Best way to wank 17th-century Ottoman Empire?

Couldn't the Ottomans just train soldiers like a regular empire that would disband in times of peace?

Most empires tend to have standing armies, actually.
Conscription was rare at the time, and conscripted armies somewhat less effective in general. Compare Europe, where most countries (not really empires though) still heavily realied on hiring mercenary companies at this point, the main exception I know of being Sweden (with a semi-permanent core of standing army that was highly trained, giving her a considerable military edge).
However, most Muslim states tended to rely on "outsiders" as the core military forces - either tribesmen or "slaves". There is a variety of reasons for that, but in general I think that what you see is a general lack of lasting trust by the core urban and rural populace toward the government - perhaps partly a problem of legitimacy, as in principle, the only rightlful ruler is God. This is very rough and extremely general of course.
In the Ottoman case, however, this was supposed to guarantee a standing army that was both highly trained and exclusively loyal to the Sultan - not having, in principle, any other tie to the elites (particularly local elites). This worked quite nicely for a couple centuries before ossifying.
 
Most empires tend to have standing armies, actually.
Conscription was rare at the time, and conscripted armies somewhat less effective in general. Compare Europe, where most countries (not really empires though) still heavily realied on hiring mercenary companies at this point, the main exception I know of being Sweden (with a semi-permanent core of standing army that was highly trained, giving her a considerable military edge).


Actually the proprietary system might well work for the Ottomans. Given that the social structure was divided into millets according to faith (i.e Jewish, Muslim, Orthodox Christian, Latin Christian etc) and only Muslims could serve in the military the Sultan's regime could impress upon wealthy non-Muslim individuals and communities that paying for the upkeep of a regiment of Muslim volunteers would be a really good idea.

This would preserve the division between Muslims as fighters and the rest as wealth producers and of course prevent the Muslim elites from establishing their own military power bases. Officers would not be paymasters and the usual link between paymaster and loyal soldier would be severed by religion leaving only allegiance to the Sultan as a common thread. In addition the rivalries between regiments could be encouraged to prevent them uniting together like the Janissaries over grievances and certainly they should have no common accord with the timariot cavalry...though those always boasted that "horsemen do not mutiny".

Of course as with any system it would likely present its own flaws and be open to abuse but it does have the potential to keep the Ottomans more current in military affairs into the C18th.
 
Actually the proprietary system might well work for the Ottomans. Given that the social structure was divided into millets according to faith (i.e Jewish, Muslim, Orthodox Christian, Latin Christian etc) and only Muslims could serve in the military the Sultan's regime could impress upon wealthy non-Muslim individuals and communities that paying for the upkeep of a regiment of Muslim volunteers would be a really good idea.

This would preserve the division between Muslims as fighters and the rest as wealth producers and of course prevent the Muslim elites from establishing their own military power bases. Officers would not be paymasters and the usual link between paymaster and loyal soldier would be severed by religion leaving only allegiance to the Sultan as a common thread. In addition the rivalries between regiments could be encouraged to prevent them uniting together like the Janissaries over grievances and certainly they should have no common accord with the timariot cavalry...though those always boasted that "horsemen do not mutiny".

Of course as with any system it would likely present its own flaws and be open to abuse but it does have the potential to keep the Ottomans more current in military affairs into the C18th.

This would sound perilously close to giving Timar titles to non-Muslims though.
Also, it is not exactly true that non-Muslims never fought in the Ottoman army. The Sultan had Christian vassals whose forces he could and did call upon, most notably Moldavia and Wallachia, but in earlier times, also Serbia.
 
This would sound perilously close to giving Timar titles to non-Muslims though.
Also, it is not exactly true that non-Muslims never fought in the Ottoman army. The Sultan had Christian vassals whose forces he could and did call upon, most notably Moldavia and Wallachia, but in earlier times, also Serbia.


Well yes I did somewhat give a simplified answer in reference to complexities of Ottoman society as you did in the post to which I replied but it is possible to see from your own nitpick that well the Ottomans did skirt with treating Christian vassals as timariots.
 
Well yes I did somewhat give a simplified answer in reference to complexities of Ottoman society as you did in the post to which I replied but it is possible to see from your own nitpick that well the Ottomans did skirt with treating Christian vassals as timariots.

Sort of, indeed. But, AFAICT, only in the periphery.
I am not saying that the system you roughly describe won't work or can't be implemented - it is quite like a form of monetarized devshirme. The problem is that you'll find a lot of conservative opposition to do it. And for some Christian communities, it might intolerably raise the tax burden - being used for the levy of the boys was regarded by many groups as a privilege after all.
 
The problem is that you'll find a lot of conservative opposition to do it.

Well of course, which is why the Ottomans balked at trying such a path until the c19th arrived and of course the first attempt failed miserably. The Janissaries had became a military-business complex like the Streltsy in Russia who themselves were only commenced on the path to disbandment with the use of military force. As you point out there are a lot of people with an investment in the contemporary system.

The difficulty would be greater however or at least I posit so, in moving to a fully regular system in the Ottoman Empire which was challenging enough for states with more developed cash economies and centralised administration.
 

Deleted member 67076

Disband the Janissaries.

Hmm... Osman II wanted to do this as early as 1621 but he was unfortunately strangled to death. There's an opening I think.

Perhaps he escapes the planned Jannisary coup and builds up a new army from based in Anatolia and Mesopotamia consisting mostly of Turks and Turkmens. Of course this will lead to civil war, but the good news is that Europe is occupied with the Thirty Years War and a peace deal had just been signed with the Safavids.

Should this civil war be won, (admittedly not the easiest thing to do) the Jannisaries are finished and that cancer is removed, allowing for easier reform. And of course the Ottomans get a brand new army. This does have the likely problem of making the beys outside of Europe more independent, as Osman II would be forced to rely on their good will.
 
I have limited understanding on Ottoman history but weren't there huge epidemics in the XVIIIth century? I read a couple time that hygiene in big cities, Damas in particular, were dismal.

Similar to the WRE, when huge epidemics wreck the core of the Empire, it never bodes well for the peripheries
 
Not going to be easy, but yes, that would help.
It is not clear, however, what would replace them.

Except for the ways that it... well, wouldn't.

People tend to forget that the Auspicious Incident was followed by Russia forcing a highly unfavorable treaty on the Turks, who now lacked a military capable of resisting them.
 
Except for the ways that it... well, wouldn't.

People tend to forget that the Auspicious Incident was followed by Russia forcing a highly unfavorable treaty on the Turks, who now lacked a military capable of resisting them.

Sure, but it happened at a time when the correlation of forces was much more heavily stacked against the Ottoman state than it would be two enturies earlier.
 
Sure, but it happened at a time when the correlation of forces was much more heavily stacked against the Ottoman state than it would be two enturies earlier.

Exactly. In fact part of the problem for the Ottomans was recognising at this stage the janissaries needed reform and that the required reform meant their effective removal. The Ottomans would go on to win several wars and even when they lost they only lost marginal provinces at worst so it was not as obvious internally as it is to us with hindsight.

Someone suggested 1621 as perhaps being the date for a change which would be substantially earlier than Russia's removal of the Streltsy. So there rather than face Imperial Russia with an Army modernised and led by officers experienced as a result of the Napoleonic Wars you have a much more feeble Tsardom of Russia or perhaps the Hapsburgs who are more focused on dealing with France.
 
Unless the Ottomans modernize their economy and state, how much will this help? What use is a more modern army if you still don't have a printing press in your capital?
 
Unless the Ottomans modernize their economy and state, how much will this help? What use is a more modern army if you still don't have a printing press in your capital?

Well I suppose that if the OP is strict that the wank only needs to last until the end of the C17th then business as screw-shul can be resumed in the C18th but you are right the economy would be the next point of business that needs work.
 
Top