What if the Ottomans had survived?

In 1913, the Ottoman Ministry of War launched a nationwide boycott of Christian shops, calling it an “economic holy war.” We are accustomed to thinking of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire as an inevitable end, as if it were the fate of the so-called “sick man of Europe.” But history was not already written: according to scholars such as Donald Quataert and Hasan Kayali, the decline was exaggerated, and the collapse was by no means predestined. If the Ottoman leadership had stayed out of World War I, or if its allies had won, the empire could have survived. Mustafa Aksakal, a historian at Georgetown University, challenges this conventional wisdom: in his view, the Ottomans were by no means doomed by separatist pressures or religious tensions. The real cause was a series of catastrophic mistakes and the devastating impact of the global conflict. “A different future for the Empire was possible, one that would have kept alive the history of a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society.” But what was Ottoman society really like on the eve of the war? Ussama Makdisi describes an Ottoman modernity fraught with contradictions: on the one hand, the promise of a multi-ethnic and multi-religious sovereign future; on the other, the fear of a world without minorities. One name that stands out is Ahmed Rıza: at the height of the Armenian genocide, he rose in the Senate to protest, citing the Ottoman constitution, but was ignored. That gesture reveals the extent to which Ottoman society was still riven by deep tensions. Let’s fast-forward to 1908: the Constitutional Revolution, as recounted by Michelle Campos, sought to create an inclusive civic identity. Did it work? Only for a short time. The following year, 30,000 Armenians were killed in Adana. In the Balkans, between 1912 and 1913, the empire lost nearly all of its European territories. These traumas convinced many Ottoman leaders that Christians would always be an internal threat. Thus arose the temptation to “cleanse” strategic territories: in 1914, a campaign of violence against the Greeks of the Aegean began. Yet, during the same period, the empire undertook liberal political experiments and discussed a dual Turkish-Arab future similar to Austria-Hungary. Arabism grew, but the majority of Arabs remained loyal to the empire until the end, as evidenced by the careers of military figures such as Nuri al-Said, the future Prime Minister of Iraq, who joined the Arab revolt only after British captivity. Even Faisal, the leader of the revolt, claimed to be rebelling against specific abuses, not against the very idea of the empire. And here comes the surprising fact: if the empire had survived, it would probably have maintained a multi-ethnic society, but one that was much less multi-religious. Turks, Arabs, and Kurds might have enjoyed equal rights and official recognition, but many Christian regions would still have been lost or emptied. Even before the war, religion had become the true criterion of belonging. In the best-case scenario, the survival of the Ottoman Empire would have meant an Islamic federation with local autonomies, perhaps similar to the Soviet Union but “held together by Islam” rather than by communism. Was this an inevitable choice? Not quite: Ottoman centralization itself, by sending Turkish officials to Arab territories, had already fueled nationalism and local resentment. Even democratic reforms, such as the establishment of a parliament, sparked debates about which languages to use: coexistence was a daily struggle. An interesting parallel is the story of the birth and partition of Pakistan, which began as a multi-ethnic Muslim state and ended up divided into Pakistan and Bangladesh after a civil war. Perhaps a surviving Ottoman Empire would have met a similar fate, with the loss of its Arab territories and the emergence of a republic reduced to Turkey. There is one perspective that is still little discussed: even without world wars, external pressures would have persisted. Russia and Britain would never have stopped meddling, perhaps by supporting local uprisings or intervening militarily. Therefore, the real question that remains is not “what would have happened” but “when and how the same tensions we see today in the Middle East would have reignited.” Coexistence was not impossible, but once divisions have ignited, it becomes nearly impossible to turn back. The alternative history of the Ottomans does not offer any magic solutions, but it does remind us that often the choice is merely between several lesser evils. What we believe to be “inevitable” is often not inevitable at all. If you found this possibility of a Middle East that remained under Ottoman rule compelling, you can press I'm In on Lara Notes—this way, this perspective becomes part of your way of looking at history. And if this idea sparks a discussion with someone, you can mark the moment with Shared Offline: on Lara Notes, this is the way to say that a conversation like this was worth remembering. This in-depth feature comes from Foreign Policy, and by listening to it here, you have saved about 18 minutes compared to reading the original article.