- This topic has 13 voices and 30 replies.
-
Posts
-
I saw an interesting show on the History Channel last night about the Ottoman Empire, narrated by Powers Boothe. It discussed the origin of the Empire in the 13th or 14th Century and its expansion which covered a vast region including Turkey, Egypt, Arabia, Greece, and the Holy Land. This once proud kingdom appeared to have its zenith under Suliman in the 16th Century when it more or less reigned to a degree in the Mediterranean.By the 19th Century, the Ottoman Empire had become greatly weakened. Napoleon was able to invade Egypt and others had chipped away at the Empire's holdings over the years. In the Twentieth Century the Ottoman leadership decided to back Germany in the First World War, resulting in its breakup into a collection of countries such as Armenia, Greece, Turkey, and so forth. By the 20th Century, the Ottoman Empire was called "The Sick Man of Europe" - financial ruin particularly made it a shell of its old self. What do you think contributed to its decline by this time? What lessons about its rise and fall can we learn about governance in general, as well as governance of an Islamic Empire?
I dont know much about the Ottoman empire so I will have to do a little research. By the way is this a new catagorie?
The rigidity of Islamic sharia, bureaucratic bloat, incessant wars with Imperial Russia, and being at cultural odds with Christian Europe doomed the Ottomans to a long, but certain demise. Siding with Imperial Germany during World War I was the last in a long line of mistakes made by the Ottoman rulers. Yet Ottoman Turkey did endure for centuries….a testament in longevity, but one must feel most of the time spent was trying to hold things together rather than building from a more solid foundation.
But Donnie, the cultural clash with Christian Europe was there from the beginning. In fact, the break in Christianity in the 16th Century should have given the Ottomans an advantage since there would no longer be such a unified effort against them. It seems the beginning of the downfall came during the late-16th Century after the Battle of Lepanto in 1574 (I think the show glossed over this, though). I'm wondering if a lack of technological processes in military and economic spheres spelled doom for the empire.
Wars with ever-expanding Russia and the lost status as essential middleman in lucrative Europe to China/India/Indies (as sea routes around Africa were increasingly used) were probably the biggies. This allowed the other factors (local nationalism, local bosses, bloated bureaucracy, decreasing tax base as property placed in charitable trusts, European colonialism, resistance to economic and technological innovations, superior European armaments, foreign debt) to form a perfect storm fatal to the failing empire.I read it in books, not easily encapsulated in a 45-minute (sans commercials) TV show. Books answer lots of questions.
What do you think contributed to its decline by this time?
Looking at Islam now and how fractured they are, and I don't mean because of us, (that's just how they are and always have been), I'd have to say that is the major reason, or one of the major reasons anyway.They can fit into, and have an incredibel talent, to influence other societies, but they can't live within themselves. There are too many internal differences among them.What I find incredibly interesting about them is how long they've lasted, seeing that they were basically split since the dawn of Islam.I wonder why that is and I wonder what contributes to their longevity. Is it their ability to rule by fear?
If you want to understand the Ottoman Empire inside and out, find all the books written by Dr. Justin McCarthy. He's America's foremost expert on all things Ottoman, and a former professor of mine. 🙂
Know this soulds like a sound bite but it just might apply; Lawrence's quote (from the movie, so not sure… may, or may not, really be his though): "So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel...."Applied to the Turks as well as what's going on today all over the Middle east, IMHO. Too tribal, need to get their act together to accomplish anything of import.Wally
Good point, If the American Indian had not been like the Arabs they may not have been conquered so easy….if at all.
What do you think contributed to its decline by this time?
Looking at Islam now and how fractured they are, and I don't mean because of us, (that's just how they are and always have been), I'd have to say that is the major reason, or one of the major reasons anyway.They can fit into, and have an incredibel talent, to influence other societies, but they can't live within themselves. There are too many internal differences among them.What I find incredibly interesting about them is how long they've lasted, seeing that they were basically split since the dawn of Islam.I wonder why that is and I wonder what contributes to their longevity. Is it their ability to rule by fear?
Islam lasted so long even if they don't use physical abuse to convert someone like Catholicism did because they only believe on Koran and nothing else! And their history is very colorful full of Islam hero's patriotism and loved for Allah their God
Islam lasted so long even if they don't use physical abuse to convert someone like Catholicism did because they only believe on Koran and nothing else! And their history is very colorful full of Islam hero's patriotism and loved for Allah their God
Huh? What are you getting at here? Islam is torn from within and has been since at least the death of Mohammed. The Christians have come to terms with their split in belief, Muslim's have not. That and the primitive nature of Muslim society doomed them to strategic and world irrelevance until the discovery of oil and the invention of the internal combustion engine. That too, may soon be coming to an end if alternative energy sources take off. Then the Middle East and the Muslims can be left to rot again because they will have nothing to offer the rest of the world except for a defunct and oppressive religion and moral code.
Know this soulds like a sound bite but it just might apply; Lawrence's quote (from the movie, so not sure... may, or may not, really be his though): "So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel...."Applied to the Turks as well as what's going on today all over the Middle east, IMHO. Too tribal, need to get their act together to accomplish anything of import.Wally
You can say lot to criticise the Turks but being too tribal is honestly not one of them. I really don't want to come off as too defensive but I just had to say that.Coming back to the original question; of course there can't be one reason to pinpoint but my view on the matter is as follows:The Ottoman Empire was different from it's peers insofar as it was an empire which had to conquer to survive. All of it's ideologies, economic system, administrative system was closely linked to the war loot (whether it be in the form of monies or pepole) from conquered lands. Battle of Lepanto was important but the Ottomans were a "land empire" so I do not agree that it was decisive. If I had to choose a battle I'd say the failed sieges of Vienna, and maybe the battle of Prut where they could've wiped out the Russian Army and Peter the Great instead let him go. But I think more important was the fact that the Sultan's became conservative. Mehmet the Conquerer was famous for his appriciation for innovation. He first deployed large cannons at the siege of Istanbul, which were made by a Hungarian master who had been laughed off because the canons were regarded to be too heavy to be used effectively. The most famous example to the contrary is the printing press. As you know Guttenberg invented it at the middle of the 15th century. However in the empire the Jews started using it at the end of 15th century, the Armenians at the middle of 16th century and the Greeks on 1627. The Turks ? On 1727! almost 2 centuries after the invention and almost a century and a half after after it was started to be used in the empire. Another reason was when the nationalist movements which arose from the french revolution came to the Empire, the Turks were the last to wake up. At the end of the 19th century there were uprisings all over the Balkans, the arabs were revolting etc. However the Turks (which weren't called Turks but muslims) still believed in the idea of Ottomanism rather than nationalism. It wasn't until the Jeune Turc movement the Turks had a nationalist movement to counter the ones in the other parts of the empire. But by that time the Empire was already dying and nothing could be done to save it but the nation of Turkey was able to emerge as a result.
The Turks began to be stopped in their tide of conquest pretty much everywhere in the 16th cnetury. They could not even take the tiny island of Malta with overwhelming force. I personally dont blame Islam for their decline, I tend to think it had more to do with internal decay and decadence along with western determination to stop what they saw as continual Muslim (but mainly Turk) expansion at the cost of Christian lands and people.
