Ottoman Turks and New World Expansion

In studying European expansion and the exploration of the New World (North and South America), I have always wondered why the Ottoman Turks did not at least attempt a trans-Atlantic voyage or expansion beyond the Mediterranean Sea.

At the time of Columbus's voyages in the late 15th and early 16th centuries, I doubt the Ottomans could have outfitted and manned vessels that could have withstood a long term voyage to the New World. Secondly, at that time, the Ottomans had not conquered the Mediterranean waters as they had territory on land, such as the remnants of the Byzantine Empire, the Balkans, and Anatolia. However, during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, the Ottoman navy was expanded along with the land army. Suleiman and his immediate successors won great victories against the Hapsburgs and established the Ottoman Turks as a threat in Mediterranean waters -- they even conducted raids along the coast of Spain in the 1530s. Experienced and talented sea captains such as Barbarossa and Piri Reis were in Ottoman service; if anyone was capable of leading an expedition to the New World, it would have been these men.

1. Why do you think the Ottomans did not attempt to expand into the New World? All of the evidence seems to suggest that they were capable.

2. If they had made the voyage(s) and had established colonies in the New World, how would they have interacted with the native populations and the European colonists? Would there be war or peaceful trade?

3. How might Ottoman culture and Islam have changed (if at all) in the New World, being relatively cut off from its source in the Old World?

1. Well look at the map of piri-reis they certainly knew a lot, although the map is said to have been gathered from lost ancient maps...
   I think the most probable reason was that they were to much caught up with europe then, and didn't really have the time.

2. I doubt that they would have had any problems with the natives in similar sense that the colonists had.. trade will talk.. But I dont think that they would have been too much in peace with the european colinists.. ( as they werent with the natives)

3. The ottoman culture is not the extremes, its the golden middle, islam, christianity religion doesn't really matter as turks like the russians, kept their shamanistic beliefs even after they decided with Islam. So I dont really think it would have affected the religion in any aspect, the culture, well the ottomans would have integrated the native culture and given their culture to the natives in a more peacefull manner..
In a sense come to think of it, they wouldnt have changed anything there apart from the necesary, and would have kept the beliefs and languages that existed those times to the present day..

p.s. here is an interesting thesis/view interesting to read... it sort of puts a new meaning to your question..

.....
The oldest ethnic roots of the peoples are found, as a rule, by the linguists by the linguistical attributes. The historians studying ethnogenesis of peoples usually use their conclusions, adding archeological and other data.

In the traditional historical and linguistical sciences is considered to be established that the split of the Uralo-Altai unity onto the Altai and Ural languages has taken place in the 10th millennium BC, i.e. 120 centuries ago, and the split of the Altai unity onto the T�rko-Mongolian, Manchurian, Japanese-Korean languages happened in the 6th millennium BC, i.e. 80 centuries ago, the split of the T�rko-Mongolian unity onto T�rkic and Mongolian languages happened in the 4th millennium BC, i.e. 60 centuries ago.

The first serious battering of this viewpoint already occurred in the 17th century, in the 19th century the pounding increased, and in the 20th century was proved its scientists repugnance.

John Djosselin in 1638 noted that in the language of the American Indians are T�rkic loans. In the 19th century Otto Rerig in the language of the North American Siu people lists a mass of the words close to the T�rkic, for example, tang "dawn", tani or tangi "learn", ate "father", ina "mother", ta-te - affixes of the local case, ekta "on the side", etc. [Karimullin А., 1976, 136-141]. The works of similar character appear in Italy and France. In out days a Swedish scientist Stig Vikander published a number of works devoted to the crossties between the languages of the Maya and Altaians. From his works A.Karimullin gives the following examples: aak "wet" (aka > aga "flows"), baldiz "younger sister of the wife", bayal "rich" "plenty"," boya "paint", bur "to braid", -ik "to appear", tur "to stand", yom "connect" [Ibid., p. 140].

In the language of the Maya American Indians, the sounds y and yo (dj) frequently alternate, and this reminds the T�rkic phonetics, the affix -l is actively applied for the verbs, the affix of negating looks as -ми/-ма, it reminds the T�rkic morphology [Diego de Landa, 1955, 19, 77, 79]. As in the T�rkic languages, in the Maya language the word yash is used in the sense "new", "young", and also in the composition the word jashyl, "green" [Diego de Landa, 1955, 19, 77, 79].

The Russian scientist �.V.Knorozov for a long time and persistently studied the culture and writing of Maya. As a result of his research he lists the Maya language words, not at all suspecting that many of them coincide with the T�rkic words. Some of them are:

chak - "color", in the word chagyldyru "to reflect";

chak - "furnace, stove", in the word chakma "flint", "flint strike" it is connected with the fire (the Russian loan from the T�rkic, ochag "furnace, stove" is a time link between Maya and Russian, is not it something? - Translator's Note);

yash k'in (yash kyn) "young sun", in T�rkic kyn "sun"; the T�rkic word koyash was formed also of these elements k�n yash > koyash. In the ancient T�rkic we find the word yashyk (yash kyn > yashyk) as "sun". In the Mayan language the word yash was also applied in the sense "fire", in a T�rkic (Tatar) word yashen "lightning" also has the meaning "fire". The word kun "sun" in both languages also is connected with the semantics "fire", it shows also in the words yalkyn "flame" and yushkyn "boiling scale, deposit". All this tells that the semantic concurrence of words in the Mayan language and in the T�rkic is not accidental, and but makes a complete system;

aak - "light";

ichin - "to bathe", ech+ing "to immerse, comprehend";

chen - "well", not artificial, but natural, chongol "hollow", "cliff";

ishil - a part of the Maya country, ish-il (ech il) "internal country"; with the ending -il/-el exist toponyms: Ishil, Tsental, Tsotsil, Chol, Chontal, P�holabal, Bak"halal, Kosumel, Kakichel, Chektemal, Konk"al, Itsmal, Vuk-yabnal [Diego de Landa, 1955, 12, 14, 15, 24, 25, 30].

Many words designating location of people in the Maya language end with itse "inside". It confirms the message of the source that in the Maya country attacked each other people who were inside of the stone fortifications and outside of the stone wall [Diego de Landa, 1955, 21].

It is possible to continue demonstrating the linguistical examples, but already given examples clearly show that in the Mayan language are rich T�rkic loans, probably, substrates.

The Maya peoples, like the T�rks, clearly distinguish between senior and younger relatives, and call them with different words [Diego de Landa, 1955, 48; Ilminskiy N.I., 1862, 22-23].

The Maya music, like that of the many T�rkic peoples, is based on pentatonic.

The �.V.Knorozov's research makes it obvious that the Maya social system reminds the conditions in Sumer and Egypt: there and here the clan society is combined with the slaveholding society [Diego de Landa, 1955, 37].

Because the North American Maya people in many parameters remind the T�rks, some scientists consider the Maya to be pra-T�rks. In our opinion, to confidently assert this positively or negatively, it is necessary to carry out careful comparative-historical linguistical, archeological, anthropological, mythological, ethnographic, artistic study of these peoples. Only by the results of such studies would be possible to tell, who were in antiquity some American Indians: the proto-T�rks or the non-T�rks who experienced in Eurasia a strong influence of the T�rks. Whoever they are, their complex affinity to the T�rks tells that 20-30 thousand years ago the T�rks spread in the Euro-Asian continent.

Challenging this conclusion, supporters of the traditional Eurocentric sciences deny the presence of the historical connections of the American Indians with the Euro-Asian tribes. But a close look at the subject brings to light that 20-30 thousand years ago the Bering passage did not exist, the American and Asian continents were connected by a land bridge over which animals and people moved freely [Kuzmishchev В., 1986, 342]. The anthropological types, characteristical for the American Indians, were found both in Asia, and in Europe. So, found in the Bashkortostan [Matyushin Г., 1969, 29-30] and Mongolia [Novgorodova E.A., 1977, 130] five-thousand-year old skulls and burial ceremonies tell that in these territories then lived the ancestors of the American Indians. The participants of the Soviet-American archeological expedition also tell about the migration the first people from Asia to the American continent in Beringia, Alaska and Aleutian islands. The head of this expedition from the Soviet side acad. A.Okladnikov noted, that Siberians were the first Americans [Okladnikov А., 1975, 33]. They also gradually trekked to South America [Kuzmishchev В., 1968, 343].

The Maya peoples represent a big group of the American Indians who settled in the Yucatan peninsula. Before our era, the Maya had a developed material and spiritual culture, their civilization should become an object of special studies. So far we only know for sure that it was destroyed by the Spanish conquerors of their land.

If the T�rkic and American Indian parallels would be proved, it will be possible to tell that T�rks formed before the migrations of the American Indians' ancestors to the American continent.

In case the migration the Euro-Asian ancestors of the American Indians to the American continent through the Bering passage (which did not exist)is confirmed, we should search for the most ancient T�rkic-speaking area in the Eastern Siberia; if the scientists would prove their migration through the Western Europe, would arise a possibility of the existence of such a region in the Western Europe.




Edited by baracuda

1. Well look at the map of piri-reis they certainly knew a lot, although the map is said to have been gathered from lost ancient maps...

Spanish and Portugese maps actualy, he even wrote that on his map. He composed that map from lots of other ones, some stolen from the Spanish/Portugese, others captured after naval battles and so on.
Legend has it that the map was originaly of the whole world, and that the Sultan, upon seeing the Portugese in Asia, ripped the map in half, gave it to Piri Reis, and told him to stop them, and only the Western half survivedm precisely because it was unused. I think there are a few other similar tales.

the reason is obvious, they had to go through the whole mediteranian filled with ships of hostile nations, basically for once the Atlantic seaboard had advantages that italy and Anatolia did not.  Although I do think it would have been better for the Native Americans had the Ottomans colonized, but we will never know.

the only voyages to North America by 1513 were voyages to Newfoundland beginning with John Cabot in 1498, and some Spanish sightings of the southeast coast of the U.S.

Not much of N. America is represented on the map, parts of the Carribbean, not much further than that.

Pizarro hadn't been to Peru, yet at that time, so how did Piri Reis know about the Andes?

The Andes begin in Colombia, though there is no need to assume that the mountains (which appear to be more in Brazil) are the Andes, there are mountains not so far from the Brazilian coast, and with large rivers, it doesn't take a geographical genious to figure out that those rivers begin in mountains somewhere

Also, the detail on the South American coast seems a bit too rich for 1513.

Not at all, both the Spanish and the Portugese had by them sailed along the better part of it, and with both sources to chose from, he could have compiled a fairly good picture. Though its not that accurate, the River Amazon is drawn twice by the looks of things, though his odd projection method distorts things so..

On the map there is a note that explains that the map was synthesized from about 20 maps, - many parts done from maps captured from Spanish and Portuguese ships in the Mediterranean, and supplemented by accounts given by captured Spanish and Portuguese sailors.

And he clearly states what parts of the map he used what sources for, like any professional map maker would, and guess what, the Americas are full of references to the Portugese and the 'Genoese Infidel' etc. Indeed you'll notice that the Caribbean is poorly drawn, blame that one on Colombo, not a particulary brilliant map maker.
He even appears to have used a few unreliable sources, for example, the Island of Saint Brendon (mythical) is on there somewhere, even the tale of lighting the fire on a fish, which he then states wasn't mentioned on the Portugese maps, but he added it because he saw it on an ancient Mappae Mundi. Obviously ancient space aliens at work there, the very idea that a mythicl tale could have been taken too seriously is just too far fetched.


Edited by Cywr

I think some individuals of Ottoman origin did have a go, but usualy under the ageis of some Europeans. I'm thinking a few were priviteers in the emply of various European states.
They would be private individuals though, not representatives of the Ottoman Empire.
Now i have to rake my brains and try and renember where i heard this from.

The Ottomans wouldn't need to 'break out', they could arrange to sail from Morrocco, or take the long way round.
But, as an Empire, they clearly just weren't interested, otherwise they would have made a serious effort. Its not like it was difficult, hell even the principality of Courland had a go at it. The main problem was that it was a very risky venture, and not always profitable (profit was perhaps the only persistant motive for European colonialism).
Besides, why try and grab some far away lands you know very little about when you can set your sights on making the Mediterreanian an Ottoman lake.

however, so were the Spanish and Portuguese with their expansion into North Africa and the East Indies!

This was part of the same parcel that saw them expand into the Americas. Indeed, it was on the way back from (or to) India that the Portugese ended up off the coast of Brazil, and Africa represented stopping points on the way to India, for Spain it was the opposite, from the West Coast of the Americas, they sail to the Philipines and back again.




Edited by Cywr

The Ottomans never needed a western passage to the Orient, as they controlled the land routes and had ports in eastern Egypt and western Arabia. To go west would have been to wade through the hostile Meditteranean, facing the strong navies of Spain, Portugal, Venice, Genoa, etc.

Also (keep in mind, this may just be old propaganda), the Turks were well known for being mediocre sailors.

But for the explorations era, many victories were gained you know.

Originally posted by Belisarius Originally posted by YAFES Ever heard about the mine-ship "Nusrat/Nusret"? I actually have not. I would greatly appreciate if you would enlighten me though.

I believe he is trying to point to a much later date, Gallipoli.. where the turks sank quite a few warships, this little mineship at night put out mines before their noses, in the day 2-3 warships French,English.... were sunk or damaged fully, some loosing its crew completely.. it was an interesting war.. if you read the 'war flow' .. but the main victory was on land and for the german u-boat in the area... but then again even before that time turks do have very able sailors..

Originally posted by Cywr But, as an Empire, they clearly just weren't interested, otherwise they would have made a serious effort. Its not like it was difficult, hell even the principality of Courland had a go at it. The main problem was that it was a very risky venture, and not always profitable (profit was perhaps the only persistant motive for European colonialism). Besides, why try and grab some far away lands you know very little about when you can set your sights on making the Mediterreanian an Ottoman lake.

Yes, this does seem to be the main and obvious reason in the end.  I read something yesterday which said that overseas and New World expansion really did not fit the mindset and the Ottoman "world  view" at the time.  In essence, the Ottomans saw no need for their empire to extend beyond the Mediterranean and the Near East.  Also, their main focus was on the conquest of the Balkans, not on broader expansion.