Second State of Braun & Hogenberg’s View of Istanbul
Important early map / birdseye view of Istanbul, from Braun & Hogenberg's monumental town book.
The Braun & Hogenberg view is one of the finest and most sought-after views of Istanbul. Viewed from the village of Scutari, the City is shown with all its fortifications, the original Genouse district of Galata on the opposite bank of the Golden Horn to the right. European galleons and Turkish galleys fill the seas of the Bosporus and Golden Horn. The great buildings of 16th century Istanbul during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent can be clearly seen, including the "Suleymaniye Mosque" and the "Topkapi" palace. The lower center is filled with a parading Turkish horseman and troop of Janissaries.
This is the second state of the view, with the roundel at the right including the portrait of Sultan Murad III, which is blank in state 1.
The following is excerpted from the work of Julian M. Stargardt and his essay on the view:
The original of this map is often incorrectly attributed to Giovanni Andrea Vavassore, called Vadagnino, who created a fine view of Constantinople published in Venice in 1520. Vavassore's view is also said to have influenced the view published in the 1550 and subsequent editions of Sebastian Munster's Cosmographia. Vavassore's view is in turn said to have been based on a 1480 view, now apparently lost, by Venetian artist Giovianni Bellini, who was invited by Mehmet II Fatih, i.e. 'the Conqueror' to Constantinople.
But a closer comparison of the Vavassore, Munster, and Braun & Hogenberg maps or views of Constantinople reveals significant differences. Most notably in the topographic details of the city-scape, especially the Roman remains such as the Hippodrome, today's 'At Meydan', which while not absent in the Vavassore map, is not clearly depicted, whereas it is very clear, detailed and accurate in both the Munster and Braun & Hogenberg maps, as are the locations of churches, palaces and other monuments which are more accurately depicted in the Munster and Braun & Hogenberg maps.
Compared with the Munster map, the Braun and Hogenberg map or view of Constantinople is in particular distinguished and made unique by the portrait of the mounted horseman identified as the Ottoman ruler Suleiman the Magnificent (6 November 1494 - 7 September 1566) who claimed among other titles to be Roman Emperor, a title which even the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V was forced to recognize in 1547.
In his essay Stargardt puts forth evidence that “the title of the map ‘Byzantium Nunc Constantinopolis’ may be a part of Habsuburg anti-Ottoman propaganda. He notes that the origins of the name Byzantium can be found in mythology.
Byzas decided to set sail with his companions to found a colony but before departing he consulted the Oracle at Delphi who gave him the enigmatic advice “Found your colony opposite the land of the blind.” He set sail for the Black Sea intending to join the burgeoning Greek colonies there. But, as he came to the Sea of Marmara entrance to the Bosphorus, he glanced at the flourishing settlement of Chalcedon, today's Kadikoy, on the Asian shore and then across to the European shore where he was struck by the magnificent but uninhabited (by humans at any rate) triangular peninsular pointing at Asia with its family links to his mother and grandmother. To Byzas it seemed clear the settlers of Chalcedon were blind for ignoring the magnificent European location and Byzas decided to found his colony on that spot.
Whatever the truth of these charming legends, the city and state of Byzantium grew from its mythical 6th century BC roots into a rich and flourishing trading state that by at least the 1st century BC had taken the star and crescent moon as its emblem. It remained independent until 196 AD, when it was conquered by Roman forces loyal to Septimus Severus, after having allied itself with the losing side in one of Rome's frequent civil wars. The city suffered in the siege that led to its capture but Severus caused it to be re-built and it continued as an important Roman city. Its highly defensible and strategic location astride maritime and land trade routes from East to West and North to South attracted Constantine the Great and he chose it to replace Rome as the Imperial capital.
Re-dedicated as Constantinople on 11 May 330 AD, a name it was to keep for the next 1,600 years, the new capital of the Roman Empire was self-consciously a Christian city, as opposed to pagan Rome which continued to host pagan traditions in its city government until the late 4th century AD. Constantinople's two principal churches, Hagia Irene and Hagia Sophia, both illustrated on this map and both still standing today, are dedicated to ‘Sacred Peace’ and ‘Sacred Wisdom,’ reflecting the aspirations of the new imperial capital and the new official Christian religion of the Roman Empire.
Constantine the Great encouraged leading Roman families to resettle in Constantinople, and the transfer of wealth and power to Constantinople was reflected in the ascendancy of the city as the new imperial capital over Rome. An ascendancy reinforced when Rome was sacked by invading "barbarians" while Constantinople was not. Though Constantinople was firmly located within the Greek speaking sphere of the Roman Empire, the Court and administrative language continued to be Latin until in or about 620 AD when, according to the later Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, the Emperor Heraclius decreed that Greek would replace Latin as the official language for military and administrative purposes. To suggest to a Latin speaking Roman Emperor like Justinian that either the city he ruled from or his empire was "Byzantine" would, one imagines, not have been greeted favorably. The city of Rome was a hollow shadow of its former glory and glad to accept protection from Justinian and his successors. For the Romans who ruled from Constantinople until Tuesday 29 May 1453, the city was Constantinople and their realm was Roman and that is how their contemporaries, friends or foes, around the world referred to them.
Until the late 16th century the names “Rome,” “Roman” and “Roman Empire” were the accepted names for the Roman Republic, the Roman Empire and what today is generally called the ‘Byzantine Empire.’ The division of the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire is an anachronism with its roots in 16th Century Habsburg anti-Ottoman propaganda. Prior to 1557, "Rome", "Roman Republic" and "Roman Empire" were the accepted names for the geo-political entity that had its mythical origins with Romulus and Remus on or about 21 April 735 BC, with the founding of the city of Rome in Latium, today's Lazio in Italy. Such was the majesty and longevity of the Roman Empire that its name continued to be used to invoke legitimacy long after the Roman Empire's effective demise as a geo-political entity. In the 15th and 16th Century, and to a lesser extent later, the name of Rome was a political hot potato and potent propaganda symbol, particularly in the long running wars between the Habsburgs and the Ottomans. Both sides claimed to be the true heirs of Rome as they struggled for military and political dominance in Europe. To many people today it is strange to reflect that Ottoman Turkey's European borders extended almost to Venice as recently as the late 19th century while its Asian borders extended almost to the Indian Ocean. Braun and Hogenberg’s map “Byzantium Nunc Constantinopolis” may be part of the Habsburg’s propaganda campaign to detach the name “Rome” from the Ottomans.To contemporaries, the name of the city was “Constantinople” as it had been for the previous 1,242 years and was to remain for the next 358 years, until the Turkish Postal Law of 28 March 1930 officially changed the name to Istanbul, itself a vernacular contraction derived from the Greek “eis tin polis” (‘in’ or ‘going to the city,’ i.e. “The City”). In 1572 only a few scholars would have recalled that the city had once been called Byzantium.
* * *
The term “Byzantine” for the Roman empire was first used in 1557 by the Habsburg scholar-librarian Hieronymus Wolf based in Augsburg, the imperial capital of the Holy Roman Empire. Wolf was sponsored by the powerful Fugger banking family whose close ties to the Habsburg dynasty were legendary and whose library was said to be the best in Europe. Wolf uses the name "Byzantine" to identify the latter Roman Empire in his 1557 Corpus Historiae Byzantinae.It seems likely that Wolf consciously used the term Byzantine as a piece of Habsburg anti-Ottoman propaganda at the height of Habsburg-Ottoman rivalry and at a time when the Ottomans were claiming to be the true heirs of Rome, perhaps as a way of legitimizing and making more attractive their rule over a large and, at the time, increasing part of Central, Southern and Eastern Europe. A scant 10 years earlier the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V's ambassadors on behalf of the Holy Roman Empire had been obliged to sign a truce with the Ottomans, the 1547 Truce of Adrianople, in which the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V is identified not as “Holy Roman Emperor” but as “King of Spain,” while the Ottoman Emperor, Suleiman the Magnificent, is identified as ‘Roman Emperor.’ Under the terms of the truce, the Habsburgs recognized Ottoman control of Hungary, did homage to the Ottomans as the Habsburg's overlords in Hungary and paid the Ottomans an annual feudal homage of 30,000 gold ducats for their lands in Hungary. One can almost hear Charles V's teeth gnashing and grinding at the humiliation. These terms were again formalized in the 1568 Treaty of Adrianople. In some senses, though it may seem surprising today, the Ottomans had as good or better claim to call themselves "Roman" as the Habsburgs. The Ottomans were by inter-marriage descended from Roman imperial dynasties, they had conquered much of the former Roman empire, including in 1453 its capital Constantinople, and had absorbed imperial Roman noble families into their society, they believed themselves, or at least held themselves out, to be Rome's heirs as they vied with the Habsburgs for control of the Mediterranean basin.
With the coming of the Reformation the contest became more complex as the Ottomans, in sharp contrast to some so-called Christian nations of the time, practiced religious tolerance and gave safe haven to refugees from political and religious persecution, like the Jews from Spain, or Protestants and Orthodox from Bohemia and Hungary, or Catholics from newly Protestant realms. To the Habsburgs, it must have looked like a life-and-death challenge with the Ottoman super-power whose borders stretched from Venice to Persia, threatening to cut Austria off from the sea, and who besieged Vienna itself in 1521. Little wonder then that Habsburg propagandists seized on whatever material they could to undermine Ottoman legitimacy and strived to undermine Ottoman claims to be heirs to Rome and the Roman Empire.
* * *
It took until the latter 19th century before acceptance was achieved of the names "Byzantine" and "Byzantium" for the Roman Empire. Gibbon in his seminal “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” continued to use “Rome” and “Roman,” not “Byzantine” or “Byzantium.” Though in the latter 19th century the terms Byzantine / Byzantium came to replace Rome and Roman for the latter Roman Empire, to this day debate continues among scholars of the subject as to when to date the “founding” of the Byzantine Empire.The truth is there never was an empire by that name and its leaders and citizens would be enraged or perhaps laugh if they heard their home referred to that way.
The rise in popularity of the terms Byzantine / Byzantium for the latter or Eastern Roman Empire can be traced through the use of the terms by authors such as French author Charles du Fresne Sieur du Cagne (1610-1688) wrote "Historia Byzantina" published in 1680 in Paris by Louis Billaine, which affected the likes of influential French philosopher Montesquieu. In English it was not until George Finlay's (1799-1875) "History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to 1057" (1857) that the term and concept of a Byzantine Empire came into English use. Subsequent scholars have adopted the use of the terms "Byzantine" and "Byzantium" to identify and distinguish the latter Eastern Roman Empire from the earlier empire.
Tying this historical overview back to the view, Stargardt notes:
And thus back to Braun and Hogenberg's beautiful map of Constantinople. Georg Braun was the principal editor of Civitates Orbis Terrarium published between 1572 and 1617, from which the current map comes. . . Braun was a Catholic priest, and Frans Hogenberg was also a Catholic, who to avoid persecution fled his native Mechelen (in today's Belgium) and settled in 1564 in Cologne. Thus both would most likely have been partisans of the Habsburg cause against the Ottomans and taken the opportunity to promote the use of the term “Byzantium” in place of Constantinople, though at least so far as the name of the city is concerned there is some historical validity to the name, it was known as Byzantium before it was rebuilt, expanded and renamed between 324 and 330 AD.
Condition Description
Old color. Minor toning and soiling in the margins.
Reference
Julian M. Stargardt, LL.B., F.R.G.S.; 1572 Byzantium Nunc Constantinopolis – Georg Braun (1541-1622) and Frans Hogenberg (1535-90) (Shared with us in November 2014).
Georg Braun Biography
Georg Braun (1541-1622) was born and died in Cologne. His primary vocation was as Catholic cleric; he spent thirty-seven years as canon and dean at the church St. Maria ad Gradus, in Cologne. Braun was the chief editor of the Civitates orbisterrarum, the greatest book of town views ever published. His job entailed hiring artists, acquiring source material for the maps and views, and writing the text. In this role, he was assisted by Abraham Ortelius. Braun lived into his 80s, and he was the only member of the original team to witness the publication of the sixth volume in 1617.
Frans Hogenberg Biography
Frans Hogenberg (ca. 1540-ca. 1590) was a Flemish and German engraver and mapmaker who also painted. He was born in Mechelen, south of Antwerp, the son of wood engraver and etcher Nicolas Hogenberg. Together with his father, brother (Remigius), uncle, and cousins, Frans was one member of a prominent artistic family in the Netherlands.
During the 1550s, Frans worked in Antwerp with the famous mapmaker Abraham Ortelius. There, he engraved the maps for Ortelius’ groundbreaking first atlas, published in Antwerp in 1570, along with Johannes van Deotecum and Ambrosius and Ferdinand Arsenius. It is suspected he engraved the title page as well. Later, Ortelius supported Hogenberg with information for a different project, the Civitates orbis terrarium (edited by Georg Braun, engraved by Hogenberg, published in six volumes, Cologne, 1572-1617). Hogenberg engraved the majority of the work’s 546 prospects and views.
It is possible that Frans spent some time in England while fleeing from religious persecution, but he was living and working in Cologne by 1580. That is the city where he died around 1590. In addition to his maps, he is known for his historical allegories and portraits. His brother, Remigius, also went on to some fame as an engraver, and he died around the same time as his brother.
Antique Maps Inc.
7463 Girard Ave.
La Jolla, CA 92037
United States
Incredible c. 1570 Duchetti Lafreri-school view of Constantinople
Title:
Costantinopoli
Map maker:
Claudio Duchetti
Place and Year:
Rome, c. 1570
Dimensions:
44 x 30 cm (17 x 12 in)
Technique:
Copperplate engraving
Coloring:
Uncolored
Condition Rating:
VG+
5,400.00
Bird’s-eye-view of Constantinople/Istanbul, as seen from Üsküdar (Scutari), on the Anatolian shore of the Bosphorus. The view follows the cartographic model of the important woodcut of Andrea Vavassore, from Venice. Duchetti likely drew inspiration as well from small views found in the various works of Forlani, Bertelli, and Zenoi. These cartographers produced a significant number of city plans and views, especially in the years 1567-9.
Engraved signature and date by the editor. First state (of two). Shield and star watermark in the paper.
Claude Duchet (Duchetti) was a print dealer and publisher born in France and active in Venice circa 1565-72 and subsequently in Rome. He was the brother of Francesco Duchetti and a nephew of Antonio Lafreri, inheriting half his plates in 1577.
CONDITION NOTES
Excellent impression on thick paper. Small restoration on right side, expertly done; for the rest, excellent conservation.
IDENTIFIER
NL-00471
REFERENCES
Tooley, Maps in Italian Atlases of the Sixteenth Century, 156 I/II; Meurer, The Strabo Atlas, 166; Franco, Novacco Map Collection, 114.
📹 Old color Braun & Hogenbergs birds-eye-view of Istanbul (VİDEO)
Old color Braun & Hogenbergs birds-eye-view of Istanbul (LINK)
Transformations of Istanbul: from Byzantium to Constantinople, to the city we know today.
Unusual map of the Turkish Empire, extending from Corsica and Sardinia to Asia Minor, Cyprus and the Black Sea (LINK)
🔎
Unusual map of the Turkish Empire, extending from Corsica and Sardinia to Asia Minor, Cyprus and the Black Sea.
Includes approximately 25 medallions showing icons of Greek History.
Condition Description
Cancelled Library stamp at bottom left.
Homann Heirs Biography
Homann Heirs was a German publishing firm that enjoyed a major place in the European map market throughout the eighteenth century. Founded in 1702 by Johann Baptist Homann, the business passed to his son, Christoph, upon Johann’s death in 1724. Christoph died in 1730, aged only 27, and the firm was inherited by subsequent Homann heirs. This altered the name of the company, which was known as Homann Erben, or Homann heirs. The firm continued in business until 1848.
Antique Maps Inc.
7463 Girard Ave.
La Jolla, CA 92037
United States
Osmanlılar hiçbir zaman ‘Müslüman’ ya da ‘İslamik’ bir devlet ya da imparatorluk değildiler.
Böyle bir dinsel san devlet kavramına aykırıdır. Devlet uyrukları açısından inanç ayrımı yapmaz. Devlet, tam tersine, kavramı gereği duyunç özgürlüğünü tanır ve uyruklarının duygularına karışma gibi bir sorunu yoktur.
Devlet sonlu istenç alanının son ve en yüksek belirlenimi, etik yaşamın ereğidir. Bir imparatorluk olarak devlet tek bir bireyin istenci, tekerkin istencidir.
Osmanlı İmparatorluğu hiçbir zaman bir ‘Türk’ devleti değildi.
Böyle bir etnik san devlet kavramına aykırıdır ve ulus-devletinin uyrukları özgür “yurttaşlar” iken, bir imparatorluğun uyrukları ise istençsiz kullardır ve dinsel inançları ve etnik karakterleri politik belirlenimler değildir.
Etnik grup dine ilgisizdir, çünkü din evrenseldir.
Etnik grup kendini başka her grubu dışlayarak tekilliği içinde belirler ve tikelliğini ileri sürdüğü zaman kendini insanlığın düşmanı olarak gösterir.
19’uncu yüzyıl sonlarına dek, “Türk” sözcüğü yarı-göçebe, yarı-barbar Oğuz kabilelerini ve Müslümanlığa dönen ve Romalı olmayan etnik grupları anlatmak için kullanılıyordu. (Mevlana “Rumi,” yani “Romalı” olarak bilinir.)
“Romalı” olmak Hıristiyan olmayı gerektirmiyordu.
Osmanlı İmparatorları kendilerini “Roma İmparatorları” olarak kabul ettiler.
Konstantinopolis’in fethinden sonra Osmanlılar yerel bir imparatorluk olmaktan çıkarak gerçek bir dünya gücü oldular.
Fatih Konstantinopolis’i fethettikten sonra Ortodoks Kilisesinin Patriarkı tarafından “Kayser-i Rum” olarak taçlandırıldı.
Suleyman, benzer olarak, ‘Kutsal Roma İmparatoru’ karşısında “Roma İmparatoru” olarak utku kazandı.
Osmanlılar yasal dizgelerinin temeli olarak Justinian Yasalarını kullanmayı sürdürdüler.
Roma vergi dizgesini aşağı yukarı olduğu gibi sürdürdüler.
İmparatorluk sarayının dilinin Yunanca’dan Osmanlıca’ya değişmesine karşın, bürokrasi Hıristiyanlar tarafından yürütüldüğü için Yunanca uzun bir süre yönetim dili olarak kaldı.
İmparatorlukta egemen olan tekerkin istencidir.
İmparatorluka yalnızca tekerk özgürdür ve nüfusun geri kalanı istençsiz uyruklardan oluşur..
İmparatorluk bir devlettir ve devlet kavramı hak eşitiği, duyunç özgürlüğü ve yasa egemenliği tarafından belirlenir.
Batı Roma İmparatorluğunun (Roma İmparatorluğunun Batısının) Germenler tarafından yıkılmasından sonra Batı Avrupa bütünüyle barbar kabilelerin oyun alanı oldu.
1000 yıl kadar sürdüğü kabul edilen Karanlık Orta Çağlar birincil olarak istençsiz, dürtüsel Germanik kabilelerin kültürünü temsil eder.
Bu süre içinde ortaya çıkan “Germanik Krallıklar” bile gerçekte ‘krallıklar’ değildi, çünkü feodalizm devletin yokluğu durumunda ortaya çıkar.
Osmanlı İmparatorluğu da Roma İmparatorluğu gibi etnik-dinsel belirlenimin üstünde ve ötesinde idi.
Tekerk Tanrı tarafından aklanma gereksiniminde durur, çünkü uyruklarının haklarının ve evrensel yasa egemenliğinin kaynağı olmak için tekerkin sonlu gücü yetersizdir.
Tekerkliğinin saltık özgürlüğü ile, İmparator ya kendisi Tanrıdır, ya Tanrı tarafından atanmıştır, ya da Tanrının gölgesidir.
İmparatorluk duyunç özgürlüğünü tanır, çünkü inanç ancak özgür duyuncun yeteneğidir.
İmparatorluk evrensel insan hakları, duyunç özgürlüğü ve yasa egemenliği kavramları ile kendi ortadan kalkışının zeminini geliştirir.
Özgürlük kavramının bilinci ile birlikte doğan Ulus-Devlet etnik karakterleri tanımaz, onları silmekte olan sürekli oluş sürecidir.
Ulus Tanrı tarafından aklanma gereksiniminde değildir, çünkü egemenlik saltık olarak ulusundur, ve egemenlik üzerinde daha yüksek hiçbir istenci tanımayan saltık istençtir.
Modern dönem özgürlük dönemidir.
“Rhomaioi” etnik bir terim değildir.
Etnik Germanik kabileler Roma İmparatorluğunun Batı bölümünü tarihten silerek bir ardıllık sorununu da ortadan kaldırdılar. Orta Çağlar birincil olarak boşinanç, feodalizm ve kültürel barbarlık ile tanımlanan karanlık bir dönemdir. İmparatorluğun ardılları olmaları gereken Germanik Avrupa krallıkları Roma İmparatorluğunu açıkça düşman olarak gördüler.
Büyük Selçuklu İmparatorluğu devlet dili olarak Pers dilini kullandı.
Anadolu Selçukluları kendilerini Roma Sultanlığı olarak gördüler.
Tarihi istenç yapar ve ön-modern dönemde istenç imparatora aittir. Tarihi imparatorlar belirler çünkü yalnızca imparator özgürdür. Halklara tarihte yalnızca istençsiz uyruklar rolünü oynamak düşer. Modern egemen ulus-devletler ortaya çıktığı zaman imparatorluk gereksizdir ve tarihin işi tamamlanmıştır.
Etnik grup politik bir kavram değildir, çünkü özgür değildir ya da istençsizdir.
İmparatorlukta yalnızca tekerk özgürdür ve politika yalnızca onun istencidir.
Ulus egemendir, çünkü özgürdür ve tüm politika onun istencidir.
Yasa etnik ayrım yapmaz, çünkü evrenseldir.
Evrensel moral doğrular bir etnik gruptan bir başkasına değişmez.
Etik evrenseldir ve özü olan özgür, evrensel bireysellik karakteri yoluyla tikel etnik karekterleri ortadan kaldırır.
Etnik karakter ne hak, ne ahlak, ne de etik kavramlarını tanır, ve bir devletin kuruluşu ve varoluşu için gerekli olanlar yalnızca bu kavramlardır.
Etnisite politik ve dolayısıyla tarihsel bir kavram değildir.
Etnisitenin politik ilgisi politikayı olumsuzlamaktır.
Etnik karakterde hak kavramının yerini güç doldurur.
Etnik karakter moral nitelikten yoksundur, çünkü özgür değildir.
Etnik karakter yasayı anlamaz, tanımaz, ve çiğner.
Etnik gruplar hiçbir zaman devlet kurmaz ve hiçbir zaman devlet olmazlar.
Modern devletler özgür ulus bilinci tarafından kurulur.
Persler Medlere karşı üstünlüğü ele geçirdikleri zaman, ‘Pers İmparatorluğu’ Kyrus’un İmparatorluğu idi. Selçukluları Tuğrul Bey kurdu, ve Horasan’daki etnik Oğuzlar yalnızca onun istencini kabul ettiler. “Yahudi devleti” anlatımı da bir oxymorondur ve böyle etnik ‘devletler’ ulus istenci üzerine dayanmazlar.
Osmanlı İmparatorluğu dünya tarihinde en uzun süreli ve en güçlü imparatorluklardan biri idi. 1299’da Osmanlı Beyliği olarak başladı ve bir imparatorluğa gelişti.
1453’te Roma İmparatorluğunu sonlandırdı ve Konstantinopolis’i başkenti yaptı.
Osmanlı tini yalnızca Selçuklulardan kalıt alınan bir karakter değildi; Roma İmparatorluğu ile de ilişki içinde biçimlendi.
600 yıl boyunca, 36 sultan Orta Doğu, Doğu Avrupa ve Kuzey Afrika’da egemen oldu.
Osmanlı İmparatorluğu bir tekerklik olduğu için, Sultan biricik egemen idi ve egemenliğini dinsel ya da dünyasal başka hiçbir istenç ile paylaşmadı.
Osmanlı İmparatorluğu dinsel bir devlet değil, dünyasal bir güç idi ve bir imparatorluk olduğu için uyrukları arasında etnik ve dinsel ayrım tanımadı.
Halifelik kurumu yalnızca dinsel bir topluluk olarak “Ummah” için önderliği temsil ediyordu, toplumsal ya da politik bir gücü değil. Modern kültürde bir yeri olmadığı için zamanı geldiğinde silindi.
Osmanlı hanedan kuralı tekerkliğin sürekliliğinin güvencesi oldu.
Osmanlı İmparatorluğunun toprak alanı doruk zamanında yaklaşık 5,2 milyon km2 idi.
Trajan zamanında Roma İmparatorluğunun toprak alanı yaklaşık 5 milyon km2 idi.
Trajan zamanında Roma İmparatorluğu.
En geniş düzeyinde Osmanlı İmparatorluğu.
Başkaları arasında, Osmanlılar da İmparatorluklarını Roma İmparatorluğunun sürdürülmesi olarak gördüler. Konstantinopolis'in düşüşünden sonra II. Mehmet Kayser-i Rum (Roma'nın Sezarı) ya da Roma İmparatoru sanını üstlendi ve Ortodoks Konstantinopolis Patriği tarafından bu san ile tanındı. Mehmet'ın Bizans İmparatorluk ailesi ile kan bağı vardı, çünkü önceli olan Sultan I. Orhan bir Roma prensesi ile evlenmişti.
Din ayrımı nedeniyle Türkler Klasik Yunan ve Roma etkisi altında olmaktan çok Pers ve Arap etkisi altında kaldılar. Roma İmparatorluğu ‘Hıristiyanlığın’ kabul edilmesi ile moral bir bozulma sürecine girdi, çünkü Hıristiyanlık Roma Katolik biçiminde yalnızca politeizmin yeni putlar yoluyla sürdürülmesi olarak kalmaz, insanların duyunçlarının da efendisi olur. Roma Katolik Hıristiyanlık insanları moral ve törel yaşamlarına ilgisiz olan ve onları kendi erdemlerini geliştirmeye bırakan Klasik Mitoloji ile karşıtlık içinde, inancı bir dinadamları sınıfı ve kurumsal kilise ile dolaylı kılar, duyunç özgürlüğünü ortadan kaldırır. “Katolik Hıristiyanlık’ ve ‘Roma İmparatorluğu’ terimleri de çelişkili bir bileşim oluşturur ve çelişki ortadan kalkacağı için çelişkidir.
Roma İmparatorluğu Batıda Germanik barbar kabilelerin ezici güçleri karşısında dayanamazken, Doğuda bin yıl kadar daha varlığını sürdürmeyi başardı. Ama bu bütününde yalnızca ortadan kalkış olan bir varoluş idi. ‘Ordotoks Roma İmparatorluğu’ Hıristiyanlığın erken biçimlerinin yol açtığı moral ve etik bozulma nedeniyle yalnızca yitişine doğru evrimlenen demode bir imparatorluk idi. Bu düzeye dek Roma İmparatorluğu ve Osmanlı İmparatorluğu arasındaki süreklilik anlamsızdır. Osmanlılar Müslüman idiler. Kendi dillerini, yasalarını, sanatlarını geliştiriyorlardı ve bu konularda Roma tini ile aralarında mimari öykünme dışında bir süreklilik yoktu. Osmanlıların Roma politik kurumlarından yararlanmış olmaları onları “Romalı’ yapmak için yetersizdir, çünkü politik yapılar etnik ya da dinsel tikelliklerin tersine evrenseldirler. Cengiz Han’ın devlet yönetiminde Uygurlardan yararlanması ya da benzer olarak Perslerin Medleri, Selçukluların Persleri kullanmaları yeni imparatorlukları eskilerinin bir sürdürülmesi yapmaz. Her imparatorluk imparatorun istencinde bir tekerkliktir ve tekerk egemendir.
Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ve Kutsal Roma İmparatorluğu
15’inci yüzyılda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu büyümesini sürdürürken, Avrupa’da karanlık Orta Çağlar kapanmaya henüz başlamıştı.
Roma İmparatorluğunun kendisi varlığını sürdürürken varolan ‘Kutsal Roma İmparatorluğu’ Avrupa’da devletlerin oluşumunu önceleyen özel bir Gotik ‘devlet’ türü olarak ortaya çıktı.
Feodalizm ancak erksiz bir tek-erklik olan “Kutsal Roma İmparatorluğu” altında ortaya çıkabilecek bir haksızlık ve ahlaksızlık durumu idi.
“ Kutsal Roma İmparatorluğu”nun varlığı feodal bir derebeyleri kalabalığının izni ve onayı üzerine bağımlı idi.
“Kutsal Roma İmparatorluğu” feodal Germanik prensliklerin bir konfederasyonu idi.
‘Kutsal’ olmasının anlamı sanal imparatorun papa tarafından kutsanmış olması demektir.
Papalığın kendisinin dinsel bir nitelik taşımaması bir yana, feodal prenslerin seçimi yoluyla atanan bir ‘imparator’ gerçekte ne bir tekerk ne de başka herhangi bir yolda politik bir erktir.
Kutsal Roma İmparatorluğu papalık ile birlikte haçlı seferlerinin başlıca destekleyicisi idi.
4’üncü Haçlı Seferinde Konstantinopolis yağma ve yıkımın ardından işgal edildi ve Roma İmparatorluğunun yeri ‘Latin İmparatorluğu’ tarafından alındı.
Bu ‘Latinler’ Latin değil, ama Germanik feodal prenslikler ve Venedikli paralı askerler idi.
“Kutsal Roma İmparatorluğu,” feodalizm, karanlık Orta Çağlar bir ve aynı realiteyi anlatırlar.
Bu yaşam biçiminde hak, ahlak ve etik konu dışıdır.
İnsanların varoluş koşullarına katlanmaları için bir öte-dünya beklentisi zorunlu idi.
Roma Katolik Kilisesi Avrupalı köylülerin bu gereksinimini onları bir kez daha aldatarak karşılıyordu.
“Kutsal Roma İmparatorluğu” bir “kurum/institution” olarak imparatorluk idi (Britannica).
Kutsal Roma İmparatorluğu, 1630 (modern sınırlar üzerine yerleştirilmiş olarak). — Yaklaşık 8 milyonluk bir nüfusa egemen olan İmparatorluk Habsburg Hanedanının elinde bulunuyordu. İmparatorun kendi aralarında imparatora karşı bağlaşmalar kuran prensler üzerinde hiçbir gücü yoktu. Kendine ait bir adı bile olmayan Germanik seçim İmparatorluğunun ‘Roma’ İmparatorluğu ile tarihsel bir bağı yoktur.
Germenlerin Roma İmparatorluğunu ilişkilerinin sonucu İmparatorluğu harabeye çevirmek oldu. Ostrogotlar ve Lombardlar politik yapıları olmayan barbar kabile federasyonları idiler ve Roma İmparatorluğu ile ilişkileri zorunlu olarak yağma, talan ve yok edicilik biçimini aldı.
Holy Roman Empire, German Heiliges Römisches Reich, Latin Sacrum Romanum Imperium, the varying complex of lands in western and central Europe ruled over first by Frankish and then by German kings for 10 centuries (800-1806).
The precise term Sacrum Romanum Imperium dates only from 1254, though the term Holy Empire reaches back to 1157, and the term Roman Empire was used from 1034 to denote the lands under Conrad II’s rule. The term Roman emperor is older, dating from Otto II (died 983). This title, however, was not used by Otto II’s predecessors, from Charlemagne (or Charles I) to Otto I, who simply employed the phrase imperator augustus (“august emperor”) without any territorial adjunct. The first title that Charlemagne is known to have used, immediately after his coronation in 800, is “Charles, most serene Augustus, crowned by God, great and pacific emperor, governing the Roman empire.”This clumsy formula, however, was soon discarded.
These questions about terms reveal some of the problems involved in the nature and early history of the empire. It can be regarded as a political institution, or approached from the point of view of political theory, or treated in the context of the history of Christendom as the secular counterpart of a world religion. The history of the empire is also not to be confused or identified with the history of its constituent kingdoms, Germany and Italy, though clearly they are interrelated. The constituent territories retained their identity; the emperors, in addition to the imperial crown, also wore the crowns of their kingdoms. Finally, whereas none of the earlier emperors from Otto I had assumed the imperial title until actually crowned by the pope in Rome, after Charles V none was emperor in this sense, though all laid claim to the imperial dignity as if they had been duly crowned as well as elected. Despite these anomalies and others, the empire, at least in the Middle Ages, was by common assent, along with the papacy, the most important institution of western Europe.
Theologians, lawyers, popes, ecclesiastics, rulers, rebels like Arnold of Brescia and Cola di Rienzo, literary figures like Dante and Petrarch, and the practical men, members of the high nobility, on whom the emperors relied for support, all saw the empire in a different light and had their own ideas of its origin, function, and justification. Among these heterogeneous and often incompatible views, three may be said to predominate: (1) the papal theory, according to which the empire was the secular arm of the church, set up by the papacy for its own purposes and therefore answerable to the pope and, in the last resort, to be disposed of by him; (2) the imperial, or Frankish, theory, which placed greater emphasis on conquest and hegemony as the source of the emperor’s power and authority and according to which he was responsible directly to God; and (3) the popular, or Roman, theory (the “people” at this stage being synonymous with the nobility and in this instance with the Roman nobility), according to which the empire, following the tradition of Roman law, was a delegation of powers by the Roman people. Of the three theories the last was the least important; it was evidently directed against the pope, whose constitutive role it implicitly denied, but it was also a specifically Italian reaction against the predominance in practice of Frankish and German elements.
The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was a land of many polities. In the empire there were some 1,000 separate, semi-autonomous
political units, many of them very small — such as the Imperial Knights, direct vassals of the
emperor and particularly numerous in the southwest, who might each own only part of one
village — and others comparable in size with smaller independent states elsewhere, such as
Scotland or the Dutch Republic. At the top came the lands of the Austrian Habsburgs,
covering the elective kingdoms of Bohemia and Hungary, as well as Austria, the Tyrol, and
Alsace, with about 8,000,000 inhabitants; next came electoral Saxony, Brandenburg, and
Bavaria, with more than 1,000,000 subjects each; and then the Palatinate, Hesse, Trier,
and Württemberg, with about 500,000 each.
Tarihin güçlü imparatorlukları ve köklü uygarlıkları varlıklarını sürdürürken ne güçlü ne de uygar olan göçebe barbarların varolan devletleri ortadan kaldırıp tarih sahnesinde baş rolü üstlenmeleri yalnızca dikkate çeken bir olay olmanın ötesindedir. Anlaşılması gerekir. Altaylı göçmenler durumunda olan şey az çok benzer olarak Germanik barbarlar durumunda da olmaya başladı ve bu ilkel kabileler de kuzeyden Roma İmparotorluğunun uygar topraklarına inerken İmparatorluk az çok varlığını sürdürüyordu. Bu görkemli ama tükenmekte olan gücün kültürsüz, uygarlıksız ama tinsel olarak aç barbarlara yenik düşmesinin ve onlara boyun eğmesinin zorunluğu bir açıklamayı gerektirir.
Önce Germenler ve sonra Türkler aynı güçlü imparatorluğun Hıristiyanlaşmış iki parçasını, sırasıyla Batı Roma İmparatorluğunu ve Doğu Roma İmparatorluğunu ortadan kaldırdılar. Doğu Roma İmparatorluğu Osmanlı İmparatorluğuna dönüştürüldü. Batı Roma İmparatorluğu “Kutsal Roma İmparatorluğu”na dönüştürüldü. Birincisi — Osmanlı İmparatorluğu — tarihsel olarak güçlü idi. İkincisi — Kutsal Roma İmparatorluğu — yalnızca kağıt üzerinde bir 'devlet' adını taşıyordu. Birincisi büyüklüğünü dünya tarihinde hiçbir zaman baş role yükselmeden sürdürdü, her zaman ön-modern kaldı, ve bir Cumhuriyet olduktan sonra zamanla özgür Osmanlı tini despotik Türkmen tini karşısında çözüldü. İkincisi tarihsel olarak güçsüz, anlamsız ve önemsiz görünmesine karşın dünya tarihini yeniden açtı ve modern tinin doğum yeri oldu. Kurnaz Arapların değil, güçlü Osmanlıların değil, ince İtalyanların değil, gösteriş ve görkem düşkünü Fransızların da değil, ama Germanik köylülerin dünya tarihsel olmaları ve modern tinin yapısını belirlemeleri bir ikinci açıklamayı gerektirir.
Açıklama tarihin istencin işi olmasına bağlıdır. Reformasyonun tüm aptallıklarına, ilkelliklerine ve kabalıklarına karşın, Roma Katolik Kilisesinin dışsal dinsel yetkesini reddetti ve hiç kuşkusuz istemeden ve ayrımsamadan duyuncu saltık olarak özgürleştirdi. Özgür İstenci tanımayan Luther evrensel Özgür İstencin tarih sahnesine girmesine öncülük etti.
İslam evrensel eşitlik kavramında Hıristiyanlık ile ortaktır, ama bu eşitlik özgür insanların değil, kulların eşitliğidir. İslam insanı özgür olarak değil, kul olarak tanır — başkasının kulu olarak değil, Tanrının kulu olarak, ve Tanrının eşit kulları olarak. Kul tarih yapmaz. Ve İslamik tin en sonunda kul olduğunu anlayıncaya dek tarih yapmayı sürdürdü. Sonra tarihten çekildi.
Sola scriptura hiç kuşkusuz arada bir usun pırıltısını yansıtan ama çoğunlukla saçmalıklardan oluşan insan yazılarının, düşüncesiz, dikkatsiz, giderek ahlaksız yazarların yazılarının danışılacak, başvurulacak ve güvenilecek biricik yetke olduğunu anlatıyordu. Ama bu yetkenin yetkesi insan duyuncu idi. Sola scripturanın yetkesi onu özgürce yargılayacak olan bireyden başka birşey, onun özgür duyuncundan başka birşey değildi. Bu duyunç özgürlüğünün doğuşu ile papalık ve rahiplik silindi, tüm dinsel kurumsal yetke yitip gitti.
Luther ya da Calvin ya da başka önderler "beni" dinleyin ve izleyin dediklerinde onlar da bir süre sonra hiç kimsenin onları dinlemediğini gördüler. Kuzeyin ve Güneyin Protestanlığı kabul eden ülkelerinde bireysellik tüm dizginlerinden boşandı. Ve — bir serfler nüfusu durumunda beklenmesi gerektiği gibi — eski kölenin yeni özgürlüğü ilkin şiddet, zorbalık ve zulüm eylemlerinde sonuçlandı. Duyunç özgürlüğü aşağı yurakı hiç gelişmemiş duyuncun kendisini geliştirmek için kazanılmıştı. Eski köleler ilkin kaçınılmaz olarak özgürlüğü dilediğini yapma özgürlüğü olarak, dilediğini seçme özgürlüğü olarak, haksızlık ve ahlaksızlık ve yasasızlık olarak anladılar.
Bu dizginsizlik içinde, Reformasyon savaşları Avrupa nüfusunun üçte birinin kırılmasında sonuçlandı. Özgür duyunç pekala kendini de yargılayabilir ve yaptığını anlayabilirdi. Ama Avrupa'da, özellikle Kuzey Avrupa'da binlerce yıl boyunca uygarlık ile tanışmamış hordalar ilk kez düşünmeye başlıyordu.
Özgürlük korkutucudur çünkü eylem, değişim, yenilik getirir. Ve sorumluluk gerektirir. İnsana kişilik kazandırır, onu büyütür, yetkeyi dinlemekten kurtarır, düşünmeyi öğrenmeyi, özgür yargıda bulunmayı gerektirir. Tüm bunlar kul için dayanılmazdır. Kul hiçlik olmayı ve öyle kalmayı yeğler — kul değil ama homo sapiens olduğunu anlayıncaya dek.
During the 16th and 17th centuries, at the height of its power under the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, the Ottoman Empire was a multinational, multilingual empire controlling most of Southeast Europe, parts of Central Europe, Western Asia, parts of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, North Africa and the Horn of Africa. At the beginning of the 17th century, the empire contained 32 provinces and numerous vassal states. Some of these were later absorbed into the Ottoman Empire, while others were granted various types of autonomy during the course of centuries.
With Constantinople as its capital and control of lands around the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was at the centre of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for six centuries.
While the empire was once thought to have entered a period of decline following the death of Suleiman the Magnificent, this view is no longer supported by the majority of academic historians.The empire continued to maintain a flexible and strong economy, society and military throughout the 17th and much of the 18th century. However, during a long period of peace from 1740 to 1768, the Ottoman military system fell behind that of their European rivals, the Habsburg and Russian empires. The Ottomans consequently suffered severe military defeats in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, which prompted them to initiate a comprehensive process of reform and modernisation known as the Tanzimat. Thus, over the course of the 19th century, the Ottoman state became vastly more powerful and organised, despite suffering further territorial losses, especially in the Balkans, where a number of new states emerged.
The empire allied with Germany in the early 20th century, hoping to escape from the diplomatic isolation which had contributed to its recent territorial losses, and thus joined World War I on the side of the Central Powers.While the Empire was able to largely hold its own during the conflict, it was struggling with internal dissent, especially with the Arab Revolt in its Arabian holdings. During this time, atrocities were committed by the Young Turk government against the Armenians, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks.
The word Ottoman is a historical anglicisation of the name of Osman I, the founder of the Empire and of the ruling House of Osman (also known as the Ottoman dynasty). Osman's name in turn was the Turkish form of the Arabic name ʿUthmān (عثمان). In Ottoman Turkish, the empire was referred to as Devlet-i ʿAlīye-yi ʿOsmānīye (دولت عليه عثمانیه), (literally “The Supreme Ottoman State”) or alternatively ʿOsmānlı Devleti (عثمانلى دولتى). In Modern Turkish, it is known as Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ("The Ottoman Empire") or Osmanlı Devleti ("The Ottoman State").
The Turkish word for "Ottoman" (Osmanlı) originally referred to the tribal followers of Osman in the fourteenth century, and subsequently came to be used to refer to the empire's military-administrative elite. In contrast, the term “Turk” (Türk) was used to refer to the Anatolian peasant and tribal population, and was seen as a disparaging term when applied to urban, educated individuals.In the early modern period, an educated urban-dwelling Turkish-speaker who was not a member of the military-administrative class would refer to himself neither as an Osmanlı nor as a Türk, but rather as a Rūmī (رومى), or "Roman", meaning an inhabitant of the territory of the former Byzantine Empire in the Balkans and Anatolia. The term Rūmī was also used to refer to Turkish-speakers by the other Muslim peoples of the empire and beyond.
In Western Europe, the two names "Ottoman Empire" and "Turkey" were often used interchangeably, with "Turkey" being increasingly favoured both in formal and informal situations. This dichotomy was officially ended in 1920-23, when the newly established Ankara-based Turkish government chose Turkey as the sole official name. Most scholarly historians avoid the terms "Turkey", "Turks", and "Turkish" when referring to the Ottomans, due to the empire's multinational character.
(B) “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Türk kabileleri tarafından kuruldu.”
(B) “Roma İmparatorluğu” terimi yerine “shrinking Christian Byzantine state.”
(B) “The Ottomans were leaders of the Turkish warriors for the faith of Islam (= ghazi).”
Ottoman Empire, empire created by Turkish tribes in Anatolia (Asia Minor) that grew to be one of the most powerful states in the world during the 15th and 16th centuries. The Ottoman period spanned more than 600 years and came to an end only in 1922, when it was replaced by the Turkish Republic and various successor states in southeastern Europe and the Middle East. At its height the empire encompassed most of southeastern Europe to the gates of Vienna, including present-day Hungary, the Balkan region, Greece, and parts of Ukraine; portions of the Middle East now occupied by Iraq, Syria, Israel, and Egypt; North Africa as far west as Algeria; and large parts of the Arabian Peninsula. The term Ottoman is a dynastic appellation derived from Osman I, the nomadic Turkmen chief who founded both the dynasty and the empire about 1300.
The Ottoman State To 1481: The Age Of Expansion
The first period of Ottoman history was characterized by almost continuous territorial expansion, during which Ottoman dominion spread out from a small northwestern Anatolian principality to cover most of southeastern Europe and Anatolia. The political, economic, and social institutions of the classical Islamic empires were amalgamated with those inherited from Byzantium and the great Turkish empires of Central Asia and were reestablished in new forms that were to characterize the area into modern times.
Orhan.
Origins and expansion of the Ottoman state, c. 1300-1402
In their initial stages of expansion, the Ottomans were leaders of the Turkish warriors for the faith of Islam, known by the honorific title ghāzī (Arabic: “raider”), who fought against the shrinking Christian Byzantine state.
The ancestors of Osman I, the founder of the dynasty, were members of the Kayı tribe who had entered Anatolia along with a mass of Turkmen Oğuz nomads. Those nomads, migrating from Central Asia, established themselves as the Seljuq dynasty in Iran and Mesopotamia in the mid-11th century, overwhelmed Byzantium after the Battle of Manzikert (1071), and occupied eastern and central Anatolia during the 12th century.
The ghazis fought against the Byzantines and then the Mongols, who invaded Anatolia following the establishment of the Il-Khanid (Ilhanid) empire in Iran and Mesopotamia in the last half of the 13th century. With the disintegration of Seljuq power and its replacement by Mongol suzerainty, enforced by direct military occupation of much of eastern Anatolia, independent Turkmen principalities — one of which was led by Osman — emerged in the remainder of Anatolia.
During the 16th century the institutions of society and government that had been evolving in the Ottoman dominions for two centuries reached the classical forms and patterns that were to persist into modern times. The basic division in Ottoman society was the traditional Middle Eastern distinction between a small ruling class of Ottomans (Osmanlı) and a large mass of subjects called rayas (reʿâyâ). Three attributes were essential for membership in the Ottoman ruling class: profession of loyalty to the sultan and his state; acceptance and practice of Islam and its underlying system of thought and action; and knowledge and practice of the complicated system of customs, behaviour, and language known as the Ottoman Way. Those who lacked any of those attributes were considered to be members of the subject class, the “protected flock” of the sultan.
📹 Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal Empires — Khan Academy (VİDEO)
Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal Empires — Khan Academy (LINK)
- [Sal] We are now going to go further in our study of the evolution of the empires in Asia. And in this video, we're going to focus on what happens in North India, Persia, the Middle East, and the Anatolian peninsula, what we would consider modern-day Turkey. So right here is roughly what Asia looked like around the year 1300. As you might remember from previous videos, as we entered into the 13th century, you have Genghis Khan or Genghis Khan take over much of Asia from Mongolia. But by the time you get to 1300, the empire has fragmented into these various khanates. The Yuan Dynasty in China, Chagatai Khanate in Central Asia, the Golden Horde in Northwest Asia, and the Ilkhanate in Persia and the Middle East.
Now, two things to keep note of as we look at this map that are relevant to this video is notice this tiny little kingdom right over here. This is one of the many fragmented kingdoms that result after the Sultanate of Rum collapses in the middle of the 13th century. This kingdom in particular is founded by someone by the name of Osman, or the Arabic version of the name would be Uthman or Othman. And so this is the nascent Ottoman empire forming right over here. And over here you have the Delhi Sultanate, which was the first significant Muslim empire over in North India. And notably, they were one of the few empires that were able to fend off the Mongols. But now let's fast forward roughly 100 years. Now a few things have changed. The Ming Dynasty has taken over the Yuan Dynasty in the middle of the 14th century. The Mongols in the east are now relegated to the Northern Yuan Dynasty, but there still is the Chagatai Khanate and the Golden Horde. But much of their territory, including the Ilkhanate, has now been taken over by Timur, who we talk about in previous videos. And Timur famously sacked Delhi and really brought the Delhi Sultanate to its knees and as we will see, it will only last for roughly another 100 years.
Now, you might also notice that the Ottoman empire, founded by Osman or Othman is continuing to grow and continuing to conquer. Now one thing to keep in mind. In previous videos, we talk about the invention of gunpowder in Tang China and the early Song dynasty, which was about four to five hundred years before the period that we're talking about right now. But as we get into this period, we are now starting to see the use of gunpowder for guns and in particular artillery. And when I say artillery, think cannons. So let's fast forward another 200 years to see how the empires of Asia have evolved. So now we see several things. The Ming Dynasty is still in control of much of China. The Northern Yuan are still in Mongolia. You have a Kazakh Khanate, descendant from the Mongols.
By the late 16th and early 17th century the Ottoman Empire has now expanded significantly, encompassing much of the Middle East. In Persia, you see that the Timurid Empire fell within a few decades after the death of Timur. And as we enter into the 16th century, you have the Safavid Dynasty take over. And then also in the 16th century, almost coincident with the founding of the Safavid Dynasty in Persia, you have Timur's grandson's great-grandson, Babur, who's born in current-day Uzbekistan, is able to defeat the Delhi Sultanate and establish the Mughal Empire. And Mughal is just the Persian word for Mongol and Babur is a direct descendant of Timur on his father's side and of Genghis Khan on his mother's side.
Now, many historians often group these three empires or dynasties together because they do share some commonalities. And so let's think about each of them individually and think about where they are similar and where they are different. Not a lot is known about Osman who founds that first kingdom in the Anatolian peninsula. It's a Sunni Islamic empire. In fact, the leader is eventually named a caliph. The ruling class of this empire is Turkish. Now, one of their distinguishing characteristics is what's known as the Devshirme system in which the Sultan, the Emperor, would have a personal army of what could be called slaves, these Janissaries. These Janissaries were actually Christian boys taken at a young age and then indoctrinated into the Janissary system. The reason why I said you can kind of call them slaves is that although they were forced to become Janissaries and taken from their families, they were given many privileges and over time, many of these Janissaries became some of the most notable figures in the Ottoman Empire, some of them even becoming the Grand Vizier, effectively ruling over the empire. Now, the Ottomans are also known for one of the earliest empires to very successfully to use gunpowder in battle.
The Safavids, as you can see here, were really founded in the very early 16th century, officially 1501, by their founder Shah Ismail, sometimes known as Ismail I. And he is the heir to a religious dynasty, the Safavias. It is a Muslim dynasty, like the Ottoman Empire, but unlike the Ottoman Empire, it is based on Twelver Shia Islam. Twelver Shia is the major group of Shias today and it is based on the belief of 12 imams following Mohammed starting with Ali and we have videos on the Sunni-Shia split. Now, even though Ismail spoke Turkish and was raised in a Turkic society, this dynasty brought back much of the culture of Ancient Persia. In fact, it's viewed as the first dynasty since the Sassanids that actually had native Persian rule and brought back that Persian culture, part of which is using the word Shah. You remember Cyrus the Great, the Shahanshah, the King of Kings. Now they had what is known as Ghulams, which is very similar to the idea of a Janissary. These are slave soldiers which are taken as captives but then are raised to be an elite military unit and eventually often have significant wealth and significant power. Now you might be wondering, why did any of these empires and these aren't the only ones, you have the Mamluks and other Muslim empires. Why would people create these elite soldiers out of slaves and give them that much power? Well, the answer is, they were the safest people to give power to. Remember, these empires are ruling over many tribes and many groups and many kingdoms that are constantly vying for power, trying to establish their own dynasties. And if you allowed people from those various tribes to protect you as Emperor, well, there might be a good shot that one of them might want to kill you and establish their own dynasty. But from a young age, if you could indoctrinate these young boys as Ghulams, or as Janissaries, well, they might be more loyal to you. And indeed, it did provide an unusual amount of stability.
As I mentioned, the Mughal Empire was able to be founded by Babur, who was Timur's great-grandson's grandson and he, too, was born in a Turco-Mongolian tradition. As he's able to famously defeat the Delhi Sultanate which had already been significantly weakened, one, on its own, but then by Timur over 100 years before, he famously comes to power with the aid of gunpowder, being able to defeat a significantly larger Delhi Sultanate army. The Mughals practiced Sunni Islam but they ruled over a large Hindu majority, and so the first several Mughal rulers were actually quite tolerant. Perhaps the most tolerant was Akbar, often known as Akbar the Great, who we'll do other videos on, who actually tried to create a religion which was a merger between Islam and Hinduism and Jainism and Christianity. But then they become less tolerant under Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb. Shah Jahan famous for building the Taj Mahal for his wife, but what's often not noted is he was building this fairly grand mausoleum at a time when there was a famine in India and he was also known as being fairly intolerant and persecuted many Hindus and Sikhs and his son, Aurangzeb, continued to do so.
Now, some historians will refer to these three empires as the Gunpowder Empires. If someone says Gunpowder Empires, they're referring to these three. The reason why they're called that is this view that these major centralized empires were able to form only with the power of gunpowder. The Ottomans, famous for early use of artillery. The Mughals, Babur in particular, came to power with gunpowder. But today, historians are somewhat skeptical of grouping just these three empires as Gunpowder Empires. You had many other large centralized empires form before the use of gunpowder. So that whole thesis is not as popular today.
Historical debate on the origins and nature of the Ottoman state
İmparatorluklar ön-modern despotik döneme aittir ve onlar durumunda özgür modern dönemin kategorileri geçerli değildir.
İmparatorluk ne etniktir ne de dinsel.
İmparatorluk etnik ayrımlara ilgisizdir, çünkü etnik karakter politik bir belirlenim değildir.
İmparatorluk dinsel inanç türlülüğünün üzerinde durur ve dinsel hoşgörü uygular.
İmparatorluk politik istencin tek bir bireyde yoğunlaşmasıdır. İmparatorluk tek-erkliktir.
İmparatorluk istençsiz halkların istencidir ve istençsiz insan ancak boyun eğmeyi bilir ve öndere ve yönetilmeye gereksinir.
Etnik kabile karakteri dil birliği ve ortak davranış alışkanlıkları ile belirlenir.
Etnik karakterde ne bir ulusu belirleyen özgür istenç vardır, ne de din kavramına yaklaşacak bir inanç biçimi.
Etnik karakterin doğal kan bağı ile de bir ilgisi yoktur.
Etnik kültür genetik bir bağlam kapsamaz.
Salt etnik karakter ile belirlenen istençsiz insan etik nitelikten bütünüyle yoksundur.
Etnik kabilenin yerleşik kent kültürleri ile ilişkisi gereksinimlerini talan ya da tecim yoluyla karşılamaya sınırlıdır.
Etnik karakter duyunç gelişiminden yoksun olduğu için dinsel duyguya kapalıdır.
Savaş despotik imparatorluk istencinin ve duyunçsuz ve istençsiz etnik kitlelerin kollektif eylemidir.
Kavram kullanamayan yazarlar nesnelerini belirlemede ve tanımlamada nesnelerine onlara uymayan kültürel tasarımları, duygu ve düşünceleri yüklerler.
Osmanlı İmparatorluğun gaziler tarafından kurulduğunu ileri süren “Gaza tezi” kabile üyelerine yetenekli olmadıkları ve anlamayacakları idealleri yükler.
Osmanlı Beyliği hiçbir ayrım yapmaksızın ordusuna Romalıları aldı ve başka beyliklere karşı savaştı.
Politik olarak bir tabula rasa olan kabile kültürü yüksek kentli kültürün politik birikimini özümsemek ve onunla kaynaşmak zorundadır.
Historical debate on the origins and nature of the Ottoman state
Historical debate on the origins and nature of the Ottoman state (W)
Several historians such as British historian Edward Gibbon and the Greek historian Dimitri Kitzikis have argued that after the fall of Constantinople, the Ottoman state took over the machinery of the Roman state, and that in essence the Ottoman Empire was a continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire under a thin Turkish Islamic guise. Kitzikis called the Ottoman state “a Greek-Turkish condominium.” The American historian Speros Vryonis wrote that the Ottoman state was centered on "a Byzantine-Balkan base with a veneer of the Turkish language and the Islamic religion".Other historians have followed the lead of the Austrian historian Paul Wittek who emphasized the Islamic character of the Ottoman state, seeing the Ottoman state as a "Jihad state" dedicated to expanding the world of Islam. Another group of historians led by the Turkish historian M. Fuat Koprulu championed the “gazi thesis” that saw the Ottoman state as a continuation of the way of life of the nomadicTurkic tribes who had come from East Asia to Anatolia via Central Asia and the Middle East on a much larger scale, and argued that the most important cultural influences on the Ottoman state came from Persia.More recently, the American historian Heath Lowry called the Ottoman state a "predatory confederacy" led in equal parts by Turks and Greeks converted to Islam.
The British historian Norman Stone suggested many continuities between the Eastern Roman and Ottoman empires such as the zeugarion tax of Byzantium becoming the Ottoman Resm-i çift tax, the pronoia land-holding system that linked the amount of land one owned with one's ability to raise cavalry becoming the Ottoman timar system, and the Ottoman measurement for land the donum was the same as the Byzantine stremma. Stone also pointed out that despite the fact that Sunni Islam was the state religion, the Eastern Orthodox Church was supported and controlled by the Ottoman state, and in return to accepting that control became the largest land-holder in the Ottoman Empire. Despite the similarities, Stone argued that a crucial difference was that the land grants under the timar system were not hereditary at first. Even after land grants under the timar system became inheritable, land ownings in the Ottoman Empire remained highly insecure, and the sultan could and did revoke land grants whenever he wished. Stone argued this insecurity in land tenure strongly discouraged Timariots from seeking long-term development of their land, and instead led the timariots to adopt a strategy of short term exploitation, which ultimately had deleterious effects on the Ottoman economy.
The Ghaza or Ghazi thesis (from Ottoman Turkish:غزا, ġazā, “holy war,” or simply "raid") is a historical paradigm first formulated by Paul Wittek which has been used to interpret the nature of the Ottoman Empire during the earliest period of its history, the fourteenth century,and its subsequent history. The thesis addresses the question of how the Ottomans were able to expand from a small principality on the frontier of the Byzantine Empire into a centralized, intercontinental empire. According to the Ghaza thesis, the Ottomans accomplished this by attracting recruits to fight for them in the name of Islamic holy war against the non-believers. Such a warrior was known in Turkishas a ghazi, and thus this thesis sees the early Ottoman state as a “Ghazi State,” defined by an ideology of holy war. The Ghaza Thesis dominated early Ottoman historiography throughout much of the twentieth century before coming under increasing criticism beginning in the 1980s.Historians now generally reject the Ghaza Thesis, and consequently the idea that Ottoman expansion was primarily fueled by holy war, but are conflicted with regard to what to replace it with.
The Ghaza thesis was first formulated in the 1930s by Turkish historian Fuat Köprülü and Austrian historian Paul Wittek. Partly in response to contemporary Orientalist historians, who tried to marginalize the role of the Turks in Ottoman state formation, Köprülü formulated what was to become the Turkish nationalist view of early Ottoman history. According to Köprülü, the Ottoman polity was formed by Turkish tribes fleeing the advance of the Mongol Empire, built upon Turkish tribal manpower, and administered by men from the Anatolian hinterland experienced in the Turco-Muslim political tradition of the Seljuks. Paul Wittek, responding to Köprülü's claims, accepted the Turco-Muslim basis of the early Ottoman state, agreeing that it grew out of the already highly developed civilization of Seljuk Anatolia and was fundamentally shaped by the unique conditions of the Byzantine frontier. Yet rather than Turkish ethnicity and tribal connections, he placed his primary emphasis upon the role of Islam.For Wittek, the Ottomans were first and foremost Islamic holy warriors. His primary evidence for this included the titles adopted by early Ottoman rulers, including an inscription erected in Bursa in 1337 describing Orhan, the second Ottoman ruler, as “ghazi, son of ghazi.” Wittek also relied upon the work of the early fifteenth-century Ottoman poet Ahmedi, who likewise described the early Ottoman rulers as ghazis. Thus in this formulation, the early Ottoman polity was built upon an "ideology of Holy War," and was able to grow powerful by attracting warriors to join in conquering the Christians of Anatolia and the Balkans. The early Ottomans harnessed the religious and martial energies of the frontier (uc) between the crumbling Byzantine and Seljuk states in order to conquer an empire. It was Wittek’s formulation which became generally (though not unanimously) accepted among Western historians of the Ottoman Empire for much of the twentieth century.
The fundamental problem with the study of the fourteenth-century Ottomans is the lack of surviving documentation from that time period. Not a single Ottoman authentic written document has been found from the time of Osman I, the first Ottoman ruler.Historians are thus forced to rely upon sources produced long after the events they purport to describe. Ottoman studies have thus benefited from the techniques of literary criticism, allowing historians to properly analyze Ottoman literary works from later periods.
The Ghaza thesis came under attack from numerous scholars beginning in the 1980s. Critics drew attention to the fact that the early Ottomans acted in ways contrary to what one would expect from zealous religious warriors.They were not strictly orthodox Muslims, but rather tolerated many heterodox and syncretic beliefs and practices. They also willingly recruited Byzantines into their ranks and fought wars against other Muslims. Thus rather than describing reality, later Ottoman writers who characterized their ancestors as ghazis were “adorning [them] with higher ideals,” when in fact their original motivations had been much more mundane. For Ottomans writing in the fifteenth century, presenting the earlier Ottoman rulers as ghazis served their political objectives. In emphasizing the mythical and legendary quality of the stories presented by Ottoman writers, the historian Colin Imber has even gone so far as to declare the entire period a "black hole," the truth about which can never truly be known.
The Ottomans as a tribal group
While many scholars criticized the Ghaza thesis, few sought an alternative to replace it. Rudi Paul Lindner was the first to try in his 1983 publication Nomads and Ottomans in Medieval Anatolia, in which he argued that the peculiarities of early Ottoman activity could best be explained through tribalism. Lindner saw tribalism through the lens of anthropology, which views tribes as organizations based not on shared bloodlines, but on shared political interests. Early Ottoman raids against the Byzantines were motivated not by religious zeal, but by the nomadic tribe’s need to engage in predation against settled society.
The Ottomans were able to incorporate Byzantines and fight against Muslims because their organization was fundamentally tribal, which allowed them to assimilate individuals and groups of diverse backgrounds. Citing various instances of their heterodoxy, Lindner even suggested that the early Ottomans may have been more Pagan than Muslim.In Lindner's view, this tribal inclusiveness began to break down during the reign of Osman's son Orhan (r. 1323/4-1362), as the Ottomans began to shift from being nomadic pastoralists into settled agricultural society. Orhan subsequently attracted Islamic scholars to his realm, who brought with them ideas about ghaza, and it was from them that he adopted the ghaza ideology in time for it to appear in his 1337 inscription in Bursa.
Ghaza as one of many factors
In his 1995 book Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State, Turkish scholar Cemal Kafadar addressed criticism of the Ghaza thesis by arguing that previous scholars had drawn too great a distinction between "orthodox" and "heterodox" Islam – one could consider oneself a legitimate Muslim without conforming exactly to a scholarly orthodoxy. Furthermore, Kafadar argued that the early Ottomans' very idea of ghaza may have differed from that of "orthodox" Islam. Citing contemporary Anatolian legends, he noted that the same figure could be portrayed as a ghazi while still cooperating with Christians. In Kafadar's view, ghaza was a real ideology which gave shape to frontier warriors as a social class, not simply an import from Muslim scholars. However, the terms ghaza and ghazi had a range of different meanings which shifted over time, sometimes referring to religiously motivated warriors and sometimes not. It was nevertheless ever present, and served as simply one out of many motivating forces behind Ottoman expansion.
Ghaza as a non-religious term
Following Kafadar, the next major reformulation of the theory of Ottoman origins was carried out by Heath Lowry in 2003. Lowry attacked Wittek's sources, arguing that Ahmedi's literary work cannot be interpreted as factual history, but rather was a fictionalized idealization of the past.According to Lowry, the terms ghaza and ghazi when used in the fourteenth and fifteenth-century Ottoman context had entirely non-religious meanings, as ghaza was interchangeable with the term akın, simply referring to a military raid. Many akıncıs (raiders) were also Christians, and would thus be very out of place in an army devoted to Islamic holy war. Ottoman warriors were thus motivated by the desire to win plunder and slaves, not to fight in the name of Islam. It was only certain writers, educated in the Islamic tradition, who tried to draw a connection between the secular ghaza of the frontier warriors and the religious ghaza as understood by Muslim intellectuals.
The foundation and rise of the Ottoman Empire is a period of history that started with the emergence of the Ottoman principality in c. 1299, and ended with the conquest of Constantinopleon May 29, 1453. This period witnessed the foundation of a political entity ruled by the Ottoman Dynasty in the northwestern Anatolian region of Bithynia, and its transformation from a small principality on the Byzantine frontier into an empire spanning the Balkans and Anatolia. For this reason, this period in the empire's history has been described as the Proto-Imperial Era. Throughout most of this period, the Ottomans were merely one of many competing states in the region, and relied upon the support of local warlords and vassals to maintain control over their realm.
By the middle of the fifteenth century the Ottoman sultans were able to accumulate enough personal power and authority to establish a centralized imperial state,a process which was brought to fruition by Sultan Mehmed II (r. 1451-1481). The conquest of Constantinople in 1453 is seen as the symbolic moment when the emerging Ottoman state shifted from a mere principality into an empire, marking a major turning point in its history.
The cause of Ottoman success cannot be attributed to any single factor, and they varied throughout the period as the Ottomans continually adapted to changing circumstances.
The earlier part of this period, the fourteenth century, is particularly difficult for historians to study due to the scarcity of sources. Not a single written document survives from the reign of Osman I, and very little survives from the rest of the century. The Ottomans, furthermore, did not begin to record their own history until the fifteenth century, more than a hundred years after many of the events they describe.It is thus a great challenge for historians to differentiate between fact and myth in analyzing the stories contained in these later chronicles, so much so that one historian has even declared it impossible, describing the earliest period of Ottoman history as a “black hole.”
Anatolia before the Ottomans
At the beginning of the thirteenth century Anatolia was divided between two relatively powerful states: the Byzantine Empire in the west and the Anatolian Seljuks in the central plateau. Equilibrium between them was disrupted by the Mongol invasion and conquest of the Seljuks following the Battle of Köse Dağ in 1243, and the reconquest of Constantinople by the Byzantine Palaeologos dynasty in 1261, which shifted Byzantine attention away from the Anatolian frontier. Mongol pressure pushed nomadic Turkish tribes to migrate westward, into the now poorly-defended Byzantine territory. From the 1260s onward Anatolia increasingly began to slip from Byzantine control, as TurkishAnatolian beyliks were established both in formerly Byzantine lands and in the territory of the fragmenting Seljuk Sultanate.
Political authority in western Anatolia was thus extremely fragmented by the end of the thirteenth century, split between locally established rulers, tribal groups, holy figures, and warlords, with Byzantine and Seljuk authority ever present but rapidly weakening. The fragmentation of authority has led several historians to describe the political entities of thirteenth and fourteenth-century Anatolia as Taifas, or "petty kings", a comparison with the history of late-medieval Muslim Spain.The power of these groups was largely dependent upon their ability to attract military manpower. Western Anatolia was then a hotbed of raiding activity, with warriors switching allegiance at will to whichever chief seemed most able to provide them with opportunities for plunder and glory.
John William Godward
🔎
“Playtime", 1891 Painting by John William Godward, British, 1861-1922.
Origin of the Ottoman state
The Ottoman dynasty is named after the first ruler of the Ottoman polity, Osman I. According to later Ottoman tradition, he was descended from a Turkic tribe which migrated out of Central Asia in the wake of the Mongol Conquests. As evidenced by coins minted during his reign, Osman’s father was named Ertuğrul, but beyond this the details "are too mythological to be taken for granted."The origins of the Ottoman dynasty thus remain obscure, shrouded in myth and legend, and the identity of Osman's tribe and ancestors is not known for certain.
Likewise, nothing is known about how Osman first established his principality (beylik) as the sources, none of them contemporary, provide many different and conflicting origin stories. What is certain is that at some point in the late thirteenth century Osman emerged as the leader of a small principality centered on the town of Söğüt in the north-western Anatolian region of Bithynia.
Osman's principality was initially supported by the tribal manpower of nomadic Turkish groups, whom he led in raids against the Byzantine territories of the region. This Ottoman tribe was based not on blood-ties, but on political expedience. Thus it was inclusive of all who wished to join, including people of Byzantine origin. The Ottoman enterprise came to be led by several great warrior families, at least one of which was of Greek Christian origin, that of Köse Mihal. Nevertheless, Islam played a role in Ottoman self-identity from the very start, as evidenced by a land grant issued by Osman's son Orhan in 1324, describing him as "Champion of the Faith".
Gaza and gazis in early Ottoman history
In 1938 the Austrian historian Paul Wittekpublished an influential work entitled The Rise of the Ottoman Empire, in which he put forth the argument that the early Ottoman state was constructed upon an ideology of Islamic holy war against non-Muslims. Such a war was known as gaza, and a warrior fighting in it was called a gazi. Wittek's formulation, subsequently known as the "Gaza Thesis," was influential for much of the twentieth century, and led historians to portray the early Ottomans as zealous religious warriors dedicated to the spread of Islam.
Beginning in the 1980s, historians increasingly began to criticize Wittek's thesis. Scholars now recognize that the terms gaza and gazi did not have strictly religious connotations for the early Ottomans, and were often used in a secular sense to simply refer to raids. Additionally, the early Ottomans were neither strict orthodox Muslims nor were they unwilling to cooperate with non-Muslims, and several of the companions of the first Ottoman rulers were either non-Muslims or recent converts. The idea of holy war existed during the fourteenth century, but it was only one out of many factors influencing Ottoman behavior. It was only later, in the fifteenth century, that Ottoman writers retroactively began to portray the early Ottomans as zealous Islamic warriors, in order to provide a noble origin for their dynasty which had by then constructed an intercontinental Islamic empire.
Demography
Anatolia and the Balkans were greatly impacted by the arrival of the Black Death after 1347. Urban centers and settled regions were devastated, while nomadic groups suffered less of an impact. The first Ottoman incursions into the Balkans began shortly thereafter. Depopulation resulting from the plague was thus almost certainly a major factor in the success of early Ottoman expansion into the Balkans, and contributed to the weakening of the Byzantine Empire and the depopulation of Constantinople.
Government
Forum Romanum
During this early period, before the Ottomans were able to establish a centralized system of government in the middle of the fifteenth century, the rulers' powers were "far more circumscribed, and depended heavily upon coalitions of support and alliances reached" among various power-holders within the empire, including Turkic tribal leaders and Balkan allies and vassals.
When the Ottoman polity first emerged at the end of the thirteenth century under the leadership of Osman I, it had a tribal organization without a complex administrative apparatus. As Ottoman territory expanded its rulers were faced with the challenge of administering an ever-larger population. Early on the Ottomans adopted the Seljuks of Rum as models, and by 1324 were able to produce Persian-language bureaucratic documents in the Seljuk style.
The early Ottoman state's expansion was fueled by the military activity of frontier warriors (Turkish: gazi), of whom the Ottoman ruler was initially merely primus inter pares. Much of the state's centralization was carried out in opposition to these frontier warriors, who resented Ottoman efforts to control them. Ultimately, the Ottomans were successfully able to harness the military power of the gazis in order to conquer an empire, while increasingly subordinating those warriors to their will.
The early Ottomans were noteworthy for the low tax rates which their subjects were burdened with. This reflected both an ideological concern for the well-being of their subjects, and also a pragmatic need to earn the loyalty of newly conquered populations. As the Ottoman state centralized during the fifteenth century this relatively light tax burden was increased, prompting criticism from writers who saw such centralization in a negative light.
Of particular importance for Ottoman success was their ability to keep the empire intact from generation to generation. While other Turkic groups frequently divided their realms between the sons of a deceased ruler, the Ottomans consistently kept the empire united under a single heir.
State centralization
The process of centralization is closely connected with an influx of Muslim scholars from Central Anatolia, where a more urban and bureaucratic Turkish civilization had developed under the Seljuks of Rum.
Particularly influential was the Çandarlı family, which supplied several Grand Viziers to the early Ottomans and influenced their institutional development. Some time after 1376, Kara Halil, the head of the Çandarlı family, encouraged Murad I to institute a tax of one-fifth on slaves taken in war, known as the pençik. This gave the Ottoman rulers a source of manpower from which they could construct a new personal army, known as the Janissaries (yeniçeri). Such measures frustrated the gazis which the Ottomans relied upon to sustain their military conquests, and created lasting tensions within the state.
It was also during the reign of Murad I that the office of military judge (Kazasker) was created, indicating an increasing level of social stratification between the emerging military-administrative class (askeri) and the rest of society.Murad I also instituted the practice of appointing particular frontier warriors as "Lords of the Frontier" (uc begleri). Such power of appointment indicated that the Ottoman rulers were no longer merely primus inter pares but sat at the top of a hierarchy of leadership. As a way of openly declaring this new status, Murad became the first Ottoman ruler to adopt the title of sultan.
Beginning at the latest by the 1430s, but most likely earlier, the Ottomans conducted regular cadastral surveys of the territory under their rule, producing record-books known as tahrir defters.These surveys enabled the Ottoman state to organize the distribution of agricultural taxation rights to the military class of timariots, cavalrymen who collected revenue from the land in exchange for serving in the Ottoman army. Timariots came from diverse backgrounds. Some achieved their position as a reward for military service, while others were descended from the pre-Ottoman aristocracy and simply continued to collect revenue from their old lands, now serving in the Ottoman army as well. Of the latter, many were converts to Islam, while others remained Christian.
Of great symbolic importance for Ottoman centralization was the practice whereby Ottoman rulers would customarily stand upon hearing the sound of martial music, indicating their willingness to participate in gaza. Shortly after the Conquest of Constantinople in 1453, Mehmed II discontinued this practice, indicating that the Ottoman ruler was no longer a simple frontier warrior, but the sovereign of an empire. The empire's capital was shifted from Edirne, the city symbolically connected with the frontier warrior ethos of gaza, to Constantinople, a city with deeply imperial connotations due to its long history as the capital of the Byzantine Empire. This was seen, both symbolically and practically, as the moment of the empire's definitive shift from a frontier principality into an empire.
Military
Osman's army at the beginning of the fourteenth century consisted largely of mounted warriors. These he used in raids, ambushes, and hit-and-run attacks, allowing him to control the countryside of Bithynia. However, he initially lacked the means to conduct sieges. Bursa, the first major town conquered by the Ottomans, surrendered under threat of starvation following a long blockade rather than from an assault. It was under Orhan (r. 1323/4-1362) and Murad I (r. 1362-1389) that the Ottomans mastered the techniques of siege warfare.
The warriors in Osman's service came from diverse backgrounds. Known variously as gazis and akıncıs (raiders), they were attracted to his success and joined out of a desire to win plunder and glory. Most of Osman’s early followers were Muslim Turks of tribal origin, while others were of Byzantine origin, either Christians or recent converts to Islam.
The Ottomans began employing gunpowder weapons from the 1380s at the latest. By the 1420s they were regularly using cannons in siege warfare. Cannons were also used for fortress defense, and shore batteries allowed the Ottomans to bypass a Crusader blockade of the Dardanelles in 1444. By that time handheld firearms had also come into use, and were adopted by some of the janissaries.
📹 History of the Ottoman Empire in the 15th & 16th Century / Kenneth W. Harl
History of the Ottoman Empire in the 15th & 16th Century / Kenneth W. Harl (LINK)
The vast, dramatic story of the Ottoman Empire helps Westerners better grasp the current complexities of the Middle East. This course covers the history of the Ottoman Empire, from its early years as a collection of raiders and conquerors to its undeniable power in the 15th and 16th centuries to its catastrophic collapse in the wreckage of the First World War. The peoples of the Middle East today examine the history of the Ottoman Empire for identity, culture, and governance. The West often overlooks the fact that the achievements of the Ottoman Empire at the zenith of its power matched those of contemporary Western Europe – as well as the other great Islamic states of Safavid Iran and Mughal India. According to Kenneth W. Harl, award-winning professor of Classical and Byzantine history at Tulane University, “the cultural achievements of Ottoman civilization still endure, and they speak of a wealthy and sophisticated Islamic civilization.” Some of the complexities covered by this historical overview of the Ottoman Empire include geopolitical tensions between Turkey and its Balkan and Middle Eastern neighbors, the sustained political and cultural power of Islam, and the balancing act between religious tradition and cultural modernity. What made the Ottoman Empire such a match with the empires of the early modern world? What made this empire unlike any other in human history? What forces shaped this brilliant civilization—and what forces destroyed the Ottoman Empire? These are just some of the questions that Professor Harl explores. Over the course of 36 historically rich and enlightening lectures, you’ll investigate over 600 years of history that cover the nature of Ottoman identity, the achievements and oddities of the Sultan’s court, and stories of confrontation and cooperation between the East and West. The result: a better appreciation for the ways in which the Ottomans created a unique way of life – and how that way of life echoes throughout Europe and across the Middle East. The Ottoman Empire history course covers the fascinating story of triumph and tragedy, war and peace, intellectual progress and civil insurrection. This course will give viewers an overview of a great empire that left an important legacy that will shape the future of the Balkan nation-states, the Turkish Republic, and the Arab world – and those of us in the West as well. Learn more about.
📹 The Rise of Ottoman Turks (Kenneth W. Harl) (VİDEO)
he Ottoman Empire, also historically known in Western Europe as the Turkish Empire , was a state that controlled much of Southeast Europe, Western Asia and North Africa between the 14th and early 20th centuries. It was founded at the end of the 13th century in northwestern Anatolia in the town of Söğüt (modern-day Bilecik Province) by the Oghuz Turkish tribal leader Osman I. After 1354, the Ottomans crossed into Europe, and with the conquest of the Balkans, the Ottoman beylik was transformed into a transcontinental empire. The Ottomans ended the Byzantine Empire with the 1453 conquest of Constantinople by Mehmed the Conqueror.
Roma Katolik Kilisesi ve Ortodoks Hıristiyanlık arasındaki “Büyük Bölünme” (1054) sonunda açık düşmanlığa dönüştü.
Konstantinopolis 1204’te 4’üncü sözde ‘Latin’ Haçlı seferi tarafından yağmalandı ve işgal edildi.
1204-1261 arasında ‘Latin’ Haçlılar Roma İmparatorluğu topraklarında bir “Latin İmparatorluğu” kurdular ve Roma İmparatorluğu yerini “İznik İmparatorluğu”na bıraktı.
‘Latin’ Haçlıları oluşturan güçler Venedik Cumhuriyeti, Kutsal Roma İmparatorluğu ve Fransa Krallığı idi.
‘Latin’ Haçlılar başlıca Roma İmparatorluğunun kendisini yıkan Germanik güçlerden ve ‘Latin’ sözcüğüne uygun düşmeyen feodal prenslerden oluşuyordu.
The Roman Catholics of Constantinople at that time dominated the city's maritime trade and financial sector. Although precise numbers are unavailable, the bulk of the Latin community, estimated at 60,000 at the time by Eustathius of Thessalonica, was wiped out or forced to flee. The Genoese and Pisan communities especially were decimated, and some 4,000 survivors were sold as slaves to the (Turkish) Sultanate of Rum.
The massacre further worsened relations and increased enmity between the Western and Eastern Christian churches, and a sequence of hostilities between the two followed.
Death of Manuel I and massacre
Following the death of Manuel I in 1180, his widow, the Latin princess Maria of Antioch, acted as regent to her infant son Alexios II Komnenos. Her regency was notorious for the favoritism shown to Latin merchants and the big aristocratic land-owners, and was overthrown in April 1182 by Andronikos I Komnenos, who entered the city in a wave of popular support.Almost immediately, the celebrations spilled over into violence towards the hated Latins, and after entering the city's Latin quarter a mob began attacking the inhabitants.
Many had anticipated the events and escaped by sea. The ensuing massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and Latin patients lying in hospital beds were murdered.Houses, churches, and charities were looted. Latin clergymen received special attention, and Cardinal John, the papal legate, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog.
Although Andronikos himself had no particular anti-Latin attitude, he allowed the massacre to proceed unchecked.Andronikos had managed to incite the anti-Latin sentiment of Constantinopolitans, on the grounds that the empress and the protosebastos had bought the Latin support by promising them the chance of plundering the city.
Impact
The massacre further worsened the image of the Byzantines in the West, and although regular trade agreements were soon resumed between Byzantium and Latin states, the underlying hostility would remain, leading to a spiraling chain of hostilities: a Norman expedition under William II of Sicily in 1185 sacked Thessalonica, the Empire's second largest city, and the German emperors Frederick Barbarossa and Henry VI both threatened to attack Constantinople.
The worsening relationship culminated with the brutal sack of the city of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204, which led to the permanent alienation of Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics. The massacre itself however remains relatively obscure, and Catholic historian Warren Carroll notes that "Historians who wax eloquent and indignant — with considerable reason — about the sack of Constantinople ... rarely if ever mention the massacre of the Westerners in ... 1182."
The Crusaders looted, terrorized, and vandalized Constantinople for three days, during which many ancient and medieval Roman and Greek works were either stolen or destroyed. The famous bronze horses from the Hippodrome were sent back to adorn the façade of St Mark's Basilica in Venice, where they remain. As well as being stolen, works of immeasurable artistic value were destroyed merely for their material value. One of the most precious works to suffer such a fate was a large bronze statue of Hercules, created by the legendary Lysippos, court sculptor of Alexander the Great. Like so many other priceless artworks made of bronze, the statue was melted down for its content by the Crusaders.
Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the Crusaders systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying or stealing all they could lay hands on; nothing was spared, not even the tombs of the emperors inside the St Apostles church.The civilian population of Constantinople were subject to the Crusaders' ruthless lust for spoils and glory; thousands of them were killed in cold blood.Women, including nuns, were raped by the Crusader army,which also sacked churches, monasteries and convents.The very altars of these churches were smashed and torn to pieces for their gold and marble by the warriors. Although the Venetians engaged in looting too, their actions were far more restrained. Doge Dandolo still appeared to have far more control over his men. Rather than wantonly destroying all around like their comrades, the Venetians stole religious relics and works of art, which they would later take to Venice to adorn their own churches.
It was said that the total amount looted from Constantinople was about 900,000 silver marks, or 600,000 troy pounds. The Venetians received 150,000 silver marks that was their due and the Crusaders received 50,000 silver marks. A further 100,000 silver marks were divided evenly between the Crusaders and Venetians. The remaining 500,000 silver marks were secretly kept back by many Crusader knights. Meanwhile, Latin residents of Constantinople exacted their own retribution for the Massacre of the Latins of 1182.
The Empire of Romania (Latin: Imperium Romaniae), more commonly known in historiography as the Latin Empire or Latin Empire of Constantinople, and known to the Byzantines as the Frankokratia or the Latin Occupation, was a feudalCrusader state founded by the leaders of the Fourth Crusade on lands captured from the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. It was established after the capture of Constantinople in 1204 and lasted until 1261. The Latin Empire was intended to supplant the Byzantine Empire as the titular Roman Empire in the east, with a Western Roman Catholic emperor enthroned in place of the Eastern OrthodoxRoman emperors.
Despotate of Epirus (ca. 1205-1337/40; 1356-1479) (W)
The Despotate of Epirus (Greek: Δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου) was one of the Greek successor states of the Byzantine Empire established in the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade in 1204 by a branch of the Angelos dynasty. It claimed to be the legitimate successor of the Byzantine Empire, along with the Empire of Nicaea and the Empire of Trebizond, its rulers briefly proclaiming themselves as Emperors in 1225/1227–1242 (during which it is most often called the Empire of Thessalonica). The term "Despotate of Epirus" is, like "Byzantine Empire" itself, a modern historiographic convention and not a name in use at the time.
The later Byzantine emperors, as well as Byzantine authors, such as George Pachymeres, Nicephorus Gregoras and to some extent Trapezuntines such as John Lazaropoulos and Basilios Bessarion, regarded the emperors of Trebizond as the “princes of the Lazes”, while the possession of these "princes" was also called Lazica. In other words, their state was known as the Principality of the Lazes.Thus from the point of view of the Byzantine writers connected with the Laskaris and later with the Palaiologos dynasties, the rulers of Trebizond were not emperors.
Taking advantage of the situation, the SeljukSultanate of Rum began seizing territory in Western Asia Minor, until the Nicaean Empire was able to repulse the Seljuk Turks from the remaining territories still under Roman rule. Eventually Constantinople was re-taken from the Latin Empire in 1261 by the Nicaean Empire.
However the position of the Byzantine Empire in the European continent remained uncertain due to the presence of the rival kingdoms of the Despotate of Epirus, Serbia and the Second Bulgarian Empire. This, combined with the reduced power of the Sultanate of Rum (Byzantium's chief rival in Asia) led to the removal of troops from Asia Minor to maintain Byzantium's grip on Thrace.[2] However the weakening of the Sultanate of Rum was by no means a blessing to the Empire as nobles known as ghazis began setting up their fiefdoms, at the expense of the Byzantine Empire. While many Turkish beys participated in the conquest of Byzantine and Seljuk territory, the territories under the control of one such Bey named Osman Iposed the greatest threat to Nicaea and to Constantinople.
Within 90 years of Osman I's establishment of the Ottoman beylik, Byzantine Asia Minor had ceased to exist and by 1380, Byzantine Thrace was lost to the Ottomans. By 1400, the once mighty Byzantine Empire was nothing more than a collection of the Despotate of the Morea, a few Aegean islands and a strip of land in Thrace in the immediate vicinity of the Capital. The Crusade of Nicopolis in 1396, Timur's invasion in 1402 and the final Crusade of Varna in 1444 allowed a ruined Constantinople to stave off defeat until it finally fell in 1453. With the conclusion of the war Ottoman supremacy became established in the eastern Mediterranean.
The Sultanate of Rûm (also known as the Rûm sultanate (Persian: سلجوقیان روم, Saljuqiyān-e Rum), Anatolian Seljuk Sultanate, Sultanate of Iconium, Anatolian Seljuk State (Turkish: Anadolu Selçuklu Devleti) or Turkey Seljuk State (Turkish: Türkiye Selçuklu Devleti) was a Turko-PersianSunni Muslim state established in the parts of Anatolia which had been conquered from the Byzantine Empire by the Seljuk Empire, which was established by the Seljuk Turks. The name Rûm was a synonym for Greek, as it remains in modern Turkish, although it derives from the Arabic name for Romans, الرُّومُar-Rūm, itself a loan from GreekῬωμαῖοι, "Romans"; ie. citizens superordinately to Latin-speakers.
It reached the height of its power during the late 12th and early 13th century, when it succeeded in taking Byzantine key ports on the Mediterranean and Black Sea coasts. In the east, the sultanate absorbed other Turkish states and reached Lake Van. Trade from Iran and Central Asia across Anatolia was developed by a system of caravanserai. Especially strong trade ties with the Genoese formed during this period. The increased wealth allowed the sultanate to absorb other Turkish states that had been established in eastern Anatolia (Danishmends,Mengujekids, Saltukids,Artuqids).
The Seljuq sultans bore the brunt of the Crusades and eventually succumbed to the Mongol invasion in 1243 (Battle of Köse Dağ). For the remainder of the 13th century, the Seljuqs acted as vassals of the Ilkhanate. Their power disintegrated during the second half of the 13th century. The last of the Seljuq vassal sultans of the Ilkhanate, Mesud II, was murdered in 1308. The dissolution of the Seljuq state left behind many small Anatolian beyliks (Turkish principalities), among them that of the Ottoman dynasty, which eventually conquered the rest and reunited Anatolia to become the Ottoman Empire.
📹 Byzantium, 1204-1453 — Restoration, Twilight, and Fall (VİDEO)
📹 Byzantium, 1204-1453 — Restoration, Twilight, and Fall (LINK)
In this videos, I look at the final years of the Byzantine Empire. In this period, the Byzantines restored their empire after the Fourth Crusade, but their state apparatus had been too greatly damaged for them to continue to remain relevant for long. By 1400, Byzantium was in terminal decline.
Constantinopolitanæ urbis effigies ad vivum expressa, Constantinopolis / Rombout van den Hoeÿe excudit. (LINK)
🔎
Description
About this Item
Title
Constantinopolitanæ urbis effigies ad vivum expressa, Constantinopolis / Rombout van den Hoeÿe excudit.
Summary
Print shows bird's-eye view of Constantinople with prominent features identified by number, also shows two men walking with dogs in the lower right foreground; includes eight lines of verse in Latin, Dutch, and French, and a legend of corresponding numbers.
Contributor Names
Hoeye, Rombout van den, 1622-1671, engraver Merian, Matthaeus, 1593-1650.
Created / Published
[Amsterdam : s.n., 1650]
Subject Headings
- Istanbul (Turkey)--1650
Format Headings
Bird's-eye views--1650.
Cityscape prints--1650.
Etchings--1650.
Notes
- Title from item.
- After 1635 print by Matthaeus Merian.
Medium
1 print : etching.
Call Number/Physical Location
PGA - van den Hoeye--Constantinopolitanæ urbis ... (B size) [P&P]
Repository
Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA
Digital Id
pga 08470 //hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/pga.08470
Library of Congress Control Number
2004672546
Reproduction Number
LC-DIG-pga-08470 (digital file from original item)
Rights Advisory
No known restrictions on publication in the U.S. Use elsewhere may be restricted by other countries' laws. For general information see "Copyright and Other Restrictions...," http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/195_copr.html
Language
English
Latin
Online Format
image
Description
1 print : etching. | Print shows bird's-eye view of Constantinople with prominent features identified by number, also shows two men walking with dogs in the lower right foreground; includes eight lines of verse in Latin, Dutch, and French, and a legend of corresponding numbers.
LCCN Permalink
https://lccn.loc.gov/2004672546
Additional Metadata Formats
MARCXML Record
MODS Record
Dublin Core Record
