The Decline of the Ottoman Empire

I thought the Ulema was generally against westernisation (modernisation)? If a Sultan was in disagreement with the seyhulislam, then there wasn't much chance that he'd stay there long. In the 18th century reformist Sultans had to move with caution so as not to upset the Ulema by being too reformist.

Edited by aslanlar - 06-Oct-2008 at 22:06

No one has mentioned that religious reform did not occur at all in Ottoman society. In Europe you had the reformation and the counter-reformation, in the Ottoman Empire you had the Ulema and that was it. Because religious institutions refused to evolve in Ottoman society intellectual classes were unable to flourish and as such there was little stimulus to development within society itself.

For those interested, you might check out a newly published book that looks at the problems faced by the Ottoman Empire during the later Early Modern period:

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.

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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.

Hello to you all,