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 January 16th, 2014, 09:43 PM   #1
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: ...
Posts: 738
Why Ottomans didnt conquer Morocco?


How come that Ottomans didnt have power to conquer Marakesh?
I tried to search in wikipedia but didnt find any information about battles.
So any info could be quite helpfull.

Thanks in advance.
Vola is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 16th, 2014, 10:00 PM   #2
Archivist
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Netherlands
Posts: 128

They did have the power, but didnt need to conquer the whole of Morocco. The Moroccan kings accepted the power of the Ottomans, majority didnt accept the Caliphate of the Ottoman sultans because themselves supposedly where related to prophet Muhammad (sav). In the 16th century the Ottomans intervened in Moroccan affairs, supporting and sending ships/armies to assist the Moroccans against the Portugese. Support was also delivered to assist pro-Ottoman Moroccan leaders, in the 19th century some Moroccan sultans/maliks even visited Constantinople to pay respect to the Caliph at that time.

You should check the battles fought in Morocco, for example the battle of Aghadir. Janissaries were sent to assist the muslim army of Morocco.
mukremin is offline  
Old January 16th, 2014, 10:08 PM   #3
Archivist
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Netherlands
Posts: 128

Interesting is that the Ottomans supported the Moroccan ruler Abdulmelik, who expelled the old Sultan Abu Abdallah Mutavakkil from Morocco. Mutavakkil asked Portugal for help, Portugese king Sebastian supported an invasion of Morocco with the help of Mutavakkil. In the battle of the 3 kings the Portugese king was among the dead, so was the old sultan Mutavakkil.

In 1581 the Ottomans were almost at war with the brother of Abdulmelik who died not long after the battle, the brother Ahmad turned his face towards the European powers which was an insult to the Ottoman Empire. With exchanges and diplomatic talks from both sides, Ahmad accepted the supremacy of the Ottomans.

However the consequences for Portugal were far greater because the king Sebastian left no heir to the throne.

Last edited by mukremin; January 16th, 2014 at 10:26 PM.
mukremin is offline  
Old January 16th, 2014, 10:59 PM   #4
Archivist
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Netherlands
Posts: 128

You can also check this article, it has some info but not very much.

Morocco?Turkey relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
mukremin is offline  
Old January 17th, 2014, 04:58 AM   #5
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: ...
Posts: 738

Thanks on your responses. I was under impression that Ottomans couldnt defeat them.
Vola is offline  
Old January 17th, 2014, 05:07 AM   #6
Archivist
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Netherlands
Posts: 128

No problem, the Ottomans could have defeated them easily. In that period Ottoman Empire was considered to have its golden age. It was more religieus related i think, the Ottomans wouldnt gain anything from such actions except outrage by the muslims.

The Ottoman did have a probable cause to take over Morocco because of the dealings of the Moroccan sultans with the "infidels" Spain and Portugal.

They did use that cause to invade the Mamluks, other than that the Ottoman Empire hasnt exactly made war against a legit Muslim Sunni nation.
mukremin is offline  
Old January 18th, 2014, 11:10 AM   #7

rak000's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: NJ
Posts: 55
Afghans


Quote:
Originally Posted by mukremin View Post

other than that the Ottoman Empire hasnt exactly made war against a legit Muslim Sunni nation.
Ottomans actually did clash with The Hotaki Afghan Empire which was a legit sunni nation. They had to stop the fighting because of public outrage in Istanbul when people protested against the Sunni Muslim against Sunni Muslim war.
rak000 is offline  
Old January 18th, 2014, 12:54 PM   #8

Frank81's Avatar
Guanarteme
 
Joined: Feb 2010
From: Canary Islands-Spain
Posts: 4,761

It is not that Ottomans could conquer or not Morocco, for sure it was not an easy task, since Ottoman involvement in the country, sometimes with strong forces, could not overcome at all native powers. The issue was that native forces were too powerful to be destroyed, and so every action could be very costly.

But they certainlly the Ottomans influenced the destiny of Moroccans, supporting one or other leader, while Moroccan leaders understood that they needed some kind of support from the Muslim superpower of the age, keeping the distance to have freedom.
Frank81 is offline  
Old January 18th, 2014, 03:16 PM   #9

PreColonialAfricaFTW's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2013
From: canada
Posts: 728

Always wondered, why was Morocco the only independent North African kingdom? Algeria, Tunisia, Libya,etc all dominated by the Early islamic caliphates and later the Ottomans. What did Morocco have that they didn't?
PreColonialAfricaFTW is offline  
Old January 18th, 2014, 10:34 PM   #10

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,942

Quote:
Originally Posted by PreColonialAfricaFTW View Post
Always wondered, why was Morocco the only independent North African kingdom? Algeria, Tunisia, Libya,etc all dominated by the Early islamic caliphates and later the Ottomans. What did Morocco have that they didn't?
- Geography......they have always been far off the Caliphate's center (either Umayyad/Abbassid/Ottoman/Mameluke)..

- North African tribes (not just Moroccans) are generally are fierce fighters.....they have a reputation for that....

The early Muslims didn't had an easy way against them, and when most of them became Muslim they proved to be of great calibre; the famous "Tariq Ibn Ziyad" is of a Berber descent, one of the tribes who settled in North Africa....

Even during some turbulent times in the late Umayyad reign, the Caliphate had to put armies as large as 100,000 to reassert its supremecy...

Another modern example, during WW2, a battallion of Moroccan/Algerian men was said to withstand a Panzer attack during the Battle of France despite not sufficiently equipped, their participation continued until final defeat of the Nazis....and were highly decorated in France....


Ottomans would have even more reasons than early Caliphates not to engage in this area....

- Religious: they'd be fighting fellow Muslim kingdom.
- Economic: such endeavor would cost them dearly.
- Strategic: Ottomans already have a good grap over the Meditteranean and gain or extend presence in Morocco through diplomacy and influence.

Besides, the Moroccan kingdom is a significant buffer for Ottomans facing threats/interests from Spain and Portugal, Ottomans would lose such position if they attempted a full military occupation as they would provoke hostility from the inhabitants...
Essa is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History

Tags
conquer, morocco, ottomans



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why Mongols didnt conquer India? Vola Asian History 124 November 18th, 2015 09:05 AM
What would have happend if Germany didnt pay off its war debt of ww1 and ww2? Cavanboy General History 19 September 27th, 2012 12:31 PM
What if america didnt meddle in wars ??? Norg Speculative History 155 April 24th, 2012 07:33 AM
Hiroshima, the pics they didnt want you to see. Daughter of satan War and Military History 236 September 30th, 2010 09:49 PM
Why didnt Europeans take part in the Vietnam War? Stephan War and Military History 19 December 23rd, 2009 07:28 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.