Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Middle Eastern and African History Middle Eastern and African History Forum - Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and all nations of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 14th, 2013, 10:25 AM   #51
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2013
From: Turkiye
Posts: 31

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aetius View Post
AFAIK, all modern authors are agreed that the Ottomans did not employ cannon at the battle of Angora in 1402. Neither did Timur in all of his campaigns.

IIRC, the oldest clear evidence of the use of cannon or handguns by the Ottomans dates to 1422, a century later than in France and England. Their siege artillery arsenal was built up too by Christians (Christians). The Ottomans never overcame their dependence on European weapons technology.
I humbly recommend you to read the book, Guns for Sultan Military Power and the Weapons Industry in the Ottoman Empire by Gabor Agoston about that failed dependency theory.

Also,Johann (Hans) Schiltberger (1380 – c. 1440) mentions small firearms were used by Ottomans against Karamanids.

Last edited by HeroSK; December 14th, 2013 at 10:33 AM.
HeroSK is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 14th, 2013, 11:23 AM   #52

mighty bear's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 635

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponka View Post
....lol, as if Ottomans or Timirud were living in industrial or satellite era ...
Which is exactly why they were not Superpowers. They were both great powers. A 'Superpower' is a modern term for a modern age. A country with global reach. How often did the courts of England, France, Portugal or China consider the Timurs in their affairs? Because during their heights, all Governments considered the British, Soviets and Americans when acting on the international stage.
mighty bear is offline  
Old December 14th, 2013, 02:31 PM   #53
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: United States
Posts: 137

Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty bear View Post
Which is exactly why they were not Superpowers. They were both great powers. A 'Superpower' is a modern term for a modern age. A country with global reach. How often did the courts of England, France, Portugal or China consider the Timurs in their affairs? Because during their heights, all Governments considered the British, Soviets and Americans when acting on the international stage.
C'mon dude...

If you go by the strict modern usage of the term, then only USSR and U.S are super power because the term was coined for them...But historians and scholars have repeatedly applied this term to the supreme powers of past..

This is like fourth thread where people, instead of discussing the topic, have deviated into this useless discussion.

What waste of time...
Ponka is offline  
Old December 14th, 2013, 04:19 PM   #54

civfanatic's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 864
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turuk View Post
So how do you define superpower?

In times of Mongol, America was not even discovered. Is it not enough that they ruled almost all of Eurasia? Biggest land mass empire ever? What did Brits rule? They only ruled hunter gatherers, did they ever conquer a big empire? No, they went and conquered people that wore a chicken bone through their nose. So much for a super power.
A "superpower" is a state that possesses sufficient power to influence events on a global scale. There are two types of power - "hard" power and "soft" power - and thus there are two essential components of a superpower:

1) Having the ability to project military power on a global scale. For example, both the U.S. and USSR has/had long-range bombers and submarines that could strike anywhere in the world. This is the hard power component.

2) Having a culture, ideology and/or sociopolitical system that is highly influential and attractive throughout the world. For example, U.S. has capitalist democracy and the USSR had Marxism-Leninism. The latter isn't so popular nowadays, but during the Cold War many people in the Third World (and even quite a few in the First World) were quire attracted by the Soviet ideals. Socialist and Marxist-Leninist movements emerged on every continent, from Vietnam to Angola to Cuba, and all of them looked towards the USSR as their ideological "leader". This is the soft power component.

The British Empire is also considered a superpower in the 19th and early 20th century, because it is also possessed enormous hard and soft power, and applied this throughout the whole globe. The British Navy was the world's largest and most powerful until the rise of America, and British culture and political institutions probably shaped the world more than any other. English is the first truly international language, and the fact that we are all speaking English on this forum is living proof of British soft power.

Now please show me how the Mongols, Ottomans, or Timurids satisfy the above components. The Mongols and Timurids didn't even know how large the world actually was.


Quote:
The Ottomans smashed the Roman Empire, put it in a cofin and made it history. Ottomans also dominated the silk road to Europe and had a monopoly on goods coming from Asia to Europe. It was only after discovery of Europe by Spaniards things changed, alternative road to Asia was found.
When the Ottomans conquered the Roman "Empire", it was not really an "empire" anymore but a small, weak regional state. The Ottomans at their height were a great power, but never a superpower. They could never project their military power to somewhere really distant like South Africa, Peru, or Korea. Their culture, ideology, or sociopolitical system was never influential on a global scale like that of the British, Soviets, and Americans.
civfanatic is online now  
Old December 15th, 2013, 04:07 AM   #55

Reis's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,031

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aetius View Post
AFAIK, all modern authors are agreed that the Ottomans did not employ cannon at the battle of Angora in 1402. Neither did Timur in all of his campaigns.

Quote:
According to some archival documents and other
manuscripts, firearms were used by the Ottomans in the last decade of the fouiteenth century, and were
plentifully and effectively used in the time of both the Sultans F.iurad 11(1421-1451) and Mehmed 11(1451-
1481). 10
The Ottomans are reported to have used hand cannons and cannon like weapons during the battle of Kosovo and Nukalp.
We can surely deduce that the Ottomans used early handcannons by the records of the Ottoman army which record the number of Jannisaries placed in certain strongholds in the Rumelia region and with what they are armed with.

I do not assert that Timur used cannons and handguns I am only talking about the Ottomans.
Quote:
The Ottomans never overcame their dependence on European weapons technology.
This is also wrong.
Quote:
Jörg of Nuremberg, the author of ‘Ayìi Tractat von der Türcken seems to have been sent to the Herzog ¡n 1456 by Count Ulrich de Cilly. According to his ownaccount, he stayed ¡n Bosnia until 1461, cast several cannons there and was taken prisoner, together with
his wife and children, during an attack on the Herzoq Stjepan by the foi-ces of his son Vladislav and the
Ottomans. .71 According to J. Needharn, when he got back to Germany, he brought with him a new cannon casting technology which he had learnt when he was in service of the Ottomans. In Frankfurt in 1486 he melted and cast cannons in a “wind-pot” or kiln; that is, he was able to cast his pieces without contact between metal and fuel. The invention is significant for “it was ancestral to all the reverberatory furnaces (puddling, open heart, etc.) of European siderurgy.” As we mentioned he also worked for a long time in the Ottoman Empire as a cannon founder, and thus it is strongly assumed that he may have learned the technique in the imperial cannon foundry.72

Quote:
The Muslims had qun-founders of their own but, whenever the possibility arose, they always tried to acquire Western technicians. In many cases, they did not have to “capture” the craftsmen. Then, as always, there were many ready to sell their skills to rivals, if the salary was hiqh enouqh.
Quote:
The Ottoman authorities in the capital city Adrianople (Edirne) developed cannon-foundries at the beginning of the fifteenth century. During these attempts mobile and fixed cannons were produced. The oldest arsenal was produced during the Murad II period in Adrianople. Even before this time, there had been mobile cannon foundries around castles to facilitate any attack against them. However it is well known that during the reign of Mehmed II, cannon founding attempts peaked due to his continuing plans to capture Constantinople. These works were organised by his master artilleryman Saruca Usta and architect Muslihuddin, although Ivlehmed II constantly controlled these works even attending to the design of a range of cannon sizes.7°
Quote:
Mehmed II gave much attention to the production of firearms8° even after the conquest of Constantinople;in the 1470’s, he constructed a central imperial cannon casting foundry (i.e., Tophâne-i Amire), the biggest casting centre of the day, which included both the indigenous and foreign gunners. Even though there is not much specific knowledge about this cannon foundry during the reign of Mehmed II, ¡t is known that large calibre cannons were cast.81
The personal interest of Mehmed II in military affairs especially ¡n giant cannons was commonly known ¡n Europe so that authors of military treaties dedicated their works to him and rulers who wanted to gain his support or simply desired to preserve good relations with him dispatched their own military experts to the Sultan. A manuscript copy of Roberto Valturio’s (1413-84) De re Mi//tail was sent to the Sultan by Sigismundo Malatesta in 1461, despite recurring attempts at prohibiting the transfer of up to date military knowledge to the “infidels,” mainly by the Papacy and by countries at war with the Ottomans.82 The period of Mehmed II is well known as the golden age of Ottoman bronze foundry work. It is known that the Ottomans produced many types and quantities of cannons during the time of Mehmed 11.83 Some military sources indicate that the enemy had seized two hundred cannons during the siege of Belgrade in 1456, which were carried away to the palace of the Hungarian King in due course. These cannons received much attention according to both native and foreign sources which note that the extraordinary precision and size of them created such great excitement in Europe that people from different countries came to see the cannons: it is evident that the fame of the Ottoman-made-cannons had reached all Europe.
Although just like any country the Ottomans were dependant on trade and resources from other countries this shows that the Ottomans were able to not only cast their own cannons but at times surpass those of others.
Your assertion that the Ottomans were always dependent on European technology is simply wrong.

Last edited by Reis; December 15th, 2013 at 05:49 AM.
Reis is offline  
Old December 15th, 2013, 04:12 AM   #56

Reis's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,031

Quote:
Originally Posted by civfanatic View Post
They could never project their military power to somewhere really distant like South Africa, Peru, or Korea. Their culture, ideology, or sociopolitical system was never influential on a global scale like that of the British, Soviets, and Americans.
They could however project their power to Indonesia , the Java Islands against Portugal while at the same time fighting the Spanish in the Canary Islands , facing several Holy leagues in the Balkans, financing Protestant groups in Europe or helping the French capture Niece with their navy.
Their influence reached all the way to Kenya and inner Africa.
As for their cultural and social influence while not on par with modern British influence they certainly had cultural and social impact on the world at the height of their power.Perhaps more than any other contemporary Empire of that time.

Personally I find it redundant that one would nit pick this small error of that large post and continue on about it for several pages.

Last edited by Reis; December 15th, 2013 at 05:36 AM.
Reis is offline  
Old December 15th, 2013, 05:51 AM   #57
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 598

@ HeroSK

Thanks, I will take a look into your source.

@ Reis

The first reliable date for the use of cannon by the Ottomans is 1422 (see sources below). The Ottomans were able to produce cannon and guns after 1453 themselves, in large enough quantities and quality to become very successful on the Balkans and long hold their own against Habsburg and Russia, but they never stopped being reliant on the flow of technology, experts and weapons from Europe. Over time, it became increasingly apparent that could not keep up with the quickening pace of European weapons technology. In 1807, they still used the same cannon type to guard the Dardanelles as at the siege of Constantinople in 1453 (
Dardanelles_Gun Dardanelles_Gun
).

Quote:
There is scattered evidence that the Ottomans themselves may have used firearms at Kossovo, at Constantinople in the unsuccessful siege of 1396-97, or at Ankara in 1402, but none of it is conclusive. The Ottomans apparently had acquired firearms by 1422, from whatever source, because they deployed cannon against Constantinople in that year.

Firearms: A Global History to 1700, p. 85
Quote:
Ayalon says the first reliable report of the use of firearms by the Ottomans is in the siege of Antalia in 1425, but Kananos was a contemporary witness; Finlay says cannon were first used by the Ottoman Turks in a siege of Constantinople in 1422, but they were inferior and produced little effect.

A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder, p. 142
Aetius is offline  
Old December 15th, 2013, 05:59 AM   #58

Reis's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,031

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aetius View Post

The first reliable date for the use of cannon by the Ottomans is 1422 (see sources below).
There is no agreement on that statement.Various other sources consider the battle of Kosovo to be the first time gunpoweder weapons were used by the Ottomans.
Quote:
We know that the Ottomans began to use cannons during the first battle of Kosovo (1389), but we do not know how and when a standing artillery corps wasfounded. Most probably the first artillery units were founded during the reign of Bayezid I.74
A Millitary History of the Ottomans .Edward J Erickson ,Uyar.
This work is a much more specific work than the ones shown above , it had access to Ottoman Archives.
Quote:
The Ottomans were able to produce cannon and guns after 1453 themselves, in large enough quantities and quality to become very successful on the Balkans and long hold their own against Habsburg and Russia, but they never stopped being reliant on the flow of technology, experts and weapons from Europe.
Again no country of that time and today is completely independent from outside influences.If you are looking for that , that doesnt exist.
However the sources I have shown , clearly show examples of the Ottomans being able to produce and use cannons and military technology by their own means and in their own arsenals/foundries.

Quote:
Over time, it became increasingly apparent that could not keep up with the quickening pace of European weapons technology.
While this is true , this is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
You argued that the Ottomans were never independent in their technology , I brought several sources that say other wise.

Last edited by Reis; December 15th, 2013 at 06:02 AM.
Reis is offline  
Old December 15th, 2013, 06:11 AM   #59
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 598

I never said that the Ottomans were bad at copying foreign weapons. My line of argument was that the Ottomans cannot be called a "superpower" because they never managed to establish an arms industry which was not dependent on the constant flow of experts, ideas and arms from the West. Which superpower in the history of makind was not also a pioneer in weapons technology?

As for the introduction of fire arms into the Ottoman realm, I would not put too much trust in your source. There is much confusion about the introduction of firearms everywhere because the terminology to denote them is often unclear. What you need is a text-critical analysis. 1389 seems an outlier, particularly since cannon was not used in 1402 too, hence 1422 is more credible.
Aetius is offline  
Old December 15th, 2013, 06:30 AM   #60

Reis's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,031

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aetius View Post
I never said that the Ottomans were bad at copying foreign weapons.
No body is talking of copying here.
While certainly not the inventors of the cannon the Ottomans had their own designs and innovations some better that their European counterparts as I have already showed through a source.
Your arguement was that the Ottomans were always dependent on foreign technology.I have shown you several cases where they were not.
Quote:
they never managed to establish an arms industry which was not dependent on the constant flow of experts, ideas and arms from the West.
What do you mean by this?
Dependent on constant flow of experts and ideas?
The sources I have shown on my previous post have clear evidence that the Ottomans were able to create cannons by their own means , with their own foundries and smiths.
The reason why they brought in Foreign experts is because of the logical need to gather the best and the brightest regardless of where they come from.The reason is that in that time frame the Ottomans were the only ones who gave these innovators the resources attention and the infrastructure that they needed.

If being dependent is the Ottomans bringing in foreign smiths and experts then the US is also a dependant military power.The US receives constant brain migration from the world , some of its most innovative people are not even American.
If a Sri Lankan engineer designs weapons in Boston Dynamics does that make the US dependent to Sri Lanka?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aetius View Post
As for the introduction of fire arms into the Ottoman realm, I would not put too much trust in your source.
Why not?
This is a research work written by a well known academic of the US Army with access to sources which many others did not have.

Last edited by Reis; December 15th, 2013 at 06:53 AM.
Reis is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History

Tags
1402, battle, superpowers


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Olympic medal tables since 1896: superpowers Maia General History 193 August 29th, 2012 02:34 AM
The Mightiest out of the 5 superpowers! willrocks10 War and Military History 45 October 15th, 2011 10:56 PM
Eagles and superpowers Guaporense General History 10 September 5th, 2011 05:39 PM
Why were the european superpowers all in the west? daftone European History 152 November 24th, 2010 02:02 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.