How did the Ottomans kept an empire so big for that long while

>>1781403
By taking the healthiest sons and turning them into Janissary drones who'd kill their parents and siblings without a shred of remorse if they'd rebel, kept the subjugated people pacified for a time being.

In their phase of conquest they had competent leadership pared with favourable circumstances, like a weak Byzantine empire and inner fighting in Europe.

Also they were able to field large armies due to a large manpower pool and proper logistics.

But yeah I'd say the biggest reason would be favourable conditions.

>>1781403

Benign neglect and the millet system which let various ethno-religious groups govern themselves by their own laws.

File: T.E.Lawrence.jpg (1MB, 2133x1779px)

1MB, 2133x1779px

>leave them to me

>>1781403

Enslaving christians and making said slaves a warrior caste answerable only to the Sultan.

>>1781403
They weren't always shit at war. They became shit.

Their greatest advantages were having a modern professional core army before rest of Europe, the sheer size of their cavalry force, the extent of their logistics which was good for its time early on as well as their extensive bureaucracy and local administration.

All of those became obsolete and they also stagnated and even regressed in terms of military as well.

Also Napoleon fighting against local Mameluke who refused to use gunpowder weapons is not that representative.

>>1781403
Those examples are all against France in the years 1798-1800. You know, the one with Napoleon charge?

>>1781421

>le enslaved jannisaries meme

The Jannisaries were bloated and corrupt and impeded the progress of the empire rather than extended it. They were always more of a political than a military force and as soon as they became a full-on hereditary caste rather than drawn from the child tax the empire was irrevocably fucked

File: 1475646420867.png (414KB, 473x1197px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 473x1197px

>>1781428
>>1781430
They were shit before Napoleon, even in their "conquering" phase

>>1781438

The Jannisarries are the reason the Ottomans stayed in power for 400 years, twice as long as the typical lifespan of a regime. Yes they were conservative, how could they be otherwise when they were wholly dependant on the Sultan? The question was how they lasted so long, not why they sank into irrelevance.

>>1781471

>The question was how they lasted so long

Because they murdered whatever sultan looked to restrict their power and privileges and replaced him with one of the literally dozens of other Ottoman princes

>>1781454
Malta was a really close call, actually.

>>1781482
The turks were more than 10x more and they only took 1 defensive position out of three in the course of months. And alot of the maltese defenders were millitia/civilians, how was that a close call?

>>1781504

Not him but I think the defenders were about to capitulate until one of the commanders (correctly) convinced them the Turks were losing their nerve

>>1781454
Most of Ottoman numbers in wikipedia are from Christian resources that blown the numbers over proportion. Unless you also believe that 300 Iberians versus 100000 Moors meme.

Also surprise, it takes bigger force of siegers to take a besieged fortification which could only have low amount of men unless you want to wait them out for 3-5 years, which you can't on an island, almost impossible to properly blockade

>>1781512
Ottomans gave up because the winter was coming, but I think the St-John's knights were ready to defend Malta to their deaths because they had already lost their previous island from the Turks.

>>1781521
But the Turks were more than 10x the number the knights were, even if they had fortifications, I think any average army could have taken Malta with that of numerical advantage.

>>1781551

>average army

The Ottoman army was probably the best in the world in 1565 and certainly the most capable of taking Malta considering location, logistics, etc, at that point in history.

Malta is famous purely for shattering the myth of Ottoman invincibility and not for any kind of strategic incompetence which says enough desu

File: andrea-vicentino-battle-of-lepanto.jpg (204KB, 1589x600px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1589x600px

>>1781454
>16th Century
Lol, Europe was even more pathetic. Shilling useless victories versus the Ottoman advance.
>WOW LOOK AT THIS GREAT SEA BATTLE WE HAD VERSUS THE OTTOMAN TURKS. GREAT DECISIVE VICTORY FOR CHRISTENDOM.
>A few months later Cyprus was taken.
>Fleet rebuilt almost in a year.

File: siege.png (34KB, 323x639px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 323x639px

>>1781551
Mate I don't think you understand the amount of logistics and men required to take a fortified town in an Island no less. The numbers are utterly meaningless, most them are sitting around doing nothing waiting for a breach or besieged to capitulate.

There are examples in Europe 100-200 defenders holding out against armies upwards of 10000 for years for example, you are not comparing Ottoman army to their contemporaries at all. There is a reason why a lot of Europeans avoided taking on Ottoman army on the field after 1400s and instead were always on the defence in a fortress trying to defend like that. See for example how little field battles Ottomans had against Europeans between 1453 and 1600s, they were always besieging and that required superior numbers, superior numbers that were also blown out of proportion by contemporaries which are used in wikipedia instead of modern estimates or Ottoman records.

You shouldn't be asking how on earth they couldn't take a fortified town in an Island but rather how did they have logistics to commit to such siege in the first place? Real life sieges are not like their game counter-parts.

File: 572b1140e2cc4ac543b1f01a50e1024e2186b28c3d0de02dde29b617426308e7_1.jpg (44KB, 800x514px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 800x514px

>>1781575
Fucking venice.

>>1781584
Alright fair enough, I think you're right. I think I was just biased by a documentary I saw that made the Knights look like fucking gods https://youtu.be/9vQKkD6SbWc

>>1781598
Eh to be fair the knights did fight valiantly and they were competent at defending fortresses properly and the fact they could resist is impressive. It's just important to realise the context of a siege and its requirements, so the battle is more of a success on Knight's part instead of a failure on Ottoman's part, they did as well as anyone could with logistics of the day and people didn't have two or three deck gunboats yet to successfully blockade an Island.

>>1781605
But I still wonder how could the Ottomans lost so hard in Egypt againts Napoleon? I don't think the Ottomans were starting to fall in the early 19th century.

>>1781646
>I don't think the Ottomans were starting to fall in the early 19th century.

m8 they stagnated in late 16th century, ottoman history is pretty long

File: 1436850251471.png (3MB, 1960x2256px)

3MB, 1960x2256px

>le ottoman empire is shit at war meme

>>1781700
They cant fight, Russia have war with Urkey more then 10 times and all time win.

File: greatjob.jpg (175KB, 1133x630px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1133x630px

>>1781734

>implying

>>1781575
>>A few months later Cyprus was taken.
>>Fleet rebuilt almost in a year.
>New fleet is poorly commanded and lacks experiencied men
>Your recently captured island has no strategic value whatsoever because your fleet is shit anyway
>when you finally regain your position as a maritime power in the mediterranean it is no longer relevant
>500 year later an assblasted turk spouts memes on a anonymous imageboard, while living on a third world country

>>1781700
? in like half of those battles Ottomans outnumbered their enemies

>>1781454
Do you know how hard it is to take a well prepared fucking fortress island out of a military orders hands, with both sides being fierce enemies?

The ottoman all-star admirals tried and got very far, blew up a bunch of bastions even but it was too much.
No power other than the ottomans expanded as much as they did by the way of Sieging and capturing Cities, Forts and Islands. Other Empires often failed one Siege and died there.

@OP:
Ottomans had a standing army, professional, with useful Cavalry and still some remnants of steppe horde tactics.

Their early mastery of Artillery and Gunpowder only added to this.

This way they were basically unbeaten (this was an actual meme in the middle ages and people were scared of the "Invincible Turk") for the first part of their empire-building spree, until they got slowly equalized and then picked apart.

>>1782420
>your amry has to be same population as enemy army

File: kebabz.jpg (94KB, 255x788px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 255x788px

>>1781428
>They weren't always shit at war. They became shit.
the only thing ottomans had was manpower, they were almost always losing vs european armies as long as they didn't outnumber them 5 to 1

>>1783055
if slavs (at least ruskies and polacks) weren't busy fightning each other all the time they would kick turks back into stone age in 16 century or so

>>1781403
Mostly because it was just memeland full of empty desert

One of the top 3 memepires of all time though, credit where credit is due

>>1783063
They've fared similarly against Balkan Slavs, but they were easier prey because their countries were severely decentralized.

File: Ottoman_chichak_1560_B.jpg (145KB, 785x1150px)

145KB, 785x1150px

>>1783055
>Almost always losing
>The Ottomans from the 14th Century to the close of the 17th could literally be said to be simply advancing.
Also this fucking obsession with outnumbering.

It's like saying NUH UH YOU CANT USE EVERY ADVANTAGE YOU HAVE IN WAR. Fuck you, yes they can. They built an empire, they're going to use the resources of a fucking empire.

In addition all those European armies always strove to match them in numbers. All important early victories versus the Ottomans were won by meme Holy Leagues and Pseudo-Crusades of multiple European states.

holy shit all these salty european

>b-but the ottoman have more men it doesnt count theyre cheating ;_;

lmoa

>>1781700
>siege of algiers
>spain losing 17.000 men and 100 carrack while on the defense
>against the ottoman

also

>hernan cortes

what the fuck happened

pretty sure they didn't get to austria by losing

>they have more men than us waaaahhh doesn't count

Holy shit liberals never made me hate white people, white people did.

>>1783966
Except Kosovo, Bileca, Plocnik,Breadfield, Gallipoli, Dubravnica, Tripolje, Nis, Kunovica, Krusevac, Leskovac and Siege of Belgrade.

85% of Ottoman numbers in wikipedia come from western sources who had no idea of actual numbers.

File: everyoneandtheirmothers.png (172KB, 314x783px)

172KB, 314x783px

>>1781403
>you outnumber us

>>1784055
The Balkans are the last people to ever talk about fighting prowess versus the Ottomans. They fucking lost.

Oh and many of those victories are by Hungarians.

>>1784132
>attempt to stick your filthy brown dick into european history yet again
>get btfo
i see no problem with this

>>1781454
>Mustafa had the bodies of the knights decapitated and their bodies floated across the bay on mock crucifixes. In response, de Valette beheaded all his Turkish prisoners, loaded their heads into his cannons and fired them into the Turkish camp.

Holy shit I don't know if they're like children or their fucking metal.

>>1784137
No they're not, because they've resisted the Ottomans for 227 years, while at the same time fighting among each other and against the Venetians and the Hungarians.

>Oh and many of those victories are by Hungarians

They've participated in them, sure.

>>1784132
Conveniently cuts out the part with numbers, for what purpose?

>>1784033
Bad weather

>>1781403
Christians were known as the best military advisors. They had knowledge in history and sciences that was well desired by Chinese, Indians, and Mongol kings. They were well sought after by Ottomans because of their power and manueverability in trade and europe. Sadly the Sultans would often ask their recently converted Christians to help take down European Christianity. And they did because Christians have an honor code of servitude. However they were more 'liberal-friendly' than their muslim counterpart. And this helped the Ottoman empire spread. However it would hurt them in the end. Because Ottoman empire fell by the same betrayal the enforced.

>>1781585
whats the historical significance behind this meme?

>>1784604

t; never taken a history class

>>1784775
It shows how retarded the 4th crusade was

>>1781403
They had a series of extremely capable sultans during their rise.

>>1784803
I did some reading on it just now.
So there was a middle eastern threat but instead they decided to go to constantinople? Was byzantine not considered catholic? I dont know this history well I'm sorry. also how did byzantine empire reform afterwords?

>>1781700
Only two of those are after 1565.

>>1784294
>No they're not, because they've resisted the Ottomans for 227 years
The ottomans formally had a foothold in Europe in the mid 1300s.

Huge swathes of the Balkans were already subjugated by the 1400s alone.

Squat somewhere else, Slavboo.

Also- and this bears repeating- Hungarians won most of those for the ill-bred Balkanites.

File: column.jpg (12KB, 466x288px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 466x288px

>>1784827

>Was byzantine not considered catholic

holy shit how retarded can you be

>>1781700
reading about Nicopolis is so surreal, how could the christians have been this fucking stupid?

File: 1471832379048.jpg (44KB, 720x723px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 720x723px

>>1781700
>zerg rush
>good at war

>>1785904
>wherever i am i must also charge

why are frogs so retarded

File: Battle_of_Varna.png (391KB, 1500x1453px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1500x1453px

>>1785921
>zerg rush

not at all, if you have actually studied any of their battle you will see that in field battle the ottomans always preferred flanking and exploiting weak point rather than all out attack, except in a siege of course

File: Fleet_Configurations_at_the_Battle_of_Preveza_in_1538.jpg (279KB, 1000x550px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1000x550px

>>1781700
barbarossa is fucking based

from lowly pirates into the admiral of the entire ottoman navy

>>1781752
As that list goes on it just keeps saying Russian victory.

>>1781575
>gigantic empire
>barely winning a long war against a tiny city state
>lose against said city state not long after in Greece

How was Venice so based and the Ottomans such cucks?

>>1786123
>Barely winning a war versus tiny city state.
>Ottomans are the chief reason for the loss of Venezia's "Stato Da Mar,"

Also don't you have some Venetian bitching to do? Waaah 4th crusade. Waaah they interacted peacefully with Turks and so on.

File: Ilja_Jefimowitsch_Repin_-_Reply_of_the_Zaporozhian_Cossacks_-_Yorck.jpg (28KB, 350x207px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 350x207px

>>1781403

Honestly, I would say Ottomans were just another late successor state after the mongolian empire collapsed.

At the beginning they had tactics that were mongolian, had some that were european and some that were eastern.

But once said mongolian tactics subsided, Ottomans lost their biggest strength.

That and you have to really look at those other kingdoms around them, that simply didn't have as much to offer. Just look at Byzantium, Serbia or Bulgaria. They all were more or less facing annhilitation from within. They all were in big innerpolitic troubles.

Once the ottomans faced off stronger bigger european empires it was basically over.

Just look at how incredibly slow they conquered the nations in the balkans.

Byzantium, Albania, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, Croatia and so on, they all had incredibly slow and long wars, even though the ottomans were much bigger importing all kinds of armies, from all over the world. Any other modern european nation could have steamrolled those rather tiny nations.

I think what really made them stand out was opportunity, I mean after all you just pay those taxes and they leave you alone. Most land the ottomans owned was not directly theirs but simply owned by some lords who paid those taxes.

There you go, you're part of a big empire, your place can enjoy all the trade and if you're really on good terms you could enjoy all kinds of freebies.

Their strength was less militaristic in nature as it was diplomatic. It just had a huge army because it was so big and as an empire you have to fight wars sometimes.

Pic related. Laughing cossacks who almost conquered Konstantinopel, literally simple bandits/pirates.

>>1786270
Your post is so retarded that I don't know where to begin.
It probably is bait so I can conclude that you're a faggot.

>>1786270
>Honestly, I would say Ottomans were just another late successor state after the mongolian empire collapsed.
Osman's ilk happened when he collected people who were LITERALLY avoiding Mongol rule.

Also Turkic peoples did Mongol Shit before Mongols.
>Adapted to the warfare of the region to complement their own mounted competency
Turkics did that first. A bunch of horsemen from the central steppes- through their experience in fighting for Muslim caliphs- mastered the use of infantry and siege tactics.
>Adapted to the culture of the areas they ruled
Turkics again.
>Adapted the governing instruments of the Areas they ruled
Turkics did that again. Even better than Mongols since they lasted fuck longer and was successful in utilizing the regional apparatuses of government. The Ottomans were great in this in comparison to other Turkic middle eastern states.

>>1784827

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East–West_Schism

They were not Catholic, no. And they mostly did it because some pretender to the throne offered them a bunch of money to take the city, they did because it had a small garrison, the usurper was killed and then the eternal Latin got angry and sacked the city so hard that many argued that this was the point of no return for the empire.

>>1786298
The formal name of Orthodoxy is Orthodox Catholicism, while western Catholicism is Roman Catholicism.

"Orthodox" is used as a replacement in English because well yes English aren't Orthodox Catholics.

>>1781471
The Janissaries are the reason Ottomans were able to fight in Europe. Janies were infantry forces.

They had other wars you know. In the Middle East. Where Janissaries were second fiddle to the goddamed Sipahi, the true elite of the Ottoman Empire.

>>1786275

Go ahead call me a faggot but if you can't make any real argument against it, you're the retarded one.

>>1786276

I'm not saying they were collecting mongolians to fight for them, most of turkey was conquered wether the turks like it or not.

Just like Timurids, Moguls and so on they mixed their cultures with that of mongolians. Those typical mongolian tactics is something they just inherited.

Eh no they didn't, they had mounted units before just like europeans had. But those typical techniques that made the mongolians such a dangerous opponent that turks used in the balkans was all copied by mongols. Just like every other kingdom that got conquered by said mongols.

Might be true that some mongolians learned from eastern kingdoms in terms of sieging and how to fight effectively with infantry. But everything that was on top of a horse after all the eastern kingdoms were conquered by mongols was copied by those eastern kingdoms.

I mean why the hell not? Was a successful tactic, at the end the ottomans copied western regiments in terms of muskets too. Because it was simply the most effective way on using muskets, or in case of mongolians cavalry.

Well and the last two arguments are a bit weak, where did they "adapt?"

"Gimme some money and I let you alone?"

Hardly "adapting." They barely ruled those places they conquered on their own. If any, it was at the current border or in some bigger cities but really everything else that they didn't want to deal with directly was just paid.

>>1786429
Seljuks were using the "Mongolian tactics" before Mongolians even started their empire.

You are unable to process or learn this basic fact that Turkics were conquering Middle-east and Anatolia centuries before Mongolians invaded middle-east.

File: dreku.jpg (34KB, 419x354px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 419x354px

>"shit at war"
>lasted for over 600 years
The only reason they lost to the french was because Napoleon hadn't mastered the art of the white flag as so many of his predecessors and future rulers of the courageous Algerian people would.

>>1786429
Ottomans didn't copy westerners with musketmen. Ottomans were equipping their Janissary corps with muskets much before than anyone else in west. They are attributed to be first modern military corps and first one to use several tactics such as two-line musketmen with front row kneeling and first one to have musketmen on board of ships.

You came to "logical" conclusions, which I will give it to you sound acceptable but without necessary historical knowledge to draw these. Ottomans did copy tactics they saw to be effective from both Europeans, Persians and everyone else, that was their shtick, they were adaptable and they didn't shy away from hiring foreigners by merit.

You should learn about Ottoman military tactics which were often a diverse group of specialised units assisting Janissary and with Spahis on flanks charging and counter-charging enemy flanks with light cavalry constantly harassing, as well as common tactics among Turkics and other Central Asian armies, such as crescent tactic and riding back as they shoot arrows.

>beleiving fake combat results

>>1786444
To add, they also used what's called tabur cengi which is similar to hussite tactics of war wagons.

File: 1472116052179.png (9KB, 308x313px)

9KB, 308x313px

>>1786440
That's right, my boy, defend your empire with pride.

All my provincial sons have demonstrated themselves well after my demise. They have built great empires after me, and they have learned from me.

I have never been so proud to be the grandfather of empires.

>t. rome

File: true successor story.png (145KB, 500x528px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 500x528px

>>1786467
Thanks gramps.

>>1786270
>>1786429
You don't understand at all the history of the Ottomans or the Turkics, or apparently even the Mongols and presumably other steppe peoples. You don't understand how the Ottomans spent over a century and a half crushing "stronger, bigger European empires" until parity was finally reached specifically because those Europeans adopted Ottoman military strategy and technologies. You don't understand the history of Ottoman imperialism and the empire's isolation on the international stage. You don't understand how idiotic the comparison of "any other modern European nation" is.

I'm a Byzantophile that fucking despises the legacy of the Ottomans/Turks, but you're flat-out ignorant on just why they were successful and a legitimate, literal terror to the Europeans in the 1400-1500s.

File: Tsoukalicious.jpg (11KB, 480x360px)

11KB, 480x360px

>>1786429
>I'm not saying they were collecting mongolians to fight for them, most of turkey was conquered wether the turks like it or not.
They weren't collecting mongols, Osman was collecting everyone who was running away from Mongols into his Beylik. Which, btw, was already in Anatolia, and was at the border of the Mongol Empire. It wasnt conquered given it was some irrelevant fief ruled by a simple Bey.
>But everything that was on top of a horse after all the eastern kingdoms were conquered by mongols was copied by those eastern kingdoms.
Horse archery is old as fucking fuck and is the mainstay of every nomadshit that ever was. The Mongols conquered because they did the same shit the Turkics did: adapt to local warfare.
>Well and the last two arguments are a bit weak, where did they "adapt?"
>"Gimme some money and I let you alone?"
OH I DUNNO.
CALLING THEMSELVES SULTANS/EMIRS/SHAHS? ESTABLISHING SETTLED STATES? TAKING OVER ISLAMIC ADMINISTRATION AND BUREAUCRACY AND IMPLEMENTING THEM ON THEIR OWN STATES?

a LOT of the Turkics entered the middle east not as invading armies - that shit came later- but as administrators and army officers of the dying, mercenary-reliant, Abbasid Caliphate. They became powerful governors, commanders, and nobles overseeing many areas and in time, the big Seljuk invasion arrived and before you know it, anyone ever in charge in the Medieval Islamic world past 1000s AD was some Turkshit Horsenigger. The Turkics are the reason why titles like "Sultan" (literally merely a governor under the Caliphates), acquired kingly status since the Sultanates of the Turkics were independent and paid only lip service to the dying Abbasids. One even usurped a breakaway caliphate in Egypt to found his own sultanate: the Mamluk Sultanate.

Seeing that the states they built lasted longer than the Mongol Empire(s) clearly mean they adapted to life in the middle east better than those Mongol retards ever did.

You know nothing of the region. Cease talking.

>>1784604
Lmao wtf did I just read

>>1786270
>Once the ottomans faced off stronger bigger european empires it was basically over.

like who? spain? france? holy roman empire? they did, and even then those 'stronger bigger european empires' usually formed coalitions just to keep the ottoman in check

see >>1781700

what a dumb fucking post

>>1786436

That is not the same, we're not talking about "just dudes on horses with bows."

Its true there was cavalry like that but not with the same equipment and techniques. There is a reason why those former empires were conquered by mongols and that reason was simply because mongols are the undisputed masters of horse archery.

They don't necessarily have to be there with their armies controlling that land. The influence of mongol armies went way further.

>>1786444

Yes they did? Westerners were the first making crude black powder weapons and putting them in a line. Only way later, probably way too late, the ottomans catched up on it. I mean janissaries were born out of the concept that westerners seem to handle muskets much better.

Well and that is what I'm trying to say here, exactly that was their "shtick." But if not for mongols, other europeans and other eastern countries turks on their own would have never made it so far.

>>1786496

Because they weren't. Simple as that. Europeans were afraid but only because conquering other empires has such a effect.

I mean the Serbian kingdom has some rich history just like the bulgarian one. It seems to be a huge act to conquer such "mighty nations."

But once they reached the holy roman empire, who was actually doing good, it was time for them to actually prove their worth. Instead on that point onwards they completely lost at all fronts.

The russians pushed back the crimean khanate, rebellions started breaking out everywhere and the western nations steamrolled everything up to Istanbul.

>>1786498

>They weren't collecting mongols, Osman was collecting everyone who was running away from Mongols into his Beylik. Which, btw, was already in Anatolia, and was at the border of the Mongol Empire. It wasnt conquered given it was some irrelevant fief ruled by a simple Bey.

You should take a second look at my sentence.

Horse archery yes. But those things mongols did was much more advanced. Cont.

>>1786498

You can't compare eastern horse archery with that of mongolian horse archery.

Its like comparing some native tribe in africa with the USMC.

Of course they took the titles, because after all they are still part of that empire. But practically ottomans simply had no control over those lands. Well most of it anyways, just if they really had some plans with certain regions they actually went their themselves. But even then they probably just told the former european lord to do their bidding.

That also isn't really right, so turks did it right but all others not because turks are just turks? Seems a bit one sided to me. There were other nations doing good and saying immigration is what made them great is a bit foolish don't you think?

Ottomans were conquering just like everyone else but even there they've left most things intact. That is what I'm trying to tell you here, it lasted longer because they left those people some kind of independence.

Pay your shit and we leave you alone. That and technically most of that what you just said would be arabian in origin.

But there is barely any difference between arabic and turkic.

All those battles were against mutherfuckinmutherfuckinh napoleon that's why. He was like the greatest battlefield commander of all time that's why

Also the ottomans were mediocre at war they btfo of the venesians a handful of times even when the rest of the italian states teamed up together

>>1786594
>Yes they did? Westerners were the first making crude black powder weapons and putting them in a line.

Janissary corps were establish in 1300s and Mehmed set them to two row lines in 1400s. The closest to this would be Spanish tercios and it would come to be Italian wars later.

I cannot believe you are literally disputing this well established fact that Janissary corps were the first musketeers of modern era.

You do know the Turkics used to live where the Mongols were, right? Used the same weapons? Same tactics? None of it is different except the Mongols did their shit in an era where Asia was in a complete mess: the 1200s.

Can't read the rest of your shit. You have no idea of the region mang.

>>1786627
>But there is barely any difference between arabic and turkic.

What the fuck.

>>1786594
Europeans were using columns of arquebusers until time of Maurice and Gustav Adolf. Muskets of line was used a century earlier by Ottomans.

30-years-wars is when Europeans caught up and later surpassed Ottoman infantry tactics and later on they would catch up and surpass their cavalry tactics in 17th century as well.

>>1786727
Battle of Saint Gotthard was where Western Europe(France) Has shown that it has surpassed the Ottomans in that

>>1786627
>You can't compare eastern horse archery with that of mongolian horse archery.
Yes you can, because there was no difference. It's why the Mongols managed to absorb nearly every Turkish tribe into its army on their march west.

Mongolian tactical and strategic dominance wasn't related to some unique form of horse archery. It had to do with their unique organization as a confederation of all Mongol tribes. Powerful confederations come and go like a flash in the pan. The Mongol successor states were just like them as well. But the initial state run by Genghis Khan was different. It wasn't an extended family of uncles, brothers, and cousins all working together to carve out small kingdoms for themselves, but a commonwealth of unrelated Mongol tribes working under Genghis to only further the Mongols as a whole.

We have this thread everyday etc etc but how do we explain the really low population density of the empire throughout its history? I believe that as a rule the european provinces had 2 times the population density of anatolia, which in turn had 3 times the population density of the levant and Iraq which in turn had 10 times the population density of the arabian provinces, and that all amounted to around 25 million in 1789 which was less than the population of metropolitan France (28 million)
In ancient times population of those regions was waaaaay higher.

>>1786792
The population of the Middle East collapsed in the 6th century and remained stagnant for the most part ever since, until the modern green revolution of course.

Plague and famine aside, it's because the region was continuously ruled by a military aristocracy with close ties to a nomadic tribe that they favored, allowing them and other pastoralists to dominate the countryside while urbanized agriculturalists retreated to a handful of major cities.

>>1786805
Interesting, it seems that the Byzantines were an exception to this rule and that the Ottomans did not rely on tribes in Anatolia as far as I know. Why did it take so long for Anatolian population to recover under the Ottomans?

>>1786627
>But practically ottomans simply had no control over those lands.
So the Balkanites should just shut up about Turks then? What was the fuss about "milets" "beys" and Ottoman governors then? kek.

>>1786819
The Ottomans did rely on tribes, both in Anatolia and in the Balkans (where they settled many for this very purpose). They just didn't rely too much on Anatolian tribes if they could help it because they were notoriously rebellious having been ruling beyliks in their own right before they were conquered and annexed. Before then there was the Black Death, the Mongols, and the Byzantine policy of evacuating whole villages from the border with the Turks.

Anatolia's population did not apparently suffer in the 6th century as much as the rest of the region, but around the 13th century it looks like it imploded and flatlined for centuries after.

>>1786846
>Anatolia's population did not apparently suffer in the 6th century as much as the rest of the region
that was I believe because Anatolia was a relative backwater for the byzantines at the time and because, after losing their breadbaskets in the 7th century, the byzantines undertook a serious effort into turning Anatolia into one. In which they succeeded eventually.
I suppose that, like with the Byzantines, when the Ottomans possesed richer regions than Anatolia they didn't put in a lot of effort into developping it.

there are some severely mentally retarded people in this thread

>>1786708
>>1786748

If you look up the very idea of Janissaries, you'd see that they were recruited because europeans seem to handle european weapons much better.

The only well known fact is, that pikemen and musketmen combination of western, european armies was started with the most early gunpowder weapons. Tercios were just mixed regiments, while most other separated them in their own regiments.

>>1786714

I just said that to piss of turks and arabs.

>>1786713

No they never did. You know where mongolia is? Big fucking mountains and deserts inbetween.

>>1786727

A century earlier, you know what this means right? In that case the ottomans would have been able to conquer all of europe without a problem.

>>1786749

Oh and that mongolians were mostly feared because of said horse archery is just coincidence? People describing them as mounted devils and so on?

>>1786842

Oh, its more about those symbolic things, y'know that very well.

>>1787045
>If you look up the very idea of Janissaries, you'd see that they were recruited because europeans seem to handle european weapons much better.

Yes, all European born people have a racial bonus of +2 towards gunpowder weapons.

Fucking retard.

>>1787045
>Oh and that mongolians were mostly feared because of said horse archery is just coincidence? People describing them as mounted devils and so on?
A misunderstanding on your part. The Mongols were feared by civilian populations for their indiscriminate rapaciousness and identity as a pagan horde. No one ever said anything about them being better mounted archers than any of the hundreds of thousands of mounted archers all across Asia.

>>1787057

Tell that those sultans not me but the general idea was that westerners seem to be better at it so they went ahead and did that.

>>1787065

Everyone they faced said that about them not just peasants. Even if it is true that other nations used mounted archers, you won't find so many of them, skillful ones like in the mongolian hordes. Like europe had their knights who were the strongest cavalry around at their time so had the mongolias tactics and equipment that surpassed that of other civilizations.

The main reason why china lost to them is because they just used massive armies mostly made of infantry.

It was also the reason why they had the fastest armies, why they expanded so rapidly and why eastern archers were a bad joke compared to the.

>>1787127
>Tell that those sultans not me but the general idea was that westerners seem to be better at it so they went ahead and did that.

The idea for formation of Janissary corps whom were collected amongst Greeks, Serbs and Albanians who did not use gunpowder weapons in any widespread weapon in a time where gunpowder weapons were uncommon in Europe in general aside of artillery is because they wanted to balance out the power of Turkish cavalry gentry and have a professional core army only loyal to Sultan and nobody else.

Their choice of "European" people for Janissary corps had nothing to do with any racial or ethnic leaning, which Ottomans didn't care about in the slightest but simply a pragmatic approach to army's power in politics.

>>1787127
>Tell that those sultans not me but the general idea was that westerners seem to be better at it so they went ahead and did that.

I'm guessing you're just baiting at this point but I'll bite, only reason why they used westerners for that shit is because muslims could serve in the army and non muslims couldn't. By using non christian children they actually got more manpower to use.

>>1787127
>Everyone they faced said that about them not just peasants
Literate bureaucrats said they were evil, yes. You don't find any Turkic military commanders saying they were better horse archers. I challenge you to find anyone that claimed this.

The Mongols were just well organized and well led on a scale that hadn't been done before with nomad armies. An individual Mongolian soldier was not somehow a superior fighter than his distant cousin from Kazakhstan or even Hungary. He was just brilliantly led and fought in a massive army that wasn't hampered by tribal politics like every other horde in the past. The style of warfare the Mongols practiced was the exact same one the Uyghers, Jurchens, Turks and others practiced. But whereas the latter was limited to small group tactics due to social hierarchies and family ties dividing them Genghis created a supertribe of all Mongolians allowing them to practice these tactics on a huge scale.

File: 20161001_142140.jpg (1MB, 1074x3143px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1074x3143px

>>1781700

>>1787165
Not him, but Christians did serve in the Ottoman army, and it's not until late into their history that the empire restricted recruitment to Muslims only. By that time however the Janissaries had become useless as a force.

Westerners were used simply because they were available in large numbers as prisoners of war, so the sultans put them to use as his private guard.

File: 20161001_142113.png (226KB, 1222x2026px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1222x2026px

>>1781700

Wut

File: 20161001_142046.jpg (1MB, 1075x2590px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1075x2590px

>>1781700

Lol ok

File: 20161001_142019.jpg (1019KB, 1077x2801px) Image search: [Google]

1019KB, 1077x2801px

>>1781700
Good meme

File: 20161001_141953.jpg (1007KB, 1078x2243px) Image search: [Google]

1007KB, 1078x2243px

>>1781700

Kek

>>1781584
>Mate I don't think you understand the amount of logistics and men required to take a fortified town in an Island no less. The numbers are utterly meaningless, most them are sitting around doing nothing waiting for a breach or besieged to capitulate.

Why didn't they just build siege towers or whatever and try to take the fortresses by storm?

Why sit around waiting for disease to destroy their army?

File: b4f.jpg (23KB, 569x428px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 569x428px

let me tell you why

UK helped them put down Egyptian revolt
UK and France helped them in Crimean War

otherwise the Ottoman Empire had ceased to exist long ago

File: 20161001_141917.jpg (2MB, 1076x3628px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1076x3628px

>>1781700

Why is turk so bad against slav

>>1787221
That's just accounting for the 1800s.

>>1781700

I almost feel sorry for the East Roman Empire wannabes

File: slavs being slavs.jpg (110KB, 502x909px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 502x909px

every time

>>1787141

Yes they did those very first ones but those were not very effective, ottomans didn't have any better ones at that time.

Janissaries were soldiers of european descendants who were trained from young age to only serve the sultan, they were basically slaves.

>>1787165

That's nonsense too, they had christian protectorates.

>>1787174

So they just had good generals, that's it? Men, guess middle eastern kingdoms were just very shitty in general if that were true.

I mean sure everyone was amazed at how agile mongolian armies were and what a mongolian could do with a horse but hey, its just because they were unified, y'know just like all those other empires that they encountered.

I mean y'know just look at the templars and why they were so long so successful despite the odds.

They simply had a good tactic, good armor and every templar knew how to fight accordingly on horse and on foot.

But nah, ain't those knights that made them so strong, its because the muslim population was so happy to be ruled under a christian state.

The mongolians created arguebly the biggest empire in the world, nowhere in hell was it "just because they were better organized."

So I guess brits, francais and spaniard were all just "better organized" too as they were creating their colonial empires?

>>1787222
They owned slavs for 300 years so I doubt Nationality is involved.

File: turciacyka.jpg (680KB, 1430x1023px) Image search: [Google]

680KB, 1430x1023px

>>1781700

Topkek

File: 80b.jpg (79KB, 502x909px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 502x909px

>>1787233

And despite me, not being russian that is a fairly stupid thing to post because the original is pic related.

File: turkturk.jpg (200KB, 587x882px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 587x882px

>>1787233

Every time.

File: turcia.jpg (218KB, 669x877px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 669x877px

>>1787233

Literally every single time.

File: shooshoo.jpg (434KB, 1406x876px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 1406x876px

itt: pic related

>>1787235
>So they just had good generals, that's it? Men, guess middle eastern kingdoms were just very shitty in general if that were true.

Good generals and good organization. Many Middle Eastern kingdoms at the time were in fact weak and functioned more like feudal regimes monopolizing local violence with a minority class of nobles than empires with a highly mobilized citizen-soldier population. This is the reason why the Mongols could blow through Central Asia as fast as they did but stall for decades against a solidly organized state backing a proper army like Egypt or China.

You seem to have an unhealthy lack of respect for logistics combined with a video game idea of soldiers and empires in history.

File: richest slav in all of ussr.jpg (31KB, 378x394px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 378x394px

I still got it.

File: 1445117045512.jpg (41KB, 400x323px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 400x323px

>>1787235
>That's nonsense too, they had christian protectorates.

How's their christian protectorates help them use their christian population in places like bosnia and albania?

>>1787188
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedl-i_askeri

Actually the opposite. The christians couldn't bear arms until the tanzimat reform which came later in the ottomans empires history.

File: autism.jpg (2MB, 1062x2551px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1062x2551px

>>1787282

>>1787222
Because it was a general assault into one guarded mountain pas.

>>1781752
The list goes on, subhuman, with more less for your side.

>>1785887
The last Balkan country was taken in 1521, the Banate of Jajce.

> Hungarians won most of those for the ill-bred Balkanites

That only counts for the siege of Belgrade and Krusevac.

>Squat somewhere else, Slavboo

You're an illiterate subhuman, I'm attracted to your misconceptions.

>>1781403
They weren't shit at war they just had a hard time keeping up when their decline set in.
But then you could say that about every empire.

>>1787238
They've owned the most fractious and least populous Slavs, after 227 years of trying, no less.

File: 1475635564891.jpg (41KB, 636x636px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 636x636px

Turkish shitposting army has arrived

>>1787303
>Actually the opposite.
No. Like I just finished saying, the politics of an all-Muslim army with no Christians was a later issue. Well into the mid 17th century 30% of the Ottoman Sipahi cavalry were still Christian, never mind the Christian vassal states that would fight alongside the main army regularly. The troops that fought the hardest in the battle against Tamerlane for example were Christian Serbian knights.

>>1787777
>The troops that fought the hardest in the battle against Tamerlane for example were Christian Serbian knights.
During Tamerlane's time, the Sipahi can only be drawn from the Turkic aristocracy. Given that the Ottomans were still based around Anatolia.

>>1787787
That's nice, but what does it have to do with the fact that several Christian vassals were fighting with the sultan at Angora?

Not a damn thing, really.

>>1787787
The Ottomans were already deep into the Balkans by then. While Anatolian sipahis were Turkish aristocrats, Rumelian sipahis were either frontier magnates or Christian vassals, of which there were several.

>>1781575
I feel for Venice on that one
>coalition force of Venice, Genoa, and Spain
>Venetian commanders want to ride Lepanto's momentum to crush the Ottoman navy and decisively protect Cyprus
>Spanish commanders drag their heels
>genoese outright hostile to continuing the campaign because muh rivalry

>>1787787
During his onslaught, the Serbs were their allies, even during Nicopolis.

holy shit all these buttblasted slavshit in this thread wew

>>1789044
Fine difference in being buttblasted and giving counterarguments.

The Ottomans in this board are a meme.

They controled the mediterranean when they mediterranean had stopped being relevant due to european expansion to the americas and east asia, the same reason with venice became decadent, the atlantic became the new mediterranean.

they didnt adopt the printing press till the XVIII century

when the french conquered Algeria, it had a smaller population than in Roman times.

It was a huge backwards shithole that ruled over backwards shitholes most of its history, and their expansion stopped as soon as they faced a real european country (not the balkans)

and they ended their history with genocide and ethnically cleasing the oldest populations of anatolia.

but every day there is a thread about how awesome the sick man of europe was.

>>1781407
they remained connected to their families and donated gifts to them

File: keity.jpg (39KB, 600x593px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x593px

>>1789543
There is literally nothing wrong with being a Turk.

>>1790646
except, there is

File: otto.gif (69KB, 601x379px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 601x379px

why did this one empire triggers people so much? its like a guaranteed butthurt reply

File: keitty.jpg (54KB, 600x593px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x593px

>>1790685
there isn't

>>1790646
>There's literally nothing wrong with being a Seljuk

fixed

File: 5903320+_daaa5476f9b7b1196b98b42025ab2188.jpg (48KB, 500x513px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x513px

>>1790646

>>1781420
T. E. Lawrence was a massive meme. The Arab revolt was basically irrelevant, but he was such a tireless self-promoter he actually managed to convince a lot of people it mattered

>>1789543
Hear hear.

The Balkans were/are the ass of Europe. Conquering this backward place was not some amazing achievement.

File: 1452161125531.jpg (33KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x600px

>>1791457
>insulting the history and heirtage of 60 million people just like that
When will this intolerance and /pol/-rhetoric end from this board.

File: wnIaRyJ.gif (133KB, 311x366px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 311x366px

>>1791459

Yeah conquering Africa in the 19th century wasn't that hard either. See, I now insulted a billion more. Doesn't make it less true though.

Now go back to your safe space.

File: ele geçirmek.jpg (281KB, 1176x581px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1176x581px

>>1781403
But France got btfo by the Ottomans and British during the Egyptian and Syrian campaign

>>1791534
Perfidious Albion strikes again