DOCSLIB.ORG

Wallachia 20 Exclusive Rules TABLE of CONTENTS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Wallachia 20 Exclusive Rules TABLE OF CONTENTS Rousse 20 Slobozia 20 [1.0] Introduction . 2 [1.0] Introduction . 7 [2.0] Game Equipment ������������2 [2.0] Game Equipment ������������7 [3.0] Setting Up The Game . 3 [3.0] Setting Up The Game . 8 [4.0] Sequence Of Play ������������4 [4.0] Sequence Of Play ��������� 10 [5.0] Random Events . 4 [5.0] Random Events . 11 [6.0] Movement . 4 [6.0] Movement . 11 [9.0] Combat . 4 [9.0] Combat . 11 [11.0] Reinforcements . 5 [14.0] Night Turns . 14 [14.0] Night Turns . 5 [15.0] How To Win ��������������� 14 [15.0] How To Win ������������������5 [16.0] Optional Rules ����������� 14 [16.0] Optional Rules ��������������6 [17.0] The Wallachian Campaign . 16 Designer’s Notes ��������������������� 18 [0.0] Exclusive Rules This is the Exclusive Rules book forWallachia 20, which includes the following games: Rousse 20 – Battle on the Edge of a Scimitar Slobozia 20 – Trap, Talk, and Truce These games also use theNapoleonic 20 Standard Rules. When combined, these two documents form the entirety of the rules needed to play these games. These Exclusive Rules supersede the Standard Rules when there is a conflict. Wallachia 20 Exclusive Rules v0.1 Wallachia 20 Exclusive Rules v0.1 Rousse 20: Battle on the Edge of a Scimitar [1.0] Introduction Rousse 20 simulates the earlier of the two major battles of the Russo-Turkish war of 1806- 1812, both fought on the Bulgarian-Romanian frontier near the fortified town of Rousse. One player leads the Russian Army under the command of General-in-Chief Kutuzov, while the other player commands the Ottoman army under Grand Vizier Ahmed Pasha. The first battle, Rousse, occurred on 22 June 1811, and while the Russians managed to eke out a marginal victory, Kutuzov chose to yield the key town of Rousse to the Ottomans, convincing them they had won a great victory. [2.0] Game Equipment The Game Map:The 17” x 22” game board, when assembled, features a map portraying that part of Wallachia along the Danube River where the campaign took place. The Playing Pieces: The burnt orange units are Ottomans. The green units are Russian. Important: In Wallachia 20, the Ottomans are considered the “French” side (represented by the blue face of the Routed markers), and the Russians remain intractably on the “Anti- French” side (represented by the gold face of the Routed markers). Special Unit Types: There are no Elite or Guard units in this game. If you are using Optional Rule [16.7], which is highly recommended in Wallachia 20, you will find a cavalcade of special unit types which define the Ottoman army (in particular). Unit Abbreviations: Chass = Chasseur Huss = Hussars (-) = Reduced strength version of that unit; used only when playing the Campaign Game (see [17.0]). Who’s Who: The Ottoman Army has many interesting unit types further defined below: Ottoman Turks Akinji = Irregular (-), Reluctant (-) horse archers Boluk = Provincial Janissaries Djellis = Irregular (-), Cossack (-) light horse scouts Djemaat = Anatolian Janissaries Derbert = Irregular (-) frontier guards Garipler = Anatolian Cavalry Kirjali = Light Infantry (-) Bulgarian skirmishers Haiduk = Irregular (-) Wallachian mercenaries Sekhan = Irregular (-), Reluctant (-) Turkic archers Sipahi = Heavy Cavalry Skipetar = Irregular (-), Light Infantry (-) Albanian sharpshooters Tufkeji = Reluctant (-) Anatolian musketeers Youruk = Irregular (-) Turcoman lancers 2 Series Developer: Lance McMillan ©2015 Artem Kharinin and Victory Point Games Wallachia 20 Exclusive Rules v0.1 Wallachia 20 Exclusive Rules v0.1 [3.0] Setting Up The Game After sides have been determined, set up as follows: • Place the Game Turn marker on the June 22 Morning (Turn 1) space showing its French (i.e., Ottoman) side. • Place the Russian Morale marker on the “8” space and the Ottoman Morale marker on the “6” space of the Morale track. • As per the Standard Rules ([3.0], Preparing the Cards), use the Rousse 20 cards to form the initial Draw Pile. Optionally, you can set up the Napoleonic 20 Event card (#13, Protect the Colors!) in the Discard Pile (as if it were a red-titled card). Russian Deployment The Russian player sets up these units: 0708 REDOUBT MARKER 1305 ARTILLERY (2-2) + KUTUZOV (2-5) 1204 COSSACK (1-4) 1405 IX (4-2) 1303 1 CHASS (1-2) 1507 2 CHASS (1-2) 1304 XXII (3-2) Russian Force Pool Set aside the three Russian CADRE and three Russian DUMMY units. TheXV (3-2) unit is also set aside; it might arrive as a reinforcement via an Event card. TheHUSS Cavalry (1-3) and DANUBE FLOTILLA (1-*) units, and the reduced strength “(-)” versions of the IX, XV, XXII, ARTILLERY units are not used in this scenario. Ottoman Deployment The Ottoman player sets up these units: 1703 DJELLIS (1-4) 1802 SIPAHI (2-3) 1804 YOURUK (1-3) 1904 HAIDUK (2-2) 1704 AKINJI (1-4) 1803 AGIR TOP (1-1) 1901 DEREBERT (2-2) 1905 TUFKEJI (2-2) 1801 GARIPLER (1-3) 1902 BOLUK (3-2) + A. PASHA (1-5) 1903 DJEMAAT (2-2) Ottoman Force Pool Set aside the five Ottoman CADRE and three Ottoman DUMMY units. TheKIRJALI (1-2) unit is also set aside; it might arrive as a reinforcement via an Event card. TheSKIPETAR (2-2) and SEKHAN (2-2) units, and the reduced strength “(-)” versions of the BOLUK and SIPAHI units are not used in this scenario. Series Developer: Lance McMillan ©2015 Artem Kharinin and Victory Point Games 3 Wallachia 20 Exclusive Rules v0.1 Wallachia 20 Exclusive Rules v0.1 [4.0] Sequence Of Play The Ottoman player is the First player. 4.1 Ottoman Movement Restrictions The first thing the Ottoman player must do to begin each Ottoman Movement Phase is either: A. Immediately spend 1 Morale Point to be able to move all the Ottoman units that turn (this does not also cover the cost to Force March them!), OR B. Roll a die and consult the Command Hierarchy Chart to determine the maximum number of Ottoman units that can be moved (plus the Ahmed Pasha Leader unit, if in play) during that Ottoman Movement Phase. Command Hierarchy Chart Die Roll 1 2 3-4 5 6 # of Units 5 6 7 8 9 (Max.) [5.0] Random Events Skip the Ottoman player’s Random Events Phase on the first Game Turn. [6.0] Movement 6.10 New Terrain Types In the area where the battle occurred, the Danube River is nearly a mile across and is a major impediment to the movement of ground troops. In this game, the Danube is represented by Wide Major River hexes. • Units do not project ZOCs into or out of Wide Major River hexes. Additionally, ground units can only cross Wide Major River hexes at Fords. • Some Wide Major River hexes contain Estuarial Islets (depicted as grayish-brown colored strips of land). Regular ground units can occupy these hexes and their ZOCs do project into other contiguous Estuarial Islet hexes, but not across the Danube to mainland hexes and vice-versa. Ford Estuarial Islets Wide Major River [9.0] Combat 9.4.4 Garrison Forces: The Russian Redoubt in the town hex ofRousse (0708) contains a Russian Garrison with an intrinsic zero (0) strength, as denoted by the small national flag inside it. 9.7.7 Retreat Direction Priority: • Russian units must retreat towards the Russian LOC hex located on the Northern map edge (hex 0105). • Ottoman units must retreat towards the Ottoman LOC hex, located on the Southern map edge (hex 1902). 4 Series Developer: Lance McMillan ©2015 Artem Kharinin and Victory Point Games Wallachia 20 Exclusive Rules v0.1 Wallachia 20 Exclusive Rules v0.1 [11.0] Reinforcements 11.6 Unit Arrival Locations • Events might see the Russians receive the XV (3-2) division as a reinforcement. If and when it arrives, it enters along the Northern map edge at Area A. • Events might see the Ottomans receive the KIRJALI (1-2) detachment as a reinforcement. If and when it arrives, it enters along the Western map edge at Area Z. [14.0] Night Turns Russian Objective Hex: Rousse (hex 0708). There are no Ottoman Objective hexes. 14.1 Captured LOC Morale Loss In Rousse 20, the loss of LOCs for both sides causes a reduction of Morale Points by 1 each (instead of being required to occupy two for the loss of a single Morale Point, as per the Morale Chart). 14.2 The Second Day of Battle The game ends at the conclusion of Game Turn 6 unless the Ottoman player wishes to press the fight into a second day. Procedure At the beginning of the Ottoman Night Turn 6, the Ottoman player may declare that the fighting will continue through the next day. Doing so means forgoing Step C of that Night Turn (the Morale Recovery Step); that is, the Ottoman player must give up that night’s morale recovery to press the fight into the next day. Historically, Kutuzov elected to end the battle at the end of the first day, but the Ottomans might have pressed on. Ottoman logistical arrangements, however, were haphazard and re-supplying their troops for a prolonged engagement would have meant a night’s work instead of a night’s rest. [15.0] How To Win Due to the unusual strategic conditions in Wallachia during this campaign, modify the standard victory conditions as follows: • The Russian player wins a Decisive Victory if, at any time, the Ottoman side’s Morale Value is reduced to zero (0) and the Russian Morale Value is one (1) or more. • The Russian player wins a Marginal Victory if, at the end of the game, the Russian side’s Morale Value is at least one higher than the Ottoman side’s Morale Value AND an Ottoman unit does not occupy the town of Rousse (hex 0708).
Recommended publications
  • The Reign of Violence

    The Reign of Violence

    CHAPTER THIRTEEN THE REIGN OF VIOLENCE The celalis c. I 5 50-I 700 --.... -- Oktay Ozel odern historiography depicts Ottoman history in the late sixteenth and early M seventeenth centuries as a period of crisis, generally associated with the eelali rebellions which occurred primarily in Anatolia and, to a lesser extent, northern Syria. l Discussion of eelali causes has centred largely around sixteenth-century political­ fiscal and economic-demographic developments. Recently added to the argument has been the agency problem of the predatory state, the nature of the overall transforma­ tion that the empire and society experienced in parallel with the eelali movements throughout the seventeenth century, and climatic changes. The present essay reassesses the issue in the light of new findings based on recently explored sources. It examines internal demographic, economic and political dynamics and conditions, as well as conjunctural factors in the I 590S which led marginalized groups within rural society, primarily the peasant masses, into a violent reaction in the form of banditry and rebel­ lion. A reconstruction of the historical context and causes is followed by discussion of the destructive character of [he eelali movements and its consequences in Anatolia, and of the nature of this violence as a phenomenon within Ottoman social history. The central argument of the essay is that the political-level analysis of the eelalis falls far short in understanding both the peculiarities of the historical process which prepared the ground for the eelali movements and [he extent of destructive violence throughout the seventeenth century. Banditry and occasional rebellions continued, transforming rural society, the economy and the ecological environment as well as leaving a legacy of institutionalized violence which became an inherent characteristic oflater Ottoman Anatolian society.
  • HISTORICIZING the OTTOMAN TIMAR SYSTEM: IDENTITIES of TIMAR-HOLDERS, 14TH to 17TH CENTURIES LINDA T. DARLING University of Arizo

    HISTORICIZING the OTTOMAN TIMAR SYSTEM: IDENTITIES of TIMAR-HOLDERS, 14TH to 17TH CENTURIES LINDA T. DARLING University of Arizo

    Historicizing the Ottoman Timar System: Identities of Timar-Holders, Fourteenth to Seventeenth Centuries Item Type Article Authors Darling, Linda T. Citation Historicizing the Ottoman System: Identities of -Holders, Fourteenth to Seventeenth Centuries Darling, Linda T., Turkish Historical Review, 8, 145-173 (2017), DOI:https:// doi.org/10.1163/18775462-00802001 DOI 10.1163/18775462-00802001 Publisher BRILL ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS Journal TURKISH HISTORICAL REVIEW Rights Copyright © 2017, Brill. Download date 27/09/2021 18:51:57 Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Version Final accepted manuscript Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/628212 HISTORICIZING THE OTTOMAN TIMAR SYSTEM: IDENTITIES OF TIMAR-HOLDERS, 14TH TO 17TH CENTURIES LINDA T. DARLING University of Arizona [email protected] revised August 2017 13,022 words Abstract: This article aims to develop a new narrative of changes in the Ottoman timar system independent of the complaints of decline brought by advice writers like Mustafa ‘Ali. Based on the icmal defterleri, it examines the identities of timar-holders and their changes over time, a topic generally ignored in descriptions of the Ottoman military. It connects changes in timar-holding with changing conditions in the sultans’ reigns. It then takes a longer-term look at these changes over the half-centuries and finds the well-known complaints in the nasihatnameler to be based on a very short-term view of the system. Keywords: Ottoman Empire; timar system; sipahi; icmal; muhimme; nasihat; ecnebi;
  • The Ottoman Gunpowder Empire and the Composite Bow Nathan Lanan Gettysburg College Class of 2012

    The Ottoman Gunpowder Empire and the Composite Bow Nathan Lanan Gettysburg College Class of 2012

    Volume 9 Article 4 2010 The Ottoman Gunpowder Empire and the Composite Bow Nathan Lanan Gettysburg College Class of 2012 Follow this and additional works at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/ghj Part of the Islamic World and Near East History Commons, and the Military History Commons Share feedback about the accessibility of this item. Lanan, Nathan (2010) "The Ottoman Gunpowder Empire and the Composite Bow," The Gettysburg Historical Journal: Vol. 9 , Article 4. Available at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/ghj/vol9/iss1/4 This open access article is brought to you by The uC pola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of The uC pola. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Ottoman Gunpowder Empire and the Composite Bow Abstract The Ottoman Empire is known today as a major Gunpowder Empire, famous for its prevalent use of this staple of modern warfare as early as the sixteenth century. However, when Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq visited Constantinople from 1554 to 1562, gunpowder was not used by the Sipahi cavalry who stubbornly, it seems, insisted on continuing to use the composite bow that the Turks had been using for centuries. This continued, despite their fear of European cavalry who used “small muskets” against them on raids. Was this a good idea? Was the composite bow a match or contemporary handheld firearms? Were Turkish tactics incompatible with firearms to the point that the Ottomans would have lost their effectiveness on the battlefield? Could the
  • Ottoman Macedonia (Late 14Th – Late 17Th Century)

    Ottoman Macedonia (Late 14Th – Late 17Th Century)

    VI. Ottoman Macedonia (late 14th – late 17th century) by Phokion Kotzageorgis 1. The Ottoman conquest The Ottoman period in Macedonia begins with the region’s conquest in the late 14th cen- tury.1 The Ottoman victory against the combined Serb forces at Çirmen in Evros in 1371 was the turning point that permitted the victors to proceed with ease towards the west and, around a decade later, to cross the river Nestos and enter the geographic region of Mace- donia. 1383 marked their first great victory in Macedonia, the fall of the important administrative centre of Serres.2 By the end of the century all the strategically important Macedonian cities had been occupied (Veroia, Monastir, Vodena, Thessaloniki).3 The process by which the city of Thessaloniki was captured was somewhat different than for the others: it was initially given to the Ottomans in 1387 – after a siege of four years – and re- mained autonomous for a period. In 1394 it was fully incorporated into the Ottoman state, only to return to Byzantine hands in 1403 with the agreement they made with the Otto- mans, drawn up after the (temporary) collapse of the Ottoman state.4 In 1423 the Byzantine governor of the city, Andronikos Palaiologos, handed it over to the Venetians, and the en- suing Venetian period in Thessaloniki lasted for seven years. On 29 March 1430, the Ottoman regiments under Murad II raided and occupied the city, incorporating it fully into their state.5 Ioannis Anagnostis, eyewitness to Thessaloniki’s fall, described the moment at which the Ottomans entered the city:6 Because in those parts they found a number of our people, pluckier than the others and with large stones, they threw them down, along with the stairways, and killed many of them.
  • Was Suleiman?

    Was Suleiman?

    NEW YORK STATE SOCIAL STUDIES RESOURCE TOOLKIT 9th Grade Suleiman Inquiry How “Magnificent” Was Suleiman? Titian, painting of Suleiman, c1530 ©World History Archive/Newscom Supporting Questions 1. How was Suleiman characterized during his reign? 2. How did Suleiman expand the Ottoman Empire? 3. What changes did Suleiman make to the governance of the Ottoman Empire? 4. To what extent did Suleiman promote tolerance in the Ottoman Empire? THIS WORK IS LICENSED UNDER A CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION- NONCOMMERCIAL- SHAREALIKE 4.0 INTERNATIONAL LICENSE. 1 NEW YORK STATE SOCIAL STUDIES RESOURCE TOOLKIT 9th Grade Suleiman Inquiry How “Magnificent” Was Suleiman? 9.7 OTTOMANS AND MING PRE-1600: Christianity, Islam, and Neo-Confucianism influenced the New York State development of regions and shaped key centers of power in the world between 1368 and 1683. The Social Studies Ottoman Empire and Ming Dynasty were two powerful states, each with a view of itself and its place in the Framework Key world. Idea & Practices Gathering, Using, and Interpreting Evidence Comparison and Contextualization Staging the Students read an excerpt from the National Geographic (2014) article “After 450 Years, Archaeologists Still Question Hunting for Magnificent Sultan’s Heart.” Discuss what reasons might explain the fascination with finding Suleiman’s remains. Supporting Question 1 Supporting Question 2 Supporting Question 3 Supporting Question 4 How was Suleiman How did Suleiman expand What changes did Suleiman To what extent did Suleiman characterized during his the
  • The Urban Janissary in Eighteenth- Century Istanbul

    The Urban Janissary in Eighteenth- Century Istanbul

    THE URBAN JANISSARY IN EIGHTEENTH- CENTURY ISTANBUL By GEMMA MASSON A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham For the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman And Modern Greek Studies School of History and Cultures University of Birmingham July 2019 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. i Abstract The traditional narrative of Ottoman history claims that the Empire went into decline from the seventeenth century onwards, with the eighteenth century being a period of upheaval and change which led to the eventual fall of the Ottomans. The janissaries are major players in these narratives with claims from both secondary and primary writers that this elite military corps became corrupt and this contributed significantly to the overall decline of the Ottoman Empire. Such a simplistic view overlooks the changes taking place in the environment surrounding the janissaries leading to members of the corps needing to adapt to changing circumstances. The result is that the janissaries of this period were for the longest time almost exclusively studied through a binary ‘purity/corruption’ paradigm and it became difficult for scholars to move away from this system of thinking about the corps.
  • The Ottoman Age of Exploration

    The Ottoman Age of Exploration

    the ottoman age of exploration the Ottomanof explorationAge Giancarlo Casale 1 2010 3 Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education. Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dares Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offi ces in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Th ailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Copyright © 2010 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 www.oup.com Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Casale, Giancarlo. Th e Ottoman age of exploration / Giancarlo Casale. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-19-537782-8 1. Turkey—History—16th century. 2. Indian Ocean Region—Discovery and exploration—Turkish. 3. Turkey—Commerce—History—16th century. 4. Navigation—Turkey—History—16th century. I. Title. DR507.C37 2010 910.9182'409031—dc22 2009019822 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper for my several
  • The Ottoman Empire, 1700–1922, Second Edition

    The Ottoman Empire, 1700–1922, Second Edition

    This page intentionally left blank The Ottoman Empire, 1700–1922 The Ottoman Empire was one of the most important non-Western states to survive from medieval to modern times, and played a vital role in European and global history. It continues to affect the peoples of the Middle East, the Balkans, and Central and Western Europe to the present day. This new survey examines the major trends during the latter years of the empire; it pays attention to gender issues and to hotly de- bated topics such as the treatment of minorities. In this second edition, Donald Quataert has updated his lively and authoritative text, revised the bibliographies, and included brief bibliographies of major works on the Byzantine Empire and the post–Ottoman Middle East. This ac- cessible narrative is supported by maps, illustrations, and genealogical and chronological tables, which will be of help to students and non- specialists alike. It will appeal to anyone interested in the history of the Middle East. DONALD QUATAERT is Professor of History at Binghamton University, State University of New York. He has published many books on Middle East and Ottoman history, including An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914 (1994). NEW APPROACHES TO EUROPEAN HISTORY Series editors WILLIAM BEIK Emory University T . C . W . BLANNING Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge New Approaches to European History is an important textbook series, which provides concise but authoritative surveys of major themes and problems in European history since the Renaissance. Written at a level and length accessible to advanced school students and undergraduates, each book in the series addresses topics or themes that students of Eu- ropean history encounter daily: the series will embrace both some of the more “traditional” subjects of study, and those cultural and social issues to which increasing numbers of school and college courses are devoted.
  • Settlements and Population of the Present-Day Montenegrin Polimlje in the Second Half of 15Th Century

    Settlements and Population of the Present-Day Montenegrin Polimlje in the Second Half of 15Th Century

    SETTLEMENTS AND POPULATION OF THE PRESENT-DAY MONTENEGRIN POLIMLJE IN THE SECOND HALF OF 15TH CENTURY MARIJAN PREMOVIĆ* Introduction Geographically, Polimlje (the Lim valley) region falls into three parts: Upper, Central and Lower Polimlje. According to geographers, Upper Polimlje stretches from Gusinje to Berane, Central – from Bijelo Polje to Prijepolje, while Lower Polimlje encompasses the area from Prijepolje to the confl uence of the Lim into the Drina river. However, it is a homogeneous geographic region of the Lim river basin comprising certain parts of the territories of the present-day Montenegro, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Administratively, the Montenegrin Polimlje comprises the municipalities of Gusinje, Plav, Andrijevica, Berane, Petnjica and Bijelo Polje.1 Ottoman rules at the end of 14th and in the fi rst half of 15th century did not, as it seems, result in any signifi cant changes or population movements in these parts. Not even after the fi nal conquest of this area (1455) did any major demographic change or an interruption in the population continuity occur. The fact that all the places in the parishes and wider areas kept their former names bears witness to this notion. Upon the conquest, the Ottoman authorities kept all the former toponyms frequently combining them with either new names or altered old ones.2 Fernand Braudel, one of the leading authorities on world history, designated the Ottoman rule as the liberation of the poor country folk with regard to the fact that * Assistant Professor, University of Montenegro, Faculty of Philosophy (History), Nikšić/ MONTENEGRO, [email protected] 1 Milisav Lutovac, “Dolina Lima – geografski značaj i privredno – geografske promene”, Glasnik Srpskog geografskog društva, Vol.
  • Muhâsebe-I Vilâyet-I Rûm-Ili Defteri Ile Icmâl Defterleri I

    Muhâsebe-I Vilâyet-I Rûm-Ili Defteri Ile Icmâl Defterleri I

    T.C. BAŞBAKANLIK DEVLET ARŞİVLERİ GENEL MÜDÜRLÜĞÜ Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı Yayın Nu: Defter-i Hâkânî Dizisi: XI 367 NUMARALI MUHÂSEBE-İ VİLÂYET-İ RÛM-İLİ DEFTERİ İLE 101, 114 ve 390 NUMARALI İCMÂL DEFTERLERİ ( 920-937 / 1514-1530 ) I Karlı-ili, Agrıboz, Mora, Rodos ve Tırhala Livâları <Dizin> ANKARA - 2007 Proje Yöneticisi Doç. Dr. Yusuf SARINAY Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürü Proje Sorumluları Doç. Dr. Mustafa BUDAK Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdür Yardımcısı Dr. Önder BAYIR Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanı Dr. Ahmet Zeki İZGÖER Yayın İşleri Koordinatörü Yayına Hazırlayanlar Ahmet ÖZKILINÇ Ali COŞKUN Abdullah SİVRİDAĞ Murat YÜZBAŞIOĞLU Baskıya Hazırlama Murat ŞENER Salih DUTOĞLU 367 NUMARALI MUHÂSEBE-İ VİLÂYET-İ RÛM-İLİ DEFTERİ İLE 101, 114 ve 390 NUMARALI İCMÂL DEFTERLERİ ( 920-937 / 1514-1530 ) I Karlı-ili, Agrıboz, Mora, Rodos ve Tırhala Livâları <Dizin> ÖNSÖZ Osmanlı Devleti, XIII. yüzyılın sonu ile XX. yüzyılın ilk çeyreği arasında geçen zaman diliminde dünyanın katetmiş olduğu bütün siyasî, sosyal, ekonomik, askerî ve kültürel gelişmelerde birinci derecede aktif rol alarak günümüzde insanoğlunun ulaşmış olduğu medeniyet seviyesine büyük katkılar sağlamış nadir devletlerden biridir. Böyle bir devletin hangi ekonomik, sosyal, askerî ve idarî temellere dayandığı konusunu aydınlatmak ülkemiz ve dünya tarih araştırmacılarının en önemli çalışma sahalarından birisi olmuştur. Osmanlı Devleti'nin kuruluş, gelişme ve yükselme dönemlerindeki ekonomik, askerî, idarî, sosyal ve demografik yapısının aydınlatılmasında sancak esasına göre tutulmuş olan “Defter-i Hakanîler” yani “Tahrir Defterleri”nin önemli bir yeri vardır. Osmanlı Devleti'nin idarî yapısı, ticaret ve sınaî hayatı, tarım ürünleri, hayvancılık, yer altı kaynakları, nüfus ve etnik yapısı ile tüm sosyal ve tarihî eserler hakkında detaylı bilgiler bu defterlerde mevcuttur.
  • Administrative Legacies, Tribes, and the Kurdish Challenge to Nation-Building in Turkey

    Administrative Legacies, Tribes, and the Kurdish Challenge to Nation-Building in Turkey

    Administrative Legacies, Tribes, and the Kurdish Challenge to Nation-building in Turkey Ebru Erdem This article studies the political role of local authority structures and their impact on the success or failure of nationalist mobilization through a comparative analysis of the competing Turkish and Kurdish nationalisms under the Ottoman Empire and republican Turkey. Kurds have successfully resisted Ottoman centralization policies and republican nation-building projects. However, Kurdish nationalist movements have not been v e r y successful in mobilizing large numbers of Kurds in the name of nationalism either. The paper argues that tribal social structure prevented the penetration of Ottoman or Turkish states and their centralizing or nationalist policies into the Kurdish society. Tribal structure also made it difficult for Kurdish nationalist movements to unify and mobilize members of numerous tribes under one banner; Kurdish nationalist attempts could gain significant support only after the tribal structure started to disintegrate since the 1960s. Utilizing the case of Kurds in Turkey, existing social authority structure is emphasized as a factor that determines the level of success of nation building projects by both states and ethno-nationalist movements. Since the early years of its inception, Republic of Turkey faced a difficult challenge in administering the areas populated by the Kurds in eastern and southeastern Anatolia. The core of this challenge has been and remains to be the uneasy relationship between the state and the Kurdish society. The roots of the problematic state–Kurdish society relationships lie in the way the Ottoman Empire incorporated and administered the Kurds. Ottoman preference to administer the Kurds through the tribal leaders created a political culture with tribal authority at its center, and rendered the formal political institutions unable to penetrate the informal institutions built around the tribal structure.
  • Of the Ottoman Universe

    Of the Ottoman Universe

    GAZA AS “THE THEORY OF EVERTHING” OF THE OTTOMAN UNIVERSE: UNDERSTANDING CONTACT AND CONFLICT IN THE MEDITERRANEAN by Deniz Özlem Çevik Department of History and Classical Studies McGill University, Montréal August 2016 A Thesis Submitted to McGill University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts © Deniz Özlem Çevik, 2016 0 Abstract This study is an attempt to evaluate how encounters between Muslims and non-Muslims in the early modern Mediterranean were represented by the Ottomans. It compares the representations from two periods, medieval Anatolia and early modern Mediterranean, to discover the transitivity of manners of narrating encounters from a region to another, and from a time period to another. The main objective is to discuss the importance of “gaza” concept, which literally means “holy war” and of one of the most heated topic among Ottomanists, as the dominant way of narrating the encounters among Muslims in two periods. Through a comparative reading of two texts that reflect this concept, a prose biography of a Muslim corsair from the sixteenth century and a warrior epic from the thirteenth century, it offers a two-layered analysis of the subject. In the first layer, the resemblances between socio-political structures of medieval Anatolia and that of early modern Mediterrenean that allowed “gaza” to migrate from one to another will be evaluated. In the second layer, it shows the discursive similarities that prove the transitivity of “gaza” as a narrative tool from one textual world to another. Résumé Ce mémoire a pour but d’analyser les réprésentations ottomanes des rencontres entre les musulmans et les chretiens dans la Méditerrannée durant l’époque moderne.