Why didn't the Turks scramble for colonies like the other

Cuz they were dum-dum

>>1126091
>Americas
Too far away. If you noticed, all the nations who colonized the new world were at the edge of the Atlantic, perfect for setting sail without issues.

>Africa
Well they sort of had Africa and even went down to the Horn as your map shows.

>Asia
By the 17th century they started stagnating that went to full on decline in the 18th and 19th century. They couldn't possibly have hoped to defeat Qajar Persia or India.

By the time colonialism really started to catch on, the Ottomans were already weak as fuck.

The height of their power was in the 15th and 16th century.

File: British and French traitors.jpg (837KB, 877x3600px) Image search: [Google]

837KB, 877x3600px

>>1126091
The Turks were a British and French colony in the 18th and 19th centuries.

>>1126091
They had enough problems. They were basically already an empire. An empire of sand

>>1126091

Their infrastructure was horribly flawed and highly shaped by the incompetence of the heirs of previous great rulers. Kinda the same thing that happened to Spain in the 1800s.

>>1126091
They had no chance of having a Big Presence in the Atlantic after Lepanto which confined them to the Eastern Med
And in the Case of Africa, NOBODY had the ability to colonise it completely due to all of the diseases their untill the 1800's when Western Medicine made it possible

Also in the Eyes of the Ottomans they already conquered the Relevant Regions of the world in the same way the Chinese saw themselfs