Decline of the Ottoman Empire: CaspianReport

[livingdead]

 

[somebozo]

 

[AUz]

He's educated.

He says the same thing as I have been saying all along. Anyone familiar with history will know that Ottomans didn't just decline in 16th century..They remained super power by 18th century (1700s)....

Failure to take Vienna in late 17th century was the end of Ottoman Expansion into mainland Europe...and then the decline started slowly...Europe (which was already growing faster) decisively took over in terms of power by mid 18th century or so..

Had Ottomans taken Vienna, it was game-over for the Europeans..

 

[flamer84]

He's educated.

He says the same thing as I have been saying all along. Anyone familiar with history will know that Ottomans didn't just decline in 16th century..They remained super power by 18th century (1700s)....

Failure to take Vienna in late 17th century was the end of Ottoman Expansion into mainland Europe...and then the decline started slowly...Europe (which was already growing faster) decisively took over in terms of power by mid 18th century or so..

Had Ottomans taken Vienna, it was game-over for the Europeans..

I agree in principle,the part in bold is where I beg to differ.Even if they could have taken Viena,could the ottomans have kept it for long? Look what happenned only 3 years later after Viena,they lost another strategic point----Battle of Buda (1686) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ---- and with it most of royal Hungary which was under ottoman rule for over 140 years.(and Buda was much closer to ottoman balkan base than Viena mind you).I think that allready in the 17th century the ottomans lost many of their offensive capabilities altough they weren't beaten not even at the beginning of the 19th century as many like to suggest.

As a parallel to Viena look at :

Ottoman invasion of Otranto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia....it's hard to keep a strongpoint far in enemy lines,and they were more capable in the 15th century than at the end of the 17th as opposed to their foes.

 

[AUz]

[/B]

I agree in principle,the part in bold is where I beg to differ.Even if they could have taken Viena,could the ottomans have kept it for long? Look what happenned only 3 years later after Viena,they lost another strategic point----Battle of Buda (1686) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ---- and with it most of royal Hungary which was under ottoman rule for over 140 years.(and Buda was much closer to ottoman balkan base than Viena mind you).I think that allready in the 17th century the ottomans lost many of their offensive capabilities altough they weren't beaten not even at the beginning of the 19th century as many like to suggest.

As a parallel to Viena look at :

Ottoman invasion of Otranto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia....it's hard to keep a strongpoint far in enemy lines,and they were more capable in the 15th century than at the end of the 17th as opposed to their foes.

Yeah...as you can seen, Ottomans only started losing as you go nearer and nearer to 18th century...

Ottomans remained undisputed super-power by 18th century...Many Westerners I met tend to think that Europe was already more powerful than Ottoman Empire in 16th century...which is nothing but just a hoax to satisfy some people's ego I guess..Anyone who has studied Ottoman History knows that this perception that Ottomans were done after Battle of Leopanto is wrong.

Ottomans faced one serious technological draw-back due to which they couldn't mobilize their troops fast enough. By the time Ottomans armies used to reach Vienna (which was thousands of kilometers away from Ottoman base), it was already winter time. So they used to get a very narrow window of few days to try to take Vienna..and after that they had to return back otherwise winter would've killed them...If Ottomans had found a way to mobilize their massive armies faster..I think they would've taken Vienna since it would've given them couple of months more to fight/siege European forces at Vienna...

I think that if Ottomans had taken Vienna, they would've stationed massive military power there. So they might have actually kept it. The whole point of Vienna was that it was kinda like Constantinople. The city would've provided Ottomans with a new power and logistical base in Europe...Anyways, its all speculative history now...

 

[BronzePlaque]

Yeah...as you can seen, Ottomans only started losing as you go nearer and nearer to 18th century...

Ottomans remained undisputed super-power by 18th century...Many Westerners I met tend to think that Europe was already more powerful than Ottoman Empire in 16th century...which is nothing but just a hoax to satisfy some people's ego I guess..Anyone who has studied Ottoman History knows that this perception that Ottomans were done after Battle of Leopanto is wrong.

Ottomans faced one serious technological draw-back due to which they couldn't mobilize their troops fast enough. By the time Ottomans armies used to reach Vienna (which was thousands of kilometers away from Ottoman base), it was already winter time. So they used to get a very narrow window of few days to try to take Vienna..and after that they had to return back otherwise winter would've killed them...If Ottomans had found a way to mobilize their massive armies faster..I think they would've taken Vienna since it would've given them couple of months more to fight/siege European forces at Vienna...

I think that if Ottomans had taken Vienna, they would've stationed massive military power there. So they might have actually kept it. The whole point of Vienna was that it was kinda like Constantinople. The city would've provided Ottomans with a new power and logistical base in Europe...Anyways, its all speculative history now...

there is an interesting translated work, called the Behaim Brothers. these are translations of three german brothers who lived in this time. the three brothers corespondances was translated and put to print and give a wonderful insight into how people percieved there life in this era.
one thing that they often talk about in these works, was there own perception of the end of christian civilization and the soon to be Turkish conquest,
food for thought

 

[flamer84]

Yeah...as you can seen, Ottomans only started losing as you go nearer and nearer to 18th century...

Ottomans remained undisputed super-power by 18th century...Many Westerners I met tend to think that Europe was already more powerful than Ottoman Empire in 16th century...which is nothing but just a hoax to satisfy some people's ego I guess..Anyone who has studied Ottoman History knows that this perception that Ottomans were done after Battle of Leopanto is wrong.

Ottomans faced one serious technological draw-back due to which they couldn't mobilize their troops fast enough. By the time Ottomans armies used to reach Vienna (which was thousands of kilometers away from Ottoman base), it was already winter time. So they used to get a very narrow window of few days to try to take Vienna..and after that they had to return back otherwise winter would've killed them...If Ottomans had found a way to mobilize their massive armies faster..I think they would've taken Vienna since it would've given them couple of months more to fight/siege European forces at Vienna...

I think that if Ottomans had taken Vienna, they would've stationed massive military power there. So they might have actually kept it. The whole point of Vienna was that it was kinda like Constantinople. The city would've provided Ottomans with a new power and logistical base in Europe...Anyways, its all speculative history now...

Yes,it's all a big "what if?" right now.Lepanto wasn't that important as mentioned in the video,the ottoman fleet was on its feet in a few years and yes the ottomans scored important victories against the hapsburgs and the russians even deep into the 18th century.

there is an interesting translated work, called the Behaim Brothers. these are translations of three german brothers who lived in this time. the three brothers corespondances was translated and put to print and give a wonderful insight into how people percieved there life in this era.
one thing that they often talk about in these works, was there own perception of the end of christian civilization and the soon to be Turkish conquest,
food for thought

Those were medieval times man,they were drama queens )..."God punishes to the left ,to the right,burning heretics at the stake"...Let's not forget the europeans fought one another as much if not more as they fought the ottomans during those times.

 

[Wright]

Wasn't Spain in its decline during that time as well - 18th century?

 

[AUz]

Wasn't Spain in its decline during that time as well - 18th century?

Decline? Probably yes, probably not...but who cares?

Honestly, to me, Spanish empire wasn't impressive in the least...They conquered only poor, isolated red indians in new world...or few small territories here and there..They never challenged the establish super power of the time (Ottoman Empire) nor did they challenge the European regional powers (French, British, Germans etc)...Nor did they introduce any game-changing event in the flow of history.. no conquering of any significant land/city, no introduction of any game-changing technology etc..

Spainish Empire was kinda like today's GCC...big, prosperous, and rich - but not very influential on global political scale

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

He's educated.

He says the same thing as I have been saying all along. Anyone familiar with history will know that Ottomans didn't just decline in 16th century..They remained super power by 18th century (1700s)....

Failure to take Vienna in late 17th century was the end of Ottoman Expansion into mainland Europe...and then the decline started slowly...Europe (which was already growing faster) decisively took over in terms of power by mid 18th century or so..

Had Ottomans taken Vienna, it was game-over for the Europeans..

Hardly,the centre of euroepan power by then from 1650s had shifted to france.Beyond vienna stood louis XIV the sun king of france with the largest army[400000 combatants/men] in europe.France was the most populous and most prosperous nation on europe,the superpower of the age.With generals like conde,vauban,luxembourg and turenne.They took on all europe,they would have made mincemeat out of the declining ottomans cavalry based armies.
The reason ottomans advanced towards vienna was at that moment holy roman austria was in a serious financial crisis,a part of his amy was distracted by louis's forces in the west.
France made alliance with ottomans to contain habsburg austria from both sides.Habsburgs were the only thing along with england and dutch keeping france in chcek.If vienna fell,nothing would have happened except france would dominate all of europe and eventually world.Thye wouldn't have much problem mopping up ottoman army far from home.

 

[Wright]

Decline? Probably yes, probably not...but who cares?

Honestly, to me, Spanish empire wasn't impressive in the least...They conquered only poor, isolated red indians in new world...or few small territories here and there..They never challenged the establish super power of the time (Ottoman Empire) nor did they challenge the European regional powers (French, British, Germans etc)...Nor did they introduce any game-changing event in the flow of history.. no conquering of any significant land/city, no introduction of any game-changing technology etc..

Spainish Empire was kinda like today's GCC...big, prosperous, and rich - but not very influential on global political scale

Spain was considered the superpower of its day by other European powers. They ruled the seas. Their constant wars with the French and British is what brought the empire down.

The rivalry between France and Spain was far more intense than any other at the time.

 

[AUz]

Hardly,the centre of euroepan power by then from 1650s had shifted to france.Beyond vienna stood louis XIV the sun king of france with the largest army[400000 combatants/men] in europe.France was the most populous and most prosperous nation on europe,the superpower of the age.With generals like conde,vauban,luxembourg and turenne.They took on all europe,they would have made mincemeat out of the declining ottomans cavalry based armies.
The reason ottomans advanced towards vienna was at that moment holy roman austria was in a serious financial crisis,a part of his amy was distracted by louis's forces in the west.
France made alliance with ottomans to contain habsburg austria from both sides.Habsburgs were the only thing along with england and dutch keeping france in chcek.If vienna fell,nothing would have happened except france would dominate all of europe and eventually world.Thye wouldn't have much problem mopping up ottoman army far from home.

Can I ask if you took any detailed class in Ottoman/European history? or World history before 1850?

France was probably only the strongest regional power of W.Europe at best. Comparing it with the super power of time is a joke.

Ottoman Empire was larger, more wealthy (not by per capita basis but over-all nationally), and "global" empire with territories spread in Asia, North Africa, Balkans, Anatolia, and mainland Europe. Ottomans also controlled probably the most important seas in the world at that time (Eastern Mediterranean) etc..

How big was France in say 1701?

French standing army was larger/more stronger than Ottoman standing Army in 1700? Are you kidding me or what? Also, can you give me the source of 400,000 french standing army? Ottomans probably had more soldiers stationed in Anatolia and Egypt alone than whole france..forget about other parts of Empire...

There was a "reason" why no single European power ever attacked the Ottoman Empire by its own. Europeans almost all the time formed alliances of many nations to take on one Ottoman Empire's forces...go figure.

 

[AUz]

Spain was considered the superpower of its day by other European powers.

Who told you? Probably a very strong regional power..a competitor for 'new world'...but other than that, Spain was nothing much...

It never even tried to challenge the super power (Ottoman Empire) AND any other established nation. Their only achievements was against unarmed, isolated, helpless red indian tribes...you call this a super-power? French/British/Germans were European powers that influenced global political structure..spain? Ummm not so much..all of their "achievements" are out of the 'established world' of that time.. Only against 'new world', which didn't matter squat at that time (but resources from there played huge part in European rise later in coming centuries)...

But Spain was no super-power in say 1690 or 1703 etc...The super-power was Ottoman Empire (though facing increasing competition w.r.t Europe)...

They ruled the seas.

Yes..but what seas? Where hardly any navy was present? Even there, they faced competition by other European navies... They never formed hegemony on any important seas....On the other hand, Ottomans had dominated Eastern Mediterranean for centuries. This was the most busy sea of the world at that time. Trade going to Middle-East from Europe, India to Ottomans, and even E.Asia to Middle-East/Europe passed through Eastern Mediterranean Sea...And Ottomans had the strongest navy in this sea till mid 18th century etc...

Seas where Spanish were strong only had raw resources from New-world coming to Europe..no significant global trade. Although European navies were very skillful..

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

The rise of france begins from rocroi 1643,when the french army under the 18 yr old conde smashed the spanish tercios and with the treaty of westphalis in 1648 that ended the power of the holy roman empire and the 30 yrs war left germany the centre of austrian power devastated,france was the newest superpower of europe.


In 1660 when louis ascended the throne france ranked below the worldwide empire of spain,the mercantile power of the dutch republic or the ancient holy roman empire of austria.But It had the largest population,around 20 million,compared to 8 million austrian,6 million british.And after richeliu and mazarin,louis took things into his own hands in 1660.
He carried out massive administrative reforms through his able ministers colbert[taxation and finance] and louvoius[armaments].
For the first time france began to use its massive manpower advantage.
Louvois and colbert used this massive population advantage to build up an army of unprecedented strength.In 1660 france could only fiedl 70000 men.By 1667 this had grown to 200000 and by 1675 over 350000 men.These are figures straight from osprey military publishing books.Still don't believe me just check france's standing army that was unleashed on europe in the begining of the war of spanish succession..in excess of 400000 men.
Thats a STANDING army of 300000-400000 men.Not levies.Made possible by massive manpower and colbert's tax and agricultural reforms.In contrast ottomans only had 10000 jannisaries and similar kapikulu/silahdar siphi units as standing army.Others were levies and gathered in times of war.And all of these were trained musket armed troops or cavalry,not levies with swords or pikes
To give you an idea of french power under louis,he fought three wars with almost a coalition of whole of western europe,including england,dutch[dutch were immensely wealthy at that time and could hire a army of 125000] austria,german states,savoy,italian states and sometimes spain.It took the military genius of marlborough and eugene of savoy combined to finally enforce a stalemate.And this was after the best of his marshals were dead,conde,turenne,luxembourg and vauban.
Just google these names.
Vauban is teh greatest siege and engineer in military history.
Rememeber this eugene of savoy is the same who defeated the ottomans thoroughly and snatched bulk of the balkans from them.
Louis was so rich he built the versailles palace,one of the wonders of the age emulated by kings all over europe.French prestige was so high that french became the 'lingua franca' of europe.the language of the royal courts all over europe.He is remebered as the'sun king' the personification of absolute monarchy.
He said-''I am the state''.The system of grandeur at teh expense of peasants he set in brought france great power and glory but misery to the poor and was responsible for the french revolution of 1789.

I am acquainted with ottomans in euroepan history,you have questions i'll answer them.
There was a 'reason' NO SINGLE POWER took on france alone.As for ottomans just a few decades after 1683,austria alone under eugene of savoy defeated them repeatedly.
Useless levies in egypt mean nothing.The only thing taht matters how many combat worthy troopps u can bring to the battlefield at any time.And France had the largest STANDING army in the world.Not called up levies.

 

[Icewolf]

Spain was considered the superpower of its day by other European powers. They ruled the seas. Their constant wars with the French and British is what brought the empire down.

The rivalry between France and Spain was far more intense than any other at the time.

It was that and the massive inflation caused by bringing looted gold in.

Eventually Spain died out in 100 years of their conquests.