4 ms·

I’ve always wondered if the Ottoman Empire in many ways was the root of the problem as it traded stability of empire over anything else.

keiferski 6y ago
Al-Jazari lived centuries before the Ottomans existed. Otherwise, having studied the Ottomans extensively, I wouldn’t say they chose stability over anything else. Their slow downfall was due more to a gradual fossilization of their institutions. For example, the Janissaries went from a highly-trained elite force to essentially a social club that everyone wanted to join. The sultans themselves also gradually became less competent. Also of note is that the Ottomans were initially on the cutting edge of military technology and even exported quite a lot of it to the Mughals, who then had an advantage over their opponents. So, they certainly weren’t “behind” technologically. Pretty much the same pattern as any empire, really. Initial warrior class conquers land, their immediate descendants develop a refined culture, and it’s all downhill from there as following generations aim but fail to recapture the magic.
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  Two black marks in my book Selim I banning the printing press and and destruction of Taqiuddin’s observatory under Murad III
  - Cyph0n 6y ago
    The printing press ban probably had a huge impact. It was much easier to spread ideas if you didn’t have to transcribe them by hand.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  > Their slow downfall was due more to a gradual fossilization of their institutions. Sounds like an inevitable phase in the life cycle of empires.
- christkv 6y ago
  Exactly the fossilization of the institutions more interested in maintaining the status quo. You saw the same in the Roman Empire which stagnated. The chaos of the mess of Europe forced innovation and exploration of ideas at the cost of immense amounts of wars instability.
- dingoegret 6y ago
  He is correct though. If you disagree, can you point me to information on what developments the Ottomans were responsible for in the Middle East and North Africa? For example, is there a reason the region of North Africa went from inhabiting several vibrant, busy trading centers. Small regional empires in their own right, to becoming a collection of fossilized fishing communities of a fraction of the population along the coast? Centuries of neglect? How is that Napoleon was able to invade and conquer Egypt, the heart of MENA and found it unimpressive and empty? Hardly the Egypt of yore. Really, what advancements, cities, anything did the Ottomans contribute to the large landmass they governed over? All their effort was focused at Anatolia and Eastern Europe. If we're being honest, they were a colonial force to the rest of MENA for over 600 years while Europe was exponentially growing at every segment.

keiferski 6y ago

Al-Jazari lived centuries before the Ottomans existed. Otherwise, having studied the Ottomans extensively, I wouldn’t say they chose stability over anything else. Their slow downfall was due more to a gradual fossilization of their institutions. For example, the Janissaries went from a highly-trained elite force to essentially a social club that everyone wanted to join. The sultans themselves also gradually became less competent. Also of note is that the Ottomans were initially on the cutting edge of military technology and even exported quite a lot of it to the Mughals, who then had an advantage over their opponents. So, they certainly weren’t “behind” technologically. Pretty much the same pattern as any empire, really. Initial warrior class conquers land, their immediate descendants develop a refined culture, and it’s all downhill from there as following generations aim but fail to recapture the magic.

selimthegrim 6y ago
Two black marks in my book Selim I banning the printing press and and destruction of Taqiuddin’s observatory under Murad III
- Cyph0n 6y ago
  The printing press ban probably had a huge impact. It was much easier to spread ideas if you didn’t have to transcribe them by hand.
Apocryphon 6y ago
> Their slow downfall was due more to a gradual fossilization of their institutions. Sounds like an inevitable phase in the life cycle of empires.
christkv 6y ago
Exactly the fossilization of the institutions more interested in maintaining the status quo. You saw the same in the Roman Empire which stagnated. The chaos of the mess of Europe forced innovation and exploration of ideas at the cost of immense amounts of wars instability.
dingoegret 6y ago
He is correct though. If you disagree, can you point me to information on what developments the Ottomans were responsible for in the Middle East and North Africa? For example, is there a reason the region of North Africa went from inhabiting several vibrant, busy trading centers. Small regional empires in their own right, to becoming a collection of fossilized fishing communities of a fraction of the population along the coast? Centuries of neglect? How is that Napoleon was able to invade and conquer Egypt, the heart of MENA and found it unimpressive and empty? Hardly the Egypt of yore. Really, what advancements, cities, anything did the Ottomans contribute to the large landmass they governed over? All their effort was focused at Anatolia and Eastern Europe. If we're being honest, they were a colonial force to the rest of MENA for over 600 years while Europe was exponentially growing at every segment.