1700s Ottoman army lists?

[Lluís of Minairons]

Hi all,

My gaming mates and I are preparing a long term campaign set in the 1714-1718 Ottoman-Venetian War, and I'm having a little trouble at finding suitable army lists for the Ottomans of that period.

The campaign is to be played at several different levels, depending on the kind of encounters and army sizes. So we're foreseing that most engagements are to be fought by small detachments (so played at a skirmish level), while no more than a handful of big battles involving thousands of men are expectable.

So we need some kind of guidelines for building reasonable army lists for both engagement levels. If this can help, we're planning to use Musket & Tomahawk for tactical clashes, while Beneath the Lily Banners for big-big battles (hey! with some room for eventual naval engagements too, these using Galleys & Galleons).

Please could anyone help me anyhow?

Thanks a lot,
Lluís

[WFGamers]

Hola,


I am afraid I have never heard of Muskets & Tomahawks and I don't like Beneath the Lily Banners, I only play historical big battles not fictional skirmishes. Also I know little about the naval side. I can help more generally on the Ottoman army of this era but this is the main field army. Not the secondary forces that were often fighting the Venetians.

In any case here is a rough guide to the army.

Infantry:
Janissaries: Around 10% of the army. Regular infantry raised by the state armed with muskets and swords. The best infantry relying on shooting but also capable of charges sword in hand.
Provincial infantry: Around 10% of the army. Regular infantry raised by individuals/provinces armed with muskets & called by various names - Arnauts for example. Lower quality infantry relying shooting.

Ottoman Cavalry:
Kapa kulu: Around 20% of the army. The regular 'heavy' cavalry paid for by the state. They are sometimes called the 'Sipahi of the Porte'.
European Sipahi: Around 20-25% of the army.  The 'heavy' cavalry raised by the European provinces of the empire.
Asian Sipahi: Around 15% of the army. The 'heavy' cavalry raised by the Asian provinces of the empire.


All of the above used a mixture of charging and shooting which is trick to do on the tabletop. I have not tried the rules you suggest but as they get the more common tactics wrong I doubt they will get this right. But that is a guess, I don't know if they do.

The kapa kula were the best cavalry and the Asians the worse. Weapons and equipment were mixed. Generally the better the troops the less 'old fashioned' stuff they would have - lances, bows, armour, shields, etc. The kapa kula were probably all sword and pistol armed & no armour.

Allied Cavalry:
Tatars: Around 10% of the army: Good light skirmishing cavalry armed mainly with carbines and pistols.
Moldavian/Wallachians: Around 10% of the army: Lower quality light skirmishing cavalry again armed with carbines/pistols - these were similar to the hussars in the Austrian army.

Artillery:

They had a lot of guns but often very old fashioned, even compared to the poor guns of the era.


I hope that helps.

[vtsaogames]

There were a lot of irregular light infantry and light cavalry with most Ottoman forces. These were the folks that inspired Grenzers and Hussars as opponents. Quality could vary greatly, from settling scores to just along for the loot. I suspect that many fell into the latter category. Discipline would be sketchy among these contingents.

[Gungadin]

Some very interesting thoughts and suggestions for which many thanks for taking the rouble to share. Something I struggle with is what was the artillery doctrine of the Ottomans in the 18th century.
I know that the standard view is the one expressed here - i.e. heavy, outdated and antiquated pieces but there are indications of other trends that might have started to appear. If you look at the Ottoman campaigns conducted by Nadir Shah there are some battles (was it Kars?) where the Persian success was built upon neutralising the heavy Ottoman position artillery by a rapid advance including lighter artillery and cavalry and without this "anchor" the Ottoman's fell apart.
There are a couple of reference books that towards the end of the century illustrate quite modern field carriages for lighter pieces - and there are lists - for example some posted on Vlad's estimable Oderint dum Probent site - suggesting a fair proportion of lighter pieces; There are also a couple of illustrations showing guns that while still heavy-ish are not the Mons Meg's that traditionally we expect.
So I have to wonder how medium and light field artillery was used. I have somewhere a reference that suggests they were pushed forward ahead of the industry - but things all remain very vague. It would be a dream - and probably a miracle - if any of the assembled learned brethren had any substantiated sources or views on the matter. (If there is any interest I shall try to dig out and collate the various bits and pieces I have discovered over the years - but it will take time - so please don't hold your breath if there is any interest.
Another question that springs to mind is the "mortar" corps. This was put under the charge of an itinerant Frenchman in the earlier half of the 18th century (I think it was the same chap who had a habit in seeking employment in armies he had formerly fought against). I seem to recall that he was a bit miffed not to be allowed to extend his modernising ideas to the other branches of the artillery so I find myself wondering how indeed he modernised the mortars and if the refusal with regards to other parts was because they were clinging to traditional outdated practices or if they were already being reformed. Ah questions questions - any thoughts more than welcome.

I have wondered if I would find any insights in the various rules and army publications of the very excellent 15mm Fire and Sword range of figures (also on the composition especially with regards to infantry and artillery of the Tatars in the early 18th century that might give me some clues for the 1750's. Unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to look through them so I have no idea if there is anything of any relevance there to either my queries or the original question in this thread.

All fascinating stuff just the same... 

[Gungadin]

You will also find some army lists from the late 17th century hidden away on Vlad's site - once you start delving there you never escape! A mine of information..

http://rusmilhist.blogspot.com/search/label/Ottoman%20Empire%3A%20army%20and%20fleet

(Also given the links of this site now to Northstar - it would be cool if there is any news on the embryonic Trent Miniatures 18th century Ottoman range…)

[Emir of Askaristan]

Beneath the Lily Banners has a supplement coming out which covers the east and should therefore include the Ottomans (since Warfare now have Ottomans and Cossacks). It's due in the next few months I think.

Ottoman armies made use of large numbers of allied and subject peoples so depend on where your battles are to be fought you could find yourself facing an Ottoman army which was less then 50% Turkish. Against the Venetians for example many troops would be from the Balkans. Against the Russians, Balkan, Tatar and Cossack troops far outnumbered those from Anatolia or further east.

There's a book from Helion on the earlier Ottoman- Venetian War which may provide the basis for some army lists for you

[WFGamers]

There were a lot of irregular light infantry and light cavalry with most Ottoman forces. These were the folks that inspired Grenzers and Hussars as opponents. Quality could vary greatly, from settling scores to just along for the loot. I suspect that many fell into the latter category. Discipline would be sketchy among these contingents.

I am afraid this is largely a wargamer myth. The kind of forces you are thinking about disappeared 100 to 200 years before this time. The Austrian Grenzers were modelled on the Provincial infantry I mentioned, who indeed were also often Balkans infantry. The Austrian hussars were modelled on the Moldavian/Wallachian cavalry I mentioned who were also Balkans troops. The Ottoman provincials fought in 'line' in battles rather than being skirmishers like grenzers of the earlier 18th century. Both these Ottoman types could be called 'irregular' but that depends on what exactly you mean by this. They were generally paid professional soldiers but didn't fight in the 'regular' way Europeans thought of it, but then neither did the rest of the army.

I have no doubt various other types would feature in small scale actions in the 'little war' - on both sides. Peasants armed with improvised weapons, hastily raised militia, poorly armed garrison types, etc. But all these were not part of either sides normal troops used in the actual army at this time.

[Lluís of Minairons]

LOTS of thanks, Sirs!

Your responses have exceeded my expectations by much. It's more than enough for a start.
Also, I'll keep an eye upon eventual BLB updates related to Balkans and Mid East.
Thanks too for remembering me the excellent By Sword and Fire range. Some of the teams involved in this future campaign have got accustomed to using 20mm plastic figures, but personally I do favour 15s. So they will stand as a source for my armies.

Once again, thanks!
Lluís

[Gungadin]

..and do knock yourself out on Oderint dum… I have just been wandering around on there again and seen some interesting army lists that should interest you (and weights of captured artillery that drive me crazy!!!)..

And thanks to you for all the fascinating stuff you have published and made available over the years - top rate!

[Gungadin]

Thank you for reminding me of Helion… I was in touch with Bruno Mugnai who mentioned that there will be a third volume in this series that will cover inter alia the Ottomans…

https://www.helion.co.uk/browse-title-series-more/century-of-the-soldier-c-1618-1721/books-in-series/armies-and-enemies-of-louis-xiv-volume-1-western-europe-1688-1714-france-england-holland.html

Unfortunately I do not have a date on that. And speaking of Bruno… I assume you know this little gem…

https://www.amazon.it/Lultima-vittoria-della-Serenissima-Lassedio/dp/8888542744

[Lluís of Minairons]

Ahhhh is that book's subject herr General J. M. von der Schulenburg?

Yes I have him in lists --rated as a best commander in our campaign 

[Gungadin]

Inter alia yes - it is an excellent account of the siege, the forces present, their uniform's etc. It is a brilliant book - a real gem…

[WFGamers]

Some very interesting thoughts and suggestions for which many thanks for taking the rouble to share. Something I struggle with is what was the artillery doctrine of the Ottomans in the 18th century.
I know that the standard view is the one expressed here - i.e. heavy, outdated and antiquated pieces but there are indications of other trends that might have started to appear. If you look at the Ottoman campaigns conducted by Nadir Shah there are some battles (was it Kars?) where the Persian success was built upon neutralising the heavy Ottoman position artillery by a rapid advance including lighter artillery and cavalry and without this "anchor" the Ottoman's fell apart.
There are a couple of reference books that towards the end of the century illustrate quite modern field carriages for lighter pieces - and there are lists - for example some posted on Vlad's estimable Oderint dum Probent site - suggesting a fair proportion of lighter pieces; There are also a couple of illustrations showing guns that while still heavy-ish are not the Mons Meg's that traditionally we expect.
So I have to wonder how medium and light field artillery was used. I have somewhere a reference that suggests they were pushed forward ahead of the industry - but things all remain very vague. It would be a dream - and probably a miracle - if any of the assembled learned brethren had any substantiated sources or views on the matter. (If there is any interest I shall try to dig out and collate the various bits and pieces I have discovered over the years - but it will take time - so please don't hold your breath if there is any interest.
Another question that springs to mind is the "mortar" corps. This was put under the charge of an itinerant Frenchman in the earlier half of the 18th century (I think it was the same chap who had a habit in seeking employment in armies he had formerly fought against). I seem to recall that he was a bit miffed not to be allowed to extend his modernising ideas to the other branches of the artillery so I find myself wondering how indeed he modernised the mortars and if the refusal with regards to other parts was because they were clinging to traditional outdated practices or if they were already being reformed. Ah questions questions - any thoughts more than welcome.

I have wondered if I would find any insights in the various rules and army publications of the very excellent 15mm Fire and Sword range of figures (also on the composition especially with regards to infantry and artillery of the Tatars in the early 18th century that might give me some clues for the 1750's. Unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to look through them so I have no idea if there is anything of any relevance there to either my queries or the original question in this thread.

All fascinating stuff just the same...

Gungadin I think the key thing here is you have to abandon the idea of little change over this time period and area, for everyone and not just the Ottomans and similar. The 18th century was a massive period of change, often subtle but it transformed warfare. This is why, in my opinion, any set of rules which says it covers the whole of the 'Horse and Musket' era should be binned as they clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

In any case at say 1600 Ottoman and other artillery were generally similar but the Ottomans had more of it and a better organisation & support. Over the next 100 to 120 years non Ottoman artillery improved a little while Ottoman artillery stayed the same. So by the era this thread is about all artillery was still very heavy and inefficient but the Ottoman artillery was starting to slip behind. After circa 1720 non Ottoman artillery started to be transformed into how we think of artillery of the period, like say Napoleonic artillery. Initially Ottoman artillery stayed the same and the gap widened between their artillery and others. From the Persian wars and the wars against Russian/Austria in the 1730's it became clear that Ottoman artillery was now clearly outclassed by the rapidly improving artillery of others & the changes in warfare.

So from this kind of time they started to try to improve their artillery. This is when 'Western' experts started to arrive to do this but it was piecemeal, underfunded and not committed fully to. But remember at this time the Ottomans were still holding their own - they beat the Austrians in the 1730's war for example, despite also fighting the Russians at the same time. So they were by no means completely hopeless. The gap between their artillery and other was increasing but mainly because their artillery was getting better but other nations artillery was getting better quicker. Non Ottoman artillery continued to get better during the century and after the SYW became something like 'horse and musket' artillery as we normally think of it. It was at this time that the Ottomans fought the Russians again (late 60's and the 70's) and by this time the Ottoman artillery was a lot better than it was but was now seriously outclassed compared to the even more improved opponents.

This war was crucial for the Ottomans. It was not just the artillery that was seriously outclassed but also the rest of the army. This war and after it saw massive changes in the Ottoman army designed to modernise it. The problem was they were very far behind now and not able to change quickly for various reasons. Meanwhile their opponents were making even more improvements and also doing them even quicker. So despite being a lot better than before the Ottomans suffered even greater defeats in the 1780's, 90's and after because the gap between what they had/did & their opponents had/did was wider. The improved Ottoman armies of this time would have made short work of their opponents in say 1700-1720. But while the Ottomans had changed the others had been transformed over this period and were now vastly better.

On the Tatar infantry and artillery I think you will find it difficult to find anything. The army was very much all cavalry and the infantry/artillery were very much '2nd class' defensive troops. Typically they manned a defensive line that protected the entrance to the Crimea peninsula.

I hope this helps

[WFGamers]

I would be a little wary on some of the books, rules and sources mentioned here. They are usually written from non Ottoman sources which are very unreliable on the Ottomans & so often repeat outdated ideas.

You might want to look at this which has information on the Ottomans of around this era from pro Ottoman sources - https://www.helion.co.uk/browse-title-series-more/century-of-the-soldier-c-1618-1721/books-in-series/peter-the-great-humbled-the-russo-ottoman-war-of-1711.html?___SID=U

[sukhe_bator]

In India mortars were used very early, but they were not used in sieges as was the convention in the West. They were a parallel development of the howitzer and pedrero, varieties of direct and indirect fire anti-personnel weapons. Since much of this tech introduced by the Mughals and the Sultanates adjacent to the Persian gulf originated in Rumi - from the Turco/Persian regions it is likely that Ottoman mortars of the period fell into two categories - those larger ones used specifically in sieges, and a separate category of smaller field weapons... the zamburak or camel gun was an offshoot of this drive to introduce anti-personnel artillery into regions where conventional artillery could not easily venture.