How The Ottomans Almost Stopped Their Decline | Ottoman History
The Ottomans were once one of the mightiest empires. But by the 19th century, imperial decay had set in and they became known as 'The Sick Man of Europe'. Under a series of Sultans, they initiated reforms that aimed to stop their decline.
Big thank you to @sultanskinny for his help with the script. Check out his channel for more informative content on the Middle East: / @sultanskinny3094
FREE NEWSLETTER:
mailchi.mp/a69f93be6c66/hikma...
- Become a Patron for as little as a dollar a month to vote on upcoming and keep the movement going!
www.patreon.com/user?u=12397811
Massive thank you to our Patreons:
Callum
Derek
Richard
Pedro
Muhammad
Igor
Aman
Shawn
William
Tahsin
Zaki
Sam
Elman
Walid
Areeb
Edgar
Claudius
Bilal
Rob
Kjetil
Amin
Deniz
Yehoshua
Artin
Adam
Farid
Ibrahim
Ari
Joshua
Haseeb
Mahmoud
Joel
CoreBard
- Join our social media community:
Twitter:
/ hikmahistory
Instagram:
/ hikmahistory
Facebook:
/ hikmahistory
Facebook group:
/ hikma. .
#ottoman #middleeast #palestine
Images Used:
Music Used:
Doug Maxwell - Arabian Nightfall (Sting):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bRzD...
If any of the images or songs are yours, please let me know I will amend them. Please don't report me straight away!
0:00 Intro
01:46 Muhammad Ali of Egypt sets modernising precedent
06:37 Ottoman Reformation
11:15 Reform's failure & reaction
Do you think it was possible to reverse Ottoman decline? And if so, how? For more Early Modern History of the Islamic world: kzhead.info/channel/PLiPhmAD3I2JwdVOt4lI39d3XENLktUgP5.html
Yes. If the Ottomans reached Americas before Spain and Portugal. If they advanced more in weaponry and technology than their european counterparts. If the Young Turks - in lieu of forsaking their religion and Ottomans - united with the Ottomans and fought _for_ Islām, Caliphate, and the Sultanate, not _against_ it.
@@SignsBehindSciencenice historical revisionism. Imagine thinking they failed because they were not extremist enough.
I have not had the opportunity to formally study the vast intricacies of Ottoman history, but it has long held a fascination for me. The understanding I had developed from my own unstructured and fractured readings was that their were too many court/harem structures and institutions which like the Jannisaries had simultaneously thrived in their privilege, but at the same time atrophied real progress because any reformation was by definition a threat to them. This video gave me a more cohesive overall timeline of some of the developments and reform attempts in the 19th C. I’ve often wondered “what if” the Ottomans had managed to stay neutral in 1914, or even allied with the Triple Entente instead of the Triple Alliance. But regardless of any “what-ifs” around that I think the Empire was doomed to be broken up by external forces as much as internal forces. I love your vids, and will check out Sultan Sunny now :-)
@@AL-lh2ht Imagine claiming they were extremist lmao
@@SignsBehindScience They'd have to get through and dominate the Alaouite to get access to the Atlantic which is far off from their central control.
So the Jennisaris became the corrupt praetorian guard for the Ottomans.
its pronounced jaan-nisaa-ree Jaan-nisaari Life-sacrificer.
@@Hindu_Shahilol nope yeni çeri in turkish (new soldier)
Basically
The Praetorians are worse imo. I mean can you blame the Janissaries? Abducted as children to be slaves and forcibly forsake your religion.
@@user-nw6se9yc7j oh really i totally had it all wrong. could you please explain etymology of Yeni and Ceri?
This is a good introduction to the Tanzimat, but policy making in this era was primarily driven by the Grand Viziers during this period. Mahmud II and Abdulhamid II (to some extent Abdulaziz as well) were more autocratic, while Abdulmecid had his ministries do most of the work. The most influential of these grand viziers were Mustafa Reşid Pasha, Mehmed Emin Âli Pasha, Mehmed Fuad Pasha, and Ali Şefik Midhat Pasha. Another important point to be mentioned is that Rousseau style government was not an inevitability in the Empire, and reform was an excuse bureaucrats used to gain power and influence or fight each other for. The Tanzimat era central government was fluid and confusing because of this.
You missed some crucial points. 1. The Economy of the Ottoman Empire, didn’t shrink, it grew through out the 19th century, but it couldn’t keep up the pace with Britain, France and Germany. 2. Sultan Abdulhamid, didn’t indebt the empire further, to the contrast he paid off most of the debt. 3. The ultimative problem for the empire were the Russians, waging war, that’s the reason, otherwise the Ottoman Empire still would exist. 4. The main problem with the economy were the infrastructure cost. Whilst you could build railways relative cost effective in northern Germany, France and England, where you had sizeable populations, the Ottoman heartland of Anatolia was sparsely populated, the distances were long and the topology mountainous.
excellent points brother, could you recommend me a few good books on ottoman history
The last great Ottoman sultans after Sultan ahmed was Abd-ul-Hamid han.
I wouldn't agree on point 3, cause afaik there wasn't really Russia vs OE wars, but Russia/Germany/ France/ UK coalition vs OE wars.
2. Abdülhamit 33 yılda 13 kez borç aldı ve ödeyemediği borcun karşılığında Kıbrıs Adasını İngilizlere kiraladı. Ödenmeyen borçlar nedeni ile borç veren ülkeler tarafından Duyunu Umumiye adlı bir kurul oluşturuldu ve bu kurul Osmanlı maliyesini yönetiyordu. Osmanlı kendi maliyesini bile dış güçlere teslim etmiş durumdaydı.
@@kronoxodus319yes, “Arming the sultan” Naci yorulmaz “Ottoman endgame” Sean mcmeekin
Excellent video. As a greek it is very interesting for me to learn history from the ottoman side. It creates a complete understanding of the facts. In my opinion, the biggest problem the ottomans and their subjects faced was that they started the reforms too late, as such they did not have time to develop their own modern society and they tried to follow too much what the europeans did. Especially in Greece after the independence their distain for anything anatolian was so great that they destroyed every previous structure in the society just to become more european. The people however, did not feel like that. After centuries under ottoman rule they were more anatolian than european. Their new society should have reflected that.
Actually Tanziman reforms were quite different from Europe because many reforms implemented by Europe were not suitable for the Ottoman Empire, which had multi-ethnic groups and people from three religions living spreaded this vast lands, they were not confined to a particular region. But what you say is true, the biggest problem of the Tanziman reforms was that they were too late to start. These reforms that needed to be initiated before the nationalist movements spread to Ottoman lands. Apart from the western modernization steps like industry, army etc, the biggest aim of the Tanzimat was to carry out a cultural reform in the Ottoman Empire, because it was realized Ottoman Empire did not have a clear cultural code like Roman Empire was a big problem. In the long term, an attempt was made to create a civilization that separated the Ottoman society from the rest of the world in matters such as education system, urbanization, dress code, architecture, music, art etc. but they could only be completed in Istanbul, it did not spread in the rest of the Empire or maybe litle spread some cities such as Izmir. In the remaining lands, major ethnic and religious conflicts couldn't be prevented.
Actually, Turks still use “Rum” for the indigenious Greeks in Anatolia and in Cyprus. Modern nation building indeed had changed many perceptions and definitions but some persisted. Still feel astonished that the there was a Roman nation until the 19th century even though modern historians tended to defime them as Greeks.
Just curious, what "structure in society" was destroyed after independence? And the "people felt that way?" What exactly is "European" anyways? A gender non-binary resident of 2023 London? There's a lot of myths on both sides of this debate. "We were more Anatolian than European" is as much an unsubstantiated myth as "the Ottomans were always bad" and "we were slaves for 400 years". BTW not all of Greece was under Ottoman control all the time, and we were not isolated from the rest of Europe; there was no passport control back then, or visas. Just as it's not true the Ottomans were always bad, never attempted to reform, and "enslaved" us. The problem is that we don't learn much history between 1453 and 1821, so every Greek just makes things up as we go along. The Ottoman Empire was multicultural, and in 400 years, they didn't actually try to change/influence us much, believe it or not. Their biggest fault is just being economically incompetent.
Must to be stupid to think they deserve your atención
@@joeb5080I think that the the Greek independance hurt both the greeks and us
Outstanding! Thank you for your work.
This was a very educational and mesmerising video. Thanks a lot!
Thanks for the kind words!
I was prejudiced at first, but when I watched the video, I realized that the video was prepared as a result of good research.
I'm a Serb from Bosnia and I find this interesting and relevant to my history (Serbian uprisings and Bosnian).
Same, coming from a Bosniak.
Thank you for this excellent channel. Each video is like an expertly delivered scholarly essay.
Glad you think so!
Pretty good. Though I would argue that the main reason why the French and British stepped in to stop Muhammad Ali's march on Istanbul was not that they feared a rapidly modernizing Egypt, but rather that they feared a sudden collapse of Ottoman power would lead to Russia gobbling up what remained. Russia taking the Dardanelles was a particular concern of the British at the time, so much so that they considered the issue a mater of major national security.
👍
Yeah I agree, probably reckoned it would achieve both outcomes.
i think its both, 2 birds with one stone
Couldn't agree more and it's one of the things I regret not adding to this video.
Great video, first time I have come across your channel. I had to do an eye roll when you mentioned the British. They were just relentless at interfering with anything they could.
Thank you!
Great video btw but I think you missed that Sultan Selim III had already acknowledged the Empire's backdrops when he came to the throne and made initial attempts to reform before the arrival of Napoleon on Egypt, namely the formation of Nizam-i Cedid, which outperformed the conventional troops during the Siege of Acre in 1799. Its initial results and the influence of Alemdar Mustafa along with the rise in power of Muhammad Ali during the war in Greece that convinced Mahmud II to continue the reforms.
Ah yes, Ahmed Jazzar, the butcher.
Another great piece of work.
Much appreciated!
For more than 400 years middle east lived in peace during the Ottoman era, but now 💀
Bro these videos are amazing. Your video production has gotten so good I’m so proud !
Appreciate that massively!
The British navy under the command of Nelson arrived at the Abukir bay of the Nile, following the French navy on 1 August 1798. In the Battle of the Nile, which took place on the same date, the British navy won a brilliant victory and destroyed the French navy. There was also a force belonging to the newly established Nizâm-ı Cedîd military to defend Akka. In addition, new military forces were sent from Istanbul with the navy. Napoleon dreamed that he would capture Acre in a few days and thus open the road to Damascus, Baghdad and India. He was probably dreaming of Alexander the Great. Napoleon advanced to Cairo after the Battle of the Nile. This destruction of the navy, Napoleon's only connection with France, put him in a difficult situation. He marched his army towards Palestine and started to march towards the Akka Castle. The French Army, which came here on March 18, 1799, suffered a heavy defeat against Bosnian Cezzar Ahmed Pasha. On May 21, he lifted the siege and retreated to Cairo (Defense of Acre). After a short time, he left his army in Egypt and returned to France. Egypt, which was under French occupation for three years, was taken back in 1801 with the efforts of the Ottoman and British allied forces, and the French left Egypt with two evacuation agreements signed in Cairo and Alexandria.
Grateful for your content and excellent narration!
Another fine piece of work. Had to share in a few history discords Im in - your channel is criminally under-subscribed.
Big thanks, dw the future should be promising Inshallah!
Once and once again we see where secularism replaces Islam the country initially thrives but then inevitably fails hard
Top notch work
Thank you!
This period needs more coverage. Mistakes are another source of knowledge, above all.
Great vid dude, the ottomans definitely had a chance to put it together
Thanks my man, and I agree (if it had been started just 50 years earlier)
@@HikmaHistory .the problem started in 1500s after lopanto and fail Morocco invasion it was all over from naval supremacy sure it still strong but cracks start to show up the fail to capitalize on new world conquest they did take Philippines but what the point spain toke it later the Mediterranean has become a small lake compares to Atlantic and Indian and Pacific seas thier foot army still good however thier is alot of backward in the ottoman the fails to use new printing press and ban it And most importantly not separating islam from state Vienna was final straw after that 1700s zzzz ottoman still using sword when eroupe only use for Calvary and officers most of Europe musket with baonite
I love your videos 👍💞🕊️
Mā shā' Allāh, this is a well-researched presentation from you, as always!
Thank you!
you are welcome@@HikmaHistory
@@HikmaHistory you're most welcome, Sir
Still sick man of Europe survived longer than Austrian, German and Russian Empires. (By 4 years only but I think it counts) 😅
4 years not a big deal plus they were aloved to be survived
@@SunioPrakash The other guys were allowed by invaders too, their subjects didn’t let them. Ottomans outlived all those arrogant tsars and could live even longer because their remaining subjects didn’t give a damn 👍🏻
How different Ottoman history would've been had they succeeded at reforming themselves.
Mehmed v pasha's = hold my key.....
Not much, more they reformed, the more the empire turned into it's original Turkic identity actually. Atatürk was the ultimate reformer, and one of his biggest lines was ''No longer shall the sons of Turks will die defending Arabian deserts''
@@subutaynoyan5372---How interesting. Thanks for replying.
@@subutaynoyan5372k*malist spotted opinion rejected
@@subutaynoyan5372Kemalist filth
Subhanallah Corrupt is one of the most reason for decline for any nation
Interesting video
This might be your best video yet, thank you for sharing your knowledge and expertise on history that is often untold in “the West.”
Appreciate that big time! I'm quite proud of this one - it will determine a benchmark for future videos.
@@HikmaHistoryreally well done! Never understood the backdrop of Ottoman reforms..now I know it kinda sparked off in Egypt ..explains many a things of today
why it should be told in the West when Muslim countries don't teach the history of the Islamic empires, In Muslim countries they don't teach any Islamic empire history, Ottoman is looked at as Turk history and the other is looked at as Arab and Iranian history, they don't question how the economy worked, and how society worked,
10:47 Successor of Sultan Abdulmecid, Sultan Abdulaziz was Abdulmecid's brother. Not his son.
WOW I can't believe I missed that! I knew that and yet I still did not pick up on it despite multiple rounds of video/script editing - thanks for flagging it.
@@HikmaHistory You missed a lot of things...
Keep it up with the excellent documentaries!
Very cool
I really like this channel. Very interesting!!
Thank you!
Please make a video explaining relationship between Ottomans, safavids, Bukhara and Mughals. If possible a video on mughal invasion of central asia and kabul during Akber'reign or Shah Jahan's reign.
I don't think Ottoman-Safavid relation is needed to be covered in here, it has been covered somewhere else (I couldn't remember who did it though). Though, Ottoman-Mughal relation is underrated, I don't think I have ever seen someone covering this relation
@@sagagis yeah there should be a detailed presentation on the Ottoman-Mughul Relations
2:00 The Bashi Bouzaks & Muhammad Ali in Egypt 7:12 Reformation in the Ottoman empire under Mahmud II 9:42 Tanzimat reforms under Abdulmejid
Bashi Bouzaks weren't exclusively one ethnicity... and I don't see why Muhammad Ali's ethnicity is relevant especially since it is a debated topic.
Cool video, 😎 I wish the Ottoman Empire had a Corporatist* parliament and Georgist* Policies tbh to have a Land value tax and Class Collaboration instated but alas it's too late now.....
Didn't Sultan Abdul Hamid II decreased the national debt up to 90 percent?
Based
Yeah after he ignored all developments in favor of just paying the Europeans off,yeah. He established Ottoman Public Debt Administration which essentially handed of Ottoman finances to European hands,a major reason for Ottoman decline.
public wide censorship.Even for goverment officals.Empires second biggest border loss.Politicazed army.Building unnecessary palaces.Ofcourse he did developed education and expanded railways systems.But even Thedor Heltz asked to the "Padishah" to give him land.Even this describes the collapse of an empire.
@@zxera9702as far as I remember he put a lot of effort in renewing The Ottoman military and navy inspired by the Germans and building railroads. the debts were the so-called modern Sultans faults that he had to repay and clean their mess and the state and his reforms were doing fine until the Young Turks showed up. his Hamidiye regiment saved thousands of of lives of especially Kurds from the Raids of the Armenian supporters of Russia And for that The Kurds Called Him "Babê Kurdan" meaning "The Father of The Kurds" most of the things written about him are pure lies!
@@zxera9702 This is a Great explanation by an Economist On what the Ottoman Economy was like because of the sultans before Abdul Hamid II kzhead.info/sun/ZJx_esuQoaONY68/bejne.htmlsi=McbYcHu5nDutvT5O
Top notch stuff!
Thank you my friend!
before 1826 ,janissary system blocked reformation (janissary soldiers designed many times coup and kill padishah) after 1826 British Empire blocked reformation.(british navy blocade bhosporus assasinate important ministers etc.)
The modernization carried out by Muhammad Ali did not continue after him, and his successors were concerned with extravagance and pleasures, with few exceptions. This is the problem of one-man rule, even if he was a good ruler. Everything is linked to him, and in his absence, things return to their previous state. Institutions are what guarantee Continuous progress, as was the case in Europe Also, I do not understand why those who want to modernize always import from Europe things that have nothing to do with modernization, such as European clothing styles and European customs. Does wearing a turban make the information unable to enter your brain, but wearing a European hat allows it to enter?
It's inferiority complexes
Democracy is unstable. A ruler cannot continue their plans because of term limit and is hindered by the parliament. In a way, autocracy is like betting. If you win, you win it all. Democracy on the other hand is somewhat of a scam to keep the people deluded.
Love the point about institutions guaranteeing continued progress!
@@billisultan6224 Democracy has its drawbacks, and many Western thinkers have spoken about it, but it ensures that the country does not fall into oppression and corruption, which often ends in revolutions and chaos. As for its being unstable, it is because it accepts mild instability so that the country does not go into major instability due to dictatorship. Which leads to revolution and chaos democracy is a s:cam , this is a bit of an exaggeration if you are talking about the West, but in underdeveloped countries it is truly like that , and the matter goes back, as I said, to the institutions
Wearing western dress , relaxation on Alcohol , copying the mechanism of Europe government....these are inferiority complex not progress or modernization. Actual modernization and progress would have been industrialisation , opening schools , science , engineering and research ..these are actual progression and modernization not that wearing Europian clothes ..
This reminds me of the Meiji restoration in Japan. During the same era.
The same thing that motivated the Ottomans also motivated the Japanese to modernise. Funnily enough, Japan's success story of modernisation actually inspired a generation of reformers in the Islamic world (e.g. Afghanistan & Egypt) during the first half of the 20th century.
On the way to modernization in western Europe the masses were in on the discussion of enlightenment ideals for decades before the reforms. Especially the ideas of full emancipation for Jews. Although much of the masses were resistant and disagreed with these ideas much of the masses did in fact embrace these ideas. While in the Ottoman empire these edicts seemed to the masses to come out of nowhere from the top and there hadn't been a ground level discussion of these ideas before reforms were implemented. Have I missed the mark on this?
Hikma your getting good at this shit!
Ottoman economic prosperity depended on the trade from east to the west. They acted as middlemen in exchange of goods between China, India, Indonesia and Europe. Once that trade dried up due to maritime trade routes, Ottoman decline set in. No amount of reforms could undo that economic decadence.
What you said is true, one of the biggest reasons for the collapse of the Ottoman Empire was the discovery of new trade routes in the seas, but with the opening of the Suez Canal, Ottoman Empire had an important opportunity to become a main trade route again and especially the province of Egypt began to become rich this period. The increase in the trade volume passing through the Ottoman lands, especially through Suez, disturbed many Western states, especially the British, and considering that almost all oil fields were in the Ottoman lands, the outbreak of the First World War became inevitable.
@@CruWiT True. I agree with you. If Ottoman Empire survived another 50 years, it would have discovered oil and would have become richest country in the world. That scenario would have made the Middle East stable.
Always learn something.
actually ottomans doing pretty good till the coup of young turks againist Abdulhamid II. The number of schools reached tens of thousands. thousands of girls-only schools and thousands more mixed schools. Higher schools opened in every province center. Railway connecting Berlin to Medina. An improvement in the military field. The defeat of Greece in the war of 1897 in just a few weeks. In fact, in the Russian embassy reports from this period, it is mentioned that the empire was about to recover and get rid of its sick man state. Also a working constitution. At that time, it still did not exist in many European countries. abolished slavery. Nationalism suppressed regardless of nationality. The caliphate begins to regain its former prestige. But the fruits of all these sown seeds could not be collected. The Young Turks, World War I, Arab Revolt and the subsequent evil of Kemal destroyed everything.
Yeah keep believing that, Empire was already dead after the 1877-78 Russian war. Only Britain's interests kept it alive for 50 more years. Im Turkish and Ottomans are my ancestors and Im proud of them but we have to see the reality here, the empire had its time up. No need to keep running a rump state. Revolution is a must when you are that fucked up
Famous Warrior Bodyguards trying not to end up forgetting their job and/or becoming corrupt : *CHALLENGE IMPOSSIBLE*
Seriously, Muhammed Ali was nothing but an umjumped pasha seizing the oppurtunity. His era was in Civil War times in America, so Egyptian cotton was in high demand so he found a rapid amount of money to invest in things. It's not like he had a vision that others were blind to Ottomans were boiling from within, it took Mahmud II more than a decade to violently end Jannissary institution, which were supposed to be Royal Bodyguards only, but became a military elite class throughout the years. These ideas that drove Muhammed Ali were common in Konstantiniyye as well, but it was very difficult to do some political menuevers there, wheras in Egypt, you're half a world away from the capital so you get to do whatever you want
If only Muhammad Ali Pasha worked with the Ottomans instead of against them. Helping Mahmud ii in implementing the Egyptian reforms empire wide. Using the Egyptian army to help his sovereign in ending the Janissaries over a decade earlier, then helping to reform the entire empire's military through Egyptian wealth. Thus the army would have over a decade of modernisation during the Greek rebellion. With even more assistance from Egypt, thereby preventing Greek independence, maintaining hegemony over the eastern Mediterranean. While a more modernised ottoman empire would be able to push back the French conquest of Algeria. Instead he chose to try to create a hereditary Khedivate. Which was disastrous for Egypt since everyone of them was useless and frivolous spenders. Even during the cotton boom of the American civil war they managed to get the country in so much debt and bankruptcy that they were occupied by the Brits.....
Your pure evil
That would be horrible for everyone but the Turks though, why would the Egyptian Arabs for example just hand over such powers to the Turks to rule over them?
@@harry-matakios1344You could also argue that by being the only credible army (for quite some time) in the Ottoman Empire, the Egyptian army would have outsized influence. It may well have been that in this new Ottoman army Egyptian officers would have been overrepresented at the top.
@@harry-matakios1344 For the same reason hungarians worked with the austrians.
@@harry-matakios1344 Egyptian Arabs???? They were ruled by an immensely oppressive Albanian warlord, who couldn't speak Arabic. Arabs weren't allowed positions within the government or high roles in the military. That was reserved for Turks, Albanians, Circassians and western Europeans and the administrative language remained Turkish. Egyptians only started ruling their country in 1952. Since the Achaemenids conquest in 525BC until 1952 it was ruled by foreigners. This was one of the worst times ever for the Egyptian peasantry. Reading what they did to escape conscription is horrible. Fleeing their lands and run away to the Bedouin or to Syria. If they couldn't do that they they would maim themselves to be ineligible for conscription, such as chopping of their own limbs. But most common was blinding one eye. But even that didn't stop Muhammad Ali, since he made a corps of one eyed conscripts. The corvée (forced labour) was probably the worst, in its entire thousands of years history, under Muhammad Ali. With hundreds of thousands dying in his projects. But these projects are what allowed Egypt to modernize. He did build modern schools and literacy increased among the Arabs, which eventually led to the nahda. After his death, his son's relaxed the conscription and corvée, and Arabs started gaining higher positions. Allowing for the native Egyptian Urabi revolt, a by product of the nahda, in the 1880s, an attempt to end 2500 years of foreign rule. But they were defeated and the British took over. Muhammad Ali was extremely oppressive. But he managed to undo the century of destruction wrought by the 18th century Mamluks, who devastated the irrigation system so much that the population was a mere 2.5 million on the eve of French invasion. 300 years earlier at ottoman conquest it was 5 million. Making it one of the lowest points in Egypt's history in millennia. He changed that, so that only 30 years later he was marching on Constantinople itself. Which is remarkable.
If you have played Victoria iii then you would know how difficult the tanzimat reforms were
With all my respect, there is only one way to stay on top : detect and nurture the talents, whatever their origins. Peace
They should have done this 50 years before perhaps they would be here today😢
Demographics is destiny.
I’ve heard that quote before but what makes you say it here?
Sultan abdulaziz was the son of sultan mahmud II and the brother of sultan abdulmejid. You wrongly mention him as the son of sultan abdulmejid.
It makes me chuckle when people talk about the glory of certain civilisations before the scientific and industrial Revolutions. Guys, wake up, there was no scientific or glorious empires in the past. You live in the best of times.
the U.S. needs one of these
In what ways?
USA needs to stop funding and training terrorists ın Syrıa and Iraq YPG-PYD-PKK terrorists agaınst us cant forget Miserable failed coup attempt in 2016 What an ally lol Snakes and they ask us why everybody hate U.S
Egypt needs reform like those days. You cant continue the economy in the current trajectory.
All they had to do was industrialise . They didn’t need political or social change. This is how China went from backwater to superpower. The CPC is still in power. They didn’t change their social system. They just industrialised
Yeah but are you aware of socio economic situation of the empire back then? It basically didn't have enough population to industrialise, Germany was about 60 million people back then, wheras the entire empire is about 15 million. It had insane problems, majority of the population were suffering from epidemics, siphilis was a common problem, the country was poor and first thing they needed to do was revision the society itself. Because Persia-Islamic social structure joining with a very very poor Anatolia became a huge thorn in the side. And when the heart of the empire, the Balkans were lost, Atatürk and his buddies basically had to figure out how to bring a land that was in 15th century, to modernity. The Great Depression happening just a few years after the republics formation didn't help, considering the odds, Kemalism did really created the foundations of an industrialised, modern nation from the ashes of an agricultural empire.
Ottoman should reform and modernized earlier, at least during aftermath battle of vienna 1683
Nope they should did that aftermath the battle of Lepanto in 1571
I guess they're pros and cons with everything
Wouldn't this economic system be called State Capitalism or Socialism
Glad to discover Muhammed Ali (I only had vague references before). As soon as you mentioned the Albanian "crazy" mercenaries, I thought they were called to great things. Not disappointed.
Inaccurate information.
@@keno2285 - Right, Muhammad Ali was a boxer, what's this guy's name: Ali Pasha?
@@LuisAldamiz He was not Albanian.
@@keno2285 - 2:25 - "replacing the Ottoman pasha was an Albanian commander known as Mohammed Ali". So I got it right from the beginning, at least per this video. Wikipedia also agrees: "Muhammad Ali[a] (4 March 1769 - 2 August 1849) was the Ottoman Albanian[3] governor and de facto ruler of Egypt from 1805 to 1848, considered the founder of modern Egypt". He was born in Kavala, now Greece but within an Albanian family and he was the commander of an Albanian troop.
@@LuisAldamiz Very reliable sources!
After failure at Vienna, Ottoman should do the reforms already as it's a turning point, prevention is better than cure. Their reforms also woke the nationalist even more, instead of Europeanism, it should exploit it's own strength and use Egypt's reform especially military and economy (but of course less harsher)
ironically they were in many ways alot less unstable than the austro Hungarian or russian empires.
bro how do you not know the Tanzimat reforms which started before Muhammed Ali's ones. some of the perspectives in your video is just so one sided it makes no sense.
How so?
@@HikmaHistory tp start with Muhammed Ali’s soldiers were not called Başı Bozuk. Başı Bpzuk were literally ill-disciplined and a unit that was only raised only in times of war in the Ottoman army and in 18th and 19th century they were not even called Başı Bpzuk and they were not raised as an unit in that time frame. Also your take on Tanzimat reforms is wrong because Ali did not came up with them he implemented them and then he rebelled. Muhammed Ali had foreign officers even from the US war of independence. By just these three facts I can assure your take on this topic is flawed. Just search for Halil İnancık’s lectures on the topic he was a professor in U of Chicago and U of London on Ottoman history.
Between the Ottoman Empire during the Tanzimat period and Muhammad Ali's Egypt, which one has more chance of success? The point is that is it better to let Egypt under the dynasty of Muhammad Ali to become the new major power instead of the Ottoman Empire?
The western powers would have never allowed a strong independent Egypt. The Ottoman Empire on the other hand they were happy to allow to exist and strengthen to counterbalance Russia.
It all depended on what Europe decided - they held the power.
@@HikmaHistory Before Britain decided to preserve the Ottoman Empire to ensure the control over India, Britain did come up with a plan to orderly dismember the Ottoman Empire as well when the inevitable happened. So the point is why did they choose to preserve the Ottoman Empire despite that it is clearly falling apart instead of rallying Greece and Egypt under Britain's sphere of influence?
@@lerneanlion Because the Ottoman Empire is more effective as a counter balance to the Russians geographically than Egypt (greece is irrelevant and would easily buckle to Russian pressure). They also knew the Ottoman reforms were less effective than the Egyptian ones. The Ottoman Empire could be kept stagnant whereas Muhammad Ali marched a modern army fuelled by burgeoning industry and a modern state aparatus almost to Constantinople.
@@HikmaHistoryAre you a Muslim? You speak like a secularist liberal
So that's the beginning of the end then, oh Mahmud...
What if Ottoman Empire succeeded reformation and became Prussia of Middle East?
The reforms were a great idea, but they were implemented two hundred years too late.
200 yrs is a bit harsh but I agree - had they started a century before (when military contests with European powers was still competitive), it could have the time needed to work.
@@HikmaHistory one hundred to remain competitive, two hundred to have maintained dominance.
@@Merle1987 If they did it 200 years prior, absolutely they could've maintained dominance. But that's very ambitious, many European states hadn't even started widespread modernising reforms by then.
The Ottomans were still competitive with the other European states in the 18th century. The 1800s was when they were left behind in the dust. Alas, if the Ottomans didn't let Peter I go they wouldn't have to deal with a modernized Russia but well hindsight is 20/20
I'm sorry, but care to explain how dressing like Europeans would save an empire from collapse?
"Başıbozuk" should be read as "Bashy Bozyk"
Abdul aziz was brother of Abdul majid
correction, the Ottomans inherited the administrative advances and sophistication of the Byzantine Empire. Some very good books on this subject.
Makes sense, they did call themselves the Sultanate of Rome with the goal of acquiring Constantinople. Even the star and moon turkey came from the Roman’s
they took alot from the Byzantine empire but also from the former Muslim empires especially the Iranian ones
What is the name of the book?
@@oday215 This crescent comes from the ancient religious belief of the Turks Tengrism, and somehow this symbol continued among the Turks, it is not related to Islam or Rome. In fact, no Arab state has a crescent on its flag, but all Turkish states have a crescent their flag.
@@CruWiT the city of Constantinople did have a symbol of the crescent moon before the Turkish conquest, maybe both can be true
🤠💜
Disappointing to see the video portraying Abdul Hamid 2nd in a negative light
It's a "neutral" History channel
2:27 Its false information. Mehmet Ali Pasha was a Turk whose native language was Turkish and had no ethnic ties with the Albanians other than commanding some Albanian militia. His grandfather Osman Agha came to Kavala from Konya
Dont cry please. Most ottomans were not torkic
Should never gone into ww1
Abdülaziz was't son of Abdülmecid. He was his brother.
I’m amazed that I didn’t spot this with all the rounds of editing I did! 😅 But yes you’re absolutely right
Michael the brave biography please make video
Love from 🇵🇰.
I'm from Pakistan too!
@@SignsBehindScience 👍💞
Did they ?
If in ww1 Ottoman under Sultan Abd-ul-Hamid 2 i believe that ottoman never thrown by idiot pasha that led to dissolution of Ottoman, yes Ottoman was sickman during that time. But under Sultan Abd-ul-Hamid 2 at least Ottoman will be the same like japan during taisho era and never put empire to the stupid way.
When Nationalism spread in the Ottoman government everything was over
19th century
Ooohh so close ottomans! Better luck next time maybe Turkiye!
Abdulhamid was one of best Sultans of the Empire , He had almost stopped the decline of the Empire , his reforms were doing fine and he paid off most of the Empires debts. The young turk revolution would overthrow him and the new incompetant government would doom the Empire and drag it into collapse. Look man , if youre going to make historical videos atleast get your facts right.
Rice production?? Wasn't Egyptians produced wheat and millet ??
Mate ottomans knew about all europeon advancement before the invasion for years , ths idea of ottoman isolation is a funny joke The ottoman higher hierarchy was full of Europeon converts
Ottoman empire come back
Sir,remember Ottomans were warriors and invaders most of the time. Present Turikye was Byzantine Christian country called Anatolia.
Nah. Byzantine (Romans) occupied Anatolia. Seljuk Turks defeated Byzantine.
Fake Channels and info's...
Yep
Nation states are the best. Thanks to Ataturk, we Turks live in a secular Turkish nation state. We have neither oil nor great underground resources, but we are a G20 member, NATO's 2nd largest army, and a powerful state in the West and Asia. Ummahism and multinationalism are completely collapsed ideas. If there is no harmony within the society, if the nation does not embrace the state, then problems arise. You will take intelligent minds from the world and assimilate them into your own nation.
Nationalism was also a key ideology motivating the expulsion of Greeks and Armenians and sidelining Kurdish autonomy. Most countries outside Europe are multi-ethnic anyway, I would not recommend for them to follow the same bloody path
you had a corrupt government secularism is a failed concept. I live in the most secular country in the world i give it less then 50 yrs. The Ottoman chalaipha lasted over 600 yrs America wont even make 300 yrs.
@@Crafty_Spiritgiving Kurds autonomy is a treason to the constitution which defines Turkey as a unitary state.
Probably the most important aspect that you didn't mention is that Turks were Heavy on sufism. and Sufism is basically separation of religion and complex life matters -like politics for example-. it is perfect for autocrats sine they can be the ultimate authority while their subjects dance and do other trivia. Even today Sufism-influenced countries keep falling in the secularist loop.
Seems better than being Salafi and falling in the terrorism loop
@@mehmetkayraozer9164 iyi dedin kral
Ottomans needed modernisation, But they did Europeanization. sickman became comatose due to mismatched blood transfusion.
This! I am so glad someone pointed it out. Ottomans needed to understand that they were different than the europeans. They needed to exploit their strength. Nationalism introduced by europe was one of the reason of their downfall. Their rouge elements really bit hard on the opium for third world countries (Westernization)
Dang check you out with the analogy!
@@billisultan6224what is the ottomans strength a arab religion called islam?
There are people that still believe Islam as an Arabic religion? 😅
Albanians ruled Egypt & made modern Egypt.
Nope.
@@keno2285Yes.
@@merxho95 To say ethnic Albanians alone ruled and formed modern Egypt is a oversight.
@@keno2285Albanians ruled & pawed the way to modern Egypt this is an fact open your ears when you listen to videos. Boshnjak
@@merxho95 This video is full of inaccuracies… you obviously can’t see that through your nationalism. All you hear is šiptar, šiptar and šiptar. I am a Boshnjak so thanks for getting that right.
Sad
Modernization doesn't mean Westernization. Japan & China proved it nicely.
Japan is extremely westernized and obsessed with European features. They are literally a colony of the USA after WW2. China got all its new stuff from the west as well. Modernization means westernization in this world. Sorry but they are superior due to their efforts putting them a few centuries ahead of rest of us. This is changing nowadays but it won’t be that quick…
Are you serious? Name one more westernised country than Japan. China's entire culture is westernised. Westernisation was the way, Turkey today still is giving that fight, a shit ton of neo islamists try to islamise and turn the country to their old ways because the law of reason basically causing cults and tariqats to loose their grip within socio economical structure.
Its fall was inevitable. Today, all land empires have fallen. The British, French, German, and Russian empires have fallen as well. There will never be an empire like the Ottoman Empire again. More empires are and will rise, but they will take new forms.
We have the American empire today.
@@TheWarrior-hj8vv Its supremacy is in its military and its monopoly on the dollar. It does not conquer territory and expand its borders to acquire resources. It performs military operations and partakes in embargoes to achieve its foreign policy goals. I did not say there were no more empires, but that they now take a different form.
There are many large states in which an ethnic or religious minority oppresses the rest of society, such as Myanmar, Indonesia, and Ethiopia. Often times, postcolonial states exhibit some imperial features. Also, Russia is still a land empire, it occupies territories in the space of at least three sovereign states
Wait didn't Sultan Abdulhamid II pay off most of the debt?
No.
Don't believe Tv shows 😂
I threw up in my mouth so many times every I hear this narrator say “Muhammad Ali” in his Pakistani accent. Let’s worry less about the ottomans and Muhammad Ali and I guess more about India? Pakistanis played 0% role in all of Islamic history. 0%. Never forget.
One thing that's extremely evident from the methodologies of the Ottomans is that they never had a real love for the Prophetic Traditions and Methods of the Prophet Muhammad, salalalu alahi wa salaam. The Prophet Muhammad's methods of government implementation were never a focal point of their existence in any of their various forms of governments. Adopting Western European Christian styles of governments was just a natural progression of their societal mentality. I don't see it as a decline but rather a progression of what their descendants would become today. It was completely inevitable. Thank you for sharing these important historical facts.
Abdülhamit han hold the empire together without his diplomacy the ottoman empire would fall in 1878
No he didn't. It was the Germans who didn't want Russia to get too much Ottoman land and become too powerful who saved the Ottomans. Not Abdulhamit II who was a cruel incompetent disaster.
@@simulacrumpilot2777 yes Germany intervened with UK in the crimean wars but the empire had many inner struggles and with Diplomacy Abdülhamit saved the empire. Only 10 years after his depiction the ottoman empire fall
@@Brot_ist_geil Abdulhamit didn't save shit. A lot of the diplomatic victories attributed to him aren't actually his success but success of others. Like for example it was Otto Von Bismarck who made a softer treaty after the Russo-Turkish war of 1878. But despite that a lot of people falsely credit Abdulhamit II for it. Also the reason empire fell in the first place was Abdulhamit's stubborn refusal to implement any kind of reforms stagnated the empire. He would for example go out of his way to sabotage the army so that they couldn't stage a voup on him. Which also made army weak and it was because of Abdulhamit that Ottomans lost against the Italians and also the First Balkan War. Abdulhamit was an incompetent paranoid power hungry tyrant. Nothing more, nothing less.
@@simulacrumpilot2777 what did he kill your parents? What’s the strong use of words and your completely wrong
That guy lost half the empire to other nations, but sure, why not