What made the Byzatine Empire and the Ottoman Empire so different?

The early Ottoman Empire occupied pretty much the same territory as the late Byzantine Empire, however, the Ottomans were able to expand furiously through the eastern mediterranean, while the Byzantines even at their strongest (Kommenoi) were unable to fully regain the balkans and asia minor even. And that's when Turks were a cultural and religious minority over much of the area they covered.

So what made the Ottomans so succesful compared to the Byzantines, and is there any scenario where the Byzantines can adopt this secret formula to survive and recover?
 
The early Ottoman Empire occupied pretty much the same territory as the late Byzantine Empire, however, the Ottomans were able to expand furiously through the eastern mediterranean, while the Byzantines even at their strongest (Kommenoi) were unable to fully regain the balkans and asia minor even. And that's when Turks were a cultural and religious minority over much of the area they covered.

So what made the Ottomans so succesful compared to the Byzantines, and is there any scenario where the Byzantines can adopt this secret formula to survive and recover?
Religious fervor.The Ottomans relied on the concept of holy war heavily.They were able to attract soldiers(ghazis) on the premise of holy war.Meanwhile,the ERE never believed in this with few exceptions(the last Roman-Persian War and a short period immediately after the Fourth Crusade). Based almost completely on spoils,the ghazis could be maintained cheaply and war was actually profitable.

The Ottoman Empire was also a full dynastic state,unlike the ERE,which was some kind of 'Monarchical Republic' as someone called it.Civil Wars were short and decisive and the result was a highly competent Sultan whose authority couldn't be challenged(at least in the early stages) because all of the loose ends(the other claimants) are dead.By contrast,in the ERE,any ambitious general can potentially usurp the throne.
 
While Otto were successful their form of success laid the basis for their fall. See the Otto won all their wars thanks to a powerful military lots of money and lots of manpower and religious resources. They also in the east faced far weaker enemies. FOR The majority of Byzantium post Arab invasions they were involved in a life or death struggle against the calphites who could field far larger armies and had vastly more resources than the byzantines. THE Otto faced a declining Mamluks and Persian Safaris but Byzzies had to deal with a state that controlled both regions and Africa and was far wealthier. It was the Byzantine Arab wars that stymied Byzantium and yet against all odds they were winning. IT Was only after Manzikert that Byzantium grew weak and by that point the west far too strong for Byzantium to face. Without turks I suspect Byzantines could have retake the Levant and maybe Egypt given the direction they were going.

For these reasons Byzantium was unable to replicate Otto so comparing them isn't useful since the Ottomans faced a completely different situation than what happened to Byzantium


However one area where Byzzies had Otto beat was manufacturing. the ottomans remained a heavily agriculture zed state which meant that by the 19th century their chances of industrializing were low. At the same time most of Anatolia and the mideast was undeveloped due to the tribal and nomadic cultures of the region which made population numbers low and ditto for development. Essentially the Otto were perfectly placed to dominate pre industrial but unable to deal at all with post industrial period. BYZANTIUM on the other hand given same resources and territory as Otto would have industrialized due to having large populations high urbanization rates and a focus on coerce and manufacturing.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
The early Ottoman Empire occupied pretty much the same territory as the late Byzantine Empire, however, the Ottomans were able to expand furiously through the eastern mediterranean, while the Byzantines even at their strongest (Kommenoi) were unable to fully regain the balkans and asia minor even. And that's when Turks were a cultural and religious minority over much of the area they covered.

So what made the Ottomans so succesful compared to the Byzantines, and is there any scenario where the Byzantines can adopt this secret formula to survive and recover?

The Komenoi DID recover the Balkans.

Byzantium_in_1170%283%29.PNG


It was los due the criminal incompetence of the Angeloi.
 
The Komenoi DID recover the Balkans.

Byzantium_in_1170%283%29.PNG


It was los due the criminal incompetence of the Angeloi.

BTzantium collapsed because of komneoi system that lead to heavy reliance on dynastic politics and a feudalization of the Byzantine dynatoi. The angelii were simply a part of that dysfunctional system it is just that Alex III and Iv made situation worse. Isaac II was average as an emperor
 
Read above post on why Byzzies couldn't take Levant Egypt and syria

Because the Safavids were pushovers, unlike the sultanates that a bunch of Crusaders managed to defeat? Uhuh.

I also disagree with "BYZANTIUM on the other hand given same resources and territory as Otto would have industrialized due to having large populations high urbanization rates and a focus on coerce and manufacturing."

IIRC, the Byzantines put their economy in hock to Italian merchants. This doesn't sound like people who were all about commerce.
 
Because the Safavids were pushovers, unlike the sultanates that a bunch of Crusaders managed to defeat? Uhuh.

I also disagree with "BYZANTIUM on the other hand given same resources and territory as Otto would have industrialized due to having large populations high urbanization rates and a focus on coerce and manufacturing."

IIRC, the Byzantines put their economy in hock to Italian merchants. This doesn't sound like people who were all about commerce.
I never said safavids were pushovers. I simply said the abbasid caliphate at its height was a far greater threat to Byzantium than the Safavids in the east to Ottos. I am not saying safavids weren't strong they were.

Also yes it is because the Italians seized trade that Byz colapsed. At least one big reason. byzantium had its lifeblood in trade and commerce and manufacturing. The moment it lost its edge in these fields coupled wit simultaneous attacks from multiple sides as well as horrid internal trouble it becomes when not if byzantium collapses. By the time Byzantium stabilized in the 10th century the west had already started forming powerful states and was too much for Byzantium to handle Like Otto's they couldnt break into Germany.

As for the east comparing the weakened late Fatimid to the Rashidis, Ummayyads, Abbasid or even early Fatamids does great disservice to those incredible Arabic/berber civilizations. Any of the above three civs would have kicked crusader asses. All those empires listed above had double the resources and territory and manpower as the Safavids yet Byzantium retained survived evolved and adapted meeting the threat and had pretty much won by the 11th century prior to the advent of the Turks.

Also why do you disagrees that byzantium would not have industrialized due to above reasons. Those reasons are the causes for industrialization and modernization or at least most factors that are currently held as the broad mainstream consensus by economic historians as to why Europe industrialized while Asia did not from both the california school of Paul Allen and the FIndlay/Rourke/Parsannan/Maddison school.

In otl the Ottoman population stagnated as too did its gdp per cpita by the 1700s-1800s and not to mention its urbanization rates especially in Anatolia and levant were low. Their was no way the Ottoman state could have industrialized given the situation position and issues it faced at the time. They tried and failed because of these factors above. Now ahd the state made attempts from early on to increase the development of cities in Asia minor and the levant rather than waste manpower on useless wars in Europe then provinces like Syria, Iraq and Anatolia would have high literacy rates be well developed and not backwaters like they were in the 19th century.

I have stats, figures and data that back me up on these points and I can show them to you. Where are your figures and facts and data that paint a different story of 1800s and 1900s Ottoman economy and society. Tariffs too played a role. THe Otto manufacturing industry collapsed due to being flooded by Asian silks and cotton. Unnlike France or Britain Ottos did not erect protectionist tariffs and so were unable to compete. Now change that and have Ottos establish tariffs and adopt short term protectionism and perhaps the story could change. I am not saying the Ottomans could not have ever industrialized or modernized. They could have just that it would require a POD in the 17th century to make it a viability. By 1700s it was too late.
 
Don't forget the era in which they operated also.
The Ottomans were largely a gunpowder era empire. The nadir of the Byzantines was in the era of castles.
Much easier for the Ottomans to expand.
 
I never said safavids were pushovers. I simply said the abbasid caliphate at its height was a far greater threat to Byzantium than the Safavids in the east to Ottos. I am not saying safavids weren't strong they were.

Also yes it is because the Italians seized trade that Byz colapsed. At least one big reason. byzantium had its lifeblood in trade and commerce and manufacturing. The moment it lost its edge in these fields coupled wit simultaneous attacks from multiple sides as well as horrid internal trouble it becomes when not if byzantium collapses. By the time Byzantium stabilized in the 10th century the west had already started forming powerful states and was too much for Byzantium to handle Like Otto's they couldnt break into Germany.

As for the east comparing the weakened late Fatimid to the Rashidis, Ummayyads, Abbasid or even early Fatamids does great disservice to those incredible Arabic/berber civilizations. Any of the above three civs would have kicked crusader asses. All those empires listed above had double the resources and territory and manpower as the Safavids yet Byzantium retained survived evolved and adapted meeting the threat and had pretty much won by the 11th century prior to the advent of the Turks.

Also why do you disagrees that byzantium would not have industrialized due to above reasons. Those reasons are the causes for industrialization and modernization or at least most factors that are currently held as the broad mainstream consensus by economic historians as to why Europe industrialized while Asia did not from both the california school of Paul Allen and the FIndlay/Rourke/Parsannan/Maddison school.

In otl the Ottoman population stagnated as too did its gdp per cpita by the 1700s-1800s and not to mention its urbanization rates especially in Anatolia and levant were low. Their was no way the Ottoman state could have industrialized given the situation position and issues it faced at the time. They tried and failed because of these factors above. Now ahd the state made attempts from early on to increase the development of cities in Asia minor and the levant rather than waste manpower on useless wars in Europe then provinces like Syria, Iraq and Anatolia would have high literacy rates be well developed and not backwaters like they were in the 19th century.

I have stats, figures and data that back me up on these points and I can show them to you. Where are your figures and facts and data that paint a different story of 1800s and 1900s Ottoman economy and society. Tariffs too played a role. THe Otto manufacturing industry collapsed due to being flooded by Asian silks and cotton. Unnlike France or Britain Ottos did not erect protectionist tariffs and so were unable to compete. Now change that and have Ottos establish tariffs and adopt short term protectionism and perhaps the story could change. I am not saying the Ottomans could not have ever industrialized or modernized. They could have just that it would require a POD in the 17th century to make it a viability. By 1700s it was too late.



While I definitely agree with your points, I have some objections:

1. The Fatimids I would argue at any point were not as strong as the Safavid state at the time of Chaldiran, the Fatimids were barely respected by the crusader armies much less by other Turko-Arab regimes. Further more the Saljuks were definitely stronger than the earlier Fatimid state and were defeated by the crusaders... Don't neglect the fact that the crusaders were a fierce force capable of many things and would be difficult for any Islamic regime to face.

2. The Abbasids were not as strong as say the Umayyads in that the Umayyads were clear and definite in the way in which they waged Jihad and were not as wracked by rebellion as the Abbasid (Mu'Tazila I'm looking at you) and composed continuous Jihad upon Byzantium. The Abbasids did not do such. Further the Abbasid for all the supposed manpower was not I contest the military power claimed, I mean their hobby was basically getting phyric victories over religious rebels.

3. Also, do not neglect how difficult and powerful enemies the Ottomans fought. Let me give examples, Timurids, Safavids, Spain, Russia, Venice, Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, Habsburg empire, etc... The Ottomans were an extremely resilient state as well. It in many ways was much more so than any other Islamic state (perhaps it inherited this from Byzantium?) and I and one could argue that the Ottomabs was the greatest Islamic state in history followed by the Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, Muwahiddun, etc
 
While I definitely agree with your points, I have some objections:

1. The Fatimids I would argue at any point were not as strong as the Safavid state at the time of Chaldiran, the Fatimids were barely respected by the crusader armies much less by other Turko-Arab regimes. Further more the Saljuks were definitely stronger than the earlier Fatimid state and were defeated by the crusaders... Don't neglect the fact that the crusaders were a fierce force capable of many things and would be difficult for any Islamic regime to face.

2. The Abbasids were not as strong as say the Umayyads in that the Umayyads were clear and definite in the way in which they waged Jihad and were not as wracked by rebellion as the Abbasid (Mu'Tazila I'm looking at you) and composed continuous Jihad upon Byzantium. The Abbasids did not do such. Further the Abbasid for all the supposed manpower was not I contest the military power claimed, I mean their hobby was basically getting phyric victories over religious rebels.

3. Also, do not neglect how difficult and powerful enemies the Ottomans fought. Let me give examples, Timurids, Safavids, Spain, Russia, Venice, Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, Habsburg empire, etc... The Ottomans were an extremely resilient state as well. It in many ways was much more so than any other Islamic state (perhaps it inherited this from Byzantium?) and I and one could argue that the Ottomabs was the greatest Islamic state in history followed by the Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, Muwahiddun, etc

I agree the Ottos were strong but the OP asked why Ottos were so successfull expanding and if you lok at direction they expanded mostly it was into levant egypt africa and mesopatamia because they couldnt make inroads into europe. The fact that they were resilient is quite incredible ut I am not talking about the Ottoman state in terms of its resilience or capabilities to fight foreign powers more like I am looking at who their enemies were in the east on their route to expansion. In that scenario the enemies would be the Safavids and early on the Mamluks not Europeans since the Ottoman empire only covered otl Byz post loss of Italy territory in its european region in otl.

As for timurids well during otl ottoman expansion post 1440s the timurids were already collapsing and falling apart..
 
IIRC, the Byzantines put their economy in hock to Italian merchants. This doesn't sound like people who were all about commerce.

In all fairness, the lines between Byzantine subject and Venetian merchant were blurry at times. Doesn't mean that gutting the local merchant class to the benefit of Venice was a good idea, of course.
 
I agree the Ottos were strong but the OP asked why Ottos were so successfull expanding and if you lok at direction they expanded mostly it was into levant egypt africa and mesopatamia because they couldnt make inroads into europe. The fact that they were resilient is quite incredible ut I am not talking about the Ottoman state in terms of its resilience or capabilities to fight foreign powers more like I am looking at who their enemies were in the east on their route to expansion. In that scenario the enemies would be the Safavids and early on the Mamluks not Europeans since the Ottoman empire only covered otl Byz post loss of Italy territory in its european region in otl.

As for timurids well during otl ottoman expansion post 1440s the timurids were already collapsing and falling apart..


They expanded far better than the Byzantines did against far more varied foes. The Byzantines simply fought off the Umayyads then who were replaced by the self crippling Abbasids. Then when the Byzantines faced more expansionist enemies they started to crumble, hence the crusades. The Ottamans kept its power for a much larger period.

The initial expansion from the Ottomans under Bayezid was stopped by the Timurids and they recovered, in many ways it was an event like the 4th crusade for Byzantium who barely recovered and recovered only to be conquered throughly, while the Ottomans recovered fully and stronger than ever defeating the Varnan crusade, Burjii of Egypt (Mamluks), Safavids, etc...
 
Top