Print Page | Close Window

Ottoman territories in Africa

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: African History
Forum Discription: Talk about African History
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19965
Printed Date: 28-Mar-2024 at 10:01
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Ottoman territories in Africa
Posted By: kurt
Subject: Ottoman territories in Africa
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 08:04
As we know, the african states of algeria, tunisia, libya, eritrea and egypt were under ottoman rule for some time. my query is: what about morocco, sudan, ethiopia and somalia? were they ever under ottoman rule and/or suzeranity? if so, when did they become ottoman territories and when did they cease to be so? did they join the empire through conquest, such as selim's conquest of egypt, or did they voluntarily join, such as algeria during the reign of suleyman the magnificent?
 
if there are other african states i didn't mention please state them. 



Replies:
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 08:44
Morocco has not been directly a part of Ottoman Empire, but has been a vassal or under influence in certain times(beginning from late 16th century) after the Battle of Vadi-us Seyl between Ottoman+Moroccan Forces and Portuguese, after that Portuguese lost and the Portugal faded away in 1580 anyway with the annexation of Spain.
 
Ottomans haven't gone inland from Eritrea into Ethiopia.Ethiopia was under control of her own kings.
 
Sudan has remained officially under the control of Ottomans via Mehmed Ali Pasha's expedition into Sudan in 1820. Before that, Ottomans didn't move towards the huge Nubian deserts. The whole control of the region then passed on to British under the name of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, although that happened after a long war against the Mahdist uprising forces between 1884-1898....


-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 11:25
Originally posted by kurt

what about morocco, sudan, ethiopia and somalia? were they ever under ottoman rule and/or suzeranity? if so, when did they become ottoman territories and when did they cease to be so?
 
I am quite interested to know the extent of Ottoman influence in Somalia.  Was it just nominal suzerainty, with the sultan choosing local warlords to carry out his bidding?  Also, the timeframe of Ottoman contact with Eastern Africa is a bit hazy.  I am thinking this occurred around the time of expansion into the Indian Ocean in the late 16th century.
 
Originally posted by Kapikulu

Sudan has remained officially under the control of Ottomans via Mehmed Ali Pasha's expedition into Sudan in 1820. Before that, Ottomans didn't move towards the huge Nubian deserts.
 
Was this another instance of the Ottomans ruling by proxy or did they actually establish a provincial government in the Sudan? 
 
It is difficult to find any literature on Ottoman involvement in Africa besides Egypt.  Can anyone suggest anything in English or French?
 


-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2007 at 11:40

I also read that the Ottomans had shipbuilding yards and docks on the Somali Coast and had some presence even further South?



-------------
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine



Posted By: Legacy
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2007 at 14:37

The Ottomons gave Somali warlods weaponry to invade Christian Ethiopia in the 16th century, they invaded large parts of Ethiopia but a series of mistake by the Somali general for underestimating the Ethiopians and help from the Portugese and his resulting death weighed in the favour of the Ethiopians. I believe the war was called 'Futah al Habesha'  (Conquest of Ethiopia)



Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2007 at 20:54
Originally posted by Legacy

The Ottomons gave Somali warlods weaponry to invade Christian Ethiopia in the 16th century, they invaded large parts of Ethiopia but a series of mistake by the Somali general for underestimating the Ethiopians and help from the Portugese and his resulting death weighed in the favour of the Ethiopians. I believe the war was called 'Futah al Habesha'  (Conquest of Ethiopia)
 
So Ottoman involvement in Somalia was that of rulers by proxy?  It would be interesting to know the details of the military aid given to the Somali warlords.  By this I mean did they send small arms, artillery, or both?  Did they send officers to act as commanders or did the Somali use their own military command?
 
It is very difficult to find any literature on the subject of the Ottomans in Africa.  I am assuming that most of it is in Turkish, which I cannot read.  Does anyone know of anything in English or French?
 


-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2007 at 04:41
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

 
 
 
Was this another instance of the Ottomans ruling by proxy or did they actually establish a provincial government in the Sudan? 
 
 
Excuse me for missing this post. Yes, it was a rule by proxy. Mehmed Ali Pasha was the proxy ruler.


-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: Sikander
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 08:58
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

 
So Ottoman involvement in Somalia was that of rulers by proxy?  It would be interesting to know the details of the military aid given to the Somali warlords.  By this I mean did they send small arms, artillery, or both?  Did they send officers to act as commanders or did the Somali use their own military command?
 
It is very difficult to find any literature on the subject of the Ottomans in Africa.  I am assuming that most of it is in Turkish, which I cannot read.  Does anyone know of anything in English or French?
 
 
The Somalis received 2000 musketeers from Arabia and some 1000 Ottoman arquebusiers (perhaps provincial Janissaries) plus 10 field guns in order to counter the 400 portuguese who, with their arquebuses and guns, defeated the Somalis twice. The Ottoman fought very well but in the end the few hundreds that remained with Somalis were massacred by the vengeful Portuguese.
 
All this is beautifuly described by Miguel de Castanhoso who participated in the Portuguese expedition to Abyssinia
 

Bibliography:

Castanhoso, Miguel de (not. Neves Águas). História das cousas que o muito esforçado capitão D. Cristóvão da Gama fez nos Reinos do Preste João com quatrocentos portugueses que consigo levou, Mem Martins: Publicações Europa-América, 1988



Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 20:33
Originally posted by Sikander

The Somalis received 2000 musketeers from Arabia and some 1000 Ottoman arquebusiers (perhaps provincial Janissaries) plus 10 field guns in order to counter the 400 portuguese who, with their arquebuses and guns, defeated the Somalis twice. The Ottoman fought very well but in the end the few hundreds that remained with Somalis were massacred by the vengeful Portuguese.
 
All this is beautifuly described by Miguel de Castanhoso who participated in the Portuguese expedition to Abyssinia
 

Bibliography:

Castanhoso, Miguel de (not. Neves Águas). História das cousas que o muito esforçado capitão D. Cristóvão da Gama fez nos Reinos do Preste João com quatrocentos portugueses que consigo levou, Mem Martins: Publicações Europa-América, 1988

 
Very nice, Sikander!  Thank you for giving us this summary.  I definitely cannot read Portuguese although some of it is discernable based on my knowledge of Latin. 
 
It would have been interesting to see how the Ottoman arquebusiers fought along side the Somalis.  I wonder if they were all commanded by Ottomans or if the Somalis had their own native generals?  The field artillery strikes me as interesting as well.  Were the pieces small bore or actual bombards that were co-opted into field guns?
 


-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas


Posted By: Jagatai Khan
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 16:40
Zanzibar was an Ottoman state for a short time.

-------------


Posted By: Sikander
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 12:43
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

Originally posted by Sikander

The Somalis received 2000 musketeers from Arabia and some 1000 Ottoman arquebusiers (perhaps provincial Janissaries) plus 10 field guns in order to counter the 400 portuguese who, with their arquebuses and guns, defeated the Somalis twice. The Ottoman fought very well but in the end the few hundreds that remained with Somalis were massacred by the vengeful Portuguese.
 
All this is beautifuly described by Miguel de Castanhoso who participated in the Portuguese expedition to Abyssinia
 

Bibliography:

Castanhoso, Miguel de (not. Neves Águas). História das cousas que o muito esforçado capitão D. Cristóvão da Gama fez nos Reinos do Preste João com quatrocentos portugueses que consigo levou, Mem Martins: Publicações Europa-América, 1988

 
Very nice, Sikander!  Thank you for giving us this summary.  I definitely cannot read Portuguese although some of it is discernable based on my knowledge of Latin. 
 
It would have been interesting to see how the Ottoman arquebusiers fought along side the Somalis.  I wonder if they were all commanded by Ottomans or if the Somalis had their own native generals?  The field artillery strikes me as interesting as well.  Were the pieces small bore or actual bombards that were co-opted into field guns?
 
 
The Ottomans fought under their own commanders, this is clearly stated by Miguel de Castanhoso who even refers a brave Turkish commander who killed a couple of soldiers until being finaly killed by a Portuguese soldier who, however, didn't escaped from having is leg badly slashed by the Ottoman captain.
According to Castanhoso, a year after the Ottomans intervention most of them became displeased with the Somalis and left home. So it is clear that each of them was commanded by men of their own nation and would be allies more than "commanders and commanded".
As for the artillery, I suppose they were "medium" pieces because Miguel does not refer them as being "light". The Portuguese had, for their part, a few breech-loading guns and some 11 makeshift "organ" guns (actually made by puting arquebuses into carts) so only light guns.
 


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 16:20
Originally posted by Jagatai Khan

Zanzibar was an Ottoman state for a short time.
 
Do you have some sort of source for that? I know that Zanzibar was conquered by the Omanis from 1824 to 1896, but I never heard of the Ottomans actually having a presence the area. As for the glory period of the Ottoman Empire, Zanzibar was either independent or ruled by Portugal. The Omanis themselves were independent of the Ottomans.


-------------
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



Posted By: Sikander
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 03:53
Yes, that is true. The Portuguese kept Mombaça for themselves until 1698 (or something like that), but there was never an Ottoman intervention in that area.
As far as I know, the other states were independent, nor even being nominaly submited to the Sublime Porte.


Posted By: Jagatai Khan
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 18:20
Originally posted by Decebal

Originally posted by Jagatai Khan

Zanzibar was an Ottoman state for a short time.
 
Do you have some sort of source for that? I know that Zanzibar was conquered by the Omanis from 1824 to 1896, but I never heard of the Ottomans actually having a presence the area. As for the glory period of the Ottoman Empire, Zanzibar was either independent or ruled by Portugal. The Omanis themselves were independent of the Ottomans.


I have heard this from ihsan.As he said, Ottoman ships land on Zanzibar, defeat the Portuguese and establish a garrison there.A larger Portuguese force comes and defeat them.It was 16th century.


-------------


Posted By: Sikander
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 08:58
Who or what is "ihsan"???


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 10:59
ihsan was a member from the old AE forum. Anyway, I foudn this link, which might be interesting:
 
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/portfolio/543/crusades.html - http://victorian.fortunecity.com/portfolio/543/crusades.html
 
Actually, take most of what's in there with a grain of salt, as much of it is islamic propaganda, and I found a few factual mistakes. Still, some parts relevant to Zanzibar may be interesting.


-------------
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



Posted By: Sikander
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 12:25
Interesting document and "interesting" islamic propaganda language...
But nowhere it refers the Ottoman presence in Zanzibar or the Eastern African coast on a whole. Perhaps our friend Kurt missread "Oman" and took it for "Ottoman"?
 
BTW there was no "Alfonso" Albuquerque (the guy wasn't Spanish!) so his name should be writen "Afonso Albuquerque"; "Joas de Barros" is actually "João de Barros"; "Duarte Barbose" is "Duarte Barbosa", etc...


Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 07:52
I've never even heard of Zanzibar, my friend. Wikipedia informs me that it is an island of the coast of east Africa, which raises questions about the Ottoman fleet in the Indian Ocean.


Posted By: Sikander
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 08:21
You had never heard of it??? Well... fortunately we can always learn through life, isn't it? Smile. I've learned a lot from AllEmpires myself.
 
Anyway, the Ottomans acted against the Portuguese in the Red Sea in the 1540's. I guess they were somewhat sucesseful as the Portuguese abandoned this policy which was dificult to follow because of the failure to take Aden in the 1510's.


Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 08:33
I always thought the Portuguese humiliated both the Persians and the Ottomans in both the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. It took the Safavids around a century to capture the island of Hormuz back. Not to mention Piri Reis, who was executed by the Ottoman government for his defeat by the Portuguese around 1560 in the Red Sea. What did the Portuguese want in those seas anyway?


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 08:44

Simple - commerical power. The Portugese had some very large military and commerical strongholds all over the Indian subcontient. When regarding Africa, the Ottoman empire unlike most other empires didn't really try to impose their own culture on their subject peoples. They used to milet system and really, as long as the subjects obeyed the whims of the local pasha and garrison, payed their taxes and didn't help Ottoman enemies, I don't think that they could much care.



-------------


Posted By: Sikander
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 17:42
Originally posted by kurt

I always thought the Portuguese humiliated both the Persians and the Ottomans in both the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. It took the Safavids around a century to capture the island of Hormuz back. Not to mention Piri Reis, who was executed by the Ottoman government for his defeat by the Portuguese around 1560 in the Red Sea. What did the Portuguese want in those seas anyway?
 
The Portuguese did in fact humuliated the Ottomans and Persians in the Red Sea/Persian Gulf.
 
Their reasons were basicaly twofolded: to became a commercial power and fight the Muslims (yes, the Portuguese were Crusaders and prowd of it!)
In order to achieve and guarantee their naval supremacy and and the same time negate their foes the ability to project power in the Indian Ocean, thay had to:
1 - Destroy Muslim naval supremacy (the Battle of Diu, in 1510, took care of that);
2 - Control bottleneck positions and great naval/commercial hubs (for that effect they took Ormuz and Malaca - harbours that control straights, i.e., "bottleneck strategic places" - and took Goa, a commercial hub. Unfortunately they failed to take Aden and therefore to control the Red Sea.
 
After that, and because the Portuguese were just a handful of men (according to C.R. Boxer, at the ned of the XVIth century the Portuguese had only 5000 men in the Indian Ocean capable of carrying arms), they started to issue authorizations for indigenous commercial vessels to trade across the Portuguese waters. These were checked by Portuguese ships who generally only attacked Muslim shipping, against whom there was an almost constant state of war.
 
And you should also notice that the Persians who took Ormuz in 1622 were greatly heped by the English, so they didn't do it just by themselves.
And after the surrendering the Portuguese were transported by the Brits to a safe area but the Portuguese's Arab auxiliaries were executed on the spot by the Persian conquerors.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 21:40
Originally posted by Sikander

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

 
So Ottoman involvement in Somalia was that of rulers by proxy?  It would be interesting to know the details of the military aid given to the Somali warlords.  By this I mean did they send small arms, artillery, or both?  Did they send officers to act as commanders or did the Somali use their own military command?
 
It is very difficult to find any literature on the subject of the Ottomans in Africa.  I am assuming that most of it is in Turkish, which I cannot read.  Does anyone know of anything in English or French?
 
 
The Somalis received 2000 musketeers from Arabia and some 1000 Ottoman arquebusiers (perhaps provincial Janissaries) plus 10 field guns in order to counter the 400 portuguese who, with their arquebuses and guns, defeated the Somalis twice. The Ottoman fought very well but in the end the few hundreds that remained with Somalis were massacred by the vengeful Portuguese.
 
All this is beautifuly described by Miguel de Castanhoso who participated in the Portuguese expedition to Abyssinia
 

Bibliography:

Castanhoso, Miguel de (not. Neves Águas). História das cousas que o muito esforçado capitão D. Cristóvão da Gama fez nos Reinos do Preste João com quatrocentos portugueses que consigo levou, Mem Martins: Publicações Europa-América, 1988

 

 

All you need to see the propoganda in that piece of is to look at who wrote it. The Fact is Muslim Adal was forced into conquering and occuppaying  Abysinnia by the actions of Abyssinnian emperor who burned down masjids, sold some muslims into slavery. The only thing Ottomans provided to Adal was weaponary. If Ottoman had any interest in conquering Abyssinia they would have done it with ease, especially in the 16th centrury during the height of their power.



Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 22:57
Originally posted by Sikander

And you should also notice that the Persians who took Ormuz in 1622 were greatly heped by the English, so they didn't do it just by themselves.
And after the surrendering the Portuguese were transported by the Brits to a safe area but the Portuguese's Arab auxiliaries were executed on the spot by the Persian conquerors.
 
The Persians took the Hormuz in 1622?  I must have missed that!  Let me get it right, the Portuguese had taken it from the Ottomans and the Persians took it from them?  I wonder if it was entirely by sea or if there were Persian/English land forces involved.
 
I thought the English, out of all the Western European powers at the time, were on good terms with the Ottomans.  It would seem like a good thing for them to have returned the Hormuz to the Ottomans, especially if the English wanted to use it for trade.
 
Originally posted by Ibrahim

All you need to see the propoganda in that piece of is to look at who wrote it.
 
You must be talking about Miguel de Castanhoso, correct?
 
Originally posted by Ibrahim

The Fact is Muslim Adal was forced into conquering and occuppaying  Abysinnia by the actions of Abyssinnian emperor who burned down masjids, sold some muslims into slavery.
 
What are masjids
 
This is quite interesting.  Did the Abyssinians have networks with sub-Saharan slave traders or were these Muslims sent to North African markets?
 
Originally posted by Ibrahim

The only thing Ottomans provided to Adal was weaponary. If Ottoman had any interest in conquering Abyssinia they would have done it with ease, especially in the 16th centrury during the height of their power.
 
I am very interested in sources on Ottoman involvement in Africa as I stated above.  Please provide a source for this claim.  If it is in Turkish, try to summarize it for non-Turkish speakers, please.  How do you know they just sent weapons and not actual arquebusiers and artillery specialists?
 


-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2007 at 00:08
masjids are Arab assemblies/councils. I guess in this case it would be council-houses.
 
I wonder if there's a third option about the slaves: perhaps they were sold to the Portuguese, indirectly through the Indian Ocean ports...


-------------
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



Posted By: andrew
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2007 at 17:08
The Persians took the Hormuz in 1622?  I must have missed that!  Let me get it right, the Portuguese had taken it from the Ottomans and the Persians took it from them?  I wonder if it was entirely by sea or if there were Persian/English land forces involved.
 
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

I thought the English, out of all the Western European powers at the time, were on good terms with the Ottomans.  It would seem like a good thing for them to have returned the Hormuz to the Ottomans, especially if the English wanted to use it for trade.
 
Didn't the Persians refuse to use firearms until the English helped them remodel the military? I remember the Ottomans utterly destroyed them because the Abbasids refused to use them and preferred to fight hand to hand.


Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2007 at 04:19
Originally posted by Legacy

 I believe the war was called 'Futah al Habesha'  (Conquest of Ethiopia)

 
 
Ironic and wishfulthinking name indeed LOL
 
 
 


Posted By: Periander
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2007 at 02:20
Originally posted by Kapikulu

Sudan has remained officially under the control of Ottomans via Mehmed Ali Pasha's expedition into Sudan in 1820. Before that, Ottomans didn't move towards the huge Nubian deserts. The whole control of the region then passed on to British under the name of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, although that happened after a long war against the Mahdist uprising forces between 1884-1898....
 
Peter Mansfield has this to write about the Sudan:
 
After bloodily suppressing the resistance of the Sudanese tribes, he [Muhammad Ali] established the seat of government of an Egyptian dependency under the nominal suzerainty of the Ottoman sultan at the village of Khartoum[...]
 
(bold emphasis mine): By official, do you mean "nominal" as written above, Kapikulu, or 'total control' of the area by the Ottomans? If the latter, do you know why Mansfield wrote what he did? (Just asking, not challenging).
 
Source: Peter Mansfield, The Arabs (Penguin Books), p. 108


Posted By: Sikander
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 13:40
The Portuguese didn't took Ormuz from the Ottomans, of course. They took it in the early XVIth century, don't exactly remember if from the Persians or if from a native dynasty (actually I think it's the later). So it
never belonged to the Ottomans and wouldn't be handeled to them. The English/Persians took it in 1622 in a joint task force: the English provided the ships and artillery; the Persians the cannon fodder...
 
As for Castanhosos's alleged "propaganda", I cannot see where it lies. He's accurate in everything he writes, including his description of Abyssinian life and places and in the military details. If he wanted to make sheer propaganda, why should he refer that of the 900 janissaries in Somali service in 1542, most went home except for a couple of hundreds? Woulnd't be better to say that the joint Portuguese-Abyssinian defeated an enormous Somali-Turkish force with hundreds of janissaries, thus enlarging the Portuguese victory?
Oh, and please note than even today the Abyssinians acknowledge that it was the Portuguese who shot dead the Somali leader.
 
As for the reasons of the war, well, the Muslims will always blame the Christians and the Christians will always blame the Muslims. BTW, you refer the Muslims taken into captivity by Christians, but fail to mention the Christians taken as slaves by the Muslims. Any reason why? I hope you just forgot to mention it...
 
Nevertheless, what I say is that those alleged Muslim slaves weren't sold to the Portuguese as the "propagandaman" Castanhoso doesn't refer it (and believe me, in the XVIth c., a Portuguese writer would have refer it with joy!); they surely weren't sold in sub-Saharan Africa (the Muslims wouldn't buy such slaves and as for the pagans, well, they were the main "suppliers", not the buyers). So, either they were kept in Abyssinia or... or they were nonexistent, who knows!!! Wink
 


Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 01:09
Originally posted by andrew

Didn't the Persians refuse to use firearms until the English helped them remodel the military? I remember the Ottomans utterly destroyed them because the Abbasids refused to use them and preferred to fight hand to hand.
 
The Persians did not make sufficient use of firearms until well into the 17th century.  There does not seem to be as much outright hostility towards their use as there was in Mameluke Egypt, it is just that they did not integrate firearms into their military until much later. 
 
The ghulam cavalry was well-suited for the type of warfare that was required in the Persian east; eventually they were made into "dragoons," but were not as effective as such.  The Safavids imported artillery from Venice but not on a large scale.
 
Some interesting books that discuss Persian use of firearms:
 
Kenneth Chase. Firearms: A Global History. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
 
David Morgan. Medieval Persia, 1040-1797. New York: Longman, 1988.
 


-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 02:02
Hello to you all
 
I wanted to join in the conversation earlier but was pre-occupied with other things but here is my contribution.
 
Unlike what Sikander is proposing, the Portuguese's power never was extended beyond the sea cost, any attempt to occupy the interior they were defeated. Ajwad ibn Zamil and his son defeated the Portuguese on land several times. It was aftr the civil war in their Kingdom, roughly 1520s, that the Potuguese reigned supreme and even then it was short lived. Kicked out of Qatif and all the cost of Arabia except Muscat by 1560 the sea proved difficult because Portuguese had ocean going galleons while the type of ship in Arabia was the Dhow which could only carry a limited number of light cannons. Muscat proved diffiult to liberate because it natural defences, surrounded by high mountains from all sides except the sea, but eventually the were defeated by 1650 and this time in the sea too. The Omanis developed large Dhows and galleons and not only defeated the Portuguese in sea, they occupied most of the Portugese colonies in Africa except the southern part of Mozambique by the 1750s.
As for Arabs and fire arms, indeed, Arabs did refuse to use fire arms when they first come. It was only in the 19th century when semi-automatic weapons were invented that the became widely used, the most popular weapon in saudi arabia for example wasthe Martini-Henri rifle and the Colt pistols and you can see them in many homes inherited from father to son and they still work perfectly.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: andrew
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 15:59
When the Egyptians went yo stop the Wahabi revolt weren't the Arabs still using camels and not very advanced guns? That was the only reason why Egypt was able to stop the rebellion because of superior technology considering how hard it was to pacify Arabia.


Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 16:08
Originally posted by Al Jassas

As for Arabs and fire arms, indeed, Arabs did refuse to use fire arms when they first come. It was only in the 19th century when semi-automatic weapons were invented that the became widely used, the most popular weapon in saudi arabia for example wasthe Martini-Henri rifle and the Colt pistols and you can see them in many homes inherited from father to son and they still work perfectly.
 
Wow, this is quite interesting!  Are there some Arab families who pass down weapons from before the 19th century?  It would be amazing to see a flintlock/matchlock gun on a mantle.  I assume the Arabs were using firearms before this period, just not on a large scale.
 
Originally posted by andrew

When the Egyptians went yo stop the Wahabi revolt weren't the Arabs still using camels and not very advanced guns? That was the only reason why Egypt was able to stop the rebellion because of superior technology considering how hard it was to pacify Arabia.
 
I think the bedouin tribes were still using camels in the time of Lawrence of Arabia during WWI.  I am not sure if they had repeating rifles, muskets, or a mixture of both.  Probably the latter.
 


-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 17:45

Hello to you all

Actually the Saudi egyptian wars were fairly brutal and lots of bloodshed occured but in general the Saudis did use primative cannons and muskets but they preferred to use swords especially during engagements with the enemy. Early in the first campaign Tusun was defeated several times in Hejaz and Qassim (my tribe massacred the poor devils after luring them to well which they already poisned) and most famously by the tribe of Buqum who were lead by a woman. The last incident was the last straw and Ibrahim was put into command. Saudi's were very innovative in these wars but unfortunately their innovation only increased the reprisals after defeat. In the Siege of Unaizah, a tunnel was dug directly beneath the camp of the egyptians and it was filled with gunpowder (they ran out of cannon balls and the devil stopped shelling so that they can not use the balls falling on them against his). The explosion took over 1000 men dead immediatly and when the city fell Ibrahim Pasha allowed his men to rape women and children and to this day you can see people from Qassim with blue and green eyes and brown hair.
I have pictures of old arsenals that belong to several tribal leaders and ordinary men but I do not have a scanner to upload them.
 
AL-Jassas


Posted By: andrew
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 18:46
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello to you all

Actually the Saudi egyptian wars were fairly brutal and lots of bloodshed occured but in general the Saudis did use primative cannons and muskets but they preferred to use swords especially during engagements with the enemy. Early in the first campaign Tusun was defeated several times in Hejaz and Qassim (my tribe massacred the poor devils after luring them to well which they already poisned) and most famously by the tribe of Buqum who were lead by a woman. The last incident was the last straw and Ibrahim was put into command. Saudi's were very innovative in these wars but unfortunately their innovation only increased the reprisals after defeat. In the Siege of Unaizah, a tunnel was dug directly beneath the camp of the egyptians and it was filled with gunpowder (they ran out of cannon balls and the devil stopped shelling so that they can not use the balls falling on them against his). The explosion took over 1000 men dead immediatly and when the city fell Ibrahim Pasha allowed his men to rape women and children and to this day you can see people from Qassim with blue and green eyes and brown hair.
I have pictures of old arsenals that belong to several tribal leaders and ordinary men but I do not have a scanner to upload them.
 
AL-Jassas
 
Al Jassas, Ibrahim Pasha used Egyptians and Black Africans instead of Turks in the army. Egypt, at that time brought about the modernization by Muhammad Ali Pasha, made Egypt a world power and a big contestant to the Ottoman Empire at that time. We used advanced French military and engineering techniques which gave us a decisive advantage against the Middle East, even under the Ottomans who modernized along German lines.
 
Also, the Ottomans used the Egyptian empire as puppeteer to fulfill their demands. They knew a war against the Arabs would lead to bloodshed into what was already a backwards empire so they used used us to do their dirty work. When we realized that they were weak after we had to do all the winning in the Greek War of Independence we nearly took Istanbul and if it had not been for the miraculous help of the Russian courts to save the Ottomans Egypt would've been the dominant power in the Middle East.


Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 19:30
When we realized that they were weak after we had to do all the winning in the Greek War of Independence we nearly took Istanbul and if it had not been for the miraculous help of the Russian courts to save the Ottomans Egypt would've been the dominant power in the Middle East.


Real dominant power in the Middle East was the Great Powers. They would never allow Egypt to become powerful. And they did not.

As to Istanbul, it was impossible to take for Egypt. Russian intervention was not miraculous, Istanbul is an important place, and Great Powers intervened whenever it was threatened. Not even a Great Power could have taken Istanbul, because the others would prevent it.

Also, Egyptian military was not powerful enough to take Istanbul, even without Great Power intervention. Taking Istanbul is easier said than done. In history whenever someone defeats the Ottomans, they start dreaming about marching to Istanbul. This has happened after Lepanto, Vienna, 1770s war with Russia. But it never happened.

Istanbul is very very easy to defend, and that is not a coincidence. That's one reason why it was chosen as the new capital of the Roman Empire by Constantine. Even the allies failed to take it in World War I, let alone Egypt. Only Russia in 19th century was capable of doing that.


-------------


Posted By: andrew
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 19:43
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

When we realized that they were weak after we had to do all the winning in the Greek War of Independence we nearly took Istanbul and if it had not been for the miraculous help of the Russian courts to save the Ottomans Egypt would've been the dominant power in the Middle East.


Real dominant power in the Middle East was the Great Powers. They would never allow Egypt to become powerful. And they did not.

As to Istanbul, it was impossible to take for Egypt. Russian intervention was not miraculous, Istanbul is an important place, and Great Powers intervened whenever it was threatened. Not even a Great Power could have taken Istanbul, because the others would prevent it.

Also, Egyptian military was not powerful enough to take Istanbul, even without Great Power intervention. Taking Istanbul is easier said than done. In history whenever someone defeats the Ottomans, they start dreaming about marching to Istanbul. This has happened after Lepanto, Vienna, 1770s war with Russia. But it never happened.

Istanbul is very very easy to defend, and that is not a coincidence. That's one reason why it was chosen as the new capital of the Roman Empire by Constantine. Even the allies failed to take it in World War I, let alone Egypt. Only Russia in 19th century was capable of doing that.
 
After the Battle of Ridaneyah the Ottoman capital was left undefended. All Egypt had to do was walk into Istanbul and take it. The Imperialist powers realized Egypt's growing power and the Ottomans had to give up Syria in order for Egypt not to take Istanbul, it was more then a possibiltiy. The Ottomans looked to diplomacy for a reason, had they been able to defend Istanbul they would've but they needed help and strangely enought their traditional enemy, the Russians, did help them. After the British defeat in the first Anglo-Egyptian war in 1806 they realized Egypt really was no cupcake.WinkSmile


Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 20:01
Back to the subject, the book I am reading now details the economic reasons behind the Ottoman expansion to the south and the east.

The main resource of Stefanos Yerasimos is Fernand Braudel, the famous 'longue duree' analyst. Braudel writes that for ages, the main source of gold fuelling the Mediterranean trade came from Africa through the Sahara desert. It arrived in Northern African states and entered the trade from there.

By the time Ottomans first came around, the Italian city states dominated the Med trade. However, the Portuguese (who don't have a coast on the Med) reached Western Africa and soon the gold started to flow to the Portuguese ports in W. Africa, rather than through the Sahara to the Med. This caused a major poblem for Med trade.

Only place which still had some gold income was Egypt, due to the gold coming from Sudan. And Ottomans knew that. That's the main reason why they turned south after consolidating the Black Sea trade in the 15th century.

However, after the Ottoman's expansion into Egypt (by 1520), the Portuguese troublemakers took Hormuz this time, and closed the straits. This action disrupted the Med trade to no end. So the Ottomans expanded to Basra and the Red Sea, and challenged the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean. Ottomans were not very successful in sending the Portuguese packing for good, but the campaign managed to break their hold on the Eastern trade through Basra and the Red Sea.

Soon afterwards, the long suffering trade in the Med flourished and reached record levels. Suddenly domination of Med became very important, and the rival powers led by Spain joined their forces against the dominant power in the med, the Ottoman Empire.

To sum it up, Ottoman expansion to the south and east was driven by the desire for gold and to keep the trade routes open. It is a huge lie that the Ottomans were blocking the Med trade so that the Europeans had to find new trade routes. In reality, Ottomans were trying to vitalise the Med trade, while non-Med countries such as Portugal, England and Netherlands were trying to undermine it.

Also, Ottoman campaigns in the Indian ocean were not total failures. In fact they achieved their objective of breaking the Portuguese block and resuming the eastern trade. However, this success costed them their dominance in the Med, as it caused Spain to turn its attention to the Med to create a huge anti-Ottoman alliance.


-------------


Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 21:29
This topic has been re-opened.  I have cleaned up the offensive material from the incident that occurred the other day.  At the same time, however, I have tried to preserve the integrity of the discussion that preceeded the incident by leaving the original posts.  I would ask that everyone be respectful of each other and each other's level of understanding of the topic at hand.  If we do this, I believe that we can all learn something and ultimately have a more fruitful discussion.  Thanks! Smile


-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 00:35
Hello Andrew
 
Sorry but the historical accounts by historians who witnessed the invasion say otherwise and the people who were left also indicate otherwise. In the south of the Country in Asir region in the beautiful city of Al-Namas there is a large tribe called Bani Shahr. one of their biggest clans are knows as "Al-Asasblah" "العسابلة". These are the descendents of Turkish soldiers who invaded that country with Ibrahim and since they are not Arab, they were forbidden to marry into other tribes or to marry their daughters to other tribes which made them inbreed and keep their distinct features until today, Blue eyes, a minority green, and Blond hair. These people take pride for being "Turks" but their features are more in line with Germanic types than Slavic. Descendents of raped women in other places still possess distinct feautures only found in Europe.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: andrew
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 02:28
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello Andrew
 
Sorry but the historical accounts by historians who witnessed the invasion say otherwise and the people who were left also indicate otherwise. In the south of the Country in Asir region in the beautiful city of Al-Namas there is a large tribe called Bani Shahr. one of their biggest clans are knows as "Al-Asasblah" "العسابلة". These are the descendents of Turkish soldiers who invaded that country with Ibrahim and since they are not Arab, they were forbidden to marry into other tribes or to marry their daughters to other tribes which made them inbreed and keep their distinct features until today, Blue eyes, a minority green, and Blond hair. These people take pride for being "Turks" but their features are more in line with Germanic types than Slavic. Descendents of raped women in other places still possess distinct feautures only found in Europe.
 
Al-Jassas
 
Ineteresting. Still however, Turks don't possess those traits you mentioned. They had fairly dark hair and most have brown eyes like my mom's dad did. I'm sure Egypt was mixed also and became generally lighter then the average Arab but you obviously know more then I do and the evidence of the tribes obviously can't lie. Cirsassian, Turks, and Egyptians all fought in Ibrahim's army I think.


Posted By: Sikander
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2007 at 12:37
Al-Jassas wrote:

"Unlike what Sikander is proposing, the Portuguese's power never was extended beyond the sea cost, any attempt to occupy the interior they were defeated. "

- Huuummm, it's interesting as I have never proposed that... got to read it better, old chap!
Land dominance was contested in Morocco and into a certain extent in Angola, and clearly achieved in Brasil only.
As for the Indian Ocean, the Portuguese were to few even to dream about creating a continental power. The Portuguese project consisted in keeping coastal fortresses in order to choke competitor's commercial routes and liberate, or rather, secure, the Portuguese routes through East Africa (therefore the importance of Mombaça and the importance of Aden, which the Portuguese failed to take). Therefore, such small battles with the Arabs would serve only to secure a streach of land around the fortresses.
The land intervention in the Red Sea was to help a Christian ally, not to dominate the land.
 
As for the Omani surge in the XVII/XVIII cent., this was largely due to three main factors:
1 - An improvement in naval construction techniques by the Arabs (perhaps with European - English - help);
2- The empoverishment of the Eastern Portuguese Empire which by then consisted only in Goa, Macau and Timor/Flores. Therefore, at a time when the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean was nothing but a shadow of its former glory, it was easy to wage war against them;
3 - The global shift in the Portuguese Empire towards Brasil which then became the main area of concern in terms of economy, policies and investments.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2007 at 21:21
Hello Sikander
 
Soryy butit was you who misubderstood me, I meant in my earlier post the Portuguese holdings in east africa and Arabia not west africa and Brazil, the rest I agree with you on it.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Sikander
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2007 at 22:10
Nope, you missunderstood me! Smile
 
You refered Portuguese expansion in East Africa and Arabia; and I said that the Portuguese never had territorial expansion projects in those parts for they were too few and their enemies too many.
 
So, the only possible expansion was in Brasil and, into a certain extent, in Morocco (though it was a short-lived project).
 
As for West Africa, territorial expansion was nimble despite some battles in the Angolan mainland. Expansion would have to wait until the late XIX /early XX century.
 
Cheers


Posted By: kafkas
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 21:17
Originally posted by andrew

Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello Andrew
 
Sorry but the historical accounts by historians who witnessed the invasion say otherwise and the people who were left also indicate otherwise. In the south of the Country in Asir region in the beautiful city of Al-Namas there is a large tribe called Bani Shahr. one of their biggest clans are knows as "Al-Asasblah" "العسابلة". These are the descendents of Turkish soldiers who invaded that country with Ibrahim and since they are not Arab, they were forbidden to marry into other tribes or to marry their daughters to other tribes which made them inbreed and keep their distinct features until today, Blue eyes, a minority green, and Blond hair. These people take pride for being "Turks" but their features are more in line with Germanic types than Slavic. Descendents of raped women in other places still possess distinct feautures only found in Europe.
 
Al-Jassas
 
Ineteresting. Still however, Turks don't possess those traits you mentioned. They had fairly dark hair and most have brown eyes like my mom's dad did. I'm sure Egypt was mixed also and became generally lighter then the average Arab but you obviously know more then I do and the evidence of the tribes obviously can't lie. Cirsassian, Turks, and Egyptians all fought in Ibrahim's army I think.


A lot of Turks have those features, including most people in my family. If you visit Turkey you'll see that they're not uncommon whatsoever.


-------------


Posted By: Tore The Dog
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 14:45
One vital Turkish possesion was Perim or Barim island , Portugese was there 1513 but did not occuped this strategic isle , so Ottoman empire had this isle for centuries.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perim - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perim
 
http://encarta.msn.com/map_701515622/perim.html - http://encarta.msn.com/map_701515622/perim.html


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 19:18
These are the descendents of Turkish soldiers who invaded that country with Ibrahim and since they are not Arab, they were forbidden to marry into other tribes or to marry their daughters to other tribes which made them inbreed and keep their distinct features until today, Blue eyes, a minority green, and Blond hair. These people take pride for being "Turks" but their features are more in line with Germanic types than Slavic.
 
They were maybe albanian..


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 12:18
Not maybe.
For sure.
It is well known that Muhamed Ali Pasha and Ibrahim pasha ,since they themselves were Albanians,they had in their army their Albanian regiments,(also Greeks) and the people closest to them were of course Albanians.
 
 


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 12:24
Originally posted by kafkas



A lot of Turks have those features, including most people in my family. If you visit Turkey you'll see that they're not uncommon whatsoever.
I would belive they are mostly situated in places were there have been a majority of other Balkan people,such as the Albanians,or places were people have come from the Population exchanges with Greece,many non-Turks were shiped to Turkey based only on their religion,many of them Albanians,(Chams) who constitute the Albanian Region with the most Blonde people.In Vlora (city in Albania were i come from) i would say that the Cham population is 60% to 70% in favour of blondes.Some historians estimate that milions of people in Western Turky,specially in cities like Istambul and Izmir have Albanian origines.


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 13:07
Infact mostly situated place is coast of blacksea and no they are not immigrants.


Posted By: kafkas
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2008 at 06:48
Originally posted by HEROI

Originally posted by kafkas



A lot of Turks have those features, including most people in my family. If you visit Turkey you'll see that they're not uncommon whatsoever.
I would belive they are mostly situated in places were there have been a majority of other Balkan people,such as the Albanians,or places were people have come from the Population exchanges with Greece,many non-Turks were shiped to Turkey based only on their religion,many of them Albanians,(Chams) who constitute the Albanian Region with the most Blonde people.In Vlora (city in Albania were i come from) i would say that the Cham population is 60% to 70% in favour of blondes.Some historians estimate that milions of people in Western Turky,specially in cities like Istambul and Izmir have Albanian origines.


I'm sorry but this is simply not true. A lot of Turkophobes will tell you that light featured Turks must be mixed with "Indo-Europeans" or something. It's all racist nonsense.

My family is very very old and there's no non-Turkic influence in us that we know of. Most of my family has light features, some have very dark features, some are redheads, and regardless we're all 100% Turk. The most ancient accounts of Turks by the Chinese also mentioned their variances in physical features, some having light hair and eyes while others having darker features.

This idea of people being mixed with foreigners if they look different from others is a eurocentric attitude that wouldn't make much sense if applied in Anatolia or the Caucasus.



-------------


Posted By: HomoFlores
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2016 at 11:07
I have newly found in my research, that the Ottoman occupation of Sudan occurred sometimes in the mid of the 16th century and is consisted of much atrocities, which no one rememorises. 


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2016 at 11:33
Without sources, and details all you get is so what?





-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: Aeoli
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2016 at 14:02
Originally posted by HomoFlores

I have newly found in my research, that the Ottoman occupation of Sudan occurred sometimes in the mid of the 16th century and is consisted of much atrocities, which no one rememorises. 

After controling Egypt and Hejaz (West Arabia including Holy Islamic Cities), not having a relation with Sudan & Horn of Africa would be odd. 

You are completly right, in most of time Sudan is forgetten

However I guess most effective contact was in Muhammed Ali Pasha Period in 19th century, not in 16th century. 

That period is also known as Al-Turkiyah.   







Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com