NationStates

If the Ottoman Empire never fell keeping their Middle East territories excepting European territories, then ideally we would not see much of the strife we see now in the Middle East. The monarchy would have become fairly European or secularized though it could have become the Ottoman Republic at a later point.

Would the Middle East be better if the Ottoman Empire never fell?

I do not claim a reign by reign or decade by decade historical knowledge of the Ottoman Empire. This is a very generalist proposition.

The Middle East would be better if the Byzantine Empire never fell. Down with the Sultans, Sheiks and Sickos!

Eternal Yerushalayim wrote:The Middle East would be better if the Byzantine Empire never fell. Down with the Sultans, Sheiks and Sickos!

Because it would have been a lot better?

I seriously doubt that.

Eternal Yerushalayim wrote:The Middle East would be better if the Byzantine Empire never fell. Down with the Sultans, Sheiks and Sickos!

Then we would probably have seen a massive war between Byzantine Empire and Catholic nations at some point, though perhaps not.

Does speculating about this serve any purpose? Who knows. Maybe it would've been best that it never fell. Maybe it was best that it did.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Does speculating about this serve any purpose? Who knows. Maybe it would've been best that it never fell. Maybe it was best that it did.

One can chart a general summary course through history though and say yes or no. IIt existed up until as recently as 1923. There was already a general trend toward a more European secular style monarchy.

Progressive Americans wrote:

Eternal Yerushalayim wrote:The Middle East would be better if the Byzantine Empire never fell. Down with the Sultans, Sheiks and Sickos!

Then we would probably have seen a massive war between Byzantine Empire and Catholic nations at some point, though perhaps not.

The Byzantines were Christians and essentially Catholics. Where else did you think the religion came from? Byzantium was the former East Roman Empire.

As for the Ottoman Empire, no. It would have fallen anyway, thanks to the fact that the Arabs hated the Turks and the Truks had no sympathies for the Arabs. And they still don't have any. The empire would have crumbled thanks to various wars of independence by the Arabs and the Kurds and due to internal struggles (Young Turks) who wanted to change Turkey by any means neccessary.

Costa Fiero wrote:The Byzantines were Christians and essentially Catholics. Where else did you think the religion came from? Byzantium was the former East Roman Empire.

I know that. There was still tension between the Papacy in Rome and the Orthodox at that time. Some have said the Byzantine Empire was allowed to fall in many ways because of religion and influence of the Pope.

Costa Fiero wrote:The Byzantines were Christians and essentially Catholics. Where else did you think the religion came from? Byzantium was the former East Roman Empire.

Are you sure about the bolded text?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire#Religion

Progressive Americans wrote:

Costa Fiero wrote:The Byzantines were Christians and essentially Catholics. Where else did you think the religion came from? Byzantium was the former East Roman Empire.

I know that. There was still tension between the Papacy in Rome and the Orthodox at that time. Some believe the Byzantine Empire (r at that time more like the city) was allowed to fall in many ways because of religion and influence of the Pope.

I do remember also that Constantinople was a bit pillaged by his christian brothers

Progressive Americans wrote:If the Ottoman Empire never fell keeping their Middle East territories excepting European territories, then ideally we would not see much of the strife we see now in the Middle East. The monarchy would have become fairly European or secularized though it could have become the Ottoman Republic at a later point.

Would the Middle East be better if the Ottoman Empire never fell?

Among the great list of fundamentally unsound and historically illiterate suggestions I've read on NSG, this one might well take the biscuit.

You seem to be assuming some form of monolithic unchanging Ottoman Imperial state capable of exerting its power across the entirety of its non-European domains, and which suddenly 'fell' while capable of doing so.

In fact, the Ottoman Empire was in slow irrevocable decline from the late 17th century, and never recovered from the twin blow of the Second Siege of Vienna and Battle of Zenta. At what point are we supposed to arrest the 'fall' of the Empire? Before Muhammed Ali Pasha wrests effective control of Egypt away from Constantinople in 1805? Before the advance of ethnic nationalism leads to frequent Arab revolts against Turkish Ottoman rule? Before the Armenian genocide? And does it not occur to you that the gradual loss of the European territories was an integral part of Ottoman decline? Why should we support the independence of Greeks and Bulgarians, but not that of Arabs? Because the latter are, like the Turks, Muslims? So you think shared religion trumps different ethnicity - but if so, where does this leave those parts of the Asian Ottoman Empire that had Christian majorities, like Armenia, Lebanon, and Jerusalem?

The idea that the continued existence of the Ottoman Empire would have magically brought peace to the Middle East is just fatuous; no doubt some of the problems would have been different (no Israel, for example), but by the 19th century the Empire was in almost certainly terminal decline - which is why the Turks themselves eventually ended it; by founding a republic, no less - and riddled with religious and ethnic conflict in its non-European lands.

Costa Fiero wrote:
The Byzantines were Christians and essentially Catholics.

Dear God, I can see that this thread is going to give me nightmares.

Certainly the Byzantines were Christians.

They absolutely weren't Catholics.

The Archregimancy wrote:The idea that the continued existence of the Ottoman Empire would have magically brought peace to the Middle East is just fatuous; no doubt some of the problems would have been different (no Israel, for example), but by the 19th century the Empire was in almost certainly terminal decline - which is why the Turks themselves eventually ended it; by founding a republic, no less - and riddled with religious and ethnic conflict in its non-European lands.

You make it sound so bad. I think the Turks did quite a good job with heir secular republic. There are a lot of countries around the globe that did worse

The Archregimancy wrote:

Progressive Americans wrote:If the Ottoman Empire never fell keeping their Middle East territories excepting European territories, then ideally we would not see much of the strife we see now in the Middle East. The monarchy would have become fairly European or secularized though it could have become the Ottoman Republic at a later point.

Would the Middle East be better if the Ottoman Empire never fell?

Among the great list of fundamentally unsound and historically illiterate suggestions I've read on NSG, this one might well take the biscuit.

You seem to be assuming some form of monolithic unchanging Ottoman Imperial state capable of exerting its power across the entirety of its non-European domains, and which suddenly 'fell' while capable of doing so.

In fact, the Ottoman Empire was in slow irrevocable decline from the late 17th century, and never recovered from the twin blow of the Second Siege of Vienna and Battle of Zenta. At what point are we supposed to arrest the 'fall' of the Empire? Before Muhammed Ali Pasha wrests effective control of Egypt away from Constantinople in 1805? Before the advance of ethnic nationalism leads to frequent Arab revolts against Turkish Ottoman rule? Before the Armenian genocide? And does it not occur to you that the gradual loss of the European territories was an integral part of Ottoman decline? Why should we support the independence of Greeks and Bulgarians, but not that of Arabs? Because the latter are, like the Turks, Muslims? So you think shared religion trumps different ethnicity - but if so, where does this leave those parts of the Asian Ottoman Empire that had Christian majorities, like Armenia, Lebanon, and Jerusalem?

The idea that the continued existence of the Ottoman Empire would have magically brought peace to the Middle East is just fatuous; no doubt some of the problems would have been different (no Israel, for example), but by the 19th century the Empire was in almost certainly terminal decline - which is why the Turks themselves eventually ended it; by founding a republic, no less - and riddled with religious and ethnic conflict in its non-European lands.

No I do not believe that religion trumps ethnicity, and am aware of the ethnic differences.

I am not going to pin an exact time, but presumably even as Arab nationalism was on the rise. Preferably when the Ottoman Empire appeared like it could survive, minus the European territories.

It is not a historically illiterate suggestion, but perhaps a suspension of what in historical reality happened. Obviously by 1923 the Ottoman Empire was already in great decline.

If the Ottomon Empire never fell, Israel would not exist...so yeah, the Arabs world over there will be better off without the Jews.

The Archregimancy wrote:They absolutely weren't Catholics.

That's what I thought.

Progressive Americans wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
Among the great list of fundamentally unsound and historically illiterate suggestions I've read on NSG, this one might well take the biscuit.

You seem to be assuming some form of monolithic unchanging Ottoman Imperial state capable of exerting its power across the entirety of its non-European domains, and which suddenly 'fell' while capable of doing so.

In fact, the Ottoman Empire was in slow irrevocable decline from the late 17th century, and never recovered from the twin blow of the Second Siege of Vienna and Battle of Zenta. At what point are we supposed to arrest the 'fall' of the Empire? Before Muhammed Ali Pasha wrests effective control of Egypt away from Constantinople in 1805? Before the advance of ethnic nationalism leads to frequent Arab revolts against Turkish Ottoman rule? Before the Armenian genocide? And does it not occur to you that the gradual loss of the European territories was an integral part of Ottoman decline? Why should we support the independence of Greeks and Bulgarians, but not that of Arabs? Because the latter are, like the Turks, Muslims? So you think shared religion trumps different ethnicity - but if so, where does this leave those parts of the Asian Ottoman Empire that had Christian majorities, like Armenia, Lebanon, and Jerusalem?

The idea that the continued existence of the Ottoman Empire would have magically brought peace to the Middle East is just fatuous; no doubt some of the problems would have been different (no Israel, for example), but by the 19th century the Empire was in almost certainly terminal decline - which is why the Turks themselves eventually ended it; by founding a republic, no less - and riddled with religious and ethnic conflict in its non-European lands.

No I do not believe that religion trumps ethnicity, and am aware of the ethnic differences.

I am not going to pin an exact time, but presumably even as Arab nationalism was on the rise. Preferably when the Ottoman Empire appeared like it could survive, minus the European territories.

It is not a historically illiterate suggestion, but perhaps a suspension of what in historical reality happened. Obviously by 1923 the Ottoman Empire was already in great decline.

Wasn't Mehmed IV like their last remotely competent monarch?

I do not claim a reign by reign or decade by decade historical knowledge of the Ottoman Empire. This is a very generalist proposition.

Progressive Americans wrote:If the Ottoman Empire never fell keeping their Middle East territories excepting European territories, then ideally we would not see much of the strife we see now in the Middle East. The monarchy would have become fairly European or secularized though it could have become the Ottoman Republic at a later point.

Would the Middle East be better if the Ottoman Empire never fell?

No, I don't think so. One has to look at this from two angles. The first: Would the modern conflicts in the middle east we have today be avoided had the Ottomans remained. Some, yes, wouldn't have happened. I highly doubt whether the Israel Palestine
Conflict would've occurred, for example. However, Kurdistan, Armenia, South Georgia, Azerbaijan and countless other separatist conflicts would exist.

The second is this: Would the quality of life in Turkey and the wider middle east be better had the Ottomans remained in power? In western Turkey, yes. In the eastern part, perhaps. In the Syrian, and other portions. I don't think so.

Progressive Americans wrote:

Eternal Yerushalayim wrote:The Middle East would be better if the Byzantine Empire never fell. Down with the Sultans, Sheiks and Sickos!

Then we would probably have seen a massive war between Byzantine Empire and Catholic nations at some point, though perhaps not.

Err... The Fourth Crusade?

Hegstoria wrote:

Progressive Americans wrote:
Then we would probably have seen a massive war between Byzantine Empire and Catholic nations at some point, though perhaps not.

Err... The Fourth Crusade?

Yep, but even if it survived through the medieval ages into the renaissance.

Progressive Americans wrote:

Hegstoria wrote:Err... The Fourth Crusade?

Yep, but even if it survived through the medieval ages into the renaissance.

I wasn't agreeing with you... I was saying it did happen...

Despite the stuggles of constitutionalism in the very last years, a Ottoman-like monarchy couldn't last until today. The region's so-called "stability" could have been better for the pragmatical Western countries, but it is pretty obvious that Arabs and Turks couldn't live together after the WW1.

Yes and no. We'd still have the same violence we do today and I think now, nearly 100 years later, the people of the Middle East and Northern Africa are seeing the faults of not being able to at least protest against their own governments. If the Ottoman Empire had remained a driving force in the region then I think the ridiculous amounts of money the US funnels into some of these countries would be nonexistent, which means more money for the homeland and a political independence the near east has rarely ever seen.

.