Introduction

The report is written under a research objective of Causes of the Decline in the Ottomans
Empire. The research is written under a report format, comprising of introduction section,
literature review, analysis of the arguments put forth in literature and counter-argument and
conclusion.
The Ottomans Empire
The Ottoman Empire, commonly known as Turkish Empire, was an Islamic state of primarily
Sunni, whose foundation was laid by Oghuz Turks in 1299 AD. Osman I, one of the Oghuz
Turks, founded the Ottoman Empire as a Sunni Islamic State in 1299 AD in the northwest of
Anatolia. Initially the empire was a sultanate that expanded with the conquests in the
Balkans in 1362 AD and 1389 AD by Murad I and later with the conquest of Constantinople
in 1453 AD by Mehmed II, the Conqueror. These conquests transformed from sultanate to an
empire. Since its foundation as an empire, it grew to significant power, especially in the 16th,
17th and 18th century with the most significant reign of the Suleiman the Magnificent, which
emerged as a multinational as well as multilingual empire economic, military and political
power. The empire controlled areas of Southeast Europe, Western Asia, North Africa, the
Caucasus and the Horn of Africa. It grew with time, expanding to more than 32 provinces as
well a number of vassals states (although most of which got absorbed into the empire or
various forms of autonomy over different eras. The empire resided at the central area
between Eastern and Western states for more than six countries because it controlled the
Mediterranean basis. However, in spite of the powerful military as well as political strengths,
the empire was dissolved in the aftermath of World War I to the failures and gradual decline,
resulting in appearance of Turkey, Balkan and Middle Eastern States in the areas previously
comprising of Ottomans Empire.
Sultan Osman I founded the sultanate that emerged as an empire after the conquest of
Constantinople by Mehmed II in 1453, reaching its apex in the era of Suleiman the
Magnificent in the 16th century. At its apex, the empire spread from Hungary in the West, to
Egypt to the South, to Caucasus in the North and Persian Gulf to the east. However, the
decline of the empire started in 1683, since the defeat at Battle of Vienna and was finally
defeated by Allies in the aftermath of WWI.
The history of Ottoman empire dates backs to the 13th century, where the demise of Sultanate
of Rum (Seljuk Sultanate), put Anatolia in turmoil, resulting in emergence of small states that
were independent, called the Ghazi Emirates. However, growing weaknesses in the
Byzantine Empire led to loss of provinces to the Ghazi emirates, among which one was led
by Osman I in the west of Anatolia. It is to be noted that a Turkish folklore illustrates it as
Osmans Dream, which presents Osman I as a child who think of a an Empire as a tree, who
has its roots spread to three continents while its branches cover the sky. Four distinct rivers,
the Euphrates, Tigris, Nile and Danube are also presented as the streams emerging from the
tree, while the tree shades four distinct mountain ranges including the Balkan, Atlas, Taurus
and Caucasus. Osman I expanded the frontiers of his empire pushing it towards the edges of
Byzantine Empire. However, Osman Is vision was expanded by his Son, Orhan, who also
focused on expanding towards East (including the Mediterranean and the Balkans) resulting
in capture of Bursa in 1324, which was later made the capital of the state. However, with the

loss of Bursa, Byzantine empire lost its control over the north and northwest of Anatolia.
Further, the city of Thessaloniki was conquered by the Turks in 1387, Kosovo in 1389 and
with the loss at Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, advance of Ottoman Turks carried on towards
the centre of Europe. It is to be noted that loss of Balkans to the Turks gave them strategic
advantage towards preparation of launching expedition to conquer Constantinople.
Although, the Turks had conquered the lands around Constantinople, far before invading the
city, because of Battle of Ankara in 1402 that resulted in imprisonment of Bayezid I, putting
the whole empire in civil war. However, Mehmed I eventually emerged as the Sultan out of
this civil war (and war for succession of throne) who practically restored the empire.
However, the instability and civil war in the empire resulted in temporary loss of
Thessaloniki, Macedonia and Kosovo (along with few others) in 1402, but they were
recaptured by Murad II after Mehmed I. this was responded by collective attack of Wladyslaw
III of Poland, Janos Hunyadi resulting in Battle of Varna, which proved to be the final battle
resulting in defeat of all Hungarian, Polish and Wallachian armies in 1444. However, Janos
Hunyadi also rearranged another army in 1448, but was clearly defeated by Murad II in the
Second Battle of Kosovo. Later, Mehmed II, the son of Murad II, also known as Mehmed the
Conqueror focused on consolidating the military power, reorganization of the state and
infrastructure, and expanding his conquests to Constantinople in 1453.
From the reign of Mehmed II, the history of the empire can be clearly divided into two
particular eras i.e. the growth era from 1453 to 1566 followed by stagnation era after 1566.
With the Mehmeds conquest of Constantinople, the basic platform for the Empires power
in the south-eastern Europe as well as eastern Mediterranean was established. However, a
very important development in the era was the arrangement with Orthodox Church that is
famous by Loukas Notarass remark of Better the Sultans Turban than the Cardinals hat.
With this arrangement with Orthodox Church, large Orthodox population came under
Ottoman rule. Mehmed II shifted Empire capital to Constantinople and focused his military
campaigns resulting in conquest of
Discussion and Analysis
When the decline or collapse of a state or empire is considered, it is not limited to the fall of
the governing body, sultanate or the administrative system of the given country/empire, but
the collapse of the whole system. The collapse of Ottoman Empire has some important
aspects, first, the collapse resulted in emergence of new democracies like Turkey as well as
emergence of new emirates and kingdoms such as those of Middle East. Moreover, it also
resulted in complete shift of the political and economic context. However, an important fact
that is evident from the literature is that the decline or collapse of Ottoman Empire cannot
be limited to the era after 1900s, but in true sense the decline had started much early.
Expanding the meaning of decline from its obvious meanings, it is to be noted that
throughout its existence, the empire faced different times, some better and some difficult,
however, after reaching its apex, it faced gradual, slow, unnoticed and uninterrupted decline
spreading over three centuries, ultimately ending the empire. For example, if the basis of
collapse could be traced to certain instances, which occurred far before the actual decline of
the empire in 1922. Such incidents include the commercial expansion involving overseas
expeditions that Western Europe undertook, was a superior decision, purely detrimental to
the empire. Likewise, the advancement of science and technology involving development of

scientific knowledge, representing the era of enlightenment gave Europeans a significant

advantage over the empire. In addition to this, the political changes resulting in emergence
of strong monarchies and empires in the Western Europe neutralized the political power of
Ottoman Empire. Before analysing the reasons for failure of Ottoman Empire in context of
internalist or externalist viewpoint, it is important to summarize the key aspects of such
collapse, as discussed hereunder;
Evaluation under Internalist Approaches
Pre-Capitalist Conservation
Under industrialist approach, the economic and political disintegration of the empire is
evident in 18th and 19th centuries due to wars, political unrest and the collective effect on
economy. Loss of commercial land routes due to emergence of independent sea routes for
trade, defeats at military and diplomatic fronts, growing pressures and difficulty for keeping
intact the huge administrative infrastructure, long-live practices of mismanagement,
wasteful use of empires useful economic and productive resources contributed towards
economic instability and political dependency. The pre-capitalist conservation in the empire
is characterised by price instability, inflation currency devaluation and preference to goods
imported from Europe. It is to be noted that with the advent of 18th century, the empires
local manufacturers faced challenge of facing international and European businesses with
the help of local community. This led to three different types of entrepreneurships to be
common in empire in early 19th century i.e. merchants (European or other), European
chartered trade companies and the local merchants (representing ethnic and religious strata
of the empire). However, it is important to note that the failure of empire to establish and
expand new trade routes, especially the sea routes, lack of focus for reforms to exploit
economic development opportunities by using productive resources of the empire, economic
integration and stability, growing control of Europeans over trade, industrialization in
Europe, are some of the few dominating factors contributing towards the fall of empire, in
pre-capitalism era.
Evaluation under Externalist Approaches
Western Influence
With passage of time, Ottoman Empire that was the largest Islamic empire of its times grew
weaker while its rivals in Europe grew stronger. After the reign of Suleiman, the empire
started losing its territories in North Africa and in the Europe as a result of unsuccessful
military expeditions or defeats. In addition, various nationalist movements also contributed
towards territorial reduction of the empire. From 15th century, Europe was following the
footsteps of industrial, intellectual, cultural and economic progress that increased its
influence on the empire in different contexts such as educational, trade superiority and
economic influence. With the start of European imperialism, the conditions started getting
tough for the empire, both at economic and military grounds. The western influence includes
the European explorations of 1500s, the focus on global trade and exploring new sea routes
for trade, outgrowth of European civilization over Islamic civilization in terms of scientific ,
cultural, industrial, political and social developments, are important contributors towards
decline of ottoman Empire.

Violent Peripherization
The military expeditions, lust for geographical expansion of the empire and aim of ruling
European territories kept the Ottoman sultans to wage continuous military campaigns, not
only resulting in wasteful use of resources, need of continuously raise armies and divert
focus from economic and social development of the society to military development. In
addition to this, the rapid peripherization of the territories of the empire also created
significant social and administrative problems. The studies show that internal dissension
also played a vital role in decline of the empire. Being a multilingual, multinational and multireligious empire, there were significant challenges for administrative function of the empire.
The large territorial boundaries created borders that require effective control. The ethnic
diversity resulting from violent peripherization made the empire prone to the nationalist
freedom movements especially in territories where non-Turkish, non-Muslim communities
were in majority. Even at the very end, the pure Turkish nationalist movement was mainly
triggered from the feelings of restricted freedom.
Emergence of New World
Nationalism
As discussed above, the rapid peripherization of the empire made it multilingual and
multinational. However, such large geographic expanse required use of high-end
administrative, political, economic and judicial practices to keep such diversity under control
while ensuring that all the population, regardless of being Muslim or non-Muslim be treated
equally. However, the failure of central leadership i.e. sultans created many problems, among
which the emergence of nationalist movements. The Serbs, Slavs, and Hungarians, mostly
belonging to Orthodox Christian faith were more concerned with their independence and
tried for their independence. In later times, the conflict of religious leaders with liberal
political elite resulted in either failure or opposition to the reforms and hence that fuelled
nationalist groups and thoughts due to complete ignorance to their demands. The particular
aspect coincides with the Miroslav Hrochs theory of nationalism. Under this context, if the
Ottoman sultans were serious to ensure existence of their empire, they must have
understood the concept of nation along with objective relationships such as economic,
political, linguistic, cultural, religious, historical, geographical and others and should have
introduced reforms to ensure that all ethnicities and groups in Ottoman nation are given a
common memory, establishing ties in terms of culture and language through extended social
communication, and ensuring equality. This would have resulted in emergence of Ottoman
nation (rather than just Turk nation) and would have controlled the nationalist movements.
However, failure to do so resulted in decline of Ottoman Empire. When the Renans theory
of nationalism is applied to Ottoman empire, it becomes clear that if race (Turk, non-Turk),
religion (Muslim, non-Muslim) and languages are kept aside, geography could be used to
develop the concept of nation. However, any such efforts in the Ottoman empire is absent
over the history. Moreover, the practices prevailing in the empire promoted social, religious,
linguistic and racial disparity adding fuel to the nationalist movements.
Global Trade Changes
The rapid growth in industry, science, political influence, relationships with other nations,
imperialism and colonialism due to strengthening of European powers resulted in change of
economic balance in favour of European nations. First, the lack of focus on industrial,

intellectual and scientific development in the empire gave Europeans a significant room to
avail the first movers advantage, and later their expansion for avoiding trade routes that
were controlled by the Empire. This led to extensive marine expeditions by the Europeans
establishing their superiority over marine trade routes. Ottoman Empire neglected such
strategic developments pivoting its decline. In addition to this, other aspects of changes in
global trade and economy, internal failures and other factors that contributed towards
decline of the empires apex are discussed hereunder, in detail.
Economic Problems: The incapable leadership, corruption and continuous military
campaigns created significant pressure on the economy of the empire. It is to be noted that
the sultans after Suleiman were, mostly, ignorant of the importance of economic reforms to
stabilize the economy, failed to keep appropriate economic track for the empire. The empire
was hit from severe inflation, high taxes and corruption based on debased coinage. The
empire failed to understand the importance of the sea trade routes for the emerging times,
while Europeans focused on exploring new routes to practically avoid Middle-east to reach
new and emerging markets. This resulted in sharp decline in trade through the Ottoman
lands, decreasing economic activity in the empire. Moreover, the wars with Iran in the later
centuries devastated the silk trade. The economic development in the European countries
resulted in development of industry and hence goods that were superior to those
manufactured in the empire. The superior quality of goods manufactured in Europe, the local
industry started shrinking significantly because European products were preferred over
local handicrafts. This resulted in shift of economic activity from industrialization (that was
going on in Europe) to trade. With consolidation of the sea routes vy various European
powers with time, the economic pressures on the empire started worsening. The continuous
decline in the economic activity focused at capital goods and industrial development created
an outflow of economic resources such as gold, diamonds and pearls (including other
precious items). It is to be noted that the economic espionage practiced by European nations
by entering in favourable trade treaties and exploiting such treaties later, also created
economic advantage of the empire.
Administrative, governmental and Social views
Leadership Problems: It has been widely explored by the researchers and historians that
ability, capacity, vision and decision-making ability of the leaders, whether democratic or
monarch, plays a vital role in rise or fall of empires. When this particular aspect is applied to
the case of Ottoman Empire, it becomes clear that the empire was the result of ambition,
efforts, vision and dedication of the founders like Mehmed I and Suleiman. However, when it
reached its apex, the empire came under the rule of the descendants, most of which were not
good leaders. For instance, except a few, majority of the seventeen sultans ruling the empire
after Suleiman depicted limited ability rooting to their improper training, experience or
brought up. Moreover, the house of Ottoman, also failed itself by relying on sultans with little
ability, mental defect and incompetency. In addition to this, the second important leadership
perspective that gradually failed the empire was a short span of rule that approximates to
thirteen years. This space of rule in the descendants is practically less than half of what the
founders of the empire did. Moreover, the incompetent rulers in the later centuries after
Suleiman ignored significant setbacks to the empire such as that of Sitva Torok Treaty with
Austria of 1606. The internal battle for sultanate among the heirs let to emergence of rivals

such as that of Hapsburg Monarch. The practices of confinement of princes to succeed the
throne by the eldest male in the family added to the incompetence. Many of the sultans at the
time when they claimed the throne were not only minors (completely under the influence of
the queen) but also used to be harem favourites that creates cliques and intrigues in the
palace, placing women in power. This shows that the lack of determination, will, ability,
competence, training, experience, education and mental ability gradually decreased in the
leadership of the empire, creating a leadership gap that trickled down to a number of other
problems.
Corruption Problems: The gap due to incapable, incompetent and immature leadership
trickled down to higher as well as lower ranks of the empires administrative infrastructure
and then to the society in general. These flaws played a vital role in decline of the empire as
the practices such as bribery, public office purchase, nepotism, favouritism and lack of
meritocracy created administrative leadership flaw in the offices and functions of the
empire. Ottoman empire was successful to reach its apex when transparency and
accountability were ensured in the ranks, top to bottom. The meritocracy was a long held
legacy and a hallmark of the Sultans, but when it became less common, the empire was
ruined in the hands of incapable sultan with incapable officials and ranks. This promoted
corruption and malpractices in all ranks of the government officials. The officers within the
empire started malpractices such as buying whole of the office and increasing the taxes.
Moreover, civil administration was jeopardized by the frequent changes in judicial and civil
offices, hindering the positive changes in the populace. However, it is to be noted that from
its apex to fall, the Koprulu Viziers tried to control corruption and improve the
administrative and military efficiency, but the incapable leadership (the Sultans) added
failure to their success of reducing corruptions through reforms. This particular decline in
governmental, administrative and military efficiency rooted in corruption triggered the
collapse of empire that took around three centuries. This particular thing is evident from the
Treaty of Karlowitz, which represents the beginning to territorial collapse of the empire in
1699.
Military Problems: The decline of empire is also related to the decline of its military capacity.
It is to be noted that the while devshirme were ignored, sons of janissaries were recruited in
the army, with preference to other Muslims. In addition to this, different forms of imperial
slavery were legalized while local janissaries started acting beyond their juridical powers,
creating a disrupting force in the capital along with the aid of students, craftsmen and others.
Provincial armies declined putting pressure on the empire to raise standing infantry and
equip them with efficient firearms. In order to raise money for such huge expenditures, the
empire abandoned its military fief system and started taxing the agriculture that caused
unrest, revolts and resistances in different areas such as Anatolia. The huge taxes causes the
population to abandon their farm lands, leave villages and change their profession, resulting
in deficit in tax collection in spite of high tax rates.
Intellectual decline and Knowledge-related Problems: The main cause of intellectual decline
originated from the victory of Safavid Shiism by the founders i.e. Selim and Suleiman. The
Muslims in the empire were combined under Sunni Orthodoxy and thus, the scholars were
not permitted or supposed to engage in challenges to their intellect and knowledge that may
stimulate conflicts. However, at the same time, Europe was experiencing something different

i.e. orthodox views were being challenged and openness to new ideas and knowledge was
developing. However, the Muslim scholars became overwhelmed with the concept of Muslim
superiority, civilization pride and were ready to abuse any development as infidel or pagan.
The symbiosis created by infiltration of Sufi orders provided strength to highly conservative
religious elements. Although, there are numerous scientific developments in the era, but they
gradually vanished with time creating intellectually stagnant society.
Failed attempts for reforms: Continuous wars, military and political conflicts devastated the
empire and in the 18th century reforms were introduced in the Tulip period (1718 1730)
that included important of some element of European culture, science and developments.
However, the political instability continued to increase in spite of the fact that around a fifty
year peace period on European frontiers, the sultanate was unable to monitor the
performance of provincial notables and governors who were used to disobey orders from
the capital, resulting in diffusion of political authority. Later in the end of 18th century, the
military expeditions started by Catherine, the Great towards Russia with aim to place her
grandson, Constantine as head of neo-Byzantine empire with Constantinople, as capital
resulted in withdrawal of Ottoman empire from Crimea. This was a major setback as the
empire lost a Muslim territory for the first time. It is to be noted that Ottomon Sultan Selim
III introduced reforms under the name of Nizam-i-Cedid including fiscal and military
reforms, which were not successfully implemented due to war with Napoleon in Egypt. This
made clear to the peer empires that Ottoman Empire may not be as strong as they perceive.
The prime path set for reforms by Selim III was again adopted by his descendants such as
Mahmud II in the early 19th century. Such reforms were not only aimed at removing
weaknesses but also planned to make the empire open to new era. Such reforms included
military, administrative and fiscal reforms to boost economic, military and social efficiency.
Borrowing important concepts and models from European peers, the reforms were aimed to
enable the empire regain its strengths. However, the European military expeditions nullified
the effects of such reforms to the lowest. However, later the justice reforms in the Tanzimat
period (1839-76) are remarkable contributors towards establishment of social justice in all
subjects of the empire, either Muslims or non-Muslims. These reforms were part of greater
Tanzimat, Ottomanism that is explained as patriotism but not nationalism. These reforms
were criticised by intellectuals in the mid of 19th century on basis of concepts like catan,
hurriget and constitutionalism. Tanzimat reforms resulted in creation of parliament and
constitution, an important political and social development but the war with Russia, It is to
be noted that the late 19th century military defeats such as that with Russia, Treaty of Berlin
and others allowed Western powers to start claiming the geographical territories of the
empire. However, instead of coping with the changes in political and economic perspectives
of emerging world, the new sultan Abdul Hamid II abandoned the reforms for liberalism and
implemented autocratic regime. The creation of autocratic regime and emergence of
Germany as military and economic advisor of the empire under the rule of Kaiser Wilhelm
resulting in emergence of new ideologies such as Pan-Islamism.

Bibliography
Clark, E. C., 1974. The Ottoman Industrial Revolution. International Journal of Middle East
Studies, 5(1), pp. 65-76.
Lieven, D., 1999. Dilemmas of Empire 1850-1918: Power, Terriorty, Identity. Journal of
Contemporary history, 34(2), pp. 163-200.
Pamuk, S., 1984. Social disintegration and popular resistance in the Ottoman Empire 18811908: Reactions to European economic penetration. The Economic History Review, 44(3),
pp. 872-873.
Raccagni, M., 1980. The French Economic interests in the Ottoman Empire. International
Journal of Middle East Studies, 11(3), pp. 339-376.
Reid, J. J., 2000. Crisis of the Ottoman Empire: Prelude to Collapse 1839-1878. Stuttgart:
Steiner.
Turfan, M. N., 1999. Rise of the Young Turks: Politics, Military and Ottoman Collapse. London:
I B Taurus.
Vlami, D. & Mandouvalos, I., 2013. Entrepreneurial forms and processes inside a
multiethnic pre0capitalist environment: Greet and British enterprises in the Levant (17401820s). Business History, 55(1), pp. 98-118.
Wilson, R., 2003. A monetary history of the Ottoman Empire. Business History Review,
77(2).