why don't you read the wiki article on it, follow some links, watch some videos, form a foundation of knowledge THEN we can discuss the details you are asking people to spoon feed you the summary of the situation without doing any work
oh wait, you did download a picture of the map good job!
>>596619 multiculturalism. Hear me out, I hate /pol/ as much as the next guy. But honestly, there was no concept of a unified identity among Ottomans. There were Turks, Armenians, Arabs, Kurds, Bosnians, etc. with nothing to really unite them into a common identity. By the advent of Nation-states and nationalism in the 19th century, the Ottomans were doomed to fail. The problem was that they were using a classical roman style of empire governance well into the industrial age. Of course, as part of the reforms, they tried to promote "Ottomanism"- which sounded as ridiculous now as it did then .A court bureaucracy does not a modern nation-state make.
>>597298 well "empires" at least within the classical model were the antithesis of the modern nation state. So yes. they were doomed to fail by the turn of the last century. hence why there aren't any empires today.
>Never managed to cope with the economic changes prompted by the discovery of the New World and alternate routes to the East. >Were completely wrecked by the rise of Russia, who played a critical role in breaking Ottoman power in the Balkans, Caucusus, and Crimea. >Agreed to horrible loans and capitulations that meant that Western bankers and merchants took an obscene amount of the empire's income. >Failed to assimilate conquered nations to a unified Ottoman culture or identity, which meant that they had no loyalty to the state with the advent of the age of nationalism
>>597217 It's a lot more nuanced than that. The presence of these groups was not nearly as destructive as you make out (and in fact played an important economic role), and the idea of a shared Ottoman identity is not nearly as absurd as you make it out to be. There was immense optimism among minority populations in the empire with the adoption of the initial constitution, and much of the ethnic strife that followed had to do with Abdul Hamid II's suspension of the constitution and promotion of a strong Muslim identity. Even if we regard ethnic conflict as inevitable in the face of nationalism, the Turks did a pretty good job of genocide Armenians et al, and if it hadn't been for WWI I doubt those groups would have posed a serious threat to the empire's existence. While nationalism certainly did not aid the unity of the state, it certainly didn't spell its inevitable doom.
A more serious answer to OP's question is that it was a variety of things. The Ottomans occupy a very central location with a variety of important resources and trade routes. The relative decline of their military power during the 17th and 18th centuries, paralleling the growth of European imperialism, left them open to intervention and territorial loss. They had an underdeveloped bureaucracy and economic policy, which, combined with the reliance on local notables and the corruption of the Janissary corps lead to economic stagnation. Efforts to modernise in the 19th century left them with crippling debt and the capitulations to European powers greatly reduced their ability to compete with western powers economically. then they picked the losing side in a war which ended up dismantling the losing empires. it's basically a case of "shit was going bad for them when it was going good for their enemies." I don't think we have to accept their destruction as an inevitability.
Militarily Ottoman advancement was stopped on Sea at Lepanto, on ground the Ottoman Empire faced logistical problems and couldn't really grab hold of what they did in Balkans and Hungary. >>597587 Good points. >>597276 Elayets led by pashas. The title was not heritable and the Sultan could revoke it any them, hence little incentive to develop their own regions and lot of incentive to rob its wealth for their pockets.
>>596619 >>596619 I don't really know a lot about Ottoman Empire, but oppening a new world by Europeans and as a consequence, finding new trade roots bypassing Turkey was a pretty crucial for Empire, I think
>>596619 Everything. It was actually a miracle it even got that far. What the Ottoman Empire lacked was a strong core-ethnicity. The Turks were only ever a fraction of the Empire, they didn't even constitute the majority of the professional military (sipahis and janissaries).
I don't mean to be hateful or /pol/, but they were Turks, people of short statue best suited to ride horses and shoot arrows. Ethnic Turks were not made for the battlefields of Europe. Just look at human height today - and consider that back in the day it was even more in favor of the Europeans. Short people can't win swordfights.
The map you posted is very optimistic. Whenever Europeans stopped fighting amongst themselves and turned to fight the Ottomans, the Ottomans were driven back. Every battle the Ottomans won - it was won by Janissaries, European slaves. The only way the Ottoman Empire could have succeeded in Europe, was to become European - i.e. convert to Christianity and include Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs and Hungarians as their chief people.
And before people say I'm writing bullshit: Read the reports of all the Battles the Ottomans lost, the same thing happens over and over again: Sipahi cav meets European cav on an even battlefield and "gets routed surprisingly fast".
>>599927 Are you meaning that the reason for the empire's fall was that the core ethnicity constituted too little of a part of the empire's population, or that the core ethnicity was not physically strong enough for battle? If the former, it might have been the factor, but not enough to explain a fall, look at the British Commonwealth for example. If the latter, you are writing enormous fucking bullshit, mate. It's not hateful or /pol/, just simply silly. I don't know what exactly was the reason behind the empire's fall. I guess it's the usual stuff. I.e. it surpassed it's actio radius, obsolete centralised political leadership couldn't keep the thing together, failed to keep up with the times, rivals got far stronger via their naval/colonial empires etc. The fall of an empire is a much more complicated topic than lost wars as long as said wars don't lead to their annihilation. But even then, wars are won by equipment, economy, good strategic leadership and a thousand other factors, the stature of soldiers being of absolutely minuscule importance.
>>596619 Poor institutions, which lead to an inability to embrace commercial society. Lepanto wouldn't have been such a major loss if they had the economic engine to replace those ships, but they didn't. They had poor institutions and a factionalized government all of which promoted rent-seeking over productivity.
>people of short statue best suited to ride horses and shoot arrows.
Turks are virtually the same height as their neighbors (Greeks, Armenians, Circassians, Bosnians, Serbs, etc). Unless you're talking about Turco-Mongol tribes in Central Asia, which certainly were not a main racial component in Anatolia by the time of the Ottoman expansion into Europe.
Also horse archers were pretty much unstoppable in the premodern era until the advent of massed gunpowder infantry tactics (see: Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun)
>Short people can't win swordfights.
Swordfights have no impact on actual battles. This isn't a Hollywood movie. Swords were never a primary weapon. Bows, muskets, artillery, and polearms (like the spear, pike or halberd) were the primary weapons of premodern warfare.
>>596619 They couldn't cope with the changes in the worlds economy after the discovery of the new world which changed the transferring of goods. With that, no multicultural nation can truly unify to get through economically hard times.
I also believe their overall views on religion had a big impact. They weren't very religious at the beginning, and then went full Islam retard in the end.
>>601677 the were Christians taken from the blakans to form an elite military corps for the ottoman amry and civil administrator for the upper echelons of the empire. thing is the janissaries' started wanting more privileges because they were kind of forced into the position these privileges eventually led to serious decadence and when people in such position s stop giving a shit the empire took a serious blow in addition to all the other stuff.
>>597773 verification of what's been read and explanation of deeper content. Or in the case of religious posting, to get an "on the ground" look at how the tradition is practiced in reality as opposed to a book.
>discovery of the New World making the silk road marginal >no renaissance, no industrial revolution, no nothing >Janissaries gaining so much power they pretty ruled even over the Sultan himself >failing to assimilate the Arabs and the Balkanites into turkdom
>>601669 yeah, that second point was sort of a problem. The Ottoman state was very much built on flexible unorthodoxy to maintain its fractured population, which to some extent worked. The attempt to forge a united Islamic identity to counteract growing tensions was probably the stupidest attempt at a solution, and only made things worse.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.