Industrial Revolution in the Ottoman Empire

Note that while Ottoman Royal Family were certainly of Turkic descent, and were very well aware and proud of their bloodline to the mighty Seljuk of Oghuz tribe, you seem to forget how close the first capital of Ottoman domain to Constantinople was and how that shaped the pattern of their early territorial expansion and thus the mindset they adhered, including on commerce. Even today Turkey is divided between urban west and rural mountainous east. They were not modern capitalists for sure, but if anything their approach to Aegean commerce were just as pragmatic as their Nasrani predecessors. Simply no reason why such feelings of disdain as you said couldn't have been forgotten by them and you are not providing any evidence that they maintained it.

All true but their lack of support for private ventures shows that, like most absolute rulers (Chinese Emperors come to mind) they cared little for manufacturing.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
All true but their lack of support for private ventures shows that, like most absolute rulers (Chinese Emperors come to mind) they cared little for manufacturing.

Funny perspective it was the Prussian state which developed the sugar beet and the industrial process to extract sugar from it.
 
Funny perspective it was the Prussian state which developed the sugar beet and the industrial process to extract sugar from it.

Yes but that was during the reign of Frederick II, an enlightened monarch who needed any commercial edge he could get to earn a bit of money while he stomped around Europe with his army.

That actually backs up my point that what was needed wqas a more business-friendly leadership. The Ottoman Empire never ad aFrederick II, a Peter the Great or a Leopold. Instead its leadership was poor, weak and schizophrenic, with little continuity other than stagnation from about 1650 onwards.
 

Teleology

Banned
Odd thought: what if a good deal of time before you want this industrial revolution to happen the Ottomans proclaim some sort of new Islamic Golden Age and pump a lot of funding into the traditionally favored Islamic science; medicine? Well-funded doctors and medical research universities could lead to a chemistry revolution, allowing you to have your petro-Ottoman industrial revolution.

An alternate development path than the coal-driven Industrial age of say Britain.

A statist society where physical labor in common (this is an argument against industrialization in some China-triumphant timelines) would still see the benefits from a medical revolution and the tools that those pioneering physicians develop would be useful to chemists. Plus people living longer healthier lives could lead to more of a middle-class developing.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Yes but that was during the reign of Frederick II, an enlightened monarch who needed any commercial edge he could get to earn a bit of money while he stomped around Europe with his army.

That actually backs up my point that what was needed wqas a more business-friendly leadership. The Ottoman Empire never ad aFrederick II, a Peter the Great or a Leopold. Instead its leadership was poor, weak and schizophrenic, with little continuity other than stagnation from about 1650 onwards.

Yes but that had nothing to do with Absolutism, the Ottoman Empire or China was in de facto a lot less Autocratic than Prussia, Austria or France, whom all heavily invested in domestic production and industrialisation. The Ottomans Empire problem seem more that it lacked clear long term development goals, it was quite friendly to trade to the point that it may have been ones of Europes least protectionistic economies.
 
Yes but that had nothing to do with Absolutism, the Ottoman Empire or China was in de facto a lot less Autocratic than Prussia, Austria or France, whom all heavily invested in domestic production and industrialisation. The Ottomans Empire problem seem more that it lacked clear long term development goals, it was quite friendly to trade to the point that it may have been ones of Europes least protectionistic economies.

Exactly-the fact is that economic developement in those days relied either on a large body of middle class merchants and manufacturers like existed in England, or a particularly gigh minded absolute monarch.
The OttomanEmpire had those merchants, yet they ploughed their prophets into more traditional investments rather than newer technologies. Furthermore, the central authority was weak and so therefore manufacturing expansion was severely limited by lack of capital. There were fewer (native) investrs and little state support outside of janissary protection rackets.
 
All true but their lack of support for private ventures shows that, like most absolute rulers (Chinese Emperors come to mind) they cared little for manufacturing.

Except that you're wrong. The Ottomans strongly encouraged private ventures, and in fact the first Ottoman joint-stock company, formed in 1850 had as it's stockholders the Sultan and most of the government elite. It ran the Bosphorus ferries and was very successful and profitable. It existed well into the Republic.

I don't understand why you're making these simplistic statements. If you're going to assert things like this, you need to back it up.
 
1850 is pretty darn late. Thats long after the value of such companies has been proven.
But then you don't need that for industrialisation, look to Russia afterall.
 
Yes but that was during the reign of Frederick II, an enlightened monarch who needed any commercial edge he could get to earn a bit of money while he stomped around Europe with his army.

That actually backs up my point that what was needed wqas a more business-friendly leadership. The Ottoman Empire never ad aFrederick II, a Peter the Great or a Leopold. Instead its leadership was poor, weak and schizophrenic, with little continuity other than stagnation from about 1650 onwards.

What the hell? Nonsense. You don't have even a basic understanding of Ottoman history, but that doesn't stop you from spouting off.

There was lots of change in after 1650, and the Ottomans had very able leaders through much of the period, particularly in the 19th c. Mahmud II, Abdul Aziz, and Abdul Hamid II were all very able Sultans, with very able statesmen under them, and instituted massive and successful reforms, a lot of which encouraged private industry.

What you don't seem to understand is that this isn't a computer game, where you just push an "establish industry" button. The Ottoman domains were mostly mountain and desert, with sparse populations, and no easily obtainable industrial fuels or materials. There was no river transport outside Mespotamia, rail was incredibly expensive to build with no chance of profitable operation, and the state had to prioritize defense heavily, as the empire was repeatedly slammed by the rest of the powers.

Despite all that, the Ottomans devoted significant state resources to providing financial guarantees to private industry to build railroads, industries, etc. But it wasn't until the Capitulations were abolished in WWI that it was possible to really begin development of industry, as these treaties made competition with Western industry impossible.
 
1850 is pretty darn late. Thats long after the value of such companies has been proven.
But then you don't need that for industrialisation, look to Russia afterall.

Its not late for an industrial company - early joint-stock companies were for trading. Russia's level of industrialization in 1850 was virtually nil, as were most countries that weren't Britain and Belgium.

Also, there were earlier Ottoman equivalents to such organizations. The 1850 company was the first established on a Western model, and it was merely the first Ottoman incorporated company. There had been business in the empire that were incorporated in France, Britain, & elsewhere for a long time.
 
Except that you're wrong. The Ottomans strongly encouraged private ventures, and in fact the first Ottoman joint-stock company, formed in 1850 had as it's stockholders the Sultan and most of the government elite. It ran the Bosphorus ferries and was very successful and profitable. It existed well into the Republic.

I don't understand why you're making these simplistic statements. If you're going to assert things like this, you need to back it up.


Really? Didn't know that, how interesting. However, 1850 is far behind the rest of Europe and one joint stock company hardly a industrial revolution makes.

You want proof of weak Ottoman governance? Come on Abdul, you're our expert on the Ottomans, you surely know of the string of weak and useless Sultans that the Empire enjoyed just at the time when Europe was enjoying its bevy of enlightend despots. When Russia had Peter the Great and Prussia had Frederick the Great. . . .
What do the Ottomans have? There were some reforming spirits like Selim III or Mustafa III but they were removed and assassinated by the Janissaries, who, as I'm sure you know, were adverse to any change. When the janissaries were finally blown away in 1826 it was too late-the Ottoman state as still weak and larger Euroean powers were always sniping bits off her borders (namely Russia, Austria, Serbia etc.)

Now, so far I've placed a lot of emphasis on the so-called 'enlightened despots' of the 18th and 19th centuries. Well, you say, they may have been all very well andgood, but above cited Russia was only an industra;l power in the late 19th century, Austria was never one and Prussia only after the unification of Germany, and even then less to the monarchy and more to do with laws suited ot the growth of industry and tariffs.

Well, then we see that the powers that did best out of the industrial revolution-0Britain, France and America all had some form of democracy. Britain's industrial revolution began in the mid to late 18th century and the sequence of events that precipitaed it can be dated back to 1689 and the Glorious Revolution. France, I know, was politically unstable, yet its business grew because none of the rulers were necessarily anti-business. Napoleon described England as a nation of shopkeepers, and he lost the war. His successors did little to harm business, and so it grew rapidly. America, of course, industrialised relatively late, yet its enormous size coupled with its laissez faireeconomic policy and protectionism insured that its industry grew quickly.

We can say, therefore, that these things are needed for industrial growth: good governance, either by a parliament/representitive body (the preferred sort) or a strong ruler. Secondly, strong governance. Parliament, Congress, the National Assembly, the Enlightened Despots all had the rule of law behind them. They commanded the nation and their rules were enforced. Thirdly, a system friendly to business and the availability of credit.

Now, let's look what the Ottoman Empire had.
1 Good, accountable governance.
Well, this one is hard to judge becaues it so depends on my second variable. Some of the Sultans were good, some bad. However, who were they accountable to? They were Caliphs, rulers of Islam, decond no no other ruler, the shadow of God on Earth. They were, however, accountable to the Janissaries. Palace coups were commonplace, and any who didn't treat the janissaries well ended up garrotted.

2 Strong governance.
I've already covered this, but in conclusion. The janissaries and other vested interests virtually stopped any 17th-19th century Sultan from exercising their will, no matter how philantropic or enlightened it was.

3 A government amenable to commerce.
Now Abdul, your argument refutes this and I acknowledge defeat here. It is apparent that there was little inherently hostile in the Ottoman Empire to private enterprise. However, wo ran those enterprises? The Janissaries. It is conspicious that the example you cited was long after the disbandment of the Janisaries. The Janissaries were allowed to run their own businesses and ran extortion rackets inside Constantinople and out. If any Sultan tried to foster businesses that could rival their own, that Sultan would be swiftly removed. Furthermore, these Janissaries lacked capital. They gained money from their pay and from anythingthey extorted. It could be conceivable that they could come together to form a kind of joint stock company, yet it never happened once. This lack of capital severely hurt entrepreneurship.
Now, you say, the Janisaries didn't control all businesses. Again, you are right. However, if we look once more at the OTL industrial revolution, what sparked it? Capital. Where did capital come from? Banks. Now, there were various banking houses within the Empire, however they were not large enough to really invest in 'modern' manufacturing.


Therefore in conclusion:
The Ottoman Empire did not industrialise because of its chaotic bureaucracy, its weak central authority and the lack f domestic capital. Now, what could be done to fix that?

I would suggest the abolition of the Janissary corp in the early 17th century would be the easiest way. I know it's easy to blame everything on the Janissaries, but it was their meddling in politics that prevented the evolution of a strong, centralised state. Remove the Janissaries and the Ottoman Empier would have made the transition ot a modern, professional army far less painfully and far earlier and a more successful Empire would mean greater chance of an industrial revolution.

I hope that helps.
 
Really? Didn't know that, how interesting. However, 1850 is far behind the rest of Europe and one joint stock company hardly a industrial revolution makes.

You want proof of weak Ottoman governance? Come on Abdul, you're our expert on the Ottomans, you surely know of the string of weak and useless Sultans that the Empire enjoyed just at the time when Europe was enjoying its bevy of enlightend despots. When Russia had Peter the Great and Prussia had Frederick the Great. . . .
What do the Ottomans have? There were some reforming spirits like Selim III or Mustafa III but they were removed and assassinated by the Janissaries, who, as I'm sure you know, were adverse to any change. When the janissaries were finally blown away in 1826 it was too late-the Ottoman state as still weak and larger Euroean powers were always sniping bits off her borders (namely Russia, Austria, Serbia etc.)

Now, so far I've placed a lot of emphasis on the so-called 'enlightened despots' of the 18th and 19th centuries. Well, you say, they may have been all very well andgood, but above cited Russia was only an industra;l power in the late 19th century, Austria was never one and Prussia only after the unification of Germany, and even then less to the monarchy and more to do with laws suited ot the growth of industry and tariffs.

Well, then we see that the powers that did best out of the industrial revolution-0Britain, France and America all had some form of democracy. Britain's industrial revolution began in the mid to late 18th century and the sequence of events that precipitaed it can be dated back to 1689 and the Glorious Revolution. France, I know, was politically unstable, yet its business grew because none of the rulers were necessarily anti-business. Napoleon described England as a nation of shopkeepers, and he lost the war. His successors did little to harm business, and so it grew rapidly. America, of course, industrialised relatively late, yet its enormous size coupled with its laissez faireeconomic policy and protectionism insured that its industry grew quickly.

We can say, therefore, that these things are needed for industrial growth: good governance, either by a parliament/representitive body (the preferred sort) or a strong ruler. Secondly, strong governance. Parliament, Congress, the National Assembly, the Enlightened Despots all had the rule of law behind them. They commanded the nation and their rules were enforced. Thirdly, a system friendly to business and the availability of credit.

Now, let's look what the Ottoman Empire had.
1 Good, accountable governance.
Well, this one is hard to judge becaues it so depends on my second variable. Some of the Sultans were good, some bad. However, who were they accountable to? They were Caliphs, rulers of Islam, decond no no other ruler, the shadow of God on Earth. They were, however, accountable to the Janissaries. Palace coups were commonplace, and any who didn't treat the janissaries well ended up garrotted.

2 Strong governance.
I've already covered this, but in conclusion. The janissaries and other vested interests virtually stopped any 17th-19th century Sultan from exercising their will, no matter how philantropic or enlightened it was.

3 A government amenable to commerce.
Now Abdul, your argument refutes this and I acknowledge defeat here. It is apparent that there was little inherently hostile in the Ottoman Empire to private enterprise. However, wo ran those enterprises? The Janissaries. It is conspicious that the example you cited was long after the disbandment of the Janisaries. The Janissaries were allowed to run their own businesses and ran extortion rackets inside Constantinople and out. If any Sultan tried to foster businesses that could rival their own, that Sultan would be swiftly removed. Furthermore, these Janissaries lacked capital. They gained money from their pay and from anythingthey extorted. It could be conceivable that they could come together to form a kind of joint stock company, yet it never happened once. This lack of capital severely hurt entrepreneurship.
Now, you say, the Janisaries didn't control all businesses. Again, you are right. However, if we look once more at the OTL industrial revolution, what sparked it? Capital. Where did capital come from? Banks. Now, there were various banking houses within the Empire, however they were not large enough to really invest in 'modern' manufacturing.


Therefore in conclusion:
The Ottoman Empire did not industrialise because of its chaotic bureaucracy, its weak central authority and the lack f domestic capital. Now, what could be done to fix that?

I would suggest the abolition of the Janissary corp in the early 17th century would be the easiest way. I know it's easy to blame everything on the Janissaries, but it was their meddling in politics that prevented the evolution of a strong, centralised state. Remove the Janissaries and the Ottoman Empier would have made the transition ot a modern, professional army far less painfully and far earlier and a more successful Empire would mean greater chance of an industrial revolution.

I hope that helps.

Since you're not bothering to address my points, as well as Nugax's, why the Ottomans did not industrialize, there's not much point except to reiterate that you're wrong. You're obsessing over the Janissaries, which were 100,000 people at most, spread all over the place, and not really all that important in the commercial scheme of things. The Janissaries didn't prevent the establishment of a centralized state; the state devolved authority to the provinces because it lacked the resources to direct and fight the constant onslaught on it from Russia and the Hapsburgs, two much larger and more powerful powers, whereas local provincial power and organization was more economical and efficient - much like the Byzantines had to decentralize on the Theme system to survive the Caliphate. Later, that model faltered due to changing circumstances so it was replaced by a strong and centralized government in the 19th c. In any case, the Janissaries weren't adverse to change, they were adverse to any threats to their power. In which way they differed from no elite classes before or since, many of the industrializing countries having similar entrenched forces to deal with.

The Ottomans could not industrialize for the reasons I mentioned because they were bound by treaty not to. The weakness of some Sultans is irrelevant, since contrary to orientalist fantasies, they were not autocrats. The government was efficiently run by professional bureaucrats for most of the empire's history. It was only the last handful of Sultans who had fairly autocratic powers, which they were able to achieve only with modern technology and communications. You know, those trains, steamships and telegraph systems that somehow appeared in the empire despite the Ottoman's well-known nomad's disdain for commerce. You do know that commerce is one of the main occupation of nomads, right?

When Britain was industrializing, it had terrible and corrupt governance, that was largely overtly hostile to commerce. Europe also largely industrialized using French capital. Your thesis doesn't work. BTW, laissez-faire and protectionism are opposites, so which one was the USA using?
 
Last edited:

elkarlo

Banned
What about the Sultans? A lot of the ones post 1700 were jus busy hanging out with their harems and enjoying massive luxuries.hat the . I have heard the sultans used as much as 10% of their taxes on their life styles. Imagine if that were used for anything else.
 
BTW, laissez-faire and protectionism are opposites, so which one was the USA using?
C'mon, the rest of your post is good and SF is being really intellectually lazy, but don't come out with stuff like this.

What part of laissez-faire capitalism for internal business while protectionism to external business is so hard to understand?
 
C'mon, the rest of your post is good and SF is being really intellectually lazy, but don't come out with stuff like this.

Pardon me for being possibly a total idiot, if so, but I didn't find that particular snarky statement of Pasha's particularly outright insulting. Blatant attack to SF's argument, yes, but it's not anything dire comparable to the likes of personal insult. Though if it does I'm in trouble for being oblivious.... :(
 
You know, those trains, steamships and telegraph systems that somehow appeared in the empire despite the Ottoman's well-known nomad's disdain for commerce. You do know that commerce is one of the main occupation of nomads, right?

Yes bu the skills aren't translatable - the 1823 Ottoman stock exchange used Camels as the basic unit, and they had to evacuate the building when it filled up with dung.

When Britain was industrializing, it had terrible and corrupt governance, that was largely overtly hostile to commerce. Europe also largely industrialized using French capital. Your thesis doesn't work. BTW, laissez-faire and protectionism are opposites, so which one was the USA using?

Actually I'd say the Britihs government of the time was very pro the types of commerce that lead to industrialisation, if not what we'd currently see as good commerical practice. Additionally even in Europe British capital took up 1/4 to 1/3 of the markets, and Frances and the Low Countries investment organs (which comprised the rest of the markets as Europe industrialised) were nearly entirely powered by British capital in the post-Napoleonic->1840s phase.

Starting an Industrial revolution de novo is incredably hard, and Britain only managed it due to basically being a specialised and protected greenhouse for the new ideas (being a island with a near prefect confluence of energy resources and urban centres and ebing adjacent to large markets). This thread, and the others like it who seem to be based on the idea that [region X] only didn't industrialise because of a lack of national will get rather tiresome.
 
Top