Refer to the passage. "It makes me shudder to think of what the result of a struggle between such different systems must be; one of us must prevail and the other be destroyed, at any rate we cannot both exist in safety. On their side is the vast wealth of their empire, unimpaired resources, experience and practice in arms, a veteran soldiery, an uninterrupted series of victories, readiness to endure hardships, union, order, discipline, thrift, and watchfulness. On ours are found an empty exchequer, luxurious habits, exhausted resources, broken spirits, a raw and insubordinate soldiery, and greedy generals; there is no regard for discipline, license runs riot, the men indulge in drunkenness and debauchery, and, worst of all, the enemy are accustomed to victory, we, to defeat. Can we doubt what the result must be?”

Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, Flemish diplomat in Constantinople, The Turkish Letters, 1555–62

Based on the differences between the European and Ottoman military forces reflected in the passage, a historian might conclude that

Roman forces were superior because they demonstrated greater strategic skill using fewer material resources.
Ottoman forces were superior because they made better strategic use of familiar territory.
Roman forces were superior because their empire had greater material resources and more soldiers.
Ottoman forces were superior because their wealthy empire was better accustomed to the hardships of war.