Ottoman World ᇹᇺᇹ

THE OTTOMAN WORLD ᇹᇺᇹ Edited by Christine Woodhead First published by Routledge Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge Third Avenue, New York, NY Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © Christine Woodhead for selection and editorial matter; individual contributions, the contributors. The right of Christine Woodhead to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections and of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act . All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested. ISBN: –––– (hbk) ISBN: –––– (ebk) Typeset in Adobe Garamond Pro by Swales & Willis Ltd, Exeter, Devon CONTENTS ᇹᇺᇹ List of illustrations viii List of maps ix List of tables ix List of contributors X Preface xiv Note on Turkish and technicalities xvi Introduction Christine Woodhead PART I: FOUNDATIONS Nomads and tribes in the Ottoman empire Reşat Kasaba The Ottoman economy in the early imperial age Rhoads Murphey The law of the land Colin Imber A kadi court in the Balkans: Sofia in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries Rossitsa Gradeva Imarets Amy Singer Sufis in the age of state-building and confessionalization Derin Terzioğlu V — Contents — PART II: OTTOMANS AND OTHERS Royal and other households Metin Kunt ‘On the tranquillity and repose of the sultan’: the construction of a topos Hakan T. Karateke Of translation and empire: sixteenth-century Ottoman imperial interpreters as Renaissance go-betweens Tijana Krstić Ottoman languages Christine Woodhead Ethnicity, race, religion and social class: Ottoman markers of difference Baki Tezcan The Kızılbaş of Syria and Ottoman Shiism Stefan Winter The reign of violence: the celalis c.– Oktay Özel PART III: THE WIDER EMPIRE Between universalistic claims and reality: Ottoman frontiers in the early modern period Dariusz Kołodziejczyk Defending and administering the frontier: the case of Ottoman Hungary Gábor Ágoston The Ottoman frontier in Kurdistan in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Nelida Fuccaro Conquest, urbanization and plague networks in the Ottoman empire, – Nükhet Varlık The peripheralization of the Ottoman Algerian elite Tal Shuval On the edges of an Ottoman world: non-Muslim Ottoman merchants in Amsterdam İsmail Hakkı Kadı PART IV: ORDINARY PEOPLE Masters, servants and slaves: household formation among the urban notables of early Ottoman Aleppo Charles L. Wilkins vi — Contents — Subject to the sultan’s approval: seventeenth- and eighteenth-century artisans negotiating guild agreements in Istanbul Suraiya Faroqhi Literacy among artisans and tradesmen in Ottoman Cairo Nelly Hanna ‘Guided by the Almighty’: the journey of Stephan Schultz in the Ottoman empire, – Jan Schmidt The right to choice: Ottoman, ecclesiastical and communal justice in Ottoman Greece Eugenia Kermeli Ottoman women as legal and marital subjects Başak Tuğ Forms and forums of expression: Istanbul and beyond, – Tülay Artan PART V: LATER OTTOMANS The old regime and the Ottoman Middle East Ariel Salzmann The transformation of the Ottoman fiscal regime c.– Michael Ursinus Provincial power-holders and the empire in the late Ottoman world: conflict or partnership? Ali Yaycıoğlu The Arabic-speaking world in the Ottoman period: a socio-political analysis Ehud R. Toledano Glossary References Index vii CHAPTER EIGHT ‘ON THE TRANQUILLITY AND REPOSE OF THE SULTAN’* The construction of a topos ᇹᇺᇹ Hakan T. Karateke hose who received their high school education in Turkey learned from the history Ttextbooks that one of the reasons for the stagnation and decline of the Ottoman empire was the lack of participation by sultans in military campaigns. The section that dealt with this decline usually followed one on the glorious Süleymanic age (– ), and gave either the reign of Selim II (–) or that of Murad III (–) as the beginning of the period of stagnation and decline. Although the absence of the sultan from the battlefront was not necessarily prominent among the many ‘internal’ and ‘external’ factors that were usually listed in this section, it tended to stick in the collective memory of those who went through the Turkish education system. This historical detail was perhaps so salient because it was generally mentioned in connec- tion with the fact that sultans now ‘spent much of their time submerged in pleasures in their palaces’. Such information may have been more likely to capture the attention of a typical teenager, in contrast to the otherwise quite tedious narratives of history. One could justifiably view this chapter as my attempt to set the record straight for at least one of the teachings with which I was inculcated during my high school education. But the situation is actually much more alarming than that. This largely unquestioned explanation, ubiquitous not only in Turkish history textbooks, shows to what degree we may have internalized the standard narratives that have become so much a part of the ‘natural’ paradigms originally established on the basis of nothing but historical narratives. While there may be no way around the texts that we have at hand, reading them uncritically and without context is probably one of the biggest obstacles to producing a reasonable historiography of the Ottoman empire. This essay will investigate the circumstances surrounding the genesis of the view that the increasingly frequent military debacles from the late sixteenth century onwards were caused, among other things, by the sultans’ physical absence from campaigns. While modern historians might dismiss this line of reasoning as insubstantial, they tend not to consider under what circumstances such an explanation could be advanced by Ottomans at the time. I will explore how and why the controversy about the sultan’s participation in military campaigns arose in the late sixteenth century, and how it made its way into twentieth-century textbooks. A survey of how the issue is repre- sented in certain contemporary historical and political works enables us to explore — ‘On the tranquillity and repose of the sultan’ — at least some views on the ways in which public opinion was shaped in the Ottoman capital, how the imperial image was promoted and, at times, challenged, and how the concept of rulership evolved over time. Although the topic raises many related questions on the mobility or immobility of Ottoman sultans in general, analysis of these broader questions of how often, how far, where and, most importantly, for what pur- poses the Ottoman sultans travelled remains for another study. MURAD III’S INERTIA Mustafa Ali, a bureaucrat of the late sixteenth century, writes rather apologetically in one of his major historical works, the Künhü’l-ahbar, about Murad III’s reluctance to go on campaign. In an extra section composed after Murad’s death in , and introduced by the heading ‘On the tranquility and repose of the sultan’, Ali investi- gates the reasons for the sultan’s unwillingness to set out on campaign, even though his vezirs were very much in favour of it. Murad III, relates the author, would not budge from the Ottoman capital once he had made the journey from Manisa to Istanbul to be enthroned. Ali dismisses the argument that the sultan had epilepsy and therefore could not travel. He produces an explanation that the sultan’s ‘personal substance’ (zat) required immobility. None of the letters in his name, Murad, had the quality to cause him to move. All of them, says Ali, carried characteristics that would increase his inclination towards the ground.1 At the time Ali devised this hypothesis, the twenty-one years of Murad’s reign, in addition to the eight-year reign of his father Selim II (–), had passed without a sovereign having actively participated in any military campaign. Discontent about Murad’s inertia had sprung up already during his lifetime. Ali clearly touches upon the subject in his Nushatü’s-selatin of , although not as straightforwardly as in his later work. After describing in detail the squabbles between the commanders Lala Mustafa Paşa and Sinan Paşa before they left for the Iranian campaign of , Ali claims that, if Murad had accompanied the army, all the Iranian lands would have been seized and the situation on the eastern front would have been resolved com- pletely.2 Another writer, Asafi, focuses on the same Iranian campaign in his Şecaatname, written in , a few years after the Nushat. He claims that, had the sultan taken the trouble to campaign, then not only the Iranian lands, but all the territories as far as China would have come under Ottoman control.3 Of course, if the military campaigns of these years had resulted in overwhelming success, the issue of the sultan’s participation would probably not have arisen. The arguments revolve primarily around the fact that, although these campaigns did not end in total disaster, they were far from being clear victories, and were a significant drain on the imperial treas- ury. No such criticism is known to have arisen during the reign of Murad’s predeces- sor, Selim II. The difference here is that a favourable peace treaty was signed with the Austrian Habsburgs two years after Selim’s accession and that in , most spectacu- larly, Cyprus was taken from the Venetians by the commander-in-chief Lala Mustafa Paşa.

Load more