As the discussion came up in the Templar thread http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=175&PN=1 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=175& PN=1  - I wanted to throw some questions out here:

When did the military power of the Ottomans begin to decline?

What were the causes of their decline?

When did the Ottomans cease to be a threat to western Europe?

In the beginning of the 17th century. But they still didn't decline too much for a long time.

Throughout 17th and most of 18th century, they didn't keep up with the technological developments in Europe, I think that was the greatest cause. Their military systems and their elite units got corrupted too.

In the 18th century, I guess...

During the 16th century, which was also, paradoxically, the time of their military height.

Early signs of problems included Sulleyman's failure to take a poorly-fortified Vienna in 1529, as well as his failure to engage Charles V's field army in 1532 (and his Akincis cavalry were massacered in the Vienna Woods by Austrian troops).   These were considerable setbacks, after the triumph over the Hungarians at Mohacs in 1526.

The next big problem was Sulleyman's failure to take Malta in 1565. 

The biggest blow, however, came after Sulleyman's death, when the Turkish Navy was wiped out at Lepanto, in 1571.  More than any other single action, this battle broke the myth of Ottoman invinciblity for good.  Much has been made over the fact that the Turks were able to get another fleet in action the following year, but it was built of green wood, and the crews were inexperienced (John F. Guilmartin, author of the classic Gunpowder and Galleys, pointed out that the Ottomans never fully recovered from the loss of skilled manpower--captains, pilots, sailors, free oarsmen, naval janissaries, etc.--suffered at Lepanto).  During the following campaigning season, Ulich Ali was markedly reluctant to engage even the reduced Holy League Fleet, for he knew that the quality of his ships and men was lower at that point.

IMO it was primarily a matter of being spread too thin, and having to fight on several fronts (against the Hapsburgs in the West; against the Spanish, Venetians, Knights of Malta, and Uskoks at sea, and against the Persians in the East).  The Spanish had similar problems during the same century--they had to maintain their valuable overseas possessions in the New World and the Pacific against incursions by the Portuguese, the English, the Dutch, and others; and they had to deal with the Moors, the Ottomans, and the Dutch and English in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and the Northern Europe.  Being a superpower can be a bitch (as we all know by now).

18th century.

Peace,

David

The height of the tensions between the Ottomans and the Safavids was in the early 16th to mid 18th centuries. Only after the fall of Nader Shah could the Ottoman's no longer worry about their eastern fronts as much (as well as the fall of the Safavid dynasty).

The first signs of decline of Ottoman empire started after Mehmed-pasha Sokollu's death in 1579. That continued untill Mehmed pasha Koprullu became grand vizier in 1656, who after seven decades again increased stability in the empire.....

But the real decline came after 1683 and that went worser in the 18th century, where Ottoman empire stopped to be one of major powers. In the 19th centuryit became a "sick man on bosphorus"...

Why it declined, answer is: Jealosy, corruption, bribery, intrigue, sexualism, favouritism and etc...

There were about 100.000 akincis in Ottoman Army.They were one of the best soldiers.

But while going on a siege -i do not remember its name- while their taxes were being taken,they have been waited on a bridge and Austrian artillery destroyed the bridge.A big amount of them were killed.

100,000? Definitially not! The numbers must have varied between 10,000 and 40,000.

The event you described happened in 1595 when the Wallachians (not Austrians) opened fire to the bridge from which the Ottoman Akýncý raiders were withdrawing. This event signalled the end of the Akýncý unit in the Ottoman army but the Delils and Crimean Tatars were continued to be used with the same purpose.

Hehehe...

I took the number of Akincis in the book named "the Golden History of Turks"

You read it

Btw that unit you wrote "delil",wasn't it deli?Or was it a different unit?

Ah, that hilarious book!! It says the Ottomans lost only 156 soldiers at Mohacz!  

It's original form was Delil, meaning "One who shows the way" (Yolgösteren); today this word is still used for "Evidence".

However, the common folk prefered to call them Deli meaning "Mad" because of their frightening looks and this useage was accepted in time.

I thought and decided to ask;can't it be?

Mohacz was a short battle and the main event was the death of Hungarian Knights' because of the fire of Ottoman Cannons.After,they started to run and lots of them died in swamps as you know.

They could not make a big assault.

well whenEVER the decline, in the end, they went out ugly. Massacred over 1.5 million greeks armenians and assyrians. Total genocide of these people out of Asia Minor. ANd during there reighn, it wasnt a good one. Forced conversions on children to be taken to serve in there jannisary. ANd in Cyprus now. Why should there be equal govwernment between the greeks and turks when the greeks outnumber them 4 to 1?

Please delete this message;we are talking about the decline of Ottoman Militray power.ChristCrusader wants to create a storm;but we will not be in that storm.

Battle Of Zenta was a disaster for Ottoman Military.(1697)

Sultan II.Mustafa attacks on Austrians two times before the battle.At the thirth the battle happens.Ottoman Forces were in defence first,but when Austrians fired their artillery instead of attacking to Ottomans the Ottoman soldiers began to retreat.But Austrians had had closed the escape routes.There was a big massacre....

After the Battle Otoomans lost 30.000 men while Ausrians lost only 500 men.

Also Ottoman supplies and the signet of the grand vizier took by Austrians.They took all the battle-tents includes the sultan's tent.

ChristCrusader;

I wanted an exemption for you;be careful.We stopped talkin about Turko-Greek,Armenian wars;they give nothing to us.

Here we are all neutral about historical events.

But if you behave like this again,you would be banned.

Be careful and neutral.I will not act like this again.

I am sorry it is not 500,it is 1500(still very low)

 Quote from Pasha. Also Ottoman supplies and the signet of the grand vizier took by Austrians.They took all the battle-tents includes the sultan's tent.

DO you not see what I was refurring to. If your going to fairly ban me please have a better case than my last comment... This has nothing to do with the other post. I am stating my opinion and if that shouldn't be a problem if this is a neutral posting.

I don't understand what you want to say but if it is related to my post I must say that it is true,When Ottomans began to retreat quickly from battlefield,Austrians entered to Ottoman camp and stole what they find valuable.

The Ottoman empire, also called in the west as the Turkish empire (though it was a multiethnical, multicultural and multiregilious society - organized, among other things, in millets - where non-turks like greek orthodox had an important role, even as viziers), played a major role both in european as in middle-eastern history.

It's common sense that the empire reached its peak in the 16th century, under the rule of Süleyman, the Magnificent. The failure to conquer Vienna for the second time, marked a decrease of the ottoman power in the Balkans, but the territorial losses were not immediate, and often were reconquered, like the cases of Bosnia or Serbia (who happened to defect from the Habsburgs back to the Ottomans).

The european conquest of the New World was also a decisive factor to pull the edge onto the West. The beys of northern african provinces such as Ali Bey in Egypt, led a de facto autonomous rule, and eventually passed from vassalage to independence.

The shattering of the empire continued (from internal corruption, to loss of power of the sultans, to popular uprisings, etc.) and the loss of influence in the balkans (with the independence of Greece in 1829) and the black sea to the Habsburgs and Russia was a continuous fact until WWI.

The emerging states from the dissolved empire promoted an understandable diabolization of the ottoman state (including Turkey), in a way to reassure their distance and independence from it.

Nowadays, however, there's a new, fairer and more effective approach to the history of such an important empire.

I recommend the reading of books such as those of Halil Inalcik and Donald Quataert (both with a comprehensive look on the social, economic, political and religious life of the empire from its foundations to the end) or that of Kemal Cadafar (contesting the gazi theory for the formation of the ottoman state), amogst other to better understand one of the greatest empires of all time.

Nope, I'm portuguese, as it states the flag under my avatar!

But tessekkur ederim for the welcome greetings, Jagatai!

Are you interested in Turkish History?

Yes, among other things. I'm really interested in the Ottoman period. And perhaps this summer I'll visit Istanbul and other sites of Turkey.

no comments Christscrusader?

I'm also very interested in Greece too.  Both classical period, as well as medieval and post-independence. I've been to Athens once, and some isles. But I'm planning to go there for a larger period of time in a near future. I also need to practice the greek I'm learning at school! Geiá Sou!

unless u want some  comments, i got none,

so your learning greek in school? thats nice, its always good to learn another language and apply it. I myself am not very good with other languages though.

Having just got back from there a couple of days ago I can safely say that you will love Istanbul. It was my first visit, but I cant wait to get back there already.

Back to the main topic though, I guess overstretch and not keeping up with the technology was what caught up with the Ottomans. In the Topkapi you can compare how extremely ornate Ottoman weaponary is compared to the more functional (yet still ornate) European firearms.

I can advice this site for ones who interested in Turkish history:

http://www.theottomans.org - http://www.theottomans.org

I hope you like it

nice site Jagatai

 Tashakorat

Hi there, Tobodai!

I recently finished reading Quataert's "Ottoman Empire, 1700-1922". I found it very interesting, as it really gives you an good insight into what is acknowledged as the fading years of the Empire. The reasons for the decline are several, but the conservative culture that you pointed, alongside with a feeling of natural superiority towards the western powers (due to lack of contact with the West - First Ottoman Embassies and permanent delegations in Europe appeared very late in the 18th century), is definitely one of them.

Internal corruption and frequent poor leadership were also the case. After Süleyman I (the peak of Ottoman rule - 16th century), and the defeat at the gates of Vienna, the Ottomans started drawing back. Alongside came a new emmerging power, the tsarist Russia. Things only got better again when Koprülü & Son came to the scene and reformed the army and the navy, regaining some provinces in the Balkans (Belgrade I believe), and showing up at the gates of Vienna once more, only to be defeated by poor tactics and a non-expected polish reinforcement that forced the Ottomans to withdraw. After that, further territorial expansion only the conquer of Cyprus, and Ukraine from Poland. 

Anyway, the West was gaining the upperhand and slowly the Ottomans were diminishing in power and influence. A rush of unsuccessful wars with Russia made them lose many territorial possessions in the Balkans. Internal reforms to westernize (like the Tanzimat) were slow and found resistance from some sectors (like the Janissary, which eventually led to their extinction), and overall the western economy was more powerful and soon dictating laws in Ottoman internal affairs.

The Constitution that was a part of the Tanzimat process, was abolished by the Sultan, only to be put back by the Young Turks revolution (and the Sultan put away).

By the time of WWI, the shrinked Empire was in a social transition phase that never got its end due to the ultimate extinction of the Dinasty by Atatürk, following the Empire's defeat in the war.

But this is just a very brief comment. I strongly recommend the book. I'm also about to read Halil Inalcik's "Ottoman Empire, 1300-1600". I've also read Cemal Kadafar's "The Construction of the Ottoman State", a good insight on the origins of the Empire and the various thesis around it.

I'm open to more suggestions, of course.

Uhm, there is a chronological confusion here

The Ottomans still ruled Hungary during the grandvizierates of Köprülü Mehmed Paþa (1656-1661) and Köprülü Fâzýl Ahmed Paþa (1661-1675). It was Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Paþa who was defeated at Vienna in 1683. The loss of re-capture of Belgrade happened much later.

The Kapýkulu Corps were abolished before the declaration of the Taznimat.

It must be Battle of Prut 1711,but I didn't know such a thing about this battle.

Muskets vs Bows ..... strange ....

Maybe Ihsan knows?

by the way

Everyone knows that Süleyman I failed to capture Vienna,but it isn't correct.

Suleyman and his soldiers had motivated to capture Vienna,but while they were going,the siege plan was cancelled;because it was winter,soldiers and supplies were going to exhaust and Ottoman Army hadn't brought cannons.

There wasn't a battle to capture Vienna in front of the city

That was the main problem of the Ottoman army. Their Logistics service was tragic and it was one of the elements that stopped their expansion.

The Sultan with his entourage and the army would leave Constantinople in Spring to wage war. By the time he would reach Austria, it would be autumn and he had to return back while a large portion of the army would be starving in the mud.

The Hapsburgs cleverly identified this weakness and enlarged it. They build many small forts that were heavily fortified along the Danube. The Ottomans instead of leaving a small force to siege them would launch all-off attacks against them, thus stalling for even longer their campaign. At one occasion, a small garrison of 300 men, stalled the whole Ottoman army for two months, thus destroying the entire campaign.

I though Süleyman actually died prior to getting there, somewhere in Hungary, during a battle.

By the 18th century most Ottoman soldiers were armed with matchlock and fuse muskets which started replacing the composite bows a long time ago (most Ottoman janissaries had become musketeers by the 16th century and towards the end of that century, new musketeer units in the provincial units were formed).

Not always.

Again, not always. I know at least a few campaigns which were launched at spring. But the Viennese Campaign of 1526 was a total strategic error.

It's Habsburg  I hope Temujin won't see it

Hmm interesting, which siege is this?

He died during the siege of Szigetwar (sp?).