Why was the Ottoman Empire not considered the successor of Rome?

kandal said:

Regarding the beginnings of decline of the Ottoman empire, let me quote this from Yahya Armajani from his book - 'Middle East past and present' (p158):

"The vitality of the Ottoman state depended upon warfare and its economy was based on loot and tribute from the conquered nations. Because of both the rise in power of the nations of Europe and Asia and of the long distances involved, military conquests became more expensive and more difficult. By the end of the sixteenth century, conquests had virtually stopped, and the army became restless in having to perform defensive duties. The whole machinery of government, which was oiled and fueled by war, gradually came to a grinding halt. The process of decay took some 300 years, but the signs had already appeared in the seventeenth century."

Click to expand...

I suspect part of the decay of the Ottoman Empire was that the "Timar system" that the Ottomans used for military, administrative, and fiscal structure could only take them so far, and once they seized to expand it no longer was effective.

Of course, by the 16th and 17th centuries, Western Europe had already begun to surpass the rest of the world rather rapidly in scientific and military technology, Western Europe and America were becoming epicenters of world civilization.

It seems to be much of the various groups in the empire remained complacent and weak and this allowed the Ottomans to carry on much longer than they should have.

Rostam said:

I suspect part of the decay of the Ottoman Empire was that the "Timar system" that the Ottomans used for military, administrative, and fiscal structure could only take them so far, and once they seized to expand it no longer was effective.

Of course, by the 16th and 17th centuries, Western Europe had already begun to surpass the rest of the world rather rapidly in scientific and military technology, Western Europe and America were becoming epicenters of world civilization.

It seems to be much of the various groups in the empire remained complacent and weak and this allowed the Ottomans to carry on much longer than they should have.

Click to expand...

That and in particular other empires especially France and Russia started to take bites out of the Ottoman Empire such has France seizing what is now Algeria in 1837 and later what is now modern Lebanon as a protectorate. On top of that were various independence movements such has the Greek independence movement in the early mid Nineteenth Century. We could do a whole thread on the Balkans and how the Austrian - Hungarian Empire and the Russian Empire eventually wrested away various parts of it from the Ottomans.
Leftyhunter

Rostam said:

I suspect part of the decay of the Ottoman Empire was that the "Timar system" that the Ottomans used for military, administrative, and fiscal structure could only take them so far, and once they seized to expand it no longer was effective.

Of course, by the 16th and 17th centuries, Western Europe had already begun to surpass the rest of the world rather rapidly in scientific and military technology, Western Europe and America were becoming epicenters of world civilization.

It seems to be much of the various groups in the empire remained complacent and weak and this allowed the Ottomans to carry on much longer than they should have.

Click to expand...

To my knowledge, Ottomans more or less copied the Timar system from a pre-existing system practiced by other rulers in the region, with modifications.

Christian reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula from Muslims resulted in a frantic search for a new trade route to the East, with the goal of breaking the Muslim trade monopoly that was syphoning off much wealth from the West. That effort resulted in the discovery of the Americas and Vasco da Gama's epic journey to India. Those events led to the fast rise of the West and, also at the same time, loss of great trade revenue for the Middle eastern Muslims powers. This had a double punch effect on the Ottomans and accelerated the economic and military decline of the entire Islamic world. This trend was reversed only after the discovery of the indispensable oil in the Middle east in recent times, but unfortunately Turkey had no oil.

kandal said:

To my knowledge, Ottomans more or less copied the Timar system from a pre-existing system practiced by other rulers in the region, with modifications.

Christian reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula from Muslims resulted in a frantic search for a new trade route to the East, with the goal of breaking the Muslim trade monopoly that was syphoning off much wealth from the West. That effort resulted in the discovery of the Americas and Vasco da Gama's epic journey to India. Those events led to the fast rise of the West and, also at the same time, loss of great trade revenue for the Middle eastern Muslims powers. This had a double punch effect on the Ottomans and accelerated the economic and military decline of the entire Islamic world. This trend was reversed only after the discovery of the indispensable oil in the Middle east in recent times, but unfortunately Turkey had no oil.

Click to expand...

All true . Which leafs to the next question is why the Ottoman Empire didn't get on the industrial revolution bandwagon that started in the UK and then quickly spread to Western Europe and the US by the mid 19th Century?
Leftyhunter

kandal said:

To my knowledge, Ottomans more or less copied the Timar system from a pre-existing system practiced by other rulers in the region, with modifications.

Christian reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula from Muslims resulted in a frantic search for a new trade route to the East, with the goal of breaking the Muslim trade monopoly that was syphoning off much wealth from the West. That effort resulted in the discovery of the Americas and Vasco da Gama's epic journey to India. Those events led to the fast rise of the West and, also at the same time, loss of great trade revenue for the Middle eastern Muslims powers. This had a double punch effect on the Ottomans and accelerated the economic and military decline of the entire Islamic world.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. you bring up a very critical point. The advancement in deep water navigation in Western Europe (specifically the Atlantic Ocean countries such as Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands, Britain, etc.) during the 15th through 18th centuries made the Ottoman Empire and also Persia, which had historically played a pivotal role of being the land bridge that connected India (South Asia) and Central Asia and China to Europe, thereby controlling a big chunk of the global trade, irrelevant. This shift put an end to their monopoly. World trade suddenly shifted to European-based world navies, and their ports came to control world trade. This also affected land trade and the Red Sea trade (in East Mediterranean and Egypt), which ultimately led to the demise and backwardness of the economies, cultures, and religions in both Ottoman Turkey and Persia. The loss of trade revenues contributed to the weakening of these empires and their eventual decline.

The Islam that came to be practiced, be it Sunni or Shia, evolved during this period to a more ritualistic and filled with superstitions. With a strong anti-Western (Christian) sentiment and a powerful ecclesiastical order that sought to control the actions of its followers. These changes have had a lasting impact on the region even to this day, which is still struggling to deal with the consequences. As can be observed with various movements in the region even in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Rostam said:

I suspect part of the decay of the Ottoman Empire was that the "Timar system" that the Ottomans used for military, administrative, and fiscal structure could only take them so far, and once they seized to expand it no longer was effective.

Of course, by the 16th and 17th centuries, Western Europe had already begun to surpass the rest of the world rather rapidly in scientific and military technology, Western Europe and America were becoming epicenters of world civilization.

It seems to be much of the various groups in the empire remained complacent and weak and this allowed the Ottomans to carry on much longer than they should have.

Click to expand...

The Ottomans had a full-time professional army called kapikullari.
Timarli sipahis were a kind of knights who were called to fight in times of war.

Timarli sipahis were the main force of the Ottoman army until the 16th century.
However, as you mentioned, after a certain point, the timari sipahis could not keep up with the technology of the period.

When we examine the official records, we see that the number of timari sipahis decreased and the number of kapikuls increased.
This was actually what both saved and collapsed the Ottoman Empire. Full-time soldiers increased, that is, soldiers such as Janissaries. This caused a lot of riots and economic depression because you had to pay them.

It is truly admirable that you understand that the number of tımarlı sipahis decreases after a certain point and they gradually disappear. Only someone who reads Ottoman sources knows this.
I congratulate you, I am sure you can be a good Ottoman historian.

Leftyhunter said:

All true . Which leafs to the next question is why the Ottoman Empire didn't get on the industrial revolution bandwagon that started in the UK and then quickly spread to Western Europe and the US by the mid 19th Century?
Leftyhunter

Click to expand...

In my view, Turkey which emerged after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and World War I was not a modern nation-state. The Turks of Anatolia had not evolved into a nation-state in the European sense during the Ottoman period and Ataturk had to mold them into a modern nation. This was done by over-emphasizing the Turkisness and creating a sense of pride in being a Turk, Of course, Turkish nationalism during the Three Pasha Period ( Young Turks) led to the expulsion of various Christian and non-Turkish communities such as the Assyrian, Greek, and Armenians in Anatolia. Various forms of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and severe repression were perpetrated by the Turks during those years. Of course, it must be noted that the European powers had the ambition to divide Anatolia into many small states and leave Turks only a part of it, and many of these groups were heavily involved in cooperating with various outside powers to carve out large chunks of Anatolia for themselves.

Turkey since then has been a secular and at times democratic country and has made a certain amount of progress albeit it is still not a fully modern nation. But it is an emerging nation.

Studyman said:

The Ottomans had a full-time professional army called kapikullari.
Timarli sipahis were a kind of knights who were called to fight in times of war.

Timarli sipahis were the main force of the Ottoman army until the 16th century.
However, as you mentioned, after a certain point, the timari sipahis could not keep up with the technology of the period.

When we examine the official records, we see that the number of timari sipahis decreased and the number of kapikuls increased.
This was actually what both saved and collapsed the Ottoman Empire. Full-time soldiers increased, that is, soldiers such as Janissaries. This caused a lot of riots and economic depression because you had to pay them.

It is truly admirable that you understand that the number of tımarlı sipahis decreases after a certain point and they gradually disappear. Only someone who reads Ottoman sources knows this.
I congratulate you, I am sure you can be a good Ottoman historian.

Click to expand...

I admire the Turks and have been to your beautiful country.

Leftyhunter said:

All true . Which leafs to the next question is why the Ottoman Empire didn't get on the industrial revolution bandwagon that started in the UK and then quickly spread to Western Europe and the US by the mid 19th Century?
Leftyhunter

Click to expand...

There are no easy answers for the question, and it is a complex and controversial topic. I can try to mention here a key factor as to why Turkey hadn't been able to modernize and industrialize, given almost a century of time trying to accomplish that.

Islam has not been reigned in to a level where people could break free of its especially uncompromising hold over their culture in all aspects of life, and this remains the most challenging impediment for Turkey. As a result, whatever modernization Turkey had achieved remains primarily topical and cosmetic and not deep enough for real and lasting changes required. Same could be said about Secularism. Also, the potential for going backward remains, as happened with Iran. I could extend this scenario to the rest of the Islamic countries, not only in the region, but in other places too.

kandal said:

There are no easy answers for the question, and it is a complex and controversial topic. I can try to mention here a key factor as to why Turkey hadn't been able to modernize and industrialize, given almost a century of time trying to accomplish that.

Islam has not been reigned in to a level where people could break free of its especially uncompromising hold over their culture in all aspects of life, and this remains the most challenging impediment for Turkey. As a result, whatever modernization Turkey had achieved remains primarily topical and cosmetic and not deep enough for real and lasting changes required. Same could be said about Secularism. Also, the potential for going backward remains, as happened with Iran. I could extend this scenario to the rest of the Islamic countries, not only in the region, but in other places too.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting theory. Islamic nations have indeed started industrialization once they gained independence such has Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia with Iran, Egypt and Turkey while never colonized started rather late in the 20th Century to industrialize. How well and to what extent each of the above countries as done so varies. Persian Gulf countries from what I gather only recently started to diversify their economies away from just exporting petroleum products.
Iran in particular seems keen to not be dependent on petroleum exports.
Leftyhunter

robto said:

They were indeed viewed as the successors of Rome.

Click to expand...

Just a little bit of possibly slightly related info, perhaps. Alaeddin, brother of Orhan (who ascended to the throne as Sultan Orhan to succeed his father Osman I), by his military legislation, may be truly said to have paved the grounds for further consolidation for the fledgling Ottoman state.

Alaeddin organised for the Ottoman Beylik a standing army of regularly paid and disciplined infantry and horses - a full century before Charles VII of France established his fifteen permanent companies of men-at-arms - which might then have qualified them for recognition as the first modern standing army?

It was also by Alaeddins advice plus that of a then Turkish statesman of that time that the celebrated Janissaray corps of was first formed, an institution which European writers erroneously ascribe to Orhan's successor Murad I at a later date.

extracted from: