PC: An Ottoman conquest of Saudi Arabia?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,537
SoCal
#1
Would it have been plausible for a surviving Ottoman Empire (for instance, let's say there is either no WWI, a WWI where the Ottomans join and the CPs win, or a WWI where the Ottomans stay out and thus survive regardless of which side wins) to conquer Saudi Arabia at some point in time?

If so, what would the Ottomans have done with Saudi Arabia and its extremely massive oil reserves afterwards?

Also, would the Ottomans have eventually aimed to expand further in this scenario--for instance, going after Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait, et cetera once the British Empire begins to weaken and the British begin to seriously consider decolonization?

In addition to this, would a surviving Ottoman Empire have aimed to regather its former territories in North Africa--in large part through persuasion--once decolonization becomes a serious movement there?

Any thoughts on this?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,537
SoCal
#3
They could have a large impact on WWII as they would stronger than our turkey was.
If they opposed the Germans in the Balkans there could have resulted in Barbarosa being postponed for a year.
I don't think that the Ottomans would have been willing to militarily oppose Germany in the Balkans. Rather, they would have probably remained neutral due to their belief that neutrality was in their best interests.
 
Apr 2017
972
U.S.A.
#4
Saudi Arabia wasn't formed as it is now till years after WW1. At the time oil hadn't been discovered and it was largely useless desert with some holy cities. Now say later when oil had been discovered, who know? Any event that would weaken the British empire with decolonization would also have the same effect on the Ottoman empire. The Arabs would rebel against Turkish rule and the turks wouldn't have the resources to hold such vast and distant territory.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,537
SoCal
#5
Saudi Arabia wasn't formed as it is now till years after WW1. At the time oil hadn't been discovered and it was largely useless desert with some holy cities. Now say later when oil had been discovered, who know? Any event that would weaken the British empire with decolonization would also have the same effect on the Ottoman empire. The Arabs would rebel against Turkish rule and the turks wouldn't have the resources to hold such vast and distant territory.
Being ruled by fellow Muslims might be more tolerable than being ruled by infidels, though. For instance, look at Afghanistan. There were no large-scale separatist movements there to my knowledge in spite of the fact that the Pashtuns could be said to be colonizers just like various European countries were elsewhere.
 
Apr 2017
972
U.S.A.
#6
Being ruled by fellow Muslims might be more tolerable than being ruled by infidels, though. For instance, look at Afghanistan. There were no large-scale separatist movements there to my knowledge in spite of the fact that the Pashtuns could be said to be colonizers just like various European countries were elsewhere.
The arabs rebelled during WW1, they had had enough of Ottoman rule. Afghanistan is constantly in internal violence. The Tajik, Turkmen, Uzbeks and Hazari are in conflict with the Pashtun majority. Afghanistan doesn't have separatism because their content to kill each other in country. All the groups of Afghanistan could be said to be recent. The Turkmens and Uzbeks are Turkic, so they got there about 1000-1500 years ago; the Hazaris are said to be descended from the Mongols; The Pashtuns and Tajiks are Iranian peoples so they only got there a few thousand years ago.
 
Jan 2017
571
UK
#7
Ottoman Empire was haemorrhaging territory during the 1800s and early 1910s in the Balkan Wars, racked up large amounts of debt to the European Powers too, so it's hard to see them going off to conquer the rest of the Arabian Peninsula which would've been difficult due to the desert terrain with little reward at the time (oil wasn't discovered in Saudi Arabia until the 1930s).

In 1903 Germany started building the Berlin-Baghdad railway looking to challenge British influence in the region, particularly the Suez Canal and by extension British rule in India. British would've opposed any threat to their position as supreme naval power. It's hard to see the Ottomans achieving their goal without outside help; it would've simultaneously brought in outside opposition.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,537
SoCal
#8
Ottoman Empire was haemorrhaging territory during the 1800s and early 1910s in the Balkan Wars, racked up large amounts of debt to the European Powers too, so it's hard to see them going off to conquer the rest of the Arabian Peninsula which would've been difficult due to the desert terrain with little reward at the time (oil wasn't discovered in Saudi Arabia until the 1930s).
I was thinking of having the Ottomans do this after oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia.

In 1903 Germany started building the Berlin-Baghdad railway looking to challenge British influence in the region, particularly the Suez Canal and by extension British rule in India. British would've opposed any threat to their position as supreme naval power. It's hard to see the Ottomans achieving their goal without outside help; it would've simultaneously brought in outside opposition.
Had WWI been delayed long enough, it's possible that Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire would have all allied together to protect themselves from the threat of a rising Russia. This could have given the Ottomans the necessary help in regards to achieving this.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,537
SoCal
#9
The arabs rebelled during WW1, they had had enough of Ottoman rule.
That was because the British promised to support them in their efforts to create a giant independent Arab state. Who's going to be supporting them in this scenario?

Afghanistan is constantly in internal violence. The Tajik, Turkmen, Uzbeks and Hazari are in conflict with the Pashtun majority. Afghanistan doesn't have separatism because their content to kill each other in country.
Why exactly are the different ethnic groups in Afghanistan content to kill each other in the same country, though?

All the groups of Afghanistan could be said to be recent. The Turkmens and Uzbeks are Turkic, so they got there about 1000-1500 years ago; the Hazaris are said to be descended from the Mongols; The Pashtuns and Tajiks are Iranian peoples so they only got there a few thousand years ago.
That's still a very long time from a historical perspective, though. 1000 years ago was the Middle Ages.
 
Apr 2017
972
U.S.A.
#10
That was because the British promised to support them in their efforts to create a giant independent Arab state. Who's going to be supporting them in this scenario?



Why exactly are the different ethnic groups in Afghanistan content to kill each other in the same country, though?



That's still a very long time from a historical perspective, though. 1000 years ago was the Middle Ages.
They'd rebel on their own if need be. If for some reason Britain wouldn't support them, then France, Germany, Iran or some external power that wanted to weaken the Otttomans would.
Same as Bosnia, they don't get along and each want to dominate the country.
Genocidal feuds inspire long memories, the peoples of the Balkans still argue about stuff that happened in the middle ages.
 
Likes: Futurist

Similar History Discussions