I’ve been reading alot about the Ottoman Empire of late, and one thing occurs to me. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries the European great powers were throwing their weight around all over the globe, from India to Africa, gobbling up territory in pretty much unchallenged ascendancy of the world.
Yet during this time the Ottoman Empire, that was on Europe’s doorstep, and universally acknowledged (both historically and at the time) as being in decline, and ripe for collapse, was left for the most part unmolested. Except for some nibbling at the peripheries, in the Crimea and North Africa (which had by then stopped being Ottoman in all but name), the Ottoman empire remained essentially intact until WW1.
Was there ever a serious movement in post-1700 Europe to launch a fully fledged invasion of the Ottoman empire, with the aim of deposing the Sultans, “liberating” the Ottoman Christian territories, and making it a European colony ?
AIUI that was the justification used by Nicholas for his invasion beginning the Crimean War. I say justification, since the real reason probably had a lot more to do with gaining access to the Black Sea for trade purposes than any desire or concern about oppressed Christians suffering under Ottoman rule.
I thought it was more to do with European rivalries than European/Turkish conflict. Was there ever a suggestion that the Russians could, had things gone their way, have actually taken the conflict all the way to Istanbul and deposed the Sultans ?
No question that part of it was simply European power politics going overboard. But whether I believe Nicholas’ casus belli or not, that’s still what he claimed for a war aim.
I don’t think that the Russians ever expected a shot at taking Istanbul, or control of the Dardanelles and the Bosporos. Certainly, the original aim, of control of Moldavia and Wallachia were based on the Tsar’s claim to being the protector of both the Slavs, as a people, and of especially those communicants of the various Eastern Orthodox churches.
The last major war the Ottomans won against other European powers before the 20th century, fighting solely on their own, was in 1735-1739 against Austria ( 1737-1739 for them ) and Russia. In that one they badly chewed up the Austrians, winning back virtually everything lost in the historic Treaty of Passarowitz. By virtue of knocking the Austrians out early and hanging tough on the Russian front just long enough, they were able to release their main army on Russia’s exposed flank, just as the Russians were finally achieving a major breakthrough on the road to Constantinople, forcing Russia to reluctantly accept peace, rather than risk a potential debacle.
In later 18th century wars with the Austrians, Russians or both ( 1768-1774, 1787-1792 ), they did less well, but still were capable of putting up formidable resistance ( including towards Napoleon’s little foray into Syria ). So in the 18th century at least, steretypical Ottoman weakness might be a bit overblown. They were in a decline of sorts, but it wasn’t exactly precipitous and they were still legitimately a major power ( or at least a regional one ).
In the 19th century they continued to be invaded periodically by Russia and the Ottoman state probably reached the nadir of its strength in the first half of that century. What saved them from worse losses was increasing concerns about the European-wide balance of power, especially after the Napoleonic Wars left Russia as the strongest continental military force. So for example on the one hand it was the pan-European intervention at Navarino that allowed the Greek independence movement to succeed. On the other it was also European intervention that prevented Muhammed Ali from overthrowing the Ottoman state, which he ( or his son ) was very near to doing, possibly replacing a moribund ( if reforming at that point ) power with a potentially more dynamic and threatening one.
So the short answer is that the Ottoman state WAS continually invaded in the 18th and 19th centuries. Some they fought off, some they lost and some ( say the Crimean War ) were carefully stage-managed to prevent anyone growing too fat off an Ottoman corpse.
Oh and in answer to this, specifically - no, not really. Instead European powers forced disadvantageous economic treaties and the right to intervene politically on behalf of religious minorities in the Ottoman state. This was probably deemed more lucrative than trying for wholesale occupation and altogether less hassle. Only Austria ( with designs on the Balkans ) and Russia ( ditto, plus the partially Christian Caucasus and the ever-hungry hunt for warm water ports ) were exceptions and as noted those designs were somewhat limited.
They doubtless would have utterly partitioned the Ottoman state ( as ultimately happened after WW I ) if the international community had been receptive to it and it had seemed possible, but mutual suspicion and Ottoman resistance ( far, far more formidable than, say, a Madagascar ) were major barriers.