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
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 Topic: The Decline of the Ottoman Empire
    Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 22:31
 
Ataman asked:
Does anybody know what the budget of Ottoman Empire in 17th c. and later was?
 
 
Here is a good overview on just this very subject (two drafts of the same text):
 
 
In a way, as the paper points out, the Ottomans as dynasts were just as limited in the techniques of collecting state revenues as were their 17th century contemporaries, resorted to similar actions (often more successfully), and forged or adapted the necessary tools for state development quite adequately even within the context of "political" decline. Here is a look with respect to the factors market:
 
 
Professor Pamuk is the well-known authority on Ottoman finances, and his book, A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), a must read as sound reference.
 
For the coin counters:
 
 
And for specific pressures (not unknown among other European states of the 17th century):
 
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: 01-Feb-2008 at 22:14
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:
 
Virginia H. Aksan, Ottoman Wars 1700-1870: An Empire Besieged. New York: Longman, 2007.
 
From a social and military perspective, Aksan examines the difficulties faced by the Ottoman state at home in living side by side with so many different religious and ethnic groups.  She also looks at the interactions between the Porte and neighboring European powers.
 
Also, check out this new anthology of articles:
 
Virginia H. Aksan and Daniel Goffman, eds. The Early Modern Ottomans: Remapping the Empire. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
 
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2008 at 16:52

Interestingly enough, no one mentioned global economics as a reason for the Ottomans' decline. During its expansion stage, up to the time of Sulayman the Magnificent, the Ottomans controlled the entire Middle East, and thus much of their economy was derived from the trade that linked Europe to Asia. However, with the age of discovery, the traditional trade routes in the Indian Ocean and overland declined, being replaced by transoceanic routes controlled by Europeans. What's more, the discovery of the Americas brought with it a huge influx of silver from Mexico and Peru. This affected the economy of the Ottoman empire which was based on silver much more than the European ones, which were based on gold (and on silver but to a lesser extent). The net result was that from the late 16th century, the Ottoman Empire went through a period of "stagflation" - inflation caused by the increased supply of silver combined with a stagnant economy due to the loss of trade.

When one combines the antiquated political structure with such unfavourable economic conditions, it is no small wonder that the Ottomans fell more and more behind the Europeans economically and technologically. Also, the loss of trade also meant a relative intellectual stagnation, as the flow of new ideas caused by trade declined.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

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: 07-Feb-2008 at 16:37
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.
 
I think that is the main factor, but the alliance of challenger civilizations, the agitation of unassimilitated subject peoples, the traditionalism of religious institutions, the hostility to Western intellectualism and the shifting of trade routes bypassing the empire also played significant roles.
 
I don't think the Battle of Lepanto can be cited as a cause of decline; the navy was rebuilt by the next year, and Turkish corsairs were raiding as far as Iceland in the next century. Instead it is a reflection of decline, Venetian and Spanish ships had surpassed Ottoman ships in terms technology and thus inflicted a huge defeat, who's ultimate significance is overstated due to historical chauvinism.
 
If Abdul Hamid hadn't disposed of the constitution in 1876 the empire would still be here most probably. From that point until 1908 the Ottomans remained in limbo and by the time the constitution was restored the empire was too poor to finance the recovery from instability as a result of the coup.
 
Oh, and the Spanish conquest of the Americas. Without all the gold and silver they looted there was no way the Hapsburgs could have financed such effective resistance against the Ottomans.
 
Murad IV is my favorite emperor. His only mistakes were dieing early and leaving his retard brother as the sole heir of the empire.
Karadenizli
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: 07-Feb-2008 at 20:09
Hello kurt
 
Religion has nohing to do with the decline of the Ottoman empire. It wasn't the ulema who controlled the Janissaries, it was the sufi orders particularly the Bektashi order. There were many religious scholars who called for reform and for the Ottoman empire to make use of the scientific revolution in europe when that movement was in its infancy. Katip Celebi, Haji Khalifah and many others called for translation, and these happened, of the new scientific books appearing in europe and teaching them. Also the ottoman empire had untill the early 18th century the backbone for a scientific revolution. There were hunderds of colleges around the ottoman empire and some had more money and endowments than the richest university in europe. All had science ad especially Mathematics as part of their curriculum and recent evidence show that the scientific revolution in europe actually reached those school. However, starting from the second half of the 17th century, and this is well documented, these endowments were either confiscated to build sufi Tekkes that poisened the minds of the populace or by governors and fuedal families that started to gain wide control. That movement was done by the sufis, who hated scholars and those schools. Tripoli, a relatively small city, for example had several colleges and up to 300 endowed schools, real schools with a dorm and faculty, when the Ottomans took it. When a traveler visited in the late 17th century, there was just one school left and it was in dire financial need while other schools lost endowment to several Tekkes. The sufis were a real plague and Islamic society during those critical years. They were popular with the rural masses, who were still a majority and since most fuedals came from the countryside to rule cities, they did what the sufis wanted. When you read the Ottoman history you will find that Ulema actually spearheaded reform in Egypt and during the reign of Mahmud II they were instrumental in bringing down the Janissaries and supporting his reforms while the Sufis where responsible for deposing all the reforming Ottoman Sultan.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
aslanlar View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote aslanlar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Oct-2008 at 22:03
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.
 
I think one fundamental problem was that the Ottoman Empire was never an establishment that would remain, it had no 'land'. Coming from Asia, the Turks didn't really have a homeland (untill the decline was already in process and Anatolia became it by default, seeing as there was nowhere else). Also, there was no Ottomanism, a major problem, sure there was Islam against an Infidel, but a Jihad can't conjure up the passion of nationalism. Brutal as it may seem, the Turks had to 'Turkify' their land, through conversion, deportation or just murder. Unfortunately for them, they didn't.
 
I guess the economic pressures grew during the 18th century after Ahmed III's Tulip period and that by the early 19th century, the empire was clearly behind the powers. To make matters worse, in the early 19th century Russia had asserted itself as the 'gendarme of Europe' and had it's sights on Constantinople. Fighting such a strong nation while in decline obviously had terrible consequences. Also, during the early 19th century during Selim III or Mahmud II (and his tanzimat reforms) the Ottoman Empire was trying to catch up to the Western World..... the problem was that the western world was advancing at the same time through the Industrial Revolution that never reached the Ottoman Empire.
 
I think while there were severe problems with the empire, Mahmud II had created a fairly strong state that could contest with Russia (not defeat, but it was still a force to be reckoned with). 1856 was the last time they were at the negotiating table as a winner. AbdulMecid's westernisation too was good, but he spent too much money on palaces and not enough on the developments he sought to achieve. AbdulHamid too tried to modernise, but this time without westernising, something i respect him for. Yet it was by far too little too late. If 18th century reform began a century beforehand, there would have been a difference.
 
 What would be the main hindrance to modernisation for the Ottomans??? Personally, it's religion.
 


Edited by aslanlar - 06-Oct-2008 at 22:06
"The league is alright when sparrows dispute but it can do little when eagles argue" -Mussolini
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 0.109 seconds.