Changes

After 1800 the steady decline of the Empire was in sharp contrast to the growth in wealth and military power in western Europe. The Empire was called "the sick man of Europe" and steadily lost influence and territory. In the 19th century the Empire was actually aided in its survival by Britain and France, who feared its collapse or loss of large amounts of land to Russia would destabilize the balance of power.

After 1800 the steady decline of the Empire was in sharp contrast to the growth in wealth and military power in western Europe. The Empire was called "the sick man of Europe" and steadily lost influence and territory. In the 19th century the Empire was actually aided in its survival by Britain and France, who feared its collapse or loss of large amounts of land to Russia would destabilize the balance of power.

For many years the prevailing interpretation of the decline and collapse of the empire focused on internal failures. The Ottoman Empire originally had benefited from a series of energetic sultans to reach an apogee by 1600,  but subsequent leadership failed and a combination of decadent sultans, manipulative harem women, and corrupt bureaucrats and military officials set in motion a long and steady decline that dragged on over the next 320 years until the final collapse in the aftermath of World War I.  Efforts to get rid of old power centers (such as the Janissaries) and instead adopt modern European methods and technology bought a little time, but could not prevent the seizure of Egypt by the British.  The rise of ethnic or language-based nationalism after 1800 meant that one group after another wanted out, starting with the Slavs and the Greeks. Finally, the Arabs and the Turks themselves wanted out, and after the poor performance in the World War, no one wanted to stay in.  Instead of its historic tolerance, the Empire became a killing machine, most notoriously with the massacres of the Bulgarians in the 1870s and the genocide of the Armenians 1890-1915.

For many years the prevailing interpretation of the decline and collapse of the empire focused on internal failures. The Ottoman Empire originally had benefited from a series of energetic sultans to reach an apogee by 1600,  but subsequent leadership failed and a combination of [[decadent]] sultans, manipulative harem women, and corrupt bureaucrats and military officials set in motion a long and steady decline that dragged on over the next 320 years until the final collapse in the aftermath of World War I.  Efforts to get rid of old power centers (such as the Janissaries) and instead adopt modern European methods and technology bought a little time, but could not prevent the seizure of Egypt by the British.  The rise of ethnic or language-based nationalism after 1800 meant that one group after another wanted out, starting with the Slavs and the Greeks. Finally, the Arabs and the Turks themselves wanted out, and after the poor performance in the World War, no one wanted to stay in.  Instead of its historic tolerance, the Empire became a killing machine, most notoriously with the massacres of the Bulgarians in the 1870s and the genocide of the Armenians 1890-1915.

More recently many historians have emphasized the tolerance and flexibility of the Empire as explanations of why it lasted so long. They acknowledge the weaknesses but blame the final collapse on external factors.

More recently many historians have emphasized the tolerance and flexibility of the Empire as explanations of why it lasted so long. They acknowledge the weaknesses but blame the final collapse on external factors.