The Turkic Saljuqs had established a state in central and southern Anatolia, centered on Konya, after defeating the Byzantines at the battle of Manzikert in 1071. This state was then destroyed by the Mongols in 1242-1243, which paradoxically led the way for even more Turks to enter Anatolia.

Small groups of warriors, nomads, refugees, adventurers, bandits and what-have-you, escaping from the Mongols' oppressive rule, population pressures and lured by potential for booty, pasturage and glory, made their way into Anatolia. There, they resumed the war against Byzantium and founded principalities. One of these frontier states was that which was led by Ertugrul.

Ertugrul passed away around 1280 and was succeeded by Osman, founder of the Ottoman royal house. He expanded his domains onto the surrounding plains, and his son, Orhan, captured the important town of Bursa in 1326. Orhan later led the way across the straits to Gallipoli in 1345. He invited masses of Turkish warriors to settle in the Balkans, and swiftly conquered northern Greece, Macedonia and Bulgaria.

The Ottomans consolidated their hold of the western Balkans, after decisively defeating the Serbs at the battle of Kosovo in 1389. Having secured their European territories, they made their moves in Anatolia, annexing rival Turkish principalities, and began eyeing the great city of the Byzantines, Constantinople.

However, things were not to be. In 1402, the great conquerer, Timur, invaded the Ottoman lands, defeated Bayazid I in battle and reduced the Ottomans to vasslage. The Ottomans survived this major setback however, and continued on their quest to subdue the rest of the Anatolian principalities and also expanded their reach into Serbia, pushing the Serbs to the Danube by 1449.

Europe was alarmed by the rapid Ottoman successes. Crusades were launched. One, launched in 1396 and organized by the papacy and Venice, was crushed at the battle of Nicopolis. In 1444, another, of the papacy and including the kings of Poland, Hungary, Naples and the rulers of Transylvania, Serbia, Venice and Genoa, was crushed at the battle of Varna. The Ottomans were unstoppable.

Then in 1453, the Ottomans, led by Mehmed II The Conqueror and aided by Western cannons, reduced the walls of Constantinople and took the city of the Byzantines. Now, Ottoman ambitions knew no bounds.

By 1500, Greece, Bosnia, Herzegovina and Albania had been occupied on the European mainland. In the east, the Ottomans also continued on their sweep across the rest of Anatolia and subjugating remaining Turkish principalities. They ran into the Safavids, who were expanding westwards out of Persia. At the decisive battle of Chaldiran in 1514, the Ottomans won a victory and annexed eastern Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia.

The struggle with Iran would continue for more than a century until the treaty of Qasr Shirin which gave Baghdad and Iraq to the Ottomans and the Caucasus to the Safavids, basically the modern Iran-Iraq border today. Elsewhere, in 1516-1517, the Ottomans would also take over the Mamluk empire of Syria and Egypt and the Muslim holy places of Arabia.

Thus, the Ottomans, secured in their powerbase, began their epic centuries-long struggle with the nations of Europe, Russia, Iran, and the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean.

Map of the Ottoman empire...

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads5/ottomanempire.gif

Ottoman Janissaries...

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads5/ottoman2.jpg

Osman, founder of the Ottomans...

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads5/osman.jpg

The Ottomans beseiging Vienna in 1529...

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads5/ottoman01.jpg

After the creator of the Ottoman Empire, the Sultan Suleyman, another great figure arrived on the world scene. His name was Suleyman the Lawgiver for Muslims. Quickly, after becoming ruler, Suleyman vigorously expanded the Empire's territory because he knew the Europeans were doing the same around the world. At every battle, he would turn out victorious, reaching Vienna in the sixteenth century in his war against the Austrians. Soon, all of Europe feared this mighty ruler.
http://www.ottomansouvenir.com/img/Maps/Ottoman_Empire_Map_16-17th_Centuries.JPG

Why, many historians say that the Protestant Revolution would not have succeded if the Ottomans had not funneled money into the institutions against Catholicism. This was because Suleyman knew that if he destabilized Europe, it would be easier to conquer.

http://www.ottomansouvenir.com/img/Maps/Ottoman_Empire_Map_1359-1856.jpg
Alas, after his death, Suleymam's son, Selim II, saw the empire decline after what historians say was the zenith of the Ottoman civilization.
However, while western Europe started the period of industrialization in 1850, the Ottoman empire started to stagnate, this had been going on since the last century. Slowly, but surely, the Balkan crises of the 1910's completed the independence of many countries from the Ottomans. And after WWI, the Empire paid dearly for allying with Germany by losing most of it's territory to land hungry British and French governments. But one man changed that.

Born in 1881 in Salonica under the name Mustafa Riza. By 1919, Mustafa had liberated Turkey from the Ottoman sultante. He had to fight the Sultan's forces within Turkey and invading European armies on the outside. He kept a perfect military record of 0 losses and all victories. He modernized and secularized Turkey by the time of his death in 1938. When he was in office, Parliament named him Mustaf Arteturk, "father of the Turks." A name well fitted to the nationalist hero.
http://www.gazi.edu.tr/gif/a23.gif


http://www.gazi.edu.tr/gif/a46.gif

the great ottoman ,that was lose in ww1!

Originally posted by XIII
Map of the Ottoman empire...

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads5/ottomanempire.gif

What's that city of "Mohacs" below hungary? I'm from the region but i've never heard of it.

Originally posted by ss3goku
A name well fitted to the nationalist hero.


I would not call him a hero... id call him a tratior....

Originally posted by mazzz


I would not call him a hero... id call him a tratior....

the empire was done, the sultun couldn't control things anymore, somebody had to step up

yeah thats true, but a lot of Muslims dont like him because he ended the klaipha, and changed the Arabic writing to Latin. And said Muslims in Turkey should pray in Turkish.

The Turkic Saljuqs had established a state in central and southern Anatolia, centered on Konya, after defeating the Byzantines at the battle of Manzikert in 1071.

i dont know if im right or not but wasnt it the seljuk turks that defeated the byzantines? not the ottomans?

regardless good history report

Osman's Kingdom defeated the other Seljuk Kingdoms, and led them to victories in Anatolia (Ionia or Rum Anatolia) and the Empire of Nikaia (Troas, Phrygia, Bythina). The Seljuks often lost battles against the Byzantines, but won major battles for the Ottomans in the Levant (Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Palestine) and Mesopotamia (Assyria and Mesopotamia).

The Ottomans were one of the Seljuk Kingdoms, but the Ottomans enjoyed the leadership over the other Turkish kingdoms that led to the eventual fall of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Ottomans often allied themselves with Roman Kingdoms to fight other Roman Kingdoms. Especially from Bursa. The Ottomans gained support from the self proclaimed Greek Emperor at Adrianople and allowed for the Ottomans to settle in Gallapoli. Otherwise, historians write, the Ottomans had no intention to expand into Europe. Only this invitation led to the Ottoman vision of a much larger Ottoman Empire.

When were janissaries first employed by the Ottomans?

One of the interesting things about the Ottomans is that they had a long string of good to great Sultans, from Osman I through Suleiman the Magnificent, a period of close to 300 years. The battle of Ankara was one huge setback, but Bayezid I did quite well before the battle and the empire recovered pretty quickly afterward. Bayezid II was the only one who wasn't much of a conqueror, but since his son managed to conquer a good part of the mideast immediately afterward, Bayezid clearly kept the country in great shape.

ottomans also had a kick ass navy.

ottomans also had a kick ass navy.

Which was scattered at Lepanto ;)

The janissaries were slave children, tooken from their families, when they were young. It was called the 'blood tax'. Then the janissaries were put in special barrkacs. The empire feed them and trained them. Learned them to hate the enemies. After their training was finished, they become the Elite part of the Turkish army.

Osman's Kingdom defeated the other Seljuk Kingdoms, and led them to victories in Anatolia (Ionia or Rum Anatolia) and the Empire of Nikaia (Troas, Phrygia, Bythina). The Seljuks often lost battles against the Byzantines, but won major battles for the Ottomans in the Levant (Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Palestine) and Mesopotamia (Assyria and Mesopotamia).


the seljuks and ottomans where two different empires. they may of been turks but they where different like italy and the papel states they where italiens but different

The janissaries were slave children, tooken from their families, when they were young. It was called the 'blood tax'. Then the janissaries were put in special barrkacs. The empire feed them and trained them. Learned them to hate the enemies. After their training was finished, they become the Elite part of the Turkish army.They're specifically the personal slaves of the Sultan. They started off their training by working in the household of the Sultan, before finally moving all the way up into the army.

Not only were they the infantry arm of the army, many of the greatest Viziers (sort of like prime minister) were also Jannisaries.

In later years though, they proved to have such a stranglehold on the Ottoman govt that they proved to be a hindrance to any attempted reforms and improvements on the Ottoman administration.

i dont know if im right or not but wasnt it the seljuk turks that defeated the byzantines? not the ottomans?

regardless good history reportYes, it was the Seljuks who won the Battle of Manzikert. At this time, there're no Ottomans yet. ;)

You must remember - the label 'Ottoman' doesn't refer to a specific nation or tribe or people. It refers to the followers, govt, army etc of 'Osman' and his descendants.

After the Seljuks were crushed by the Mongols, Anatolia was divided betw numerous emirates and statelets of all stripes. Some were simply mercenary bands which were formed by single, charismatic leaders. Persumably, 'Osman' was the leader of one such band, which one day would become the mighty Ottoman empire. ;)

The Ottomans were not beyond employing foreigners and non-Muslims, to further their own interests. E.g. the guy who casted the giant cannons which aided the final conquest of Constantinople was a Scot I believed (at any rate, a 'Frank').

The Ottomans were not beyond employing foreigners and non-Muslims, to further their own interests. E.g. the guy who casted the giant cannons which aided the final conquest of Constantinople was a Scot I believed (at any rate, a 'Frank').

Ottoman Empire relied heavily in Jewish merchants in trade. Also Armenians had some high commands in the state before 1877. BTW, I remember the guy who offered the cannons to the Ottoman was Hungarian and his name was Urban. But I amy be wrong about that since it is an old info for me.

Jeriko is right. The guy was Hungarian.

The cannon was 8 meters long, and had a diameter of 2.40 meters in its widest part. The cannons-balls for this cannon were 300kg weight.

the byzantien empire only collapsed when they're emperor died in the fighting i think i dont know what emperor though

The Paleologus family was the last Byzantine Empirial family, so I believe it was a younger boy maybe named Constantine or Mihalis.

What's that city of "Mohacs" below hungary? I'm from the region but i've never heard of it.

You are Hungarian, and you don't know about Mohacs? :eek:

useless
the byzantien empire only collapsed when they're emperor died in the fighting i think i dont know what emperor though

Constantine XI

Jeriko is right. The guy was Hungarian.

The cannon was 8 meters long, and had a diameter of 2.40 meters in its widest part. The cannons-balls for this cannon were 300kg weight.

I thought that the designer was Italian?

Very good article there K-D. Thanks!
Europe was alarmed by the rapid Ottoman successes. Crusades were launched. One, launched in 1396 and organized by the papacy and Venice, was crushed at the battle of Nicopolis. In 1444, another, of the papacy and including the kings of Poland, Hungary, Naples and the rulers of Transylvania, Serbia, Venice and Genoa, was crushed at the battle of Varna. The Ottomans were unstoppable. Here is why they were so unstoppable *reaches for Mughal scenario pedia entry*, so please excuse the formatting:


The Ottomans began using guns sometime between 1444 and 1448. Following that, other troop types began to appear, such as the regular rifle infantry (Payade Topci, literally "foot artillery"), regular cavalry armed with rifles (Svari Topci Neferi, literally "mounted artillery soldier") and bombardiers (Khimbaraci), consisting of grenadiers that threw explosives called khimbara
and the soldiers that served the artillery with maintenance and powder supplies.

The Ottomans sought both to benefit from technological innovations in the West, as well as their own native ingenuity and Byzantine precedents. The besiegers under Murad II in Constantinople in 1453 were perhaps the first to use mortars with parabolic trajectories. And an apparent adaptation of the famous ‘Greek fire’ that bedeviled Byzantine enemies so was employed in the form of flying projectiles in the battle of Rhodes in 1480.

Interestingly enough, the Ottomans even appear to have used a sort of cluster bomb in the 1521 siege of Belgrade; an observer described it as a weapon liable to “…explode into seventy or more or fewer pieces… each of these shards breaks and cuts and smashes what it hits”.

The story of Berham, the 'saltpeter producer' of Erzurum, in 1576 shows, officials were constantly thinking of how to get more from their resources – in
part because local officials were awarded bonuses for doing so. In this case,
Berham suggested moving the production site from Erzurum to the newly-acquired Oltu, “…where water was sufficient and peter could be produced for nine months of the year as opposed to three months in Erzurum”. This kind of thinking showed “…how quick the Ottomans were in drawing immediate economic benefit from newly conquered territories”.

Very good article there K-D. Thanks!
Here is why they were so unstoppable *reaches for Mughal scenario pedia entry*, so please excuse the formatting:


The Ottomans began using guns sometime between 1444 and 1448. Following that, other troop types began to appear, such as the regular rifle infantry (Payade Topci, literally "foot artillery"), regular cavalry armed with rifles (Svari Topci Neferi, literally "mounted artillery soldier") and bombardiers (Khimbaraci), consisting of grenadiers that threw explosives called khimbara
and the soldiers that served the artillery with maintenance and powder supplies.

The Ottomans sought both to benefit from technological innovations in the West, as well as their own native ingenuity and Byzantine precedents. The besiegers under Murad II in Constantinople in 1453 were perhaps the first to use mortars with parabolic trajectories. And an apparent adaptation of the famous ‘Greek fire’ that bedeviled Byzantine enemies so was employed in the form of flying projectiles in the battle of Rhodes in 1480.

Interestingly enough, the Ottomans even appear to have used a sort of cluster bomb in the 1521 siege of Belgrade; an observer described it as a weapon liable to “…explode into seventy or more or fewer pieces… each of these shards breaks and cuts and smashes what it hits”.

The story of Berham, the 'saltpeter producer' of Erzurum, in 1576 shows, officials were constantly thinking of how to get more from their resources – in
part because local officials were awarded bonuses for doing so. In this case,
Berham suggested moving the production site from Erzurum to the newly-acquired Oltu, “…where water was sufficient and peter could be produced for nine months of the year as opposed to three months in Erzurum”. This kind of thinking showed “…how quick the Ottomans were in drawing immediate economic benefit from newly conquered territories”.

Nice info Rambuchan.:goodjob: Thanks.

BTW, there is a kebab called Oltu Kebabi made in Erzurum. Am I eating saltpeter???:crazyeye:

Wait a minute wasnt Europe saved bu the mongols ?

EDIT: wrong time period

Nice info Rambuchan.:goodjob: Thanks.

BTW, there is a kebab called Oltu Kebabi made in Erzurum. Am I eating saltpeter???:crazyeye::lol: I'm sure Erzurum has more going for it than just saltpeter but you never quite know what goes into that garlic sauce mate!

Another point on the startling Ottoman success story:

It's worth noting that the religious moderation and tolerance that the Ottomans fostered was also a big player in their success. At the time, across Europe and other parts of the Middle East, there was a great deal of religious fervour and intolerance. One needs only think of "Inquisition" to realise quite how bad things got. I believe the Spanish Inquisition was cranking up shortly after the period I describe above. The Portuguese were conducting such atrocities as well around this time, albeit a little later. This all coincided with Ottoman ascendancy and it's not hard to imagine why Jews, peripheral Christian denominations, various Muslims including Sufis and all sorts of other religious groups were quite happy to exist under Ottoman rule. The Mughals under Akbar practised an equal rights policy wrt employment, taxation and faith practise in north India round this time and enjoyed similar benefits. ie. assimilating conquered peoples into their 'state' became a much easier task.

Constantine XI

Yes. He was a good Emperor. Skilled in war he had fought the Ottomans in Greece and he we an able leader and commander. The Ottomans brought 80,000 men to attack Constantinople which had 10,000 men and the city held for 7 weeks before falling. The story of the battle and seige is truly remarkable and amazing.

yeah thats true, but a lot of Muslims dont like him because he ended the klaipha, and changed the Arabic writing to Latin. And said Muslims in Turkey should pray in Turkish. And what part of praying in ones own language -which is understandable- do you believe to be a problem?

For your information, the Caliph had issued a death warrant for Mustafa Kemal and other nationalist Turkish officers fighting for their country's honor and lives of their brethren. Caliph, the title which Selim I had usurped for his family on 1517, happened to be the same person as the Sultan himself. In this case it was Sultan Mehmed VI Vahideddin who was a puppet in his palace prison "guarded" by Johnnies under the shadow of Allied Navy's artillery, while his country was being plundered, innocents muslims killed and raped.

Britophile Vahideddin and the Sublime Port Cabinet of his son in law Ferid Pasha have committed the worst atrocities against their own countrymen. If a lot of muslims don't like the founder of Turkish Republic because they were pissed off at the abolition of the Caliphate, one will immediately ask: where were they when their belowed Caliph declared Jihad against the Allies in WWI? The champions of Islam were counting British gold in the deserts of Arabia over the piles of slain muslim Turkish soldiers. The reward Arabs received from British Crown for betraying their fellow muslim Turkish brothers was the state of Israel.

So technically speaking the Caliphate was long dead when Mustafa Kemal Ataturk abolished it in 1926. Mongols had already abolished the Abbasid Caliphate when they razed Bagdad and killed thousands of muslims in 1256 along with the Caliph himself and all his blood line. So it was obviously a political institution preserved to fool the masses. It looks as if the rest of the muslim world you are describing is still a fool looking to be saved by a Caliph.