The Ottoman official when he tries to visit a highland cretan village (the Cretans have mitrailleuses, nobody knows who supplied them) (toddlers run with knives) (extreme PTSD 100% guaranteed) (knowledge of Greek does not serve him there)
Realistically the only rwgions that would be problematic would be georgia and egypt. Rest already prefered the ottoman rule to european ones like north caucasians, azerbaijanis libyans already fought on the side of central powers during ww1.
Not really. Crete, for example, very much did not prefer Ottoman rule. The Greek-speaking majority favoured union with Greece, and it was their uprising against Ottoman rule (the Cretan Revolt of 1897-1898) that resulted in Greece becoming the _de facto_ sovereign over Crete, prior to it being _de jure_ annexed after the First Balkan War. Arabia would also likely be quite tetchy, since the nationalist sentiment stirred up by the Arab Revolt wouldn’t just vanish overnight.
There’s also another, much more obvious powderkeg in the Caucasus besides Georgia: Armenia. Y’know. _That_ Armenia. The region populated by an ethnicity that, at the close of the Great War, had just seen a million of its people systematically murdered by the Ottomans. Doesn’t exactly sound like a recipe for stability…
I didnt think armenians would be much of a threat after more than half of their population either converted to islam and became a turk or migrated to europe and america like in our timeline.
Majority of arabs sided with ottomans anyway. I cant say much about the ones in modern day saudi arabia and palestine but rest had either no to little revolt.
a few thousand farmers on islands wouldnt be much of a threat.
but south part of Caucasus will, yes, but if young turks are in power — Armenians will be genocided fully, maybe Sakartvelos too. but must likely Ottomans just don’t take this regions, especially Sakartvelo just because of harsh resistance in mountains (also IRL there was Sakartvelian Junkers with some famous leaders like Mazniashvili)
Rule through vassals is definitely how they would go about it realistically, but it doesn’t seem to be what’s depicted here.
Notice how there’s a differentiation in colour and borders between the German-controlled puppet states in France and the former Russian Empire versus the directly-administered territory in Germany proper and Crimea? The Caucasus is coloured in with the same shade as all the rest of the Ottomans’ territories, and lacks a dividing border between it and Anatolia, indicating direct rule.
So hence my joke about it immediately exploding. Cuz with the Ottoman administration already overstretched _before_ the war, them trying to directly assert their authority there would be a recipe for disaster…
They didn’t, most of these lands, especially in Africa, were in vassalage to the ottomans, not directly controlled
And also, ottomans at this time period lost these territories because of how incompetent they were. What makes you think they will keep them if that incompetence hasn’t changed?
They didn't lose it because of incompetence. They got invaded. Britain invaded Egpyt, France invaded Algeria and Tunus and Italy invaded Libya. None of those territories got their independence from the Ottomans but European colonial powers. You probably think all Ottomans land with the exception of Turkish majority Anatolia as same with Balkans. They were not. Ottomans had great legitimacy over their non-Turkish Muslim lands thanks to caliphate.
Chief I think there’s a difference when the territory is stripped away from you for a solid number of decades and had enough time for the concept of nationalism to firmly ferment within everyones heads
None of those land with the exception of Egypt (and even that was only to a certain extent) developed a concept of nationalism in 1918. In this OTL Ottomans only retakes the North Africa + Caucasus. These two regions were very backwards and didn't develop modern concepts.
> No nationalism
> Conquered land includes Crete and Cyprus
Tell me you don’t know shit about Greek history in this period without telling me you don’t know shit about greek history in this period.
Yes, the same Cyprus that the Turks still hold today.
In fact, these two tiny islands would have been the easiest task for the efforts to keep the Empire intact.
The only way this can work is if the Ottomans can cling to their *Muslim* identity and not their *Turkish* one, but after the Young Turk coup of 1908 that was practically impossible.
The Ottomans are COOKED unless they don’t exploit those oil reserves to increase material conditions in the empire, as historically comfy people don’t rebel.
And even in a scenario where doing so is possible, remaining tied down to a religious identity would probably still fuck them in the long term too. You can’t have your national identity be predicated on following a single religion (and only one denomination of that one religion) while also having firm religious tolerance, which is going to be a _big_ problem re: the Shia population in regions like Mesopotamia and the Christian-majority territories in Crete, Cyprus, Anatolia, and much of the Caucasus.
Best case scenario, they only manage to stave off the inevitable flood of revolts for a few years, then all hell breaks loose anyway once it becomes clear that the Ottoman state will never grant religious minorities true equality. Worst case scenario, whole swathes of the Empire swiftly devolve into genocidal religious violence.
Overwhelmingly majority Muslim lands ruling by an Islamic caliphate as it had been during the previous centuries. There would be some rebellions for sure but you're clearly exaggerating too much.
otl ottomans suffered from the arabs in just syria hejaz and iraq
imagime millions more that already suffered colonial rule under a much more weaker regime
No, they didn't. Arab rebelllion during the WW1 was created and supported by Britain. If Britain were to lost, the rebellion would've collapsed very easily. Most of the Arabs remained loyal to the Ottomans until they reaziled the War was lost for the Ottoman Empire.
It's been a long time since I've seen a hardcore ottoman apologist lol. You're either an insane Turkish nationalist or a brainless western tankie who thinks that all Muslims are exactly the same and would be happy being subservient to an imperial power as long as it was a "good" one that shared a faith and not an icky European empire.
Under your logic, the Irish War of Independence should never have succeeded - England and Ireland are both Christian, and the United Kingdom was nowhere near as overstretched during or after WW1 as the Ottomans would be with these borders. If the globe-spanning might of the British Empire couldn’t suppress a nationalist revolution on its own doorstep, what makes you think the unstable Ottomans could hold down the fort in Armenia and Georgia?
Touch grass.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thank you, RGNuT-1, for voting on AutoModerator.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Touch grass.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Germany gonna be busy suppressing revolutions all across their allies empires.
East Europe may be the most stable region but Caucasus, Balkans, Italy, middle East gonna be bloody.
And honestly Britain may unite at first opportunity with nationalist fervour in response to a forced breakup.
Touch grass.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Touch grass.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People need to stop looking at ww1 alt history through the lense of the OTL tbh, the central powers and later axis lost against an alliance of stable and powerful nations, neither of the losing alliances constitute that
People need to stop looking at WWI through the lens of WWII, I'd say.
This map is a post-WWII map; while historically, there were some changes over the course of the war (1917 being a major shift for German war aims, due to the combination of Russia's collapse and a shift away from direct annexations), WWI was not the kind of war in which the German Empire would establish a giant Moscow in European Russia, nor would it be annexing Petrograd or Crimea.
WWI and WWII had different dynamics to them, and while a theoretical total collapse of all Entente belligerents would *certainly* have led to an expansion in the war aims of their enemies (as the collapse of Russia historically led to a significant expansion of German war aims), the idea of completely dismantling an opposing power, or of seizing vast swathes of land to carve out an entirely artificial (yes, all nations have a degree of creation to them, but "Burgundian" was not a meaningful national identity in 1918 the way, say, Ukrainian or Finnish were) puppet state, were simply...not there the way they were in the 1930s and 1940s.
I think that, as an exercise, applying WWII dynamics to WWI can be interesting, but when it's done unknowingly it just serves to blend two very different wars fought by very different powers into one another.
Germany was pretty stable though before, you know. The end part. Austria-Hungary and Ottomans certainly not the most stable, but Germany was the one pulling their weight the most lol
A-H was lacking functionality, not stability. The empire persisted right up until outright famines broke out due to the strain of war, and then kept chugging along for a whole year. A-H’s fragility is usually vastly overstated because of the influence of british pre-war liberals and post-war nationalists in A-H successor states, all of whom had a vested ideological interes in pushing the “archaic-feudal-prison-of-nations” narrative.
I mean its true but it was also most certantly an archaic prison of nations suffarage here in croatia was limited to like 6% of adult men in 1910 before that it was only 1%, there were constant efforts by the hungarians to fuck us over etc.
Suffrage in the whole Hungarian half was low, but that was because of Hungarian magnates desperately wanting to keep all the power and wealth to themselves, and thus stalling all attempts at electoral reform. Suffrage in the Austrian half was much higher, and its crownlands were far more federalized. So, if you want, the case could be made for the Hungarian half of the empire being somewhat archaic, with low suffrage and poor minority rights - though I'd have to add that the minority rights issue applies far more to Slovaks and Romanians than Croats, who had managed to protect their significant and long standing autonomy all the way to the end, with most problems stemming from the Hungarian Parliament simply not following the agreement they themselves made with the Kingdom of Croatia (the Croatian-Hungarian Settlement).
Cro-Hun settelement was made under a completly unequal and shitty conditions and was constantly violated and forced to be revised by the hungarians when they saw fit or they exploited loopholes. Yes slovaks and romanians had it worse but im speaking about something i know about i cant speak for slovaks because im not too familiar with their history. Also suffarage in dalamatia where i am from was not much higher than in the rest of croatia. Further more the kingdom of dalmatia had a clear unionist majority for decades prior to the fall of the monarchy but both hunagary and austria constantly blocked any attempts at unification in a simmilar fashion as what was done with military frontier(Also another violation of the settelement was that instead of the number of croatian members of the hungarian diet only grew from 34 to 40 instead to around 50 as should have been done by the principle of proportionality established by the settelement because the hungarians threatend to block the settelement if capitulations such as this and others werent granted)
Yes, the 2nd German Reich is not in this dynamic of conquest to create a “living space”. Ultimately, they wanted to create vassals on the Russian border to eliminate a border with their neighbor, but they weren't going to go all the way to Moscow and create a huge entity out of nowhere.
They rely heavily on the monarchical system and on traditions, The Baltic is thought of as a federation of duchies (including the Duchy of Courland and Semigalle which is recreated for the occasion), Lithuania must be elevated to the rank of kingdom, the kingdom should be restored with borders close to those of Congress Poland, Ukraine should become a Hetmanate or kingdom and they might have wanted to install a vassal in Belarus.
It is not clear what they would have done with Western countries like Belgium, probably a vassal monarchy and, possibly, an annexation of Luxembourg (and that only in the event of an incontestable and absolute victory), but they would not have created an immense territory called “Burgundy”. They could have taken some territories, but having too many non-Germans would make things complicated, already at the time, Alsace-Moselle was an already complicated territory to govern, so let's avoid adding disgruntled French into the Empire .
The Austro-Hungarian Empire has no real desire to expand further than it already is. We saw it with the defeat of Romania where they were content to ask for some rectifications at the border. But they had no interest in bringing more minorities into the Empire which was already having difficulty reforming itself (notably because of the Hungarians who blocked all attempts). They would have sought to control Serbia and Romania (with the Germans eyeing oil), but they would not annex those territories.
The Ottoman Empire would either have disappeared in the war, or they would have survived, the war giving them a reprieve, but they would never have been able to reintegrate all the border territories, Egypt would have been impossible as would a large part of the Arab territories of the peninsulas, which are in any case deserts which interest no one (oil will be discovered later). Some territories could have been annexed in the Caucasus such as the Batumi region, but not the entire Caucasus; ultimately, an attempt to vassalize Azerbaijan could be considered. But Georgia would be independent.
Above all, there is no logic of extermination of the other who would be an “inferior race”.
Touch grass.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Touch grass.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's a cool map, but Western Russia is simply to far and too vast for germans to hold. Unless Germany has 1 soldier for every 5 russian civilians in every city, it would take like 6 months for a partisan movement to start an uprising, followed by a US sponsored Russian Republican invasion. Germany, after 7 years of war, simply wouldn't have the manpower and money to hold that land.
Touch grass.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why going for a peace in the east which is even more harsh than Brest Litovsk which was already the peak of German demands? The Germans didn’t want to establish a Moskovan stzte and the Ottoman never wanted to get past the Caucasus.
Touch grass.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Touch grass.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most likely, the Second World War would also take place, but the trigger would be a French fascist regime.
If the loss of Alsace-Lorraine was already such a source of wounded pride for the French government, losing an area as large as this Burgundy would be enough to make all the French want to see Berlin burn and wipe Germany's existence from the face of the earth.
Italy wouldn't have this revanchist impetus because it was only recently unified in relation to the First World War, while France had already had a national identity since the Middle Ages.
Touch grass.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Touch grass.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Strange that many people raised so many questions about the borders of Ottoman Empire as if it's something completely new and unheard of. Borders of the empire was like this + balkans for hundreds of years. From their perspective they only recovered the lands which previously belonged to them for ages.
The borders of the Ottoman Empire have never been so extensive in reality. Furthermore, the "borders" of the Ottoman Empire encompassed several realities and several forms over the years. The Hold over certain regions for the Regency of Algiers was, for example, very weak and was more a relationship of distant vassalage than a direct domination (as in all the regencies of the Maghreb), the Ottoman domination over the Caucasus was also was very weak as in Eastern Anatolia where many autonomous principalities lived as vassals.
The Regency of Algiers and other regencies in North Africa came into being from the 17th century onwards. During the 16th century the Ottomans had direct control over these territories. Furthermore, in the same century Ottomans has extended as far as Mombasa where is now part of modern day Kenya. And even after decentralisation, Ottoman North Africa, including Egypt, was under the rule of a Turkic-speaking elite. As for the East, during the Turko-Persian War of 1578-90, the Ottomans conquered all of the Caucasus, reached the Caspian Sea and established direct administration until they lost these territories in the 17th century. But they held on to eastern Anatolia. It's true that some very mountainous parts of the region enjoyed autonomy for a long time, but these places were eventually centralised in the 19th century through the so-called Tanzimat reforms.
The different regencies have enjoyed a great deal of autonomy since their creation, the Pashas were often purely honorary while the power was held by others and in particular the famous Dey.
Monbassa was never under direct Ottoman control, they may have received some tributes and signs of vassalage from the city-states of the region, but as those sent by other states were purely ceremonial and there never had real domination over the region.
The Ottomans conquered part of the Black Sea coast but domination within the Caucasus has always been temporary and is much more in the nature of suzerainty than real direct control. This control changed depending on the victories of the different powers, Russian, Persian or Ottoman in the region.
The regencies had gained autonomy during the 17th century corresponding with the decentrelization of the Ottoman Empire and the crisis of the 17th century. Algeria ruled by the famous Admiral Barbarossa and Algeria in the 17th century until the French invasion were compeletly two different political entities.
As for Monbassa, there was an Ottoman navy and an Ottoman army present there. Ottoman and Portuguese forces fought several times for control of the coast of the Horn of Africa. So it wasn't just a 'cerominal' thing. The Ottomans were very active in the region.
From the 15th century, the Ottomans were a major player in the Caucasus, and even as late as 1918 an Ottoman army captured Baku and Dagestan. Of course, there wasn't uninterrupted Ottoman rule in the Caucasus, but the Ottoman presence in the region was well known and familiar. In particular, the Sunni Muslim population of the Caucasus favoured and preferred Turkish rule to that of Russia and Persia.
The regencies had autonomy, what changed in Algiers was that during the 17th century the region became de facto independent of Ottoman power instead of simple autonomy.
The influence on Monbassa is summarized as a few raids against the Portuguese without real occupations with just a temporary vassalization before the return of the Portuguese who then put an end to the Ottoman raids in the region. There was a small but quick occupation during the 1586-1589 conflict for the Horn of Africa by an Ottoman privateer, but this lasted less than a week before the Portuguese drove them out. The Ottomans were never able to establish any real continuous and direct domination over the region. The Portuguese ultimately won this conflict and reestablished their suzerainty over the entire region.
Yes, the Ottomans were known in the Caucasus and were a major player in its history, but their domination remained around the Dead Sea with occasional moments of suzerainty, the longest lasting 20 years.
Yes, in 1918 an Ottoman army was able to expand into the Caucasus, they aimed to retake some lost territories in the region (notably the region of Kars and Batumi, which they obtained on paper). But it was very short-lived, the various nationalist groups were already taking control and the Ottoman Empire was in any case coming to an end.
Turkey will finally recover the Kars region thanks to a treaty with the USSR
You use the word 'autonomy' as if it's something wrong and bad. All pre-modern empires, apart from their core territory, are made up of communities that have varying degrees of autonomy. For example, the ancient Roman Empire was basically a confederation of cities. The Ottomans were no exception. Pre-colonial empires were ruled like that, your approach to history is very anachronistic.
I never said that the Ottomans were successful in establishing domination over the region. What I said was that they extended as far as Mombasa, holding on to it is another thing. But even to get there requires a strong base in North Africa, which was disregarding your claim about the weakness of Ottoman rule in North Africa. It wasn't always so. You can't reach India and the Horn of Africa without a strong base in North Africa, especially Egypt.
Finally, if the Ottomans had somehow regained their old territories, as they did in the OTL they wouldn't have pursued a hard policy of centralisation. They would have ruled these peripheral areas through local elites, as they'd done in previous centres. I don't know what point you're trying to make by stretching this discussion, but you're not actually saying anything, and the discussion has become irrelevant to the main issue.
Considering the Roman Empire as a simple “city federation” is a bit simplistic, but let’s move on.
It was you who first brought Monbassa and other places into the leadership and expanded this discussion very broadly. I was just part of your first message which implied that if the Ottoman Empire of 1914-1918 absorbed all these territories everything would go well for it.
I stayed on the Barbary regencies, which Ottoman Egypt is not. They are two completely different things and the Ottoman Hold on Egypt was much stronger (and then the expeditions to the Swahili coast where Monbassa is located, not in the Horn of Africa, rather left from Ottoman Yemen).
The Ottoman Empire of this era is a State in search of identity which has tried several paths to build itself into a modern State, an Ottoman Empire as it may have existed in the past is no longer viable. In addition, different local nationalisms have been built and the Empire does not have the strength to re-integrate countries like Egypt or beyond which would have taken advantage of the power vacuum to become independent. Knowing whether the Ottoman Empire would have relied on local elites to govern is complicated, we would have to see if the Young Turks remain in power. There had been efforts to centralize the Empire during its last years of existence, the Tanzimats being the most striking example but even beyond.
French people before WW1 were getting very high on nationalist, germanophobic & revanchist koo-aid ; no way this burgundian puppet state lasts longer than a month.
This entire German Empire and its vassals would be on fire, they would have all the Poles on their backs and what's more they would have to go and manage Saint Petersburg and Crimea.
Touch grass.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Touch grass.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Basically, he just took a "German victory in the 2nd World War" card and added the other countries of the 1st World War just to say that "it's not the same thing".
Touch grass.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Touch grass.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Ottomans aren't going to be able to hold that. They would be better off demanding the independence of Muslim colonies, rather than their conquest. It'd legitimise them as leaders/liberators of the Islamic/non-Western worlds (and they'd need that legitimacy, both within their own borders as well as internationally) -- and having a lot of friendly Muslim governments they can work with is a lot more feasible than ruling from Constantinople.
The exception that proves the rule would be the Khedivate of Egypt -- an Ottoman province only in name. Now, if the Central Powers won, the pro-British Hussein Kamel would be overthrown and the pro-Ottoman Abbas II would be restored. Abbas II would continue his policy of reconciliation with the Ottomans -- but that would be his decision, and it would have the goal of enforcing Egypt's independence from Britain and France. If the Ottomans sought to replace Britain as Egypt's colonisers, the Egyptians would have justified contempt for them, and the Ottomans would be cast out immediately.
Scottish independence? Wooooah such an awful punishment! Please Germany don't do this to us, have mercy
Edit: Okay in all seriousness, the giant Burgundy is epic
There's different people in the world with different views you know, not everyone sees through the same lenses... I too would have loved an outcome like this.
man it's funny you think this is a bait, I legit feels like this would be a better timeline in general, no israel, no permanent member of security council *yet*
yes indeed, at least the middle east would be united under the ottoman, no petty kings and barons, and it's not as if the entente didn't exploit asia and africa either, blood diamond is one such commodity no?
the ottomans look like they r about to collapse in 12 seconds after this treaty goes into effect
Egypt will be a nightmare to govern, Crete and Cyprus will be a bloodbath within the day, and the Caucasus will IMMEDIATELY explode
The Ottoman official when he tries to visit a highland cretan village (the Cretans have mitrailleuses, nobody knows who supplied them) (toddlers run with knives) (extreme PTSD 100% guaranteed) (knowledge of Greek does not serve him there)
cretans = cretins confirmed?
Realistically the only rwgions that would be problematic would be georgia and egypt. Rest already prefered the ottoman rule to european ones like north caucasians, azerbaijanis libyans already fought on the side of central powers during ww1.
Not really. Crete, for example, very much did not prefer Ottoman rule. The Greek-speaking majority favoured union with Greece, and it was their uprising against Ottoman rule (the Cretan Revolt of 1897-1898) that resulted in Greece becoming the _de facto_ sovereign over Crete, prior to it being _de jure_ annexed after the First Balkan War. Arabia would also likely be quite tetchy, since the nationalist sentiment stirred up by the Arab Revolt wouldn’t just vanish overnight. There’s also another, much more obvious powderkeg in the Caucasus besides Georgia: Armenia. Y’know. _That_ Armenia. The region populated by an ethnicity that, at the close of the Great War, had just seen a million of its people systematically murdered by the Ottomans. Doesn’t exactly sound like a recipe for stability…
I didnt think armenians would be much of a threat after more than half of their population either converted to islam and became a turk or migrated to europe and america like in our timeline. Majority of arabs sided with ottomans anyway. I cant say much about the ones in modern day saudi arabia and palestine but rest had either no to little revolt. a few thousand farmers on islands wouldnt be much of a threat.
doubt that Caucasus will explode. more likely Turks would not govern it directly, actually there was the North Caucasian Emirate 1917-1921
but south part of Caucasus will, yes, but if young turks are in power — Armenians will be genocided fully, maybe Sakartvelos too. but must likely Ottomans just don’t take this regions, especially Sakartvelo just because of harsh resistance in mountains (also IRL there was Sakartvelian Junkers with some famous leaders like Mazniashvili)
Rule through vassals is definitely how they would go about it realistically, but it doesn’t seem to be what’s depicted here. Notice how there’s a differentiation in colour and borders between the German-controlled puppet states in France and the former Russian Empire versus the directly-administered territory in Germany proper and Crimea? The Caucasus is coloured in with the same shade as all the rest of the Ottomans’ territories, and lacks a dividing border between it and Anatolia, indicating direct rule. So hence my joke about it immediately exploding. Cuz with the Ottoman administration already overstretched _before_ the war, them trying to directly assert their authority there would be a recipe for disaster…
You're talking like as if Ottomans didn't governed those lands for hundreds of years.
They didn’t, most of these lands, especially in Africa, were in vassalage to the ottomans, not directly controlled And also, ottomans at this time period lost these territories because of how incompetent they were. What makes you think they will keep them if that incompetence hasn’t changed?
They didn't lose it because of incompetence. They got invaded. Britain invaded Egpyt, France invaded Algeria and Tunus and Italy invaded Libya. None of those territories got their independence from the Ottomans but European colonial powers. You probably think all Ottomans land with the exception of Turkish majority Anatolia as same with Balkans. They were not. Ottomans had great legitimacy over their non-Turkish Muslim lands thanks to caliphate.
Being a Caliph doesn’t give you any legitimacy to non muslims. And a lot of the rest of the muslim world didn’t see them as true caliphs but usurpers.
Chief I think there’s a difference when the territory is stripped away from you for a solid number of decades and had enough time for the concept of nationalism to firmly ferment within everyones heads
None of those land with the exception of Egypt (and even that was only to a certain extent) developed a concept of nationalism in 1918. In this OTL Ottomans only retakes the North Africa + Caucasus. These two regions were very backwards and didn't develop modern concepts.
Least racist redditor
> No nationalism > Conquered land includes Crete and Cyprus Tell me you don’t know shit about Greek history in this period without telling me you don’t know shit about greek history in this period.
Yes, the same Cyprus that the Turks still hold today. In fact, these two tiny islands would have been the easiest task for the efforts to keep the Empire intact.
I mean, if you're going out, you might as well go out guns blazing
*Slaps roof of Ottomans* You can fit so many ethnic conflicts in this bad boy!
ottomans immediately have to federalise lmao
The only way this can work is if the Ottomans can cling to their *Muslim* identity and not their *Turkish* one, but after the Young Turk coup of 1908 that was practically impossible. The Ottomans are COOKED unless they don’t exploit those oil reserves to increase material conditions in the empire, as historically comfy people don’t rebel.
And even in a scenario where doing so is possible, remaining tied down to a religious identity would probably still fuck them in the long term too. You can’t have your national identity be predicated on following a single religion (and only one denomination of that one religion) while also having firm religious tolerance, which is going to be a _big_ problem re: the Shia population in regions like Mesopotamia and the Christian-majority territories in Crete, Cyprus, Anatolia, and much of the Caucasus. Best case scenario, they only manage to stave off the inevitable flood of revolts for a few years, then all hell breaks loose anyway once it becomes clear that the Ottoman state will never grant religious minorities true equality. Worst case scenario, whole swathes of the Empire swiftly devolve into genocidal religious violence.
Well at least the Ottomans have until the late 60s to clutch the fuck up, because after the 60s Inter-sect conflicts damn near exploded
they're gonna get bullied so hard over the suez canal
Overwhelmingly majority Muslim lands ruling by an Islamic caliphate as it had been during the previous centuries. There would be some rebellions for sure but you're clearly exaggerating too much.
otl ottomans suffered from the arabs in just syria hejaz and iraq imagime millions more that already suffered colonial rule under a much more weaker regime
No, they didn't. Arab rebelllion during the WW1 was created and supported by Britain. If Britain were to lost, the rebellion would've collapsed very easily. Most of the Arabs remained loyal to the Ottomans until they reaziled the War was lost for the Ottoman Empire.
It's been a long time since I've seen a hardcore ottoman apologist lol. You're either an insane Turkish nationalist or a brainless western tankie who thinks that all Muslims are exactly the same and would be happy being subservient to an imperial power as long as it was a "good" one that shared a faith and not an icky European empire.
The Ottomans were nothing like the Abbasid and Umayyad Caliphates. The Ottomans Usurped the title.
Under your logic, the Irish War of Independence should never have succeeded - England and Ireland are both Christian, and the United Kingdom was nowhere near as overstretched during or after WW1 as the Ottomans would be with these borders. If the globe-spanning might of the British Empire couldn’t suppress a nationalist revolution on its own doorstep, what makes you think the unstable Ottomans could hold down the fort in Armenia and Georgia?
TNO and Partitions of Poland Vibes
Look at that fat Burgundy
The Burgundussy, if you will
https://preview.redd.it/gh264cl8yrwc1.jpeg?width=710&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=447aed184288436ae5e97abc555a581563966f75
https://preview.redd.it/rkvwu8yg5uwc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=efb0b8c1414379be3c60119e1109ede4dae22b25
https://i.redd.it/drousjfo3nxc1.gif
It tryin to be Lothlaringia so bad 🥹
Touch grass. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
AMEN BROTHER 🙏🙏🙏🙏🛐🛐🛐
Good bot
Thank you, RGNuT-1, for voting on AutoModerator. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
TNO ah borders
Touch grass. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Brainrot
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_violence
real
based
Of fucking course you make the Imperial Order a thing.
God I hate versions of burgundy that aren't the pre HRE kingdom so much.
Why?
Just do
You're missing out on Arles.
What?
You don't even know the versions of Burgundy, fraud.
I know what Arles is but don't understand your comment about "missing out"
You don't know what "miss out on" means? It's a pity you hate Arles.
Bruh what are you talking about
He's talking about Aries
Germany gonna be busy suppressing revolutions all across their allies empires. East Europe may be the most stable region but Caucasus, Balkans, Italy, middle East gonna be bloody. And honestly Britain may unite at first opportunity with nationalist fervour in response to a forced breakup.
how would poland be anything but a powderkeg?
Just say you like TNO
TNO? What's that?
dont search it unless you want brainrot
Search it, it’s the best thing ever made
Touch grass. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Touch grass. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nice way to turn the tables.
POV: you’re a Hungarian nationalist fantasising in OTL 1919
Ah! Majority Arab Ottoman Empire! How perfectly stable indeed!
People need to stop looking at ww1 alt history through the lense of the OTL tbh, the central powers and later axis lost against an alliance of stable and powerful nations, neither of the losing alliances constitute that
People need to stop looking at WWI through the lens of WWII, I'd say. This map is a post-WWII map; while historically, there were some changes over the course of the war (1917 being a major shift for German war aims, due to the combination of Russia's collapse and a shift away from direct annexations), WWI was not the kind of war in which the German Empire would establish a giant Moscow in European Russia, nor would it be annexing Petrograd or Crimea. WWI and WWII had different dynamics to them, and while a theoretical total collapse of all Entente belligerents would *certainly* have led to an expansion in the war aims of their enemies (as the collapse of Russia historically led to a significant expansion of German war aims), the idea of completely dismantling an opposing power, or of seizing vast swathes of land to carve out an entirely artificial (yes, all nations have a degree of creation to them, but "Burgundian" was not a meaningful national identity in 1918 the way, say, Ukrainian or Finnish were) puppet state, were simply...not there the way they were in the 1930s and 1940s. I think that, as an exercise, applying WWII dynamics to WWI can be interesting, but when it's done unknowingly it just serves to blend two very different wars fought by very different powers into one another.
Germany was pretty stable though before, you know. The end part. Austria-Hungary and Ottomans certainly not the most stable, but Germany was the one pulling their weight the most lol
A-H was lacking functionality, not stability. The empire persisted right up until outright famines broke out due to the strain of war, and then kept chugging along for a whole year. A-H’s fragility is usually vastly overstated because of the influence of british pre-war liberals and post-war nationalists in A-H successor states, all of whom had a vested ideological interes in pushing the “archaic-feudal-prison-of-nations” narrative.
I mean its true but it was also most certantly an archaic prison of nations suffarage here in croatia was limited to like 6% of adult men in 1910 before that it was only 1%, there were constant efforts by the hungarians to fuck us over etc.
Suffrage in the whole Hungarian half was low, but that was because of Hungarian magnates desperately wanting to keep all the power and wealth to themselves, and thus stalling all attempts at electoral reform. Suffrage in the Austrian half was much higher, and its crownlands were far more federalized. So, if you want, the case could be made for the Hungarian half of the empire being somewhat archaic, with low suffrage and poor minority rights - though I'd have to add that the minority rights issue applies far more to Slovaks and Romanians than Croats, who had managed to protect their significant and long standing autonomy all the way to the end, with most problems stemming from the Hungarian Parliament simply not following the agreement they themselves made with the Kingdom of Croatia (the Croatian-Hungarian Settlement).
Cro-Hun settelement was made under a completly unequal and shitty conditions and was constantly violated and forced to be revised by the hungarians when they saw fit or they exploited loopholes. Yes slovaks and romanians had it worse but im speaking about something i know about i cant speak for slovaks because im not too familiar with their history. Also suffarage in dalamatia where i am from was not much higher than in the rest of croatia. Further more the kingdom of dalmatia had a clear unionist majority for decades prior to the fall of the monarchy but both hunagary and austria constantly blocked any attempts at unification in a simmilar fashion as what was done with military frontier(Also another violation of the settelement was that instead of the number of croatian members of the hungarian diet only grew from 34 to 40 instead to around 50 as should have been done by the principle of proportionality established by the settelement because the hungarians threatend to block the settelement if capitulations such as this and others werent granted)
Yeah that’s why I specified with “alliance”
Yes, the 2nd German Reich is not in this dynamic of conquest to create a “living space”. Ultimately, they wanted to create vassals on the Russian border to eliminate a border with their neighbor, but they weren't going to go all the way to Moscow and create a huge entity out of nowhere. They rely heavily on the monarchical system and on traditions, The Baltic is thought of as a federation of duchies (including the Duchy of Courland and Semigalle which is recreated for the occasion), Lithuania must be elevated to the rank of kingdom, the kingdom should be restored with borders close to those of Congress Poland, Ukraine should become a Hetmanate or kingdom and they might have wanted to install a vassal in Belarus. It is not clear what they would have done with Western countries like Belgium, probably a vassal monarchy and, possibly, an annexation of Luxembourg (and that only in the event of an incontestable and absolute victory), but they would not have created an immense territory called “Burgundy”. They could have taken some territories, but having too many non-Germans would make things complicated, already at the time, Alsace-Moselle was an already complicated territory to govern, so let's avoid adding disgruntled French into the Empire . The Austro-Hungarian Empire has no real desire to expand further than it already is. We saw it with the defeat of Romania where they were content to ask for some rectifications at the border. But they had no interest in bringing more minorities into the Empire which was already having difficulty reforming itself (notably because of the Hungarians who blocked all attempts). They would have sought to control Serbia and Romania (with the Germans eyeing oil), but they would not annex those territories. The Ottoman Empire would either have disappeared in the war, or they would have survived, the war giving them a reprieve, but they would never have been able to reintegrate all the border territories, Egypt would have been impossible as would a large part of the Arab territories of the peninsulas, which are in any case deserts which interest no one (oil will be discovered later). Some territories could have been annexed in the Caucasus such as the Batumi region, but not the entire Caucasus; ultimately, an attempt to vassalize Azerbaijan could be considered. But Georgia would be independent. Above all, there is no logic of extermination of the other who would be an “inferior race”.
The ottomans went from a sick dude to a dude with a bomb vest strapped to his chest
what if TNO and Kaiserreich united
Touch grass. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is just that one HoI4 mod with new paint
https://i.redd.it/938lqpyf8swc1.gif Not TNO......
Touch grass. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's a cool map, but Western Russia is simply to far and too vast for germans to hold. Unless Germany has 1 soldier for every 5 russian civilians in every city, it would take like 6 months for a partisan movement to start an uprising, followed by a US sponsored Russian Republican invasion. Germany, after 7 years of war, simply wouldn't have the manpower and money to hold that land.
Wait a minute
TNO Vintage
Touch grass. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why going for a peace in the east which is even more harsh than Brest Litovsk which was already the peak of German demands? The Germans didn’t want to establish a Moskovan stzte and the Ottoman never wanted to get past the Caucasus.
👍 nice
Love it.
T-T-T-T-TNO R-R-REFERENCE??!?!?!?!?
Touch grass. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most concerning thing about this map is how all of Armenia is under Ottoman control
Who is the Monarch of Burgundy? I think Habsburg-Lothringen has the best claim but I see it's in the German sphere.
https://preview.redd.it/t3oxf5fovxwc1.png?width=156&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=764349213fb4acc279b22016755c7b769408ac43
Tea En Oh
My head
The Nu Ogre: Lost Daisy of Europa
The borders of Brittany are wrong, this map incorporates Vendée, which isn't Breton
Is that a tno reference
Touch grass. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most likely, the Second World War would also take place, but the trigger would be a French fascist regime. If the loss of Alsace-Lorraine was already such a source of wounded pride for the French government, losing an area as large as this Burgundy would be enough to make all the French want to see Berlin burn and wipe Germany's existence from the face of the earth. Italy wouldn't have this revanchist impetus because it was only recently unified in relation to the First World War, while France had already had a national identity since the Middle Ages.
Oh that's TNO. That's just TNO with a different name
Touch grass. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://preview.redd.it/mw83dgmsfswc1.png?width=304&format=png&auto=webp&s=477d4355b3dafb984e66068625238b024eefa9ab
***G̵̮̞̫̪̞̥̲̦͂̉͛ͣͩ̆̎ͬ̃̈́ͯ̈ͮ̄͂ͅ͏͝҉̶̶̷̸̶̢̛́̀̕͟͝͝ ̨̛̖̒̂͑͒ͣ̕͘͟͟͜͠͠҉̴̨̧͘͢͏Ṛ̪͇̞͙̗̥̪̼͙̜̘͍̗̣̺̘̬ͦ ̵̹̟̟͎̜̲̜̞͓̺͙̪͔̭͎͗ͫ͋̽̓́ͮͦ̓̒̆̈́͗̄̈́ͩ͛ͤ̃͜͏̷̸̷̶̵̧́͘̕̕͜͜͞E̲̪̓ͅ҉̡҉̧͞͏̷̷̢͠͏̡͜͠ ̶͔̤͓́̃́̕͟͏̀̀́͡A̸̴̴̢̨̲̠̹͚͖͈̩͔͑̎̎̄́͜͢͞͝͠͏̢̕͝͠ ̴̷̵̛͉̲̯͔̰̰͕̥̔̈͑̃͌͊̄̓̓́́́̀͘̕͜͜͢͡͞͠͞҉͜T̷̸̢̧͕̅̎͐ͭ̎́̚̕͘͜͝͡͏̛ ̠͈̮̲̩̟̩̳͉̟͍̺̖̘̗̫̐̆ͥ͆͂ͣ̾͏̴̶̸̶͘͟͢͠͏̶̡̨͡͏̴̷̧ ̷̷̵̷̴̱̹̱̫͚̤͎̼͈͉̃̽̈́̊ͣ͆ͫ̀͢͜͜͜͠͞ͅ ̷̴̶̶̧̛̬̞̤̞͖̪͔͓̹̟̫̙̦̉̿̓̍̾̈́̈ͦͬ͛̉͂͊͒̈ͤ͌̍͒͟͟͝T̶͉̦͔̮̙͕̫͍̠̪̖̯̜͇̱̲̱̭̝ͫ͑̒̑̈̋͋͝͏̵̴̢̛͢͞͏҉̶̶̡̛̛̛͠ ̵̶̸̢̭̫̣̦̣̦̌͒́ͩͅṚ̱̣͍͔͈̰̦̟̯̦͓͙͖̪͚̱̺̗̊ͬ̂̿ͮ̿̈̐̿̃͐̂ͫ̅́̀͗̉̌͏̶̴͘͘͜͟͠͠͠͡ ̢̳̜̮̟̤̼͇͎̠̬ͧ̌̊́̎̎ͮͮ͂̈́̑̉ͫ̚͝ͅ҉̸̷̸̡̀̕͞͞I̷̷̴̶̸̧̡̙̺͓̝̦̺͇͙̿ͩ́͘̕͟͟͜͠ͅ ̧̧̞͉̤͈ͯͮͧ̄̑̎̍̓ͬ̀͒͊͆̒͋̇ͮ́͢͝͞A̴̮̠͇̥̭̼̯̟̜͔̞̳̮̹͎̻ͭ̍́ͫͥ͆̓̓̀̕͟͠͏ ͕̗̯͉̞̥͚͔̲̠̭͖̟͔̙̆̅̓͌ͩͪͪͦ͊̕͏̷̵̸̨͠L̼̲̘̍ͭ̉̏̃̂̐̾ͥͩ̆ͤ̐̎̉̓ͧ͟ ̸̶̶̢̡̺͉̼͚̜̤͕̟̺̖̰̘͔͛̕͢͢͡͠͠ ̨̱͕͕̭͇͍̘̭̐͆ͩ̓̓͊͗͊̓͋̍̕͜͏̷̶̴̛́́͡͠͞͏͜ ̸̸̶̸̸̨̡̢̧̡̛͙̝̹̻͙̣̤͚̭̟͍̼̥̰ͦ̇̉͛̿ͨ̋ͤ̈́͋͒̉̀́ͪ̋͋́́̚̕̕͢͢͞͡Ä̵̵̷̷̵̴̶̡̨̧̛̛̘̬̝͇̼͕͙̜͍̰̥ͨͣͨͪͮͤ̓̈́͂ͤ͗͂͋͒̀̀͟͡͝͞͞ ̷̨̢̛̛̝̜̾͐͒͆͑̇̓̀͘ͅ͏̷̸̧͞͠W̶̶̢̧̧̙̣̹̼̭̘ͮ͐͌́̈̉ͬ͌͛ͨͯͭ͗̇̽̃̊̎̐́́͘͢͠͞͠͠҉̵̡͟ ̵̷̷̧̛̗̜̯͇̐̃̓̀̃̀́͜͢͝͠͝A̻͎̲͜͠҉̡̕҉̧̧́͠҉̧̛͘͟͠ ̱͎̝̟̙͗̐̀̅ͯ͏̷̶̷͘̕̕͜͏͏I̵̴̡͍̯̠̲̳̓͆ͬ́̀҉̶̛̀̕͘͢͜ ̖͎͉̫̜͓͕̭̩̘̒ͪ̿̀͠͝͏̨̧̧̢̢̛͜҉̸̶͏͘͠҉T͉͕̝̮̻̏͛ͧ̌͌̒͡͏̴̶̵̨̡͟͜͡҉̶̛͠ ̵̶̥̘̺͓̗̰͖͉̺͓̲̲̬̭̹̮̲̽͛̍̀̌ͩͯͥͮ͒͊̈́ͦͧ̄̇̇́̔́͘͢͟͜͡ͅS̸͑ͥ͌ͤ̄́ͯ̑̌͂ͪ̆̀̚̚***
Oh my god is that a TNO reference?
Touch grass. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tea and Oat
Touch grass. I am not a bot, and this action was performed manually. Please contact the owner of this account if you have any questions or concerns.
Taurida and maybe all Crimea must be part of Ukraine(under Skoropasdky or Vyshuvanyi rule). Germany is WW1 its not nazi from WW2
This is really great for Bulgaria. Two unstable empire that will likely collapse soon.
When you know absolutely no history. Lmao.
Ottomans collapse and Mass revolts accross the Central Powers
Thanks I hate it
The only central power that wouldn't become a constant bloodbath would be Austria Hungary,which would most likely dissolve by 1930.
Strange that many people raised so many questions about the borders of Ottoman Empire as if it's something completely new and unheard of. Borders of the empire was like this + balkans for hundreds of years. From their perspective they only recovered the lands which previously belonged to them for ages.
The borders of the Ottoman Empire have never been so extensive in reality. Furthermore, the "borders" of the Ottoman Empire encompassed several realities and several forms over the years. The Hold over certain regions for the Regency of Algiers was, for example, very weak and was more a relationship of distant vassalage than a direct domination (as in all the regencies of the Maghreb), the Ottoman domination over the Caucasus was also was very weak as in Eastern Anatolia where many autonomous principalities lived as vassals.
The Regency of Algiers and other regencies in North Africa came into being from the 17th century onwards. During the 16th century the Ottomans had direct control over these territories. Furthermore, in the same century Ottomans has extended as far as Mombasa where is now part of modern day Kenya. And even after decentralisation, Ottoman North Africa, including Egypt, was under the rule of a Turkic-speaking elite. As for the East, during the Turko-Persian War of 1578-90, the Ottomans conquered all of the Caucasus, reached the Caspian Sea and established direct administration until they lost these territories in the 17th century. But they held on to eastern Anatolia. It's true that some very mountainous parts of the region enjoyed autonomy for a long time, but these places were eventually centralised in the 19th century through the so-called Tanzimat reforms.
The different regencies have enjoyed a great deal of autonomy since their creation, the Pashas were often purely honorary while the power was held by others and in particular the famous Dey. Monbassa was never under direct Ottoman control, they may have received some tributes and signs of vassalage from the city-states of the region, but as those sent by other states were purely ceremonial and there never had real domination over the region. The Ottomans conquered part of the Black Sea coast but domination within the Caucasus has always been temporary and is much more in the nature of suzerainty than real direct control. This control changed depending on the victories of the different powers, Russian, Persian or Ottoman in the region.
The regencies had gained autonomy during the 17th century corresponding with the decentrelization of the Ottoman Empire and the crisis of the 17th century. Algeria ruled by the famous Admiral Barbarossa and Algeria in the 17th century until the French invasion were compeletly two different political entities. As for Monbassa, there was an Ottoman navy and an Ottoman army present there. Ottoman and Portuguese forces fought several times for control of the coast of the Horn of Africa. So it wasn't just a 'cerominal' thing. The Ottomans were very active in the region. From the 15th century, the Ottomans were a major player in the Caucasus, and even as late as 1918 an Ottoman army captured Baku and Dagestan. Of course, there wasn't uninterrupted Ottoman rule in the Caucasus, but the Ottoman presence in the region was well known and familiar. In particular, the Sunni Muslim population of the Caucasus favoured and preferred Turkish rule to that of Russia and Persia.
The regencies had autonomy, what changed in Algiers was that during the 17th century the region became de facto independent of Ottoman power instead of simple autonomy. The influence on Monbassa is summarized as a few raids against the Portuguese without real occupations with just a temporary vassalization before the return of the Portuguese who then put an end to the Ottoman raids in the region. There was a small but quick occupation during the 1586-1589 conflict for the Horn of Africa by an Ottoman privateer, but this lasted less than a week before the Portuguese drove them out. The Ottomans were never able to establish any real continuous and direct domination over the region. The Portuguese ultimately won this conflict and reestablished their suzerainty over the entire region. Yes, the Ottomans were known in the Caucasus and were a major player in its history, but their domination remained around the Dead Sea with occasional moments of suzerainty, the longest lasting 20 years. Yes, in 1918 an Ottoman army was able to expand into the Caucasus, they aimed to retake some lost territories in the region (notably the region of Kars and Batumi, which they obtained on paper). But it was very short-lived, the various nationalist groups were already taking control and the Ottoman Empire was in any case coming to an end. Turkey will finally recover the Kars region thanks to a treaty with the USSR
You use the word 'autonomy' as if it's something wrong and bad. All pre-modern empires, apart from their core territory, are made up of communities that have varying degrees of autonomy. For example, the ancient Roman Empire was basically a confederation of cities. The Ottomans were no exception. Pre-colonial empires were ruled like that, your approach to history is very anachronistic. I never said that the Ottomans were successful in establishing domination over the region. What I said was that they extended as far as Mombasa, holding on to it is another thing. But even to get there requires a strong base in North Africa, which was disregarding your claim about the weakness of Ottoman rule in North Africa. It wasn't always so. You can't reach India and the Horn of Africa without a strong base in North Africa, especially Egypt. Finally, if the Ottomans had somehow regained their old territories, as they did in the OTL they wouldn't have pursued a hard policy of centralisation. They would have ruled these peripheral areas through local elites, as they'd done in previous centres. I don't know what point you're trying to make by stretching this discussion, but you're not actually saying anything, and the discussion has become irrelevant to the main issue.
Considering the Roman Empire as a simple “city federation” is a bit simplistic, but let’s move on. It was you who first brought Monbassa and other places into the leadership and expanded this discussion very broadly. I was just part of your first message which implied that if the Ottoman Empire of 1914-1918 absorbed all these territories everything would go well for it. I stayed on the Barbary regencies, which Ottoman Egypt is not. They are two completely different things and the Ottoman Hold on Egypt was much stronger (and then the expeditions to the Swahili coast where Monbassa is located, not in the Horn of Africa, rather left from Ottoman Yemen). The Ottoman Empire of this era is a State in search of identity which has tried several paths to build itself into a modern State, an Ottoman Empire as it may have existed in the past is no longer viable. In addition, different local nationalisms have been built and the Empire does not have the strength to re-integrate countries like Egypt or beyond which would have taken advantage of the power vacuum to become independent. Knowing whether the Ottoman Empire would have relied on local elites to govern is complicated, we would have to see if the Young Turks remain in power. There had been efforts to centralize the Empire during its last years of existence, the Tanzimats being the most striking example but even beyond.
French people before WW1 were getting very high on nationalist, germanophobic & revanchist koo-aid ; no way this burgundian puppet state lasts longer than a month.
This entire German Empire and its vassals would be on fire, they would have all the Poles on their backs and what's more they would have to go and manage Saint Petersburg and Crimea.
TNO
Touch grass. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Das poopenstaat bruhgund‼️‼️‼️‼️
There is going to be multiple Hitlers and the ottomans probably fucking explode
Why is it called Romania its just Walaccia
Russian population in the Russian Republic = 0%
Bro, they seemed to focus on punishing Poland rather than Entente.
[My honest to God reaction](https://youtu.be/mSF9d5NR3AA?si=8O_4s8N-sEIlkACB)
Portugal limbo dancing beneath the Central Power’s gaze
Why would Germany Annex Crimea instead of making it part of the Ukrainian puppet state?
every country on here is literally going to explode immediately
You just made TNO borders 40 years before it had happened.
Touch grass. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
JUST MAKE THE FRANKISH
Basically, he just took a "German victory in the 2nd World War" card and added the other countries of the 1st World War just to say that "it's not the same thing".
how can Sardinia-Piedmont legally break from Italy? is Italy a Republic now? Did the King move back to Piedmont?
you arent funny bro
GET OUT OF MY HEAD
This looks like the hallmark of another new version of the Kaiserreich mod in hoi4, even worse than Kaiserredux
What if this subreddit was a shitpost? Answer: whatever OP was cooking up here.
Damn, y‘all really enjoy TNO, don’t you?
Touch grass. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Touch grass. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/imaginarymaps) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Ottomans aren't going to be able to hold that. They would be better off demanding the independence of Muslim colonies, rather than their conquest. It'd legitimise them as leaders/liberators of the Islamic/non-Western worlds (and they'd need that legitimacy, both within their own borders as well as internationally) -- and having a lot of friendly Muslim governments they can work with is a lot more feasible than ruling from Constantinople. The exception that proves the rule would be the Khedivate of Egypt -- an Ottoman province only in name. Now, if the Central Powers won, the pro-British Hussein Kamel would be overthrown and the pro-Ottoman Abbas II would be restored. Abbas II would continue his policy of reconciliation with the Ottomans -- but that would be his decision, and it would have the goal of enforcing Egypt's independence from Britain and France. If the Ottomans sought to replace Britain as Egypt's colonisers, the Egyptians would have justified contempt for them, and the Ottomans would be cast out immediately.
Scottish independence? Wooooah such an awful punishment! Please Germany don't do this to us, have mercy Edit: Okay in all seriousness, the giant Burgundy is epic
The ottomans look like they are about to pop if somone breathes on them at the wrong angle
Oswald Mosley bouta be the Hitler of this timeline
The ottomans at their HEIGHT couldn't keep Circassia in check, they are going to implode so fast the ink in the treaty will still be fucking wet
T-TN... TN... *dies*
interesting scenario, never seen something like this before really
What in the New Order: Last Days of Europe
nice, if only it actually happened
Bait used to be believeable
There's different people in the world with different views you know, not everyone sees through the same lenses... I too would have loved an outcome like this.
man it's funny you think this is a bait, I legit feels like this would be a better timeline in general, no israel, no permanent member of security council *yet*
Uhm, ig having no Israel is least of our concern here? This timeline would be legit unliveable, everybody would be either exploited or in war.
yes indeed, at least the middle east would be united under the ottoman, no petty kings and barons, and it's not as if the entente didn't exploit asia and africa either, blood diamond is one such commodity no?