Talk:Military of the Ottoman Empire

message: == Ships? ==
Anyone know what kind of ships the Ottomans used before gunpowder and steam ships?
:: Actually, the empire used ships effectively only during its powerful times when it was controlling the Mediterranean Sea but we know that Ottomans used ships as transporters during the invasion of Rumeli(Balkans). With respect, Deliogul 09:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost all naval battles that were fought until the second half of the 16th century were galley-fights. It would be reasonable to assume that, during the 14th century, Ottomans and other "Beylik"s (Turkish fiefdoms) used galliots and other types of light galleys as their preferred vessels-of-war.--Alperkaan 21:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A commission was found by the British after the failure of the Dardanelles campaign, in order to find what went wrong. The commision concluded that the fleet was expected, by the masterminds of the expedition, to occupy İstanbul. The commision also decided that the very idea of sending a fleet of battleships to invade a city was fundamentally flawed.--Alperkaan 21:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That is not what the subject of this article is. Perhaps Military organization of the Ottoman Empire? --Free smyrnan 12:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the scope of the article is to remain limited to the composition/organization of the Ottoman military than we can only leave the title as it is and redirect "Military organization of the Ottoman Empire" to it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 15:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now that you were proposing this article be expanded into the main article for Military History for OE. I think a separation between the military organization - various units and so forth and the historical events might be appropriate. There's a lot to be written about the military organization itself and putting it in between the numerous battles might be confusing. So... 2 main articles? Military History of OE and Military of OE? Regards, Free smyrnan 16:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, 2 articles would be a good idea. I'll create a stub in a while. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No worries, I noticed you'd fixed it. I did go back in the history a bit, but I guessed it was dim and distant, and I presumed someone closer to do it would be able to pick it up quicker. Nice work. Si Trew (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Hmmm ... did someone lose it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.8.23 (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Anyone know what kind of ships the Ottomans used before gunpowder and steam ships?
:: Actually, the empire used ships effectively only during its powerful times when it was controlling the Mediterranean Sea but we know that Ottomans used ships as transporters during the invasion of Rumeli(Balkans). With respect, Deliogul 09:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost all naval battles that were fought until the second half of the 16th century were galley-fights. It would be reasonable to assume that, during the 14th century, Ottomans and other "Beylik"s (Turkish fiefdoms) used galliots and other types of light galleys as their preferred vessels-of-war.--Alperkaan 21:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A commission was found by the British after the failure of the Dardanelles campaign, in order to find what went wrong. The commision concluded that the fleet was expected, by the masterminds of the expedition, to occupy İstanbul. The commision also decided that the very idea of sending a fleet of battleships to invade a city was fundamentally flawed.--Alperkaan 21:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ships? 

message: I suggest we move the article to Military history of the Ottoman Empire. Any comments? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 12:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not what the subject of this article is. Perhaps Military organization of the Ottoman Empire? --Free smyrnan 12:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the scope of the article is to remain limited to the composition/organization of the Ottoman military than we can only leave the title as it is and redirect "Military organization of the Ottoman Empire" to it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 15:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now that you were proposing this article be expanded into the main article for Military History for OE. I think a separation between the military organization - various units and so forth and the historical events might be appropriate. There's a lot to be written about the military organization itself and putting it in between the numerous battles might be confusing. So... 2 main articles? Military History of OE and Military of OE? Regards, Free smyrnan 16:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, 2 articles would be a good idea. I'll create a stub in a while. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: It looks like something has gone wrong here with the lead (a bit of vandalism or something), the opening sentence is not a full sentence and does not have a boldened title, even if it were a modified one. But I am not qualified position to correct it (I checked the history and see no recent vandalism), I can only make note of it. Si Trew (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, I noticed you'd fixed it. I did go back in the history a bit, but I guessed it was dim and distant, and I presumed someone closer to do it would be able to pick it up quicker. Nice work. Si Trew (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: I don't know which kind of brilliant mind came with this translation, but it is very inaccurate. 
Kapı actually means house(of Osman) in Turkish, like in Supreme Port( Bab-ı Ali) in which Port means Kapı.
Kul means slave, subject. 
translation should be either "Slave of the Port", or simply Doorslave  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.165.143 (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  kapikulu ...........(Gate Keeper) ? 

message: Given numbers of tımarlı sipahis correct but tımarlı sipahi & cebelü is uncorret hence numbers of tımarlı sipahis are given in total along with actual owners of timars and their cebelü cavalries. So you should delete that colum. 
The other  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.238.60 (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers of Tımarlı Sipahi 

message: May somebody add some informations on Ottoman fortresses? Scattered all over Southern Europe they are a visible (and touchable) remain of the Ottoman Empire and its military. --Gerd-HH (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fortresses 

message: The Ottoman Empire was found in 1299 exactly not 1300.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.153.185 (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm ... did someone lose it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.8.23 (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found 

message: On what is this periodization of 1300-1606, 1606-1826, 1826-1861, and 1861-1918 based? Not just the dates, but the labels attached to them. It seems to constitute original research; the periodization which the editor of this page wanted to use rather than something used generally by historians when discussing Ottoman military history. Chamboz (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invented periodization