reply to each post with 100 words as if you are me and reply hello (person name)
For your participation posts, you must construct and post at least two “substantive” replies to your course-mates’ or instructor discussion conversations. Substantive replies must incorporate a minimum of one source/citation to support post observations and analysis (to include all footnote or end note source information); and must link the discussion(s) to the assigned lesson or course objectives.
If you meet or exceed these discussion participation expectations, you will earn full credit for weekly discussion participation. Your assessment scores will be documented each week in the course Gradebook; along with specific feedback describing shortfalls and reasons for any deductions.
post 1
Toni Hatcher posted May 11, 2024 10:13 PM
Good Evening Class and Professor,
The history of the Ottoman Empire is marked by dramatic events, from stunning defeats to remarkable rebounds and conquests. Central to this narrative are the figures of Bayezid I, Mehmet I, Murat II, and Mehmed II, each leaving an indelible mark on the empire’s trajectory. Understanding the pivotal moments and decisions made by these leaders sheds light on how the Ottomans navigated through adversity and rose to greatness.
In 1402, Bayezid I suffered a devastating defeat against Tamerlane (Timur) at the Battle of Ankara. This defeat was a culmination of factors: Tamerlane’s tactical brilliance, internal rebellions within the Ottoman ranks—particularly from Bayezid’s own sons—and the resulting capture of Bayezid himself. The aftermath of this defeat plunged the Ottoman Empire into disarray, with power fragmented among Bayezid’s warring sons. “In his ignominious defeat, the once-powerful ruler Bayezid made a tragic figure. Thought Ottoman chroniclers a century after the battle at Ankara, moved by his fate, wrote of Tamerlane putting Bayezid in an iron cage….. More nearly contemporary Ottoman writers claimed that he died by his own hand, unable to bear the dishonor of his defeat.”[1]
Bayezid’s demise in captivity, however, paved the way for a surprising resurgence. His sons eventually resolved their conflicts, culminating in the reunification of Ottoman power under Mehmet I. This consolidation was achieved through internal diplomacy, pragmatic alliances, and the stabilization of Ottoman territories, highlighting the empire’s resilience and adaptability in the face of immense challenges.
Succession Struggles: Hindrance or Help?
The succession process within the Ottoman Empire often proved tumultuous. The competition among the Sultan’s sons for power frequently led to internal strife and weakened the empire’s unity. Bayezid’s defeat and subsequent capture accentuated these struggles, exposing vulnerabilities within the Ottoman hierarchy. The Ottoman succession process, which often led to fratricidal conflicts among princes vying for the throne, was a double-edged sword. While it could weaken the empire during times of transition, successful rulers like Mehmet I and Murat II demonstrated the importance of effective consolidation and governance.[2]
Despite the challenges posed by succession disputes, successful transitions such as those under Mehmet I and later Murat II demonstrated that effective leadership could stabilize and strengthen the empire. Mehmet I’s diplomatic acumen and Murat II’s military reforms played pivotal roles in restoring order and consolidating Ottoman control, laying the groundwork for future expansion and conquest.
Mehmet I and Murat II:
Mehmet I and Murat II emerged as instrumental figures in revitalizing the Ottoman Empire. Mehmet I’s diplomatic finesse allowed him to secure peace and internal cohesion after a tumultuous period, setting the stage for stability under his successor, Murat II. Murat II’s reign was characterized by military prowess and administrative reforms, which expanded Ottoman territories and solidified central authority. Together, Mehmet I and Murat II navigated the empire through turbulent waters, preparing the ground for the most iconic event of Mehmed II’s reign—the conquest of Constantinople. Mehmet I’s diplomatic finesse and Murat II’s military reforms were instrumental in stabilizing the Ottoman Empire after the turmoil of Bayezid’s defeat. Together, they laid the groundwork for the empire’s resurgence and expansion.[3]
The Conquest of Constantinople:
Mehmed II, known as Mehmed the Conqueror, was determined to seize Constantinople due to its strategic and symbolic significance. The city, as the capital of the Byzantine Empire, commanded key trade routes and represented a bastion of Christian power. The fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453 marked a seismic shift in regional dynamics. This conquest was a watershed moment in history, signaling the end of the Byzantine Empire and the dawn of Ottoman dominance. It reverberated across Europe and the Middle East, heralding profound cultural, political, and religious transformations. Mehmed II’s relentless focus on conquering Constantinople underscored its strategic and symbolic importance. The fall of the city in 1453 marked a pivotal moment in history, ending Byzantine rule and establishing the Ottoman Empire as a major power in Europe and the Mediterranean.[4]
In conclusion, the Ottoman Empire’s journey from defeat to conquest was shaped by the resilience and vision of its leaders. The rebound from Bayezid I’s defeat, the effective management of succession challenges, and the strategic foresight of Mehmet II were pivotal in transforming the Ottomans into a formidable force that left an enduring legacy on the world stage.
Toni
[1] Caroline Finkel. Osman’s Dream: The History of the Ottoman Empire. (New York City, NY: Basic Books, 2007) pg. 59.
[2] Douglas A. Howard. A History of the Ottoman Empire. London, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
[3] Caroline Finkel. Osman’s Dream: The History of the Ottoman Empire. (New York City, NY: Basic Books, 2007).
[4] Steven Runciman. The Fall of Constantinople, 1453. (London, United Kingdom: 1990).
Post 2
Jeff Orseno posted May 13, 2024 5:43 PM
Week #2 Discussion Hist643 The Ottoman Empire
Why did Beyezit fail so badly against Tamerlane and how were the Ottomans able to rebound? Was the succession process or lack thereof a help or a hindrance to the success of the Ottomans? How did Mehmet I and Murat II save the empire?
Beyezit failed against Tamerlane for three primary reasons. Firstly, the governance structure of Ottoman lands. The Ottoman Empire at the time preferred indirect rule of their territories. They would conquer a tribe or people and then rule through their vanquished foes, usually leaving the royal house or despot in charge. These territories were referred to as Vasal States by which the rulers of a certain area are allowed to rule if tribute, obedience, and affirmation are given to the Ottoman Sultan that they are the supreme leader of the territory. The Ottomans had numerous territories such as this in the Balkans and in Eastern and Southern Anatolia. Leaving the former ruling structure in place may be easier in the beginning, however once they have recovered resentment and an urge to return to their former status drives Vassal States to rebel to restore their former position. This process is accelerated as time moves on and leadership changes in the Vassal, and the Ottoman State. Any degree of loyalty the vanquished leader might have had for not being put to the sword by the conquerors is less with succeeding leaders. Beyezit had numerous territories in Anatolia in a position by where they were looking to ally with anyone who could help them in their struggles with the Ottomans.
Secondly Beyazit was occupied in time and resources with the siege of Constantinople to complete what his predecessors could not the defeat of the Byzantine Empire.[1] Thirdly Beyezit was depending on the troops made up primarily of men from their Vassal territories mostly taken by force to serve in the Ottoman military. Troops such as this have no loyalty to the Ottomans and in a time of need in battle the possibility of desertion is high and that is what occurred against Tamerlane.[2] Tamerlane saw himself as the successor of Genghis Khan and inheritor, therefore of the Seljuk-Ilkhanid territories in Anatolia.[3]
Beyazit lost due to and was captured due to his government’s preoccupation with Constantinople, superior tactics, and his forces from the other Turcoman former Emirates deserting him in battle due to Tamerlane offering them the same arrangement they now had with the Ottomans Vassal status. After the battle of Ankara and Beyazit and one of his sons captured Tamerlane made the same mistake the Ottomans had made in Anatolia allowing the Ottoman State to remain intact as a Vassal State. This allowed the Ottomans time to reorganize when the succession of the Ottoman ruler was settled. The lack of a succession plan within the Ottoman Empire was an extreme disadvantage for them with dealing with the other states around them. Beyezit’s sons Isa, Suleyman, and Mehmed fought for control and the succession took ten years to fully be settled.
With the ascension of Mehmet I and Murat II the Ottoman state was again on a path to dominate all of Anatolia and their Western foe the Byzantines. The reason Mehmet I and Murat I saved the empire is because they spent time creating an administrative state and direct outreach to the Turkish Bey’s to make them dependent and loyal to the Ottoman Sultan. In addition to making the Beys the pillar of the administration they created a bureaucratic government that was more efficient and better able to collect the taxes needed for the military. The creation of the Janissary core created an elite trained military who were not of Anatolian origin and loyal to the Sultan himself.[4] They corrected the issues that led to the Ottoman defeat at Ankara while putting the Empire on a footing that would allow future expansion and their main goal the defeat of the Byzantine Empire.
Mehmet II focused his on the siege of Constantinople for two main reasons. Firstly, capturing Constantinople was strategic to the Ottomans because it would eliminate the logistical problems of navigating the Bosporus thus connecting their two realms The Balkans, and Anatolia.[5] Secondly this goal had been an action every Ottoman Sultan dating back to Osman I had hoped to accomplish. On a larger scale Mehmet would gain power and authority in Europe and hero status within the Muslim world as they had been attempting to drive out the Christians since the seventh century CE. Mehmet was successful after the 53-day siege due to his planning and actions taken early in his reign. Before the siege he waged a successful campaign against the Karaman and concluded treaties with the Sebian leader George Brankovic, and The Hungarian regent John Hunyadi.[6] The final capture of the city gave the Ottomans control of the Bosporus including the trade routes from the Black Sea and giving Mehmet II additional status as Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. The fact that only some 8500 men were defending the city against the Ottomans showed how inconsequential the Byzantine entity had become.[7] Sorry everyone for rambling on there was just so much going on and I barely scratched the surface of it. Have a great week.
[1] Caroline Finkel, Osman’s Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire 1300 – 1923 (New York: Basic Books, 2007), 28.
[2] Finkel, 29–30.
[3] Finkel, 28.
[4] Carter Vaughn Findley, The Turks in World History (Oxford (GB) New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 166.
[5] Finkel, Osman’s Dream, 48.
[6] Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire ; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 28.
[7] Daniel Goffman, The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe, New Approaches to European History 24 (Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 52.
Bibliography
Findley, Carter Vaughn. The Turks in World History. Oxford (GB) New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Finkel, Caroline. Osman’s Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire 1300 – 1923. New York: Basic Books, 2007.
Goffman, Daniel. The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe. New Approaches to European History 24. Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Imber, Colin. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
post 3
