Why Did The Ottoman Empire Decline?

FREE NEWSLETTER:
mailchi.mp/a69f93be6c66/hikma...
The Ottoman Empire was one of the pre-eminent empires for over 300 years. Its longevity as an imperial institution was truly astounding. But like every empire before it, it too inevitably succumbed to the pages of history. The story of its decline is a long and protracted one; a process which took centuries to complete. In this video, I will go over the 4 main reasons that explain why the Ottomans declined.
- 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:
Elman
TheBactrianGambler
Preston P
Adam
Mohammad
Areeb
Awais
Omar
Farid
Ibrahim
Ari
Joshua
Haseeb
Nahid
Amir
Mahmoud
Joel
CoreBard
- Join our social media community:
Twitter:
/ hikmahistory
Instagram:
/ hikmahistory
Facebook:
/ hikmahistory
Facebook group:
/ hikma. .
#OttomanEmpire #OttomanDecline #OttomanEurope
Images Used:
Chamboz
N3MO
Zapotocny
Wellcome Images
DragonTiger23
Music Used:
Doug Maxwell - Arabian Nightfall (Sting):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bRzD...
Passage:
• Passage no copyright f...
Aakash Gandhi - Eyes of Glory:
• Aakash Gandhi - Eyes o...
Epidemic Sound
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
0:58 1
2:41 2
4:29 3
7:12 4
9:17 Conclusion

[@HikmaHistory]

Check out Khanubis' video about the Ottoman's Rise: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mIK8p2Wsg5yckK8

[@mediavirus1830]

O Bedouin, let us not be neglected from our purpose for prayer in the Holy Mosque, I am afraid you will not reach the Kaaba. Because the path you follow leads to Turkey...

[@KhAnubis]

Awesome job! It was great to collaborate with you again!

[@HikmaHistory]

The pleasure was all mine!

[@elvisnikulin8674]

I also enjoy it!

[@leroyeuvrard5243]

Economics was the number 1 cause. Armies and wars are expensive. Loss of value and higher taxes due to inflation results in discontent and revolts.

[@HikmaHistory]

I generally think Economics is the no. 1 reason for most of the great developments in history.

[@mhassan8439]

I think the same but the ottoman sultan had too many traitors among them and they used to marry slaves girls or women and they were problematic.

[@Roronoa79]

They were really held back by lack of naval power after a point. They couldn't realistically colonize America because they would have needed reliable access through the strait of gibraltor. The black sea was always contested with Russia; and they lost supremacy in the Indian ocean to the portuguese. I also have to wonder how different things could have been without the janissaries undermining attempts at reform. The janissaries' role in their empire's decline is comparable to that of the praetorian guard in the Roman empire. A powerful, self-interested faction that threatened any emperor/sultan who went against their wishes.

[@HikmaHistory]

Its struggles with the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean are definitely fascinating

[@nazeem8680]

Ottomans could have built the Suez Canal and used it for economic and military power and influence, to replace the defunct silk road

[@thekinghmimidou7001]

not really, when the colonosation of the america started(1500) the ottoman had a strong naval force, they just didnt care.the whole point of the discovery of america was to find a way around the ottoman to get acess to ressources the ottomans already had.

[@sahaynam6470]

Not an expert on Ottoman navy, but have to think it would be difficult for such a conservative state to shift from a Mediterranean/littoral navy to a legit blue water navy capable of long distance voyages on the Atlantic.

[@thekinghmimidou7001]

@@sahaynam6470 they were landlocked from the atlantic so they never needed to develop a strong galleon fleet altough they used them plenty of times. if the ottman really wanted to they had the ressources to overpower the spanish and morrocan and control the gibraltar strait which would let them acess the america.The truth is they were far more interested in europe and their own internal affair , america wasnt worth the ressources esspecially since the ottoman were not colonial in their ideology.Ottoman technology being outdated is a myth, they stayed on par with the europan untill the 1800s, their downfall was mostly caused by their low population because of arid land and being spread thin, Having a high population is a prerequisite for industrialization which the ottoman didnt have.

[@hakikiwicaksana7231]

Whenever there is a talk about ottomans decline, i would almost always feel pity for sultan abdulhamid ll.. A great leader, but in the end he just delaying the inevitable..

[@tufekli2726]

Yes He is a best sultan of Ottoman’s last ages

[@HikmaHistory]

A very underrated Sultan...

[@The-Daily-Hustle]

@@HikmaHistory could you make a video about him and his accomplishments and expose all the lies about him ?

[@HikmaHistory]

@@The-Daily-Hustle Some time in the future maybe...

[@snake1mi]

He was good and religious but he was a weak man. He tried to avoid wars. And look they put him in the history as an orchestrator of a genocides against Armenians and Greeks. The colonialists who are now the secular liberalists are convincing themselves that a Sultan went around committing genocides because they were rebelling against the empire. All bs of course. But I really wish he fought ALL of these colonialists, and the Persians, and the Russians. I believe he would have won. Abdulmalik bin Marwan and Salahudin was in worse situation and far worse odds and they each defeated all the threatening empires. Today if you look up Abdulhamid II in wikipedia they'll list a fictive genocide that they call "Hamidye genocides". And to this day there are countless organization trying to make these fantasies a real thing. Through media, Hollywood, events and even in schools. No history have been tainted as much as the Ottomans, and that's deliberate. I wish Sultan Abdulhamid II had went to war but he was a man of peace.

[@durianjaykin3576]

Nationalism brought an end to many empires

[@HikmaHistory]

True

[@hiroklobus87]

Which is good

[@AbadurRhaman-vq9ui]

@@hiroklobus87 are you a Nationalist?!

[@hiroklobus87]

@@AbadurRhaman-vq9ui I am more for ending an empire. Nationalism is bad as any other -ism including neo-otomanism. I conisidare myself as a patriot btw.

[@durianjaykin3576]

@@hiroklobus87 i dont think its good, without nationalism, what connection does one have to their country? When many nations founded, lots of literature was dug up in the history books supporting the existence of the nationstate. Without nationalism, what connection would one have with their fellow citizens? Are we all just strangers to one another?

[@henryaybaz7409]

The day the Suleyman the magnificent gave the order of execution of brightest Prince Mustafa and then the last hope prince Beyazid. Those days were the beginning of the end.

[@raraavis7782]

It's really interesting, to learn something about this part of history - it's not really covered very much in school here (if at all).

[@HikmaHistory]

Thanks!

[@zxera9702]

5th reason could be political instability which prevented them to fix these problems just as you mentioned in 2 except it's not just military that needs modernizing. Great video and also is it possible that you do a video on "Muslim relations with Japan(historically) "the wiki says pretty absurd things (as always).

[@HikmaHistory]

I'm pretty interested in how Japan's modernisation was portrayed in the Muslim societies

[@loaded99percent]

Love this content! Keep it up Hikah Hero!

[@HikmaHistory]

Thanks man!

[@razorscythe7258]

good video man.. Keep up the good work

[@HikmaHistory]

Thank you!

[@theyoungottoman3533]

Salam, man. First off, I love the aims of this channel, it's good work. I have a number of concerns with this new video, though - I'm something of an armchair Ottoman studies type and a lot of the information here seems to disinclude recent work on Ottoman "decline" and why contemporary historians have rejected it as a framework. let's start with definitions: the Ottoman decline thesis is a term academics use to refer to a paradigm in Ottoman history that was predominant for most of the twentieth century - the decline thesis divided Ottoman history into two broad eras: a "rise" in which the empire's borders were expanding, its institutions were functioning smoothly, and its leadership was capable, and a "decline" in which the empire's borders were shrinking, its institutions were decaying, and its leadership was incompetent. the period in which the empire began shifting from one state to the other was usually placed around the death of Süleyman the Magnificent in 1566 or if not that around the failed Siege of Vienna in 1683. not all historians approached the empire's history in the same way, some folks never believed it even in its heyday, but this general view became very widespread as a basic framework for Ottoman history as a whole. the idea was, in effect, that the empire "worked" properly during the first half of its history, and was dysfunctional during the second half of its history, the occasional strong leader aside. the earliest critiques of the decline thesis emerged in the 1970s and picked up steam in the '80s and '90s. these critiques came from two different directions: first, the theoretical direction: the idea of "decline" was distorting the way we understood Ottoman history. it was causing us to view its history in light of events that hadn't happened yet, as if the outcome was inevitable - thus the events and processes of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were being interpreted in relation not to the actual context of the time and place in which they occurred, but as "seeds of decline" that supposedly caused the fall of the empire hundreds of years later. it was also causing us to inappropriately idealize the so-called "golden age" of the empire - the period right before the decline supposedly set in - as some kind of perfect era in which the empire was functioning at peak efficiency. this idealization of the golden age further distorted our interpretation of later periods because it caused us to understand all change as negative, to see even the positively changing nature of the empire's institutions as the "decay" of systems that had previously worked properly but which were now undergoing decline. the second angle (one that is often seen as the killer, though I think both are useful) from which the decline thesis was attacked was more practical. when historians began to more critically engage with the Ottoman source base from the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries, they found that a lot of our old beliefs about the empire's weakness, conservatism, and corruption were overblown. the condition of the empire wasn't nearly as negative as had been portrayed, and there wasn't some kind of continuous downward trend. economic and fiscal upheaval in the seventeenth century was followed by eighteenth century efflorescence and budget surpluses. the Ottoman army didn't just collapse into a chaotic mess after the sixteenth century, but continued adapting to the changing circumstances of war in the seventeenth century. Seventeenth and eighteenth century rulers weren't incompetent just because they didn't all imitate the martial traditions of previous eras. the list of piecemeal revisions to our understanding of the practical realities of these later centuries is very long, but the general trend has been to overturn the image of the Ottoman Empire as a state in decay. the various transformations that the empire experienced over the course of its long history need to be understood in light of their own particular contexts, not in light of an assumed decline. though let me be clear: rejecting decline thesis does not mean rejecting the idea that the Ottoman Empire became relatively weaker from a geopolitical perspective than it had been in earlier centuries. rather, rejecting the decline thesis means rejecting the idea that Ottoman history consisted of unidirectional stagnation, with the empire constantly getting weaker year by year like a ‘sick man’ with a disease. the Ottoman engagement with modernity was complex and multifaceted, involving successes as well as failures, and talking about a generalized Ottoman decline (besides being unsupported by the facts on the ground) does that history a huge disservice

[@ag6981]

So if I understood you correctly; I would be wrong to paint the Ottoman history as a rise and a decline through their 600 year existence. Rather throughout the whole 600 year period there was ups and downs for the empire.

[@MuhammadAhmad78654]

Decline is the result of mismanagement, corruption and lack of technology. Admit caliph of that time was incompetent.

[@davidzack8735]

@@MuhammadAhmad78654 Not necessarily. The rise and fall of the Ottoman Empire has many parallels to the rise and fall of the Roman Byzantine Empire it supplanted - the prime reason being over-extension leading to wars waged from without coinciding with revolt and dissension from within.

[@Sam-wt1cx]

@@davidzack8735 The Byzantine decline is diff than the Ottomans, Byzantines used to suffer military defeats very often and also saw often revivals which were short- lived, but after the reign of Basil II, The Byzantines were declining constantly untill they met with their end in 1453, the main reason of byzantine decline was the sheer incompetency of its emperors,now talk about Ottomans, Ottoman may have struggled internally in the 17th & 18th century but their military was still strong & intact. Apart from Great Turkish war( even in this war, it took whole European might 16 years to expel Ottomans from Hungary) Ottoman Military remained strong, it defeated Russia at the beginning of 18th century nearly capturing peter the great in war, Austria was soundly defeated on a number of occasions, now what plagued Ottomans? The rise of nationalism, that's the chief cause of Ottoman decline, diff independent movements dented their way towards modernization while other European powers had it easy, Ottomans due to extreme ethnic diversification succumbed to the Ideology of nationalism.

[@davidzack8735]

@@Sam-wt1cx You mean that the oppressed and enslaved peoples of Eastern Europe rose up in revolt against the cruelty of their Ottoman masters and finally forced them to give up the lands they had conquered in the name of the violent religion of Islam and god of the Kabah.

[@vladynick]

Wonderful video. Thank you.

[@adonthephoenician3644]

Nice video bro! 👍

[@HikmaHistory]

Thanks!

[@vladynick]

So good a video that I watched it twice!

[@eliscanfield3913]

Interesting, as always. :)

[@HikmaHistory]

Glad you think so, Bryan!

[@rdreidmehrabi]

The biggest factor is missing; internal political corruption. A nation first declines from within, then from without.

[@theroldan8013]

amen.. that killed rome and is killng the west

[@springboi635]

The ottomans was my favourite empire now I now the reasons why the ottomans fall thanks

[@HikmaHistory]

Thanks!

[@CivilWarWeekByWeek]

I don’t know my Ottoman still is in good shape

[@HikmaHistory]

This took me a hot second to get but I got it now! Haha

[@yousufsiddiqsyed4412]

🤣same

[@CivilWarWeekByWeek]

@@HikmaHistory It's this kind of dumb humor that allows me to bomb on every first date

[@HikmaHistory]

@@CivilWarWeekByWeek My rule with jokes is - if I'm laughing, that's all that matters.

[@CivilWarWeekByWeek]

@@HikmaHistory I have my own rule if I’m laughing at someone then I’m about to get beaten up

[@ginaedmonds]

I'm greatful for this great presentation....mashallah

[@HikmaHistory]

Glad to hear that

[@darknativity42]

Can you elaborate more on the role of nationalism in the decline of the Ottomans? Specifically at 8:30 when you say the "European imported notion of nationalism" is something I would love to know more about. Especially compared to contemporary empires like the British, Russian, and French, what made nationalism more of a threat to the Ottomans?

[@HikmaHistory]

Despite being a European export, Nationalism ended up being a massive threat to the French and British as well (through nationalist independence movements e.g. Algerian/Indian ). But like I said in the video, the Ottomans had organised themselves along religious lines for centuries and when Nationalism came along, it was like they had to make fundamental changes to their framework of governance (which is hard enough on its own but coupled with strong/aggressive foes + economic issues, it's damn near impossible). Does that make sense?

[@darknativity42]

@@HikmaHistory Yes, that clears things up more for me. I must have overlooked the role that religion played in keeping the empire together, so to speak. It makes sense that an empire "built" that way would suffer more from nationalism than the other powers - though they too saw the disintegration of their own empires later on. I really do love the effort you put into these videos and the discussions! Thanks!

[@HikmaHistory]

Thanks, man!

[@kavvame]

We cannot name Russia, France, G.Britannia as empire (eventhough they are powerfull and big) since the king and his service people and with great majority citizens are from same etnicity. But Rome, Byzantium and Ottomano they are true empires. Since the ruling class constitue from different etnicity and their citizens are from various etnicities. In short empires can not be based on nationalizm as in Ottoman case otherwise it became one of the great reasons to be collapsed.

[@jemoedermeteensnor88]

The rise to power of the Ottomans was mainly because they were a centralized state, so one absolute ruler with only 1 succesor. European states during the middle ages were decentralized so large parts were ruled by local nobel man and the succesors split the land between them. (Best example of this is probably France). After the middle ages Europe got the idea of divine right, which means that the king is appointed by God himself so going against your king is going against God himself. So kings were able to centralize their "empire". Meanwhile the Ottoman empire got quite often an offer if you support me as leader of this country I will become a vassal state of the Ottoman empire which they gladly accepted. So they were a large empire on paper, but they were practicly a large decentralized state. So when nationalism came the decentralized country got hit the hardest. Furthermore during the 17th century rebelions happen more and more. To prevent this oppresion decreased and religious freedom increased. It might sound counter intuitive but there are a lot of cases were this leads to separist movements instead of calming the locals down.

[@malikshabazz2065]

great video!

[@HikmaHistory]

Thanks!

[@muhammadshehreyarkhan1851]

I think the second point can more candidly be classified as defying military evolution or late adoption of it. Selim III & his chief supporter Alemdar Pasha were hell bent to adopt refrom but they had stiff resistance from the prevelant status quo most prominently the old guard, Janissaries, who were already a strain on economy & society as they over the period of time transformed from a disciplined military doctrine to a more feudal pressure group.

[@pedrito01100]

Very cool video. Came by khanubis and now i'm subscribed

[@HikmaHistory]

Glad to have you!

[@binkycatfish]

Pretty cool video, any sneak peaks about the newer video?

[@HikmaHistory]

More Ottoman history, more Afghan history and more Persian history!

[@halaldunya918]

Should have invested more into the study of manufacturing weapons , and the science behind industrialization. Ottoman Empire was stuck in the Middle Ages, mentality wise. That's why it's gone.

[@liveseldiesel2628]

good work

[@HikmaHistory]

Thanks!

[@Sp0tthed0gt]

Up until the advent of the ocean going ship in western europe the trade routes to the far east were all though the lands of the ottoman empire and the Ottomans profited greatly. Thereafter the trade routes went round either the horn of the cape, increasing East-West trade and cutting the Ottomans out, enriching the West whilst impoverishing the Ottomans. Also the colonisation of the Americas further enriched the west. In the end the general with the longest purse wins.

[@HikmaHistory]

C.R.E.A.M

[@user-fl7by8in5o]

👍 good video

[@HikmaHistory]

Thanks!

[@dimasbayu8731]

I am in a journey of the ottoman battles can you make more videos?

[@HikmaHistory]

Just released Part of the Ottomans Documentary!

[@ElectricalMonk3558]

I would love for a more detailed video about the military discrepancy and why did conservatives opposed modernizing. Anyway great video.

[@Real_Gigachaddi]

much underappreciated reasons == didnt colonised americas.. flow of gold to europeans helped them have greater purchasing power and naval capabilities == ottoman empire and mameluke egypt failed to have greater emphasis on arabian sea against portuguese, my ancestors struggled greatly to maintain trade with arabs despite an ignorant attitude from them..

[@HikmaHistory]

I think the struggle with the Portuguese was important

[@jemoedermeteensnor88]

It's more the other way around. In the 15th century the Portugese "invented" the idea of large ocean capable ships. (This was actually high tech for that time, a tech the ottomans stepped into way too late) This lead to them being able to colonise the americas. In one of the most important naval battles between them "lepanto" the few large ships made the big difference. I know the Portugese and the Dutch could outcompete the African nations in the internal slave trade with their large boats. Walking 150 miles with a 100 slaves is very coastly and requires a lot of protection, compared to sailing them. The same goes for the Asian trade 1 ship and 30 sailors can transport probably the same as a 1000 camels. 30 sailors vs around 500 camel controllers and 100 soldiers to defend them during their journey. I'm pretty sure which business model is better, beside the fact that ships sail 24 hours a day and a caravan only walks like 16 hourse a day.

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

And don't forget a huge reason: POOR INDUSTRY.

[@HikmaHistory]

Industry?

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

@@HikmaHistory Most definitely. The Turks never developed a domestic industry, especially in arms. They had a terrible balance of trade as a result (more imports than exports) and had to take out huge loans over time to make the difference. They were also selling all of their raw materials rather than using them domestically to develop their own industry.

[@HikmaHistory]

I guess that falls under 'Economics'

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

@@HikmaHistory Well it's significant enough that it should have a category all its own. That said, you did a great job! I plan to use this video with my students.

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

@h ch So? What do you mean "learn history"? Research complete: Ottoman industry was PATHETIC.

[@abishaivishwason6550]

You forgot to mention the young turk revolution which nailed the final nail on the Ottoman's coffin

[@Nilvolentibusje]

Nope. The Ottoman was finished before the young Turks revolted. Of course they existed within the empire.

[@tadeasvecerak4627]

Could you recommend me some best sources on the topic? I am trying to write a paper to university on the eastern question and fall of the empire.

[@Crafty_Spirit]

Excellent video, and your script is of a very fine English 🖖🏾 To add a thought, I wonder if the Ottoman empire could have thrived longer if it they would have managed to find a strong and reliable European allie, someone who could threaten to invade Austria-Hungary or Russia when they'd march against the Ottomans - point is, European powers also sustained because of a balance in powers, but the Ottomans were at some point or never part of that balance... (don't think that the alliance with the German Empire did them any good, but the one with the French kings in the 17th century looked like it had at least a promising start, but didn't advance)

[@HikmaHistory]

Thank you! I've definitely pondered that in a 'what if history' sense. They made an alliance with Napoleon but it didn't bear any fruit. It wouldn't have made sense for any European state to side with the Ottomans once they were referred to as the 'Sick Man of Europe' but prior to the 19th century, it would've been interesting to see.

[@katmannsson]

Well considering that they fell while Allied with the Austro-Hungarian Empire; Its safe to say they tried to do that.

[@Crafty_Spirit]

@@katmannsson That's why I typed "strong and reliable allie" 😉

[@sumairasadia9682]

Awsome can you make a video on one of the reason Al_saud who played an important role with help of british, they also launch a new sect, in order to kill the enemy and perform intellectual decoity for idealogy of making shrine and praying for deads.i just want to know how honest you are while gathering information ?

[@lerneanlion]

If the Ottoman Empire is still around with the title of the Caliph, the Islamic world, particularly the Middle East, would be in a better shape for sure because all Muslims will have the Caliph to guide and to lead them. Also, Hikma, did you know that the Ming dynasty is considered to be the Golden Age of Islam in China? I heard that the Hongwu Emperor even written The Hundred-word Eulogy to praise Islam and Prophet Muhammad. So maybe you may considered doing a video about Islam during the Ming dynasty one day to explain why it is remembered as the Golden Age of Islam in China?

[@jordanianchristian8387]

Maybe a caliph with some democratic parts in it. The reason why the Islamic world is weak today, is because there has been no edits to governmental structure. There needs to be checks and balances.

[@lerneanlion]

@@jordanianchristian8387 The title of Caliph started out as the sort of democratic title. But it's the Umayyad's descendants that began the tradition of making the title heredity instead of electing someone like how itwas working for the four Caliphs of the Rashidun Caliphate. If the ottomans didn't join World War I and focusing on taking down the rebellions of the Arabs, the entire Anatolia, Syrian region and the Arabian peninsula would be a one unified country. Heck, the Ottoman Sultanate would be a lot richer because of the oil from the south and the Armenians Genocide would never happen, which means the Turks and the Armenians would be on the friendly term with one another.

[@HikmaHistory]

Will research further

[@jordanianchristian8387]

@Abdinassir Abdi and people like you are the reason the Islamic world is weak and corrupt right now.

[@manooxi327]

Tnx

[@hamzaabbass1300]

Can you make a video on how caliph were elected in the past and If there is a caliphate today how they should be elected?

[@HikmaHistory]

I could probably mention it in a relevant future video but to dedicated an entire video to it, I donna about that...

[@rickyyacine4818]

9:36 im looking so hard for this song

[@MarkVrem]

I feel the biggest failure on the Ottoman part, is their failure to beat the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean, and failing to be creative with India like Britain ended up being. On the other hand, did the Ottomans have a bourgeois type class to support capitalism coming in from India and afar. Like Britain, France etc had? Being one of the most populous nations you would think so.

[@HikmaHistory]

I like that you emphasise the conflict with the Portuguese, a pretty underrated factor. I need to figure out why the Ottomans didn't TRY to trade more with India & Indonesia...

[@a.ikramnasigoreng7937]

Maybe because the political tumult in the empire... After Suleiman most of the the sultan are not capable to tame the janissary ,the ulema and most importantly the harrem.while externally the Europe nation pressure the empire..

[@curiouskid1547]

Gold from america was the real game changer.

[@TrueSuccess7]

I have to disagree with you regarding the "creativity" that these European countries had, they only robbed them of their wealth, killed and enslaved millions just for their personal greed. The ottoman empire doing such a thing would get huge criticism from the Muslim world and still at that time Muslim nations didn't go to war against themselves without a reasonable excuse (except some cases). The ottoman empire having their system which is centred on religion couldn't do that "creativity" that easily.

[@maikeliphillips850]

@@TrueSuccess7 what're on you on about they were the biggest slavers

[@tayyabsaleem8146]

I think basic reason which was basic of all was civil war n fight for the position of sultan, which didn't end from start till end...

[@tobirates916]

Peace to you too!

[@HM-jl6ut]

The empire of death and destruction 😒, still today many conficts in the area is connected to this empires, including some in my country.

[@kullancad643]

Ottoman empire is nightmare for your gypsy race.

[@frostflower5555]

Ottomans brought only pain and destruction to control people and take them like slaves and sell them too. Balkans were in a state of blackness with the arrival of the Ottomans. Thank the good heavens above that this misery stopped!

[@Merle1987]

They had every advantage in the world, but they were just chillin'. Can someone please do a multicentury chart detailing population levels of the Ottoman Empire vs. the entirety of the European countries that were against it?

[@mint8648]

In 17th-18th century Ottoman empire had 28 million people, France had 20 million, Russia had 15 million, Austria had 20 million, Spain had 10 million, HRE had 40 million

[@jemoedermeteensnor88]

@@mint8648 Austria didnt have 20 million that was only when the habsburg owned Spain

[@mint8648]

@@jemoedermeteensnor88 they very much did have over 20 million by 1789. 26 million, to be exact.

[@DsDix]

Hard times --> Strong men --> Good times --> Weak men --> Hard times

[@HikmaHistory]

Haha a bit reductionist but not the worst explanation tbh. Ibn Khaldun seemed to be a fan of that kind of thinking...

[@DsDix]

@@HikmaHistory When they took Constantinople, they were at the edge of the military technology. Because they were willing to pay for it. Particularly with the canons made by the Hungarian engineer. Then, as you said, on the brink of the fall of their empire, they were no more the most advanced in that field.

[@chronikhiles]

A very silly platitude. We live in the most peaceful age in human history, and people are more intelligent and stronger than they have ever been.

[@ibrahimmohammedibrahim9273]

​@@chronikhiles seems you didn't go to Africa

[@beckyweiss6072]

Thank you for stating what I’ve researched and found for quite some time. I’m a fan of the magnificent century series (despite it being grossly inaccurate), and I twitch in anger at the amount of sexism and misogyny I find in the comment sections. No, the fall of the Ottoman Empire *did not* begin with Hurrem Sultan (not to mention thinking so discredits one of the most effective rulers of the Ottoman Empire). The Ottoman Empire fell for the reasons you listed. Would it also be correct to say the Ottomans suffered from a lack of modernization in areas other than the military? I also find their method of finding a successor to be ripe for trouble, when perhaps the way the Qing Dynasty did it in Imperial China was much easier (which is literally to put the princes through government positions at the right age for “training,” and the emperor secretly decided his successor by writing the proclamation on a scroll, hid it, and it was only to be opened upon death of the emperor. ) Aside from a huge civil war in the early age of the Qing dynasty, this method seemed to work well enough ( and no fratricide was involved).

[@HikmaHistory]

Yh don't read the comments in my 'Sultanate of Women' video haha. I agree with you about their method of selecting a successor being problematic - the lack of training in the post-fratricide era was only ever going to be a recipe for trouble.

[@raraavis7782]

It's such a shame, they didn't stick closer to the actual events/personalities involved. I mean, it's still a lot of fun to watch, but I don't like, that it gives 'uninformed' viewers like me a warped sense of history. The Ottoman or Qing dynasties aren't really covered in school here (at least not, that I remember) so people consciously or unconsciously get what little they know about those time periods/cultures from tv. And all other things aside...can you imagine, how psychologically messed up the Ottoman princes must have been, knowing from a young age, that they would end up killing their own brothers (and their innocent baby boys) or be killed themselves? That they could be assassinated at the order of their own father at any point in their lives? It's a miracle, the system worked as well as it did, for so long.

[@beckyweiss6072]

@@HikmaHistory the fact that they stopped that baffles me. You’d think that with no fratricide law mothers would be ok with letting the sultan send their sons to a province when it was time. But apparently not?

[@HikmaHistory]

In some ways, the banning of fratricide was justified by the Kafes system, whereby a prince was placed under luxurious house arrest. No Kafes = increased chances of political intrigue = higher chance of bringing back fratricide.

[@PMMagro]

Economics are verfy linked to some off the others... Portugal had nightmare logistics with her empire but "the economy" and shipbuilding linked togehter made logistics doable for example.

[@alexiachimciuc3199]

Passing of knowledge and instructions. West and central Europe used the printing press from middle 15 century while the first printed book in the ottoman empire using Arabic script was from middle of 18 century. It was hard to change Arabic calligraphy into moving printing blocks. Not my idea, I saw this in a documentary.

[@McVaySwifty]

¡Muy interesante amigo! Is there something, or several things, the Ottomans should have done to stop their decline?

[@manooxi327]

Not do what has been described in the video 😀

[@HikmaHistory]

Gracias! Obviously there were a lot of things it could've done but the biggest one was likely to keep up with Europe's modernisation efforts. Also, to learn from the European's emphasis on mercantilism, that would've helped them too.

[@vilerose7871]

should have gone to the new world and run europeans out thus cornering the market forcing all to deal with her.

[@aaronTGP_3756]

Two things at minimum: 1. KEEP THE ARMY MODERNIZED. Without a modern army, other powers will start to trample over you. 2. Ensure control over the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. Kick the Portuguese out of Muscat. Build an Egyptian canal to the Red Sea. It will greatly improve the connectedness of the Empire. And a proto-Suez canal will be irresistably time efficient (time is money) compared to going around Africa for certain European powers. Other things that could prevent the decline: -Conquer Morocco. Get some colonies in the Americas. It doesn't have to be like the English; French-style trading posts will do. -Strengthen the French alliance. Having at least one great power on your side can be a major relief. -Stop at Hungary/Romania. I.E., do not overextend the Balkan territories. Expanding in the Balkans is often going to be more pain than gain. In fact, making Hungary an anti-Habsburg vassal might be a best choice, rather than partial direct annexation. But that would require a decisive victory against the Austrian Habsburgs.

[@samemmo228]

​@@vilerose7871lol

[@flaviopitanga65]

Europe said good riddance to the Ottomans. Not missed at all

[@erwinsmith5381]

اللهم صل وسلم على سيدنا ومولانا محمد عبدك ورسولك النبي الأمي وعلى آله وصحبه وسلم تسليما كثيرا

[@yttean98]

You should do a similar video about the US or is it too early?

[@jordanyanowitz8694]

You should do a video about the Kurdish people, past and present.

[@ezonda3404]

Can you do a video on Bosnia-And Herzegovina

[@HikmaHistory]

Anything specific?

[@ezonda3404]

I just think it has a really cool history

[@xyzg4828]

This is very saddening personally it hurts this was the cause for the decline of the ummah

[@xyzg4828]

@@memur3719 ASSALAMUALAIKUM NOT JUST TURKS BUT THE WHOLE UMMAH LIVED IN GLORY NO ONE EVEN DARED TO TOUCH A TURK OR A MUSLIM SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY IN PALESTINE ROHIGYA INDIA AND EVERYWHERE JUST THE NAME OF CALIPH SULEIMAN AL KANUNI WAS ENOUGH TO CAUSE FEAR IN THE HEARTS OF ENEMIES

[@xyzg4828]

@@memur3719 Walaikumassalam at the time of sultan beyazid II he gave refuge to Jews and Muslims who were expelled from Spain at that time there was islamic system this proves Islam is not a problem at any time and as for Palestine sultan Abdul Hamid II(May ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON HIM ) said that he won't give Palestine till he is the caliph rejecting I believe in today's estimate trillions

[@teukufadel8293]

@@memur3719 idk if you are a muslim or not , but if you are..islam is already perfect from A very long time ago until the day of judgement,so there is no need for any modernism attempts

[@gs043420]

They could have invested in infrastructure and in researching fiqh so as to develop laws to combat internal political and social problems to attain more stability. Just like how early ummayad and abbasid governments did.

[@greywolf1681]

Another reason is the fact that They became too Islamic by suppressing technological advancements and were too concerned about losing power by using Islam to keep power.The Ottoman empire was at its best when it was an Turkic empire which encouraged the latest use of technological power. What allowed the west to advance was the renaissance and the reformation. Where the west advanced and the Ottoman empire went backwards after Sultan Selim gained Egypt Mecca and Medina. The caliphate ideology ruined the Ottoman empire which was evident after Suleiman the magnificent hence the start of the decline. Also Can you cover how Not one Ottoman Sultan went to Hajj.

[@lazuardifirdaus1698]

Main problem is the debt (from build the railway #cmiiw). Then, corruption. After that, the domino just fall

[@alisahinnnn]

Chesme and navarino are actually not even battles. Both are surprise attacks on ottoman navy anchored on harbors. And they burnt the fleets by a surprise attack

[@sentimentalprime144]

From much research of many empires of this time period. I personally believe one of the main reasons the Ottoman Empire collapsed due to a lack of industrialisation during the 1700-1800s. As the ottomans had researched steam engines during the late 1500s till the early 1600s of the time of Murad 4th (1623-1640). However the Muslim scholars/imams did not want to bring such a revolutionary technology as it would change the way of life and move away from the original way of warfare technology of swords etc. Despite this the British and the French Industrialised it’s empires during the 1720-1750 compared to the ottoman sultans to busy in their harams. If the Ottoman had industrialed during these two time periods or at least before the late 1700s before 1799. The economy would never have been so dependent on outside loans during Abdulhamid II reign. Furthermore, during sultan Mahmud II reign who finally disbanded the ottoman janiseries and founded the imperial Army resulted many pashas to go against the Ottoman sultan due to mass state fundings into the new army which the empire was in a dire lack off. In addition, the empire had modernised itself during Mahmud II with new western ideological clothings and uniforms etc which resulted the treasury being empty most often then full as the money invested into the modernisation was too expensive plus disbanding janiseries and a new army had taken a surplus on the caliphate which resulted the empire in having to take heavy loans therefore founding the OCP which made the empire more bankrupt than ever before. Thank you for reading this long winded comment And lmk what u think As always hikmas history is on point great job 👍👍👍

[@HikmaHistory]

Can you email me pls

[@stephenheath8465]

The reason that they last that long because they had a better Succession system compared to the European Royal Houses

[@zainiqbal3875]

What about a printing press

[@Aninkovsky]

Corrupt Bureaucracy maybe also one of the big factor...

[@jojokay7426]

😢 rip Ottoman Empire

[@stantorren4400]

Ataturk didn’t miss you

[@frostflower5555]

Good riddance!

[@s4rma741]

I'm just gonna say that its because Selim II inherited the throne after Suleiman I, instead of prince Mustafa..

[@harensharma3801]

Three Major monarchies fell after ww1 Russian Empire, Ottoman Empire and Austrian Hungary Empire...I believe only the Persian Qajars was the monarchy to survive post WW1

[@kimmorgado9016]

Cos everything changes with time. Empires, just like people, get set in their ways and can't stop being left behind. In other words, thrown into the junkpile of history, . Even languages may come and go. What happened to Sumerian, Aramaic and Latin, for instance, the top literary and administrative languages of their time?

[@HikmaHistory]

That's a very philosophical outlook, Kim. What about the role of agency and changing your situation?

[@kimmorgado9016]

@@HikmaHistory Not only older people tend to be affected by arteriosclerosis, eventually human societies also get the bug... Compared to the millennium and a half of the East Roman Empire existence, its replacement only lasted for a third of that time. Besides the obvious inability to adapt to new realities, with lack of industrialization being one of them, the other compounding reasons for its demise seem to be quite a touchy subject, especially to the ones that may have strong cultural/, linguistic and historical affinities with it.

[@rogerwilson9892]

Power was held by Sultan and the Janissary became more powerful than the Sultan and the Europeans were modernizing Ottoman Empire wasn't because of most of the Sultan didn't feel a need modernize.

[@winzyl9546]

What caused it to decline, not the symptoms of decline.

[@yudhaakbargymnastiar272]

whats your opinion about an argument about the ottoman decline that was mainly (or perhaps the only one) pure religious reasons because the ottoman ruler were distancing themselves from islam with the westenization and even something like giving lgbtq people rigts within the empire and maybe other deviation according to the islamic law.

[@HikmaHistory]

In my opinion, that argument is pretty weak. I wouldn't even know where to start in dismantling it tbh. Personally, I don't even think it's worth the effort of considering.

[@matthewmann8969]

They got overruled, overran, And outvoted

[@bahadrakay5179]

I personally think ottomans eventually collapsed but at least they resist against european great powers better than the most of the world (except japan) and somewhat modernized itself

[@surriyajabeen2646]

If they had won at Vienna could it help them economically

[@HikmaHistory]

Not necessarily. It could've likely opened up a whole new can of worms...

[@febrian0079]

Not at all, gaining more territory would stretch their already overstretch logistics which would only make governing more difficult and more money would have to be spend on maintain those new land. Also, for an Empire as large as the Ottoman, they were quite poor, still rich of course just not as rich like other empire that were as large as they are like the Roman Empire for example

[@surriyajabeen2646]

@@HikmaHistory if they had won the first siege

[@jemoedermeteensnor88]

@@surriyajabeen2646 Probably would not have worked when they invaded Italy they were able to unite (Italian nations) despide being enemies agains tthe greater evil. Austrias conquest being part of the Holy Roman Empire would have caused the same.

[@ted1452]

Another reason was that the Ottomans never really incorporated its Christian subjects . On the contrary they were discriminated with high taxes and other injustices. This in turn allowed nationalism to take hold very quickly. .... great video by the way.

[@HikmaHistory]

Thanks Ted! To be honest, I think that line of argument is a little over exaggerated. The Ottoman millet system worked pretty well up until the advent of European-style Nationalism. Then, admittedly things got a little murky...

[@rositsazlatanova1146]

@@HikmaHistory I don't know what you mean by European-style 'nationalism'. The conquered Balkan countries like Bulgaria (my country), Greece, Serbia were independent states for centuries before the coming of the Ottomans, and never really gave up on the idea of regaining independence. They were ethnically and religiously different from the Ottomans. There were rebellions throughout the history of the Ottoman Empire. Some of the massacres by the Ottoman basibozuk caused an outcry in European media, which certainly helped. Regardless of the position of European states, however, Christian populations would still have wanted independence.

[@SimonNissen94]

@@rositsazlatanova1146 true i think at one point in time the Ottoman empire were like 33-35% christian which is insane thats a third of the population

[@jemoedermeteensnor88]

Yes they never try to convert these subject, but they were seen as equals by law before the nationalist movement happened. So that's not really true

[@robertmitchell8630]

Sad story Ottamans caliphate Mughal caliphate And yet not a single University created that is pushing science technology India and china Israel rose up from being beaten down and created technological pharmaceutical bio research etc

[@samm9063]

9:09 the opportunist Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca WITH THE HELP OF BRITISH....

[@johnniewalker7512]

It's what they call: The rise and fall.....

[@valhalla-tupiniquim]

I think we can add one more factor in the fall of the Ottomans: investment on education and technology and industry. Why Britain became the world leader? invest money on the army technology and industry. I'm not a historian.

[@justacommonman6010]

And where did the British and the Europeans got that money to invest heavily on the army technology and industry? By colonizing the Americas. The wealth and resources of two continents gave the Europeans unprecedented advantage over the rest of the world, which eventually made them so powerful that they were able to colonize almost the entire world. This is the reason why the West is so advanced compared to the rest of the world even today.

[@JohnDoe-wb2ci]

@@justacommonman6010 things are changing slowly(actually fast), if the west doesnt act up, they will lose all their advantage

[@jemoedermeteensnor88]

Great Britain became the world leader after the Netherlands conquered/ gloriously revolutionised the country. The Netherlands never succeeded to world leader due to having only having 1/5th of the population of Great Britain. But this lead to them being a "republic", the addition of a stock exchange, a national bank ( before paper money was just I own you a cow and 10 stones instead of this is worth 1 ounce of gold) and the migration of a lot of skilled people. They were relatively not investing in education, but the Industrial revolution started their and definetly did help.

[@KunglawAdy]

why ? because marley using eldia to dropped the titans in the last defends of the Ottomans...oppps wrong video

[@HikmaHistory]

I love that I know exactly what you're talking about!

[@anlylmaz6948]

in the last episode of 3th season i search about ottoman in AOT . but couldn't find anything until final season xd.

[@financialspecul8tor]

Its simple the key point that was not covered in this video - 'Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" - that was the number one reason of why the Ottomans declined. The subsequent Sultans were lazy bums and made poor decisions. There was no reason for the Ottoman's to have any debt period!

[@robertmitchell8630]

@6 Ottaman Debt Public Administration ODPA 1875 didn't finish paying off until 1954 Giving European the right to collect taxes etc on their territory

[@hayriyezufer8415]

Enemies within. Also alone in the center and tolerated others, but hey still alive!

[@SayedI313]

Three words: The Arab betrayal

[@okhanuludag]

600 years not 300

[@zainking6921]

The ottoman empire very powerful

[@frostflower5555]

The Balkans were in misery. Imagine having to maim your own son so that he won't be taken away by them!

[@rashaadprice4998]

,what are you talking about....Osman was born around 1250 and ceased after world war one...what are you talking about..that's at least five centuries

[@imranb4985]

They strayed from the path and vision by its founders.

[@animewatch4213]

Play at 1.5 speed. Save your time.

[@RedArmy-nh4lx]

Sultan Abdul Hamid II - Nightmare for the west and Jews!!! What a great leader he was!!!

[@koksalceylan9032]

It begon when Selim1 took the Arabs in to the Empire in 1516,from then on it's decline started!.

[@abdulHaqqqq]

nope it was since selim III

[@davidzack8735]

Prior to the Muslim Empires/Caliphates, other Empires had committed genocide and atrocities, but none beforehand had done it in the name of a primitive and violent god/religion.

[@johnmcarthur3519]

very simple to explain, the christians became finally united under Prince Eugen von Savoyen and fight back to the ottomans. Now the ottomans lost every battle and are finally kicked out from entire Europe.

[@halaldunya918]

Nah, Ottomans were crushing Christian Europe, Austria/Hungary/ Bulgaria, the Balkans was a conquered frontier. Europe inevitably industrialized , and improved weapons production and management, including innovation with new tech like fighter jets, while the Ottomans were still stuck in the Middle Ages. They couldn't adapt, that's why they declined. Also the Ottoman Empire was partially dismantled by the Young Turks themselves. Turkey is still here, so not kicked out yet.

[@teukufadel8293]

@@halaldunya918 but turkey might not ever exist if it's not because of Their nationalist founding father ..

[@internethardcase]

@@halaldunya918 of course, the famous fighter jets of ww1 xD

[@frostflower5555]

They put the Balkans in the dark ages.

[@fernandostaejak3705]

Short answer the harems.

[@HikmaHistory]

You give the harems too much credit

[@Fadedfrost1]

Am I missing father of iblis ataturk in this vid

[@turkologistifaz]

Who is Iblis Atatürk ?!

[@cooolbigguy]

Why do you think nationalism contributed to lost territory for the Ottoman Empire so much earlier than say the British, French, or Russian Empire?

[@jemoedermeteensnor88]

British and French rule over the colonies was short so 3 succesfull rulers/warlord was enough. For the Russians their conquered terittory was empty even today 2/3 of them lives in Moskau or west. For the Ottoman their downfall began already in the 17th century so they were only surviving before nationalism.

[@kavvame]

İt is difficult to name Russia, France, G.Britannia as empire (eventhough they are powerfull and big) since the king and his service people and with great majority citizens are from same etnicity. But Rome, Byzantium and Ottomano they are true empires. Since the ruling class constitue from different etnicity and their citizens are from various etnicities. In short empires can not be based on nationalizm as in Ottoman case otherwise it became one of the great reasons to be collapsed. The ruling class in Ottomans was a huge bureaucracy and upon many lost wars some of the heads of this bureaucracy start to beleive as in the West natinolism and freedom and less ties to reliogan can save the country. My opinion it was a big mistake and we lost vast lands. Since that time the new established countries on these vast lands are far from having comfort. There are blood shet in some of them and most of the others are unstable and restless. Behind the brilliant promises and speeches of West there is someting that cause to the other nations fall in poverty and tragedies. Am I true.

[@jakemocci3953]

Were those “European lenders” ethnically European, or just based in Europe?

[@jemoedermeteensnor88]

Most likely ethnically European, first of all they were way ahead in economic policy/strategy/technology. And secondly an enemy of my enemy is my friend--> natural enemies of the Ottomans like Spain have other enemies too so there were plenty enough christian nations that were friends with them. Thirdly individual greed, I dont need to know you to deal with you if I see a good business oppertunity

[@jakemocci3953]

@@jemoedermeteensnor88 I think they were jewish.