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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Decline of the Ottoman Empire

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Decline of the Ottoman Empire
    Posted: 17-Dec-2007 at 15:21
Hello to you all
 
I have been studying Ottoman history for a long time and I have always been wondering how can an empire that terrified Europe not so long ago turned into such a weak country gripped by internal strife.
 
Like it or not, The Ottomans had lots of support among the local population initially even well into the 18th century. Serbs distinguished themselves in the service of the Sultan and once Bulgaria became pacified, it never rebelled again until the late 18th century. Greeks were extremely powerfull and many local administration was in the hand of their noble families, the phanariots, as well as many civil service posts, the military inspector on Iraq was a greek christian in the early 17th century.
 
But why? why such a strong country that had the most sophisticated administration in the world at that time declined?
 
Lack of reform is often suggested by many as the sole reason for such a decline but this is not completely true. Ahmed III, Mustafa III, Osman II and Osman III and many others intruduced reform measures. Local administrators also were keen on reforming their provinces and history recorded their names like the famed Koprulu family. Ottoman intelectuals also knew how much the Ottomans were late quite early in the 17th century and gave perscriptions for reform most notably Katip Celebi, this guy is the most underestimated scholar ever to walk on this earth. So why were those suggestions not taken seriously.
 
My theory from what I have read puts all the responsibility on the shoulders of one giant man, Murad IV. In my opinion, the real decline of the Ottomans started not in 1683, but on the day he died in 1640 when he was 27 years young. This guy, an ardent enemy to Janissaries and the sufi orders that supported them had great ideas for the direction the country should go. His reforms are apparent in the subsequent victories the ottomans had and he had already a huge reform plan for the Ottoman empire that died with him one of the important pillars of which, if I am not mistaken, was to end the Janissaries and establish a new professional army. Had he lived to the average age of the other Sultans, about 50 years old, history might have been in another completely different direction.
 
What do you think?
 
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 566
  Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Dec-2007 at 17:58
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello to you all
 
I have been studying Ottoman history for a long time and I have always been wondering how can an empire that terrified Europe not so long ago turned into such a weak country gripped by internal strife.
 
Like it or not, The Ottomans had lots of support among the local population initially even well into the 18th century. Serbs distinguished themselves in the service of the Sultan and once Bulgaria became pacified, it never rebelled again until the late 18th century. Greeks were extremely powerfull and many local administration was in the hand of their noble families, the phanariots, as well as many civil service posts, the military inspector on Iraq was a greek christian in the early 17th century.
 
But why? why such a strong country that had the most sophisticated administration in the world at that time declined?
 
Lack of reform is often suggested by many as the sole reason for such a decline but this is not completely true. Ahmed III, Mustafa III, Osman II and Osman III and many others intruduced reform measures. Local administrators also were keen on reforming their provinces and history recorded their names like the famed Koprulu family. Ottoman intelectuals also knew how much the Ottomans were late quite early in the 17th century and gave perscriptions for reform most notably Katip Celebi, this guy is the most underestimated scholar ever to walk on this earth. So why were those suggestions not taken seriously.
 
My theory from what I have read puts all the responsibility on the shoulders of one giant man, Murad IV. In my opinion, the real decline of the Ottomans started not in 1683, but on the day he died in 1640 when he was 27 years young. This guy, an ardent enemy to Janissaries and the sufi orders that supported them had great ideas for the direction the country should go. His reforms are apparent in the subsequent victories the ottomans had and he had already a huge reform plan for the Ottoman empire that died with him one of the important pillars of which, if I am not mistaken, was to end the Janissaries and establish a new professional army. Had he lived to the average age of the other Sultans, about 50 years old, history might have been in another completely different direction.
 
What do you think?
 
 
Al-Jassas


The ottoman empire imo was standing on very weak legs from the start I think.
First of all they didn't try really hard to assimilate the balkan nations. Of course there was some cases of christians forced to be muslims and there were also privileges for those who did it. But there was not a concentrated effort. In general the Sultan  left those provinces in the mercy of local governors and bands of thieves and guerrillas, as long as he got the taxes.

Second, Ottomans were not really into trading. They left it mostly to Greeks, while they gained profit from wars and looting. After they were finally pushed back from Central Europe and didn't expand further, it kind of...stagnated.

Third, at some point Russia came to power and starting pushing Ottomans really hard. They lost many wars and in the end had to ask help from the French or English which lead to giving away trade rights, taking lawns they couldn't pay back and economical infiltration by the westerners.

Fourth, the Janissaries were really valuable at the first conquests and the passionate campaigns for loot and glory but soon became too powerful and having an armed faction inside your empire is a big no-no.

Fifth, a series of bad sultans. Empires tend to decline and rise again quite rapidly.
For example the Byzantine Empire went through many periods of near destruction, caused by useless emperors and the next one turned brilliant and rescued everything.

The same with Rome. I guess this is the bad thing with absolute monarchies. The Ottomans were unlucky to have a series of bad sultans.


These were the reasons according to my opinion only. I am not an expert and might have missed many, I only know Ottoman history from the Greek side and a few of my own little I admit (I am not really into it) research.

EDIT: Just wanting to add a few more

a)Giving all Christians to the Patriarch (big mistake), allowing the church to freely control them (despite being pro-Greek than Slavic but still)
b) Not improving living conditions. Poverty and empty stomachs lead to rebellion (as the French king found out) and in multi-ethnic empires it's too dangerous. If the sultan had put some effort to lower taxes and help put some law and order there would be no Greeks, Bulgarians etc today.


Edited by Vorian - 17-Dec-2007 at 18:02
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2008 at 22:02
I think the key was the gradual industrialization of Western Europe starting in the 15th century.   The Ottomans could remain a force in the Balkans, but they simply could not field truly modern armies or develop a modern economy needed to compete with Britain, France, Germany and Austria Hungary.


Edited by Cryptic - 01-Jan-2008 at 22:03
Back to Top
erkut View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Persona non Grata

Joined: 18-Feb-2006
Location: T.R.N.C.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 965
  Quote erkut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jan-2008 at 19:35
Well i think it was the age of nationalism, it was an end for empires. Not just Ottomans; Austo-Hungarian empire and Russian Tsar also declined at the same time....
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jan-2008 at 01:56
One must also remember that the empire, at its apogee, controlled all of the major trade routs between Europe and Asia, which in turn, enabled her to remain wealthy. However, the Europeans had begun to establish alternative trade routs, the most important being the routes to the New World. This single-handedly caused the devaluation of Ottoman currency, since the European nations no longer needed to depend on Ottoman trade routes anymore. No customers, no money.
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-Jan-2008 at 02:37
The Ottomans shocked Europe because these peoples developed so quickly and in such a tremendous way it caught Europe asleep. The Ottoman weapons were effective at first yet they were to be no match for their European counter parts in the future.
 
At the outset the Ottomans had superior technology to Europe, and used gunpowder and other forms of military tactics such as attacking in massive numbers to force themselves into Europe. Slowly the Ottomans didn't decline or change, the Europeans just surpassed them and all of a sudden the Europeans military was far more efficient and weapons more modern.
 
So why didn't the Ottomans reform? Well, the sultan was in charge and the janissaries were his mob. If they reform that means a wholesale change from the military to the sultan himself and he would have to relinquish control to others and perhaps get rid of the janissaries. Also the Ottomans are traditionalists, they don't really like change that's why a lot of their history is still in tact to this very day.
 
Any changes brought about to make it seem more like a European model would still leave the Ottomans lagging behind as Europe kept expanding and the Ottomans just couldn't keep up. The Ottomans were third-teir produce of weapons and could no longer hold their territorial acquisitions together.
 
Their failure to modernize is what did them in.
Back to Top
Roberts View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

aka axeman

Joined: 22-Aug-2005
Location: Riga
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1138
  Quote Roberts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 03:37
Originally posted by andrew

The Ottomans shocked Europe because these peoples developed so quickly and in such a tremendous way it caught Europe asleep. The Ottoman weapons were effective at first yet they were to be no match for their European counter parts in the future.

I doubt anyone in Europe was shocked by Ottomans and if they were than it was not because of "developing quickly", but rather due to expansion into Balkans.


At the outset the Ottomans had superior technology to Europe

like what?

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 06:56
Hello to you all,
 
       I strongly believe that the Ottoman Empire lacked many reforms at every level. However, I am one of those people who believes that we need to take a larger view of things. We must remember, and I am sure you all know this, that the Spanish, along with some other European nations, defeated the Ottomans at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. This shifted the influence of the Mediterranean world to Spain, which by then controlled a very huge and profitable empire.
 
       I also believe that most European nations still had that chivalrous sentiment. Many still wanted to free the Holy Land from Muslim rule and of course European nations resented the wealth and power that the Ottomans enjoyed. I agree with the argument made here about Europeans finding new routes to Orient, which began to have impact on the Ottoman economy and power.
 
       My point here is that we cannot let ourselves convience that one particular person or event could have determined the decline of the Ottoman Empire, although I believe that Murad V did have a certain responsability, like every other Ottoman Sultan. We must see things in a broader view and try to bring them together.
 
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 17:15
So many good posts on this subject.
 
I'll just glance over and ad lib. The Ottomans did recognize her problems of the state and did make repeated attempts at reform. One of the main problems was the practice of fratricide that eliminated the competition and left power in the hands eventual weak Sultans or their mothers, the prime ministers (vezier) or the Kapikullu. However, the latter was also a strength in the later stages of the empire. 
 
Genc Osman II, for example (aka young Osman), tried to create a more loyal branch of ethnic Turkish soldiery but his fate was met with strangulation at the hands of suspicious Janissaries.
 
The Ottoman's aggressive foreign policies were met with a greater force in kind. Hence her days were numbered as long as Ottoman rivals sought to match and surpass them in military and commercial endevours.
 
Lastly, the lack of progressive industrialization and later outdated military training brought inevitable disparities.
 
 
 


Edited by Seko - 17-Jan-2008 at 17:16
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

banned

Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 612
  Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 20:02
Well Seko that summation sounds very traditional but what does it say really. The Ottomans had no more problems with the succession than did their Byzantine predecessors [or for that matter the older Roman Empire of the 3rd century]. Likewise, the "foreign" policy of the Ottoman state was not overly "aggressive" in the context of their neighbors.  Yet, you did hint at a vital element, the institutions of the state that would facilitate problem solving, be they social, political, or economic. And here, one must emphasize the stultifying nature of the Ottoman administration which effectively blocked the social mobility of the ethnic Turkish population in terms of the peculiarisms of the Ottoman dynasty and Court. Few people make reference to the exclusive nature of Ottoman Turkish which was highly stylized in both manners and language. In some ways one can make the argument that while other European states were formulating national institutions, the Ottomans persisted with an array of heterogenous groups that maintained a high degree of autonomy with the sole element of political cohesion being loyalty to the Sultan and not much else. In a way, one might speculate that the privilege of the millet was also assumed, so to speak, by the members of the bureaucratic, religious, and military establishment [and here I am speaking of the autonomy that existed between the individual compartments that composed the state and interacted solely with the person of the sultan]. In Europe, political consciousness was moving in the direction of principles that included the perception that the state and the ethnic nation are identical, and within this context the people were the embodiment of the society and the source of its energies. Such a process never matured in a Turkish setting [and here it is important to reach such an assessment because it does elucidate the reasons underpinning Kemalite Turkey] and the Ottoman empire can solely be defined by its ruler, the religious prism, and the peculiarisms of the military. Up to the 17th century the structure served well, but then in terms of the economy, the Ottomans (as with all highly militarized groups) simply inserted themselves atop an already solid pyramid [established economic patterns were exploited not altered, as can be illustrated by any study of land-tenure in the various regions of the empire]--and here, in terms of culture, one may juxtapose the Arab experience with that of the later Ottomans. Throw into the mixture the devshirme and the timariot and one can then gauge how the centripetal could also through time become the centrifugal.
 
Here is an interesting lecture that touches upon this topic:
 
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 20:37
In discussing the Ottoman state we are in best shape when talking about certain time frames. Being that this topic focuses on it's decline many facets of errosion and systems come into play.
 
You hit the nail on the head, drgonzaga, regarding political restrictions to social mobility for the ethnic Turk. This limitation was evident predominantly in the state's political realm, which in effect placed the bulk of military responsibility on the same population. One glowingly hampered with turmoil between the Ottoman porte and Turkmen notables.
 
Until Kemal's nationalistic reforms, Ottoman unity could be seen as being addressed and held together by Islamic religious policy. Policies that shaped the dhimmi as well as the musluman. Once nationalism had hit the balkans, notions of serving a master religious class was forshadowed by a newly reacquired ethnic identity. It also was prudent that the new masters, temporal or spiritual, were sufficient providers in monetary accountability.
 
Probably most telling of all was the inability of the Ottomans to regularly challenge foreign trade, hampered by capitulations, inflated goods and the ever roving haydut. The resurgence of European military ran parallel to this problem.  By the time of her decline the Ottoman penchant for victory was replaced with a deaftist attitude (brought to fruition by a long series of land loss), and a subpar economy not able to withstand bankrupt military spending. 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2008 at 00:25
http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=The_Ottoman_Empires_Inability_to_Industriali

My work on Ottoman inability to industralize in the 19th century. The Great Western Transmutation, by Hodgson is a great article on this issue as well, my article is influenced by his work.


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: 26-Jan-2008 at 20:19
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Lack of reform is often suggested by many as the sole reason for such a decline but this is not completely true. Ahmed III, Mustafa III, Osman II and Osman III and many others intruduced reform measures. Local administrators also were keen on reforming their provinces and history recorded their names like the famed Koprulu family. Ottoman intelectuals also knew how much the Ottomans were late quite early in the 17th century and gave perscriptions for reform most notably Katip Celebi, this guy is the most underestimated scholar ever to walk on this earth. So why were those suggestions not taken seriously.
 
Yes, there was a string of reformed-minded sultans in the 17th century.  Their ideas were fresh and important for the progression of the empire into the early modern world.  However, I think one must look to the control that was exercised over the sultans and the administration by the ulema and the religious authorities.  Their ultra-conservative conception of the sultanate, that the sultan should remain cloistered in the palace harem, with little contact with the outside world, and with little education except Koranic studies, hindered the reform of the state if not outright stifling it.  As economic and military difficulties became worse for the Ottomans, the grip of the ulema tightened. 
 
Also, the continued degeneration of the Janissaries created a hinderance to reform.  They were totally opposed to bringing in European specialists and commanders to reform the army.  Since the Janissaries had become more of a privileged class of nobles into the early modern period, they were also violently opposed to any reforms which removed useless titles and privileges which were a drain on the finances.  The provincial administration was increasingly corrupt at this time too; the sultans were losing control over the provinces and they were becoming decentralized.  Any reforms aimed towards the administration were met with hostility and rebellion from the governors.
 
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: 27-Jan-2008 at 11:00
Ottomans were the strongest empire in the world through the last of 17th century. The european powers  were in defence and they thought that to defeat the turks they must stop waging war with themselves and unite. Sometimes they unite, like 1389,1396,1443-4, 1571, 1683.... The europeans understand that when they come together ottomans weren`t invincible. They scored some victories. Combined spanish-venetian-papacy fleet inflicted a crushing defeat to the turks at lepanto. At 1683 again the ottoman army was defeated by a german-polish combination. Ottomans fought against the coalition which includes the empire, poland, venice and russia. The giant stand against this powers for 16 years but soon collapsed and signed the karlowitz treaty. So I think we can`t look through the 17th century as a decline. The decline of the ottoman exhibited itself in the 18th century and became obvious at the 19th century. In this period the european powers start to engage the ottomans without any alliances and scored victories(especially Russians). Nationalism finished the ottomans, not even an ultra modern country could stand against this fury. And let us not forget that the austrian and russian empire collapsed before the ottoman empire. My point is , the collapse of the empires were inevitable.  
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

banned

Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 612
  Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 13:37
Yes, nationalism "finished" the Ottoman state but why was this so, specially at the hands of a non-Anatolian Turk, whose entry into the new Turkish military was a consequence of the impetus toward reform? Why then did the epoch (1826-1876) known as the Tanzimat fail? After all the fragmentation of the empire during the course of the 19th century can hardly be attributed to a desire for modernization or good government, be it Greece, the Balkans, Tunisia, or Egypt.
 
Then there is the question of actual origins behind the "Arab" revolt during the course of World War I?


Edited by drgonzaga - 27-Jan-2008 at 13:41
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813
  Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 19:28
I agree with Vorian about the trade...Especially Izmit flourised because of it.
As for the administrative posts, many Greeks went abroad to study (Italy, France, Romania, Russia) and many of them gained advanced knowledge that offered them high possitions in these posts. This was a big deal when trouble started to arise in the empire.


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 08:43
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

Ottomans were the strongest empire in the world through the last of 17th century.
 
This is a controversial statement. Look at France of Louis XIV. It seems to be the most powerfull European country in the last decades of 17th c. IMO it was at least equel to Ottoman Empire.
 
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

The european powers  were in defence and they thought that to defeat the turks they must stop waging war with themselves and unite.
 
I agree that generally European countries were in defence until about 1684. But even before 1684 they were able to defend oneself without any alliance. Though Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth fought alone in 1621, it was able to hold back the whole Ottoman army on its border. Though Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth waged the war with Russia (1632-1634), it was able to hold back Ottoman attack in 1633. These are just 2 examples... You can also check the opinion of Moldavian chronicler (Miron Costin) about the power of PLC during the reign of Wladyslaw IV Waza (in the chapter 17) and about misgivings of the Sultan who affraided a 'quarrel' with the Poles (in the chapter 16)...
 
Ottoman Empire was by no means a very powerfull country. It was able to fight with some successes against European powers even in 18h c. But stating that it was 'the strongest empire in the world through the last of 17th century' is IMHO an exaggeration.


Edited by ataman - 28-Jan-2008 at 15:50
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 14:19

Hello to you all

Sorry for joining the discussion late. There are several good points that have been discussed above but still I think that it is still short of the whole picture. Russia, though it was far more ethnically homogenous than the Ottoman empire and had much more people, lagged the Ottoman's in the fields of freedom of trade, agriculture and even as it was demonstrated in the first Russo-Turkish wars in military. Yet, Russia emerged as victorious in every field starting with the reign of Cathrine the great because of the reforms that her predecessors did to the military and civil administration. If I am not mistaken, the administrative system of the Ottoman empire collapsed in the the early 18th century and the government started to give local administrative powers to local dynasties especially in the rich provinces. From what I read the difference in the discription between 17th century writers and 18th century writers you could see how terrible the situation has become. Yes, the Ulema did have some interference in the reform process but many were strong proponents for reform like Katip Celebi who knew several languages and many of the Egyptian scholars of that age. It was the sufi orders specifically the Bektashis who were responsible for destroying the reform projects of many Sultan especially that it meant the destruction of their power. Russia on the other hand did the opposite. They established a strong centralized system and won the Church on their side, by bribing them of course, and introduced learning for a select few while keeping the masses illeterate especially those who were of minority groups. They sent the Cossacks and made them the majority where ever they colonised but the Ottomans instead married the local nobles and kept them in office even if they were not from the same religion.

Without effective administration you can't provide enough money either to reform or to implement it that is why I think the collaps was a strong reason for the failiure of the Ottoman empire.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 15:51
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Without effective administration you can't provide enough money either to reform or to implement it that is why I think the collaps was a strong reason for the failiure of the Ottoman empire.
 
Does anybody know what the budget of Ottoman Empire in 17th c. and later was?


Edited by ataman - 28-Jan-2008 at 15:52
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: 28-Jan-2008 at 20:18
Originally posted by ataman

Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

Ottomans were the strongest empire in the world through the last of 17th century.
 
This is a controversial statement. Look at France of Louis XIV. It seems to be the most powerfull European country in the last decades of 17th c. IMO it was at least equel to Ottoman Empire.
 
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

The european powers  were in defence and they thought that to defeat the turks they must stop waging war with themselves and unite.
 
I agree that generally European countries were in defence until about 1684. But even before 1684 they were able to defend oneself without any alliance. Though Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth fought alone in 1621, it was able to hold back the whole Ottoman army on its border. Though Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth waged the war with Russia (1632-1634), it was able to hold back Ottoman attack in 1633. These are just 2 examples... You can also check the opinion of Moldavian chronicler (Miron Costin) about the power of PLC during the reign of Wladyslaw IV Waza (in the chapter 17) and about misgivings of the Sultan who affraided a 'quarrel' with the Poles (in the chapter 16)...
 
Ottoman Empire was by no means a very powerfull country. It was able to fight with some successes against European powers even in 18h c. But stating that it was 'the strongest empire in the world through the last of 17th century' is IMHO an exaggeration.
Ataman you have talked  good examples about the resistance of poles against the ottomans by theirselves. But let us dont forget that poland was a large commonwealth with fine millitary traditions. I will  give two interesting example. The first is 1683-99 ottomans stood against 4 major power of europe for 16 year. Second is at 1833, eygpt governor approaches  with his army to western anatolia. This is a major decline for the empire I think.
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 0.125 seconds.