Ottomans-French alliance
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Early Modern & the Imperial Age
Forum Discription: World History from 1500 to the end of WW1
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13047
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 11:05
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Ottomans-French alliance
Posted By: Majkes
Subject: Ottomans-French alliance
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 14:28
| Can You name other important alliance during XVIth, XVIIth Centuries and its reasons? We can also discuss French Ottomans alliance but it was of course mainly based on anti Habsburgs feelings. We can also discuss which in You opinions alliances would be god for You countries and what do You think about decisions of Your kings to establish one alliance and not the other. |
Replies:
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 16:09
|
In the usual mode of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," France and also the Dutch made overtures to the Ottomans to counter Habsburg power in central and northwest Europe. Of course many of their alliances were temporary (Netherlands & France against Spain; France and England against Spain; Protestants and Turks against Spain...poor Spain)
One extremely important alliance was France and Sweden against the Austrian Habsburgs. This alliance, of course, was a convenience for France which used the Swedish led armies of Germans to distract the Habsburgs (Austria and Spain) from France's attempts to cut the Spanish Road to Luxembourg, and to increase French influence in northern Italy, further damaging Habsburg influence east of French territory.
That alliance lasted well into the 17th century, and was still strong in the 1680s.
|
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2006 at 16:22
|
Here is a reference to an interesting article that discusses the shifting alliances in Europe that involved the Ottomans. It focuses on the practice (which the Byzantines also used) of holding the brother of a would-be heir to the Sultanic throne as a diplomatic bargaining tool.
Halil Inalcik, "A Case Study in Renaissance Diplomacy: The Agreement Between Innocent VIII and Bayezid II on Djem Sultan." Journal of Turkish Studies 3 (1979): 209-230.
------------- 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: mamikon
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2006 at 17:11
|
Napoleon also allied himself with the Ottomans, I think...
------------- |
Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2006 at 05:50
| Habsburg -Safavid alliance against ottomans, hungary-Karamanoglu alliance against ottomans, venetian-akkoyunlu alliance against ottomans. All this 3 states are turkic and muslim but they were the allies of the europeansI think we can say poor ottomans too.Because in a large geography they struggled in two sides(app2500-3000km) |
Posted By: Young Tatar
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 14:23
|
------------- "Independence and Freedom are my character." Mustafa Kemal Atatürk ----------------------------- Crimean Tatar Independence Movement |
Napeleon is imperialist,colonist emperor of France. He says:"Money, money, money." Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 15:32
No Napoleon fight against Turks in Egypt. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 16:10
|
Nothing to do with Turkey, but the longest-lasting alliance of all has been England and Portugal. ------------- |
Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 16:43
 Napeleon is imperialist,colonist emperor of France. He says:"Money, money, money." I hate all imperialists.Yet his picture is on your avatar?  No Napoleon fight against Turks in Egypt.
Wasn't Egypt already a semi-independent state ------------- |
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 06:00
No. Ottomans sent Kavalali Mehmet Ali Pasha to Egypt because of French invasion. But after he become powerfull in Egypt, he fight against Ottomans, so he made Egypt a semi-independent state. ------------- |
Posted By: Young Tatar
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 09:36
Yet his picture is on your avatar? 
He is Mengli Giray Khan.He isn't colonist.Because, he is Muslim and he is Turk. ------------- "Independence and Freedom are my character." Mustafa Kemal Atatürk ----------------------------- Crimean Tatar Independence Movement |
Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 09:43
|
The traditional Ottoman-French friendship started with Suleiman The Magnificent when he gave the French priveledges for enetering into Ottoman market, and ended when Napoleon invaded Egypt-then Ottoman province. ------------- ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever! |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 13:27
And he also waged war against his neighbours just as Napoleon, overthrowing the last khan of the Golden Horde. How is one imperialist better than another?
---
Anyway, the French weren't the only ones with good relations with the Turks. Sweden had an alliance with the sultan as well, because of the common Russian enemy. Realpolitik all the way.
|
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 17:22
Yeap Svedish king XIICharles was our guest forawhile
 And there are two Turkish frigate in Svedish navy:
During the Soujourn of King Charles XII in Turkey from 1709 to 1714, he gave the Turkish names Jarramas and Illerim to two frigates, which were then building in Sweden. These names have since been perpetuated in the Swedish Navy, in the case of the former to the present day. According to official reports these two words were taken to mean “thunder” and “lightning” respectively but this is only true regard the latter. There is no single Turkish word meaning, “Thunder,” whilst “Jarramas” is a colloquial term much in use and meaning “worthless,” “No good.” It is just possible that the word was originally misspelt for “Jarranmac,” meaning “zealous.”
------------- |
Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2007 at 14:21
The Venetians too had ambiguous politics towards the Ottomans alternating appeacement and (military) containment.
|
Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2007 at 01:29
|
there are no eternal allies or enemies, only eternal interests.
i think it was churchill who said that one, egomaniac that he was. look at poland in turkey. the polish handed the ottoman empire their greatest and most severe defeat ever at the siege of vienna in 1683. yet now turkey and poland are allies. why? because they both hate russians.
although i think its important to realise that turks are becoming allies of the russians right now, or at least friendly, and that the ottoman empire refused to recognise the partitioning of poland by russia and austria in the 18th century. i bet those poles regretted saving the austrians from the ottomans after that happened.
|
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2007 at 02:51
| hate? or fear. |
Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2007 at 03:08
It is true both Poland and Turkey are very good buddies! But I would object to the idea that it is because anti-Russian feelings... There is no anti-Russian feeling anymore in Turkey... Actually according to a Moscow-based statistics, Turkish guys rank the heightest when Russian women marry foreigners
More than 2 million Russians visit Turkey for holiday, and Turks pay the return. I was also in MoscowThe Ottoman state never recognized the partitation of Poland like a chesee, and in the diplomatic court of The Sultan, a chair was always left free for the envoy of Lehistan ( how Ottomans call Poland).
We Turks tend to return the sympathy that foreigners show towards us.. I think that is the reason why we have warm feelings towards Poland. That is also the reason why we like Russia now as well.
I met a lot of Polish and Russian people, and all of them were my party dudes
 ------------- ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever! |
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2007 at 08:01
Like Poland last year passed the famous armenian law, our newspapers where yelling like "look to our "friends" who betrayed us". Ok what Poland did may be negative for us but positive to them ($$) because it is their own interests. Turkey could counter it with something, getting closer to Russia (i think it is a must now) or something else (bürokraside care tükenmez :D ) I think Turkey should quickly change this way of politics, trusting someones words, getting emotional etc...  ------------- Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2007 at 15:57
Yep, there's still a ship named Jarramas, fourth of its name. It's a small school ship. Never knew the names were misinformed though (I do believe it was Yaramaz in Turkish).
 |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2007 at 16:04
Yes It is yaramaz. What a funny name for a ship. Maybe They named it as yaramaz because He is tinny(Yaramaz is used for childs.)
|
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2007 at 18:02
|
(Jarramas)Yaramaz means naughty. (Jilderim)Yıldırım means lightning.
Those ships were copies of Ottoman ships actually.
this is the plan of first Jarramas:
http://burkinafasafiso.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/jarramas%20plan_kucuk.jpg - http://burkinafasafiso.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/jarramas%20plan_kucuk.jpg
(Architectura Navalis Mercatoria (1768) )
http://burkinafasafiso.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/Jarramas_Jilderim_ve_kralinimzasi.jpg - http://burkinafasafiso.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/Jarramas_Jilderim_ve_kralinimzasi.jpg
and this could be intresting for turkish members: http://burkinafasafiso.com/category/tarih/
------------- |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2007 at 06:09
During the same era there was also the venerable HMS Sällan Värre ("Seldom Worse"), Snäll ("Nice"), Töva Litet (roughly "Dawdles a bit") and Näsvis ("Impertinent").
 The ships of the archipelago fleet had a tendency to be renamed to such pet names after their characteristics: for example the Seldom Worse was originally Thor.
As far as I know the only Turkish about those particular ships were the name. The Illerim and Vita Örn (and later the first Jarramas) had their predecessor in the light privateers that Sweden relied on in the Atlantic during the Great Northern War, and are by many considered to be the first frigates. Those plans is actually the second Jarramas, designed by Gilbert Sheldon (of English descent) and built in 1759.
What is the article about? It looks interesting.
 On the other hand, Fredrik af Chapman took much inspiration from the Turkish ships when he designed the archipelago frigates of the latter part of the 18th century. For example this sketch of an early Turuma.
 edit: sorry for stealing the topic.
|
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2007 at 14:49
|
Just to mention the possibility...
France would try to push for Italy and even Spain, while the Ottoman Empire would make sure that France do not get involved with Ottoman Empire' invasion to the Balkans and some North African lands.
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2007 at 17:35
France and Ottomans had common enemy - Habsburgs.
|
Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 07:25
its ironic you say this, it is an interesting idea, but unserving to the interests of both states and impossible considering the french diplomatic situation.
barbarossa hayreddin pasa, the greatest admiral in ottoman history, was the chief of the ottoman navy during the reign of suleyman the magnificent, which was when the french-ottoman alliance was created. the french king francis requested ottoman assistance in the mediterannean, as the french barely had a navy, whereas the ottoman navy at the time was supreme (excluding perhaps admiral yo-sun shin of korea who around that time was crushing a japanese invasion). today, the mediterannean cities of marseille and nice are french, and this is because barbarossa bombarded those cities from the sea and forced them to surrender on behalf of the french king francis. whats ironic about your suggestion though is, as barbarossa and his huge navy of 210 warships were sailing from the barbary coast to france, they bypassed and successfully beseiged an italian city. with this new territorial acquisition rome itself was vulnerable and likely to be captured. it seemed barbarossa would begin an invasion of the city when the french interfered and save their fellow catholics.
so you see, as all nations create alliances for their own benefit and interests, the french benefit was protection from the ottoman navy saving them from the italian and spanish threats, while they could focus their miltary power on the hapsburg and english threats. whilst they wanted protection from their mediterannean threats, they did not want spain and the italian city states destroyed as it would result in complete ottoman naval supremacy, which would ultimately become detrimental to their interests.
barborossa spent thirty years subduing and humiliating combined spanish and italian fleets in the mediteranean, his highlight being the batle of preveza. he spent almost his entire career bombarding coastal cities of non-ottoman states.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 07:33
| what did the ottomans get out of the alliance at this time then? |
Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 08:42
|
french perfume
as a result of this alliance, the ottomans had even more power in europe and an ally against the hapsurgs. not only that, their alliance caused the english, who had a fierce rivalry with the french, to begin trade and communication with the empire which proved beneficial. the french began trade with the ottoman empire too.
|
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 18:45
Weakening Habsburg too much would not be good. Russians would expand through the weakened Austria-Hungary. Stronger Russia is not a good news for any other players, especially the Turks.
I am not sure how Prussians would have reacted. They were never eager with expanding until Bismarck came in...
Since you (kurt) said that Turkish navy was supreme, do they have a chance agains the Royal Navy? I know Britain dominated the sea for long time, but I don't know if Turks were better at that time...
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 18:47
I think it's a great idea. French skill with perfume with great skills of the East (Turks and beyond east) might have changed the perfume industry today. Out of the topic, but have anyone watched the movie, Perfume: The Story of A Murderer? I found the plot to be interesting... but I want to know if it's worth watching... ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 19:46
Franco-Ottoman alliance lasted between 16th-17th centuries.
The context you are mentioning is 19th century. By that time, France became an enemy to the Ottoman Empire with some temporary exceptions like alliance against Russia between 1806-12 and Crimean War(French actions against Ottoman Empire in 19th century: 1798-Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, 1827 French support to the independence of Greece and burning of the Ottoman navy in Navarino, 1830-annexation of Algeria, 1830s-French support to Mehmed Ali Pasha against Ottoman Empire, 1881- Annexation of Tunisia) ------------- 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: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 19:56
|
Wo wo wo, everybody sounds a bit confused here. @ pekau Weakening Habsburg too much would not be good. Russians would expand
"Russia" as such did not really exist in the early 16th century. They were far from being a threat to the Ottomans who only started to feel the pressure of our moujik friends some 150 years latter. through the weakened Austria-Hungary. Similarly Austria-Hungary did not exist. Most of Hungary was actually under Ottoman rule. The house of Habsburg would remain united till 1557, when Charles V's heritage was divided between his son (who got Spain, America, Italy and the Low Countries) and his brother (who got the Imperial crown and the family lands in Austria). I am not sure how Prussians would have reacted.
Yeah right and in Waterloo or in the Zollverein they were just playing cricket.I know: they wouldn't have because Prussia did not exist at the time as a polity. The Brandbourg was merely one of the most important state within the Empire but far behind Bavaria for instance. They were never eager with expanding until Bismarck came in... Since you (kurt) said that Turkish navy was supreme, In the Mediterranean there was no country to come close to match the Turkish navy. Genoese crew were better, Maltese soldiers outcompete any opposition, the Spanish galleys had the best artillery and Venice had the best shipyards but between the sheer number of the public and private fleets based in the East (Istanbul and Alexandria mainly) and the witt and skills of the Barbary corsairs, the Turks were just too strong. Although the Portuguese had proved that on the Oceans, the Turkish galleys would easily be defeated by high board ships, in the Mediterranean they did rule the waves. do they have a chance agains the Royal Navy? I know Britain dominated the sea for long time, but I don't know if Turks were better at that time... Basically British warships were a few ill-equiped galleys, merchantmen transformed for the occasion and a few real warships. Henry VIII is usually said to have created the great RN, but it rested more on the excellency of the seamen that on anything else. Broadly speaking, before Cromwell there is not such a thing as a British navy, there are only good sailors and courageous corsairs. Some 120 years laters, the British warships were to be able to threat to bomb Topkapi. ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 20:22
|
Heh, wrong time. Um... ops?
Didn't Prussia came to fight in Waterloo because of Napoleon's threat? Napoleon invaded and conquered Prussia. They don't want Napoleon to conquer them again... As for Zollverein... I have no clue what that is.
I thought Prussians weren't really into expansion because of how they tried to prevent the German unification and how they avoided the lands from being Germanized by giving them to Austria-Hungary. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 20:46
|
Sorry I should have mention Frederik die Groß instead of Waterloo… and he and his father weren't into expansion, what is?
------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 23:28
|
like maharbbal said, russia was not a factor in europeon diplomacy during the 16th and 17th centuries, they were just a bunch of prinicipalities which were endlessly raided by the crimean khanate. hardly a threat. by the time russia became a threat to ottoman existance, in the 19th century, france had ruined their traditional alliance with the ottomans in napoleons invasion of egypt. i should have specified where the turkish navy was supreme. the black sea and the aegean sea were virtually ottoman lakes. the mediteranean was more or less theirs for about 2 centuries after the battle of preveza (1538), and when their fleet was destroyed by united christian forces in 1571, they rebuilt their fleet in six months and re-asserted their naval invincibility in the mediteranean. the sultan even said, after the supposedly disastrous defeat: "you have merely cut off our beards, and the shaven beard grows faster". their chief rivals in the mediteranean were venice, genoa, spain, and other italian city states, all of whom united against the turks to maintain their otherwise threatened presence in the mediteranean. however, they could not contend with portuguese incursions into the persian gulf and the red sea. in 1560, an ottoman fleet was defeated by a portuguese fleet in the indian ocean. hence ottoman presence in the indian ocean and their security over the persian gulf and the red sea was ended. ottoman ships simply weren't able to contend with oceanic waters. although they did manage to explore as far as newfoundland, greenland and iceland, though for non-military purposes.
in the 16th century the british navy would have been ruined by the ottoman fleet, but after the industrial revolution the ottoman navy was useless. sultan abdulaziz spent a fortune on building a huge navy, only for it to be rendered backwards due to the industrial revolution. they lost many naval battles to the russians, including the battle of sinop of the crimean war.
to summarise, for about 2-3 centuries the ottomans ruled the mediterannean, but they had no interest in the oceans, and eventually europeon powers exceeded them technologically, resulting in a decline in naval power.
|
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 08:30
There're other factors as well. After the discovery of the Americas, European focus shifted irreversibly towards the west and the Mediterranean was not an important sea-route any more. Since the Ottomans controlled Middle East, cutting trade roots from the Indies, there was no point for them to control the Mediterranean.
That is when also Venice declined, since it was depended on trade and trade was no longer possible for them. The new trade roots were now to the West and around Africa to the East.
------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 20:11
True...Not only related to Mediterranean, also the establishment of new oceanic routes brought the decline of Silk Road and Spice Road, which were the most important trade routes before. The control of these roads' western portion belonged to Ottoman Empire...And Venetian traders were using it actively for centuries...Not only the Venetians, but Genoese as well...So they faded altogether..Ottoman Empire's vast lands and huge power helped empire stay a bit tight for more time, but Venice and Genoa faded away from scene of Europe as important powers sooner. ------------- 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: kurt
Date Posted: 26-May-2007 at 07:32
- ottoman - dutch alliance, although im not sure where this one begins and ends.
- portuguese - persian alliance
- spanish, venetian, genoese, and other italian city states, form the holy league, to end ottoman naval supremacy in the mediterranean
- holy alliance - russia, austria, poland, venice, and the holy roman empire. this force destroyed the ottomans at vienna, but prior to this they struggled to take territory from the ottomans (they besieged Buda 16 times in a space of one hundred and fifty years)
- russian austrian alliance, 18th century, to reduce ottoman power. ended after the crimean war.
- mughal - ottoman alliance
- english portuguese alliance
- austrian prussian alliance, after austria lost a war to prussia they realised they were too diplomatically isolated, and created this alliance which ended after world war one.
-english french alliance, beginning with the crimean war, continuing right on with world war two.
- sweden - ottomans, anti-russian alliance.
so on and so forth. there are others, its just they dont fit in early modern and the imperial age.
|
Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 26-May-2007 at 07:42
good point. although the mediteranean did indeed become important again after suez canal was built
|
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 26-May-2007 at 16:50
This one ended much before. The last battle between Austrian Empire and Ottoman Empire was in 1791.
Things were not always friendly between Britain and France between Crimean War and WW I... The official date shows Entente Cordiale, 1907 for this alliance. And due to evergoing competition with France overseas and historical hostilities, it is not until the rise of Germany Britain and France agreed for an alliance.
------------- 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 |