Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Defensible borders in the 19th century
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
csw View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 19-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19 		  Quote csw Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Defensible borders in the 19th century
    Posted: 19-Feb-2009 at 17:01

I'm interested to know which features on maps diplomats and politians looked for in creating borders of their states and colonies in the 19th century. Obviously they'd like to have as much as possible, but that's not always the case.

For instance, I have heard that the borders of Africa drawn up largely at the Berlin Conference, were drwn to suit the needs and desires of the European powers. But how was this done? By rivers, by latitudes, by mountain ranges? Was there horse trading (quid pro quo exchanges between the powers)?
 
Here's another question: is their a chart of beaches in the Levant where the Allies COULD have gone instead of or after Gaillipoli? Were the Turks capable of defending all these beacheads? Cause it seems to me Gallipoli is a defended position because of it's vitalness, but some beach near Beriut might make an excellent start for a quasi Island-Hopping campaign, where the Allies can use their absolute sea superiority to strike the Turks where weak, while keeping their men well supplied  and cutiing off Ottoman replentishment. Note: I'm not presenting an alternate scenario, simply wondering what the thinking and capacities of the time were.
 
To be honest I'm trying to build an alternbate history stroy from which to write in, but for the sake of accuracy, I'd like to know how best to apply the thinking of the era to justify the political descisions and such.
 
This could go in AH, but I'm asking it here because I want to cast a wide as net as possible and enliven the debate in other areas by asking question that are actually pertinent to our understanding of this world's actual history. If I have failed at that, please, tell me so and if possible why. Anyway, help is much appriciated. Thanks!
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2009 at 20:18
Originally posted by csw

Here's another question: is their a chart of beaches in the Levant where the Allies COULD have gone instead of or after Gaillipoli? Were the Turks capable of defending all these beacheads? Cause it seems to me Gallipoli is a defended position because of it's vitalness, but some beach near Beriut might make an excellent start for a quasi Island-Hopping campaign, where the Allies can use their absolute sea superiority to strike the Turks where weak, while keeping their men well supplied  and cutiing off Ottoman replentishment. Note: I'm not presenting an alternate scenario, simply wondering what the thinking and capacities of the time were.
The idea was to strike quickly at Istanbul, and that demanded forcing a passage through the Dardanelles. Otherwise I don't think any consideration was given to seaborne landings anywhere else on the mainland, and all the Dodecanese islands, Crete and Cyprus were already in Allied hands. Instead the strategy was simply to strike through the Arab countries - Mesopotamia and Palestine - where there was some hope of support from the indigenous peoples, leaving it to the Russians to come in from the Caucasus.
 
Given the demonstrated quality of Turkish troops I can't see that a land campaign anywhere else would have been terribly successful.
 
(In theory I suppose there could have been an attack on Istanbul from Greek territory, but Greece was terribly divided on which side to support in the war, with the King favouring the Central Powers and the Prime Minister Venizelos favouring the Allies, and public opinion swaying from one side to the other. A few French and British troops were landed in Macedonia in 1915, but later, with the country in or on the brink of civil war, the Allies blockaded the country to force the King to give up and leave the country, so that in 1917 Greece did finally join the Allies. But it was a bit late then. Gaining Greece didn't make up for losinig Russia.)
 
I don't know what you have in mind for a story, but it occurs to me that a novel set in Greece 1914-17 would have a lot of scope for imaginative espionage trickery.
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 19-Feb-2009 at 20:19
Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1028 		  Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2009 at 21:31
Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by csw

Here's another question: is their a chart of beaches in the Levant where the Allies COULD have gone instead of or after Gaillipoli? Were the Turks capable of defending all these beacheads? Cause it seems to me Gallipoli is a defended position because of it's vitalness, but some beach near Beriut might make an excellent start for a quasi Island-Hopping campaign, where the Allies can use their absolute sea superiority to strike the Turks where weak, while keeping their men well supplied  and cutiing off Ottoman replentishment. Note: I'm not presenting an alternate scenario, simply wondering what the thinking and capacities of the time were.
The idea was to strike quickly at Istanbul, and that demanded forcing a passage through the Dardanelles. Otherwise I don't think any consideration was given to seaborne landings anywhere else on the mainland, and all the Dodecanese islands, Crete and Cyprus were already in Allied hands. Instead the strategy was simply to strike through the Arab countries - Mesopotamia and Palestine - where there was some hope of support from the indigenous peoples, leaving it to the Russians to come in from the Caucasus.
 
Given the demonstrated quality of Turkish troops I can't see that a land campaign anywhere else would have been terribly successful.
 
(In theory I suppose there could have been an attack on Istanbul from Greek territory, but Greece was terribly divided on which side to support in the war, with the King favouring the Central Powers and the Prime Minister Venizelos favouring the Allies, and public opinion swaying from one side to the other. A few French and British troops were landed in Macedonia in 1915, but later, with the country in or on the brink of civil war, the Allies blockaded the country to force the King to give up and leave the country, so that in 1917 Greece did finally join the Allies. But it was a bit late then. Gaining Greece didn't make up for losinig Russia.)
 
I don't know what you have in mind for a story, but it occurs to me that a novel set in Greece 1914-17 would have a lot of scope for imaginative espionage trickery.
 

Greece didn't have land borders with turkey at the time. Western Thrace belonged top Bulgaria. At the time of the Gallipoli attack, Bulgaria was still neutral.
Still, the allies were not in position to defeat Bulgaria (as the Macedonian campaign proved), especially when combined with German troops (who were present in Macedonia) and of course the Ottomans. Attacking from Greece towards Constantinople would need some 400km for the allies to advance, crossing in the mean time several rivers. That would be really difficult I think, even if Greece participated with her army.
A landing on Asia Minor on the other hand would be easier, but still, Constantinople lies in the european side.

Defeat allows no explanation
Victory needs none.
It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly.
Back to Top
csw View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 19-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19 		  Quote csw Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2009 at 21:58
Well, that's the thing gentlemen. This is a situation that needs "Strategery." Getting Constantinople will help win the war but what about the peace? In this, I figure there's a couple of things to consider: 1. Possession is 9/10ths of the law, especially in peace negotiations. 2. Constantinople is not one of those cases (everyone wants it.) Here's my scenario in plainest and simplest terms:
 
Italy controls and maintains the loyalty of Albania and Greece plus Cyprus, Tunisia and it''s historical holdings. The Italians don't WANT COnstantinople, at least not yet, because they will have to fight harder with their allies to keep it than with the Turks to take it. They want to take as much of the Ottoman state for themselves as possible. As such, cutting off the British in the ME is more important that knocking Turkey out of the war. In the end I want Italy to make firm landings in Lebanon and Syria, advancing into Cilicia as the war ends. They then fight a long war with Ataturk, wherein, they crush him and the Turkish nation totally and keep them subjugated to the present day.
Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355 		  Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2009 at 14:23
Allies actually tried to force the Dardanelles by navy only, but lost a few ships and figured that they had to secure it from the land. Turks won the land war with German help. It was actually a daring plan on the Allied side, and made strategic sense. By a direct strike on Istanbul they hope to knock out Ottomans from the war and would be able to send help to Russia by sea. I think their mistake was that they underestimated the Turkish military, which was perfectly understandable, given that army's pathetic performance in the Balkan wars just a few years ago. I have written in other threads where the difference between the two performances came from in other threads so won't elaborate now.

Italy controls and maintains the loyalty of Albania and Greece plus Cyprus, Tunisia and it''s historical holdings. The Italians don't WANT COnstantinople, at least not yet, because they will have to fight harder with their allies to keep it than with the Turks to take it. They want to take as much of the Ottoman state for themselves as possible. As such, cutting off the British in the ME is more important that knocking Turkey out of the war. In the end I want Italy to make firm landings in Lebanon and Syria, advancing into Cilicia as the war ends. They then fight a long war with Ataturk, wherein, they crush him and the Turkish nation totally and keep them subjugated to the present day.
There are big problems with this scenario.

1. Italians were not a major player in the levant. Remains of the Ottoman Empire were to be divided between Britain, France and Russia. Italians were promised limited holdings in Anatolia, which were later reduced further, and given to Greeks instead (who were not controlled by Italy in WW1, I think you are confused with the World Wars)  

2. Italy had no bases near Lebanon and Syria to make large scale landings. It makes no sense for the allies to land in those places anyway, because the British controlled Kuwait and Persia and Egypt at the time anyway. They just attacked from the land. The reasonbehind the Gallipoli landings was, as explained above, their objective of capturing Istanbul. If you land in Lebanon, you have to go thousands of km and pass rivers and mountains and defensible narrow terrain and a stretch of the sea before reaching Istanbul. Makes no sense. Just look at a map of 1914...

Originally posted by Graham

I don't know what you have in mind for a story, but it occurs to me that a novel set in Greece 1914-17 would have a lot of scope for imaginative espionage trickery.
Yes, interesting setting. Interesting later on as well, ,with the Greco-Turkish war. Some amazing things happened there. Greek King died because of... monkey bites, for instance. Where did he find monkeys in Greece and managed to get bitten and died from it, I don't know (wiki says he was attacked by the monkeys in the palace gardens and was wounded as he fought them!). Amazing. If you wrote a book like that, I guess people would have said it was unrealistic. Then again if you wrote a book about a Black man called Hussein being the American president, they would not have believed it either. Sometimes the reality really is stranger than fiction. Hence my signature, in a way. 


Edited by Beylerbeyi - 20-Feb-2009 at 14:28
Back to Top
csw View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 19-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19 		  Quote csw Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2009 at 19:18
Beylerbeyi, while I can't dispute anything you said, I think we've had a gross miscommincation. The problem, from my vantage point, is that you and the other posters are thinking like generals, not like statesmen (or even run-of-the-mill politicians). This is not a question of winning the war, but about winning the peace (or piece in this case). What good is it for the Allies to win for Italy if their gains are paltry? It does them no good, which is one reason that fed Mussolinni's rise to power in the early 20s in our world. 
 
Everything I've ever read indicates that all major members of the Entente (cum Allied Powers) where constantly bickering and at each other's throats. Russia demanded Constantinople for various reasons and the British government would only let them have it reluctantly, but would have prefered the city and the whole Dardenelles free, dimilitarized zone under Brithish suzerenty, which didn't work out when tried due to Ataturk.
 
So then, let us look at Allied desires in the levant. Britian is always land hungy, but is involved more or less to secure access to three things: the Suez Canal, the oil fields of Persia, and after Balfour, Palestine for a Jewish homeland. They have no interest in Syria and Turkey, which is why they pulled out of there so fast in the latter and gave the French the former as a kind of booby prize. Russia wants warm water access for its navy and merchant marine, France has no real interest in the region at this point. Now we come to Italy. In our world, Italy has no real vested interest in the region, but the world I am building is not ours. My world's Italy styles itself the (third) Roman Empire, but it started out as the Papal States with the refugee Paleologi family as puppet Emperors. As such, this state has a very highly developed interest in controlling these reasons for both restorative and protective ends (reclaiming Rome's borders and protecting local Christians, especially Uniate ones, from persecution).
 
Here's a map to justify my thinking:
 
Rome (Italy) is in green. The Roman War Office has decided that a direct confrontation with Austria would be...counterporductive and a waste of resources. And furthermore, knocking Turkey out of the war is the LAST thing they want. An early victory over the Turks will allow Britian to dictate peace terms on THEIR terms. No, the Senate (parliment) and the Emperors want Turkey to sqeal for a while, while they carve out as much territory for themselves as possible. They will avoid Biriths sectors of influence while cutting off their erstwhile allies venue of advance. To that end, the Roman army will fient attack the Austrians in the Capetto valley, while reinforcing the Serbs to keep the Germans of both stripes out of their hair. Bulgaria will be a tough nut to crack, so using enough force to keep the Bulgars hunkered down is the optimal strategy for the moment.
 
Bases in Cyprus (retaken circa 1690), will be used to launch attacks of opputunity on various possible beachheads in Syria and/or Cilicia province, while the lighter ships of the Italian navy, possibly with sundry Anglo-French support will harass enemy supply lines that run by the sea (interdicting naval-borne supplies and blowing up any convoys on roads/rail within range of the ships guns as discovered by arial recon). Sweeping up Turkey the long way has the decided advantage that when the war ends if the British ask for territory therein, the Romans can give the British the Imperial finger, and realistically, there won't be a damn thing the Brits can do, because, as said before, possession is 9/10ths of the law, ESPECIALLY in treaty negotiations. The Romans figure they can't get Constantinople post war in any case, that will have to wait for the next war or the war after that. But patience is a virtue after all. 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2009 at 22:01
Originally posted by xristar

Greece didn't have land borders with turkey at the time. Western Thrace belonged top Bulgaria. At the time of the Gallipoli attack, Bulgaria was still neutral.
A fine point. When Bulgaria entered the war the fighting had started at Gallipoli, but was still going on. I agree you're meticulously correct to say 'at the time of the attack' Bulgaria was still neutral, but it wouldn't be true to say 'at the time of the campaign'.
Still, the allies were not in position to defeat Bulgaria (as the Macedonian campaign proved), especially when combined with German troops (who were present in Macedonia) and of course the Ottomans. Attacking from Greece towards Constantinople would need some 400km for the allies to advance, crossing in the mean time several rivers. That would be really difficult I think, even if Greece participated with her army.
I don't think it would have worked, but it would have been a better idea than attacking the mainland, say with a seaborne attack from Cyprus.

A landing on Asia Minor on the other hand would be easier,
Easier, but where do you go from there?
 but still, Constantinople lies in the european side.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394 		  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2009 at 22:09

Originally posted by csw

I'm interested to know which features on maps diplomats and politians looked for in creating borders of their states and colonies in the 19th century.

Things changed a bit in the 19th century in terms of this, instead of looking for defensible terrain (though they still did that) they also looked at logistics, ie where could they deploy troops in a hurry by river, canal, or in the latter part of the century, rail; and keep them supplied with food, ammunition, etc. 

Probably the most important and notable aspect of 19th century border arrangements, however, was the creation of buffer states. The general principle here was the same, they would have lots of time to mobilize against an apparent threat because attackers would be forced to cross through these buffer states first.

Were the Turks capable of defending all these beacheads?

I think so. Amphibious assault was poorly understood in those days and they didn't really have the technology or doctrine to pull off a seriously opposed landing. Bey would know better than I, but I would suspect that the Ottomans were well-prepared for exactly this possibility. I know that between the American Civil War and the outbreak of WW1, they had put alot of effort into building railways out to and parallel with the coastlines, not only in Anatolia but down through Syria and Palestine as well. From what I understand these were mainly built by foreign companies to get their goods to seaports, but ironically that works great for deploying troops to the coast as well. 



Edited by edgewaters - 20-Feb-2009 at 22:45
Back to Top
csw View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 19-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19 		  Quote csw Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2009 at 22:05
All that is true, but I was thinking of assaults of opportunity: strike fast, hard, and whatever the enemy does not suspect, get off the beaches as quickly as possible, seize an undefended port and ram in as many supplies/reinforcements as possible. Death from a thousand cuts and all that. Landing on relatively undefended beaches has been done for thousands of years, I don't think you need a doctrine for that.
 
But If I want to see how Africa might be divided up differently, I would want to look at a map of the RIVERS therein, correct? Possibly also a topographical map too?
 
Anyway, thanks!
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394 		  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2009 at 22:18
You didn't need a doctrine for it before railroads. The problem in the modern era is that it is very easy to vector force to a landing site and of course, there are only a few spots that are suitable for a landing by modern forces. Ancient forces could pull up a galley practically anywhere and start unloading, but modern forces need to be able to set up facilities for offloading huge amounts of supplies like ammunition etc not to mention heavy equipment (artillery and so on). Technically you could land small forces anywhere, this is what special forces do, but forcing a beachhead is alot more difficult.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221 		  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2009 at 22:42
Defensible borders (or frontiers) in Europe were either lucky or problematical.  Britain had the Channel.  France had long since lost her Rhein frontier, although she was protected by the Pyrenees and the Alps on other flanks.  Russia had no defensible borders in Europe, and was generally only protected geographically by the distances from frontiers to the heart of the Russian Empire.
 
Of the two "central powers," Austria-Hungary and Germany, Austria had better defensible frontiers in the Alps, the Carpathians, the rugged Balkans and even the "Bohemian bastion." 
 
Germany was probably the most exposed and vulnerable power, having no geographical eastern border, and having had to annex Alsace and Lorraine to strengthen their western flank against France.  The Generalstab's ill advised deconstruction of the monarchical connection with Russia after 1890 is all the more ridiculous because of this.  Strategically, Germany gave up her eastern frontier to the Austrians who could not offset the weakness of Germany's geographical position.
 
In Africa, the most important colonial area in the later 19th century, it was all about lines negotiated on maps.  Only France and Britain mattered in this area, and really only because they wound up on the same side.  Germany's ambitions were nothing but momentary expediency used by Prince Bismarck to appease domestic public opinion. 
 
The anecdote about Bismarck and Africa is revealing.  Some diplomat was describing the efficacy of African colonization to Bismarck, and was using a map of the continent.  Bismarck allegedly commented "Your map of Africa is very fine.  Here is my map of Africa:  Here is France and here is Russia, and here we are in the middle.  That is my map of Africa."
 
   
Back to Top
csw View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 19-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19 		  Quote csw Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2009 at 23:35
Originally posted by edgewaters

You didn't need a doctrine for it before railroads. The problem in the modern era is that it is very easy to vector force to a landing site and of course, there are only a few spots that are suitable for a landing by modern forces. Ancient forces could pull up a galley practically anywhere and start unloading, but modern forces need to be able to set up facilities for offloading huge amounts of supplies like ammunition etc not to mention heavy equipment (artillery and so on). Technically you could land small forces anywhere, this is what special forces do, but forcing a beachhead is alot more difficult.
 
Now this I think is more of a WWII reality than a WWI reality, especially in the Levant. Not meaning to be uppity, but as I understand it there was exactly one railway going from Baghdad to Constantinople and exactly one rail line of any note going from Anatolia to Palestine, which over time could be very useful, but the Turks would have only one means of deploying more troops or resupplying the ones already there. They would have experinced similar problems to the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war, but on a much heavier scale. Let's assume no sea interdiction, and there would be on the part of the Allies.
 
Instead say the Italians land on beach A. Turks rush to Beach A. Italians don't reinforce A, but land again on beach B 10 Km away. If that's blocked then do C. Find a breakthrough, sweep around, kick them in the ass and while they're off balance take the nearest port and resupply. Don't LET them defend, never attack where expected, ever. Once the troops are on the ground, whatever you might think of Turkish defensive capacities (largely overrated in WWI methinks, due to Gallipoli), the Turks did not mount an effective Offense ONCE in the entire war. They don't have the capacity, and everyone knew it, which is one reason Turkey was called the Sick Man of Europe. The Levant never ran like either the East or West Front anyways, and I think some of you guys are being a little too bound by what did happen to properly consider what COULD HAVE happened. Not that I don't want serious critique, but the posts I'm getting seem....stale. The arguments have crumbs of truth in them, yet, they seem weaker than expected. I'm not trying to be rude, just establish a halfway point to meet at. 
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394 		  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2009 at 00:22

In the Levant ... I don't know. I was thinking in terms of Anatolia itself. But the Levant's not really an ideal place for a campaign by any of the European powers. They didn't have the manpower to mount a campaign in that region, it would draw too much from the European theatre. The idea of Gallipolli was to be able to send supplies to Russia, who would be the ones to crush the Ottomans. Fighting in the ME would be a disastrous slog, as not only would advances be incredibly slow due to poor infrastructure, partisan forces would be inflicting attrition and requiring pacification constantly.

If there was no war in Europe ... maybe. But as things stood, the Russians were the only ones who were in any position to launch a full scale assault on the Ottomans.



Edited by edgewaters - 04-Mar-2009 at 00:29
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221 		  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2009 at 00:33
How could the Russians launch any full scale assault on the Ottoman Empire given their engagement with Austria and Germany?
 
 
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221 		  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2009 at 00:34
Also, true, it was until the late stages of the war, but the British did a number on the Turks in Palestine.  The partisan forces were mostly felt by the Turks in Arabia.
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 04-Mar-2009 at 00:38
Back to Top
csw View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 19-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19 		  Quote csw Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2009 at 00:39
Wouldn't that play to my scenario? If the Italians do not actively engage the Austrians in the Alps (which the Austrians would be happy to let that front go and concentrate on Russia), that frees up pretty much the entire Italian army (which in this scenario includes the manpower of Greece and Albania and Cyprus) to attack the Ottomans in the Levant.
 
Partisans would be a concern, but AIRC, the Arabs hated the Turks more than any European outsider. True, Lawrence of Arabia did his thing with the Bedouins, but that was mostly in modern Saudi Arabia, and there was no real resistance to the Europeans until after the war. That of course is another issue. But the 1917-18 campaigns in the Levant proved that success was possible by allied efforts, even when it was treated as a side show. Add in a major power willing to devote most of it's resources, and methinks Ottoman Turkey is going down like Peter McNeely.
 
Oh and Pikeshot, the Russkies did do a number on the Turks in what was then western Armenia. Without the East Front, they would have crushed the Turks decisively and that's not just my opinion.


Edited by csw - 04-Mar-2009 at 00:41
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221 		  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2009 at 00:50

csw,

BUT, the eastern front could never be discounted.  The war between Russia and Germany and A-H was a reality before the Turks came in.

Why would the Italians have had any further interest in the Levant after their expansion to N. Africa and the Agaean in 1911?  It would bring them into conflict with British interests, and, not only were the Italians western allies, but their main geographic interests were across the Adriatic and in the German-Italian Alps.
 
I know you are thinking in terms of alternative scenarios, but the reality seems overpowering to me.  Wink
 
 
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394 		  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2009 at 02:01

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

How could the Russians launch any full scale assault on the Ottoman Empire given their engagement with Austria and Germany?

Tons of manpower. That's what they did, after all - it was the Russians who opened a land front with the Ottomans.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394 		  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2009 at 02:06

Originally posted by csw

Partisans would be a concern, but AIRC, the Arabs hated the Turks more than any European outsider.

It wasn't a one-sided thing. The Ottomans were able to use partisan tribes to attack the British in the Middle East, too. They had the Senussi tribe up in arms, fighting a guerrilla war in Libya and Egypt against the British. Major forces had to be diverted to fight it (10 thousand men, I think).

Back to Top
csw View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 19-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19 		  Quote csw Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2009 at 02:24
Yes, but the the Ottomans gave more than they received on the partisan front. Most everyone hated the Ottoman government for one reason or another.
 
Pikeshot, did you see the map I posted:
 
I agree than in a WWI scenario here the POV is at WWI, then yes, the Italians going after the Levant makes no sense. But if it's an Italy that styles itself as the ROMAN Empire AND as protector of Christians AND  has control of Greece and an Albania never Islamized, then yes a Levantine expedition makes perfect sense. This is about more than geopolitics; it would be about the recovery of an ancient and glorious legacy.
 


Edited by csw - 04-Mar-2009 at 02:27
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.