Basically what the title says. How were the Ottomans able to go from a minor Anatolian Principality to the Muslim Byzantine Empire in a century and a half? Was it a better military and administration? Skilled statesman and financiers? Luck? Or a combination of everything? Furthermore, could the Ottoman system of success be grafted onto another state, like a different Turkish princedom or even the Byzantines?
What made the early Ottomans so successful?
- Thread starter Emperor Constantine
- Start date
Albert.Nik
Banned
I would say some sort of luck. A lot of History or even most is luck. That's why Scientists say "Chance Existence". Ottomons or for that matter anyone were not divinely inspired. It was that Europe was in a mess. Civil wars,East-West division,Roman-Barbarian division,etc. Had a strong Frankish empire or something like that unified Europe by conquering or putting Byzantium on their side,the Ottomons would not have crossed Persia or Afghanistan and instead they would probably dissolve into Persia and Khwarazem and make an Empire there. It's all luck with a small combination of other things. The Turks had well settled in Central Asia and were actually pushed out by terrifying Mongols. But they wouldn't be any worse off there too. Their location and religion would be different(Shia/Sufi).
It's hard to pin down singular causes for the Ottoman Empire's rise, but the situation was ripe for an ambitious, expansionist power to form in the region at the time of the Osman onward and the European Christian leaders were completely unable to deal with the rising threat due to internal conflicts and arrogance completely destroying the chances of cooperation to destroy a common threat.
First thing to note is the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Sultanate of Rum and the lack of a hegemon in Anatolia that enabled an upstart Beylik to start accumulating power in Anatolia in the first place.
Then there was the power vacuum in the Balkans, with the Byzantines being fatally wounded ever since the 4th Crusade and the Serbian and Bulgian beating each other silly and being terribly unstable by the end. Those did wonders for Ottoman expansion, since they were able to expand into former East Roman lands with ease, both diplomatically (getting concessions from John VI Kantakouzer) and militarily (the rest of the Balkans). The infighting between the Christians (Genoa, Venice, Byzantium, Serbia, Bulgaria all mucking about with each other) and political instability in the region (Stephan Dushan's weak successor, the Bulgarian succession mess) made each power in the region vulnerable to the entrance of a new player with new military tactics into the region. That did much to streamline the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans.
The failures of the Crusades of Nicopolis and Varna were much in part due to a lack of organization among the Crusaders (the charge of Young King Władysław wasn't exactly what the other leaders had hoped for) and did much to bolster both Ottoman morale (the birth of the serhadd-i mansure, or the ever-advancing frontier, says as much) and the myth of Ottoman invincibility (which endured a century until the Siege of Malta, Battle of Lepanto, Siege of Vienna, etc.).
So, overall, the Ottomans had a lot going for them in that their potential enemies were all either weak enough for them to fight, too divided or disorganised due to previous issues or overconfidence to put up effective resistance, or in the midst of collapse regardless of foreign intervention when the Ottomans showed up on the scene.
Which isn't to downplay the actual military and administrative talent that kept the Empire growing for 3 centuries but a glance at the geopolitical scene of the Balkans in the 14th century does give quite the context in which the Ottomans were able to leverage that talent to its fullest extent and expand at a frightful rate, with the momentum of their conquests and stories of invincibility leading to further conquests and glory carrying them further and further until they ran out of steam and overextended just a bit too much (which let the European nations finally get some breathing room and begin the long process of evicting the Ottomans from the Balkans).
First thing to note is the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Sultanate of Rum and the lack of a hegemon in Anatolia that enabled an upstart Beylik to start accumulating power in Anatolia in the first place.
Then there was the power vacuum in the Balkans, with the Byzantines being fatally wounded ever since the 4th Crusade and the Serbian and Bulgian beating each other silly and being terribly unstable by the end. Those did wonders for Ottoman expansion, since they were able to expand into former East Roman lands with ease, both diplomatically (getting concessions from John VI Kantakouzer) and militarily (the rest of the Balkans). The infighting between the Christians (Genoa, Venice, Byzantium, Serbia, Bulgaria all mucking about with each other) and political instability in the region (Stephan Dushan's weak successor, the Bulgarian succession mess) made each power in the region vulnerable to the entrance of a new player with new military tactics into the region. That did much to streamline the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans.
The failures of the Crusades of Nicopolis and Varna were much in part due to a lack of organization among the Crusaders (the charge of Young King Władysław wasn't exactly what the other leaders had hoped for) and did much to bolster both Ottoman morale (the birth of the serhadd-i mansure, or the ever-advancing frontier, says as much) and the myth of Ottoman invincibility (which endured a century until the Siege of Malta, Battle of Lepanto, Siege of Vienna, etc.).
So, overall, the Ottomans had a lot going for them in that their potential enemies were all either weak enough for them to fight, too divided or disorganised due to previous issues or overconfidence to put up effective resistance, or in the midst of collapse regardless of foreign intervention when the Ottomans showed up on the scene.
Which isn't to downplay the actual military and administrative talent that kept the Empire growing for 3 centuries but a glance at the geopolitical scene of the Balkans in the 14th century does give quite the context in which the Ottomans were able to leverage that talent to its fullest extent and expand at a frightful rate, with the momentum of their conquests and stories of invincibility leading to further conquests and glory carrying them further and further until they ran out of steam and overextended just a bit too much (which let the European nations finally get some breathing room and begin the long process of evicting the Ottomans from the Balkans).
Last edited:
Lord_Vespasian
Banned
Kick
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!
@BellaGerant, so what your saying is the Ottomans were simply in the right place at the right time? That seems oversimplistic; I mean if that was the case, why did an Ottoman Empire rise instead of say, a Karamanid or Germiyanid Empire instead?
Many things. The biggest one was that Turkish rule was better than Byzantine rule.
Lord Kinross talks about this in his book 'The Ottoman Centuries'. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ottoman-Centuries-Rise-Turkish-Empire/dp/0688080936
Even though Kinross is somewhat old fashioned in places, he gets it right in the sense that he describes how the early Ottomans were more meritocratic, anybody could contribute and share in their success. They generally had better leaders, and the society was free from all the internal divisions, inefficiencies and flaws that beset Byzantium. It was a vigorous society that combined the best of many different cultures, Persian, Turk, Arab, Greek and others. Some of the early Ottomans were former Byzantine nobles and their supporters who converted.
It's a process of evolution. Natural selection and survival of the fittest were well at work here. By this I mean the Ottoman society was much better organised and better led than the Byzantine one. Success breeds success. Within just a few years of the fall of Nicaea, many of the citizens had already converted to Islam. They could see which way the wind was blowing. The Ottomans offered peace, safety and security, and lower taxes. The Byzantines had nothing left to offer except civil strife, enemy invasions and devastation. The Byzantine state and society had degenerated into a dead end.
Last edited:
Albert.Nik
Banned
Byzantines were in my opinion poorly organized and more concerned about which Church is the best and who is a Barbarian and who is a Roman. The Abbasids and Fatimids seem to have been an excellent replacement in the East for the Byzantines but they were crushed by the Mongols and other Central Asian tribes and as some sources say,fierce Genocides took place. I can't talk anything Pro Ottomons seeing their incredibly horrific and uncomfortable history. Though ironic to his Username,I would agree about the Byzantine Empire.
In the West,however,though there were no Fatimids or Abbasids,there were my favourites. The Germanic successors of the WRE. The Frankish,British,German,Nordic people of the Germanic successors reorganized whatever was there into a grand success we today must be grateful to. Add Hungarians,Czech,Slovaks,etc from the non Germanic branch. The Roman Empire needed a pending radical reform which they might have taken up if not for the various developments that happened due to natural climate cooling change that led the Huns and the Gokturks out of their habitat. Not the Germanic people nor the Turkic people were divinely ordained to rule irrespective of what one likes to think. Both are from an Ape family who evolved to be intelligent few million years ago in East Africa. It's all nature and natural Scientific aspects. Good and bad is all depends on the circumstances! For example,a place with people heavily warlike Barbarians once is today heaven on Earth with one of the best societies currently existent(Scandinavia and Northern Europe). So it's all nature and time. Nothing more. Even if God exists,God isnt relevant here as this is the Natural World explained by Science well. Nobody and everybody are Divinely inspired at the same time IMO!
In the West,however,though there were no Fatimids or Abbasids,there were my favourites. The Germanic successors of the WRE. The Frankish,British,German,Nordic people of the Germanic successors reorganized whatever was there into a grand success we today must be grateful to. Add Hungarians,Czech,Slovaks,etc from the non Germanic branch. The Roman Empire needed a pending radical reform which they might have taken up if not for the various developments that happened due to natural climate cooling change that led the Huns and the Gokturks out of their habitat. Not the Germanic people nor the Turkic people were divinely ordained to rule irrespective of what one likes to think. Both are from an Ape family who evolved to be intelligent few million years ago in East Africa. It's all nature and natural Scientific aspects. Good and bad is all depends on the circumstances! For example,a place with people heavily warlike Barbarians once is today heaven on Earth with one of the best societies currently existent(Scandinavia and Northern Europe). So it's all nature and time. Nothing more. Even if God exists,God isnt relevant here as this is the Natural World explained by Science well. Nobody and everybody are Divinely inspired at the same time IMO!
Last edited:
Max Sinister
Banned
And why did the Ottomans beat all the other Seljuk successor states? What was so special about them? Except Osman's dream of the crescent spanning the world, telling him he was chosen to conquer the world for Islam?
There is no doubt that the events of 1204 were a massive blow to the Romans, but I don't think it was inevitable that they would collapse. The collapse of the Sultanate of Rum gave them a new opportunity. In 1300 they were still in a decent position. Unfortunately they had poor leadership over the next century and that was really when things were lost for good.
The early Ottoman state was placed the right place, its military institutions was great and the Ottoman Empire over its entire history was pretty much the most stable Muslim state which have existed. But even with that we shouldn’t ignore luck, some other Seljuk state could likely have done what the Ottoman did earlier or, if the Ottoman had failed, later with a little luck.
As Suvorov put it, “everybody keeps talking about luck but maybe it is time to acknowledge a talent?”
For all practical purposes, the Ottomans created a high-quality regular infantry at the time when it was almost non-existent. Most of their opponents on the West still had been relying upon the feudal militias and on the top of it usually had a lot of the internal problems. For example, conquest of Hungary happened only after 2 successive kings thoroughly destroyed the regular army. Both at Varna and Nikopol the battles were lost due to disorganized attacks of the knights, etc. Plus, at least initialLy, they were closely following technological advances: switched to the firearms and created a powerful artillery really fast. Chances of the feudal armies against the well-disciplined regular troops were generally not good and when such troops finally appeared in Europe, the old style warfare went down the tubes (and so pretty much did successful Ottoman push to the West). The Ottomans were “lucky” to create their system before the Europeans did so.
In Egypt at the time of conquest the Mamelukes stil had been using the bows and did not have infantry (and seemingly still were too much into a personal prowess). Not sure about Persia pre Nadir Shah. Crimea was vulnerable against attack from the sea. The Balkans were a mess.
AFAIK, the Janissary had been Ottoman invention and presumably they were the 1st modern standing army. Of course, this does not mean that the infantry did not exist before them but they made it into a permanently existing, regularly trained and uniformly equipped organization.
As for the Seljuks, my impression (can't tell for sure) is that in most of their known engagements they were predominantly a light cavalry using hit and run tactics with the various degrees of success.
Power vacuum was, indeed, there but to become a major expansionist power you need to have an instrument allowing you to fill that vacuum. For the Ottomans such an instrument was a regular infantry they created, janissary. While being just a component of their whole military system it was giving a winning edge against the opponents who did not have anything of the kind.
Marc
Donor
A couple of brief comments:
First, the Osmans were Oghuz, not Seljuk Turks; related, but not identical culturally, think French and Spanish if you will. The former are later arrivals to the Middle East, and newer to Islam (and more inclined to mysticism).
Second, Don't underestimate the impact of location. The Osman state was at the tip of a jihadist spear, and therefore drew a disproportionate number of Orghuz Ghazi corporations - giving them a substantial early military edge.
First, the Osmans were Oghuz, not Seljuk Turks; related, but not identical culturally, think French and Spanish if you will. The former are later arrivals to the Middle East, and newer to Islam (and more inclined to mysticism).
Second, Don't underestimate the impact of location. The Osman state was at the tip of a jihadist spear, and therefore drew a disproportionate number of Orghuz Ghazi corporations - giving them a substantial early military edge.
Last edited:
Marc
Donor
All right, let me clarify, The Seljuks considered themselves a major branching off from the Western Turks that are commonly (well, in non academic circles) called the Oghuz. The Seljuks certainly saw themselves as distinctive - why I used the loose analogy of French and Spanish.
As an example, the Seljuks were heavily Persianized by the time they arrived in Anatolia... hmm, perhaps a better comparison would be the differences between the West Franks and East Franks by the 10/11th century.
Sorry if I implied that they were an altogether a different Turkic cluster.
No, I literally said "It's hard to pin down singular causes for the Ottoman Empire's rise" and my focus on the geopolitical situation of the Balkans in the 14th century wasn't meant "to downplay the actual military and administrative talent that kept the Empire growing for 3 centuries." There were many different factors, military, bureaucratic, economic, etc. that went into the success of the Ottoman Empire, one of which is the geopolitical aspect that I mentioned previously.
Anyways, if we're still focusing on the geopolitical aspect, the Ottomans being on the westernmost part of Anatolia mean they were right next to the core of by-then abject and crumbling Byzantine Empire. This let them swallow up Bithynia with relative ease while the Byzantines were beset on three sides (Serbs to the west, Bulgarians to the north, Ottomans to the east), which forced the Byzantines to make concessions to the Ottomans that helped facilitate the latter's initial expansion into Europe (Gallipoli under Orhan I), gaining them valuable loot and resources for war in all directions. This allowed them a position to take Eastern Thrace, which further cut the Byzantines off from the rest of their holdings and allies while allowing the Ottomans to exploit Byzantine infrastructure for their own administration. Being on Anatolia's western coast also helped the Ottomans secure all routes from Anatolia into an increasingly unstable Balkans, which prevented other Turkish beyliks from raiding and invading the Balkans in the same fashion.
Those are things that the Ottomans had over the Karamanids and Germinyanids, which does factor into the equation.
At the same time, I'll again say that I don't think that that was the only reason; it certainly helped but such events rely not only on position but on the gumption, wherewithal, and, dare I say, talent to identify the opportunities afforded by one's position and to pursue the decisions that would allow the exploitation of said opportunities, the Ottomans having all of the above during their establishing period.
Again, in my defense, I did say that it wasn't the only reason and that what I said wasn't meant "to downplay the actual military and administrative talent that kept the Empire growing for 3 centuries."
Simply that that was a contributing factor that allowed the Ottoman's effective institutions and leadership to excel past all expectation in their meteoric rise, as opposed to pure luck as posited before my post. Was it the only thing, no, that's an oversimplification. But was it an advantage they had over the other beyliks? That's a bit easier to justify, I'd say.
If there was no power vacuum, the Ottomans wouldn't have seen as much success as they did OTL is something I think is reasonable enough to state. In that case, it does relate to OP's question, even if it doesn't act as the complete answer.
Well, the Empire of Nicaea had only retaken Constantinople in 1261 and they had lost almost all of their Anatolian holdings between then and 1300. To say that the Byzantines were in decent shape in 1300 is a bit generous, all things considered, seeing as their navy had been dismantled due to costs, they were still at odds with Genoa and Venice (the latter of whom they were at war with in 1300), and the Turks were still pushing into the eastern border, made especially weak with the transfer of troops from the east to fight in the west against Serbs, Latins, and Bulgarians.There is no doubt that the events of 1204 were a massive blow to the Romans, but I don't think it was inevitable that they would collapse. The collapse of the Sultanate of Rum gave them a new opportunity. In 1300 they were still in a decent position. Unfortunately they had poor leadership over the next century and that was really when things were lost for good.
The collapse of the Sultanate of Rum afforded them little in opportunities as the Serbian and Bulgarian Empires kept pressing into Byzantine lands and forcing their attention westward, that being one of the reasons the Ottomans were able to fill the power vacuum in western Anatolia in the first place instead of being stomped out in their infancy.
Was Byzantine collapse guaranteed? Perhaps not, but it was certainly more likely than not even in 1300.