AN AUTOPSY OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE
In approximately the year 1000 CE, Turkish tribes started moving westward under a leader named Seljuk.(1) The Ottoman Empire was first formed in the year 1280 by Osman I(2) and had entered Europe by way of the Balkan Peninsula by 1353.(3) At height of their power, the Ottoman Turks ruled an empire that stretched across Asia Minor, Eastern Europe, and the northern coast of Africa. Writes Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, the Imperial ambassador to Constantinople from 1554 to 1562: "against us stands Solyman, that foe whom his own and his ancestors' exploits have made so terrible; he tramples the soil of Hungary with 200,000 horse, he is at the very gates of Austria, threatens the rest of Germany, and brings in his train all the nations that extend from our borders to those of Persia."(4) But by the 16th century, their power began to wane, leaving a void waiting to be filled. There are many explanations for the downfall of the Ottoman Empire. Weak leaders in the 16th century have been blamed, as has an incompetent and corrupt army. Some historians have blamed the Turkish downfall on an inability to keep pace with the advancements taking place in Western European states. Their constant antagonism, it has been said, led to constant warfare with the European states, and the eventual formation of the Holy League, the alliance of European states that would sorely wound the Empire.
Price believes that the Ottoman Empire was well "as long as personal bravery, ability to govern and efficiency at the centre of administration were vital qualities".(5) However, he believes that the Turks couldn't meet the changes caused by the European Reformation and Counter-Reformation in the 16th century, including an increase in material wealth and military prowess.(6) At this time the Ottoman Empire was governed by Islamic Law, which enforced the tenets of the Islamic faith, and forbade contact with non-Muslims. This created a high resistance to change, and as a result, the Empire found herself militarily inferior to most of Western Europe. Their ability at organization no longer provided them with an advantage over western nations, either.(7)
The Ottoman Empire was also weakened by internal insecurity. Extra-territorial judicial
rights granted to French traders in 1536 created problems for the weaker sultans who were to
follow him. Known as capitulations, they did not seriously affect Suleiman's court, but other
Christian monarchs later asked for and received similar concessions for their citizens.(8) This
tended to exacerbate the problems the Turks faced with advancement, because their Christian
subjects were no longer subject to the restrictions of the Sacred Laws of Islam. Christians in the
Ottoman Empire therefore were making use of advancements from Western Europe often before
the native inhabitants were even aware of them. This served to increase the disparity within the
Ottoman Empire, and lessened the Empire's influence abroad.
Turkish internal problems were aggravated by the ambitions of regional governors. Governors in outlying areas often acted more for their own personal gain than for the welfare of the state. Paul Rycaut, an English ambassador to the Sultan's court in Constantinople, states:
This mighty body would burst with the poyson of its own ill humours, and soon
divide it self into several Signories, as the ambition and power of the Governours
most remote from the Imperial Seat administered them hopes and security of
becoming absolute.(9)
Another cause of decline was the Turkish legal system. In later centuries the legal
system tended to discriminate against their Christian subjects, prompting western rulers to insist
upon further capitulations to insure their fair treatment(10). This, in turn, set a precedent for
further capitulations. Another legal practice which weakened the Ottoman Empire in the late
1500's was the inheritance of a father's lands by a son without the obligation of military
service.(11) This lessened the pool of young recruits the sultans could draw upon, as well as tying
privilege to birth. The Turks had long been admired by western diplomats for their system of
tying privilege to merit rather than birthright.
Sultan Suleiman died in 1566(12), and the Ottoman Empire lost one of its most capable
leaders. The Grand Vizier that followed him, Mahomet Cecal, proved an able leader but was
followed by four incompetent rulers: Selim II, Mural III, Ibrahim, and Mahomet IV.(13)
Suleiman's immediate successor, Selim II, who ruled from 1566 to 1574, was known as "the
Sot", and Ibrahim was simple-minded.(14) Selim established a quota allowing the sons of
janissaries to become janissaries themselves, by birthright rather than merit.(15) The Kuprili
family took rule of the Empire during the 17th century, leading to a brief renewal of Turkish
power, but this was not to last.
Under these weak sultans, the Ottoman Empire's military prowess suffered. Most of the sultans were more concerned with their own personal welfare than with the welfare of the state. Although she continued to win victories in the east, particularly against Persia, these respites gave the European powers a chance to rest and recover, and the momentum began to shift against the Ottoman Empire.(16) The Turks were defeated in the naval battle of Lepanto in 1571 even though they outnumbered the Christians 230 ships to 208(17), and again at St. Gothard in 1663.(18) This battle clearly demonstrated the gap between Western European and Ottoman tactics and weapons. During the Thirty Years War, the European powers learned tactics and developed weapons that the Turks did not have.(19) Twenty years later, they failed to capture Vienna and were eventually forced to retreat from Europe altogether.(20) Only divisions amongst the European armies saved the Ottoman army from total annihilation.(21)
However, this retreat was to take many years, because the Turks had a long tradition of governing and international diplomacy. Bickering amongst the rulers of the western nations also prevented them from taking advantage of the Turkish weakness(22).
At this time, another grave threat to Turkish power was born. The Eastern Slavs began to form the state of Russia. In 1682 Peter the Great took power, and Russia began to push westward.(23) These people practiced Orthodox Christianity and Eastern Christianity, and did not follow the rigid laws that kept the Ottoman Empire from advancing.(24) However, with her geographical distance from Europe, Russia also failed to benefit from the European Reformation that brought so much advance to Western Europe.(25)
Russia continued to be a serious threat to Ottoman power. Already in decline and
deficient in both technology and leadership, the Empire was ill-equipped to repulse Russian
advances. After defeating Sweden at Poltava in 1709, Russia began to expand southwards. The
period between 1672 and 1914 saw twelve wars between Russia and the Ottoman Empire.(26)
By the late 17th century, the military balance of power had swung from a Turkish advantage, to a deadlock, and now to a decided Western European advantage. In addition to Russia, Austria also prized the lands to the south of her. By 1682, Austria and the Ottoman Empire were at war. The Turks lost a series of battles but laid siege to Vienna the next year. Although nearly successful, the siege was lifted after 60 days by a combined Polish and German army led by the Polish general John Sobieski. The bickering amongst the allies saved the Ottoman army, however. Sobieski wrote: "Here we are on the Danube, like the Israelites on the Euphrates, lamenting the loss of our horses and the ingratitude of those whom we have saved."(27)
The Ottoman Empire spent the next several years trying to rebuild the army that had been destroyed at the siege of Vienna. German commanders did not miss that opportunity, and the Turks lost another series of battles over the next few years. The Turks signed the Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699, effectively conceding control to the European powers.(28) From then on, the Ottoman Empire found itself on the defensive.
In addition to its effects on Turkish foreign affairs, the Treaty of Karlowitz had a profound effect on their internal affairs as well. Their defeat struck a blow to Turkish morale, and the loss of territories long considered an important part of the Empire had a disturbing effect upon them. The treaty also prompted internal reform, as the sultans realized how far behind European states they were in matters of military technology.(29)
By the 18th century, a power vacuum had developed in the Ottoman lands, because they held a large expanse of territory but were ill-equipped to hold it. Valuable to the Russians because of the warm-water ports it held and vital to the European powers for shipping routes, the Ottoman Empire had become a rich prize to be fought over. The English ambassador Rycaut notes that
Though this Empire hath many...distempers, and begins to grow factious, and yet slothful, and desirous to avoid the occasions of War, as all Governments have been which in their youth and first beginnings were eager, active, and provoked through poverty, in their riper years grown rich, and luxurious with plenty, have declined afterwards as from the meridian of their greatness and power; yet the Turks maintain still the extent of their Dominions, and if they have lost ground in one place, like the Sea, they have recovered it in another.(30)
At the beginning of the 16th century the Ottoman Empire was a vital, powerful force in European affairs; its presence was a continual threat especially to the eastern states. Their government was well-organized and based on merit. Busbecq, ambassador to Constantinople, stated that "there was not in all that great assembly a single man who owed his position to aught save valour and his merit...it is by merit that men rise in the service, a system which ensures that posts should only be assigned to the competent."(31) With such a well-organized and efficient government, no single factor would likely be powerful enough to pull it down. The single greatest factor in the decline of the Ottoman Empire was the poor leadership in the wake of Suleiman's rule. This led to many aforementioned problems, such as the profusion of concessions to European rulers, the decline of the army, and even, perhaps, to the Turkish inability to keep up with European progress in social and military matters. Surely an able leader, as Suleiman and the Kuprilis were, would have been able to find a way to keep up with advances or loosen the Sacred Laws of Islam. However, other factors outside the reach of the sultans played into their eventual downfall. The Sacred Laws of Islam that isolated the Ottoman Empire and prevented her from benefitting from the Reformation were to some extent beyond the reach of the Ottoman sultans. The rise of Russia as a great power also played a significant role in the deterioration of the Ottoman Empire. Even a powerful, healthy Ottoman Empire would have been hard-pressed to fend her off, especially if Austria became interested in the Empire's territory as well. With more able leadership, however, perhaps the Ottoman Empire would have been able to prevent Russia from gaining so much power, or at least persuade her to turn her attentions elsewhere.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Coles, Paul. The Ottoman Impact on Europe. London: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1968.
Fisher, Sydney. The Foreign Relations of Turkey 1481-1512. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 1948.
Kinross, Lord. The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire. New York:
William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1977.
Price, M. A History of Turkey: From Empire to Republic. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.,
1956.
Shaw, Ezel, and C.J. Heywood. English and Continental Views of the Ottoman Empire 1500-1800. Las Angeles: University of California, 1972.
Shaw, Stanford. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Vol. I, Empire of the
Gazis: The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire, 1280-1808. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1976.
Stavrianos, L.S. The Ottoman Empire: Was It the Sick Man of Europe? Source Problems in
World Civilization. New York: Rinehart & Company, Inc., 1957.
Vaughan, Dorothy. Europe and the Turk: A Pattern of Alliances 1350-1700. Liverpool: University Press, 1954.
1. M. Price, A History of Turkey: From Empire to Republic (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1956), 32.
2. Stanford Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. I, Empire of the Gazis: The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire, 1280-1808 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 12.
3. L.S. Stavrianos, The Ottoman Empire: Was It the Sick Man of Europe?, Source Problems in World Civilization (New York: Rinehart & Company, Inc., 1957), 2.
4. Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, Ambassador's Report on the Ottoman Empire, 1555, in L.S. Stavrianos, The Ottoman Empire: Was It the Sick Man of Europe?, Source Problems in World Civilization (New York: Rinehart & Company, Inc., 1957), 8.
5. Price, 63.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., 64.
9. Ezel Shaw and C.J. Heywood, English and Continental Views of the Ottoman Empire, 1500-1800 (Los Angeles: University of California, 1972), 44.
10. Price, 64.
11. Paul Coles, The Ottoman Impact on Europe (London: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1968), 167.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Coles, 160-162.
15. Ibid., 169.
16. Coles, 165-166.
17. Ibid., 91.
18. Price, 65.
19. Dorothy Vaughan, Europe and the Turk: A Pattern of Alliances 1350-1700 (Liverpool: University Press, 1954), 191-192.
20. Price, 65.
21. Coles, 182.
22. Price, 65.
23. Lord Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1977), 353-354.
24. Price, 65.
25. Ibid, 66-67.
26. Ibid, 67.
27. Coles, 183.
28. Ibid, 184.
29. Stanford Shaw, 225.
30. Shaw and Heywood, 47.
31. Stavrianos, 3-4.