It's interesting to view this story in the context of the post-feudal consolidations (England, France, Russia and the like) and/or fragmentations (most Hapsburg territories, one way or another) that various parts of Europe went through over the course of the preceding two or three centuries, where the upper tier of non-royal nobility either carved up the kingdoms and empires they were a part of or finally had a national government imposed on them and their territories. Of course, there are also parallels to China's cycle of empire and fragmentation to consider in this context, and the earlier history of Islamic conquest and fragmentation that the Ottomans had replaced.
Do you think there is anything to that comparison, or am I perhaps being tricked by the fact that the Ottomans deliberately looked to Europe for templates of reform?
I think that comparison makes sense. At the risk of oversimplifying it a little bit, I guess it would be fair to say that the European empires (especially continental ones) were undergoing their own centralization drives from the late 18th century onwards and the Ottomans tried to follow a similar path. At this point, the most urgent thing that the Ottomans felt they needed was a modern army. To be able to have and maintain a modern army, though, they needed an efficient and centralized bureaucracy, and that's what the Ottomans tried to achieve.
Thank you for your comment Nigel, I really appreciate it. Comments like this make me feel like what I’m doing is actually helping people and that makes me happy.
Thanks again for your support! And if you need any recommendations on books, etc… please let me know and I’ll try to help you as much as I can.
Interesting. Selim III was the name I was trying remember who attempted reform and got killed for his troubles. Would it be correct, to postulate that without the reforms the ottomans would have been swallowed like Poland in a series of partitions(with who though? The savifids?)
That’s an interesting idea. I mean, historians pretty much hate counterfactual arguments, but I don’t think it’s too far-fetched to entertain.
Maybe they may have been divided up much sooner since, as I try to explain in the article, the local landlords were already carving spheres of influence for themselves in the provinces.
It's interesting to view this story in the context of the post-feudal consolidations (England, France, Russia and the like) and/or fragmentations (most Hapsburg territories, one way or another) that various parts of Europe went through over the course of the preceding two or three centuries, where the upper tier of non-royal nobility either carved up the kingdoms and empires they were a part of or finally had a national government imposed on them and their territories. Of course, there are also parallels to China's cycle of empire and fragmentation to consider in this context, and the earlier history of Islamic conquest and fragmentation that the Ottomans had replaced.
Do you think there is anything to that comparison, or am I perhaps being tricked by the fact that the Ottomans deliberately looked to Europe for templates of reform?
I think that comparison makes sense. At the risk of oversimplifying it a little bit, I guess it would be fair to say that the European empires (especially continental ones) were undergoing their own centralization drives from the late 18th century onwards and the Ottomans tried to follow a similar path. At this point, the most urgent thing that the Ottomans felt they needed was a modern army. To be able to have and maintain a modern army, though, they needed an efficient and centralized bureaucracy, and that's what the Ottomans tried to achieve.
Thank you for this series of insights into the Ottoman Empire. They are encouraging me to read more widely on this topic
Thank you for your comment Nigel, I really appreciate it. Comments like this make me feel like what I’m doing is actually helping people and that makes me happy.
Thanks again for your support! And if you need any recommendations on books, etc… please let me know and I’ll try to help you as much as I can.
Interesting. Selim III was the name I was trying remember who attempted reform and got killed for his troubles. Would it be correct, to postulate that without the reforms the ottomans would have been swallowed like Poland in a series of partitions(with who though? The savifids?)
That’s an interesting idea. I mean, historians pretty much hate counterfactual arguments, but I don’t think it’s too far-fetched to entertain.
Maybe they may have been divided up much sooner since, as I try to explain in the article, the local landlords were already carving spheres of influence for themselves in the provinces.