Ottoman Turkish Empire

[benhur]

Discuss (http://www.naqshbandi.org/ottomans/protectors/protectors.htm)

Was it better than most empires, in that Ottoman at least gave protection to persecuted people, didn't wipe out native populations and cultures as western empires did, didn't start wars at the drop of a hat, didn't pretend (like the hypocritical west always did) that they were civilizing native people, and all that? Based on all this, was it somewhat benevolent compared to Britain, Spain and the others?

I am just wondering, NOT asserting, so don't jump down my throat like you all did in the Saddam thread. Discuss politely and rationally. Thank you.

[ComradeOm]

Ottoman at least gave protection to persecuted people, didn't wipe out native populations and cultures as western empires didLargely because Christian and Jewish populations could be heavily taxed. Ottoman treatment of religious minorities was relatively benign compared to Western powers (not a particularly difficult feat) but this should not be ascribed entirely to altruism. Taxes have already been noted, and any real advancement through the Ottoman state bureaucracy almost always required conversion to Islam. Nor were such benefits forthcoming to non-Christian communities; apostates in particular were harshly persecutated


...didn't start wars at the drop of a hat, didn't pretend (like the hypocritical west always did) that they were civilizing native people, and all that?Hmm? The Ottoman Empire was almost continuously at war. How else do you think they ended up with all those minorities? The early Sultans in particular were renowned conquerors and greatly expanded the empire through force of arms. The pretence they used (and the 'civilising mission' was not a popular excuse in Europe until the 19th century) was that those nations not under Islamic rule were part of the dar al-Harb (House of War) and thus fair game for conquest. The Ottomans gobbled up a big chunk of Europe using this justification

[Leo]

Ottoman at least gave protection to persecuted people, didn't wipe out native populations and cultures as western empires did

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

[F9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

Isnt this is one long after the Ottoman empire falling?
Anyway, an empire is empire, and as like the others(Byzantines, Romans etc) the people were the one suffered and their conquering wars let dead civilians back.I dont think there are so much difference between the Roman and Byzantine empires with the Ottoman one, with one exception, which is of course, religion.
Would be the Ottoman "less evil" than others?Dont know actually, but it dont plays and much role.

Fuserg9:star:

[Leo]

Isnt this is one is long after the Ottoman empire falling?Nope, it's officially still the Ottoman Empire.

[Dimentio]

Discuss (http://www.naqshbandi.org/ottomans/protectors/protectors.htm)

Was it better than most empires, in that Ottoman at least gave protection to persecuted people, didn't wipe out native populations and cultures as western empires did, didn't start wars at the drop of a hat, didn't pretend (like the hypocritical west always did) that they were civilizing native people, and all that? Based on all this, was it somewhat benevolent compared to Britain, Spain and the others?

I am just wondering, NOT asserting, so don't jump down my throat like you all did in the Saddam thread. Discuss politely and rationally. Thank you.

The Ottoman Empire was both supressive and not.

It was supressive in the essence that it was partially a slave-based society, and partially a feudal society. In the army, bureaucracy and haremes, slaves played an important role. In the southern part of the Empire, slavery also existed on large-scale in the countryside.

Peasants were often tied to their land, as the Ottoman governors often ruled through local land-owners, but the Empire was basically multi-ethnic in its administration, so variations were often quite big between provinces.

It was liberal when it came to religious practices, to centralisation and to social advancement. Theoretically, every peasant and even slave in the Ottoman Empire had the right to apply for the job as Grand Vizier.

But the Ottoman Empire was certainly not more or less benevolent than other islamic empires, like Safavid Persia, Mughal India or the Abbasid Caliphate, which all were multi-ethnic, tolerant states.

[Leo]

Another thing to clarify is that the Ottoman Empire was not, until near its end, anything "Turkish". Ottoman sultans despised the term "Turk" and some even wrote poetry talking about how horrible "Turks" are. Sultan Mehmed the Conquerer, the fella who conquered Constantinople chose to call himself Kayser-i Rum which of course meant the Ceaser of Rome. In this sense the Ottoman ruling dynasty always saw itself as some sort of a muslim neo-Roman empire. The national ideas begun appearing in the 19th century with capitalism arriving through the non-muslims to the Empire. By the end of the century, the Ottoman-muslim state bourgeoisie and the private bourgeoisie attached to it had developed several of its own ideologies, the most significant ones being a unitary Ottoman nationalism (called Ottomanism), pan-islamism and Turkish nationalism with a pan-Turkist perspective. The latter one prevailed. Hence, the muslim Ottoman bourgeoisie united around this political ideology, allying with the remaining non-muslim bourgeois organizations, most notable one being the Dashnak party, overthrew the existing sultan, proclaimed constitutional monarchy, re-opening the old symbolic parliament, holding elections and bringing a new guy from the family to be a sort of puppet sultan, one with little formal power. Nevertheless only after this point can we talk about a Ottoman Turkish Empire. The Turkish nationalists who got to power, after deal with the remnants of the supporters of the sultan and the having faction fighting among themselves basically went to comitting the Armenian genocide and participating in WW1.

Of course the reasons Ottomans didn't engage in mass killings at the same time with Europeans who did it having discovered the "New World" has only got to do with the Europeans being the ones who managed it while the Ottomans didn't. They were quite brutal against all local populations, including but not just Anatolian muslims after all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rebellions_against_the_Ottoman_Empire


It was supressive in the essence that it was partially a slave-based society, and partially a feudal society. In the army, bureaucracy and haremes, slaves played an important role.

Slavery was a very minor thing in the Ottoman Empire. Slaves played no role in the bureaucracy or in the army. There was infact no systematical, legal system of slavery. The sultan was of course considered an absolute ruler, was legally the owner of everyone and everyone was the sultans servants, and there were some in the palace who really were his servants. Yet for instance Jannisaries also were considered the servants of the sultans, and in one particular case with one particular sultan (Young Osman) they abducted him, tied him to a horse from his neck naked, ran him in the streets of Constantinople and finally brutally killed him in the dungeons - only to after "pick" a better, more "loyal" sultan. It was mostly like servitude to the monarch of other monarchies.


Theoretically, every peasant and even slave in the Ottoman Empire had the right to apply for the job as Grand Vizier.

I don't know where you have heard of this but a peasant would be killed on the spot if he tried enter the palace even and a servant in the palace brave enough to say something like this would probably be beheaded for arrogant behaviour. Of course all sadrazams came from high-class backgrounds. It was not a job which accepted people on an "application" basis. The sultan "appointed" who he saw as the best person.

[Dimentio]

Another thing to clarify is that the Ottoman Empire was not, until near its end, anything "Turkish". Ottoman sultans despised the term "Turk" and some even wrote poetry talking about how horrible "Turks" are. Sultan Mehmed the Conquerer, the fella who conquered Constantinople chose to call himself Kayser-i Rum which of course meant the Ceaser of Rome. In this sense the Ottoman ruling dynasty always saw itself as some sort of a muslim neo-Roman empire. The national ideas begun appearing in the 19th century with capitalism arriving through the non-muslims to the Empire. By the end of the century, the Ottoman-muslim state bourgeoisie and the private bourgeoisie attached to it had developed several of its own ideologies, the most significant ones being a unitary Ottoman nationalism (called Ottomanism), pan-islamism and Turkish nationalism with a pan-Turkist perspective. The latter one prevailed. Hence, the muslim Ottoman bourgeoisie united around this political ideology, allying with the remaining non-muslim bourgeois organizations, most notable one being the Dashnak party, overthrew the existing sultan, proclaimed constitutional monarchy, re-opening the old symbolic parliament, holding elections and bringing a new guy from the family to be a sort of puppet sultan, one with little formal power. Nevertheless only after this point can we talk about a Ottoman Turkish Empire. The Turkish nationalists who got to power, after deal with the remnants of the supporters of the sultan and the having faction fighting among themselves basically went to comitting the Armenian genocide and participating in WW1.

Of course the reasons Ottomans didn't engage in mass killings at the same time with Europeans who did it having discovered the "New World" has only got to do with the Europeans being the ones who managed it while the Ottomans didn't. They were quite brutal against all local populations, including but not just Anatolian muslims after all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rebellions_against_the_Ottoman_Empire



Slavery was a very minor thing in the Ottoman Empire. Slaves played no role in the bureaucracy or in the army. There was infact no systematical, legal system of slavery. The sultan was of course considered an absolute ruler, was legally the owner of everyone and everyone was the sultans servants, and there were some in the palace who really were his servants. Yet for instance Jannisaries also were considered the servants of the sultans, and in one particular case with one particular sultan (Young Osman) they abducted him, tied him to a horse from his neck naked, ran him in the streets of Constantinople and finally brutally killed him in the dungeons - only to after "pick" a better, more "loyal" sultan. It was mostly like servitude to the monarch of other monarchies.



I don't know where you have heard of this but a peasant would be killed on the spot if he tried enter the palace even and a servant in the palace brave enough to say something like this would probably be beheaded for arrogant behaviour. Of course all sadrazams came from high-class backgrounds. It was not a job which accepted people on an "application" basis. The sultan "appointed" who he saw as the best person.

Of course a peasant or a commoner could not enter the palace. But often, Viziers were sons of commoners who had shown talent, and were educated and then appointed on their merits within the bureaucracy. Voltaire and several other European enlightenment-thinkers saw the Ottoman empire as a model in this aspect.

As for slavery. I agree it probably was unusual in the central parts of the Empire. But the Barbaresque Pirates and the local governors of Sudan engaged in a very extensive slave trade.

It is estimated that about 1 million people were captured by the pirates between 1500 and 1800 and sold to slavery. Most of them from the northern shores of the mediterranean. How many Africans who were sold as slaves to the Ottoman Empire are unknown.

[Leo]

Of course a peasant or a commoner could not enter the palace. But often, Viziers were sons of commoners who had shown talent, and were educated and then appointed on their merits within the bureaucracy.

Ah, you are talking about the Devshirme system. The Ottomans abducted Christian boys who showed talent (rather than children of people who did so), converted them to Islam and educated and trained them militarily. These people made up janissary soldiers and generals also, some of whom did rise high enough to be viziers and even sadrazams. The ottomans were motivated by the desire to create an elite class of warriors loyal only to the padishah, rather than to individual Ottoman nobles, that was what was behind the policy. It had little to do with commoners.


As for slavery. I agree it probably was unusual in the central parts of the Empire. But the Barbaresque Pirates and the local governors of Sudan engaged in a very extensive slave trade.

It is estimated that about 1 million people were captured by the pirates between 1500 and 1800 and sold to slavery. Most of them from the northern shores of the mediterranean. How many Africans who were sold as slaves to the Ottoman Empire are unknown.

All this of course says nothing about the mode of production of the Ottoman Empire which had nothing to do with being a slavery based mode of production. Besides, as mentioned, on the institutional and legal level, slavery did not exist in the Ottoman empire since everyone was considered to be servants of the sultan.

[Dimentio]

Ah, you are talking about the Devshirme system. The Ottomans abducted Christian boys who showed talent (rather than children of people who did so), converted them to Islam and educated and trained them militarily. These people made up janissary soldiers and generals also, some of whom did rise high enough to be viziers and even sadrazams. The ottomans were motivated by the desire to create an elite class of warriors loyal only to the padishah, rather than to individual Ottoman nobles, that was what was behind the policy. It had little to do with commoners.



All this of course says nothing about the mode of production of the Ottoman Empire which had nothing to do with being a slavery based mode of production. Besides, as mentioned, on the institutional and legal level, slavery did not exist in the Ottoman empire since everyone was considered to be servants of the sultan.

I agree that the mode of the production of the Ottoman Empire was not a slavery-based system. I don't actually think the entire empire could be considered to employing one unitary mode of production. North Africa and Crimea, I would claim, were based upon slave trade, while the more developed parts of the Empire - those who were closer to the High Gate - resembled more Marx's theories about the Asiatic mode of production.

[Leo]

I agree that the mode of the production of the Ottoman Empire was not a slavery-based system. I don't actually think the entire empire could be considered to employing one unitary mode of production.

It was actually much more centralized than you imagine. I would indeed say there was a unitary mode of production.


North Africa and Crimea, I would claim, were based upon slave trade

I don't think pirates selling prostitutes, eunuchs and house servants (which made up most of who were sold by pirates) determine either an economy or the mode of production.


while the more developed parts of the Empire - those who were closer to the High Gate - resembled more Marx's theories about the Asiatic mode of production.

That too is at least an open debate. It is uncertain whether it was feudal, asiatic or an asiatic variety of feudal.

[Dimentio]

It was actually much more centralized than you imagine. I would indeed say there was a unitary mode of production.



I don't think pirates selling prostitutes, eunuchs and house servants (which made up most of who were sold by pirates) determine either an economy or the mode of production.



That too is at least an open debate. It is uncertain whether it was feudal, asiatic or an asiatic variety of feudal.

I think the term "Asiatic mode of production" is rather bad generally speaking, given that it puts a dichotomy between western economic history (viewed as dynamic) and Asian economic history, which is viewed as static and homogenic.

I would say from my limited knowledge about the Ottoman Empire that it had some traits of a palace economy. The centralisation aspect was a part of that.

North Africa and the northern Black Sea coast, as well as parts of Arabia, were not directly controlled from Constantinople though. Of the central parts of the Empire, some were characterised by semi-feudalism, some were characterised by substinence agriculture and yet others were characterised by pastoral grazing.

[Leo]

I think the term "Asiatic mode of production" is rather bad generally speaking, given that it puts a dichotomy between western economic history (viewed as dynamic) and Asian economic history, which is viewed as static and homogenic.

Yes, its a more complicated issue that it appears anyway.


I would say from my limited knowledge about the Ottoman Empire that it had some traits of a palace economy.

What do you mean by a "palace economy"?


North Africa and the northern Black Sea coast, as well as parts of Arabia, were not directly controlled from Constantinople though.

No this is not true. The only Ottoman territory not controlled by Ottoman authorities was Egypt under Mehmet Ali of Kavala and his dynasty (1805 onwards). In Arabia, by the first world war the Ottomans had indeed lost all control but this of course had to do with the British involvement as well. As for the black sea coast, well the Ottomans always controlled the southern black sea coast (which is in Turkey today), did also control parts of the northern black sea coast (in Russia today, Crimea) from time to time both formally and really, and controlled the Crimean Khanete in reality at times even when it did not formally control parts of Crimea.

[Dimentio]

Yes, its a more complicated issue that it appears anyway.



What do you mean by a "palace economy"?



No this is not true. The only Ottoman territory not controlled by Ottoman authorities was Egypt under Mehmet Ali of Kavala and his dynasty (1805 onwards). In Arabia, by the first world war the Ottomans had indeed lost all control but this of course had to do with the British involvement as well. As for the black sea coast, well the Ottomans always controlled the southern black sea coast (which is in Turkey today), did also control parts of the northern black sea coast (in Russia today, Crimea) from time to time both formally and really, and controlled the Crimean Khanete in reality at times even when it did not formally control parts of Crimea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_economy

I think it varied between times, but the Maghrebi areas were autonomous.

The Mamluks directly controlled Egypt and Sudan even after their defeat in 1510 - it was they who were responsible for keeping order there.

[Holden Caulfield]

I think the OP's point can be answered pretty easily. To Balkan region Protestants the Ottomans were far more tolerant that the traditional Catholic rulers. But this was so that they could win the alligence of these powers against the Catholic powers in the region ('Austria' mainly). As Leo pointed out they were just as opressive to their 'own dissident subjects' as the Catholic Europeans were to theirs.

Its typical imperialist tactics at that time, nothing to do with religious zeal (the Catholic Armies often sought the help of Persian Muslims in alliances against the Ottomans), nothing to do with one religion being 'nicer' than the other, just good old power politics.

[Leo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_economy (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_economy)

Ok I understand what it means, while all monarchies are like that in paper, the Ottoman Empire was no more like that than any of the European monarchies.


The Mamluks directly controlled Egypt and Sudan even after their defeat in 1510 - it was they who were responsible for keeping order there.

Mamluks were an elite class of soldiers though. It could similarly be said that the Janissaries controlled Constantinople in a similar sense. Of course armed elites always played an important role in the Ottoman Empire.

[Dimentio]

Ok I understand what it means, while all monarchies are like that in paper, the Ottoman Empire was no more like that than any of the European monarchies.



Mamluks were an elite class of soldiers though. It could similarly be said that the Janissaries controlled Constantinople in a similar sense. Of course armed elites always played an important role in the Ottoman Empire.

I do not claim that the Ottoman Empire was a palace economy, but the state seemed to have a somewhat more influential role in local economy than it would have in a contemporary European monarchy (at least for the 16th and 17th centuries). Especially through the sandjaks.

Yes, and the janissaries basically had political control during some periods.

[ComradeOm]

Ok I understand what it means, while all monarchies are like that in paper, the Ottoman Empire was no more like that than any of the European monarchiesExcept that it was. Both Ottoman Turkey and Tsarist Russia developed highly despotic economies, in the Byzantine vein, in which a relatively centralised autocracy exerted immense influence. The position and land of lesser nobles was largely bestowed on them, even just in theory, by the supreme autocrat. Call it either Oriental despotism or Tsarist absolutism

In contrast, in Western monarchies (even the 18th C France) the monarch's powers rested on the support of a large and powerful class of hereditary landowners rather than his own position. Which is the opposite of the two societies mentioned above. Traditionally a Western king was simply the most powerful of many nobles and with very real limits on his power


Mamluks were an elite class of soldiers though. It could similarly be said that the Janissaries controlled Constantinople in a similar sense. Of course armed elites always played an important role in the Ottoman Empire.Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the influence of the Janissaries largely limited to taking plum bureaucracy jobs and deposing of the odd sultan, a la some Praetorian Guard? In contrast the Mamluks exercised direct power over their lands as the cornerstone of local government

Incidentally, Ottoman power had very real limits even within the Empire. Move outside Turkey and Europe and you'll find that large swathes of supposedly Ottoman territory (such as the Maghreb, Egypt, Arabia, even Baghdad) were ruled by independent minded strongmen. Some, such as Syria, were local dynasties that had built up over the generations of Ottoman rule but others, such as those named above, included pre-Ottoman ruling structures that simply paid lip-service, and the odd tribute, to the Porte

[Leo]

Except that it was. Both Ottoman Turkey and Tsarist Russia developed highly despotic economies, in the Byzantine vein, in which a relatively centralised autocracy exerted immense influence. The position and land of lesser nobles was largely bestowed on them, even just in theory, by the supreme autocrat.

"Just in theory", of course, being the operative word.


In contrast, in Western monarchies (even the 18th C France) the monarch's powers rested on the support of a large and powerful class of hereditary landowners rather than his own position. Which is the opposite of the two societies mentioned above. Traditionally a Western king was simply the most powerful of many nobles and with very real limits on his power

Well initially it the Sultanate did depend on the support of a large and powerful class of hereditary landowners initially but the they fought against this influence rather early on and indeed managed to get rid of most of it. The system that came about was the timar system which gave land to elite classes of soldiers.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the influence of the Janissaries largely limited to taking plum bureaucracy jobs and deposing of the odd sultan, a la some Praetorian Guard?

They also were given land with the timar system. The janissaries and sipahis basically made up an individually non-hereditary class of military land lords.


In contrast the Mamluks exercised direct power over their lands as the cornerstone of local government

Well, the janissaries and the statesmen were both mostly devşirmes so they came from the same roots. Janissaries were the devşirmes who were seen fit for being soldiers, and the statesmen were those who were seen fit for that. After retirement though janissaries too could become adminstrators, albeit lower leveled.

[ComradeOm]

"Just in theory", of course, being the operative wordTheory is important. Particularly so when it underpins an entire state structure

The problems encountered by successive Ottoman monarchs were largely the result of inefficiencies within the state bureaucracy. It should be no surprise that that distance from Constantinople, coupled with centuries of minimal oversight, gave rise to local dynasties and independent-minded governors. The key point is that in both the Ottoman and Russian Empires (both of which consciously modelled themselves on the Byzantine Empire) all authority was derived from the central autocrat. This was more than mere theory and it informed every aspect of the way in which both states operated and, eventually, decayed


Well initially it the Sultanate did depend on the support of a large and powerful class of hereditary landowners initially but the they fought against this influence rather early on and indeed managed to get rid of most of it. The system that came about was the timar system which gave land to elite classes of soldiersHmmm, I'd classify the early warrior families as marcher-lords rather than landowners but it is an interesting point that I'd overlooked. In time they might well have established themselves as a powerful noble class of hereditary landowners, as occurred in Western Europe, but, as you note, central authority was soon asserted and the possibility of a class independent of the Ottoman state quashed


They also were given land with the timar system. The janissaries and sipahis basically made up an individually non-hereditary class of military land lordsInteresting, the works that I've seen have focused on their political/military, rather than economic, role in Ottoman society. But again I have to hammer home that their landholding was, unlike in feudal Europe, dependent on the Sultan and legitimised by his authority