Ottomans Vs Ming
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19441
Printed Date: 13-May-2024 at 18:02
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Ottomans Vs Ming
Posted By: xi_tujue
Subject: Ottomans Vs Ming
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2007 at 16:06
|
It's a common Fact that these to Empire were the LArgest and richest empires of there time. at there hight One in asia one around the medditerenean. Both had a spectacular Millitay organisations and a advanced arsenal at that point. What if these 2 Superpowers would go to battle.................With eachother. We could have 2 senario's 1. Game senario: Like Age of Empire a map with 2 camps special units no other factors 2. Real life senario : enemies and allies play a factor.(Lets say ming could use the european powers against the ottomans or the Ottomans could rely on The Central asian Khanates against the Ming.) so who would win the war? ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Replies:
Posted By: Hulegu Han
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2007 at 09:10
|
How could Ming have conflicted against Ottomans while it couldn't dealed with Mongols to the north and Japanese sea pirates to the east? Also what weopans did Ming have as opposed to Ottoman cannons and firearms which were the most advanced in their times? Shortly it's meaningless to imagine that Ottoman and Ming were equal powers. |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2007 at 10:02
|
It's like most such comparisons, it depends upon times periods.
The Ming were at their peak in the medieval period while the Ottoman's where still smallish and rising. Later in the Rennaisaance period when the Ottoman Empire hit its peak the Ming were in decline. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2007 at 13:27
|
lets say in the early 15 th cent what would happen then? Ming still strong The ottomans hadn't just quite adopted firearms yet? ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 02-May-2007 at 23:52
|
Really depends on what date, but I bet on the Ming military. Never underestimate the Chinese military when they are not fighting each other. They get as scary as endless Russian advance. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 04:20
you don't know the ottomans so well then.  ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 05:19
|
In the 18th Century the Ottoman standing army was 180,000 men. Presumably much smaller in the 15 century. The Ming standing army of the time was 1.8 million. that's a more than 10/1 advantage.
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 14:51
Or you don't know much about Chinese...
 I must admit I only know about Ottoman Empire' military when they started to expand to the Balkans to their final decline... but I do know that there were more Chinese troops compared to the Ottoman troops throughout the history. As Paul pointed out,
So if I am wrong, enlighten me~ ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 15:30
|
I'm not talking about the numbers we all know the chinese allways relied on there numbers. It's not the numbers of the advance but the advance it self. 1.8 million ^professional soldiers thats allot how r u gonna equip such an army well ill equiped mabey. Turks don't know what defense is the best defense is offense as you all said what about the firepower of the ottomans? ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 15:35
|
Chinese army is not full of recently conscripts. It's true that many of them are undertrained and underequpied, but there are a lot of Chinese professional soldiers. It may not be much compared to their total army, but large nevertheless to make huge influence in warfare. And of course, Ottoman army is not exactly all professional soldiers either. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 15:45
|
The funny thingy is they allmost all were 1. The kapikulu(slaves): were trained to be soldier by the state at a young age.(large proprtion of the army) 2. Ethnic Tribal families who suplied the Sipahi's and akincis(there basicly like knights all they do is fight all the time ore train) 3. Freelancers who were mostly a bit crazy(would you like to fight a crazt man who charges the enemy alone with one firearm (bashibozuk). I never heard that common folk were in the army. I'm no expert but every young boy was thought how to handle him self in a fight(kids of that they learnt how to wrestle ride a horse,etc... hell there favorite game was playong soldier accualy it was my favorite game 2 yours mabey also) In the ottoman army you were either a farmer or a soldier other possition were mostly outside the heartland and were non ethnics like jews, armenians & greeks (eventhough allongside the georgians & serbs they were in the jannisary corp) ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 16:18
|
Um... what's your point? Kapikulu? Ethinic troops? What? ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 17:03
|
Thats the structure or accualy the diffrent sections of the Ottoman army. 1. Kapikulu(janissaries = slaves) main infantry 2. Ethnic Turkish families (fight war for booty) Main cavalary 3. exeptional forces like bashibozouks(Basibozuk = Crazy) These is the make up of the ottoman army I wanted to point out that the common folk had no place or a verry little role in the Ottoman military life I think basicly they didn't need the common folk they must think those numbers were enough ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 17:53
|
Sipahis aren't "professionals" in the meaning of that word. They were just another feudal force connected to the land income.
------------- |
Posted By: MING-LOYALIST
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 22:51
|
Early 15th century Ming was more powerful then ottomans and by a wide margin, however late 15th Ming would still have an advantage but not great.
Ottomans were more powerful militarily then Ming in late 16th century and early 17th.
on another note Tamerlane easily defeated ottomans, however he was more cautious in dealing with the house of Ming, he did attempt to invade china however he was already too old and dying by then.
|
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 04-May-2007 at 02:42
| Also keep in mind that the army of the Ming Dynasty employed thousands of Mongol horseman as well. |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 04-May-2007 at 05:20
|
The Ming were certainly much larger and more powerful, they had more resources and wealth. They were technologically more advanced, had a much larger and better quality army.
However, they became decrepit, riddled with corrupt and inneficient bureaucracy. They became inward looking and lost the early drive that built the empire. This is the fate of all large empires.
The Turks, like all empires, when they started out suffered none of this. They were tight, unified, shared a common purpose and under effective and competant leadership.
How many times in history does the small upcoming empire usurp the large stagnant incumbent power?
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Killabee
Date Posted: 04-May-2007 at 18:12
Is it how history is twisted in Mongolia?
The fact is after the Yuan Mongol was driven out from China by Emperor Zhu Yuanchang (Hongwu), the Mongols tried to invade China again and were defeated by the Emperor Zhu Di(Yongle) five times during the expedition commanded personally by him. After his death, the Mongol did soundly defeat the Ming army in Tumu fortress but the Ming quickly resumed and defeated the Mongol led by Minister Yu Qian in the defense of Beijing. And they signed a Pact that promised peace between Ming China and Mongol for the next couple hundred years.
The Japanese sea pirates that you talked about(which comprised of mostly Chinese) that have been plaguing China were completely eradicated by Ming General Qi Jiguang and Yu Dayou in the mid Ming Dynasty.
According to Historian Sanderson Beck, "The Chinese had been manufacturing guns since the 13th century, about fifty years before the Europeans did. The Chinese had also been casting iron many centuries before Europe, and they invented cannons. Gun carriages were made to make the cannons mobile, and in 1462 the Ming made 1200 carriages. In 1465 they manufactured 300 cannons and 500 gun carriages. At this time a Chinese battalion was supplied with forty cannon batteries, 160 general cannons, 528 continuous bullet cannons, 624 hand guns, 300 grenades, seven tons of gunpowder, and more than a million bullets".
|
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 04-May-2007 at 22:03
|
Just to note, the Japanese pirates didn't make a lot of serious threat to Chinese ports during Ming dynasty. It was usually Korea that Japanese raided. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 05-May-2007 at 00:38
|
No, siphais were professional soldiers relied on feudal income.they were
raised to fight since their childhood and expert in
horse-tactis(partian shot vs..)
------------- A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari ) |
Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 05-May-2007 at 05:24
|
ottomans lived to 1923. But MİNG was , like all chineese dynasties, devastated by steppe people. These steppe people was illequipped, outnumbered and poor. But they won. So how can you say that ming was superior against the ottoman empire.
Tamerlane defeated the ottomans. Ming was harder for them but early 15th century ottoman wasnt a superpower but ming was. late 15th, 16th and 17th century ottoman was definitely superior. I dont think that chineese were fine soldiers. How could a country with plentiful sources, superior technology, complexed diplomacy and enormous population be a target fot the poor steppe people. My friends not for one time several times.
And comparision of this two empires is wrong also. They were to separate. One of this empire had lived with militarism.
|
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 05-May-2007 at 22:59
I'm going to have to disagree with you on the "steppe peoples". The "steppe peoples" including the Mongols, had some of the most Disciplined, and Sophisticated armies in History. Even after the fall of the Mongol Nation, other nations would pay "top dollar" for steppe mercenaries. The Ming dynasty being the biggest employer.
|
Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 06-May-2007 at 05:22
|
Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 23:36
|
If it were land battle. China would probably win, thanks to that enormous military. However, if it were sixteenth century naval battle ... Ottoman navy was amazing in this period, even after Lepanto the fleet was built in six months and dominance over the mediterranean restored. |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 19:43
|
One thing that I would say in favour of the Ottomans in this battle would be their artillery. How do you think that they did so damn well against the other eastern nations in the conquests with Selim the Grim and Suleyman? Because of their adoption of modern European weaponry alongside Eastern battle techniques, units and weaponry. East meets west ... literally. Although the Ming would have better cavalry, hordes of infantry and some cannon and aquebusers, if the Ottoman cannon had a good day, it could decimate them and the elite units such as the Royal Guard and Jannisaries could move in for the kill. Also, if the Ottoman army has the Crimean Tartars, they could easily counter some of the Tang's cavalry - many nations in that area and that time of Europe (such as the Hungarians, Poles, Russians and Ottomans) were despirate for Crimean cossack support because it was simply so god. When the Ottomans had a monopoly of this excellent source of power in Suleyman's time, they would have had some excellent cavalry at their disposal. ------------- |
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 23:35
Even so, that doesnt matter much as you can see that the Ottomans only survived for around 600 years while the Chinese lived for over 2,000 years. So even if the Qing ended in 1911 compare to the Ottomans in 1923, it doesnt mean that the Ottomans were better or anything for surviving longer in the 20th century...
How can the Roman Empire be called so great when they were defeated by barbarians that were ill equipped, outnumbered, and poor? So how can one say the Romans were that great when they were defeated by the barbarians? |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 07:22
The faults in the late Roman empire were those of an administrative, ideological and social basis rather than military ones. The Roman military had always been exemplary, but it was the vast social upheavals - such as the barbarian migrations - and the administrative changes - such as the importance of the emperor dwindling that caused its collapse, not it's armies. They could not win because of bad leadership and corruption, not because of their weapons (look at the siege of Rome under Honourius). Moreover, the barbarians were not outnumbered- they outnumbered the Roman army ten to one - as they did in most cases. For example, in many of the battles in Claudius's campaign in Britian, one Roman on average had to killabout 7-10 Britons.
The Chinese dynasties didn't survive as one for longer than the Ottomans - the Ottomans had one dynasty right from Osman that got gradually more and more stagnant due to the clash of Western development and Eastern Values. The Chinese dynasties were always being destroyed and replaced by others, and they generally fell more quickly (look at the Qing!). ------------- |
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 23:43
Exactly, the reason why the Ming fell to foreign invaders is very similiar to as why the Romans fell to foreign invaders.
Really? Where they all part of like a royal family or something? Wow, imagine having the same family ruling for 600 years, must be a good family... lol 
Actually the Qing lasted quite long, longer than most of the other Chinese dynasties. They ruled for nearly 300 years before corruption and international pressure crush them. |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 06:26
...But that doesn't dispute the fact that they only lasted for 300 years whilst the Ottoman empire - one family, one dynasty - lasted for around 700. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 06:44
|
Actually, regarding continutiy you can not compare Chinese to Ottomans.
While Ottomans were one dinasty/family to rule for 700 years (Ottoman or Osman as Turkish is the founder of the state, following rulers were his direct descendants), Chinese had many states and many foreign occupiers including Mongols and Manchurians. So, saying Chinese has continius 2000 years one State is absurd. Might be you can compare Chinese to British Isles.
Historical Turkish custom was such, the state or the country was belong to ruling family. Hence, Ottomans from Osman, Danishmends from Danishmend Ghazi, Selcuks from Selcuk Beg, etc.... Therefore if we need to count direct Turkish rule for state, then we must start from Gok-Turks to Turkey as one state.
|
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 12:28
Thats...just what I've been arguing FOR, white-wolf. I've been saying to Kamikaze 738 that you can't compare. I'm just trying to give a period that the Ottomans ruled for as one dynasty against the many Chinese dynasties to proove the point. ------------- |
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 00:13
So is the current Turkish president related to Osman or did the family ended rule after 1923?
I never said that, I only said that the Chinese had survived for 2,000 years as a nation, even if some foreign nation conquered China, they were either driven out later or incorporated into the Chinese culture/lifestyle. They never really destroyed the culture of China which was why the Chinese continue onward even after the Mongols and Manchurians came.
I think you have misunderstood all my posts so far if that is your case with me. I was talking about how Evrenosgazi seems to be thinking pro-Turkey against the Chinese, Im not sure if that was the case but the language seems like it. All I was doing was posting back to Evrenosgazi about how the Turks arent superior to the Chinese. |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 11:25
Ermmm...no, Erdogan (going soon...) and the AK party were democractically elected, so ermm....no. The last decendent of the Ottomans, Osman V, lives in New York.
The Ottoman Sultans were deposed in 1923 after the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire because of the Treaty of Sevres and the agreements about Wilsonian Armenia. By then, Mustafa Kemal's Nationalists and the earlier variant of the TKP (Turkish Communists) were the only viable Turkish political movements, partially because of their political power but also because of the religious, not ethnic, divisions of the Ottoman Empire, there wasn't as such a defenition of who was a Turk or not. If you were a Muslim in Anatolia, you were defined as a Turk. Kemal changed that.
You can't really argue "superiority" like that - that's a bit prejudice.
To my knowledge, the longest ruling dynasy were the Qing, who ruled for about 300 years. I'm not arguing about the continuation of the Chinese as an Ethnic and Cultural group, I'm arguing about the dynasities and nations within that. The turkish dynasties, the Ottomans (6oo years) and the Seljuqs (about 400 years) ruled much longer than any of their respective Chinese counterparts.
------------- |
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 22:58
Wow, thats pretty cool. Imagine tracing your family 600 years ago... meh that would be amazing
 I never thought that all the Ottoman rulers were descendant from one single family... lol I just learn something really important today
Yea, I dont really want to discuss that either. Everyone had its ups and downs so all the stereotypes are just discriminating...
Lol, oh you are missing out of one of the greatest Chinese dynasties! The Han Dynasty lasted over 400 years and was one of the three greatest period/dynasty in Chinese history along with the Tang and Ming. Though to my knowledge, I thought the Seljug ruled only for about 270. If thats true, then the Hans beats the Seljugs Though the glory goes to the 600 years dynasty of the Ottomans, I cant argue about that. |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 12:19
Yup, although there were some exceptions - the Ottomans (the earlier ones anyway...) had a system where the Sultan would place his sons in governorships in distant provinces. The one that he favoured the most would be a governor in a town or city nearer to Istanbul, wheras the one that he hated the most he would have sent to govern a city or fort in a dangerous or remote location, such as on the boarders of Safavid Iran (Daddy! I don't like my holiday here! ...You'd have to be a pretty nasty father to do that, send your son to a warzone to dispose of him!). Naturally, this meant that when the ruling Sultan died, his sons would literally "Race" to Topkapi palace in Istanbul (Then Constantinople...). This period of accession was usually very bloody and very disruptive to the economy and diplomacy of the Ottoman empire until the later Sultans did more Western style reforms. There were a few Sultans who were outside of the bloodline (For example, the Ottoman Sultan in the Napoleonic war tried to ally with Napoleon and make his troops wear European style uniforms. He was killed and the throne was taken by a commoner..., and the are more examples with the Jannisaries (Until Mahmud IV "Dismissed them), where they would take a prince they did not like to Rumeli Hasari and kill him). Supposedly Osman had a dream when a family tree sprouted from his loins to engulf the whole world. The fruit on the tree was of course supposed to be his successors.... (Hence the name of that brilliant book "Osman's dream", which I sincerley recommend that anyone with the slightest bit of interest in the Ottoman empire read, AT ONCE!)
To my Knowledge, the Seljuqs lasted from around 1071 (when they defeated Romanus IV Diogenes at the battle of Manzikert, spelling the begining of the end for Byzantium...) and came from central Asia under Alp Arslan. They swept over Asia Minor under Mohammed and his grand Vizier. I'm not sure when they ended, but in the 1200s (not sure when...) , Tughril Beg marched to Bagdad to annex the crumbling Abbasid Caliphate...
Han lasted that long? I knew that they were around since at least 751 (the battle of Talas), but when did they end?
Also, wasn't Ming around the 1500s?
Are you a Chinaman, Kamikaze 738? ------------- |
I never thought that all the Ottoman rulers were descendant from one single family... lol I just learn something really important today 