Comments by "Mint" (@mint8648) on "M. Laser History" channel.

@ewoudalliet1734 The period characterized as one of decentralization in the Ottoman political system.[2] Political and economic reforms enacted during the preceding War of the Holy League (1683-1699), particularly the sale of life-term tax farms (Ottoman Turkish: malikāne) instituted in 1695, enabled provincial figures to achieve an unprecedented degree of influence in Ottoman politics. This decentralization had once led historians to believe that the Ottoman Empire was in decline during this period, part of the larger and now-debunked Ottoman Decline Thesis, but it is now recognized that the Ottomans were successfully able to tie emerging provincial elites politically and financially to the central government.[3] The empire likewise experienced significant economic growth during much of the eighteenth century[4] and was, until the disastrous war with Russia in 1768-74, also able to match its rivals in military strength.[5] In light of this, the empire's history during this period is now generally viewed in more neutral terms, eschewing concepts such as 'decline' and 'stagnation'.[6] The Old Regime was brought to an end not by a single dramatic event, but by the gradual process of reform begun by Sultan Selim III (r. 1789-1807), known as the Nizam-ı Cedid (New Order). Although Selim himself was deposed, his reforms were continued by his successors into the nineteenth century and utterly transformed the nature of the Ottoman Empire.[7]
2
@ewoudalliet1734 your statement makes more sense when you say other european powers were stagnating in the 17th century too
2
@ewoudalliet1734 it was not visible in the 17th century yet
1
I would say Eurasian steppe nomads had an advantage over sedentary cultures not because of their nomadic lifestyle, but because the area they inhabited had numerous good-quality horses. The Jurchens and Manchus were not nomadic, yet they could defeat sedentary neighbours as many times as the Mongols, because of their horses.
1