"Turkish army composition 1690's" Topic

Well i'm intreasted- even the opening poster isn't.

If there is a question here:

Lots of medium cavalry with bows and cloth armor (spahis), still pretty much form the backbone, along with the jannisaries (unarmored musketeers who are also good swordsman). Both these types form the elite.

Other than that, heavy artillery (often drawn by camels) is popular. The majority of infantry are Azabs (local levies, unarmored and armed with swords, axes, bows, or pretty much whatever they can grab). Lots of light cavalry as well (some with eagles' wings stuck on their shields called delis). Most of the fanatically religious troops, such as the unarmored Iayalars are gone by this time. Still some allied troops such as Arabs and tartars who mostly provide light, raiding cavalry.

Off the cuff, I'd say about 65% of the army consists of Azabs, with the rest divided relatively evenly between the Spahis, jannisaries, and various light cavalry types. Artillery can be very plentiful, depending on the need.

The main thing to remember about the Ottomans in this period is that they are no longer the terror they were pre- 1683. Their defeat at Vienna by what was probably a smaller army sent a signal to Europe that the power of the Grand Turk was no longer what it had been, and the wolves began to descend. That said, the Ottomans still managed to win some significant victories, and were not completely dead as a power.

While in earlier periods, their morale should generally be superior to most of their enemies (except Knights of St. John) by this time they are pretty much equal.

Hope that helps.

Sorry, should be "janissaries." One of those words I can never spell.

yeni ceri in turkish – it means 'new soldiers' (as in new model army). there were two armies, the Qapa culu – or sultan's standing army – comprising the elite cavalry (lancers – lance, pistol and scimitar at this time – some partially armoured, but many not) – and the yeni ceri infantry ortas – equipped with matchlocks and swords, but trained as shock troops, no fire discipline. Then the provincial timar armies – raised by provincial governors or "Bey" – comprising 'fuedal' Sipahis (lancers), delis (bosnian/albanian muslim light horse – stradiots, croat light horse or hungarian hussars are similar) Azabs (levied shock troops in formed units with some training – also mostly musket and sword by now, although some bows/spear/halberd), Tufecis (albanian and turkish light infantry musketeers in formed units with some training), arnauts (balkan irregular sharpshooters) and levant (raw untrained mass of farm workers armed with whatever they were issued with!). Not too much heavy artillery from Vienna onwards – mostly medium (the heavy gun tradition really originated at the siege of Constantinople – where huge guns were employed, but they were difficult to transport on campaign into central europe). Interesting pack animals yes- lots of camel and water buffalo. Also lots of allied tartars. Very much a cavalry army still, they had both the kudo and the best troops.

James, where are you getting your info from?

My understanding of the Ottoman army is that the bulk of any given force would have been feudal spahis. Indeed, lack of useful infantry was a constant problem for the Ottos.

Levant would vary widely in quality depending on the degree of training and equipment, but some of them would have been passable. Levant was a generic term for any 17th Century infantry which wasn't Janissary. Thus, you could have raw levies handed some pikes or relatively well-drilled and armed troops raised on a semi-permanent basis to flesh out the infantry in any given theater of war and anything in between.

AFAIK, Azabs (along with Akinjis) had been phased out in the 16th Century.

There is very little hard info and illustration available for anything other than the Janissaries.

Hu

I agree with you – and yes you are probably right on terms they are many and contradictory – especially infantry. Info comes from a wide range of sources from Godfrey Goodwin's 'the janissaries' and Rhoades Murphey's Ottoman Warfare to the obvious Ospreys to a few visits to museums in Istanbul, Vienna and Krakow. Richard Watts produced a little pamplet for the Glory of Kings – called The Ottoman Army in the 18th century – but your right, info is rare and plenty of scope for imagination.

Goodwin refers to the army as "Mounted Magnificences and Wild Freebooters" – about right really. In general the Qapa Kulu corps is well documented

Here i set out the OOB according to Goodwin:

The Sultans Standing Army (Kapi Qulu).

Houshold Cavalty corps – alti boluk – (1st & 2nd cav divisions – comprising six regiments – the siladarhan and sipahiyan regiments and four much smaller regiments of specialised cavalry) – the former were the senior division and took pride of place on the right of thr army in battle(Household cavalry or Slaves of the Porte), stationed in Istanbul – recruited from Janissaries (and thus 'slaves' – muslims cannot enslave muslims – so hence recruitment of Janissaries from among Christian families – mostly in the Balkans) – by the 1690s this practice had ceased (as Janissary status was recognised ads a route to political power) and ultimately the 'enfranchisement of Janissaries led to their decline in effectiveness) – these were elite troops, superb horsemen.

Goodwin has dat showing that the two main had stregths of 5,925 and 6,615 in 1670, and that the whole househols cavalry corps was 14,070 strong in that year.

Janissary corps – 3 divisions(according to Goodwin a quarter of the army)

Segmen – keepers of the hounds – (34 orta – regiments of company size [200+ men]) distinguished by red boots – mostly used as a praetorian guard and kept in Istanbul as the Sultan's personal bodyguard;

Cemaat – the assembly – the main 'expeditionary' fighting force of 101 ortas – used to garrison important fortresses in peacetime – officers wore yellow boots and were the only Janissary officers entitled to ride in the presence of the Agha of Janissaries.

Boluk – 'gardners' – these 61 orta began as the palace guard, but became the "gendarmerie" or police force – they were rarely engaged during expeditionary operations, focussing on internal security.

Murphey has manpower data from 1670 showing a yeni ceri corps of 48,212 (including 8,742 cadets) – he suggests that apart from Vienna, no more than 25,000 were deployed on campaign at any one time.

The Timoriot Army (raised by provincial Beys from the fuedal 'timar' landholders) – this was all cavalry, most of it light.

Here the data is less good (not surprisingly!) – Murphey reckons that in 1631 the potential manpower was drawn from 17,390 timars in European Provinces and 23,268 in Asian Provinces – a total of 40,658. Mrphey estiamtes a Timariot army of around 100,000 cavalry could be raised from these estates at that time.

THe timariot army comprised 12,000 cavalry according to Goodwin – in four sipahi divisions (3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th) – of which the 3rd and 4th were Anatolian, and the 5th and 6th 'foreign' (gurebas). He says that until the 17th century the gurebas divisions were were laregly manned by arab, kurdish, persian and syrian muslim mercenaries, but incrasingly included Balkan Christians from the 17th C. onwards.

My understanding of Akinjis is that they represented the original Ottoman 'turcoman' horse – steppes horsemen, if you like – who made up the first ottoman armies. There were around 20,000 according to Goodwin and they were disbanded due to thier 'freebooting' by the disciplinarian conqierpr of yemen, Koca Sinan Pasha in 1595.

Musellems (hunters) were the descendants of these horsemen – drawn from 'free' – i.e. non-fuedal – crofting folk from anatolia, and some remained in service in the 17th century.

Other light horse:

Arab light horse – rarely used in Europe, although often against Persia (also called Delis in the east)
Delis – Balkan light horse, drawn from converts in frontier provinces (Bosnia) – what later became the Bosniak cavalry of Prussia (recruited so they could have a crack at the Austrian recruited Croats – nothing changes!). I have served in Bosnia and the tradition remains string in folklore – indeed the borders of Bosnia and Croatia follow the old Imperial/Ottoman frontiers and many of the populations were deliberately 'planted' there as border guards(many have been cleansed now). I believe the term delis was also applied to Syrian border horse too.
Wallachia Horse – Rumanian light horse – Rumania was a vassal of the ottomans.
Tartars. ditto

I have no idea how many of these light horse were in the late 17th c. armies!

non-janissary Infantry is thr most confused issue as you rightly say – and us wargamersbe can use our imaginations pretty freely here methinks! Murphey shows that "levend" – as you rightly say – was the term for temporary recruits, entitled to a wage. So all of the temporary infantry was levant.

Goodwin claims that the Azaps were marines, a corps recruited for war in the med (Rhodes etc.) which was subsequently used to garrison inland fortresses to allow the Cemaat Janissaries to go on campaign. The question is were these 'levant' or a permanent corps outside the yeni ceri? The Osprey Vienna campaign volume has Azabs as the dominant infantry force after the Janissaries in 1683. There is good evidence of irregular infantry being hired in the Balkans in thee 17th century.

Murphey suggests a typical 17th century army of 70,000 made up of 50,000 timariot and 20,000 kapi qulu – but for me that does not explain where the 'levant' come in. If the timariot are all cavalry raised through feudal levies, the kapi qulu are standing forces and levant – presumably including arnauts, azap(s), tufecis etc. are temporary hires. So any answers please!

James

Thanks for the detailed review!

The army was heavily cavalry-dominated. Possibly no-one bothered keeping records of the Levant, as they were not considered "worthwhile" in the sense that the spahis and janissaries were. Or possibly they were used as LoC and garrison troops when janissaries were available in sufficient quantity to do the main battle work. Hard to find answers.

The other large irregular force used by the Ottomans is of course the Crimean Tartars. These were used as raiders and general terror-troops and their numbers on a major campaign could rise into tens of thousands.

It is debatable whether they had any use on a formal battlefield. OTOH, one could say the same about the Dellis and the Austrian-hired Croats.

1 also realise i made an error – Goodwin was speaking of 12,000 Kapa qulu cavalry – and they should be viewed as 6 regiments not divisions – the silitars and sipahis – armoured – (1st and 2nd regiments – making up most of the force) and then the 4th & 5th (Anatolian nobles – light sipahis) and 5th and 6th (eastern Muslim mercenaries – light horse) – 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th were about 400 strong each – 1st and 2nd were 5,000 +….

In addtion are the 100,000 timariot (feudal) sipahis…

apols..

You are right on the Crimean tartars – many, many – although the were essential it was mostly for scouting, terrorising and foraging rather than in the line of battle.

One of the great joys of this forum is to 'listen in' on some of the threads, as above. Thanks guys. Really interesting stuff – to me anyway! I have already reached my decisions, based more on the sculpting quality of Assault group figures than reality…..but it is still fascinating.

My own recent visit to Istanbul museums has left me concluding that almost anything goes. A nominally Ottoman army could be almost entirely made up of Tatars who looked like Tatars,Tatars who looked like Turks, Balkan levies who looked like Turks, Turks who imitated the fashions of Balkan levies etc.

My other conclusion is why field a late seventeenth century Ottoman army that looks like my sixteenth century army? So I have just tried to deviate as much as possible, eg. with Gonullu and Balkan cavalry.

Incidentally, I'm sure the armies in the East facing the Persians etc deviated heavily from the above. Maybe it's time to look at Safavid booty in Iranian museums – if such things exist. The Ottomans of seventeenth century Egypt also seem to be very neglected. if anyone knows any relevant texts in English I would be very interested.