.
I think a reformation in the 17th c is extremely unlikely, given that the OE was still going pretty strong, and this period is too close to the highest point of the empire. All reformers were likely to take the position that what was needed was to fix the existing system to return it to its past efficiency, not replace it with an infidel system that had proved inferior for centuries. Remember that the Ottomans were able to beat Russia and Austria combined as late as the 1730s.
If they entered the thirty years war though, and later European wars, mightn't they adopt some of their new technologies or strategies? Perhaps a charasmatic grand visier or other? What I meant, though, was a reformation of Islam first(similar to renaissance perhaps), which in turn resulted in an earlier reformation of the state.
I don't think the Romanians were taxed at all at this point, though I could be wrong.
That's a contradiction in terms, and it will never fly with Austria and France.
It didn't become a British possession, they just took over the administration. It was only after Turkey joined WWI that they annexed it.
France?They wouldn't care, there neutral and on the other side of Europe.
Also, I meant defacto romania annexed formaly into ottoman empire but de jure more autonomus in many ways.
I also meant cyprus a defacto british possesion, which it was
1650 was about the time that a) Europeans finally gained tactical mastery over the Ottomans on land, with things like light cannon and men like Gustavus Adolfus etc and b) the Dutch and others had an industrial and commercail revolution with powered machinery building the ships etc which were used by the first joint-stock company. How were the Ottomans going with things like advanced metalurgy and gun founding, and wind/watermill powered industrial processes? Did they ever have joint-stock companies like the east indies companies?
a)The idea, as mentioned above, is they adopt the light cannon etc. by being involved in wars alongside sweden and france and seeing it's effectiveness. Also their generals would adopt west european strategies from being involved in their wars (in spain, italy etc.) alongside french or other allies armies. This would improve the Ottomans military position vis-a-vis Europe.
b)Badly. But improvement in military and political terms would imply improving ottoman conomy as well. Although their low tarrifs were a disadvantage, for example, they could potentialy be advantageous. How plausible would an overland route on the sues peninsula being used by the dutch east india company be. With only a 3% tariff on it, it may be cheaper then sailing along the longer route. It may also be a stimulant to the ottoman economy, even resulting in the idea of a joint stock company taking off(I know people won't like that idea, but the presence of such a succesful company with its main trade route over the ottoman empire
may promote the idea)
Not exactly the same, but there were financial concepts that were close enough in general idea that joint-stock companies were one of the easier ideas to absorb. Note that it wasn't until you had limited liability jpint stock companies that things took off - and that was a 19th c thing. Before, each shareholder was personally liable for the whole company.
The first Ottoman joint-stock company was formed in 1851 - the Şirket-i Hayriye, or Bosphorus Steamboat company - it was actually very successful.
I don't really see industrialization happening earlier in the Ottoman Empire, but if you have a POD that provides you with a stronger empire they will be in a better condition to develop. The biggest problems were hte terrain of the empire, the lack of concentrated populations, the Islamic land tenure system that resulted in few landless laborers, and the Capitulations and commercial treaties which kept tariffs very low (the maximum import tariff was initially 3%, which was absolutely fatal to Ottoman industry). Western imperialists were very anxious to prevent any competition from developing anywhere. An example would be in Egypt where Cromer destroyed the Egyptian sugar industry by applying an 8% tax on sugar production to counter the 8% import duty, leaving Egyptian sugar unable to compete with heavily subsidized European sugar.
In 1650 Europe did not have tactical mastery over the Ottomans - but they had caught up in most regards and were able to compete on the field - whereas 100 years earlier European armies avoided even engaging the Ottomans - note that there was not one major field battle between the Hapsburgs and the Ottomans in that period - the Emperor always fled to a safe distance and hoped the Ottomans would get bogged down in seiges.
-Your implying the idea won't be to much of a leap to adopt before 1700-1750s?
-Economic growth normally results in concentrated populations, but concentrated populations don't necessarily mean economic growth.
-Italy managed. It doesn't have to be as economically succesfull as Europe for a while, just more so then the ottoman empire was ttl, and a first world state by know.
-Capitulations could be slowly removed, piece by piece. For example, spain and germanies could have all rights economic privileges taken from them, and progressively all states that went to war with the ottoman empire. I don't see them taking away the capitulations to france for a while, although they may "alter" them.
Are these ideas plausible?
