• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Alternate History General Discussion

I have seen it argued that they came close to winning both.
For the former, "Osman Pasha organized a defense and repelled two Russian attacks with colossal casualties on the Russian side. At that point, the sides were almost equal in numbers and the Russian army was very discouraged.[36] Most analysts agree that a counter-attack would have allowed the Ottomans to gain control of, and destroy, the Russians' bridge.[who?] However, Osman Pasha had orders to stay fortified in Plevna, and so he did not leave that fortress."
For the latter, the world was shocked at the Ottoman defeat.

The former hinges on the Ottoman army being competent at this point which sorry but no and the latter,well,it was mostly because the world at large wasn’t aware of the state of the Ottoman army and thought that they could do the bare minimum required by an empire in this period.
 
The former hinges on the Ottoman army being competent at this point which sorry but no and the latter,well,it was mostly because the world at large wasn’t aware of the state of the Ottoman army and thought that they could do the bare minimum required by an empire in this period.

Could you, please, expand on the former?
 
Could you, please, expand on the former?
They kept underestimating the Russians to ridiculous points at times and people like Osman just blindly followed orders and had no real military initiative. Combined with many uprisings and most of their fleet in the Danube being sunk,the odds weren’t good for them to put it mildly. If not for the intervention of Britain and France things would have been worse and the Empire would have probably fallen earlier.
 
They kept underestimating the Russians to ridiculous points at times and people like Osman just blindly followed orders and had no real military initiative. Combined with many uprisings and most of their fleet in the Danube being sunk,the odds weren’t good for them to put it mildly. If not for the intervention of Britain and France things would have been worse and the Empire would have probably fallen earlier.

If the orders had been different or Osman had defied them, though, the Ottomans could have won, though.
 
I'm prepared to believe that the Ottomans could have won the war in 1876 if enough things had changed over the past decade; after all, one of the assumptions there is that 'late Tsarist Russia sends idiot generals and a poorly managed army' which isn't, you know, out of the question.

But it's like Hapsburg or Qing survival. That was possible; my supervisor used to stress that it wasn't clear that the Aisin-Goro were on their way out until the Revolution actually exploded around them, no matter how obvious that seems now.

But just because something could have happened- just because you can make a good story or even a plausible timeline out of it- doesn't mean it was likely to happen, or just as plausible an outcome as OTL.

I think there's a weird sense in the Alternate History community that very little needed to change to save those empires- or Brazil, or the Hohenzollerns, or get a Bourbon restoration etc.

You need to recognise that you either have to handwave it, which is perfectly fine. Or you need to do the serious work to show the chain of events that leads to their survival.

There are moments, despite what we like to think, where 'for want of a nail' just doesn't cut it.
 
I'm prepared to believe that the Ottomans could have won the war in 1876 if enough things had changed over the past decade; after all, one of the assumptions there is that 'late Tsarist Russia sends idiot generals and a poorly managed army' which isn't, you know, out of the question.

But it's like Hapsburg or Qing survival. That was possible; my supervisor used to stress that it wasn't clear that the Aisin-Goro were on their way out until the Revolution actually exploded around them, no matter how obvious that seems now.

But just because something could have happened- just because you can make a good story or even a plausible timeline out of it- doesn't mean it was likely to happen, or just as plausible an outcome as OTL.

I think there's a weird sense in the Alternate History community that very little needed to change to save those empires- or Brazil, or the Hohenzollerns, or get a Bourbon restoration etc.

You need to recognise that you either have to handwave it, which is perfectly fine. Or you need to do the serious work to show the chain of events that leads to their survival.

There are moments, despite what we like to think, where 'for want of a nail' just doesn't cut it.
I wrote an essay on a similar subject, albeit on a different historical situation, that might be useful here.
 
You need to recognise that you either have to handwave it, which is perfectly fine. Or you need to do the serious work to show the chain of events that leads to their survival.

I like to call these the "Team Yankee/Red Army Approach" (handwaving) and the "Larry Bond Approach" (justifying). In this case, it's conventional World War IIIs. I still greatly prefer the former, but I can understand the latter in some cases. For instance, in Red Phoenix he knows very well that the North Koreans don't stand a chance if the southerners have external help, so he creates a situation where the invasion can be understandable (ie, the south's military government angers the Americans and it looks like they're cutting them off).
 
I'm prepared to believe that the Ottomans could have won the war in 1876 if enough things had changed over the past decade; after all, one of the assumptions there is that 'late Tsarist Russia sends idiot generals and a poorly managed army' which isn't, you know, out of the question.

But it's like Hapsburg or Qing survival. That was possible; my supervisor used to stress that it wasn't clear that the Aisin-Goro were on their way out until the Revolution actually exploded around them, no matter how obvious that seems now.

But just because something could have happened- just because you can make a good story or even a plausible timeline out of it- doesn't mean it was likely to happen, or just as plausible an outcome as OTL.

I think there's a weird sense in the Alternate History community that very little needed to change to save those empires- or Brazil, or the Hohenzollerns, or get a Bourbon restoration etc.

You need to recognise that you either have to handwave it, which is perfectly fine. Or you need to do the serious work to show the chain of events that leads to their survival.

There are moments, despite what we like to think, where 'for want of a nail' just doesn't cut it.

Sorry for being pedantic, but the war was in 1877-78, not 1876.
 
I'm prepared to believe that the Ottomans could have won the war in 1876 if enough things had changed over the past decade; after all, one of the assumptions there is that 'late Tsarist Russia sends idiot generals and a poorly managed army' which isn't, you know, out of the question.

But it's like Hapsburg or Qing survival. That was possible; my supervisor used to stress that it wasn't clear that the Aisin-Goro were on their way out until the Revolution actually exploded around them, no matter how obvious that seems now.

But just because something could have happened- just because you can make a good story or even a plausible timeline out of it- doesn't mean it was likely to happen, or just as plausible an outcome as OTL.

I think there's a weird sense in the Alternate History community that very little needed to change to save those empires- or Brazil, or the Hohenzollerns, or get a Bourbon restoration etc.

You need to recognise that you either have to handwave it, which is perfectly fine. Or you need to do the serious work to show the chain of events that leads to their survival.

There are moments, despite what we like to think, where 'for want of a nail' just doesn't cut it.
One thing I've noticed is that AH tends to either be all or nothing on this. Either an empire just needs one roll of the dice to go differently and it lasts till the modern day, or it was doomed, doomed, doomed and only a POD in the distant past can save it. I'm also sure it's a coincidence that the former tends to be European empires (plus China and Japan) while the latter tend to be from the places European empires colonized.
 
Last edited:
One thing I've noticed is that AH tends to either be all or nothing on this. Either an empire just needs on roll of the dice to go differently and it lasts till the modern day, or it was doomed, doomed, doomed and only a POD in the distant past can save it. I'm also sure it's a coincidence that the former tends to be European empires (plus China and Japan) while the latter tend to be from the places European empires colonized.

It's easy to see why considering how successful European imperialism was.
Which of the categories is the Ottoman Empire usually seen as, BTW? Also, do you consider it European or not?
 
I always call the Ottomans a European empire (in articles about the scramble for instance) but that is not because I have considered it deeply and have decided that's the accurate description but more because I know it annoys the kind of people who I think are worth annoying and continents are pretty arbitrary anyway.

Also the Mahdists called European imperialists 'Turks' on the basis that the ottomans were the first empire of that type they encountered and if you can't rely on Sudanese Jihadist Slavers for an insight into European geopolitics, I don't know you can trust.
 
I always call the Ottomans a European empire (in articles about the scramble for instance) but that is not because I have considered it deeply and have decided that's the accurate description but more because I know it annoys the kind of people who I think are worth annoying and continents are pretty arbitrary anyway.

Also the Mahdists called European imperialists 'Turks' on the basis that the ottomans were the first empire of that type they encountered and if you can't rely on Sudanese Jihadist Slavers for an insight into European geopolitics, I don't know you can trust.
I’m reminded of an anecdote I think I read on Reddit - a Sudanese black man is asked whether he thinks whites or Arabs do worse to him - he is confused by the question. It is revealed that he views Arabs and Europeans both as being white.
 
Last edited:
With the Ottomans, it depends on your perspective. If you're a Balkan historian, they're a European empire because that's where their power base was for most of their reign, and arguably where the truly decisive foreign policy objectives were located (Egypt and Persia you say? Shaddup.)

If you're interested in Asia, then the Ottomans are Asian, and you talk about them as a gunpowder empire ala the Safavids and Mughals, part of a recognisable pattern. You hark on their continuity with earlier Turkic empires, and dismiss the Balkans and indeed the Mediterranean as a great white elephant that continually pulled the Sublime Porte away from its natural heartlands.

If you're wearing a puffy shirt and have a laudanum problem, you don't care where they're from so long as you get to paint pictures of what you think goes on in the harem.


Global history? Get out of here.
 
Last edited:
It's because of the fact the genre is filled with Imperial Apolgists who wink and nudge about it not being racial.

I don't like this kind of discussion, but you do get a lot of discussion about Ottoman, Chinese and Japanese Empires. IMO, the reason for it being less so than European Empires is that there are fewer people who are knowledgeable about them.
 
I'm prepared to believe that the Ottomans could have won the war in 1876 if enough things had changed over the past decade; after all, one of the assumptions there is that 'late Tsarist Russia sends idiot generals and a poorly managed army' which isn't, you know, out of the question.

But it's like Hapsburg or Qing survival. That was possible; my supervisor used to stress that it wasn't clear that the Aisin-Goro were on their way out until the Revolution actually exploded around them, no matter how obvious that seems now.

But just because something could have happened- just because you can make a good story or even a plausible timeline out of it- doesn't mean it was likely to happen, or just as plausible an outcome as OTL.

I think there's a weird sense in the Alternate History community that very little needed to change to save those empires- or Brazil, or the Hohenzollerns, or get a Bourbon restoration etc.

You need to recognise that you either have to handwave it, which is perfectly fine. Or you need to do the serious work to show the chain of events that leads to their survival.

There are moments, despite what we like to think, where 'for want of a nail' just doesn't cut it.

Do you not think the Ottomans could have won the First Balkans War?
 
I don't like this kind of discussion, but you do get a lot of discussion about Ottoman, Chinese and Japanese Empires. IMO, the reason for it being less so than European Empires is that there are fewer people who are knowledgeable about them.
You've said before you don't believe it's racism but simply pushing for the planet to be caved up overwhelmingly by European Imperial Powers even with one or two exceptions tends to absolutely let people run wild with racist fantasies.

Yes it would take a lot for things to go differently, but overwhelming amounts of creativity and effort are put in by people in the community to have the Condederates or Apolitical Post Hitler Germany Army win WWII or for Luxemborg to have its border moved 100 meters south. The fact that barely any works (Male Rising aside) consider different alternatives to Imperialism besides what space is colored what, or how to carve out another White Dominion or how to avoid the Suez Crisis points to trends.

I don't like that those are the trends. But they very clearly are.
 
You've said before you don't believe it's racism but simply pushing for the planet to be caved up overwhelmingly by European Imperial Powers even with one or two exceptions tends to absolutely let people run wild with racist fantasies.

Yes it would take a lot for things to go differently, but overwhelming amounts of creativity and effort are put in by people in the community to have the Condederates or Apolitical Post Hitler Germany Army win WWII or for Luxemborg to have its border moved 100 meters south. The fact that barely any works (Male Rising aside) consider different alternatives to Imperialism besides what space is colored what, or how to carve out another White Dominion or how to avoid the Suez Crisis points to trends.

I don't like that those are the trends. But they very clearly are.

As I said, I don't like this kind of discussion.
Anyways, what do you mean by Luxembourg moving its borders south? I am unaware of such discussions.
 
Back
Top