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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Ottomans Vs Ming
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
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 Topic: Ottomans Vs Ming
    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.
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: 05-May-2007 at 22:59
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

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.
 
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.
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: 06-May-2007 at 05:22
Originally posted by Penelope

Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

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.
 
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.
Yes you are right, steppe people was good fighters. But China was a huge country, I mean one time can be normal but many times. As a Turk I really appreciate Chin`s wealth and civilisation. When we look through wars my favorites are Han , Tang and Qing
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: 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.
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929 		  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
Kamikaze 738 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 26-Mar-2007
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 463 		  Quote Kamikaze 738 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 23:35

Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

ottomans lived to 1923.


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...

Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

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.


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?


Edited by Kamikaze 738 - 16-Jul-2007 at 23:36
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929 		  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 07:22
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?
 
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.
 
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...
 
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!).
Back to Top
Kamikaze 738 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 26-Mar-2007
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 463 		  Quote Kamikaze 738 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 23:43
Originally posted by Earl Aster

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.


Exactly, the reason why the Ming fell to foreign invaders is very similiar to as why the Romans fell to foreign invaders.

Originally posted by Earl Aster

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.


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 LOL

Originally posted by Earl Aster

(look at the Qing!).


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.
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929 		  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 06:26
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.
 
...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.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929 		  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 12:28
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.
 
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.
Back to Top
Kamikaze 738 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 26-Mar-2007
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 463 		  Quote Kamikaze 738 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 00:13
Originally posted by Earl Aster

...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.


So is the current Turkish president related to Osman or did the family ended rule after 1923?

Originally posted by white-wolf

Chinese had many states and many foreign occupiers including Mongols and Manchurians. So, saying Chinese has continius 2000 years one State is absurd.


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.

Originally posted by Earl Aster

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.


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.


Edited by Kamikaze 738 - 19-Jul-2007 at 00:19
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929 		  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 11:25
So is the current Turkish president related to Osman or did the family ended rule after 1923?
 
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.
 
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.
 
You can't really argue "superiority" like that - that's a bit prejudice.
 
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.
 
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.
 
 
Back to Top
Kamikaze 738 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 26-Mar-2007
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 463 		  Quote Kamikaze 738 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 22:58
Originally posted by Earl Aster

The last decendent of the Ottomans, Osman V, lives in New York.


Wow, thats pretty cool. Imagine tracing your family 600 years ago... meh that would be amazing Tongue I never thought that all the Ottoman rulers were descendant from one single family... lol I just learn something really important today LOL
 
Originally posted by Earl Aster

You can't really argue "superiority" like that - that's a bit prejudice.


Yea, I dont really want to discuss that either. Everyone had its ups and downs so all the stereotypes are just discriminating...

Originally posted by Earl Aster

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.


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 Tongue Though the glory goes to the 600 years dynasty of the Ottomans, I cant argue about that.


Edited by Kamikaze 738 - 19-Jul-2007 at 22:59
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929 		  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 12:19
Wow, thats pretty cool. Imagine tracing your family 600 years ago... meh that would be amazing Tongue I never thought that all the Ottoman rulers were descendant from one single family... lol I just learn something really important today LOL
 
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!)
 
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 Tongue Though the glory goes to the 600 years dynasty of the Ottomans, I cant argue about that.
 
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?
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 0.047 seconds.