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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Early Modern Ottoman Military Technology

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
andrew View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 253
  Quote andrew Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Early Modern Ottoman Military Technology
    Posted: 31-May-2007 at 19:44

Ave, I'm new to this forum and I'm happy to be a part now!Smile

I just have a couple of questions about the Ottoman, in fact a million, but I'll just focus on two:
 
1. I know the Ottomans subdued the Mamelukes quickly but how was it done? I know they had guns and cannons while the Mameluks preferred fighting with sword and shield. It says in the battle of Yaunis that the Mameluks did have canons but the technology of said 'canons' were behind and the Ottomans were expert handlers of guns and canons. I was just wandering what the technology of the Mameluks were and the Ottomans during the Ottoman conquest of Egypt.
 
2. It has been said the Ottomans were able to harness the use of gunpowder at an early stage, as did other civilizations, but they really seemed to be able to apply the concept and standardize the army to use guns and canons in the mid 1400s. Was this made before the Europeans harnassed this type of technology. Also I was wandering how was their economies, industries, and military compared to the European powerd from the mid 1600s leading up to WWI. Did they have to institute reforms to keep up with the European powers in terms of military and economy or did they reform the system themselves? How advanced were they compared to the other European powers such as Prussia, Russia, Austria, Britain, and France?


Edited by andrew - 31-May-2007 at 19:52
Back to Top
kurt View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 358
  Quote kurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2007 at 07:52
nice thread andrew. i myself would like to know alot about the ottoman-mameluke war and the battle tactics, my knowledge on that topics is lacking.
 
ottoman artillery was the most advanced in europe in 1400's and 1500's, during the 1600's europeon civilizations caught onto the rather unique ottoman artillary and developed their own models which were developments of ottoman models, but in the 1700's and finally the 1800's religious conservatism prevented the ottoman empire and military from advancing technologically, such to the point that by world war one almost all ottoman weapons were german. some great examples of ottoman artillery are their giant cannons  known as "great bombards" and other inventions such as the abus gun which is basically the first howitzer.
 
the question of reforms is an interesting one, i suggest another forumer entail the tanzimat reforms of sultan mahmud in their post, for i am much too lazy.
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jun-2007 at 14:01
Originally posted by andrew

1. I know the Ottomans subdued the Mamelukes quickly but how was it done? I know they had guns and cannons while the Mameluks preferred fighting with sword and shield.
 
The Mamelukes did have gunpowder weapons, but as you mentioned, they were of lower quality than what the Ottomans or Europeans had at the time.
 
This is due to the fact that the Mameluke warrior class was quite conservative in their methodology for war.  They preferred to fight in the manner in which they had spent years training to master: using the bow and the lance on horseback.
 
The artillery they did have, however, were bombards used for protracted sieges.  No small-bore artillery for the field.  Although the warrior class (and ruling class) of Mameluke society were descendents of slaves, many by this point were not actual slaves in status.  Since they themselves eschewed the use of gunpowder weapons, it was left to soldiers of a different class to use them.  There were corps of black slave bodyguards who used primitive handguns and arquebuses.  As to whether or not they fought on the field with them, I am not sure.
 
On this subject I highly recommend:
 
David Ayalon, Gunpowder and Firearms in the Mamluk Kingdom: A Challenge to a Mediaeval Society (Totawa, NJ: Frank Cass, 1978).
 
Originally posted by andrew

It says in the battle of Yaunis that the Mameluks did have canons but the technology of said 'canons' were behind and the Ottomans were expert handlers of guns and canons. I was just wandering what the technology of the Mameluks were and the Ottomans during the Ottoman conquest of Egypt.
 
One of the main reasons for the Ottoman victory in Egypt, besides their use of more sophisticated gunpowder weapons, was the Janissaries.  They were one of the first (if not the first) paid professional standing military units in the medieval and early modern periods.  While the conservative warrior Mamelukes were more concernced with preserving their honor and acting valiently on the field, the Janissaries followed the orders of their commanders and executed drills to out-maneuver them.
 
Originally posted by andrew

2. It has been said the Ottomans were able to harness the use of gunpowder at an early stage, as did other civilizations, but they really seemed to be able to apply the concept and standardize the army to use guns and canons in the mid 1400s. Was this made before the Europeans harnassed this type of technology.
 
The Ottoman sultans knew where to look to find the engineers to set up a gunpowder weapons program for them.  Also, they had the resources to spend on this talent in the 15th century.  Thereafter they were willing to adopt the new technology and use it for themselves.  I don't think it was necessarily before the Europeans used gunpowder; the Sultans just had the money to fully explore the use of the technology.
 
Originally posted by andrew

Did they have to institute reforms to keep up with the European powers in terms of military and economy or did they reform the system themselves? How advanced were they compared to the other European powers such as Prussia, Russia, Austria, Britain, and France?
Originally posted by kurt

but in the 1700's and finally the 1800's religious conservatism prevented the ottoman empire and military from advancing technologically, such to the point that by world war one almost all ottoman weapons were german.
 
The Ottoman period of adaptation and advancement in technology petered out by the early 16th century.  As kurt mentioned, the religious conservative ulema, as well as powerful conservative members of the Imperial Council, vehemently resisted reforms and independent thinking on the part of princes and upcoming sultans.  They restricted the sultans to the point that they were virtual prisoners of the harem, knowing hardly anything about the outside world. 
 
In the 17th century, there were various vezirs and officials who were enterprizing individuals.  They tried to institute reforms of the military and the bureaucracy but were eventually disenfranchized and their work discontinued.  Most notable was the hiring of artillery experts from France who created a rapid-fire cannon corps. 
 
An excellent book on the subject of reform and resistence from conservative forces in the post-classical Ottoman period:
 
Stanford J. Shaw, Between the Old and the New: The Ottoman Empire Under Selim III 1789-1807 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971).
 
Back to Top
andrew View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 253
  Quote andrew Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jun-2007 at 16:48
Thank you Byzantine Emperor! I just have two questions:
 
Would you say that later in time they were completely out manned by other nations that decided to modernize? For example Muhammed Ali Pash modernized Egypt in the latest of warfare and technology according to French experts and the Ottoman Empire was defeated in a couple of battles. Could this be a reflection of how the Ottoman Empire fell behind?
 
Also do you believe had the Ottoman Empire not been in close proximity to Europe that they would have completely fallen behind?
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jun-2007 at 20:10
Originally posted by andrew

Would you say that later in time they were completely out manned by other nations that decided to modernize?
 
By 17th and 18th centuries, yes, Europe clearly was more advanced than the Ottoman Empire.  This was especially apparent in terms of the military.  The Shaw book above gives a good overview of the situation.
 
Originally posted by andrew

For example Muhammed Ali Pash modernized Egypt in the latest of warfare and technology according to French experts and the Ottoman Empire was defeated in a couple of battles. Could this be a reflection of how the Ottoman Empire fell behind?
 
What time period are you talking about here?  Is this long after the defeat of the Mamelukes?  When you mentioned the French experts in Egypt it made me think of possibly the Napoleonic period.
 
Originally posted by andrew

Also do you believe had the Ottoman Empire not been in close proximity to Europe that they would have completely fallen behind?
 
It depends on which period you mean.  In the late 15th and into the 16th centuries the Ottomans already were well-established in the Balkans and Wallachia.  As you probably know, they had besieged Belgrade and had designs on Vienna.  Most likely it was from Europe that they procured the first engineers for the creation of cannon and firearms.  So it was not a disconnection from Europe.  Later, it was due to the stalwart resistance of the Ulema and the traditionalists in the court, bureaucracy, and military, combined with the disability of the sultans that stifled reform.
 
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
  Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jun-2007 at 20:50
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

[The Mamelukes did have gunpowder weapons
 
Most of those weapons were provided by Sultan Tomanbai from the Venetians after heavy defeat in Mercidabık.
 
True that they were not of the latest technology. They just bought what Venetians used before.
 
Artillery were not rotatable, therefore, when Selim I attacked from the other side where artilleries were not directed to, they had been useless during the whole battle of Ridanieh.
 
 
Originally posted by andrew

2. It has been said the Ottomans were able to harness the use of gunpowder at an early stage, as did other civilizations, but they really seemed to be able to apply the concept and standardize the army to use guns and canons in the mid 1400s. Was this made before the Europeans harnassed this type of technology.
 
Ottomans were one of the first who used artilleries and gunpowder on European battlefields.
 
The first instance I know of the artillery usage is the First Battle of Kosovo. But it was rather used to strike fear among the enemy rather than military purposes.
 
 
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

 
 
The Ottoman sultans knew where to look to find the engineers to set up a gunpowder weapons program for them
 
 
In fact, in fact. It had been a major tradition in Ottoman Empire to bring skillful officers and engineers from Europe in order to modernize gunpowder/artillery technology. From Urban to Baron de Toth.
 
 
 
Originally posted by ByzantineEmperor

The Ottoman period of adaptation and advancement in technology petered out by the early 16th century.  As kurt mentioned, the religious conservative ulema, as well as powerful conservative members of the Imperial Council, vehemently resisted reforms and independent thinking on the part of princes and upcoming sultans.  They restricted the sultans to the point that they were virtual prisoners of the harem, knowing hardly anything about the outside world. 
In the 17th century, there were various vezirs and officials who were enterprizing individuals.  They tried to institute reforms of the military and the bureaucracy but were eventually disenfranchized and their work discontinued.  Most notable was the hiring of artillery experts from France who created a rapid-fire cannon corps. 
 
Like the Koprulu family standing out as a great example in 17th century.
 
The reforming Sultans has faced terrible deaths.
 
It was not only the Ulema but also the Janissaries, who were the most influential permanent soldier group, constantly opposed the renovation and innovation in order to keep their influential position inside Ottoman governance.Discipline was lost, they began to demand more and more, and when they didn't get what they want, they created havoc.
 
For instance, Osman II, a very young reformer sultan, was executed by Janissaries, just after his plans to reform the military came out to the daylight.(Actually in Osman II's time, it has gone as far as Janissaries leaving the Siege of Khotin(castle which was then controlled by Polish) by themselves, disobeying Sultan)
 
There are other later examples, very unfortunate, like Selim III. It took more than 200 years to be able to erase Janissaries. During those years, together with Ulema , they were opposing more or less everything new. So, the most professional group and one of the keys of the Ottoman success became the latest obstacle after 17th century.
 
And there is the element of pride too..There were developments going on in Europe, and Ottomans were looking at Europe from their so-called high skies,seeing them lowly, and themselves as the most powerful, like they had the glory they had in 16th century. They were simply despising Europe and the developments happening.
 
Apart from all that; Ottomans' failure was that they didn't have their own Renaissance...The knowledge and education did not ever become available to the folk in general.
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
andrew View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 253
  Quote andrew Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2007 at 15:40
I meant whem Muhammed Ali Pasha's reforms to modernize Egypt. He hired French experts to train them in the latest of military technology and farming technology. Not during the brief Napoleonic period.
 
Muhammed Ali led his Egyptian army to fight the Ottomans in a series of battles after the Ottomans did not live up to their promise of giving him control of Syria after his participation in the Battle of Navarino.
 
Also I always believed the Mamelukes and Ottomans didn't really get the idea of firearms from Europe rather from China.
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379
  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2007 at 15:42
My friends read Gabor Agoston`s "Guns of the sultans". İt is a faboulous book.
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2007 at 21:09
Originally posted by Kapikulu

Most of those weapons were provided by Sultan Tomanbai from the Venetians after heavy defeat in Mercidabık.
 
True that they were not of the latest technology. They just bought what Venetians used before.
 
Artillery were not rotatable, therefore, when Selim I attacked from the other side where artilleries were not directed to, they had been useless during the whole battle of Ridanieh.
 
Ah yes, I remember reading now that most of the Mameluke artillery came from the Venetians.  Venice had an active economic interest in keeping the Mamelukes in power because the republic had signed trading treaties with the sultan.
 
Good point about the unrotatable cannon.  Were they chained to wooden sleds that just laid on the ground?
 
Originally posted by Kapikulu

In fact, in fact. It had been a major tradition in Ottoman Empire to bring skillful officers and engineers from Europe in order to modernize gunpowder/artillery technology. From Urban to Baron de Toth.
 
Yes, we cannot forget the infamous Urban, whom Mehmet II hired to cast the gigantic bombards used at the siege of Constantinople in 1453!  Supposedly he was either a German or a Hungarian.
 
Originally posted by Kapikulu

For instance, Osman II, a very young reformer sultan, was executed by Janissaries, just after his plans to reform the military came out to the daylight.
 
It is kind of ironic that eventually the sultans had enough of the terrorizing Janissaries and literally turned the cannons on them, killing the last of their number.  Didn't this happen in the 19th century (I forget which sultan)?
 
Originally posted by andrew

Also I always believed the Mamelukes and Ottomans didn't really get the idea of firearms from Europe rather from China.
 
Perhaps there were some experts and technologies that were imported from China when the Ottomans went on campaign in Persia.  However, I think most of the early expertise was imported from the West via the Balkans.
 
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

My friends read Gabor Agoston`s "Guns of the sultans". İt is a faboulous book.
 
A fabulous book indeed.  I also highly recommend it.  Here is the full reference:
 
Gabor Agoston, Guns for the Sultan: Military Power and the Weapons Industry in the Ottoman Empire (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
 


Edited by Byzantine Emperor - 11-Jun-2007 at 21:10
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
  Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2007 at 11:06
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

 
Ah yes, I remember reading now that most of the Mameluke artillery came from the Venetians.  Venice had an active economic interest in keeping the Mamelukes in power because the republic had signed trading treaties with the sultan.
 
Indeed...While Venice's relations with Ottomans were usually hostile, they had good relations with Mamelukes and a warm trading relationship
 
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

Good point about the unrotatable cannon.  Were they chained to wooden sleds that just laid on the ground?
 
 
In fact, I don't know the exact technique, but they were stabilised on the ground. They were not field artilleries, but heavy artillery, therefore needed to be stabilised to be fired.
 
 
Originally posted by ByzantineEmperor

 
Yes, we cannot forget the infamous Urban, whom Mehmet II hired to cast the gigantic bombards used at the siege of Constantinople in 1453!  Supposedly he was either a German or a Hungarian.
 
Famous Urban for some, infamous for someLOL..He was HungarianWink
 
Originally posted by ByzantineEmperor

 
It is kind of ironic that eventually the sultans had enough of the terrorizing Janissaries and literally turned the cannons on them, killing the last of their number.  Didn't this happen in the 19th century (I forget which sultan)?
 
Mahmud II in 1826. This event was called as Vaka-yı Hayriye, which means "Auspicious event"...It had to happen in some point, they had been already enough and were defunct for centuries as an army group anyway.
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2007 at 11:33
Originally posted by Kapikulu

Famous Urban for some, infamous for someLOL..He was HungarianWink
 
Infamous for the Byzantines as well.  Before he entered the service of Mehmet II, Urban had offered his talents to emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos.  Constantine could not afford to pay him the salary for which he asked, so Urban went right across the trench to the sultan!  Militarily, I am not sure how much Urban would have been able to help the defending Byzantines, but it is fun to speculate. Big%20smile
 
Originally posted by Kapikulu

Mahmud II in 1826. This event was called as Vaka-yı Hayriye, which means "Auspicious event"...It had to happen in some point, they had been already enough and were defunct for centuries as an army group anyway.
 
Mahmud, that's right!  Thanks.  By that time the Janissaries had become an aristocratic class and were use to living in much of the same sumptuous environment as the pre-reform sultans.  You know that something is wrong when the Greeks living in the countryside actually wanted their children to become Janissaries, because it had become such a lucrative career! LOL


Edited by Byzantine Emperor - 12-Jun-2007 at 11:37
Back to Top
andrew View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 253
  Quote andrew Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jun-2007 at 12:03
Towards the late stages of the empire the only thing that seperated the defeat of the Ottomans were other European powers intervening. The Russians could've defeated the Ottomans once and for all had not Britain, France, and Austria not intervened. They believed whoever conquered the Ottomans would become to powerful controling all the trade routes. Muhammed Ali Pash of Egypt modernized his army along French lines in terms of army and technology and had not Russia intervened Egypt would've been the power in the Middle East.
 
The only thing that kept Ottoman independence from Europe, were the other nations of Europe.
Back to Top
andrew View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 253
  Quote andrew Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2007 at 12:17

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

Islam - Empire of Faith III - The Ottomans - Part I
Islam - Empire of Faith III - The Ottomans - Part II
Islam - Empire of Faith III - The Ottomans - Part III
Islam - Empire of Faith III - The Ottomans - Part IV
Islam - Empire of Faith III - The Ottomans - Part V
Islam - Empire of Faith III - The Ottomans - Part VI

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?

Back to Top
TheDiplomat View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1988
  Quote TheDiplomat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2007 at 12:44
Originally posted by andrew

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?

 
Europe is just a small peninsula of AsiaWink
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!

Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
  Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jun-2007 at 08:07
Originally posted by andrew

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?

 
You will find the reply in dates. Turks began to migrate into Anatolia in 11th century.
 
And Ottoman Turks stepped over Europe in 14th century.
 
After 14th century on, Turks have presence in Europe... So, being a European power is not linked to genealogy or from where you come but which area you are on and you have influence over.Wink
 
History is written of migrations that happened in the past
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 18:44
Originally posted by Kapikulu

And Ottoman Turks stepped over Europe in 14th century.
 
After 14th century on, Turks have presence in Europe... So, being a European power is not linked to genealogy or from where you come but which area you are on and you have influence over.
 
The Turks can also thank John VI Kantakuzenos and the destructive power of an earthquake for helping them gain a foothold in Europe as well! Wink
 
In his bid for the imperial throne in the Byzantine civil wars, he hired bands of Turks and brought them over into Europe to serve in battle against the forces of the regency of John V Palaiologos.  There was also a devastating earthquake that either killed or drove away many of the inhabitants of Gallipoli in 1354.
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

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 0.125 seconds.