How Would an Ottoman 1848 Look?

[Kellan Sullivan]

OTl, the Ottomans avoided the spate of revolutions that hit the rest of Europe in 1848, although there was significant opposition to the Tanzimat period's policy of centralization and modernization. But what if there had been one? The cholera epidemic of 1847-1848 that swept across the empire seems like something that could very easily trigger it. After all, bad harvests were to blame for most of the rest of Europe's dissent (specifically, but not limited to, France and Prussia).

Would this be the final nail in the coffin for the empire- to cause her foreign backers (like England) to decide that "it was good while it lasted"? How would Russia react to the news- I imagine Nikolai I will still try for the Dardenelles/Constantinople like he attempted to in the 1830s- of the Ottoman internal discord? Would Russia ally with Egypt, Greece and France to partition the empire? Or would this cause an earlier Crimean War? If so, how would that go? How would the alliances (for and against) form? Or is everyone too damn busy dealing with their own anarchy and by the time the dust settles, they find that Russia and Egypt (who both avoided the 1848 OTL) have redrawn the borders?

What would the results be if the empire does survive? Does the Tanzimat end nearly thirty year s ahead of schedule? Are the Ottomans forced to a revanchist stance for the territories Russia, Greece and Egypt took? Are there any places in the Balkans that proclaim their independence earlier than OTL?

@raharris1973 @Nuraghe @alexmilman

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Potential triggers:

1847:
The first national budget was prepared, aimed at distributing taxation among all classes properly (and according to income)
Non-Muslims were allowed to join the army
Equality between non-Muslim religions (i.e. Christians) made the Orthodox Church (heretofore the dominant non-Muslim religion) uneasy at the loss of power

Potential alt:
The New Ottomans (Yeni Osmanlilar) were revolutionaries along the lines of Mazzini's Young Italy and Young Switzerland. While they were only a thing from 1865 OTL, I can't believe that there wasn't a similar movement prior to this

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

OTl, the Ottomans avoided the spate of revolutions that hit the rest of Europe in 1848, although there was significant opposition to the Tanzimat period's policy of centralization and modernization. But what if there had been one? The cholera epidemic of 1847-1848 that swept across the empire seems like something that could very easily trigger it. After all, bad harvests were to blame for most of the rest of Europe's dissent (specifically, but not limited to, France and Prussia).

Would this be the final nail in the coffin for the empire- to cause her foreign backers (like England) to decide that "it was good while it lasted"? How would Russia react to the news- I imagine Nikolai I will still try for the Dardenelles/Constantinople like he attempted to in the 1830s- of the Ottoman internal discord? Would Russia ally with Egypt, Greece and France to partition the empire? Or would this cause an earlier Crimean War? If so, how would that go? How would the alliances (for and against) form? Or is everyone too damn busy dealing with their own anarchy and by the time the dust settles, they find that Russia and Egypt (who both avoided the 1848 OTL) have redrawn the borders?

What would the results be if the empire does survive? Does the Tanzimat end nearly thirty year s ahead of schedule? Are the Ottomans forced to a revanchist stance for the territories Russia, Greece and Egypt took? Are there any places in the Balkans that proclaim their independence earlier than OTL?

@raharris1973 @Nuraghe @alexmilman

Brutal repression like later on but since the rest of Europe is busy they get away with it.

 

[Godot]

A serious problem with this scenario that you run into is that where 1848 uprisings did erupt, liberal and nationalist movements had been brewing for decades at that point. 1848 wasn't like, the year the planets aligned to birth nationalism and kick off a bunch of revolts (not implying you're saying as such, just a funny image that came into my head) without precedent.

Much of the territorial fringe where ethnic minorities would later seek to break away was not yet adequately exposed to the enlightenment ideas and more modernist thinking that laid the groundwork for the Springtime of nations. Exceptions did exist, like the early nucleus of Serbia, whose relatively strong urban growth and intellectual development was well underway. Relatively distinct political units, able to guide their educational and cultural systems to a greater degree, like the Romanian Principalities also saw some upheaval. But for most of the ethnic fringe of the Ottoman Empire, the liberal minded revolutionary intelligentsia necessary for the revolts in the rest of Europe were not yet present.

 

[jacob ningen]

A serious problem with this scenario that you run into is that where 1848 uprisings did erupt, liberal and nationalist movements had been brewing for decades at that point. 1848 wasn't like, the year the planets aligned to birth nationalism and kick off a bunch of revolts (not implying you're saying as such, just a funny image that came into my head) without precedent.

Much of the territorial fringe where ethnic minorities would later seek to break away was not yet adequately exposed to the enlightenment ideas and more modernist thinking that laid the groundwork for the Springtime of nations. Exceptions did exist, like the early nucleus of Serbia, whose relatively strong urban growth and intellectual development was well underway. Relatively distinct political units, able to guide their educational and cultural systems to a greater degree, like the Romanian Principalities also saw some upheaval. But for most of the ethnic fringe of the Ottoman Empire, the liberal minded revolutionary intelligentsia necessary for the revolts in the rest of Europe were not yet present.

or happened earlier like Nablus or Cairo or aligned with Europe in Damascus or Baghdad

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Brutal repression like later on but since the rest of Europe is busy they get away with it.

thanks for being the first to respond, I was worried that this would be one of those threads with just an OP

A serious problem with this scenario that you run into is that where 1848 uprisings did erupt, liberal and nationalist movements had been brewing for decades at that point. 1848 wasn't like, the year the planets aligned to birth nationalism and kick off a bunch of revolts (not implying you're saying as such, just a funny image that came into my head) without precedent.

This is very true. And I agree that the image is a funny one

Much of the territorial fringe where ethnic minorities would later seek to break away was not yet adequately exposed to the enlightenment ideas and more modernist thinking that laid the groundwork for the Springtime of nations. Exceptions did exist, like the early nucleus of Serbia, whose relatively strong urban growth and intellectual development was well underway. Relatively distinct political units, able to guide their educational and cultural systems to a greater degree, like the Romanian Principalities also saw some upheaval. But for most of the ethnic fringe of the Ottoman Empire, the liberal minded revolutionary intelligentsia necessary for the revolts in the rest of Europe were not yet present.

So the likeliest places would be Serbia/Romania? Could they try for full independence earlier, do you think?

 

[DrakeRlugia]

Much of the territorial fringe where ethnic minorities would later seek to break away was not yet adequately exposed to the enlightenment ideas and more modernist thinking that laid the groundwork for the Springtime of nations. Exceptions did exist, like the early nucleus of Serbia, whose relatively strong urban growth and intellectual development was well underway. Relatively distinct political units, able to guide their educational and cultural systems to a greater degree, like the Romanian Principalities also saw some upheaval. But for most of the ethnic fringe of the Ottoman Empire, the liberal minded revolutionary intelligentsia necessary for the revolts in the rest of Europe were not yet present.

The Ottomans were also very well aware of what was going on else where, too.

There were definite concerns that the troubles in Austria might spill across the border, this was considered the biggest issue in Bosnia, where there were some plans among Croats within the Austrian Empire to try and link up with their brethren in Bosnia. IIRC, the Ottomans were pretty quick to diffuse the situation as best they could. They introduced more troops into the Bosnia (though most were irregular troops, not men from the Army of Rumelia) and tried to deal with complaints amongst the populace, such as issues re: taxation.

I'd say you're only really likely to see troubles in what is now Romania and perhaps Serbia and Bosnia, especially if the Serbs attempt to rally their brethren in Bosnia or the Croats attempt the same. The Bulgarians are still in a semi-crystalized state of nationalized consciousness so I do not see the Ottomans having issues there. Though the Ottomans can sometime get painted in the 19th century as a backward and collapsing state, they were definitely well aware of the troubles in 1848: Ottoman envoys in Vienna and Paris, among other places played pretty big roles in ensuring the government had up-to-date information of what was going on. This included not just broad strokes, but sometimes information of what was going on on the ground as well.

Aside from this, the Ottomans other biggest concern was a refugee crisis: they were also concerned about Hungarian and Polish refugees streaming across the border.

 

[Sarthak]

The Ottomans were well aware of the situation in 1848. Ever since the restlessness in 1845, the ambassadors and envoys of the empire had kept the Porte up to date regarding much of the details of the revolutionary fervor in Central Europe. Ottoman envoys from Prussia, Austria, Bavaria, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden all have records of keeping and sending such information back to Istanbul in droves. Abdulmejid I was in particular one of the first to predict that a region wide revolution like that of 1848 would break out as early as 1846 when he remarked as such to the British Ambassador Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe.

The major thing that the Ottomans had going for them in 1848 was that since 1827, the Ottomans were undergoing Tanzimat and barring the periphery, most were supportive of the Tanzimat and it's reforms. Barring the Orthodox Church which feared losing its favoured position among Ottoman Christians, the layman on the Ottoman street was benefitted by the new tax reforms and social reforms. One of the major causes for 1848 was the want and demand for liberal reform. The ottomans were already doing this and eliminated this demand entirely. The other demand possible was nationalism and the ottomans not any country would entertain separatism seriously at all.

 

[Nuraghe]

OTl, the Ottomans avoided the spate of revolutions that hit the rest of Europe in 1848, although there was significant opposition to the Tanzimat period's policy of centralization and modernization. But what if there had been one? The cholera epidemic of 1847-1848 that swept across the empire seems like something that could very easily trigger it. After all, bad harvests were to blame for most of the rest of Europe's dissent (specifically, but not limited to, France and Prussia).

Would this be the final nail in the coffin for the empire- to cause her foreign backers (like England) to decide that "it was good while it lasted"? How would Russia react to the news- I imagine Nikolai I will still try for the Dardenelles/Constantinople like he attempted to in the 1830s- of the Ottoman internal discord? Would Russia ally with Egypt, Greece and France to partition the empire? Or would this cause an earlier Crimean War? If so, how would that go? How would the alliances (for and against) form? Or is everyone too damn busy dealing with their own anarchy and by the time the dust settles, they find that Russia and Egypt (who both avoided the 1848 OTL) have redrawn the borders?

What would the results be if the empire does survive? Does the Tanzimat end nearly thirty year s ahead of schedule? Are the Ottomans forced to a revanchist stance for the territories Russia, Greece and Egypt took? Are there any places in the Balkans that proclaim their independence earlier than OTL?

@raharris1973 @Nuraghe @alexmilman

then this question is really extremely complex to answer but also very fascinating, first of all let's start with the simplest things, i.e. the role of Egypt and Russia in this Ottoman ATL 1848, I think that Cairo would not try to make any too risky moves for two reasons : the first is that in 1841 all the powers of Europe intervened against his expansionist ambitions in the Ottoman territories, so even if he could take advantage of the chaos to try to occupy new territories he would not have the real possibility of maintaining them in case of pressure / threat from the European side ( including Russia, which much preferred a Constantinople in the weak Ottoman hands rather than in the more vigorous ones of the Alis, and the same reasoning can also be applied to the Anatolian - Caucasian possessions ) the second instead is that the Ottoman army had partly reformed compared to previous wars, so it was potentially more capable of resisting on the battlefield ( also I doubt that the local ayans are in favor of the extremely centralizing policies coming from Cairo ) now regarding Russia, the situation is more complex, because he will certainly want to intervene in the situation, to obtain important gains for himself ( and perhaps also for his local allies ) but the problem remains that Nicola cannot afford for the revolution to take hold permanently on his borders ( which could really happen, if concentrated on the Ottoman Rumelia with respect to the situation in Germany, Austria and France, with the risk of contagion also for its Polish provinces, which had just been forcibly restored to calm ) furthermore this would negatively influence his self-proclaimed role as policeman / guarantor of security Europe ( in addition to massively worsening the already very poor relations with London ) now obviously the Ottomans with their Tanzimat reforms had managed to mitigate the main demands that in Otl were at the basis of the revolts on the continent ( also helped by the fact that the harmful effects of industrialization in the empire had not yet subsided really seen, as well as a real formation of a cohesive nationalist thought among its numerous ethnic groups, which would have been easily nourished by a system of free publication ( freedom of the press, the formation of local newspapers and its mass diffusion, were among the main innovations of the Tanzimat, therefore they could not yet actively influence political thought among the bourgeois class of the empire, which was also very small compared to its continental counterparts ) except in some cases on its borders ( although quite important ) now obviously there were important oppositions to them, such as the Orthodox clergy ( mainly Greek who saw their abilities to actively influence the Slavic minorities in the empire, reduced compared to before ) and the hierarchy of conservative Islamic jurists and scholars ( without forgetting the Ayans themselves, who were in danger of losing their quasi-independent control over the territories in which they resided ) but for the most part the reforms had been enthusiastically welcomed, returning to the topic, in the event of a revolt within Ottoman rumelia, I can see Constantinople trying two solutions to remedy/respond to this : the first is to focus on Islamic unity as they did after 1878 OTL ( perhaps by supporting and encouraging immigration of Muslim exiles ( mainly from Russian territories ) in its territories in a massive manner compared to Otl, although it must be said that Constantinople gave asylum to approximately more than 1 million refugees ) even to the detriment of the control over its Christian minorities or try to put against Russia and its regional allies, mainly Serbia, Greece and perhaps the Danubian principalities ( especially if the Sublime Gate obtains British / French / other european support ), presenting the Russians with a choice: we will only recognize any territorial gains of a single state allied to you, or Greece or Serbia/Vlachs, knowing that by doing so Russia will ruin relations with most of them, so it will be easier for the Ottomans to deal with them later

but for the rest I still see Constantinople's efforts at state modernization continuing, which ironically could be speeded up by this overcoming of a delicate revolutionary period

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

like the Romanian Principalities also saw some upheaval

Wasn't the Romanian Principalities' revolt put down by Russian troops?

 

[raharris1973]

Wasn't the Romanian Principalities' revolt put down by Russian troops?

I think it was.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

I thin it was.

If it is then it cannot be qualified as "Ottoman" 1848, rather it would be the Romanian 1848.

 

[HumptyDumpty]

What you want is an earlier or larger Nahda movement and more numerous, widespread peasant revolts that were already occurring during that period and afterward. According to Hanna Batatu there were approximately 45 peasant revolts in the late 19th century to early 20th century period. One of the most interesting parts of these revolts was that they had an anti-clerical component to them. For example, peasants revolted against their religious authorities such as Druze peasants rising against the al-Atrash sheikhs in the 'Ammiyyah upheaval of 1889-1890, the Maronite Tanyus Shahin creating a peasant's republic in Keserwan in 1859, and so on. The battles were mostly about class and the absence of any sort of freedom or autonomy for the peasantry.

You want these revolts to happen earlier and for much more of them to happen (and, in particular, for them to happen outside of the Levant and Iraq region like in Egypt, the Peninsula, the Balkans, etc.). You will need more figures like Ahmed Faris al-Shidyaq who adopted or were interested in socialist ideas and perspectives (fun fact: Ahmed Faris al-Shidyaq was the guy who coined the Arabic term for socialism) when going to Europe and came back to spread those ideas and perspectives in the Arab world. Moreover, you need them to stay socialist (which al-Shidyaq wasn't and eventually became pan-Islamist after getting a job under the Ottoman government). One of the reasons why these revolts didn't really go anywhere was because there was not a clear vision or intelligentsia at the time which could turn those scattered revolts into a concrete, unified movement enjoined by a common ideology or set of ideologies. Creating more Arab, Turkish, etc. intellectuals with socialist leanings and ideas which could give language to these grievances would be very useful for creating something akin to an 1848 revolution in the Ottoman Empire.

I believe this is the best bet for you OP given the period.

 

[HumptyDumpty]

The major thing that the Ottomans had going for them in 1848 was that since 1827, the Ottomans were undergoing Tanzimat and barring the periphery, most were supportive of the Tanzimat and it's reforms. Barring the Orthodox Church which feared losing its favoured position among Ottoman Christians, the layman on the Ottoman street was benefitted by the new tax reforms and social reforms. One of the major causes for 1848 was the want and demand for liberal reform. The ottomans were already doing this and eliminated this demand entirely. The other demand possible was nationalism and the ottomans not any country would entertain separatism seriously at all.

This is not entirely true since there were plenty of peasant revolts in the Levant and the vast majority of the rebels justified their rebellions on the basis of the Tanzimat, interpreting the laws regarding religious equality to apply to class equality. This may have been a combination of genuine belief (with many rebels refusing to communicate with local notables and instead with central out of a sense of loyalty to the Sultan) and pragmatism for by perceiving themselves to be allying themselves with the establishment it makes putting down the revolt more politically difficult and the situation less easily understandable by the central government.

Tanzimat certainly was not transformative enough within the Ottoman Empire to constitute a deterrence towards revolt and it would not take much to actually push revolt into everywhere else in the Ottoman Empire. Combined with an ideology, it can serve to create even more opposition to the Ottomans and outright rebellion. This is contingent further on the Nahda having a large impact on the Arab world and social thought.

 

[Sarthak]

This is not entirely true since there were plenty of peasant revolts in the Levant and the vast majority of the rebels justified their rebellions on the basis of the Tanzimat, interpreting the laws regarding religious equality to apply to class equality. This may have been a combination of genuine belief (with many rebels refusing to communicate with local notables and instead with central out of a sense of loyalty to the Sultan) and pragmatism for by perceiving themselves to be allying themselves with the establishment it makes putting down the revolt more politically difficult and the situation less easily understandable by the central government.

Tanzimat certainly was not transformative enough within the Ottoman Empire to constitute a deterrence towards revolt and it would not take much to actually push revolt into everywhere else in the Ottoman Empire. Combined with an ideology, it can serve to create even more opposition to the Ottomans and outright rebellion. This is contingent further on the Nahda having a large impact on the Arab world and social thought.

For the Asian and African portions of the Empire, I generally agree. The Tanzimat was not transformative and changing what was over a millennia-old power structure in the region led to many upheavals that earned the ire of many Kurds and Arabs, especially those still affiliated under a tribal apparatus that only swore some kind of transformative or nominal allegiance to Constantinople. But in the European part of the Empire, the Tanzimat was seen genuinely as a new beginning by a vast majority of the Christian population. It's late, so I don't have my sources right now, but there were festivals and marches singing about the Sultans among the Balkans and Christians when the Tanzimat was announced by Mahmud. The most literate part of the Ottoman Empire was the Christian European Part, and the most possible region for an 1848 like revolution to happen in the Empire, and none of the literates in the region would be in favor, as they were the ones spearheading Tanzimat on a local level in the Balkans in the very first place.

 

[HumptyDumpty]

For the Asian and African portions of the Empire, I generally agree. The Tanzimat was not transformative and changing what was over a millennia-old power structure in the region led to many upheavals that earned the ire of many Kurds and Arabs, especially those still affiliated under a tribal apparatus that only swore some kind of transformative or nominal allegiance to Constantinople

I didn't say it wasn't transformative in those other areas. In fact, I literally mentioned how the vast majority of peasant revolts in the Levant, which is most certainly Asia, justified their rebellions on the basis of enforcing the Tanzimat so it most certainly was viewed as transformative by the rebels and the source of the legitimacy of their rebellions. Moreover, the vast majority of peasant revolts occurred in the Arab portions of the empire so I would not say that the Tanzimat drew their ire in any respect given the above.

While the Tanzimat was not very transformative in practice, it was used as a useful tool for rebels to legitimatize and justify their rebellions.

 

[jlckansas]

Who would be doing the revolt would make a difference. Are you looking at Ottoman areas in Europe revolting at the same time there is problems with the Kurds in Mesopotamia, Syrians and druze in the Levant, Egypt, maybe the Armenians? These setup how people might look at what is going on and what they want to do to try and seek an advantage there.

 

[HumptyDumpty]

Who would be doing the revolt would make a difference. Are you looking at Ottoman areas in Europe revolting at the same time there is problems with the Kurds in Mesopotamia, Syrians and druze in the Levant, Egypt, maybe the Armenians? These setup how people might look at what is going on and what they want to do to try and seek an advantage there.

It would have to be revolts almost everywhere at once or persistent during the same period as the revolutions of 1848. It wouldn't be the Springtime of Nations otherwise.