Suleyman I doesn't kill his son, having the Ottoman Empire survivr to present day

[Barbaros]

What makes it nearly impossible?

Looking forward to the elaboration, and welcome to the site.

Thank you Ok, here is some of the problems of Ottoman Empire:

- The state had ownership of almost all of agricultural lands. Agricultural lands were divided into small pieces (timar). Sipahis (equestrian soldiers) benefited from income of the lands and they had to bring a certain amount of equestrian soldiers to the army. Beys and Pashas had bigger timars (zeamet and has). They were not owner of the lands, but only beneficiaries. Usually their sons could not benefit from same lands. The state was giving them smaller timars. The only way to get bigger timars was show valor during battles. This system was both power and weakness of the empire.

It was power of the empire because it doesn't let development of nobility (there were no nobles in the empire except imperial family), so it was very difficult to revolt against to empire. It was weakness of the empire, because sipahis and pashas don't care development of timars due to lacking of ownership. They tried to extort people as much as possible. Judges (kadi) and central management tried to inhibit extortion. But it was not easy mission.

- Also janissaries were both power and weakness of the empire. They were the most professional soldiers in the world history. They were raised as soldiers since their childhood. They were very efficient in battlefield. But they could revolt against Sultan to extort more money (like Proterian Guards of Roman Empire) or due to another reason.

- The state was supporting guilds strictly. Reasons of state support were controlling prices and providing abundance. But guilds did not permit technological development and open competition.

- The state did not let traders to earn and to accumulate money. Yes, there were rich traders and Jewish bankers. But they were not very rich. If a trader or banker became excessive richer, he might wait for a disaster.

- Geography of Ottoman Empire was a problem also. There was no way to sail high seas. Yes, Ottoman Empire had ports in Suez and Basra. But there were not woods in Egypt and Iraq to build strong fleets.

In a nutshell, main problem was centralized structure of the Ottoman Empire. There were no enough institutions to manage the empire efficiently. Also avoiding of centralizition was not a solution. Because, in this case, dissolution of the empire was inevitable.

 

[Elfwine]

That is a thorny problem. Sounds like not just centralization but too much control (of towns and burghers) and not enough (of timar-holders).

It could probably survive not having the high seas (as you put it), but not without internal development making up for it.

And it sounds like there's no possibility for that in the countryside or the towns, with the system as it stood.

Not a pretty situation.

Looking at economics because in the long term empires slip downward because of their economic assets - weak economy, weak military, weak power.

Would like to see a little more on this:

- The state did not let traders to earn and to accumulate money. Yes, there were rich traders and Jewish bankers. But they were not very rich. If a trader or banker became excessive richer, he might wait for a disaster.

That sounds like a situation where the state is, in a word, rapacious - a successful merchant is vulnerable to tax collectors (by law or not) taking advantage of him, which is no basis for encouraging commerce.

 

[Barbaros]

That sounds like a situation where the state is, in a word, rapacious - a successful merchant is vulnerable to tax collectors (by law or not) taking advantage of him, which is no basis for encouraging commerce.

Main economic politics of Ottoman Empire is provide abundance on all the realm. Taxes were low and stable. It was easier to live as a peasant or small merchant in Ottoman Empire than European Countries. So peasant riots were very rare. There was not enough reason to work harder. Because peasant (or other people) could not buy lands. Extortion was a problem for peasants. But its effects was limited to discourage improvements and hard labor.

The Empire encouraged import but complicated export. Big capital was on hands of viziers and pashas. But they could not bequeath their money to their sons. When a vizier of pasha died or killed, the state was seizing almost all of his money and slaves. Because viziers and pashas are slaves of Sultan.

If a merchant or banker accumulated great some of money, it was highly possible killed due to a fabricated (or real) pretext and the state was seizing his money.

 

[Elfwine]

Sounds like an effective enough system in the short run - but in the long run impossible to sustain.

And it would take a heck of a sultan to come up with an alternative. For him personally, he's sitting pretty, after all.

Assuming he isn't overthrown, obviously, but that's from a different set of problems than the economic situation.

The Ottoman Empire being so extended doesn't seem to have helped - nothing like long frontiers to drain the treasury and drain the peasantry.

Not sure where one could feasibly cut back there - but juggling the burdens of so many fronts was not easy.

 

[Barbaros]

Finally, I want to mention two real opportunities for Ottoman Empire:

Sokullu Mehmed Pasha was a great Sadrazam (prime minister). He was Sadrazam of Suleyman the Great, Selim the Sob and Murad the Womanizer. He has two important projects:

1- Building Suez Channel.
2- Building a channel between Don and Volga rivers. Aim of this project was allow sailing of ships from Black Sea to depths of Russia.

He started both of the projects. But he could not finish these projects due to some reasons. If he could finish these projects, World History might change radically.

 

[Elfwine]

Would be interesting, certainly. Even if it didn't turn out like the modern Suez Canal, it might have been worth something (or not, don't know enough for specific arguments of that particular project).

The other one sounds like it would have a serious impact - maybe you couldn't sail (as in, with the wind) ships, but even galleys rowing their way up into that area would have consequences.

 

[Barbaros]

There was no technologic problem to dig a channel similar current Suez Channel. It was not difficult as Panama Channel. If Ottoman could build this channel, they could send their main fleet to India.

Indeed already they sent their fleets to India. But they could not defeat Portugal ships. Main reasons of these failures were quality of woods of ships and number and size of the ships. Also there was technological problems. Ottoman ships were galleys and Portugal ships were galleons. But Ottoman could defeat galleons in Mediterrean in XVI. century. Ottomans could not improve new technologies but they could copy them easily (especially military technologies).

In XVI. century, Muslims ruled India. But they did not know Eurepean technology. Ottomans could help them. Also Ottomans might conquered India.

Don-Volga Channel was as important as Suez Channel for Ottomans. If they could build this channel, Russia would not get any chance to rise. Because Russia was weak and surrounded by hostile Muslim Mongol states. Ottomans could help them.

But I'm sure that these projects would not enough to ultimate victory of Ottomans. They should have gave up to fight with Habsburgs and Safavis. They should have draw their European Borders off to Belgrad and built castles. They should have invaded Morocco and Gibraltar. They should have attached more importance to their navy.

 

[Elfwine]

To spare this thread rehashing old arguments, I suggest looking up some old threads here on building the Suez Canal earlier.

And how are they going to just give up their wars with the Safavids and Habsburgs?

 

[mikegold]

There was no technologic problem to dig a channel similar current Suez Channel. It was not difficult as Panama Channel. If Ottoman could build this channel, they could send their main fleet to India.

Indeed already they sent their fleets to India. But they could not defeat Portugal ships. Main reasons of these failures were quality of woods of ships and number and size of the ships. Also there was technological problems. Ottoman ships were galleys and Portugal ships were galleons. But Ottoman could defeat galleons in Mediterrean in XVI. century. Ottomans could not improve new technologies but they could copy them easily (especially military technologies).

In XVI. century, Muslims ruled India. But they did not know Eurepean technology. Ottomans could help them. Also Ottomans might conquered India.

Don-Volga Channel was as important as Suez Channel for Ottomans. If they could build this channel, Russia would not get any chance to rise. Because Russia was weak and surrounded by hostile Muslim Mongol states. Ottomans could help them.

What would closer Mughal-Ottoman relations have looked like? Sure, both parties are Sunni, and an anti-Safavid alliance could be mutually beneficial - but I'm not sure that the Mughals would have welcomed a powerful Islamic rival on the Subcontinent.

As to the Don-Volga canal: how much would this have helped the Ottomans/Tatar Khanates and slowed down the Russians? By Suleyman's time, Muscovy had already unified the northern forests that have always been the base for Russian population and power. Mightn't a stronger Turkish (Turkish vassal) presence on the Pontic steppe just lead to a running sore for the Sublime Porte? Power projection, even with the canal described, is going to be a lot harder than just the Crimea, and there's a lot more land to protect against a demographically rising foe with much shorter supply lines.

 

[Space Oddity]

Yeah. Selim the Sot was the wrong solution, but Mustafa might not have been the right one.

You know, I'm going to follow my grand tradition of taking somewhat controversial stances and argue that Selim II gets an overly bad rap. Much like James VI/I, in the interests of a producing a tidy narrative, a reign that was generally successful has its failures amplified, its successes ignored, and the personal flaws of the monarch distorted to the point of caricature, all so the more flamboyant, charismatic predecessor looks better, and the indisputable failure who follows becomes part of an inexorable sequence of degenerate kings. Selim managed the factions of his court well--promoted men of ability, including Sokulla Pasha, whose career Selim encouraged even prior to becoming Sultan--made numerous cultural contributions to his nation--and followed realistic policies regarding the Empire's borders, something his son AND his father both failed to do. These are not neglible accomplishments--indeed, as his son Murad would go on to demonstrate in the negative, they take genuine effort on the part of the sovereign, even if such effort tends to be less noticable than those of a warrior-king leading his troops into battle. And they are all ignored in favor of calling him a drunk and going on and on about the battle of Lepanto, even as the war that Lepanto was a part of gets politely shoved out of sight because, hey, we can't mess up the narrative.

Honestly, having Selim not slip on a staircase one night in 1574 might do the Empire more good than having him lose the factional warfare that marked his father's late reign.

 

[Elfwine]

Space Oddity:

Y'know, I don't know enough about Selim to argue, but for some reason this comes off as contrary for the sake of contrary more than informative.

Something about the wording.

Not saying you're Wrong, but it's kinda annoying to dismiss traditional accounts as "in the interests of producing a tidy narrative".

 

[eliphas8]

Space Oddity:

Y'know, I don't know enough about Selim to argue, but for some reason this comes off as contrary for the sake of contrary more than informative.

Something about the wording.

Not saying you're Wrong, but it's kinda annoying to dismiss traditional accounts as "in the interests of producing a tidy narrative".

To be fair to him lot of historical misconceptions are a result of people trying to come up with a tidy narrative for history.

 

[Elfwine]

To be fair to him lot of historical misconceptions are a result of people trying to come up with a tidy narrative for history.

To be fair to historians, saying things like "even as the war that Lepanto was a part of gets politely shoved out of sight because, hey, we can't mess up the narrative." speaks more of snark than credible counterargument.

I trust Space Oddity's capacity for and interest in research given the work on Now Blooms the Tudor Rose, but I wish he'd presented more of that and less of firing shots at earlier historians.

There are rulers whose main success is in administration have received good reports for it - Justinian for instance. He didn't lead the army in person, his military accomplishments are generally more labeled "overextension' than glorious triumph, and everyone who remembers him remembers the Justinian Code.

 

[Space Oddity]

To be fair to historians, saying things like "even as the war that Lepanto was a part of gets politely shoved out of sight because, hey, we can't mess up the narrative." speaks more of snark than credible counterargument.

I trust Space Oddity's capacity for and interest in research given the work on Now Blooms the Tudor Rose, but I wish he'd presented more of that and less of firing shots at earlier historians.

There are rulers whose main success is in administration have received good reports for it - Justinian for instance. He didn't lead the army in person, his military accomplishments are generally more labeled "overextension' than glorious triumph, and everyone who remembers him remembers the Justinian Code.

Thing is, Justinian was seen for years as the last noble gasp of Rome, and even when later historians turned away from this interpretation, it still allowed for a balanced look at the man. Aside from Suleiman, the Ottoman Sultans have never generated this sort of press--indeed, good historical works on the Empire remain rather rare. (I'm serious. Go over to wikipedia, and count how often you stumble on words to the effect of 'large portions of this article taken from 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica' in their Ottoman articles. Which explains the incredible amount of dismissive Orientalism in some of them.)

As for some examples for Selim's not sucking quite so much--the restoration of the Hagia Sophia, undertaken at his orders against religious opposition. The Selimye Mosque, generally considered one of the triumphs of Ottoman architecture. The rebuilding of the entire Ottoman navy six months after Lepanto, complete with galleases, a significant part of the whole 'winning the Cypriot War' matter. (And you may call it snark Elfwine, but I have seen too many articles on the importance of the Battle of Lepanto which ignore the fact that the Holy League broke up after it, and the war was an Ottoman victory. And as for the popular opinion that this marks the turning point for the Ottomans--the more I read about it, the more I have to say, no, I don't buy it.)

 

[Die Kaiserin]

I mispelled his name, and I meant the siege of Vienna in 1529

 

[Elfwine]

Thing is, Justinian was seen for years as the last noble gasp of Rome, and even when later historians turned away from this interpretation, it still allowed for a balanced look at the man. Aside from Suleiman, the Ottoman Sultans have never generated this sort of press--indeed, good historical works on the Empire remain rather rare. (I'm serious. Go over to wikipedia, and count how often you stumble on words to the effect of 'large portions of this article taken from 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica' in their Ottoman articles. Which explains the incredible amount of dismissive Orientalism in some of them.)

That most writing on the Ottomans in the West was written by the orientalist school is a far more legitimate - and serious - problem. That wikipedia is particularly abysmal is not news.

As for some examples for Selim's not sucking quite so much--the restoration of the Hagia Sophia, undertaken at his orders against religious opposition. The Selimye Mosque, generally considered one of the triumphs of Ottoman architecture. The rebuilding of the entire Ottoman navy six months after Lepanto, complete with galleases, a significant part of the whole 'winning the Cypriot War' matter. (And you may call it snark Elfwine, but I have seen too many articles on the importance of the Battle of Lepanto which ignore the fact that the Holy League broke up after it, and the war was an Ottoman victory. And as for the popular opinion that this marks the turning point for the Ottomans--the more I read about it, the more I have to say, no, I don't buy it.)

And maybe it's me, but I see nothing contradictory about Selim being a useless sultan and building magnificent mosques/rebuilding the Hagia Sophia (obviously the naval reconstruction indicates someone is doing their job, either him or a vizier - which would have to be his appointee, and "picking good lieutenants" is generally listed as a good quality in when rating the ability of kings).

I do call it snark. It may be true that there are too many articles saying that, and popular opinion in Western European (and American when Americans write about European history) circles tends to suck for anything east of Germany.

As for Lepanto's status as a turning point, I think this might be fair - wikipedia or no:

The strategic situation after Lepanto was graphically summed up later by the Ottoman Grand Vizier to the Venetian bailo: "The Christians have singed my beard [meaning the fleet], but I have lopped off an arm. My beard will grow back. The arm [meaning Cyprus], will not".[52] Despite the Grand Vizier's bold statement, however, the damage suffered by the Ottoman fleet was crippling—not so much in the number of ships lost, but in the almost total loss of the fleet's experienced officers, sailors, technicians and marines. Well aware of how hard it would be to replace such men, in the next year the Venetians and the Spanish executed those experts they had taken captive.[53] In addition, despite the limited strategic impact of the allied victory, an Ottoman victory at Lepanto would had far more important repercussions: it would have meant the effective disappearance of the Christian naval cadres and allowed the Ottoman fleet to roam the Mediterranean at will, with dire consequences for Malta, Crete and possibly even the Balearics or Venice itself.[54] As it was, along with the Ottoman failure at Malta six years earlier, Lepanto confirmed the de facto division of the Mediterranean, with the eastern half under firm Ottoman control and the western under the Habsburgs and their Italian allies.[55]


Bolding the part that I think bears discussion.

Perhaps "turning point' is the wrong word, but for the Ottomans to suffer such a blow of trained and experienced personal is certainly not merely a singed beard.

IMSIO (In My Somewhat Informed Opinion), going with that - Lepanto is more like Gettysburg (significant for how a reversal of fortune would have mattered) than Vicksburg (significant for what was accomplished), if ACW famous battles can be used as comparison.

But I think that the vizier was able to make such a statement - no matter how much one counts the loss of trained men for - says a lot about it being a turning point for the Ottoman Empire's fortunes in general, as opposed to simply a check.

But this might need to be taken to PMs, as we could have a whole thread just on how much actually changed after Lepanto from the pre-battle situation (both beneficial and detriminetal).

Sufficient to say, I think we both would argue, Selim did not doom the Ottoman state - the Ottoman state failed to reach the present for reasons irrelevant to which son succeeds Suleiman.

You need a POD addressing economics, not wars, if you want to change things here.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

To spare this thread rehashing old arguments, I suggest looking up some old threads here on building the Suez Canal earlier.

?

Some of the complaints about earlier Suezes were that the building time wasnt enough, and it wouldnt be economically viable.

If the empire takes 15-20 years to do it, they probably can, if they devote enough resources to it. And if its done for military purposes, then the income from trade only has to cover running costs, not capital and interest. Of course, spending THAT much money on the canal, and then even more on the consequent expanded fleet could bankrupt the empire.

 

[Badshah]

Indeed already they sent their fleets to India. But they could not defeat Portugal ships. Main reasons of these failures were quality of woods of ships and number and size of the ships. Also there was technological problems. Ottoman ships were galleys and Portugal ships were galleons. But Ottoman could defeat galleons in Mediterrean in XVI. century. Ottomans could not improve new technologies but they could copy them easily (especially military technologies).

In XVI. century, Muslims ruled India. But they did not know Eurepean technology. Ottomans could help them. Also Ottomans might conquered India.

Actually, the Mughals were technologically at the same level as Europe and the Ottomans (Ahead in quite a few cases)(China was the highest AFAIK). Their main weakness was that they began to succumb to the Ottoman-style succession wars after Akbar, and slowly built up decadence, resulting in the lack of progression from where Akbar laid the state, combined with the lack of money as well as a weak navy. However, their tech and army was amazing. Amusingly, Akbar once got pissed off at the Ottomans' recognition as caliphate and wanted to invade their lands. Probably not a serious notion, but an amusing one, nonetheless. And if not for a weak ass navy, I'm sure they could beat the Ottomans. But that's besides the point. Just wanted to clarify that the Ottomans conquering India would be a disaster for them.

Now, one could say it's extremely unlikely that the Ottomans could change their whole administrative system, but at the same time, it is a very possible notion. Throughout history, there have been a lot of individuals wanting change, and bringing it to the table. But let's say that's not your cup of tea, since it relies on someone building a timeline to make it interesting. So let's deal with the Suez Canal. If it's built by the Ottomans, they suddenly have a huge advantage over Western Europe, but furthermore, the Suez Zone IMO would be different to the rest of the Empire, because others will want to pay for the rights to use it....Portugal, Spain and France, for example, would probably want to use it, not to mention Venice, the Ottoman rival, but also their best way to modernize their navy. Venice could be extorted into basically building the Ottoman Navy in exchange for easier trade and transport.

But the biggest thing here, is that politics in the Suez Zone could likely differ in a completely different way. You will see foreign influence, to and from the Med and India. You will see traders and foreigners coming and putting forward their ideas, in a way not possible before, and that could inspire Istanbul to push for change.

Or, less likelier, you have a Din-e-lahi style movement succeeding in the Ottoman court. (For further clarification, Din-e-lahi seems like a religion, but it was in fact more like an organization....its members had to be nobles or prominent, and it was to be a tool to push modernization and other ideas through the Mughal court. But with Akbar's death, it was abandoned.)

 

[Badshah]

And maybe it's me, but I see nothing contradictory about Selim being a useless sultan and building magnificent mosques/rebuilding the Hagia Sophia (obviously the naval reconstruction indicates someone is doing their job, either him or a vizier - which would have to be his appointee, and "picking good lieutenants" is generally listed as a good quality in when rating the ability of kings).

Indeed. He was the Shah Jahan of the Ottoman court, it seems. The point here, to me, seems to be that we can't really look at it through a lens of bad/good, but through a broader sense of effectiveness. A good ruler doesn't necessarily mean someone who is going to secure the future of that which they rule....at the same time, we could consider someone bad at ruling quite good at establishing their empire.

 

[Elfwine]

Some of the complaints about earlier Suezes were that the building time wasnt enough, and it wouldnt be economically viable.

If the empire takes 15-20 years to do it, they probably can, if they devote enough resources to it. And if its done for military purposes, then the income from trade only has to cover running costs, not capital and interest. Of course, spending THAT much money on the canal, and then even more on the consequent expanded fleet could bankrupt the empire.

15-20 years is a huge project, and not something to be invested in without good benefits.

As for military purposes: Given the way the winds blow, what military benefits?

Same with traders wanting to use it - it isn't that much of an advantage.

Indeed. He was the Shah Jahan of the Ottoman court, it seems. The point here, to me, seems to be that we can't really look at it through a lens of bad/good, but through a broader sense of effectiveness. A good ruler doesn't necessarily mean someone who is going to secure the future of that which they rule....at the same time, we could consider someone bad at ruling quite good at establishing their empire.

A good ruler by definition needs to be good at leaving something besides problems for his successors, and someone bad at ruling isn't likely to establish much of an empire - see Alexander's miserable failure.