The Ottoman Empire

[synthesis]

What are some good historical materialist works on the subject?

[synthesis]

I'm particularly interested in the role played by the exploitation of the "New World" in its decline. A former professor of mine said that it partially resulted from an influx of precious metals from the Americas, which went east along Ottoman-controlled trade routes, thereby causing inflation and instability. If anyone knows of a book or essay which addresses these sorts of things with a more holistic class analysis, I would award you many Internets.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Ernst Mandel wrote an excellent three volume history of the development of capitalism. I've only read parts of it and I forget the name offhand. I know, not much help. If you can track this down it would definitely speak to your question.

[synthesis]

Right on, much appreciated. I'll post it here when I find it, in case anyone else is interested.

[Devrim]

What are some good historical materialist works on the subject?

I know somebody who studies this at master's level at university. The problem is of course language, but I will ask.

Devrim

[synthesis]

I know somebody who studies this at master's level at university. The problem is of course language, but I will ask.

Devrim

I think between my very limited Turkish and Google Translate I'd probably be fine. I'd definitely love to take a stab at something they've done on the subject.

[Rooster]

A quick look through the marxists internet archive gives this as the first couple of hits:

Modern History of the Arab Countries by Vladimir Borisovich Lutsky (http://www.marxists.org/subject/arab-world/lutsky/index.htm)

[Dimentio]

The Ottoman Empire was not Arabic. It was initially a Turkic state, but became essentially a multi-cultural empire under control of a bureaucratic elite largely consisting of imperial slaves which to a large degree had been kidnapped from abroad at an early age. It was also not a unified empire in the real sense, but consisted of various areas with local autonomy, some on a tribal development level, some based on slavery economies and some feudal.

[synthesis]

Actually, this link is pretty solid so far. Of course the Ottomans weren't Arab, but, as the first sentence reminds us:


At the beginning of the 16th century, almost all the Arab countries were subjugated by the Turks and incorporated in the Ottoman state.

I'd also definitely be interested in some more recent works, if anyone's got some.

[bailey_187]

Mark Mazower's history of the Balkans covers the Ottoman Empire in SE Europe, and is very good. Its not strictly materialist, but it does cover economics. I made a post using it, asking about Ottoman Empire causing underdevelopment in SE Europe.

[Leo]

It was initially a Turkic state

This is not exactly true. In the early days, the Ottoman sultans used the term "Turk" as an insult, directed towards the uneducated peasants, and saw themselves as different and distinct from those. Incidentally, Ottoman History is marked with actual Turkish rebellions. I personally think that it was, fundamentally, a Muslim pseudo-Byzantine (or at least pseudo-Greek) formation with quite limited Turkic influence even in the beginning. Of course by the time of Mehmed the Conqueror, we have Sultan whose mother is a Greek, who speaks fluent Greek, who considers changing the state-religion into Christianity and who calls himself Kayser-i Rum (the Caesar of Rome).


a multi-cultural empire under control of a bureaucratic elite largely consisting of imperial slaves


some based on slavery economies

I don't think it can in anyway be argued that slavery in the marxist sense, that is in the sense of the way it is used to describe ancient slave societies, in any way can be considered predominant in the Ottoman Empire in any period. Economically, one can see such references rather as an Asiatic counterpart of European serfdom, perhaps, but they can't in any be compared to, say, the ancient Rome. Of course, the "imperial slaves" were (the word does not even translate as slave here but more like servant as in "your humble servant") "slaves" only in name, and they held immense power.


What are some good historical materialist works on the subject?

There are some quite significant works on the late Ottoman Empire by many good historical materialists, including Luxemburg, Rakovsky, Trotsky, Lenin and so forth. Marx and Engels also wrote a lot on the issue, although what they wrote aren't explicitly political for the most part as far as I recall and are mostly journalistic. Of course, all these were written as contemporary works.

[Dimentio]

Not really. The Barbary States and the Crimean Khanate were slave states associated with the Ottoman Empire but autonomous, and the areas south of Egypt where the Ottoman Empire had lots of influence were regions characterised by slave trade.

If Mehmet had changed the state religion to Christianity, it would have been an interesting turn. They could probably have taken Vienna then.

[Devrim]

Of course by the time of Mehmed the Conqueror, we have Sultan whose mother is a Greek, who speaks fluent Greek, who considers changing the state-religion into Christianity and who calls himself Kayser-i Rum (the Caesar of Rome).

I think somebody has been watching too much of popular TV shows. His mother was thought to be Greek, but it isn't know as a fact, and the bit about converting to Christianity is a story with no evidence to document it.

Devrim

[Leo]

I think somebody has been watching too much of popular TV shows.

What TV shows? What are you talking about?


His mother was thought to be Greek, but it isn't know as a fact

No, it is a known fact, its even on wikipedia.


and the bit about converting to Christianity is a story with no evidence to document it.

It is an account rather than a story, him considering is not claiming that him doing it personally even in private, and given the situation of the Ottoman Empire in the period, I don't think it would be unusual at all for him to consider it, also given his background.


Not really. The Barbary States and the Crimean Khanate were slave states

What do you understand by "slave states"? Does it simply mean states where there is a social status called "slave" or does it mean a mode of production?


They could probably have taken Vienna then.

Still unlikely, I think. They had a good run until then though.

[Devrim]

No, it is a known fact, its even on wikipedia.


Mehmed II was born on March 30, 1432, in Edirne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edirne), then the capital city of the Ottoman state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire). His father was Sultan Murad II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murad_II) (1404–51) and his mother Valide Sultan Hüma Hatun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%BCma_Hatun), born in Devrekani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devrekani) county of Kastamonu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastamonu) province, was a daughter of Abd'Allah of Hum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahumlje). Although the area of origin of his mother is known, her ethnicity is debatable. Huma means a girl/woman from Hum; her father's name, Abd'Allah, meaning Servant of God, is an anonym (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonym) that was used in the Ottoman period to describe the Christian males who converted to Islam, indicating most possibly a Greek descendant since that was the origin of the Christian population in the area at the time.

Devrim

[Dimentio]

Uh? Crimea was based upon massive slave raids against Poland, the Ukraine and Russia. The very word slave is coming from the ethnic term "Slav".

Several tens of thousands of people were kidnapped from Europe to the Maghreb states by corsairs too, even so far north as from Ireland, England and Iceland.

[Dragovich]

Mehmed did not consider converting into Christianity. You must be thinking of his descendant Jahja who tried to get European support to launch an uprising against the Ottomans in power and have him as Sultan.

He followed the tradition of the Eastern Roman Empire by having the Christian population answerable to the Orthodox Patriarch, enhancing the power of the Greek clergy amongst the Christian population.

[Leo]

Mehmed did not consider converting into Christianity. You must be thinking of his descendant Jahja who tried to get European support to launch an uprising against the Ottomans in power and have him as Sultan.

Nope, I'm thinking about Mehmed not Jahja who is not this Mehmed's son but the nexts, who reigned more than a hundred years after Mehmed II.

[Dragovich]

Never heard about him wanting to convert. Sounds rather far-fetched considering the entire Ottoman bureaucacy was Muslim and they would not accept a Christian as their ruler.

Jahja was never Sultan. He tried to but died.

[Leo]

Sounds rather far-fetched considering the entire Ottoman bureaucacy was Muslim and they would not accept a Christian as their ruler.

Well, given the practice of child-gathering (devshirme), it is not that unthinkable - the Ottoman bureaucracy was Muslim but also they used to be Christian as children. Still, he did not make any attempts to change the state religion probably because it seemed to risky. It is not that big of a deal to consider it though.


Jahja was never Sultan.

Oh no, I was talking about his dad.

[Dragovich]

Look, I'm no Ottoman expert but I know enough that the child-gathering was done to children at an early age. They were taught how to become good workers for the government and were taught all the tenets of Islam, the religion that they were going to convert to, whether they like it or not. Is it possible that some of the ministers, the pashas still practiced Christianity while remaining officially Muslims to the rest? Sure. We call those crypto-Christians but it's not likely that a little Greek boy who was taken away from his parents around seven is going to have a lot of memory of the Christian religion or loyalty to it once he's indoctrinated to serve the Sultan.

And yes it was a big dealm , my friend. Especially once the Ottomans took the mantel of the Caliphate once Selim conquered Egypt in 1517.

You would need to give me a source? I'm curious. It's something I never heard of before.

[Leo]

Look, I'm no Ottoman expert but I know enough that the child-gathering was done to children at an early age.

Evidently. Yet we are talking about children not babies.


They were taught how to become good workers for the government and were taught all the tenets of Islam, the religion that they were going to convert to, whether they like it or not.

Some obviously didn't like it.


Is it possible that some of the ministers, the pashas still practiced Christianity while remaining officially Muslims to the rest? Sure. We call those crypto-Christians but it's not likely that a little Greek boy who was taken away from his parents around seven is going to have a lot of memory of the Christian religion or loyalty to it once he's indoctrinated to serve the Sultan.

Yes, of course - it is not actually about religion - religion in general is dominantly merely an ideology. It would be quite absurd to think that those people forgot their ancestries, their mother tongues, their mothers and fathers and how they were taken from their families. This also tends to create a quiet sort of solidarity between this sort of people. In the case of Mehmed II. as stated his mother was Greek and he himself spoke fluent Greek.


You would need to give me a source? I'm curious. It's something I never heard of before.

I can but do you read Turkish?

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't think it can in anyway be argued that slavery in the marxist sense, that is in the sense of the way it is used to describe ancient slave societies, in any way can be considered predominant in the Ottoman Empire in any period. Economically, one can see such references rather as an Asiatic counterpart of European serfdom, perhaps, but they can't in any be compared to, say, the ancient Rome. Of course, the "imperial slaves" were (the word does not even translate as slave here but more like servant as in "your humble servant") "slaves" only in name, and they held immense power.

There was an entire class of slaves...called Kuhl. Slavery and slave trade was pretty much common practice within the Ottoman empire and essential for its functioning. 25% of the population was owned...and the entire economy and state aparatus depended on it.

It was uphold by the religious groups and sects running throughout the empire and actively endorsed and propagated by society itself.

The Ottomans actually started the African international slave trade...serving as a conduit to all parts of the empire, Europe and Asia and bought and sold massive amounts of white slaves from the Balkan to Estonia.

Slavery persisted in one form or another until the early 20th century with woman being sold until at least 1912. White slavery stopped in the mid 19th century, followed by black slavery. But this could and was circumvented untill the very last years of the 19th century.

I think that although parts of society did function without slaves...not every worker was a slave....the economy would have collapsed without slavery.


Therefore it comes pretty close to Marxian view of slave society.

[Tim Finnegan]

Slavery was certainly important in sustaining the Ottoman Empire as a political entity, but Leo's right in observing that it did not form the empire's economic base; there were, for example, no equivalent to the slave latifunda which held up Classical Rome. Rather, the empire was based on both the feudal and Asiatic modes, depending on the region, which it inherited from its predecessors.

[Leo]

There was an entire class of slaves...called Kuhl. It is actually spelled "kul" and it does not really mean "slave" which is "köle" - it actually means "servant" or "subject", which does give a much more clear idea on what it actually was and what it actually meant.


25% of the population was owned...and the entire economy and state aparatus depended on it. No, the entire state apparatus was considered servants or subjects of the sultan - it was of course a political thing.

I do agree with what Finnegan about the role of this relationship to the economy.


Rather, the empire was based on both the feudal and Asiatic modes, depending on the region, which it inherited from its predecessors. This is also quite close to my personal analysis, and if I was to make a description of the mode of production of the Ottoman Empire, I would have generally called it an Asiatic variant of feudalism with different and changing regional and local characteristics.

[PhoenixAsh]

Thank you for correcting the spelling.

They were owned. Meaning property to be bought and sold. The label to be placed upon them by the society which allowes ownership as objects of human beings really does not negate the fact that they were slaves.

Now...I agree that they were not working the land in such great numbers....mere 25% of the populetaion. But without slavery the whole economic system would have collapsed. The Ottoman empire would not be able to maintain its conquensts, it would not be able to maintain its bureaucracy, its mode of productions and its style of government.

This does not conform 100% with the definition of slave society in Marxism. But then again...neither does Rome. Since the mechanics of the slave trade and system were pretty much the same as those in the Ottoman empire with large amounts of slaves being used in the bureaucracy and government. The estimated percentages are not far apart...estimating between 15% and 35% for the Roman empire.

With the noticeable exception that from 70 BC slaves had their own codex of rights which could be upheld gainst their owners. It wasn't much but it was something.

[Tim Finnegan]

Again, the Ottoman ruling class was not based upon exploitation of slave labour, which was not employed in mass forms (your statistics are a gross over-estimate, presumably because, as Leo suggests, you confuse a formal institution of humans-as-property with a certain from of political subjugation), but upon exploitation of the peasantry, in some regions in a feudal form (i.e. when value is exploited from individual households), and in others in the Asiatic form (i.e. when value is exploited from peasant communes). The mass slavery which you discuss was for the most part a luxury allowed by this exploitation- the feudal and Asiatic forms are both characterised by the re-investment of exploited agricultural surplus in urban development- and, while it certainly achieved an integral part in construction of Ottoman society, it did not represent its economic base.

[PhoenixAsh]

Neither did the slavery in the Roman empire form its economic base. The vast majority, just like in the Ottoman empire, of the workers was formed by non slaves....and large numbers of slaves actually working in domestic, shop/crafts and government/bureaucracy. Where the Romand did have large quaries and agricultural slavery, which was less predominant in the Ottoman empire, its hardly the basis for the economy to a significantly different extend.


It was however so predominant that without it the economies of both empires would have collapsed.

[Tim Finnegan]

Neither did the slavery in the Roman empire form its economic base. The vast majority, just like in the Ottoman empire, of the workers was formed by non slaves....and large numbers of slaves actually working in domestic, shop/crafts and government/bureaucracy. Where the Romand did have large quaries and agricultural slavery, which was less predominant in the Ottoman empire, its hardly the basis for the economy to a significantly different extend.
I think you underestimate the significance of slave agriculture in the Roman Empire. While it's certainly true that a great number of agricultural workers were non-slaves, the dominant mode of production, the "Ancient" or "Antique", was founded upon the extraction of surplus value by propertied classes from slaves. This social relationship was at the heart of Roman civic life- the Classical city was, at Marx explains, an evolution of the primitive commune, with citizens as the membership and slaves as their accumulated property- and thus the foundation of Roman political and social organisation. (Noting that all this is prior to the development of mass tenancy in the Late Empire, which obviously constitutes something entirely different.) In the Ottoman Empire, however, the ruling class extracted value from the peasantry through the Feudal or Asiastic modes (or, as Leo suggested, arguably some synthesis), thus dictating a wholly distinct form of political and social organisation in which cities were far more peripheral, many existing as what Marx called "princely camps" imposed upon society rather than evolving organically from it, sustained primarily by the distribution of surplus value by the aristocracy.


It was however so predominant that without it the economies of both empires would have collapsedQuite the same applies to electricity in the modern world- just look at North Korea when the Soviet and Chinese subsidies ran out. We don't consider ourselves to exist in an "electric mode of production", though, do we?

[chegitz guevara]

What are some good historical materialist works on the subject?

There is a particular Turkish economist who delves into this, but he's somewhat of a pariah in the West because he's a questioner of the Armenian holocaust. Of course, in Turkey, it is illegal to say that such a thing happened, so.... His name is Halil İnalcık.

Ignore Lord Kinross', The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire. His book is readily available, but he glosses over a lot and his history doesn't match up with other writers.

There were three major economic causes of the decline of the Ottomans.

The Ottoman economy was based on silver, and when cheap Spanish silver flooded into Europe, it caused massive inflation. I don't recall offend, but I want to say that silver's price was 10% of what it was.

In addition, the chief source of trade for the Ottomans was it's position as a middle man between Europe and India. Once the Portuguese rounded Africa and defeated the Ottoman and Indian navies there, this source of revenue for the Empire disappeared.

Finally, there was the decision by Suleiman the Great to allow the janissary class to marry. Once these slaves began to have legal children, to whom they could pass their property, they began to have different material interests than the state.

All of these happened in the 16th Century, so it's difficult to point to any one factor as the reason the Ottomans declined, but if I had to pick just one, I'd say it was the last. The janissaries turned out to be an exceedingly conservative class, opposing innovation in technology which challenged their privileged positions. Whereas the Ottomans were the ones who introduced gun powder warfare to Europe, by the of the 16th Century, gun powder technology had increased to the point that it was no longer nobles who could be the military, but ordinary people. As one of the sources of janissary income was looting, obviously allowing anyone to be a soldier was bad for them.

It took the Europeans 100 years to notice that the Ottomans were no longer the unstoppable terror they'd been, because they were too busy tearing themselves apart in the Thirty Years War, and then recovering. The Ottomans, in the meantime, were bleeding themselves in pointless wars against Persia, and wracked by internal civil wars resulting from the inflation.

[chegitz guevara]

I did a lot of research on the Ottomans for a game mod I was working on several years back. If you can wade through the game related stuff, there's a lot of info on the Ottomans.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?145511-Ottomans-1419-1520&daysprune=-1
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?198599-Ottomans-1521-1820&daysprune=-1

[chegitz guevara]

Look up this book: An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1600.