The Ottoman Empire

[Rameses the Great]

I have just taken great interest in the Ottoman Empire, nothing new I've been interested in them for almost 2 years now. The thing that fascinates me with them is their ability to stay up to speed with the Western Imperialist powers. Although their power slowly declined through the course of their history, it never fell behind the west. Despite invasion attempts by Russia and Austria it seems that they were able to soundly defeat them in many battles. In World War I they allied with the Central Powers. In the Battle of Gallipoli, my great grandfather actually fought for the Ottomans in that battle but my parents don't tell me anything, they were able to defeat the British, French, and ANZAC forces.

 

My question is that how did the Ottomans keep up with the rest of Europe? Did they modernize their technology and military themselves or did they take a similar approach to Japan by adopting Western ways?

[Divi Filius]

The thing is that the Ottoman Empire didnt and later could not keep up with Europe. No modernization of any significance took place in the Ottoman Empire until the rise of the Young Turks and Ataturk. An example is that they were still using wooden ships against the Russian ironclad ships during the Crimean War. Not to mention that smooth-bore dominated their arms till relatively late.

 

In terms of industrialization, there was next to none.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Divi Filius

[Rameses the Great]

The thing is that the Ottoman Empire didnt and later could not keep up with Europe. No modernization of any significance took place in the Ottoman Empire until the rise of the Young Turks and Ataturk. An example is that they were still using wooden ships against the Russian ironclad ships during the Crimean War. Not to mention that smooth-bore dominated their arms till relatively late.

 

In terms of industrialization, there was next to none.

 

Thanks Divi Filius it is much appreciated!

 

I was just wandering then how did they defeat the French, British, and ANZAC troops in World War I at the Battle of Galliopoli? Was it that they were trained by German generals and had German weapons at their disposal? Also throughout the course of their history how did their military fair against the European powers and how did it manufacture their weapons? Did they need European help or did they know how to modernize weaponry beforehand?

[DecimusCaesar]

The Ottomans are a slight interest of mine as well. Have you read The Ottoman centuries by Lord Kinross? It is worth getting. According to the books I have on the Ottomans, they did not realy make much advances or reforms. The Ottoman military reached its peak during the reign of Suleiman the Maginificent during the sixteenth century and afterwards entered into a long decline. There were Sultans that attempted reform, such as SelimIII (1789-1807) although the Janissaries, the 'slave' soldiers of the empire, were opposed to these reforms as it challenged their priveleged position in society. They often reacted violently to any reform, and would cause riots or even murder Ottoman rulers on some occasions.

 

Eventually they had to destroyed. Selim III's reforms ended in failure after the Janissaries had risen up in rebellion over having to adopt French military customs. But they had caused the Ottomans to consider making large scale reforms. These came during the reign of Mehmed the reformer. He was the man who eventually trained a new artillery heavy force that blew away the revolting Janissaries with grapeshot.

 

The reforms themsleves came too late. The Ottoman empire had already lost substantial territory by this period, and throughout the 19th century, the empire was referred to as the 'Sick man of Europe'.

Edited May 8, 2007 by DecimusCaesar

[Divi Filius]

 

The Ottoman army at Gallipoli had undergone significant changes under Enver Pasha and, later Ataturk, but one of the main reasons is that the British blundered at Gallipoli.

[DecimusCaesar]

The Ottoman army at Gallipoli had undergone significant changes under Enver Pasha and, later Ataturk, but one of the main reasons is that the British blundered at Gallipoli.

 

True, Churchill and Kitchener understimated the Turks. For them, the war in the Middle East was a side show compared to the battles of the Western Front. 'Johnny Turk' was suppose to be no match for the British Tommy and his French and 'Anzac' allies. Yet, when they finally met the Turks in battle, the British could agree that they were tough resourceful fighters ( see Max Arthur's Forgotten Voices of the Great War for some examples).

 

Another excellent book I can recommend is 'Gallipoli' by L.A Carolyn. It is rather large and is told mainly from the Australian and New Zealand perspective, yet it is a great read.

 

As for the Ottoman army of this period, try getting David Nicolle's book The Ottoman Army: 1914-18. It is full of interesting information about the extent in which the Europeans played in reforming the Ottoman army. The French officer Captain De Goys, for instance, was the man responsible for creating the Ottoman air force, while during the war it was under the command of a German, Major Erich Sarno. The Germans supplied the Ottomans with 260 aircraft during the war, although not all of them arrived safely. Some of these Air detachments were commanded by German officers.

 

In one curious photograph featured in Nicolle's book, we can see Turkish troops operating a grenade thrower, which is actually a wooden catapult, not too disimilar to a Roman Ballista. It is not mentioned if the catapult was used for training or if it was used in war time.

[Rameses the Great]

Thank you guys, it helps an awful lot. In World War I the weaponry the Ottoman were using were probably German weapons that were mechanized far beyond any Ottoman weapons. The supplying of these weapons to keep up and be able to defeat other European powers probably came from Germany or am I wrong? Did the Ottomans throughout the course of their history learn to modernize and create advanced weapons or did they hire Europeans to teach them?

 

BTW, DC can I get these books at a library or do I have to buy them?

[DecimusCaesar]

Thank you guys, it helps an awful lot. In World War I the weaponry the Ottoman were using were probably German weapons that were mechanized far beyond any Ottoman weapons. The supplying of these weapons to keep up and be able to defeat other European powers probably came from Germany or am I wrong? Did the Ottomans throughout the course of their history learn to modernize and create advanced weapons or did they hire Europeans to teach them?

 

BTW, DC can I get these books at a library or do I have to buy them?

 

As far as aircraft are concerned, the Ottomans did have to get them from Germany to begin with. Most of the Ottoman pilots were made up of Germans, but towards the end of the war they began recruiting men from other provinces of the empire (and from neutral territories) including Arab and Iranian units who formed the observation squadrons. These planes were usually flown from Germany to Ottoman airfields.

 

As far as the navy was concerned, it was not up to scratch by 1914 although attempts had been made to update the fleet from 1908. The Ottoman ship builders could construct small light boats at yards in Izmir, Samsun, Beirut and Basra although they were no match for Allied Ships. The Ottomans had put in orders to France and Britain before the start of the war to construct battleships and gunboats, which shows their lack of knowledge concerning "modern" ship building techinques. The sea mines used to blockade the Dardanelles were usually Russian or French type taken from Trabzon or Izmir.

 

After a treaty of 1917, many Turks were sent to Germany to begin training on European techniques as the 500 or so German officers who had supported the Ottomans in 1914 were expanded with new recruits. These Turkish and Arab officers resented the Germans.

 

Most weapons were constructed by the Ottoman's allies rather than the Ottomans themselves. The Ottomans had captured German, British and French artillery after the Balkan wars, and the Germans added to this force by manufacturing more guns for the Turks. Krupp - a German and Austro-Hungarian supplier was the most popular weapons manufacturer among the Ottomans. During the Gallipoli campaign a lack of artillery meant that the Ottomans had to use century old mortars taken from the Istanbul museum. The machine guns used were European types, usually the Maxim and Hotchkiss types. The Turks even modelled their uniforms on German types, and made use of British maps, captured after Gallipoli. Before this, the Ottomans had used tourist guide maps instead of the military cartographical charts.

 

On another note...

 

I brought those books many years ago, although i'm sure that you can find a few of them at a good library. Another book I forgot to mention that's worth looking out for is Constantinople: City of the World's Desire, 1453-1924 by Philip Mansel. It's basically a social history of the empire, and it concentrates on many diverse subjects, from the lives of the Sultan's concubines through to those of ambassadors and Janissaries.

[Rameses the Great]

Thank you guys, it helps an awful lot. In World War I the weaponry the Ottoman were using were probably German weapons that were mechanized far beyond any Ottoman weapons. The supplying of these weapons to keep up and be able to defeat other European powers probably came from Germany or am I wrong? Did the Ottomans throughout the course of their history learn to modernize and create advanced weapons or did they hire Europeans to teach them?

 

BTW, DC can I get these books at a library or do I have to buy them?

 

As far as aircraft are concerned, the Ottomans did have to get them from Germany to begin with. Most of the Ottoman pilots were made up of Germans, but towards the end of the war they began recruiting men from other provinces of the empire (and from neutral territories) including Arab and Iranian units who formed the observation squadrons. These planes were usually flown from Germany to Ottoman airfields.

 

As far as the navy was concerned, it was not up to scratch by 1914 although attempts had been made to update the fleet from 1908. The Ottoman ship builders could construct small light boats at yards in Izmir, Samsun, Beirut and Basra although they were no match for Allied Ships. The Ottomans had put in orders to France and Britain before the start of the war to construct battleships and gunboats, which shows their lack of knowledge concerning "modern" ship building techinques. The sea mines used to blockade the Dardanelles were usually Russian or French type taken from Trabzon or Izmir.

 

After a treaty of 1917, many Turks were sent to Germany to begin training on European techniques as the 500 or so German officers who had supported the Ottomans in 1914 were expanded with new recruits. These Turkish and Arab officers resented the Germans.

 

Most weapons were constructed by the Ottoman's allies rather than the Ottomans themselves. The Ottomans had captured German, British and French artillery after the Balkan wars, and the Germans added to this force by manufacturing more guns for the Turks. Krupp - a German and Austro-Hungarian supplier was the most popular weapons manufacturer among the Ottomans. During the Gallipoli campaign a lack of artillery meant that the Ottomans had to use century old mortars taken from the Istanbul museum. The machine guns used were European types, usually the Maxim and Hotchkiss types. The Turks even modelled their uniforms on German types, and made use of British maps, captured after Gallipoli. Before this, the Ottomans had used tourist guide maps instead of the military cartographical charts.

 

On another note...

 

I brought those books many years ago, although i'm sure that you can find a few of them at a good library. Another book I forgot to mention that's worth looking out for is Constantinople: City of the World's Desire, 1453-1924 by Philip Mansel. It's basically a social history of the empire, and it concentrates on many diverse subjects, from the lives of the Sultan's concubines through to those of ambassadors and Janissaries.

 

Would you say that the Ottoman from the 1700s and on, depended mainly on help from European nations to keep up? Clearly the Turks were the ones able to defend their own nation but was it perhaps on the fact that, as the case with many other countries, the gained modern weaponry from allied nation i.e. Germany? I'm guessing Germany had to help out Austria-Hugary but not to the same extent as the Ottoman Empire.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Rameses the Great

[Julius Ratus]

Thank you guys, it helps an awful lot. In World War I the weaponry the Ottoman were using were probably German weapons that were mechanized far beyond any Ottoman weapons. The supplying of these weapons to keep up and be able to defeat other European powers probably came from Germany or am I wrong? Did the Ottomans throughout the course of their history learn to modernize and create advanced weapons or did they hire Europeans to teach them?

 

BTW, DC can I get these books at a library or do I have to buy them?

 

 

The primary service rifle used by the Ottomans was the Turkish Mauser, firing the standard 8mm (7.92X57mm) or the older 7X57.mm cartriges. Today, a Turkish Mauser can often be obtained for between $100-$200. They are rather reliable, though I still prefer the trusty KAR 98 varient.

[DecimusCaesar]

In the late 18th century the Ottomans took steps to modernise the army through recruiting French officers to train the soldiers. These reforms were despised by the Janissary class, who hated any change to the government as they thought it would bring about their collapse (and it eventually would in the 19th century). The Janissaries were the most important soldiers in the Ottoman state, and they were their greatest weakness, as they were undisciplined and frequently mutinous.

Many of the soldiers in the Ottoman army, including the Mamlukes of Egypt and Circassian cavalrymen were still armed and armoured like Medieval warriors in chain and plate mail, armed with swords, spears and bows, even towards the early years of the nineteenth century. Other soldiers like the Armenians that served with the Ottomans were armed with bows and daggers. Some soldiers were amred with old fashioned matchlock muskets rather than the new style flintlock of the period.

 

Despite these weaknesses the Ottomans did win victories against European forces by resorting to ambushes and guerilla attacks. When the Ottomans confronted their enemies in open battle, defeat usually followed. As far as the Turks were concerned, they emphasised individuality in combat, and viewed European troops as mindless automatons. This individuality could be the Ottoman's greatest strength in some situations and a weakness in others.

 

In 1791 - the new army was introduced, which consisted of new style Russian tactics and a mixture of the old style Ottoman regime. To these were added the French military customs.

 

The new French trained troops consisted of units of artillery men armed with small mortars called Topiji or Topchu.

During the Crimean War of the 1850's the Ottomans began adopting other symbols of the French military including their costumes (as some of the samurai of Tokugawa Japan would do later in the 1860's).

 

Many other aspects of the Ottoman military of this period was a disaster. The Ottoman navy was in very poor condition. Poorly and irregurarly armed, with poor rigging and unskilled non-trained marines, the Ottoman navy was of no use in sea battles. The Ships were even hard to manouver.

 

Overall, The Ottoman army had been in decline ever since the end of the golden days of the empire in the sixteenth century. The defeats at Vienna and the naval defeat at Lepanto had crushed any Ottoman expansion into Western Europe and the empire had been unable to modernise ever since. The empire's elite troops, who had at one time been renowned as the most feared in Europe became undisciplined. The Ottoman armouries were poorly stocked and lacking in modern weapons, with the Ottoman soldiers often facing their European neighbours armed with spears, swords and bows against rifles, muskets and cannon. The gunpowder weapons the Ottomans did use was usually inferior to European types, for instance, the Ottoman cannons of the 18th century had not been improved for a hundered years and thus had a lower firing range and longer reload times.

[Rameses the Great]

I think I unerstand now. The Ottomans Golen Age, before the extensive use of guns and canons, they were able to have a formidable navy and army. Later when guns and canons became important the Ottomans needed European help and methods in order to keep up. They relied on modernizing the army by hiring generals and reformers from industrialized European nations. They did not have the generals or tactics of European armies but in many ways their style of warfare could be used to defeat their armies in certain circumstances. They used their moernized weaponry to bully nations in the Balkans and Middle East thus building an empire.

 

Hope that's right, I very much appreciate the info DC!

 

Mamlukes of Egypt and Circassian cavalrymen were still armed and armoured like Medieval warriors in chain and plate mail, armed with swords, spears and bows, even towards the early years of the nineteenth century

 

I know the Mamlukes of Egypt did use guns and canons particulary during the Napoleonic invasions. They had several small pistals to shoot from their horses and had swords. They also had canons but of course their tactics and brilliant general Ibrahim Bey was no mach for the well disciplined Napoleonic army of France.

[Kosmo]

Even in his Golden Age the Ottoman Empire had to rely on european weapons, tehnicians and officers.

Orban, the infamous hungarian gunbuilder, italians like Barbarossa and Sinan, british like Osman Pasha, were integrated in the ottoman army while often military missions provided support.

Sometimes, like in the 1877 war, ottomans had technological advantages over opponents because of the weapons imports and the importance of the army.

In WWI they defeated the Entante forces at Gallipolli but also the british in Southern Mesopotamia and fought well in Syria, Arabia and Caucasus. This was shortly after the terrible defeats from the First Balkan war and despite having no supply line to Germany until the fall of Serbia.

[Spurius]

The military disaster at Al-Kut, with the capture of 10,000 British and Indian troops in April 1916, was more of an under estimation of the Turks than superiority of tactics or equipment. When it was acknowledged that they had to treat the Turks as serious soldiers, the southern Mesopotamian front got turned around and became a large factor in the surrender of the Ottomans in WWI - because the British just chewed up and eliminated any real forces left there. No defenders left = surrender.

 

There were real economic problems that weakened the Ottomans: inflation, declining trade routes, corruption, debasing currency were just the start. Technologically they had to start to rely on foreign hirelings and experts since their learning centers had shifted to the static Islamic model (IE: Moving away from the Hanafi legal model toward the Traditionalist). So when the economic strength of the empire waxed, the Ottomans were a significant power, but when they waned the empire was in more of a depression than most states. Only the seeming fetishism for bureaucracy kept the state relatively intact.

 

In my opinion, of course.

(And the Ottoman Empire is a fascinating historical subject with so many archieves just waiting to be re-found and researched.)

[Rameses the Great]

I just want to bring in a new element to the discussion. At the time of Egypt's modernization, of economy and military, led by Mohammed Ali his modern Europeanized forces proved to much for the Ottoman Empire to handle. He decisively defeated them in many battles, in spite of being vastly outnumbered. The Ottomans had to depend on a European coalition to remove the threat of Egypt conquering Istanbul. Can this somewhat be used as an example of how the Turks in many ways failed to modernize?