What made the early Ottomans so successful?

I believe economics comes into the explanation of Ottoman success. Although the Byzantines had lost control over the tax income from land and trade (as I posted earlier), the Ottomans hadn't. The Ottomans were able to get the Jizya tax revenues and they also had no difficulty in getting their people to fight for the cause as ghazis, whereas the Byzantine nobles didn't pay tax and didn't fight, leading the state to rely on unreliable mercenaries. Also, the Ottomans could usually expand in one direction at a time, while the Byzantines had powerful enemies on all sides.

Suggest a possible POD,anyone? I mean before the Byzantines lost large regions of Western Anatolia.

The Ottomans first appeared around 1299. The father of Osman I was Ertugrul; we don't know when he was born but he died in 1280. It is said that Ertugrul was the one who conquered the village of Sogut, which was called Thebasion until 1231. This was the origins of the Ottomans.

A PoD that prevents Byzantines from losing Western Anatolia probably needs to happen no later than 1290s. One can see that if this happens, it's likely Ottomans never emerge. One possibility was to make Alexios Anthropenos become Emperor in 1295 (earlier is better). It's difficult, because even here it may be too late. But he was a very good general and respected by Turks and Byzantines. Both of these served in his army.

It's not impossible that if he becomes emperor, we can see the Byzantines recruit a mixed army of Greeks and Turks and use this to gain control over some of the beyliks.

Success of the Ottomans was probably based on a mix of economic reasons, mentality of the society and organization. If the Byzantines want to rise again, it would be a good idea to reform the state significantly, to completely reorganize the way lands are given, who pays tax, and how the army is organized and paid. Who can do it? It would take the greatest emperor in their history, I think.
 
Last edited:
Actually, it's you who didn't answer the question. At least @Albert.Nik made an effort to express an opinion. He has contributed more to this thread than you have. Instead of criticising others, why not post something yourself?
Tha't because i have actually nothing to say, and I didn't criticize, the post is still very interesting, I learned things, but it fails to give a proper answer. In any case, we aren't here to fight, but to exchange.
 

Marc

Donor
I believe economics comes into the explanation of Ottoman success. Although the Byzantines had lost control over the tax income from land and trade (as I posted earlier), the Ottomans hadn't. The Ottomans were able to get the Jizya tax revenues and they also had no difficulty in getting their people to fight for the cause as ghazis, whereas the Byzantine nobles didn't pay tax and didn't fight, leading the state to rely on unreliable mercenaries. Also, the Ottomans could usually expand in one direction at a time, while the Byzantines had powerful enemies on all sides.



The Ottomans first appeared around 1299. The father of Osman I was Ertugrul; we don't know when he was born but he died in 1280. It is said that Ertugrul was the one who conquered the village of Sogut, which was called Thebasion until 1231. This was the origins of the Ottomans.

A PoD that prevents Byzantines from losing Western Anatolia probably needs to happen no later than 1290s. One can see that if this happens, it's likely Ottomans never emerge. One possibility was to make Alexios Anthropenos become Emperor in 1295 (earlier is better). It's difficult, because even here it may be too late. But he was a very good general and respected by Turks and Byzantines. Both of these served in his army.

It's not impossible that if he becomes emperor, we can see the Byzantines recruit a mixed army of Greeks and Turks and use this to gain control over some of the beyliks.

Success of the Ottomans was probably based on a mix of economic reasons, mentality of the society and organization. If the Byzantines want to rise again, it would be a good idea to reform the state significantly, to completely reorganize the way lands are given, who pays tax, and how the army is organized and paid. Who can do it? It would take the greatest emperor in their history, I think.

All the Byzantine had to do, and could have done, is hold onto Bithynia for several decades longer, and the Ottoman story is stillborn.
 
All the Byzantine had to do, and could have done, is hold onto Bithynia for several decades longer, and the Ottoman story is stillborn.
And than they lose everything a little bit latter to another turkish beylik. But who knows? Maybe the time gained lets the italians jump in to... gangbang the bizzies again.
 
All the Byzantine had to do, and could have done, is hold onto Bithynia for several decades longer, and the Ottoman story is stillborn.

And than they lose everything a little bit latter to another turkish beylik. But who knows? Maybe the time gained lets the italians jump in to... gangbang the bizzies again.

There's a decent chance that Constantinople and what remained the Empire could have been taken by an ambitious Bulgarian or Serbian monarch by that point. A united Bulgarian-Byzantine Empire would stand a better chance at defending the Balkans from a random Turkish Beylik, or even potentially gaining the upper hand enough with the Italians that it could fund a small navy--enough to project power onto Bithynia, at least.

The Ottomans had the advantage of division in the Balkans and Greece as much as in Anatolia, and if they'd be unable to gain a foothold in Europe, they'd have been less able to exploit their internal advantages.
 
Alongside money, an aspect others have covered, I think a significant factor, at least from what I've read was the fact that as the House of Osman was on the edge of the Muslim World, with relatively rich pickings to take nearby, they were a prime destination for Ghazi - which would certainly assist in both expansion, and making the money to unify in Anatolia.

Not to say it is the full Ghaza Thesis, I mean it as a major contributing factor. Otherwise you've have to explain why the coastal Karasi and Aydin didn't rise to authority.

But really it was a balance of that factor, and events, really. There was no guarantee at the time that the Ottomans would rise to authority. (I mean, besides the whole vision from God thing).
 
If I recall correctly, the Ghazi myth in relations to early Osmanlı expansion has been discredited in modern academia due to its simplification of the Ottomans as Jihadi fanatics and ignoring a bunch of other factors. I believe this here addresses it well.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
It is because Kebab is glorious nation! They usurp Konstantinople from decadent Byzantium and build great empire. Stupid Muscovy infinite manpower is needed to even challenge us!
Wait...


You came back for a Kick on MONDAY.

Your record on actions is such that I literally can not tell if you are being a jerk in order to make a joke, making a joke without realizing you sound like a jerk, or if you are just sort of trolling.

That being the case I'm going to send you off for another seven.

Kicked for a week.
 
If I recall correctly, the Ghazi myth in relations to early Osmanlı expansion has been discredited in modern academia due to its simplification of the Ottomans as Jihadi fanatics and ignoring a bunch of other factors. I believe this here addresses it well.

That's why I specifically referenced the Ghaza Thesis - I don't think it is the ONLY factor, but it is certainly a contribution - it gave them manpower when and where they needed it. I'm specifically NOT saying the Ottomans are Jihadi Fanatics.
 
That's why I specifically referenced the Ghaza Thesis - I don't think it is the ONLY factor, but it is certainly a contribution - it gave them manpower when and where they needed it. I'm specifically NOT saying the Ottomans are Jihadi Fanatics.

Ah, apologies I seen to have missed the bottom two paragraphs somehow
 
Several good points has been made about Ottoman Empire but one of the most important parts seems to be missing which is Education.

First part of it is Education of the heirs was very compharansive. It started with the collage level of linguistics and math. Than continued in command of sanjak where heirs of sultan would apply all they knew about government in practical. This resulted in all sultan's being at least decent at their jobs. And you will note that when this system was replaced with cageing system sultan's stopped being good or even decent for the most part.

Another side of this is the devsirme system where young nonmuslim boys were taken and were (after converted) trained rigoursly. Among them smartest ones were sent to palace to become the government. Strongest become the janniseries etc.

Which meant Ottoman Empire government was great deal more effective since every body on it was both best and most educated people. It meant Ottoman Empire did not made any avoidable mistakes.

Once these systems got corrupted it was the end of Golden age.
 

Marc

Donor
One of the factors that doesn't seem to be taken into consideration often is the remarkable high quality of the Ottoman administrative class from early on, particularly at the executive levels.
 
Top