"Ottoman Army between 1450 and 1550" Topic

I am trying to find information on the Ottoman Army between 1450 through 1550. My thoughts are to use the Ottomans in hypothetical battles with/against Italian Wars armies.

Does anyone have any favorite internet reference sites on the Ottoman Army of 1450-1550 which they could recommend? Any good books as well?

Could someone provide a quick summary on the composition and general tactics of the Ottoman army during this timeframe? What types of mercenaries did they use?

I am pretty clueless on the Ottomans during this time. However I do know the Venetians fought several wars against the Ottomans during this period. I also discovered that the Ottomans actually occupied Otranto for some time and launched raids near Venice.

So potentially, the Ottomans might make another interesting army to match up against Venice, Papal, Spanish and/or Imperial armies in Italy! Any help appreciated!

Ottomans actually launched campaigns against into Austria in 1529 and 1532, the former leading to a siege of Vienna. These would provide fine opportunities for matching the Turks and their allies versus HRE.

Griefbringer

I'm doing much the same and I too have found that a lot of sources lump the period 1400-1600 together as if no changes took place – which I'm sure they did.

I have recently borrowed the Osprey from a mate but haven't had time to read it yet – possibly after I do I'll have more of a clue.

Composition of the army is difficult beacuse a lot of the hangers on were not much used in major battles and there was a lot of siege work. Allow for large numbers of cavalry of very varying type from heavily armoured lance/bow armed to lights with a bow and not much else.

Mercenaries as such (in the European meaning of the term) were not used but many of the troops (both horse and foot) served without pay and just for loot. They also had 'allies' or 'subject states' from various Balkan regions.

What I have found is that no two wargame rules can agree on how to classify Ottoman troops or on what the composition of a typical army should be – what rules are you planning to use ? I'm using 'Maximillian'.

There is a Yahoo group on the Ottoman army, but IIRC much of the discussion is Nineteenth Century.

I learned a little about the Ottos when researching the Seventeenth Century. There's not much out there. As mentioned, lots of feudal cavalry (Spahis). Some elite spahi units are the property of the Sultan and are fully professional and full-time. The provincial spahis would be landowners who owed military service to the Sultan in return for their fiefs.

Akinjis would be irregular light cavalry who fought for loot.

Janissaries would be the best infantry. The style of clothing is fairly static. So you could use the TAG Janissaries for the 1500's as well, I think. I would have to check when they transitioned from bows to arquebuses.

Irregular infantry would complete the picture.

I don't have organization info to hand, I'm sorry.

The Ottomans are foremost amongst my favourite rennaissance armies, mainly because of the colour and variety of their composition.

Their "typical" composition would, from memory, have been mercenary, or porscribed conscription.

Even the Janissaries, which are often believed to be the heart of the Turkish army, were recruited from the first-born sons of their Austro-Hungarian conquests.

I'd probably go with the George Gush army lists as a starting point…

The Jannisaries were indeed recruited from Christian Families in the Balkans, at age 6! They were then forcibly converted to Islam and raised as a military elite. This method provided a well trained, loyal force with no ties to exisiting family dynasties. Chief Viziers tended to be Christian eunuchs for similar reasons. Of course this started break down when the Jannisaries became more loyal to the Corps than the Sultan.

However I do know the Venetians fought several wars against the Ottomans during this period. I also discovered that the Ottomans actually occupied Otranto for some time and launched raids near Venice.

There were at least a half dozen "wars" between Venice and the Ottomans. Many of these "wars" amounted to raids, sieges, and naval actions. Field battles were rare.

During the 1460-70s there was a large war fought in Greece and Bosnia, which eventually spilled over in the Friuli region in the NE section of Venetian "terra firma" territory (in Italy) in the form of large raids by the Ottomans. (This had the effect of further developing the Venetian militia system--and equipping them with arquebus, as well as bringing Stradiots to the mainland).

Ottomans occupied Ottranto (on the "heel" of the "Boot of Italy") in the 1480's I think. Not much came of it (except a demand by the Ottomans that the Pope convert to Islam!)

Also the fact that after the 17th century (the last real dervisme was I think in 1570, or somewhere around. I will look it up) the corp was raised from all religions, and based on a family recruitment system i.e if I was a Janissary my son would become one, and so on, weakened it's professionalism. Add also the fact that the corp became a semi-artisan corporation owning businesses.

By 1683, the new Balkan Tufekci levies were seen as more reliable forces then Janissaries.

KTravlos,

What else do you know about the Tufekcis? I can find little on them at all.

My primary sources are Nicolles "The Janissaries", and "Armies of the Ottoman Turks 1300-1774", both from Osprey.

According to "Armies" the Tufekcis were a result of the high proportion of firearms among the empires muslim and christian subjects. The imperial center tried to control this situation by recruiting them both. Christians tended to be amartoli, while muslim units evolved to the Tufekci. They were around from the alte 16th century and had a very good reputation in the Ottoman army. They tended to operate in small fire-teams. The feeling I have is that they were well paid, disciplined professionals. They probably fought as skirmishers. According to Nicolle by the 17th century they had a uniform made up of red thigh-length tunic , brown pants, and tall red Balkan caps.

You can see them on the Pasaname illustration, 1630, Ms Sloane 3584, f.20a, Brit. Lib.

Additional info from the "Janissaries" Sekbans seem to mean the same thing as Tufekci by the late 17th century: musket armed infantry, which became the most effective arm of post-17th century, pre-Nizam Ottoman armies (like the ones that fought in Vienna in 1683). The difference is that Tufekci, started as mounted infantry and were regular troops with short red coats and tall red caps.

To summarize they essentially were elite marksmen, probably fighting in permanent units as skirmishers. They show up in the late 16th century as mounted infantry and then in 17th-18th century become the effective infantry.

Of course the above are based on secondary english sources. So if something is wrong, or if you can bring better info, go for it!

Thanks all, some very helpful information!

How did the Janissaries survive on the battlefield against European gendarmes? Were Jannissaries entirely dependent on the protection of their own heavy cavalry for protection or did they rely on defensive measures such as stakes against gendarmes?

Did the Turks ever use pikes or hire mercenary pikes? I know halberds were used by some Janissaries but did Turks ever use pikes amonst their western armies?

Did the Turks ever use pikes or hire mercenary pikes? I know halberds were used by some Janissaries but did Turks ever use pikes amonst their western armies?

IIRC, the first rank in a Janissary formation (usually 10 deep) would be armed with polearms, not pikes. I'm not sure the Ottos ever had to face the classic early 17 Century Western pike block. They did not fight the Empire between 1618 and 1683. Most of their battles were against the Poles who used similar infantry formations. In the Long Turkish War in the 1590's and early 1600's, the Empire would have used locally recruited Hungarian and Croatian heyduk formations.

If anyone knows any better info, please post.

Ottoman infantry relied on field fortifications and firepower to stop shock cavalry.Which is pretty much the case with most eastern European infantry. They never raised pike-men blocks. Janissaries according to Nicolle hated the pike, and then the bayonet as weapons that turned warriors to automata. They prized marksmanship and warrior virtue, rather then European style pike discipline.

If they fought pikeman formations I think (an educated guess) their prime tactic would be to either hold them by fortifications, break them via artillery, or have cavalry flank or attack from behind. IMHO Ottoman infantry would never charge a organized and fresh pike block. Something many rules forget.

Actually the Imperial field armies in Hungary during the Long Turkish war were mostly made up of Germans, Wallons and Lorrainers with a smattering of more exotic mercenaries. (That is how men like Basta, Tilly and Wallenstein ended up fighing the Ottomans) The Hungarians often fought against the Habsburgs in this war and were considered unreliable, the Croats were mostly preoccupied with holding the military border and did not furnish a lot of troops to the field force.

So the Ottomans faced pike & shot blocks and generaly had a hard time against them. Particulary the battle hardend Wallons and Lorrainers proved to be superior to just about all of the Ottoman troops they faced.

There was a short Habsburg-Ottoman war in 1663-1664 as well which ended after Montecuccolis famous victory at Saint Gotthard

See earlier thread on use of firearms.

TMP link

Daniel, I was under the impression that the Long Turkish War was mainly raids and sieges and that might just be a mistake on my part.

There is an earlier thread on the Battle of Sisak in the 1590's which suggests that the HRE armies were pretty much local militia. Of course, Sisak is just before the Long Turkish War and the HRE could have got a lot more serious about the fighting.

TMP link

The Habsburgs did indeed get a lot more serious after the Ottomans started the war. Raids could with a bit of luck be handled by the border troops (reinforced by comparatively small detachments of regulars) but such forces were much too small to face the main Ottoman armies. At Mezokeresztes 1596 they and their Transylvanian allies deployed some 40.000 men.

There was plenty of 'actions' (smaller battles) connected with the Imperial campaigns in Hungary and Transylvania.

Sieges and the extensive operations required as part of them required regular troops, the local border troops had neither the skill nor the equippment needed to carry out such operations against modern fortresses. Which is why Rudolf hired all the recently disbanded troops from the French wars of Religion he could get his hands on in order to reinforce the existing troops recruited in the Habsburg domains. (Bohemia & Silesia supplied a large number of troops including a young Wallenstein.) The Spanish even let him hire experienced commanders directly from the Army of Flanders. (Mansfeld the Elder & Basta)

The problem with the Long Turkish war is that it is poorly documented which has not made it a popular subject with researchers. Even the information about well know & high rankign individuals is scarce. Tilly's great biographer Villermont was only able to gather information for a bit more than 25 pages on Tilly's campaigns in this war and he had access to the archives before the destructive impact of wars & revolutions in the 20th Century.

Shame that there is so little material on this war. It would be a fascinating wargame. Large numbers of Ottoman troops, crazy Croat and Serb irregulars and the pike vs Janissary face-off. Throw in exotic terrain as well!

Well nothing stops you from doing "what ifs?" to get such battles. But yes the war seems indeed to had been a nastier, more brutish, and less "glorious" affair then later or former wars. Then again I don't really think so. Wars between the two sides were always nasty affairs (with Ottoman and Imperial raids).Pretty much neither the Sultan nor the Emperor had great control over the border regions. It was kinda like the Scot-English Border Wars. I strongly suspect that large pike formations wouldn't had been deployed. But a lot of cavalry skirmishes, town sieges or raids, and a lot of light infantry.

There is a painting on the Wiki page for the Battle of Mezokersztes which shows Kurassiers and massed artillery. This would suggest that at least this one engagement was fairly formal.

link

The war was always fought on two levels, the raiding warfare wwhich mostly involved auxiliaries & local troops, here the Ottomans were the ones who were mostly on the offensive and conducted the large scale raids. (Using Tartars & similar troops) Then there were the operations conducted by the field forces of both sides these were formal affairs mostly centered around sieges of the important fortresses controlling the main lines of advance.
Here the regulars were the dominant force with plenty of pike & shot used in the various actions.

Ot top of that you have the warfare for controll of Transylvaian, Moldavia and Wallachia as Sigismudnd Bathory and Michale the Brave challenged each other Here both the Habsburgs and Ottomans tried to assert controll by supporting the diffrent factions and the Poles intervened as well (the so called Moldavian Magnates war).
In the end the Habsburgs managed to alienate the Transylvaians which resulted in a series of vicious campaigns as Basta tried to hold the area by force.

Mezokeresztes was indeed a full scale formal battle in which both sides used the full weight of their available forces in a manner not seen before or after in this war.

This is an a very interesting painting. It shows the classical Ottoman deployment of Infantry massed at the center, behind the artillery. The painter shows not field fortifications but I would hazard that the infantry was behind fortifications(expect if the Ottomans eschewed them do to the river/stream? in front of their position)

Infantry seems to be Janissary and Solak? But why Solaks? Weren't they part of the Sultans bodyguard?

And then you have the 3 Sildahars in their red boks following the big (presumably the general) figure on the horse. Again they were supposed to be part of the Sultans bodyguard.

I see Sipahis and lighter cavalry. No western infantry though. Then again the Ottomans (like everybody) would routinely depict enemy forces as they thought they should look, rather then as how they looked).

Still a great picture.

Too bad that painting is cut off. It would be interesting to see the complete painting.

KTravlos,

The Sultan was present at the battle, although apparently a panic-stricken youngster who had little idea what was going on.

Could you tell me what a "Solak" is?

It's a shame the picture is so blurry.

Well Solaks if I remember correctly, were a small jannisary orta that carried bows and acted as the Sultans bodyguard(I think they largely were ceremonial by the 17th century). What differentiates them is that their Bok instead of ending long and falling back like that of most Janissaries, was short and made a straight cone. Many Janissary officers of the higher ranks also had this bok.

If you look carefully at the center of the Ottoman deployment, most soldiers behind the first 6 ranks( the last 5 ranks before the Sultan and the Silhadars) were the Solak bok. Also the last one in the bottom line carries a bow. Other Janissary ortas by that time had taken gunpowder weapons, with the Solaks keeping the bow as a "prestige" weapon. They were never numerous though, just one orta. Which tends to make me think that barring omitted information from the picture, the Ottomans didn't have that much infantry in the battle. Se how the artist has represented the Solaks as almost half of the infantry force?

Now it maybe just an attempt at glorification, or otherwise a attempt to show proportions. Anyway I am no historian, so I wouldn't put a lot of salt in those final parts.

Here is a book that might be of some use – It is called Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700 by Rhoads Murphey.

You can 'look inside' at Amazon.co.uk

link

Rich