Ottoman Reform period

For anyone with knowledge on Ottoman history or liking Ottoman history. What era was the ideal time to reform the Ottoman institions such as the military, the economy and succession laws and rules?

The period is 1595-1792. Pick your choice...
 
I want to say the 1720s-40s. They may have already been pushed from Vienna, but the state ideology in that period shifted markedly from focusing on the divine mission to spread Islam across Europe and onto more of a defensive, cautious footing that was more concerned with ruling well in the lands they already had. Further it’s evident to people who are looking that Western Europe is a better military model to follow, which it wasn’t a century ago. There is more of an opportunity to reform in the 20s due to the weak Persia in the east, and if reforms are started then the political will to expand and see them through to completion could be provided via the Afsharid bogeyman
 
I want to say the 1720s-40s. They may have already been pushed from Vienna, but the state ideology in that period shifted markedly from focusing on the divine mission to spread Islam across Europe and onto more of a defensive, cautious footing that was more concerned with ruling well in the lands they already had. Further it’s evident to people who are looking that Western Europe is a better military model to follow, which it wasn’t a century ago. There is more of an opportunity to reform in the 20s due to the weak Persia in the east, and if reforms are started then the political will to expand and see them through to completion could be provided via the Afsharid bogeyman

Ideally is if the Afghans never overrun Safavid Persia. This halts Ottoman warfare there. The downside is without warfare, the Janissaries remain in Istanbul. In 90 years time, they replaced 3 sultans. Which is problematic if reforms are desired. A better Grand Vizier than Ibrahim Pasha is needed. But Mahmud I can take care of that.

Your time period seems right. It was almost the same time the European military surpassed the Ottoman military.
 

Kaze

Banned
I would say after taking Constantinople. Reform then... then once you got everything under one leader and working bureaucracy, you can make your way to take Vienna or keep the empire together.

The problem is not the military, it the bloated corrupt inefficient nearly non-existent bureaucracy. Once you reform the bureaucracy, the military, and succession can be solved by each crisis instead of letting the Ottomans implode and watching territory by territory secede from the Empire.
 
I would say after taking Constantinople. Reform then... then once you got everything under one leader and working bureaucracy, you can make your way to take Vienna or keep the empire together.

The problem is not the military, it the bloated corrupt inefficient nearly non-existent bureaucracy. Once you reform the bureaucracy, the military, and succession can be solved by each crisis instead of letting the Ottomans implode and watching territory by territory secede from the Empire.

After 1453 the Ottomans experienced their best time until 1566. Why would they reform a working system if it is already working?
 

Minniehh

Banned
Young Osman was the best chance. Empire wasnt too far gone and Sultans were still respected figures. With his fall all of that changed.
 
Young Osman was the best chance. Empire wasnt too far gone and Sultans were still respected figures. With his fall all of that changed.

Seems right. At the time the Ottomans still had a large advantage. He failed as he wanted things done immediately and he still had the Janissaries and other leading figures in the capital while he was out.
 

Minniehh

Banned
Seems right. At the time the Ottomans still had a large advantage. He failed as he wanted things done immediately and he still had the Janissaries and other leading figures in the capital while he was out.

He failed because he believed in his authority and that Jannisaries are still slaves. He should have relied on Spahis and crushed them. Perhaps lead them on a campaign and arrange an ambush to the last.
 
For anyone with knowledge on Ottoman history or liking Ottoman history. What era was the ideal time to reform the Ottoman institions such as the military, the economy and succession laws and rules?

The period is 1595-1792. Pick your choice...

In my view it's between 1798 and 1815. So between the French invasion of Egypt (a huge wakeup call that showed the Ottomans they needed to reform) and the end of the Napoleonic wars, which had been providing a distraction to the Ottoman's enemies. Unfortunately, this period was also one of great turbulence inside the empire, and much energy had to be spent on quashing the rash of revolts in this same period.

Though it's possible that if Nader Shah doesn't get malaria in India, he could provide a demonstration of Ottoman shortcomings on a similar scale to Napoleon. Or if Catherine the Great had more success in convincing the Hapsburgs to join her in an anti-Ottoman alliance and Russia and Austria give the Ottomans a drubbing in their heartlands before the French Revolution distracts Christian Europe...

As I see it, the big issue is that while the Ottomans were falling to keep ahead of Christian Europe over the 18th Century, they started from such a high point that they were able to coast for a long time. So it's necessary to give them both a serious wake-up call AND to marry that with a period of calm so that the Sultan and the civil service can focus on getting reform to take root.

fasquardon
 
He failed because he believed in his authority and that Jannisaries are still slaves. He should have relied on Spahis and crushed them. Perhaps lead them on a campaign and arrange an ambush to the last.

He was young. He believed this. If he was older he would know better. But he died as an 17-18 year old boy... a big shame. The Sipahis however revolted as well. They did not want Osman II to be killed which later forced them to face the Janissaries.

If Osman II prepared better, he would have sent the bulk of the Janissaries to Hungary with his Grand Vizier against the Habsburgs, let other loyal Pasha's scramble troops in Anatolia and Syria. He would keep things calm in Anatolia. When the Janissaries return they get a 'honourable' retirement. The loyalist faction will be integrated in the forces but that won't be much higher than 10-15k or so. If they resist, the new troops and Sipahis take care of the rest. In a worst case scenario he executes his brothers and uncle.
 
In my view it's between 1798 and 1815. So between the French invasion of Egypt (a huge wakeup call that showed the Ottomans they needed to reform) and the end of the Napoleonic wars, which had been providing a distraction to the Ottoman's enemies. Unfortunately, this period was also one of great turbulence inside the empire, and much energy had to be spent on quashing the rash of revolts in this same period.

Though it's possible that if Nader Shah doesn't get malaria in India, he could provide a demonstration of Ottoman shortcomings on a similar scale to Napoleon. Or if Catherine the Great had more success in convincing the Hapsburgs to join her in an anti-Ottoman alliance and Russia and Austria give the Ottomans a drubbing in their heartlands before the French Revolution distracts Christian Europe...

As I see it, the big issue is that while the Ottomans were falling to keep ahead of Christian Europe over the 18th Century, they started from such a high point that they were able to coast for a long time. So it's necessary to give them both a serious wake-up call AND to marry that with a period of calm so that the Sultan and the civil service can focus on getting reform to take root.

fasquardon

For your point, the Ottomans did this. The Russian conquest of the Crimea and the fall of Egypt to France showed how vunerable the Empire was. The failure was Selim III response to the Janissary Coup in Istanbul. The coup was a garrison of a fortress, no more than a hundred, maybe a bit more, something that could be crushed by loyal newly formed troops. Selim III failed to react and when he did he gave command to the wrong persons (Köse Musa being a traitor). Had Selim ordered an attack on the revolters it was already over and the reforms would be 30 years earlier. This is also the period that Mehmed Ali of Egypt is not powerful yet...

Nader Shah's beatings would have helped had he conquered Baghdad and maybe even Diyarbakir. It would hardly be enough to threaten Anatolia as it would mean a bigger campaing and more resources but the beatings would give Istanbul a wake up call. The Janissaries don't help anymore and the Sipahis are outdated as well. The Ottomans have a better position to reconquer Baghdad during or after Naders rule.

The biggest issue the Ottomans had in the 18th century was good sultans. There were a few (Ahmed III, Mustafa III, Selim III) But between Ahmed III and Selim III, the Sultans were mentally not the best Sultans as they were kept in the palace with no clue what happens in the world. The worst being Osman III who had spent 50 years as a 'captive' but he barely ruled for three years. A disaster would be complete if the Russian war was during his reign. A Sultan of Selim III or Mustafa II capacity in the bigger part of the 18th century would be enough to keep the Empire stronger. In the absence of a good Sultan, the Grand Vizier solved the issues which were also absent in the Empire. You can't always have a Köprülü Mehmed Pasha...
 
Top