In surveying the institutional landscapes of the Ottoman and Safavid Empires we can detect significant points of intersection and departure in the imperial trajectories of both states. Undertaking such a comparative analysis of the empires’ institutional frameworks also allows us to account for the overwhelming longevity of the Ottomans relative to the Safavids. In order to uncover explanations for why the Ottoman Empire endured beyond the eighteenth century and the Safavid Empire did not, it is essential to understand how Ottoman institutions recovered and stabilized in the face of severe fiscal and military challenges, while in contrast, the Safavid state disintegrated, among other reasons, due to institutional weakness and tribal invasions. In this essay, I intend to assess the question of Ottoman longevity and Safavid lack of with respect to key administrative, economic and military institutions, which will enable me to ascertain why, in the aftermath of various internal conflicts arising in the seventeenth century, the eighteenth century saw the Ottomans recover and persevere, while the Safavid state came to an end.
More recent historical studies on the Ottoman Empire have criticized the traditionally linear approach to understanding developments within the state. As Douglas Streusand has pointed out, such a method reduces a vastly complex story of expansion and institutional development to “a gradual, linear rise,” which is followed by a “gradual degeneration” of empire during the nineteenth century. Moving beyond such a linear approach is essential for carrying out a consummate analysis on how Ottoman institutions transformed in between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries in response to political tensions and clash...
... middle of paper ...
...d Safavid institutions within a framework of imperial longevity. On the basis of administrative, economic and military institutions, I will conclude that the structuring of the Ottoman Empire, notably the integrated ruling elites alongside a powerful central establishment, enabled it to be more pragmatic and malleable in response to both external and internal conflicts. The Safavid Empire, however, disintegrated because of irreconcilable divisions within the ruling elite, as well as a lack of political integration between the central and provincial administrations. Following the general trend of provincialization during the seventeenth century, no group became powerful enough to sway the decisions of the Ottoman government, while the Safavids increasingly lost their grip on the peripheries, owing to the persistent problem of tribal confederations jockeying for power.
Two of the most powerful powers in the post-classical period were the Arabian and Byzantine empires. Each had different political, religious, and economic differences that defined their respective cultures, and managing to create vast empires that greatly rivaled each other.
The men of the pen was highly educated of scientist, lawyers, judges, and doctors. The men of sword were military personnels. The men of negotiation were merchants, artisans, and tax collectors. The men of husbandry were farmers and herders and some people was based on the skills they knew. Inadequate administration, disruption/invasion in the government, is when farmers had a hard time when it came to their cattle. The “New Order” reactionary movements, had become anarchic and ineffectual and they then was jealous of their privileges and opposed to change they created a Janissary revolt which led to the death of Selim. Massacred Janissary corps and marked the first breakaway, forced to recognize Greece with the treaty of Constantinople. The beginning of the 17th century the Ottoman Empire began to change itself according to the western culture. The empire took some innovations from the west. Also, by the contribution of foreign engineers the Empire repaired its old arm systems. The Newly-found school’s, permanent ambassadors, and privy councils were essential improvement for the Empire. All of these reformations had a good impact at the period of
Strayer, Robert W. An Outsider's View of Suleiman I. Ways of the World: A Brief Global History with Sources. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2013. 655-57. Print.
Three Muslim empires rose during the spread of Islam. These empires are different, yet also similar. They are the Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals. They united other Muslims but also conquered other territories to form their own empires.
The men at the forefront of the Young Turk’s rebellion were Mehmed Talaat, Ismail Enver and Ahmed Djemal. Eventually, they came to have more of a dictatorial sort of rule on their people, with their own visions of what they wanted for the Turkic people. They all wanted to unite their people and expand ...
The fall of the Western Roman Empire was the first example in history on the collapse of a constitutional system which was caused by the internal decay in political, military, economics, and sociological issues. The government was becoming corrupt with bribery. Commanders of the Roman army turned their own army inward towards their own Constitutional systems, fueled by their own ruthless ambition. This paper will talk about how the violence and internal turmoil in 133B.C.-27 B.C. was what provoked the economic stagnation in the city of Rome and to the end of the Republic and the many corrupt politicians and generals who only thought of nothing more than personal gains and glory. The senate lost control of the Roman military and the reason they rose against the senate was because the senate were no longer able to help manage the social problems or the military and administrative problems of the empire. The economics of the Roman Empire soon hit rock bottom due to the high taxation to support the army. Gold was also eroding since Rome was no longer bringing new resources through the expansion. Emperors then tried to mint coins out of silver and copper instead and the end result was inflation and dramatic rises in
While taking the class of Early Modern European History there was two states that really stuck out and peaked my interest the most. They were the Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe. If you compare and contrast both the Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe during the 16th Century through the 18th Century, you will see that there are a number of similarities as well as differences when you look at the expansion of the states. You will also see many of these contrasts as well when you look in terms of each states military and commerce. Although the Ottoman Empire existed before the 16th century and continued to exist past the 18th century and in great decline until the early 20th century, when looking at the state as a whole the time period of 1500’s through the 1700’s is a period of growth and strength. It is perhaps even known as a golden era for the state, when taking in to comparison the Early Modern Europeans where the same time period marks a change in how society thought and how people were treated.
Greece and Persia are two of the four great empires that rose to the top rapidly. Both empires have well organized political systems that greatly influenced the way later governments were structured in the United States and Europe. Greece and Persia empire’s structures weighed greatly on their development and growth, but the diverse topographies of Greece and Persia also made a vast impact. These features affected the cultures and even how the political government changed overtime.
The Ottoman Empire were Muslims and included Hungary, Syria, Egypt, Bulgaria, and Albania, and they marched on land. The Ottoman Empire is said to have first appeared somewhere around the 1300’s, and can be related to the decline of the Byzantine Empire. They began conquering Christian lands and by the late 1600’s all Christians were afraid of the “terrible Turk”. It is no wonder that many other people were afraid of the Ottoman Empire since they seem to be really rather powerful and they conquered a lot of land. It was in the 1330’s when the Morroccan Abu Abdallah Ibn Battuta passed through Constantinople and became impressed with the Ottomans who seemed to be gaining power rather quickly, he noticed that they had close to 100 forts and
“One Arab nation from Gulf to the Ocean,” gives meaning to the term “Pan-Arabism” in the Middle East. A notion where Arab nations transcend their state boundaries to form political mergers with other states and achieve an ‘Arab unity.’ The existence of Arab states had been tumultuous throughout the decline of the Muslim order, the end of the Ottoman Empire, the Palestinian defeat, Six Day War and Arab-Israeli war in 1973. This essay will critically examine Foud Ajami’s case for a raison d’état in the Middle East and his claim that there were six broad trends leading to the alteration of the balance of power away from Pan-Arabism and towards the state. It will be argued that Pan-Arabism was a romantic ideology that Arab states found convenient to support, all in advancement of their nationalistic state agendas. It was never a realistic endeavor that was physically undertaken by the Arab states and was thus never alive in a tangible sense. However, Pan-Arabism as an ideology had a place in the Middle East and was thus alive in an ideological sense.
The Tanzimat: Reform in the Ottoman Empire. During its prime, the Ottoman Empire was one of the largest and most powerful empires in the entire world. Unfortunately for the Ottomans, various problems arose, and eventually the empire started to decline. This resulted in a period of reform, known as the Tanzimat.
A. "The Ottomans: The 17th and 18th Centuries." Washington State University - Pullman, Washington, D.C. 1996. The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. Web. The Web.
The Ottomans and Spanish built flourishing empires based on different philosophies from 1450 to 1800. The Ottoman and Spanish were two powerful empires during that time. During the building of the two empires, the Spanish and the Ottoman both developed similarities in their social, political, and economic structures. The Ottoman took control of Europe, while the Spanish saw it as easy to monitor new lands. The different tactics employed made the both empires flourish. For instance, the Spanish were not tolerant of religion. They conquered other areas with the aim of converting Christians to Islam, if they refused, they would be killed. On the other hand, the Ottoman leaders incorporated leaders of diverse culture
One of the main contributors in the decline of the Byzantine Empire were the two civil wars that occurred in Macedonia and Constantinople. In 1321, the first civil war, often called the War of the Two Andronikoi, occurred between Byzantine’s emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos and his grandson Andronikos III Palaiologos over control of the empire. Andronikos III had many supporters including John Kantakouzenos, who had a governorship in the nearby land of Thrace. Shortly after the war began, a peace treaty was reached in which Andronikos III Palaiologos was named co-emperor of the Byzantine Empire. The peace treaty did not last long and after seven more years of battle, the war ended leaving Andronikos III in charge of the army and John Kantakouzenos named as the leader. The second civil war of 1341, sometimes referred to as the Second Palaiogan Civil War, happened after disagreement broke out after Andronikos III Palaiologos’s death over the guardiansh...
The first twenty-five years of Syrian independence was filled with extreme political instability and p...