A few questions on the 18th and 19th Century Ottoman Empire

During this period the Ottomans stagnated and eventually became the "Sick man of Europe". I was wondering what the causes of this fall were, and how they could be prevented or amended quickly? How likely is the Ottoman Empire retaining control of Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria and Egypt until the 20th century? How possible is it for the Ottoman Empire to become, constitutional with a figurehead Sultan, with equality for all citizens (Muslim or Christian), industrialised and respected? I'll admit my knowledge of the period and region is sketcher than I'd like but I'm really interested as to what you all think.
 

Keenir

Banned
I'll do my best to answer.

During this period the Ottomans stagnated and eventually became the "Sick man of Europe". I was wondering what the causes of this fall were,

a major cause was the ruining of the currency - thanks to all that New World gold and silver.

just as big a cause, and it stepped in when the Ottomans were starting to recover from the New World riches, were the Concessions that the other Powers of Europe were demanding.

and how they could be prevented or amended quickly? How likely is the Ottoman Empire retaining control of Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria and Egypt until the 20th century?

very likely -

  • keep Napoleon out of Egypt.
  • have the Greek Revolt of the 1820s fail (even the pro-Greek poet Byron lamented that the Greeks were not as noble as either the Ottomans or the Homeric Greeks)
  • the Balkans were lost thanks to the Young Turks' mistakes.
  • Bulgaria....well, for that, you have to talk to Russia.
How possible is it for the Ottoman Empire to become, constitutional with a figurehead Sultan,

I think they tried that (the constitutional and parlimentary bit) once or twice...but the Powers kept backing all the hesitant and egocentric groups
(imagine that, in modern Iraq, the Iraqi government keeps trying to be fully representational...and that China and the US are backing (with threat of military force) the claims of - respectively - the Turcomans and the Sunnis, each of whom demand a majority for their ethnic/religious group in the Parliament)

with equality for all citizens (Muslim or Christian),

equality in what sense? yes, Christians weren't allowed to join the army. but Christians, Muslims, and Jews all had equal access to the courts.

industrialised and respected?
 
a major cause was the ruining of the currency - thanks to all that New World gold and silver.

just as big a cause, and it stepped in when the Ottomans were starting to recover from the New World riches, were the Concessions that the other Powers of Europe were demanding.

But wouldn't other nations also suffer the same problem as the Ottomans from the new world gold and silver? And the concessions can only be demanded should they loose a war. So does this mean there was a decrease in the military strength of the country and was this economical? If it was can youthink of a way they could have overcome the economic problems sooner?

very likely -

  • keep Napoleon out of Egypt.
  • have the Greek Revolt of the 1820s fail (even the pro-Greek poet Byron lamented that the Greeks were not as noble as either the Ottomans or the Homeric Greeks)
  • the Balkans were lost thanks to the Young Turks' mistakes.
  • Bulgaria....well, for that, you have to talk to Russia.

These all seem linked to military power. What were the main issues with the Ottoman military?

I think they tried that (the constitutional and parlimentary bit) once or twice...but the Powers kept backing all the hesitant and egocentric groups
(imagine that, in modern Iraq, the Iraqi government keeps trying to be fully representational...and that China and the US are backing (with threat of military force) the claims of - respectively - the Turcomans and the Sunnis, each of whom demand a majority for their ethnic/religious group in the Parliament)

Sounds like we need a head strong, independant minded, reformist Sultan. Got anyone in mind who fits the bill.

equality in what sense? yes, Christians weren't allowed to join the army. but Christians, Muslims, and Jews all had equal access to the courts.

In the sense that the Young Turks of the early 20th centry were very pro Turk and not pro Ottoman. Also what are the chances that the Ottoman Empire can industrialise quicker?

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Kvasir
 

Keenir

Banned
I hope this helps some.

PM Sargon and Abdul, they're well-versed on the topic as well.

But wouldn't other nations also suffer the same problem as the Ottomans from the new world gold and silver? And the concessions can only be demanded should they loose a war. So does this mean there was a decrease in the military strength of the country and was this economical?

well, when there were financial troubles in the Ottoman realm, some of their soldiers quit fighting & became brigands -- and to keep the brigands under control, the Ottomans used their soldiers (in addition to needing soldiers to keep Austria and Persia at bay)

well, the Italian states, who had also gotten rich off the Middle Eastern trade, suffered a bit - but they didn't have as much to fall back on, resource-wise.

as to the Concessions (capital C), they may've started out as favoring one nation over another in terms of trade, but as the Ottomans began to decline, nations like France and England demanded more and more -- such as being the guardians of the Ottoman Empire's Christians.

(food for thought: what happens in an equal society, when one part of the population can, at any moment, claim the protection of a foreign power?)

These all seem linked to military power. What were the main issues with the Ottoman military?

1.
only Muslims could be in the army or navy. (this didn't stop foreigners - such as Italians and Englishmen - from joining up)

2.
elite groups such as the Janissaries (originally Christian converts, they later became power-brokers and king-makers much like the Praetorian Guard of Rome; when the Janissaries had influence, it was common for Muslim nobles to bribe officials so that the Muslims' kids could join the Janissaries).
2b. unfortunately, the Janissaries also became the classic stick in the mud, stalling efforts to reform the military (efforts which would have curbed Janissary influence)


Sounds like we need a head strong, independant minded, reformist Sultan. Got anyone in mind who fits the bill.

Abdul Hamid I or II...who has the bonus feature of having been knighted by Queen Victoria (Order of the Garter)

unfortunately, being too independent-minded isn't always a good thing...even the Prime Minister of the Empire could be replaced if the foreign Powers insisted (once, the British Ambassador demanded that his buddy be re-installed as PM, since the Ambassador didn't like the new PM of the Ottoman realm)

In the sense that the Young Turks of the early 20th centry were very pro Turk and not pro Ottoman.

even in the early 20th century (and definately earlier), to call someone "a Turk" was insulting - as "the Turks" were the Anatolian peasants.

Also what are the chances that the Ottoman Empire can industrialise quicker?

pretty good - in Cappadocia, for example, they have looms and such for separating the silk from a silkworm, and then hand-spinning it.

then you run into England's industrialization problem: what do you do with all the hands that aren't being used for what they've done for generations?
 
During this period the Ottomans stagnated and eventually became the "Sick man of Europe". I was wondering what the causes of this fall were, and how they could be prevented or amended quickly? How likely is the Ottoman Empire retaining control of Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria and Egypt until the 20th century? How possible is it for the Ottoman Empire to become, constitutional with a figurehead Sultan, with equality for all citizens (Muslim or Christian), industrialised and respected? I'll admit my knowledge of the period and region is sketcher than I'd like but I'm really interested as to what you all think.

The "Decline and Fall" narrative is simplistic and inaccurate. The 19th c was characterized by rapid and extensive reform, and the empire, although smaller, was much more cohesive and powerful in 1900 than it had been in 1800.

Retaining Greece and Serbia are unlikely, as they have fairly homogeneous populations (the 1830 Greece and the Serbia of about that time). Greece is possible if the Ottomans had ignored Ali Pasha of Janina and quickly crushed the Greek insurrection (Albania could have been subdued later without as much risk of Western intervention), and Serbia is possible, perhaps if Selim III had been a stronger leader.

Bulgaria is much more likely to be retained in the long-term because it had a very large Muslim population - something like 40-45% of the population, and in the North and West were a majority.

By the 1850s there was religious equality, and by the later part of the century it was fairly effective. There was a constitution with a parliament introduced in 1876, but this ended with the defeat by Russia. In 1908, there was a revolution which did lead to a parliamentary state with the Sultan as a figurehead monarch.

Industrialization was stymied by the Capitulations, which would have been difficult to abolish before WWI, but after that industrialization could (and did) occur.

As for respected, that's harder because in that period the Powers were a Christian club. Perhaps winning the 1877 war with Russia could have led to a bit more regard in the balance of power.
 
The "Decline and Fall" narrative is simplistic and inaccurate. The 19th c was characterized by rapid and extensive reform, and the empire, although smaller, was much more cohesive and powerful in 1900 than it had been in 1800.

Retaining Greece and Serbia are unlikely, as they have fairly homogeneous populations (the 1830 Greece and the Serbia of about that time). Greece is possible if the Ottomans had ignored Ali Pasha of Janina and quickly crushed the Greek insurrection (Albania could have been subdued later without as much risk of Western intervention), and Serbia is possible, perhaps if Selim III had been a stronger leader.

Bulgaria is much more likely to be retained in the long-term because it had a very large Muslim population - something like 40-45% of the population, and in the North and West were a majority.

By the 1850s there was religious equality, and by the later part of the century it was fairly effective. There was a constitution with a parliament introduced in 1876, but this ended with the defeat by Russia. In 1908, there was a revolution which did lead to a parliamentary state with the Sultan as a figurehead monarch.

Industrialization was stymied by the Capitulations, which would have been difficult to abolish before WWI, but after that industrialization could (and did) occur.

As for respected, that's harder because in that period the Powers were a Christian club. Perhaps winning the 1877 war with Russia could have led to a bit more regard in the balance of power.

Which Bulgaria, San Stefano Bulgaria, Principality of Bulgaria or Modern day Bulgaria?
 
Which Bulgaria, San Stefano Bulgaria, Principality of Bulgaria or Modern day Bulgaria?

Those lands that can be collectively regarded as "Greater Bulgaria".

Yes, Bulgaria was a habitat for a quite large number of muslims during the Ottoman era.
 
Last edited:
Those lands that can be collectively regarded as "Greater Bulgaria".

Yes, Bulgaria was a habitat for a quite large number of muslims during the Ottoman era.

Yes I know that in San Stefano Bulgaria, there was a large Muslim population, but what about the territory inside the Principality of Bulgaria without Eastern Rumelia, which is simply the territory of Modern Bulgaria without parts south of the Balkan Mountains.
 
Yes I know that in San Stefano Bulgaria, there was a large Muslim population...

Let's replace "San Stefano Bulgaria" with "Modern Bulgaria" then. :) Pasha has the map showing Balkans demographic during Ottoma era. Hope he will post it here.
 
Problem is, San Stefano Bulgaria had a better proportion of Bulgarians than did what is now the modern state. The Muslims were concentrated along the Black Sea and Danube, with the solid Bulgarian majority areas mostly south and west from Sofia. A lot of what should have been Bulgaria became Serbian and Greek "Macedonia."

If you place Bulgaria based on strict ethnic lines, it'll probably be landlocked and smack in the middle of the Ottoman Balkans.
 
Top