The Ottoman Empire

[Kosmo]

The view of the Ottoman Empire as "The sick man of Europe" it's not entirely correct. There were different periods, ups and downs. Mostly downs followed by stabilization periods.

The war of 1683-1699 was a low period followed by a partial recovery due to modernization and reform (Tulip reforms, recovery of Belgrade, Oltenia, Morrea, conquest of Crete, victory over Russia etc).

The begininng of XIX C was also a bad period (Napoleon victories, Russia attacks led by Kutuzov, Serbian and Greek revolts, Mehmet Ali etc) followed, after 1830, by reform (the end of jenissari and spahi corps, the demise of deir beys etc)

[Rameses the Great]

For those who are interested I found a series of great documentaries made by PBS:

 

 

I would've liked it to go more but it only talks about the early history of the Ottomans until the end of their dominance as Europe would emerge more powerful than the Ottomans after the failed Siege of Vienna. It talks from the rising of Osman, to Mehmet the Conquerer, then ends with Seuleiman.

 

The thing I don't understand is that the Turks were said to come from Central Asia around the Aral Sea, how does that translate into being a European power if you weren't even from Europe?

[Kosmo]

Because they were a power in Europe. Actually, the ottomans were more succesfull in Africa and Asia while the European parts were always under threat fron strong opponents and hostile subjects.

[DecimusCaesar]

Because they were a power in Europe. Actually, the ottomans were more succesfull in Africa and Asia while the European parts were always under threat fron strong opponents and hostile subjects.

 

In the fifiteenth and early sixteenth century the Ottomans were certainly a threat to Europe, although after the death of Suleiman the magnificent, the empire stopped being a serious threat, even though the Turks did launch great attacks on Vienna on several occasions.

[Kosmo]

For sure the ottomans were a threat to Europe, but Europe was the most serious threat to ottomans compared with their different asiatic oponents (Ak Koiunlu, mameluk Egypt, Sasanid Persia).

[DecimusCaesar]

For sure the ottomans were a threat to Europe, but Europe was the most serious threat to ottomans compared with their different asiatic oponents (Ak Koiunlu, mameluk Egypt, Sasanid Persia).

 

That's true to an extent, considering that the Mamelukes were suffering an economic crisis during the early years of the sixteenth century, and therefore they were much easier to conquer. The Safavid Persians on the other hand were a much greater threat, and possibly as equally dangerous to the Ottomans as any European power.

 

On another note, here's the photogrpah (sorry for the quality) of the Ottomans using catapults during the First World War.

 

Ottoman NCOs and greande thrower

[Rameses the Great]

That's true to an extent, considering that the Mamelukes were suffering an economic crisis during the early years of the sixteenth century, and therefore they were much easier to conquer. The Safavid Persians on the other hand were a much greater threat, and possibly as equally dangerous to the Ottomans as any European power.

 

On another note, here's the photogrpah (sorry for the quality) of the Ottomans using catapults during the First World War.

 

Ottoman NCOs and greande thrower

 

However, the Mamelukes had artillery and fire power whereas the Sufavid's did not. In many battles against the Ottomans the Sufavid's refused to use artillery, believing it was cowardly, thus leading to numerous defeats before they realized change was imminent. Many times the Ottomans conquered Istafan but decided to turn their attentions to Europe not wanting to attack anymore of their Muslim brothers, giving the Sufavids the oppurtunity to reconquer lost lands.

 

BTW, DC the link isn't working.

Edited May 16, 2007 by Rameses the Great

[Kosmo]

Ramses, the ottomans were sunny while the Safavids were shia. They hated each other like the protestant with the catholics in the same time. Safavids were brought to power in Iran by shia brotherhoods fleeing from Anatolia because of ottoman repressions. They created a militant shia state that forcefully converted iranian and arabian sunny to shiism in their empire while the ottomans considered shia unbelievers and as such they could be taken and kept as slaves. They were no muslim brothers.

 

The conflict today in Irak can be traced to the events linked to ottoman expansion in the area.

[DecimusCaesar]

BTW, DC the link isn't working.

 

I've tried the link and it works for me, but if it still doesn't get you through I've put the picture up in the Gallery under everything else.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

italians like Barbarossa and Sinan

Neither were Italian. Khairuddin Barbarossa was an Albanian of Rumelian origin and Sinan Pasha was also Albanian.

[Rameses the Great]

I really don't understand why other Middle East empires at the time were reluctant to employ firearms into their army. The Sufavids and Mameluks, although the Mameluks did use artillery in their encounters with the Ottomans, refused to employ it on a large scale througout the army. The Ottoman however, saw this as a great oppurtunity and used it to their advantage setting up a large and powerful empire. Had the Mameluks or Sufavids used firearms perhaps the history of the Ottoman Empire may have been different. Who's to say they could have become the imperialist powers of the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Crimea instead of the Ottomans?

 

A sliding door moment in history I suppose.

[tolga]

Russo Otoman war - Ottoman german wars Poitical strifes, Balkan wars rebels all weakened the empires economic and military power.

 

Otoman was huge empire it made it hard to modernize as fast as many Europen countries

 

In world war The

[Kosmo]

Otoman was huge empire it made it hard to modernize as fast as many Europen countries

...

I think the failure of Otoman is not the only question of lasck of modernization but mostly of economic failure. You see altering all the spoiled system and makin infrasutructural investmenst to keep up with fastly changin emperialist west must be difficult for an wartorn empire

 

Correct me if i am wrong.

 

You're not wrong.

 

The ottoman empire became very descentralised in the 1700's and it was very hard for the sultan to force local goverments that exercised a lot of power to reform. This is especially true for the african provinces were by 1800 the sultan had little or no authority. In early XIX C they made many reforms and were succesfull in curbing the power of local lords and strenghening the army. But this reform did not return Egypt, Algeria and Tunis to real ottoman authority.

 

The economic problems were very bad. The ottomans had no money to raise and equip troops or to build the infrastructure to quickly move the army.

For example in the First Balcanic War they faced a loose coalition of balcanic states, former ottoman subjects. Despite the much larger population of the empire the ottoman soldiers were seriously outnumbered. Even worse, they had no railways to bring the units from Syria and the sea was dominated by the greek navy.

In 1878 Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia became autonomous. In 1885 they unite. In 1908 Bulgaria becames independent. In 1913 Bulgaria plays a great role in defeating the ottomans taking Edirne and reaching the outskirts of the capital. This rapid development it's in striking contrast to the lethargy of the ottomans. Of course, Bulgaria was far from the level of developed economies, but in 40 years the former otttoman province could threaten her much larger former master.

In 1914, when WW1 broke, the ottoman army of 400.000 men was considered insufficient to defend the capital against the bulgarian army in case of war so they gave up some parts of Adrianopole.

 

This examples point to the greatest ottoman problem: they were totally unable to develop their territory or to have a decent economy. In 1878 the ottomans gave Cyprus to Britain. One of the reasons was ottoman inability to pay the debts to Britain. In 1880's the sultan had to give direct control of the buget to european creditors as the empire was banckrupt.

[Rameses the Great]

Any European nation, Austria and Russia in particular, could've easily taken the Ottoman Empire in the late stages of its empire. They didn't adopt the use of the iron clads, their canons were bulky and not fit for open field battle as their European counterparts, and were to detatched from Europe to modernize. Nations started to break away and nations that did modernize their army, such as Muhammed Ali Pahsa modernizing his army, were at the gates of Constantinople and had not the European powers intervened there would not have been an Ottoman Empire.

 

As Russia set to invade to Ottomans, Britain, France, and Austria had to help the Ottomans in order for them not conquer the Ottomans and grow to strong. The only reason the Ottoman Empire didn't die out before the 1900s is because of European intervention in the matter.

[Kosmo]

The only reason the Ottoman Empire didn't die out before the 1900s is because of European intervention in the matter.

 

Sure, the fall of the empire to a Great Power would have seriously upset european balance. Much of the european policy revolved around The Eastern Question. And this question was "how to keep Russia from conquering the Ottoman Empire?" The solution that the europeans favoured was a gradual disolution that promoted small, weak states.

 

In the period between 1850 and 1914 most nations used imported weapons. This was a period of rapid change of military equipment and doctrine. Turkey did well in adapting new weapons, even better then most european nations. This excelent article shows the flexible, efficient use of modern weapons against conservative russian doctrine in 1877 war.

http://www.militaryrifles.com/Turkey/Plevn...levnaDelay.html

 

My opinion is that the ottoman army was constantly outmanouvered by the armies of the european Great Powers so from the begining of the XIX they based their defence on fortifications in an period when everybody else were abandoning them. Napoleon smashed all ottoman armies except that fortified in Accra. The sultan then started to build stong fortifications on the Danube and behind it. This were the defence of the ottomans during the three wars with Russia (1808, 1828, 1877)

In the balkan wars they also mostly defended fortifications (Adrianopole, Janina)

This means that ottomans had a lot of experience and skill in defending strong positions and when the weaponry changed and the movement war became difficult because of breech-loading repeating rifles and machine guns they had a doctrine advantage while the westerners failed to understand the change and kept charging at fortifications until the end of WW1.

So, the effective defence of Gallipoli was possible because the ottoman army was in her element in trench warfare.