of press and the amount of newspapers mushroomed, Secular education was established with schools and universities and academies for the sciences and military were all founded, railroads and industry were being built and developed, Ottoman rule was firm in the provinces moreso than it had ever really been before thanks to railroads and the telegraph, and the oil was just beginning to become important. Who is to say that these things would not have continued?

The Young Turks were Turkish nationalists which was problematic in that in schooling and such things they tried to enforce the Turkish language, and implement a sense of Turkishness and Turkish nationhood which notably excluded the Arabs this was something of an abondanment of the earlier notion of Ottomanism that everyone was a Ottoman regardless of if they were a Turk, a Arab, Jew or a Christian. The Young Turks were in some ways a breakway sect of the Young Ottomans.

At any rate, what I envision if the triumvirate had remained in power is that there would be more Arab revolts, but most of them would be suppressed with military force, the majority of the army was made up of Anatolian Turks anyway by this time, thought there were significant Arab elements. Eventually as happened in OTL they would be overthrown not by the Arabs but from the military someone like Mustafa Kemal would become popular and well respected and seize power.

 

[TheLastOne36]

So in this alternate timeline, Austria-Hungary cedes Romania, Bosnia, and Serbia to the already petering-out Ottomans, and then said Ottomans go and conquer Ceylon and the Philippines. This after Britain surrenders India and the African colonies to Germany when Britain had superior naval power and larger garrisons to defeat the German colonial forces (Britain had about 250,000 in the Tanganyika campaign versus 3,000 Germans and 15,000 natives.) Not only that, but Japan surrenders its colony in Korea to Germany despite Germany having only 3,000 soldiers in the Tsingtao cession. Also, the Dutch invaded Malaya.

Not to mention Mexico conquering half of America.

 

[bombshoo]

What monarchy? It had already been overthrown by the Young Turks many years earlier and the CUP was in power in whats known as the Second Constitutional Era. There was a countercoup attempted against them which was crushed.

The CUP would later fall from power following defeat by Italy in Libya and be replaced by the Liberal Union, when following the defeat in the Balkan Wars the Young Turks would cease power again in a coup.

They then formed what can only be described as a triumvirate dictatorship with Enever Pasha, Talat Pasha, and Cemal Pasha. They weren't the most effective of rulers certainly, Enever Pasha in particular botched almost everything he involved himself in and was delusional particularly toward the end of the war with Pan-Turanian dreams of conquering the Cacuses and Central Asia. However the reforms and modernization did show notable sucesses, the army was becoming more effective and well equipped, and it was already playing a major role in the political scene. Secular education was established with schools and universities, railroads and industry were being built and developed, Ottoman rule was firm in the provinces moreso than it had ever really been before thanks to railroads and the telegraph, and the oil was just beginning to become important.

The Young Turks were Turkish nationalists which was problematic in that in schooling and such things they tried to enforce the Turkish language, and implement a sense of Turkishness and Turkish nationhood which notably excluded the Arabs this was something of an abondanment of the earlier notion of Ottomanism that everyone was a Ottoman regardless of if they were a Turk, a Arab, Jew or a Christian. The Young Turks were in some ways a breakway sect of the Young Ottomans.

At any rate, what I envision if the triumvirate had remained in power is that there would be more Arab revolts, but most of them would be suppressed with military force, the majority of the army was made up of Anatolian Turks anyway by this time, thought there were significant Arab elements. Eventually as happened in OTL they would be overthrown not by the Arabs but from the military someone like Mustafa Kemal would become popular and well respected and seize power.

Well the monarchy did exist technically, though I will assume you're right based on what you seem to be implying and any revolt would not be based on the existence of a Sultan or not.

I suppose what I actually meant to ask was how popular was the idea of an "empire" to the average Turk? Did they really like ruling over the Arabs or did they not care? If there was a revolt led by a charismatic military leader would they be okay to let the Arabs (and other random ethnic groups) free or would they have also attempted to suppress it?

 

[amadeus]

Not to mention Mexico conquering half of America.

Well, that already had an explanation, as flimsily justified as it was.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

For the love of god could you guys please stop taking CELTICEMPIRE's maps seriously. It was funny seeing everyone get trolled so hard the first few times, but it's getting very painful to read this thread and having to wade through all the posts explaining why his maps are entirely wrong and the posts of people expressing how SHOCKED they are.

Thank you

 

[Karalysia]

Well the monarchy did exist technically, though I will assume your right and any revolt would not be based on the existence of a Sultan or not.

Sultan Mehmed IV was there in name but functioned more as a figurehead than holding any real power. It was the Three Pasha's, the military and the CUP which held the cards.

I suppose what I actually meant to ask was how popular was the idea of an "empire" to the average Turk? Did they really like ruling the Arabs? If there was a revolt led by a charismatic military leader would they be okay to let the Arabs (and other random ethnic groups) free or would they have also attempted to suppress it?

I cannot envision anyone willingly allowing the empire to disintegrate under any circumstance or anyone entertaining the idea. When the Young Turks seized power they were Turkish nationalists yet they never intended to allow the Arabs to separate. Rather they would impose Turkishness upon them. Make them learn Turkish in schools. Conscript them into the military. And so forth.

I think we can see a perfect example of their attitude toward non-Turks with the treatment of the Kurds. They are reffered to as Mountain Turks, their existence is basically denied, they are made to learn Turkish and so forth. This reflects Turkish nationalism in that there is a uniquely Turkish nation with a innate sense of Turkishness and that there is no room for others or anyone else. Turkey chose to deal with the non-Turks the Kurds through suppression and military force.

How they might choose to deal with the Arabs who are much more populous and make up a much larger area is anyone's guess but I imagine that unless they found a way to incorporate Arabs into their Turkish identity that they would find themselves facing problems down the line, but it is worth noting that nationalism reached the Middle East kind of late and still hasn't reached it. Just look at Iraq today or Lebanon. What does a Arab Christian in Lebanon really consider himself? Is he a Ottoman? A Arab? A Christan? Where does his loyalties really lie? And thats what should be noted, loyalties were and still are fluid. The notion of a nation-state for all Arabs is weak. So the Arabs might very well become incorporated into this Turkish state. Or they might not, they may revolt again and force the Ottomans into a Kurdish like situation.

 

[Masada]

Regardless, the Ottoman Empire was living on borrowed time long before that point. Their end was inevitable.

Discussions about the inevitability of the impending Ottoman collapse have one rather large problem, it had an annoying habit of surviving such pronouncements with gusto.

 

[sophie]

Discussions about the inevitability of the impending Ottoman collapse have one rather large problem, it had an annoying habit of surviving such pronouncements with gusto.

Like that rich grandpa who you really want to die so you can claim inheritance, but seems to just wheeze along year after year?

 

[Magnificent One]

Reminds me of this guy who made a deal,that he would pay an old woman €5,000 a year,as long as he gets her house when she dies.She ended up being the oldest woman in the world.In fact,the guy died before she did,so his wife had to keep paying the money.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Phew! I just made this... I think I got a few of the geographical locations wrong

Spoiler :

 

[TheLastOne36]

You got Berlin off by a few miles.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Oh dang. Which direction should I put it in?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Edit: read the map wrong.

 

[Cynovolans]

Ethnic makeup of the Philippines(Warning-Big):

Spoiler :

Ethnic/religious makeup of Sri-Lanka:

Spoiler :

 

[TheLastOne36]

Oh dang. Which direction should I put it in?

A bit to the northwest.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Thanks ... I just found a cold war era textbook with Berlin on it so Ill fix it now

EDIT: Does this look right?

Spoiler :