Ottoman stagnation debate continuation
- Thread starter 123456789blaaa
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ottoman ottoman empire
It's Lampiao's turn to respond. This is a debate continuation thread.
EDIT: Added a bit to the title to make it more clear.
Last edited:
The 19th century history of the Ottomans can be summed up in two phrases "Red Queen's Race" and "Self-fulfilling prophecy." Ottoman modernizing efforts were sincere, extensive and had great effect. The problem was that while they made substantial progress in an absolute sense, they never closed the gap with the European powers. They were importers of technology and ideas, not contributors in their own right. The other problem was that they were tagged as "the sick man of Europe." The other powers didn't believe in the long-term viability of the Ottomans, and so took every crisis as an opportunity to peel off territory or extract concessions from them. Decline was a belief before it became a reality.
We should note that Ottoman history can be divided into two eras. One was before Mahmud II, the other was during and after Mahmud II. They were essentially two different empires in which quite a bit, even what the Ottomans wore on their heads, was different. To view Ottoman history as a great decline ignores such events like the Tanzimat or the purging of the Janissaries that drastically altered the Empire. But the Ottomans faced the strain of numerous powerful states on its borders, such as Egypt, Persia, Russia, and Austria, which made nationalism more difficult.
In regards to nationalism, it was, in my view, the result of Ottoman decline rather than its cause. For instance, the first Serbian revolt was caused by the harsh rule by the local Janissary clique, which had long grown into a corrupt institution. Other nationalisms arose due to similar reasons. So no, it was not going to inevitably break the Ottoman Empire apart; as long as it got its shit together, the decline would stop and thus so would nationalism.
In regards to nationalism, it was, in my view, the result of Ottoman decline rather than its cause. For instance, the first Serbian revolt was caused by the harsh rule by the local Janissary clique, which had long grown into a corrupt institution. Other nationalisms arose due to similar reasons. So no, it was not going to inevitably break the Ottoman Empire apart; as long as it got its shit together, the decline would stop and thus so would nationalism.
I think Selim III had the potential to accomplish a lot more than he did-I still plan on replying in our argument in that other thread.
The Habsburgs actually realigned towards the Ottomans in the 19th century due to the greater threat of Russia. The severe problems they had are another factor of unfavorable Ottoman geopolitics.
I was waiting for more people to participate as I said in the other topic. I'll add my 2 cents now.
IMHO Tanzimat and the disbanding of the Janissaries came way too late and they came after pretty catastrophic events for the Ottomans: Greek and Serbian independence, Muhammed Ali becomes too strong, France starts simply occupying a nominal part of the empire, the signature of a free trade agreement with the UK crippling any possibility for industrialization, etc. Now, if we can get an Auspicious Incident during the 18th century the Ottomans will have a chance to modernize early their military, abolish jizya (Christians are a considerable part of the Empire after all) and possibly inventing mass conscription. The earlier the emancipation the better and mass conscription is a plausible way to achieve it.
IMHO Tanzimat and the disbanding of the Janissaries came way too late and they came after pretty catastrophic events for the Ottomans: Greek and Serbian independence, Muhammed Ali becomes too strong, France starts simply occupying a nominal part of the empire, the signature of a free trade agreement with the UK crippling any possibility for industrialization, etc. Now, if we can get an Auspicious Incident during the 18th century the Ottomans will have a chance to modernize early their military, abolish jizya (Christians are a considerable part of the Empire after all) and possibly inventing mass conscription. The earlier the emancipation the better and mass conscription is a plausible way to achieve it.
We're not debating on how the Ottomans could have been more successful with their reform. The argument started with these two quotes:
The Ottomans both recognized and adapted strongly to European ideas and they ultimately were weakened/destroyed due to bad geopolitical luck. From what I understand, your argument is that they couldn't deal with European ideas, didn't try hard enough to reform, and crumbled because of European ideas and stagnation. Could you respond to my last reply in the OP?
Well, I stand by my opinion. They took too much time to change. By the mid 1800's the "perfect storm" was already created, they'd a much more radical change than they were willing to do.
European Philihellenism surely helped the revolt, but you can't simply say Nationalistic revolts happened because of foreign influence. As Indicus mentioned, they happen because of harsh rule, as pretty much like the French, American, or any other revolution in the world. Also, you can't simply butterfly away Philihellenism from the Western mentality (this forum is a living proof of this); thus you can't simply start a massacre of Christian Greeks and not piss the Christians and Philihellenes off. Of course they'd react to defend their Christian borthers, as they did during the rest of 19th century countless times.
It's not that the Ottoman government didn't recognize there was a problem, or that it refused to emulate European ideas and undertake major changes. At the highest level, the Ottoman reform projects were often well-intentioned, radical and fairly comprehensive.
In practice, however, the Ottoman reforms were slow and cumbersome to start and even slower to implement, heavily watered-down and only somewhat effective. They were more than a little prone to reactionary backswings - Selim III's appeasement of the Janissaries (which led to the Serbian uprising, among other consequences) represents an early example of that. And the reform's impact in the provinces was diminished to a trickle by the resistance of provincial elites (which the state was often unable and/or unwilling to seriously confront).
When the Balkan peoples revolted - and it was hardly surprising that they did, again and again - the Ottomans responded with extreme violence, ensuring the affected regions will be simmering hotbeds of separatism even if the revolt in question is defeated.
And as for European powers...sure, some powers screwed the Ottomans over at various points and hindered the reform movement. But some European powers were defending and helping the Ottomans at various points, and assisting the reform movement. The Ottoman Empire wasn't alone against the world or something. It had about as many enemies - and as many allies - as it could reasonably expect.
In practice, however, the Ottoman reforms were slow and cumbersome to start and even slower to implement, heavily watered-down and only somewhat effective. They were more than a little prone to reactionary backswings - Selim III's appeasement of the Janissaries (which led to the Serbian uprising, among other consequences) represents an early example of that. And the reform's impact in the provinces was diminished to a trickle by the resistance of provincial elites (which the state was often unable and/or unwilling to seriously confront).
When the Balkan peoples revolted - and it was hardly surprising that they did, again and again - the Ottomans responded with extreme violence, ensuring the affected regions will be simmering hotbeds of separatism even if the revolt in question is defeated.
And as for European powers...sure, some powers screwed the Ottomans over at various points and hindered the reform movement. But some European powers were defending and helping the Ottomans at various points, and assisting the reform movement. The Ottoman Empire wasn't alone against the world or something. It had about as many enemies - and as many allies - as it could reasonably expect.
Also this idea of they fell because "Europeans kept screwing them over." is silly in a way. Not that the Europeans didn't try doing that and succeeding on a number of occasions but that is what countries always do. The Ottomans weren't just poor victims who dealt with their rivals only with total honesty and fairness. They did their share of screwing people over. The thing is it was a symptom not the cause of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. When they were strong they could prevent themselves being screwed over however as it got weaker it got harder and harder to prevent.
Sure they reformed but not at the same rate as Europe which was problem. It might not have been stagnating in absolute terms but it sure was in relative and it is the relative that counts. In say 1850 it could beat any 1820 European Army but so what? They wouldn't be fight 1820 European Armies but 1850 ones. At its height it was at the gates of Vienna. It was a mere shadow of its former self by the end of WWI. Vibrant societies don't allow that to happen.
longsword14
Banned
Regardless of how effective/ineffective the Ottomans were, what cannot be denied that they just did not have it in them to compete as a Great Power.
Many would call that as being The Sick Man.
Many would call that as being The Sick Man.
I think the fall of the Ottoman Empire was unavoidable, knowledge and know how moved from "Europe" not the other way around, but it wasn't something which was universal embraced, it something which was adopted by the Christian minorities and which didn't spread to the rest of population, because to the Muslims Europe offered nothing of value, at least not before the French rudely awaken them. The Greek and Serbs rebelled after several hundred years of Ottoman mismanagement of the Balkans. The Balkans wasn't a especially poor region of Europe before the Ottomans, but they have still not come back after Ottoman rule, and in fact the shorter Ottoman rule were in the different areas if the region, the better off they are today. The Ottomans offered their Christian subject nothing, to them the Sultan was just a bigger bandit, who plundered his Balkan possession and left a impoverished backwater behind.
Today if you visit Central Europe and the Balkans, the most of former subjects of the Habsburg remember them fondly, and Austrians in general have a okay reputation. The former subjects of the Ottoman despise their former dynasty and the Turks. I think that sums up why the Ottoman ended up the sick man of Europe.
Today if you visit Central Europe and the Balkans, the most of former subjects of the Habsburg remember them fondly, and Austrians in general have a okay reputation. The former subjects of the Ottoman despise their former dynasty and the Turks. I think that sums up why the Ottoman ended up the sick man of Europe.
I disagree. The Ottomans were a great power at times in the nineteenth century, and were only stopped by wars. They never had any chance to be as great as they were in the sixteenth century for sure, but to be a great power? That was achievable, and indeed was achieved at times.
longsword14
Banned
Once Europe starts industrialising Ottoman power projection is weak enough to be beaten convincingly.
Russia they could probably take in a defensive war but on the attack..
Once Europe starts industrialising Ottoman power projection is weak enough to be beaten convincingly.
Russia they could probably take in a defensive war but on the attack..
The Ottomans don't need to project power because their empire is quite vast even without new conquests. Sure, it would be nice if the Ottomans reconquered North Africa, but they never had a real need to do so.
All they needed to do is defend their vast imperial domain, and would continue to a great power with ecclesial influence across the Islamic world. But they lost territory in their various wars and their domain was reduced to the point that they were only a middle power.
And how they're supposed to defend their territory? First they need to disband the Janissaries as soon as they start to go crazy, like Peter the great did with the Strel'tsy. If a sultan is capable of that during the 17th or 18th century, the Ottoman military will modernize in a faster pace, eventually leading to mass conscription and subsequent abolition of the jizya, these policies will open the door to a more multiethnic and multi religious establishment.
Is that really an excuse? Stopped by wars? The Ottoman Empire was hardly the only country in the 19th century that had wars. They made a number of mistakes.
They could not have modernized in the 17th century for one main reason: They were modern, and were powerful. Europe only surpassed the Ottomans and the other gunpowder empires in the eighteenth century, and if the Ottomans had modernized with Europe, they would be extremely powerful. They would unleash great power on their European enemies, and dominate the Balkans and the Caspian.
But even with their OTL modernization, they could have stopped the losses, and at least have been a powerful empire by retaining which territories they had. They were able to modernize their territories, and the only reason they are today considered failures is because they lost a few wars in the nineteenth century. If they won those wars, and if they were able to stop the discontent that resulted in nationalism, they would not be a world-shattering force, but they could have been a great power.
I don't understand your reasoning here. They didn't evolve because they didn't have to? That's the exact mentality that lead to decay of most non-Western societies. Western Europe was already "on the top of the world" by the 16th century, if you allow me this kitsch metaphore, still, Europeans kept evolving and constantly changing (mostly because they constantly fought each other).
Also, what do mean by "they are only considered failures because they lost"? Please don't take this as an offense, but that's quite a circular reasoning.