Ottomans - research

[Yoda Power]

Ok now I got my (almost) final questions from my teacher:

1) Account for the history of the Ottoman Empire 1453-1683.
2) Analyse the factors that contributed to the expansion in the given period.
3) Discuss the importance of the european presence*, that can be traced in the Ottoman Empire.

*culture, etc.

 

[useless]

for the second question: one factor that contributed to the expansion in the given period, would be religious.

 

[Verbose]

Well, here's short historical rant on how I figure the Ottomans:

They were famous for the consistent, yet colourful, way in which they ran their empire based on slaves, i.e. slaves at the top of the social pyramid, not at the bottom.

Here's this gang of thugs riding out of central Asia, with leaders who know that their base of power is a bunch of roughnecks on horses. So they proceed to best all similar competitors (Seljuks and whatnot) and set themselves up as rulers based on this original premise.

But then they construct this very elaborate hierarchichal administration where all the civil funtionaries and all the troops are slaves, the personal property of the Sultan, to be disposed of as he sees fit, being given "the silk rope" when they mess up. (They had the Mameluks in Egypt to use as a model, except there the slaves had started appointing their rulers as well.)

This ensured the dynasty, as the system allowed no free men to have a shot at power, i.e. the descendants of the original bunch of roughneck supporters. And all the while the dynastic internal politics were conducted in a kind of social Darwinian fashion, the last heir standing over the broken bodies of his brothers in the harem being the new Sultan.

The European impact then comes from the fact that these slaves running the empire, while converts to Islam, were almost all by origin Greek, or Armenian, or Albanian, or Slav or Jewish, etc. What they were not was members of the free Muslim population cultivating the land in Anatolia, i.e. the Turks, "Turk" in fact being a very good insult to fling at an Ottoman.

 

[knigh+]

1) Account for the history of the Ottoman Empire 1453-1683.

Turkish historians take 1453-1579 as the "rising" era, and 1579-1699 as the "stalled" era

2) Analyse the factors that contributed to the expansion in the given period.

a) The only proper army of the time in Europe and Middle East. (proper= organized, structured, with uniforms, etc.)
b) Because they could

3) Discuss the importance of the european presence*, that can be traced in the Ottoman Empire.

Inextricable from the very beginning.

 

[Azkonus]

Ok, full of disinformation here, let me correct some of them.

They were famous for the consistent, yet colourful, way in which they ran their empire based on slaves, i.e. slaves at the top of the social pyramid, not at the bottom.

"Slaves" at the top can not be slaves, can they?

Here's this gang of thugs riding out of central Asia, with leaders who know that their base of power is a bunch of roughnecks on horses. So they proceed to best all similar competitors (Seljuks and whatnot) and set themselves up as rulers based on this original premise.

Turks (Seljuks which later turned into Ottomans) came from Central Asia to Persia then to Anatolia. But when they came they just wanted a new place. Eastern Rome attacked them first while they had no intention to fight.

Eastern Rome had Turks in their army too, that's why they changed sides in Manzikert. (Basically Turks were migrating there before 1071)

But then they construct this very elaborate hierarchichal administration where all the civil funtionaries and all the troops are slaves, the personal property of the Sultan, to be disposed of as he sees fit, being given "the silk rope" when they mess up. (They had the Mameluks in Egypt to use as a model, except there the slaves had started appointing their rulers as well.).

Only Ottomans had these system not Turks in general. For example Karamans were much pro-Turkic than Ottomans. But wise men around Osman told him to establish a rule based on religion. They told him capture christians and if they are somewhat strong, handsome (or beautiful for girls), smart take them and use in your service. But don't ever try to convert everyone into Turkish. This is the basis of rapid expansion. He didn't make everyone Turk, unlike 'fool' westerners who try to assimilate their subjects.

This ensured the dynasty, as the system allowed no free men to have a shot at power, i.e. the descendants of the original bunch of roughneck supporters. And all the while the dynastic internal politics were conducted in a kind of social Darwinian fashion, the last heir standing over the broken bodies of his brothers in the harem being the new Sultan.

The European impact then comes from the fact that these slaves running the empire, while converts to Islam, were almost all by origin Greek, or Armenian, or Albanian, or Slav or Jewish, etc. What they were not was members of the free Muslim population cultivating the land in Anatolia, i.e. the Turks, "Turk" in fact being a very good insult to fling at an Ottoman.

Wrong, in Ottoman times if you were asked Who are you?

Your Answer will be either -I am Turk. (which means you are a muslim)

Or -I am (your origin for example: Serb; which means you are not a muslim)

Therfore if you are someone valuable you are a Turk. (no matter where your origins are.) Let's say Verbose is very talented and we decided to take you away from your family, and you became a muslim. At that moment you are a Turk. So when you are asked what is your religion you answer proudly I am a Turk. And your sister will say -I am French Catholic.

 

[Azkonus]

BTW, Yoda Power.

In your scenario of ToB, you named Ottomans as Turks (like not an Ottoman cavalary but a Turkish cavalary) in a game where Karamans, Aydinoglu, Dulkadirs and other Beyliks present. This is basically wrong. I hope you know this.

 

[Yoda Power]

Azkonus: Thanks for the corrections. I have a lot of trouble with 2) (see earlier post), so if you have anything please add. I've only written about 10 pages so far!

About ToB: The Turkish Pikeman/Cavalry/Swordsman is available to all the muslim states, that's why they are called "Turkish" and not "Ottoman". BTW I know the Hafsids did not deploy Turks, but that is a minor fault I think.

 

[knigh+]

Azkonus: Thanks for the corrections. I have a lot of trouble with 2) (see earlier post), so if you have anything please add. I've only written about 10 pages so far!

You can write about the Jenissary institution and Devshirme system. It created soldiers with no loyalty other than the sultan, and they were grown (brainwashed?) to be fearless. This gave a big edge to the organized army of Ottomans, which went into battle with military bands and such niceties, over the "bunch of medieval warriors" type armies of Balkans.

Also some talk about Privateers. Privateers did not help as much as they did to Ottomans to any other country of that time, not even Britain. That's why many famous Ottoman grand admirals were ex-pirates.

And thirdly, as I said before, "because they could", meaning that they had an amount of resources no other country in the region had, due to size, so they could fund massive military campaigns.

About ToB: The Turkish Pikeman/Cavalry/Swordsman is available to all the muslim states, that's why they are called "Turkish" and not "Ottoman". BTW I know the Hafsids did not deploy Turks, but that is a minor fault I think.

I think his point was because the other principalities were Turks too, naming Ottomans as Turks may not be right.

 

[Yoda Power]

You can write about the Jenissary institution and Devshirme system. It created soldiers with no loyalty other than the sultan, and they were grown (brainwashed?) to be fearless. This gave a big edge to the organized army of Ottomans, which went into battle with military bands and such niceties, over the "bunch of medieval warriors" type armies of Balkans.

Also some talk about Privateers. Privateers did not help as much as they did to Ottomans to any other country of that time, not even Britain. That's why many famous Ottoman grand admirals were ex-pirates.

And thirdly, as I said before, "because they could", meaning that they had an amount of resources no other country in the region had, due to size, so they could fund massive military campaigns.

I written quite a lot about the jannisaries already. I've also talked a bit about the naval aspect, but without anymore detail I can't really get and good arguments. And the point is mainly to explain how they did become so big. Ironicly when they had expanded all over the world they were actually weakend militarily.

I think his point was because the other principalities were Turks too, naming Ottomans as Turks may not be right.

I don't see what the problem is with assigning a turkish soldier to all the turkish states.

 

[knigh+]

I written quite a lot about the jannisaries already. I've also talked a bit about the naval aspect, but without anymore detail I can't really get and good arguments. And the point is mainly to explain how they did become so big. Ironicly when they had expanded all over the world they were actually weakend militarily.

Sipahi institution gave means to secure new conquests, by placing "native" troop manpower to new lands.

And with religious freedom they did not get tied down converting/oppressing/killing (the norm of that era) the new citizens from every conquest.

Just guessing here, since you have been investigating the subject, you might know more than I do.

I don't see what the problem is with assigning a turkish soldier to all the turkish states.

I haven't played your mod, so I'm not sure. From his post I understood that the name of the Ottoman civ is Turks. If that is not so, then I don't know what his point was.

 

[Yoda Power]

Sipahi institution gave means to secure new conquests, by placing "native" troop manpower to new lands.

And with religious freedom they did not get tied down converting/oppressing/killing (the norm of that era) the new citizens from every conquest.

Just guessing here, since you have been investigating the subject, you might know more than I do.

Yeah I really already done those subjects. I think I might need to write some more about the Jihad against the christians though, and holy warfare as a moral weapon to convince subjects for support.

I haven't played your mod, so I'm not sure. From his post I understood that the name of the Ottoman civ is Turks. If that is not so, then I don't know what his point was.

They aren't called Turks, but Ottomans.

 

[Verbose]

Ok, full of disinformation here, let me correct some of them.

Really?

"Slaves" at the top can not be slaves, can they?

If they're bought and sold as the private property of the ruler (and killed at his will), but staff the imperial civil and military administration, sure they can.

Turks (Seljuks which later turned into Ottomans) came from Central Asia to Persia then to Anatolia. But when they came they just wanted a new place. Eastern Rome attacked them first while they had no intention to fight.

Eastern Rome had Turks in their army too, that's why they changed sides in Manzikert. (Basically Turks were migrating there before 1071)

Every horse nomad chieftain turning up with his retinue of warriors would know where his power ultimately derived from. I see nothing to fault this here?

Except if you're taking umbrage at the levity of the tone?

Only I fail to see how Osman and his progeny eventually besting all comers, establishing the Ottoman empire, was the outcome of an ardent desire for peace and the unintended result of endless wars of self-defense. It stretches credulity a bit, I think.

Only Ottomans had these system not Turks in general. For example Karamans were much pro-Turkic than Ottomans. But wise men around Osman told him to establish a rule based on religion. They told him capture christians and if they are somewhat strong, handsome (or beautiful for girls), smart take them and use in your service. But don't ever try to convert everyone into Turkish. This is the basis of rapid expansion. He didn't make everyone Turk, unlike 'fool' westerners who try to assimilate their subjects.

I was talking about the Ottomans. What else would I be talking about?

Wrong, in Ottoman times if you were asked Who are you?

Your Answer will be either -I am Turk. (which means you are a muslim)

Or -I am (your origin for example: Serb; which means you are not a muslim)

Therfore if you are someone valuable you are a Turk. (no matter where your origins are.) Let's say Verbose is very talented and we decided to take you away from your family, and you became a muslim. At that moment you are a Turk. So when you are asked what is your religion you answer proudly I am a Turk. And your sister will say -I am French Catholic.

Could be.
Interpretation of how this worked seems to be divided.

 

[Azkonus]

Really?

If they're bought and sold as the private property of the ruler (and killed at his will), but staff the imperial civil and military administration, sure they can.

Let's see. Ottoman Architect "Koca" Sinan, was an Armenian and converted to Islam and became a Turk. (Basically by your definition a slave). Well, we know that he even arque with Sultans themselves , often having fun with them. By your logic he should be beheaded much before however let me repeat if you had talent in Ottoman Empire you had the utmost respect.

Every horse nomad chieftain turning up with his retinue of warriors would know where his power ultimately derived from. I see nothing to fault this here?

Except if you're taking umbrage at the levity of the tone?

Only I fail to see how Osman and his progeny eventually besting all comers, establishing the Ottoman empire, was the outcome of an ardent desire for peace and the unintended result of endless wars of self-defense. It stretches credulity a bit, I think..

See, this is where you confuse. When we say Turks we mean Kayi clan of Oghuz Turks which migrated to Persia and Anatolia probably from todays Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

So, there were Turkish people who migrated to Anatolia before 1000A.D but it was the Alp Arslan, (was the second sultan of the dynasty of Seljuk Turks, and great-grandson of Seljuk, the founder of the dynasty), who brought a lot of Turks with him.

He was defensive but Emperor Romanos IV decided to attack and lost at Manzikert.

Ottomans were the ones who are pure attackers which formed much latter when the Mongols invaded Anatolia in the 1260s and divided it into small emirates called the Anatolian beyliks.

I was talking about the Ottomans. What else would I be talking about?

You have to make it clear. Osman's state covers the period 1299-1922; and he didn't beam himself up to Anatolia from Central Asia.

Could be.
Interpretation of how this worked seems to be divided.

Look at the Turkish people today. We are the real melting pot of the world. I am in US now, and there was this woman working in the international affairs she said to me "-You know what, I am working here for 25 years and I can pretty much tell who came from where by looking to their features only with Turks I can not. We have people who were Serbs, Bosniaks, Romanians but calling themselves Turk, so we have lots of Slavs (pale white featured people), we have people from Sudan (black featured people), we have people from Syria, Arabia, North Africa (arabic features), we have people from Caucasia, Georgia, Azerbaijan (caucasian features), we have people from Checenia (Russian features) this goes on....but everyone of them called themselves Turk because they are Muslim. Because this is how Osman established his state based on religion.

 

[knigh+]

See, this is where you confuse. When we say Turks we mean Kayi section of Oghuz Tribe which migrated to Persia and Anatolia probably from todays Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

Don't we label the entire Oghuz Tribe as Turks (which is divided into 24 clans)? Only Ottomans were Kayi clan. Seljuk Turks were Kinik clan. And I think at least some of the Anatolian Beyliks were of different clans.

 

[Azkonus]

Don't we label the entire Oghuz Tribe as Turks (which is divided into 24 clans)? Only Ottomans were Kayi clan. Seljuk Turks were Kinik clan. And I think at least some of the Anatolian Beyliks were of different clans.

You are right. I will correct it. By the way why don't you show Yoda Power the topics in EU3 you and Tunch contributing. I think you guys do a great job there.

 

[Azkonus]

...
2) Analyse the factors that contributed to the expansion in the given period.
...

About TOB; when I was playing with Ottomans iirc (Turkish Pikeman vs Karaman Pikeman) which sounded odd to me.

About 2) Basically Osman was wise enough to see weakness of Byzantines and exploited their poor defense. Meanwhile other "bey"s were fighting with each other and applying Turkish tactics to Turks which was basically stupid. Attacking a foreigner was morally more acceptable then killing fellow Turks.

You should study Karamans which were much stronger at the start. Everybody was betting they would unite the Turks under one banner.
But their weakness was they were pro-Turkic and geostrategically in a bad position. (bad start location in Civ terms LOL )

On the other hand Ottomans for example gained knowledge, money, soldiers...etc from Byzantines and Balkans.

To sum up

1) Perfect starting location of Osman's little state next to weak Byzantines.
2) Turkish military tactics is more useful against foreigners than to other Turks
3) Morally what Ottomans try to accomplish (expansion to foreign lands bringing Islam to them) is more meaningful than what Karamans try to accomplish (bringing Turks under one banner by fighting other Turkish Beyliks)

 

[knigh+]

You are right. I will correct it. By the way why don't you show Yoda Power the topics in EU3 you and Tunch contributing. I think you guys do a great job there.

You mean post #17 of the thread we are in

Also check this thread:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=252131&page=1&pp=25

It is not in civfanatics, but it is in the forums of the game with most historical accuracy. It is a 20+ page thread with some dispute clutter, but if you quickly browse through it, you can easily see Tunch Khan's posts of encyclopedic size and format. He accumulated so much knowledge in that thread, that at some point the moderators posted thanks for his contribution to the next version of the game.

Thanks but Tunch really deserves the credit for that, I might have contributed 1% or so.

 

[Kyriakos]

He was defensive but Emperor Romanos IV decided to attack and lost at Manzikert.

This is entirely incorrect. Or to be precise, it is only correct in the part of it that is insignificant, ie it is correct that the first seljuk soldiers which came to the edge of the byzantine empire (entering it due to the fact that they were retreating from a campaign in arabic lands, and wanted to avoid further conflict on their way back to Persia) asked for permission to pass peacefully from the Byz Empire. A local overlord in that part of the empire decided to deny them permission, most probably because he wanted to take for himself the loot the seljuks had taken from the pillaging campaign. This was the cause of the first ever Byzantine-seljuk conflict, however the byzantine guard in that part of the empire ruled by that lord was not used to fight against an army mostly made of light cavalry archers, and so was defeated.
This is argued to have been critical as much as it would have been probable that the seljuk armies would not have had sought to engage in war against the empire themselves, since their own plan was to unite some more arabic kingdoms under their banner (ussual tactic for nomadic lords).
The battle of Matzikert has little to do with it though, and you were also entirely wrong to claim that "turks" (do you mean the Pechenegs? they were not in contact with the seljuks) being used as merceneries in the byz army had anything to do with defeat there. The battle of Matzikert was lost due to the byzantine army splitting in half, with the weaker half betraying Romanos Diogenes, something quite obvious moreover later on since upon his return to Constantinople Diogenes was thrown to a cell due to the plots of some nobles.

Also worth to note that Diogenes had signed a stable peace with Arslan, which peace was declared null and void due to this turn of events.

 

[Yoda Power]

ToB: No such thing as a Karaman Pikeman in the game. Turkish Pikeman to all the turks.

I already looked a bit at that thread, it was nice.

Thanks for thr info on Karamans, I didn't knew that. I'll try and dig some more up about their history.

Also I am sort of ready to do 3), so if anyone has any thoughts on that, please tell!

 

[knigh+]

Also I am sort of ready to do 3), so if anyone has any thoughts on that, please tell!

Here are some:

Early Ottomans incorporated burocratic/administrative/financial system of the Byzantines while passing from nomadic civ to settled civ.

Early Ottomans often allied with Byzantine governors for fights against other Byzantine governors. One such governor was even given the title of Gazi (holy warrior of islam) after his conversion.

Osman got his son Orhan marry a Byzantine princess. (And afterwards, a lot of Ottoman queens were from the Balkans)

As they conquered lands in Europe, as they left the cultures intact, they probably were unavoidably influenced by the cultures that became inside the Empire.

Mehmed the conqueror was the first to have an oil painting of himself (How can he not have his portrait painted while European kings have theirs?). Before him it was considered un-islamic. After him all sultans had portraits.

France was the first (except Byzantium) European power to ally with Ottomans (1535 or 1553, I don't remember).