Decline of the Ottoman Empire: CaspianReport

[AUSTERLITZ]

Rigid cathoilicsm[leading to automatic war with protestants/or rebellion by protestant provinces],inflation and war on multiple fronts,plus the end of the military supremacy of the spanish tercio are principal causes of spanish decline.

 

[That Guy]

Having fun watching the videos, my friend?

Also posted a few videos about the Saudi Royal family.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/middle...ty-succession-caspian-report.html#post4347768

 

[AUz]

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.

lol...you seem to be very 'fond of french'....

You are "praising" french instead of making any point...

French was the strongest W.European nation at most...It didn't replace Ottoman Empire as the global super-power in 1701 etc....

Give your rantings/praises a rest...

Here are simple parameters for audience to understand..

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

How big was France in say 1701? Its global reach? total GDP? Its naval dominance of important seas? Nothing. Ottoman Empire dwarfed French in every single parameter in early 18th century...

Ottoman Empire was the super power of 1701 etc ..To state otherwise is just foolish...European powers, though rising, were still no match to the Ottoman Power. It was not until late 18th century that Europe started to 'expand' East Words and actively challenged the Ottoman Empire's domination...

Before that, few European victories here and there meant nothing much...

Also, the very concept of "standing army" came from Ottomans to Europe lol...And Ottoman Military was 'designed' to be de-centralized military machine...it doesn't mean that French had larger army... In and around W.Europe? Yes, french army might have been bigger than Ottoman Army... but "over-all" , Ottomans had way larger military machine then French...

Ottomans had more weapons, more canons, more and better warships etc etc... Pre-industrialized Europe of 17th century held little or no water infront of the super power Ottomans...

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

lol...you seem to be very 'fond of french'....

You are "praising" french instead of making any point...

French was the strongest W.European nation at most...It didn't replace Ottoman Empire as the global super-power in 1701 etc....

Give your rantings/praises a rest...

Here are simple parameters for audience to understand..

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

How big was France in say 1701? Its global reach? total GDP? Its naval dominance of important seas? Nothing. Ottoman Empire dwarfed French in every single parameter in early 18th century...

Ottoman Empire was the super power of 1701 etc ..To state otherwise is just foolish...European powers, though rising, were still no match to the Ottoman Power. It was not until late 18th century that Europe started to 'expand' East Words and actively challenged the Ottoman Empire's domination...

Before that, few European victories here and there meant nothing much...

Also, the very concept of "standing army" came from Ottomans to Europe lol...And Ottoman Military was 'designed' to be de-centralized military machine...it doesn't mean that French had larger army... In and around W.Europe? Yes, french army might have been bigger than Ottoman Army... but "over-all" , Ottomans had way larger military machine then French...

Ottomans had more weapons, more canons, more and better warships etc etc... Pre-industrialized Europe of 17th century held little or no water infront of the super power Ottomans...

All your rantings..'superpower','global reach' MEANS NOTHING IF A 'SUPERWPOER' CAN'T WIN A SINGLE BATTLE IN THE BATTLEFIELD.The french army could smash anything around that time due to its massive standing army and technical prowess in engeneering[first nation to use grenades and bayonets] and superb generals.
Ottomans didn't have better warships..lol.Pathetic shallow water galleys against sea going colonial carracks,frigates and men of war.Those rowed galleys were obsolete in 1571 at lepanto when 8 galleases and their cannons ripped apart 100 galleys with zero losses.The age of ramming and archery in naval warfare was gone,it was the age of cannon.
Ottoman mobile artillery was very slow and mostly for siege warfare.Europeans from the time of gustavas adolphus has used lighter calibres that gave direct fire support at brigade level.
The europeans were already using complicated firing systems like 3 rank volley fire,slavo fire compared to ottomans.
The primary ottoman speciality was mining .They were best at it.
The heavy cavalry was increasingly less effective against massed gunpowder troops.
Among the ottoman army only the 10000 jannisaries were regular gunpowder armed troops.Rest were mostly armed with swords,pikes and occasional handguns.They also used matchlocks only while europeans were moving towards flintlocks.
I don't have french fetish.It sjust that france was awe inspiring power at that time.From louis 1660 to napoleon 1815.In the middle they had a few setbacks due to absolute corrupt monarchy but during this era france was the most powerful nation on earth.From 1683.eugene of austria almost smashed ottoman power.Captured whole of balkans.Your superpower and 'de centralized military machine was helpless with many more troops.
Truth is ottoman power ended in 1571.The discovery of the new world,end of the silk road route,total degeneracy of the sultans,lack of technical innovation meant they were power in decline after 1600s.A few capable pashas and viziers held the line to make this final offensive possible,but internally the rot was set.

 

[AUz]

All your rantings..'superpower','global reach' MEANS NOTHING IF A 'SUPERWPOER' CAN'T WIN A SINGLE BATTLE IN THE BATTLEFIELD.The french army could smash anything around that time due to its massive standing army and technical prowess in engeneering[first nation to use grenades and bayonets] and superb generals.
Ottomans didn't have better warships..lol.Pathetic shallow water galleys against sea going colonial carracks,frigates and men of war.Those rowed galleys were obsolete in 1571 at lepanto when 8 galleases and their cannons ripped apart 100 galleys with zero losses.The age of ramming and archery in naval warfare was gone,it was the age of cannon.
Ottoman mobile artillery was very slow and mostly for siege warfare.Europeans from the time of gustavas adolphus has used lighter calibres that gave direct fire support at brigade level.
The europeans were already using complicated firing systems like 3 rank volley fire,slavo fire compared to ottomans.
The primary ottoman speciality was mining .They were best at it.
The heavy cavalry was increasingly less effective against massed gunpowder troops.
Among the ottoman army only the 10000 jannisaries were regular gunpowder armed troops.Rest were mostly armed with swords,pikes and occasional handguns.They also used matchlocks only while europeans were moving towards flintlocks.
I don't have french fetish.It sjust that france was awe inspiring power at that time.From louis 1660 to napoleon 1815.In the middle they had a few setbacks due to absolute corrupt monarchy but during this era france was the most powerful nation on earth.From 1683.eugene of austria almost smashed ottoman power.Captured whole of balkans.Your superpower and 'de centralized military machine was helpless with many more troops.
Truth is ottoman power ended in 1571.The discovery of the new world,end of the silk road route,total degeneracy of the sultans,lack of technical innovation meant they were power in decline after 1600s.A few capable pashas and viziers held the line to make this final offensive possible,but internally the rot was set.

And I rest my case....

Your knowledge of history is at a level of a kid that has only read few wikipedia pages at most...

Even educated Europeans here at PDF will laugh at your "Ottoman Empire ended in 1571" childish rant....

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Laugh all u want...won't change a thing.You couldn't provide a single real answer.U said ottomans had better artillery,better ships,larger army,more weapons.I proved u completely wrong.Then u posted a couple of smilies and ran away.

 

[scorpionx]

Factors responsible for the empire's decline:

1.The power of the empire was waning by 1683 when the second and last attempt was made to conquer Vienna. It failed. Without the conquest of Europe and the acquisition of significant new wealth the Empire lost momentum and went into a slow decline.
2.The European powers wanted to expand
3.Competition from trade from the Americas
4.Competition from cheap products from India and the Far East
5.Development of other trade routes
6.Rising unemployment within the Empire
7.Ottoman Empire became less centralised, and central control weakened
8.Sultans being less severe in maintaining rigorous standards of integrity in the adminstration of the Empire
9.Sultans becoming less sensitive to public opinion
10.The low quality Sultans of the 17th and 18th centuries
11.The ending of the execution of Sultan's sons and brothers, imprisoning them instead.This apparently humane process led to men becoming Sultan after spending years in prison - not the best training for absolute power

12.Soon the very word Turk became synonymous with treachery and cruelty. This led Turks like Kemal Ataturk, who was born late in the nineteenth century, to be repelled by the Ottoman Turkish political system and the culture it had evolved. Seeing little but decay and corruption, he led the Turks to create a new modern identity.

The empire officially ended on the 1st November 1922, when the Ottoman sultanate was abolished and Turkey was declared a republic. The Ottoman caliphate continued as an institution, with greatly reduced authority, until it too was abolished on the 3rd March 1924.

 

[Aslan]

The biggest problem that the Ottomans faced, and probably was the main one reason for their decline was the constant war on 3 front to the end. The persians on one side, the europeans on the other, and then the russians to the north.

 

[flamer84]

Laugh all u want...won't change a thing.You couldn't provide a single real answer.U said ottomans had better artillery,better ships,larger army,more weapons.I proved u completely wrong.Then u posted a couple of smilies and ran away.

I agree with you that in the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th centuruy the ottomans began to lag behind europeans when it came to warfare but they we're not finished from 1571.The decline began after they were routed in the Great Turkish War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In spite of a series of defeats like Austro-Turkish War of 1716 they did manage to hold their own on the battlefield well in the 17th century.

Austro-Russian

Pruth River Campaign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I find this particular battle quite funny )

Battle of Karánsebes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One can only speculate now what would have happenned if the austrians could bring their entire attention on their eastern(ottoman) front but the truth is that after the siege of Viena the austrians feared the french and some of their protestant northern neighbours a whole lot more that they did the ottomans.Just look how many wars they fought with other europeans only in the end of the 17th century-mid 18th century:

Nine Years' War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Category:War of the Polish Succession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Second Northern War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

War of the Bavarian Succession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

War of the Spanish Succession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

War of the Austrian Succession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I know many here like to think that the ottomans were on the verge of conquering whole of Europe or that they fought against some sort of EU back then but the truth is that europeans waged war more often on other europeans than on the ottomans.This holds for every century of ottoman expansion.Some europeans,and here the clearest is the french case,were all to happy to allie themselves with the ottoman "infidels" against their "christian brothers".

 

[AUz]

Laugh all u want...won't change a thing.You couldn't provide a single real answer.U said ottomans had better artillery,better ships,larger army,more weapons.I proved u completely wrong.Then u posted a couple of smilies and ran away.

Lol..

Real answer? Real answer to your highly praised french-fetish rants?

Lets look at the world in year 1700...

There was only one transcontinental global superpower and its name was The Ottoman Empire !!!

French held no water to the Ottomans at the start of 18th century (Though French were growing faster than Ottomans..)..

Facts of year 1700 :

1) Global Presence/Global Reach/Global Influence (One of the most important feature of a super power)

Ottoman Empire: The Turks held a land area of 5,000,000 km+ and was a trans-continental global empire spreading as far as Asia, North Africa, Balkans, Anatolia, and mainland Central Europe.

France : Its area wasn't even 300,000km lol..It was present only in W.Europe. Had no global presence at this time... A regional power....or let me be generous ... a regional superpower at most (Like Israel in Middle-East)...

2) Control of important seas and/or international trade routes (Another key aspect of a super power)

The Ottoman Empire: The Ottomans had hegemony over the most important sea in the world at that time (Eastern Mediterranean) etc.. Majority of global trade b/w East and West passed through the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, which Ottoman Navy dominated. Ottomans also had direct access to Red Sea and the Persian Gulf etc...

France : It had no hegemony over any important sea or international trade route. It had no direct access to Persian Gulf, or Red Sea etc.


You know what? I was gonna continue and write category by category..economic, GDP, agricultural production, industrial production etc etc..but I thought thats its a waste of time. You aren't educated enough to worth my effort.The other readers can already read our comments and judge for themselves.

The above two mentioned aspects are key to any super power..without these traits, a nation can never be a super power. Everyone can clearly see that the Ottoman Empire was the super power of the world in 1700s..while French weren't even near the status of being a super power...They had no global presence, nor any control of important seas...but hey, you can continue with your frech fetish, since according to you, The Ottoman Empire already ended in 1571

Lastly, in one of your comment, you were jumping about how France had 400,000 men army ( which is unauthentic. Please provide a specific source for your claim)..Well, guess what? The Ottoman Empire fielded 300,000 soldiers in battle of Vienna alone !!! ( Harbottle, Thomas (1905), Dictionary of Battles, E.P. Sutton & Co, p. 262). Remember, this was thousands of kilometers away from the Ottoman power base in Anatolia. French Army had only 200,000 men in 1701, when the Spanish Succession War started..

And before you make any stupid comment again, let me pre-empt you...Ottomans couldn't get Vienna not because their military power lacked or that Vienna had better forces defending it ..but it was a technological drawback that they suffered. I explained this in post#5 ..Go have a read.

 

[flamer84]

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

What? The spanish continuosly fought the ottomans,french,english,dutch,german protestants in Europe.At their time they had one of the most capable troops that the Old Continent had seen.

Tercio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AUz]

What? The spanish continuosly fought the ottomans,french,english,dutch,german protestants in Europe.At their time they had one of the most capable troops that the Old Continent had seen.

Tercio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well yeah..I know. But I personally don't see them as impressive. They didn't change the course of history much..For example, Ottoman's conquering of Constantinople was a bigger history-changing event than whole Spanish Empire episode. Or say Napolean..He alone influenced history through its military campaigns more than Spanish empire ever could.

Remember, thats how I personally see Spanish Empire...I tend to give higher marks to French, British, Germans among Europeans...Its just my personal opinion. I'm not saying that its a fact etc.

Also, thank you for helping me in enlightening Austerlitz

 

[flamer84]

Well yeah..I know. But I personally don't see them as impressive. They didn't change the course of history much..For example, Ottoman's conquering of Constantinople was a bigger history-changing event than whole Spanish Empire episode. Or say Napolean..He alone influenced history through its military campaigns more than Spanish empire ever could.

Remember, thats how I personally see Spanish Empire...I tend to give higher marks to French, British, Germans among Europeans...Its just my personal opinion. I'm not saying that its a fact etc.

Also, thank you for helping me in enlightening Austerlitz

It depends how you look at things,the Spanish empire shaped the world,after all an entire continent and Mexico speak spanish now,that's a big thing in my book.Look at the height of the Spanish empire under this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_V,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

How can the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Constantinople be a more game changing event than transforming a whole continent in your image? Let's not forget the Constantinople in 1453 was but a former shadow of the illustruos city,i for one am surprised that the ottomans didn't take it earlier.

Yes,i find it a historical innacuracy to portray the ottomans as weaklings in the 18th century,never mind the end of the 16th or the 17th.They were a super power of Europe in those times and challenging this would be flawed historical revizionism.

 

[Wright]

It depends how you look at things,the Spanish empire shaped the world,after all an entire continent and Mexico speak spanish now,that's a big thing in my book.Look at the height of the Spanish empire under this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_V,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

How can the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Constantinople be a more game changing event than transforming a whole continent in your image? Let's not forget the Constantinople in 1453 was but a former shadow of the illustruos city,i for one am surprised that the ottomans didn't take it earlier.

Yes,i find it a historical innacuracy to portray the ottomans as weaklings in the 18th century,never mind the end of the 16th or the 17th.They were a super power of Europe in those times and challenging this would be flawed historical revizionism.

Thats what I was thinking. Spain actually led the other empires towards the new world, resulting in th British and french establishing colonies which became USA, Canada, etc.
Due to the Spanish Catholicism spread to Latin America and South East Asia.

Spanish ranks close to French and English as the most spoken language.

Turkey became Euro-fied and lost their original script in contrast and their former subjects such as the Arabs and Persians speak their own languages.

Personally I think Spains legacy endures.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Lol..

Real answer? Real answer to your highly praised french-fetish rants?

Lets look at the world in year 1700...

There was only one transcontinental global superpower and its name was The Ottoman Empire !!!

French held no water to the Ottomans at the start of 18th century (Though French were growing faster than Ottomans..)..

Facts of year 1700 :

1) Global Presence/Global Reach/Global Influence (One of the most important feature of a super power)

Ottoman Empire: The Turks held a land area of 5,000,000 km+ and was a trans-continental global empire spreading as far as Asia, North Africa, Balkans, Anatolia, and mainland Central Europe.

France : Its area wasn't even 300,000km lol..It was present only in W.Europe. Had no global presence at this time... A regional power....or let me be generous ... a regional superpower at most (Like Israel in Middle-East)...

2) Control of important seas and/or international trade routes (Another key aspect of a super power)

The Ottoman Empire: The Ottomans had hegemony over the most important sea in the world at that time (Eastern Mediterranean) etc.. Majority of global trade b/w East and West passed through the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, which Ottoman Navy dominated. Ottomans also had direct access to Red Sea and the Persian Gulf etc...

France : It had no hegemony over any important sea or international trade route. It had no direct access to Persian Gulf, or Red Sea etc.


You know what? I was gonna continue and write category by category..economic, GDP, agricultural production, industrial production etc etc..but I thought thats its a waste of time. You aren't educated enough to worth my effort.The other readers can already read our comments and judge for themselves.

The above two mentioned aspects are key to any super power..without these traits, a nation can never be a super power. Everyone can clearly see that the Ottoman Empire was the super power of the world in 1700s..while French weren't even near the status of being a super power...They had no global presence, nor any control of important seas...but hey, you can continue with your frech fetish, since according to you, The Ottoman Empire already ended in 1571

Lastly, in one of your comment, you were jumping about how France had 400,000 men army ( which is unauthentic. Please provide a specific source for your claim)..Well, guess what? The Ottoman Empire fielded 300,000 soldiers in battle of Vienna alone !!! ( Harbottle, Thomas (1905), Dictionary of Battles, E.P. Sutton & Co, p. 262). Remember, this was thousands of kilometers away from the Ottoman power base in Anatolia. French Army had only 200,000 men in 1701, when the Spanish Succession War started..

And before you make any stupid comment again, let me pre-empt you...Ottomans couldn't get Vienna not because their military power lacked or that Vienna had better forces defending it ..but it was a technological drawback that they suffered. I explained this in post#5 ..Go have a read.

Ok let me give u some my thoughts on what that 'global reach' and land area really means.Even in 1808 when napoleon invaded spain ,if u compare maps you'll see spain has bulk of two americas,huge land area ,massive global reach..and yet it was a pathetic power overall comapred to napoleonic france which had france and rhine states and part of poland.Napoleon's empire wasn't really transcontinental comapred to the spanish,but did that matter?On paper no comparison,what is important is the standing army and industrial capacity to produce weapons and supply armies.Your obsession with overall figures blinds you to reality.The same thing with germany after 1871,germany had only german homeland,britain had 1/4 earth..but still germany was more powerful.You just don't get it.Size in a map and global reach means little in matter of effectiveness.
Truth is after 1683 yes they sometimes scraped through in some defensive battles,but they were almost always on the defensive.Austria humiliated them regularly,and russia even more regularly.
Btw as for control of important trad routes that ended in 1498 when vasco da game dicovered the sea route around cape of good hope making the silk road route obsolete.