The Ottoman Empire, Essay Example

Introduction

The Ottoman Empire is known for its long-running ruling as one of the most remarkable powers ever existed globally. One of the reasons it is historically recognized as one of the mighty powers is that it controlled most of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East for over six hundred years. The fact that this empire was founded by a Turkish leader, Osman, in the thirteenth century was the reason its other name was the Turkish Empire. After its rise in the thirteenth century, the Ottoman Empire was wiped out of existence in 1922 after which it started being referred to as the “sick man of Europe.” To that end, this essay focuses on how this description reflects the Ottoman Empire’s military performance during the war.

The Empire reached its most significant influence in the areas it controlled in the sixteenth century when Suleiman the magnificent was its leader [[1]]. After that, however, it started depicting power decline in the 1600s, losing both military and economic control to Europe [[2]]. In the wake of World War I, Ottoman Empire had already lost its grip in the corridors of power. Several weaknesses associated with the Ottoman Empire army led them to lose the war, leading to its demise [[3]]. One of the most significant reasons the empire had been standing throughout all the six hundred years is that Janissaries had been the central unit of the army [[4]]. Within the empire, a Janissary was a military unit formed by infantrymen soldiers consisting of slaves from several parts of Europe, enslaved and trained under strict discipline to become the best soldiers. The most recognized discipline was that these soldiers had been stripped of their right to marry and have families so that they would not have divided attention between family and war. The essence of this was to ensure that these soldiers had nothing else to think about except the war. But as the years had gone by while proving to be the best soldiers throughout the six hundred years that the empire had been in control, they had begun to be appreciated with more privileges. And since one of these privileges was being allowed to have wives and families, they divided their attention between their families and war as the empire had feared, which was why they lost the battle. This, therefore, is one reason why the “sick man of Europe” description reflects the Ottoman Empire’s military performance during the war.

However, some of the army’s weaknesses emanated from the leadership [[5]]. Another reason that makes the “sick man of Europe” description reflect on the army’s performance is the naivety of the empire’s leaders to believe that an amateur could effectively lead the army [[6]]. The fact that the Ottoman empire had more religious elements was why they held their faith in God as a tool to control everything, including the military [[7]]. This, in turn, led them not to do any military research to keep up with the changes that occurred with time. When Suleiman II became the leader of the empire in 1687, his first order of business was to make his young brother the commander of the military [[8]]. This act preceded previous defeats. However, the army continued to lose the battle regardless of that change. Here, the most significant error done by Suleiman II was that he did not care whether or not his brother was capable enough to lead the army, but he promoted him anyway.

Another weakness of the empire’s army originating from the leadership was that the leaders who came after Suleiman I had little experience and ability to control the military. Like in any other country or kingdom with hereditary leadership where the ruling title stays within the ruling family, the Ottoman was no exception. In this kind of government, people are bound to have an inexperienced leader one or more times.  This is because the hereditary government does not care about the person’s leadership qualities inheriting the throne, only the fact that he is bound to be there whether the people like it or not. An example of such a leader in the ottoman empire was Murad IV, who appointed Kara Mustafa, an incompetent Grand Vizier, to lead the Vienna assault and failed.

Another weakness in the Ottoman army that makes the “sick man of Europe” fit their description is their lack of skills to use advanced weapons in war. For example, in the 1600s, their leaders decided to update their arsenal by acquiring Muskets from the western countries, but the Ottoman army did not use them effectively [[9]]. Whereas the Muskets were designed so that they would be used as laid-down firearms operated by the team, the ottoman army decided to use them as individual weapons just like they were used to using swords [[10]]. However, the problem was that they did not have the appropriate training to develop their skills to use advanced weapons. And this was primarily because their leaders did not care to keep their army up to speed with the weapon changes.

Additionally, the poor organization of the army was another weakness. Janissaries were known to be the strength of the ottoman empire, but they were dissolved around 1821 following the coup de tat organized by the civilian soldiers of the same Janissaries assisted by the middle and the lower-ranked officers [[11]]. The rise of these rebels within the same army shows that there was a problem with the organization and governance of the Ottoman army. Although most of the insurgents were killed and the others expelled from the military, the act cost the empire one of its most trusted military units. Furthermore, although the approximate number of the janissaries when the coup de tat happened was seventy thousand, the number of the Janissaries that engaged in the actual battlefield was approximately thirty thousand. The others were the civilian soldiers who got paid for the services they never offered. Again, this shows a real problem with the military’s organization, which means that it was bound to develop division.

Although the “sick man of Europe” was a description offered after the Ottoman empire’s defeat in the nineteenth century [[12]], these pieces of evidence show that there had been many weaknesses in the military that would later lead to the collapse of the empire. Even though the empire had been in control over most parts of Europe and North Africa for over six hundred years, the organization of the empire was an essential element that the leaders failed to put in check [[13]]. And this is because most of the weaknesses found in the military had originated from the leadership. For example, since it was an Islamic kingdom, most of its leaders focused more on converting the conquered regions to Muslims [[14]]than creating a strong leadership that would give their enemies a hard time to defeat. Therefore, the “sick man of Europe” is a description that does reflect the Ottoman Empire’s military performance.

Furthermore, the empire’s efforts to improve the education of its people failed in the 1800s [[15]]. Despite the fact that this empire had control for a long time, their lack of education and the appropriate training to keep up with the changing world become a weakness that their European competitors started exploiting. For example, by the time World War I was beginning, only about ten percent of its entire population was able to read [[16]]. This means that the human resources in all the sectors, including the military, had limited skills to cope with the changing world. And since their rivals had already gone far ahead of them as far as educating their population and keeping their military training up to speed was concerned, they ended up losing the battle in World War I, hence the empire’s demise altogether.

Conclusion

In the end, several factors have contributed to the collapse of the empire, but the weaknesses of its army that it continued to exhibit over the years were the most significant. Although its demise is also associated with choosing Germany’s side in the wake of World War I, it would not have lost the battle if its army did not have its weaknesses. Since the name “sick man of Europe” came after they were defeated in the World War I, this description can be said to reflect the military performance in the war.

Bibliography

Ágoston, Gábor, and Bruce Masters. Encyclopedia of the Ottoman empire. Facts on File, 2008.

Ágoston, Gábor. “Firearms and Military Adaptation: The Ottomans and the European Military Revolution, 1450-1800.” Journal of World History (2014): 85-124.

Aksakal, Mustafa. The Ottoman road to war in 1914: The Ottoman Empire and the First World War. Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Dustmann, Christian, Bernd Fitzenberger, Uta Schönberg, and Alexandra Spitz-Oener. “From sick man of Europe to economic superstar: Germany’s resurgent economy.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 28, no. 1 (2014): 167-88.

Goodwin, Godfrey. The Janissaries. Saqi, 2013.

Imber, Colin. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: the structure of power. Macmillan International Higher Education, 2019.

Lybyer, Albert Howe. The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the time of Suleiman the Magnificent. Harvard University Press, 2013.

Macfie, Alexander Lyon. The end of the Ottoman Empire, 1908-1923. Routledge, 2014.

McCarthy, Justin. The Ottoman peoples and the end of empire. London: Arnold, 2001.

Pormann, Peter. “Imperial Classroom: Islam, the State, and Education in the Late Ottoman Empire.” (2002).

?im?ek, Veysel. “The Grand Strategy of the Ottoman Empire, 1826-1841.” PhD diss., 2015.

Terzio?lu, Derin. “Where ??lm-i ??l Meets Catechism: Islamic Manuals of Religious Instruction in the Ottoman Empire in the Age of Confessionalization.” Past & Present 220, no. 1 (2013): 79-114.

Kafadar, Cemal. “Janissaries and other riffraff of Ottoman Istanbul: Rebels without a cause.” Identity and Identity Formation in the Ottoman World (2007).

YABAN, Nesli Tu?ban. “Environment of Culture and Art in the Ottoman Empire in 19th Century.” The Online Journal of Science and Technology-April 8, no. 2 (2018).

Yanov, Dmytro M. “The Influence of 1688—1691 Monetary Reform of Suleiman II on Currency Circulation of Akkerman.” Arheologia 3 (2019): 48-54.

Zurcher, Erik Jan. “Recent trends in the Historiography of the Ottoman Empire in the World War I.” Ventunesimo Secolo (2017).