Osman II disbands the Janissaries?

First, a brief introduction: Osman II, whose reign lasted from 1617 to 1622, was the first Ottoman sultan to realize that the Janissaries were degenerating from what was once an elite force into a class of praetorians. He attempted to disband them, only to be murdered in a coup at the young age of 17, his insane uncle Mustafa I taking the throne soon after.

But WI he survived the coup and managed to deal with the Janissaries like Mahmud II did more than two centuries later? He was a very young man at the time of his death, and if he took care of his health his reign could've lasted longer than that of Suleiman the Magnificent.

Naturally, such an upheaval (the failed coup would likely by followed by many revolts by angry local Janissaries) along with the now very real need to reorganize the army since its elite has just been broken, would lead to a period of great vulnerability. And while the Habsburgs were busy with the Thirty Years' War and the Russians still recovering from the Time of Troubles, the Safavid dynasty of Iran, led by the very competent (by their standards) shah Abbas I, was at this point still a very real threat, and captured Baghdad in 1624 IOTL.
 
Osman II wanted to form a new standing army composed of Sekbans. Sekbans were local militia alike troops that were generally conscripted in war. Of course, his ideal was to form them into a working military rather than just conscripts. So an Army that is composed of largely Turkmens and Circassians as they formed the biggest size of it, as well as other Muslims, instead of converts. These Sekbans have no economic benefits like the Janissary Corps and can be easily disbanded during peace time and serve as regional soldiers.

The issue is how Osman II is going to deal with the Safavids? They were a threat in the East and even with the Janissaries in OTL they were not defeated. But if Osman II takes out the Janissaries and fails to defeat the Safavids early on then he will still face the heath of the populace for getting rid of the Janissaries. There is no chance that the Safavids will keep a lasting peace with borders as West as the Euphrates but success is needed. I expect a period of trouble militarily, that could go as far as conflict between the Turkmen/Circassian Sekbans and the Janissary origin Pasha's. If Osman get's everything organized militarily, the Ottoman Army can remain strong yet again in the near future. Army structure will still be largely cavalry rather than infantry until the Ottomans understand the Army needs more balance. Though the second war of Abbas I started only after the chaotic coups against Osman I and Mustafa I, there is a good chance he may declare war yet again if he sees weakness militarily.

With regards to the capital, it will likely stay Istanbul though Osman will spend his time in Bursa more often. This means getting stronger ties with the Anatolian Turkmens again, and potentially more development in Anatolia rather than neglect, less rebellions etc. With regards to politics, the Turkmen and Circassians will play a bigger role in Ottoman Politics.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if Osman abandoned Mesopotamia to the Safavids for a number of years while he consolidates his rule over the rest of the empire and builds his new army, before finally leading them personally into battle just like Murad IV did.

Once the Iranians are defeated (Safi was an useless drug addict, though his grand vizier Saru Taqi was quite competent if Wikipedia is accurate) the Sultan's next target would likely be Crete. After a long period of resting, of course.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if Osman abandoned Mesopotamia to the Safavids for a number of years while he consolidates his rule over the rest of the empire and builds his new army, before finally leading them personally into battle just like Murad IV did.

Once the Iranians are defeated (Safi was an useless drug addict, though his grand vizier Saru Taqi was quite competent if Wikipedia is accurate) the Sultan's next target would likely be Crete. After a long period of resting, of course.

The Ottomans made several attempts to reconquer Baghdad in OTL. Abandoning isn't really an option especially with Osman II getting rid of the Janissary Corps. But it may take the same length of time to reconquer it.

A war with Venice is likely. It was overdue anyway as Murad IV was considering war with Venice in OTL. But it was Ibrahim I who started it eventually and his Grand Viziers mismanaged it horribly. Alternate war with Venice won't last 25 years as far as I can say.
 
The Ottomans made several attempts to reconquer Baghdad in OTL. Abandoning isn't really an option especially with Osman II getting rid of the Janissary Corps. But it may take the same length of time to reconquer it.

A war with Venice is likely. It was overdue anyway as Murad IV was considering war with Venice in OTL. But it was Ibrahim I who started it eventually and his Grand Viziers mismanaged it horribly. Alternate war with Venice won't last 25 years as far as I can say.
I meant that Osman would focus on other provinces for some years before leading an expedition to retake Baghdad, just like Murad IV.

Would an Empire that gets rid of the Janissaries two centuries earlier than it did and manages its wars better (and isn't governed by fellows such as Ibrahim) be able to reform other areas of government/taxation to the point of preventing the rise of the ayans before they became too powerful?
 
I meant that Osman would focus on other provinces for some years before leading an expedition to retake Baghdad, just like Murad IV.

Would an Empire that gets rid of the Janissaries two centuries earlier than it did and manages its wars better (and isn't governed by fellows such as Ibrahim) be able to reform other areas of government/taxation to the point of preventing the rise of the ayans before they became too powerful?

The Janissaries had more confidence in removing the Sultan after their success with Osman II. Getting rid of the Janissaries like that would scare off the military to make such attempts. The wars being managed better depends on if the new army adapts better to Western military development. That is, taking Western tactics and warfare or come up with new formations of the army and in field. I assume that would work out. The Janissaries declined as a military force as they got more inexperienced men who were less interested in being soldiers and came for the benefits alone, as well as not willing to adapt as the European enemies were developing militarily. That issue is removed.
The second issue is... Military performance was not only declining due to the Janissaries getting less effective but also as the Ottoman Armies consisted largely of Cavalry. If the Ottomans brought up 90,000 men about 30-45,000 men were infantry and the rest was cavalry. The Ottoman Armies used the cavalry dominated armies in their crescent formed offensives in field which will not work if the cavalry faces square formed infantry, which was the case why the Ottoman Army was so ineffective against Russia from 1735 onwards until 1792. Smaller Russian Armies managed to beat bigger Ottoman Armies. The Armies need to be either balanced or have to be prepared against the square tactics of the European Armies. The new military is not immediately going to solve that issue either. The role of the Janissaries in the late 17th century defeats was the unwillingness to adapt to the current military situation and declare new tactics as infidel tactics (which is bogus as most Janissaries were unwilling to go to the front and were more interested for the benefits).

The rise of the Ayans depends on the situation. For example... If the Ottoman Empire has difficulties with defending the edges of the Empire like Hungary, Morea, Bosnia, Mesopotamia and the Islands, the Ayans will likely grow in Power. There is no escaping from that. The Ottoman population being low and divided equally between Islam and Christianity means less taxbase and manpower which makes aiding the edges in wars harder. It took the Ottoman Armies 5-6 months to reach the Austro-Hungarian front around Esztergom / Koszeg / Kanije / Kosice etc. It is hard to bring an Army out all that way. So I assume the Ayans will grow their power in remote areas far away from Constantinople while the nearby areas (Bulgaria, Anatolia, Macedonia) will likely remain under firm control of the Government in Constantinople.

Some sort of Islamization in the Balkans is necessary for long term control and support. Otherwise, Ottoman Hungary might be lost in the 1750s instead of the 1680s.
 
Some sort of Islamization in the Balkans is necessary for long term control and support. Otherwise, Ottoman Hungary might be lost in the 1750s instead of the 1680s.
How about empowering local and giving important positions in the administration to local converts, in a Hungarian/Greek/Romanian/Serbian equivalent of the Koprulu family?

Additionaly, though this is definitely not something that would happen in the 17th or even the 18th centuries, but what about giving power to local Christians, such as letting them join the army and such, starting in the 19th century?

This is completely outside my area of ""expertise"", so I'm sorry for any major mistakes.
 
How about empowering local and giving important positions in the administration to local converts, in a Hungarian/Greek/Romanian/Serbian equivalent of the Koprulu family?

Additionaly, though this is definitely not something that would happen in the 17th or even the 18th centuries, but what about giving power to local Christians, such as letting them join the army and such, starting in the 19th century?

This is completely outside my area of ""expertise"", so I'm sorry for any major mistakes.
Well, the Köprülüs reached what they reached because it was already quite the rule, just the post of Grand Vizier was likely one of the most multiethnic in its holders of entire history. Three things that would encourage conversion could be, curiously enough, the new army (if it ends up being universal for the entire empire, what would mean that any muslim could sign up, making possible conversion to rise up in the army), stability (i.e have a less war-costly century for the ottomans, it also would result in less islamophobia between the christian low-classes, increasing conversion) and to a limited extent, more central control of the provinces (something that Osman II had as one of his goals).

IMO, you don't need exactly a muslim majority for long-term control of Hungary (well, at least the whole of it), but with everything after the 1680s being effectively butterflied you probably would have natural conversion booming up in the Balkans until the 18th century (In 1686, Buda was a muslim-majority city for example), so at least the areas directly controlled in Hungary would have a 30-50% muslim plurality (with the remaining being composed by the 37916482 religious groups in Pre-Habsburg Hungary), with the remaining territories being in the rule of an ottoman vassal (that was very friendly, Gabriel Bethlen was best friends with Osman II and was basically the projection that Osman had with his centralization projects), the Romanian Principalities probably wouldn't cause problem neither if they don't reach 19th century levels of mismanagement. This conversion rate probably would be greater in places like Bosnia, Albania, Crete [IOTL reached 45% of its population as muslim pre-greek revolution] and Bulgaria-Macedonia (both with pretty significant historical muslim populations even without a "second-wave" of conversions), and similar to it in Mainland Greece and Serbia.

The ayans aren't that big of a problem as long as the central government can effectively have them at hand, they were simply local notables, they just became the mismanagemently monsters when the central government simply left them to their own. They will be powerful in areas further from the capital, but with the right circumstances they won't be too powerful in the levels of effectively disregarding ottoman authority.
 
The ayans aren't that big of a problem as long as the central government can effectively have them at hand, they were simply local notables, they just became the mismanagemently monsters when the central government simply left them to their own. They will be powerful in areas further from the capital, but with the right circumstances they won't be too powerful in the levels of effectively disregarding ottoman authority.
They might be useful in defending the more distant borders until be main army arrives.
 
How about empowering local and giving important positions in the administration to local converts, in a Hungarian/Greek/Romanian/Serbian equivalent of the Koprulu family?

Additionaly, though this is definitely not something that would happen in the 17th or even the 18th centuries, but what about giving power to local Christians, such as letting them join the army and such, starting in the 19th century?

This is completely outside my area of ""expertise"", so I'm sorry for any major mistakes.

Eh... could work out, though regional dynasty formation is not really desired. But such families could help in rivaling for Grand Vizier positions and regional governorship. If the Hungarians, Greeks and Romanians were recruited as much as the Slavs and Albanians were, more of the Köprülü families alike.

Giving power to local Christians happened in the Empire, like the Phanariots in the Danubian Principalities. It backfired with the Phanariots joining the Filiki Eteria in the early 19th century. There was also Hungarian Nobles who fought at the side of the Ottomans against the Habsburg. That did not backfire although I expect it at the same time like the Greek Revolution latest.

Not at all. I am willing to explain a few things if you have any questions.
 
They might be useful in defending the more distant borders until be main army arrives.

Pretty much the case when the Austrians took Nis in 1737 and Bosnia was left on its own to face the Austrian Armies. The Austrians were defeated so it worked out well.
 
Could the Ottomans try to take Malta a second time if the war with the Venetians doesn't last so long? Say it lasts around seven years rather than twenty-five.
 
Could the Ottomans try to take Malta a second time if the war with the Venetians doesn't last so long? Say it lasts around seven years rather than twenty-five.

Yes. But the era of the Naval supremacy is long since gone by the 1620s so Spain needs to be distracted.
 
Top