The origins of the Ottoman Empire are concurrent with the rise of Islam. Approximately around 600 A. C. Islam emerged in the predominantly backward Arabian Peninsula. Its followers wanted to spread Islam as the true religion and way of life throughout the world. From 600 on, militant followers expanded their territory through conquest from the Atlantic coast of Africa to the borderlands of India. The captors used politics as a way to establish Islam in the conquered lands, so their governments were theocracies. Rigid control and organization helped the conquered lands become more affluent.
This kind of a thriving oasis among the barren steppes and deserts attracted many plunderers. Around 1300 not only did the Crusades pose a threat to Islam but many nomadic tribes of Central Asia such as the Mongols and various turic tribes also attacked the empire. The attacks weakened Abbasid rule and soon the Ottoman Turks, who were vassals to the Abbasid Caliphate, overthrew their subjugators and established their own reign. As the Ottoman were mostly nomads and had not many institutions of their own, they simply adopted the established order and legacy to govern the empire.
Under Ottomans the empire became strong and prosperous again; the arts and sciences thrived during a Second Golden Age which lasted from 1450 into the late 1500. Yet there were flaws within the empire. Political and economical problems were slowly but surely uprooting the stability and planting the seeds of the demise. During the last quarter of the 16th century Ottoman Empire began a slow but continuous process of deterioration while Europe grew more powerful and prosperous. The basic cause for the decline was a combination of totalitarian, theistic and statist philosophy of government.
The sultan, his vizier and the local pashas had unlimited power of life and death over their subjects, who had no representation in the government. Unlimited power allowed the rulers to exploit their people and economies as they saw it fit. And what the sultan or his vizier saw fit was rarely to the people’s benefit. The despotism was not lightened by the sultan’s goodwill either. He did not see it as his job to serve the country and make it and its people prosperous. Quite contrary, the sultan thought that is was the duty of the people to make him prosperous[1].
While there were espots in Europe, they were not as arrogant and saw themselves as servants to the benefit and affluence of their country. (The means to achieve that affluence was of course left to the despot’s discretion. ) Peter the Great for example, modernized Russia not so that he could live more lavishly; he could have achieved that by simply imposing more taxes, but so that Russia could become more prosperous and progressive in the future. However, domestic opulence was not a chief concern for the Ottoman regime.
The sultan saw himself as a religious leader whose obligation was to pread Islam[2]; he therefore paid little attention to his own people. The reason for the elaborate bureaucracy and army was not to improve people’s lives and protect them, but to control them, keep them from uprising, and secure the power and supremacy of the Sultan. With the help of a strong army the rulers squelched any undesired dissent[3]. Because of the lack of dissent, problems that were threatening empire’s stability were not paid proper attention.
Starting in the late 1500, ottoman rulers began resting on the laurels and took the supremacy their empire had achieved in the preceding centuries for granted[4]. This allowed for the accumulation of political errors and unwise decisions. Especially as in 1500 the Ottoman government became more reactionary and its rulers impotent[5], many changes that would have equalized the flaws, were not made in due time. The empire began to lag behind the emerging states of Europe both politically, scientifically and economically.
While in Europe the beginnings of nationalism, capitalism and democratic republicanism started to emerge, the ottoman were still deeply rooted in feudalism[6]. For example in England the monarch was not absolute but checked by a relatively representative parliament which was ffective at addressing problems, grievances and excessive taxes. In Holland agriculture and food production became commercialized; the large middle class embraced the productivity of private enterprise. Change and development paved a way to prosperity in Europe.
Yet the conservative nature of the Ottoman and their view of the middle class as a threat to the power of the sultan[7] caused them to miss the boat to long- term affluence; the majority of the country remained in poverty due to medieval farming techniques. The Ottoman Empire always had economic problems. As Turks originated rom nomadic plunderers and because of the sultan’s egocentric attitude, it was difficult for them to develop a sound economic policy. Sultans were not concerned with the wellbeing of their empire as long as they had control over it. Therefore Sultans showed little interest in the study of economics[8].
Consequently, Turks were unable and unwilling to understand the concept of the finity of resources. This ignorance came back later to haunt them. The amount of production and resources in any given conquered land is limited. One can’t make something from nothing; production requires minimum of resources from which to start. After a period of pillaging the country became barren as the starting capital was consumed and no further production was possible. The conquerors had to decide whether move to sack another country or to pour in resources to jump-start some kind of self- sustaining activity like agriculture or industry.
The ottomans have never been productive peoples, they were warriors; therefore it was not in their philosophy to create self-sufficient economies based on production[9]. Ottomans plundered a country until it was completely ruined and then moved n to loot another, leaving behind a path of destruction. Such behavior created a self-perpetuating circle of war, expansion and aggression against other countries. Constant conquest required a large standing army, which in turn consumed much of fiscal resources. During the expansionist period, the empire was able to sustain its needs through spoils of war.
Later however, when the westward expansion was stopped by the failure of the first siege of Vienna in 1529, the Ottomans faced a serious financial dilemma. First there was no more new territory for them to loot. Second, they still needed large army to defend their empire, and defense required more money than conquest. Third, there was no money to pay for the defense, as the conquered provinces were run down into poverty and the specie previously harvested from these lands was flowing out of the country through trade[10]. During the Renaissance Ottomans established trade with Europe.
At the time they were the middlemen between the Asian silks and spices and the European merchants. Ottoman opposed the influx of ideas, a byproduct of commerce, as they considered European theories to be dangerous and threatening to their reign[11]. Domestic merchants were placed under austere restrictions to hinder the osmosis of information, which further hindered the development of the middle class. Ottomans reduced the interaction of their subjects and Europeans to a minimum by granting several European countries capitulations. One of the largest capitulations was granted to France in 1536.
Capitulations were a system of trade agreements which guaranteed certain fiscal privileges to foreign importers or exporters in certain parts of the empire. In specified trade locations it was easier for the ottoman to monitor intercultural interactions[12]. In the beginning, Turks were the forerunners in advanced weaponry and technology. Because of their past supremacy rulers have become complacent. Due to hubris Turks were unable to benefit from new ideas and keep up with the progress. Europeans stopped importing and started exporting after they discovered mercantilism, advanced shipbuilding and farming.
Soon Ottomans developed large trade deficits because increased import caused removal of liquid capital from the empire[13]. The deficits even further hindered technological and industrial advancement as the import of finished goods nd the export of scarce raw materials discouraged domestic production. When the international trade stopped providing the Ottoman with financial resources to sustain their large army; they had to find a solution to their financial dilemma somewhere else. Lacking proper economical knowledge the sultans adopted several unsound policies to solve the crisis.
One of them was to debase the silver coinage by as much as 30 %[14] . The entrepreneurs we not nave, they soon noticed that in order to make profits at the same level as before they now had to raise prices under the new monetary system. Such action of course defeated the whole purpose of currency debasement. Combined with the influx of cheap European silver from the Americas the debasements and the rise of prices led to heightened inflation[15]. Inflatory money not being enough to pay for the army ottoman had to find other methods to finance it. To counteract the effect sultans imposed price ceilings[16].
This meant that the government fixed the prices of goods and services. In practice this translated into government demanding goods from the enterprises below production cost for its army and bureaucracy. This policy id not go over too well as it caused losses to the merchants, made their enterprises unprofitable, and overall destroyed initiative and production. After the sultans depleted urban economy and reduced the middle class as a source of revenue, they had to find other means of feeding their army. Not surprisingly they chose various forms of taxation.
There is a fine line between taxes that help sustain an effective government plus economy and taxes that are legalized looting of the economy. As sultans once again cared little about their subjects, they did not shy away from increasing axes at expense of the producers[17]. Such action of course inhibited production and decreased revenues which caused the government to increase taxes even further. The government even resorted to placing sales taxes on the articles of first need since there was little else left to tax. In 1585 Sultan Mehmed II monopolized the production of salt wax and soap and taxed the customers who bought the goods[18].
Such drastic interventionalist methods at the hand of the government give a feel just how bad the ottoman economy fared. As it became increasingly difficult to collect taxes from gloomy and melly citizens the sultans had to find a way to increase their revenue in the provinces. Continuing a pattern of bad economical decisions the Ottoman chose no other way to improve their finances than nepotism[19], the one practice that led to the decline of the Catholic Church. Had the rulers not cut off information flow from the west, they would have known the consequences of such decision.
As sultans sold the offices of tax collectors to the highest bidder, the plunder continued. Farmers either found farming not profitable anymore or their lands were confiscated as a result of their inability to pay taxes. Displaced farmers moved to the cities in hope of work, but the organized guilds hindered them and the peasants found no employment[20]. Such economic slump and the vicious cycle of plunder could have been avoided if the Ottoman Empire had at least developed a banking system as sophisticated as that of Europe. The banks of Italy and Holland lended huge loans to prices and were able to help merchants deal with debased currency.
Yet the Ottoman did not develop a banking system for they were a theocracy. Islam forbade lending as usury was a sin. There was some small scale lending going on[21], but it was insignificant compared to the enormous oans the banks of Amsterdam gave out. Another predicament that arrested the development of banks was the shortage of fluid capital. As the ottoman fell behind in trade and the sultans accumulated revenue surpluses in their treasuries this further increased the shortage of specie, which made the lending of large amounts physically impossible[22].
Ottoman Turkey was deteriorating even though it was viewed by many as a strong state. It was indeed strong militarily, as the state posed a significant threat to its neighbors. Definition of strength based solely on military prowess is incomplete. While strong military was on one side of the balance, weak and corrupt infrastructure, and economy insufficient to sustain the state, citizens locked in poverty and incapable rulers were on the other.
To say that Turkey was strong is the same as to say that the Soviet Union was strong. Both applied similar philosophies of government and both emphasized military totalitarianism over domestic prosperity. Both were destroyed by this philosophy. If the philosophy of government is wrong, then it does not matter how strong a state’s military is. Military strength will only prevent the destruction from an outside aggressor; it ill not prevent the destruction of a state from its own hands.
The most efficient way a state can destroy itself is by adopting unsound economic policy, which is why and how Ottoman and the Soviet Union fell. The turning point in history after which Ottoman Empire began to fall into constant decay was the naval battle of Lepanto in 1571. The Turkish fleet was annihilated by the combined navies of the Papal States, Spain Venice. This failure was a catalyst that set off many economical and political crises described above. From then on the empire declined as its rulers reclined on their ottomans.