DOCSLIB.ORG

Review the Following Terms: CHINA: the OTTOMAN EMPIRE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Review the Following Terms: CHINA: the OTTOMAN EMPIRE Warm-Up: Review the following terms: CHINA: • The Middle Kingdom • The Taiping Uprising • Hong Xiuquan • The Opium Wars • The Treaty of Nanjing (1842) • Spheres of Influence • “Self-strengthening” • Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists (Boxer Rebellion) THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE: • “The strong sword of Islam” • “The sick man of Europe” • Devshirme • Sultan • Ulama • Janissaries • Tanzimat • Young Ottomans • Islamic modernism • Young Turks Ch. 19: Comparing China and the Ottoman Empire Questions 1. In what ways were China and the Ottoman Empire similar prior to 1800? 2. In what ways were China and the Ottoman Empire different prior to 1800? 3. In what ways was China’s experience from 1750-1900 similar to the Ottoman Empire’s experience during the same time period? 4. In what ways was China’s experience from 1750-1900 different to the Ottoman Empire’s experience during the same time period? 5. In what ways was reform in China in the late 19th/early 20th centuries similar to reform in the Ottoman Empire during the same time period? 6. In what ways was reform in China in the late 19th/early 20th centuries different than reform in the Ottoman Empire during the same time period? 1. In what ways were China and the Ottoman Empire similar prior to 1800? ● Both were highly successful, well-established civilizations prior to 1800 ● Both had territories that included their respective cultural heartlands and expanded into new areas over time ● Both had distinct cultures heavily dependent on philosophy/religion (Islam in the Ottoman Empire, Confucianism/Daoism/Buddhism in China) ● Both Muslims and Chinese had long histories of prosperous trade, economic flourishing, and scientific innovations ● Both had centralized bureaucracies ● Both had supreme rulers (the emperor in China, the sultan in the Ottoman Empire) in absolute monarchies ● Both were large empires that included diverse populations, but still ruled over a primary ethnicity (ethnic Chinese in China, Turks in the Ottoman Empire) ● Both looked down on the West with condescending attitudes ● Neither took the West to be a serious threat or felt the need to learn or borrow from Europe ● Both had to increasingly face increasing challenges from the West as the economies and militaries of the West became more advanced and expansive ● Both had declined somewhat in their world positions by 1800 ● Both were very patriarchal and historically suppressed women ● Neither felt the modern or democratic influences of the Enlightenment, Scientific Revolution, or political revolutions like the West had ● Neither had industrialized prior to 1800 2. In what ways were China and the Ottoman Empire different prior to 1800? ● China had a much longer history (almost 4000 years of history) by 1800, whereas the Ottoman Empire had been around since the 1300s ● Chinese civilization was contained entirely in the Chinese state, whereas the Ottoman Empire was only one of the several Muslim states ● Different philosophical/religious influences (Islam in the Ottoman Empire, Confucianism/Daoism/Buddhism in China) ● China had more of a historic reputation of being a land of wealth and prized trade items, much more so than the Ottoman Empire had been ● China had viewed itself as the “Middle Kingdom” and was arguably much more ethnocentric than the Ottoman Empire ● China had more cultural homogeneity than did the Ottoman Empire ● The Ottoman Empire was spread over 3 continents, whereas Qing China was solely in East Asia in the land that China had occupied for millennia ● The Ottoman Empire, due to its location, had more contact with Europeans prior to 1800 than China had ● China had experienced much more population growth than the Ottoman Empire prior to 1800, and struggled to deal with all of those people ● China had a much larger peasant population than the Ottoman Empire ● China’s rulers (the Manchus) were regarded as foreigners; the Ottoman Empire’s rulers were seen as culturally identical to its core population (Turks) ● Ottoman Empire had a more favorable view of merchants 3. In what ways was China’s experience from 1750-1900 similar to the Ottoman Empire’s experience during the same time period? ● Neither Qing China nor the Ottoman Empire fell under direct European colonial rule, but both were diminished as they came out on the losing end of a changing global order led by Europeans ● Both were given “unequal treaties” by the Europeans which enabled European penetration of their economies ● Both lost territory to other nations ● Both were militarily outdated relative to Europe ● In both empires, provincial/local authorities gained more power at the expense of the central government ● Both were once proud civilizations that had become “semi-colonies” within the “informal empires” of Europe ● Both struggled with European economic pressures ● Both became economically dependent on Europe by 1900 ● Both dealt with internal issues (peasant rebellions in China, nationalist movements in the Ottoman Empire) ● Neither was able to create the industrial economies or strong states required to fend off European intrusion or restore their former status in the world ● The experiences of both empires would lead to them coming to an end in the early 20th century (both will go through transformative changes) ● Both went through modernizing/industrializing procedures, but these were largely in response to European aggression and, later, largely dependent on European direction ● Both produced nationalist movements 4. In what ways was China’s experience from 1750-1900 different than the Ottoman Empire’s experience during the same time period? ● China had to deal with the pressures of an increased population (lack of food, lack of jobs, inability of the centralized bureaucracy to keep up) ● The Qing dynasty received more scorn than Ottoman leadership because it was already seen in a negative light (outsiders)- matters in the 19th century just made it worse ● China had to deal with a massive peasant rebellion (the Taiping Uprising) ● China had to deal with the effects of an increased drug trade (opium from the British) ● The Ottoman Empire had to deal with nationalist movements (the Greeks, the Armenians, Serbians, Romanians, and Bulgarians) ● The Chinese had more prolonged militant responses to European aggression (ex: the Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists, or the Boxer Rebellion) 5. In what ways was reform in China in the late 19th/early 20th centuries similar to reform in the Ottoman Empire during the same time period? ● Both launched efforts at “defensive modernization” aimed at strengthening their states and preserving their independence ● In both societies people held tightly to old identities and values ● In both societies, others embraced new national identities focused on modernization ● Nationalism became a powerful force in both societies ● Both reform efforts prompted backlash from conservative members of society (the Janissaries and ulama in the Ottoman Empire, and the bureaucrats and gentry in China) 6. In what ways was reform in China in the late 19th/early 20th centuries different than reform in the Ottoman Empire during the same time period? ● Ottoman reforms began earlier than Qing reforms and were more sustained than the half-hearted “self-strengthening” reforms in China ● Ottoman reforms began with attempting to modernize the military ● Reforms resulted in the Ottoman sultan (Selim III) being overthrown and murdered ● Tanzimat reforms in the Ottoman Empire resulted in much farther-reaching modernization and Westernization than in China (ex: Western-style secular law codes and courts, new secular elementary and secondary schools, telegraphs, steamships, and a modern postal service) ● Minority subjects were given equal rights in the Ottoman Empire, which prompted some backlash (such as Turks deporting and massacring Armenians) ● Minorities were given far more opportunities to advance in the Ottoman Empire (ex: Christians could obtain high offices) .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Historia Scribere 13 (2021)
    historia scribere 13 (2021) The Beginnings of an Empire. The Transformation of the Ottoman State into an Empire, demonstrated at the example of Grand Vizier Mahmud Pasha’s life and accomplishments Vera Flatz Kerngebiet: Neuzeit eingereicht bei: Yasir Yilmaz, MA PhD und Univ.-Prof. Dr. Stefan Ehrenpreis eingereicht im: WiSe 2019/20 Rubrik: Seminar-Arbeit Abstract The Beginnings of an Empire. The Transformation of the Ottoman State into an Empire, demonstrated at the example of Grand Vizier Mahmud Pasha’s life and accomplishments The following seminar paper deals with Grand Vizier Mahmud Pasha’s life and the processes that turned an Ottoman principality into the Ottoman Empire. Starting with Sultan Mehmed’s II appointment in 1444, important practic- es such as the nomination of a grand vizier changed significantly. Moreover, Mehmed II built a new palace which reflected the new imperial self-percep- tion, a new code of law was installed, and the empire was centralised. All these developments become especially visible in the life of Grand Vizier Mahmud Pasha Angelovic. The paper examines secondary literature as well as contem- porary sources of Kritobolous and Ibn Khaldun. Sources on Mahmud Pasha’s life are rare and need to be analysed with caution as his posthumous legend influenced the production of literature about his life. 1. Introduction Mahmud Pasha Angelovic, born at the beginning of the 15th century in a town in Ser- bia, became one of the most influential grand viziers of the Ottoman Empire. How did that happen? In 1453, Mehmed II conquered Constantinople and made it the capital of one of the biggest empires of the early modern period.
    [Show full text]
  • Fall of Constantinople] Pmunc 2018 ​ ​ Contents
    [FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE] PMUNC 2018 ​ ​ CONTENTS Letter from the Chair and CD………....…………………………………………....[3] Committee Description…………………………………………………………….[4] The Siege of Constantinople: Introduction………………………………………………………….……. [5] Sailing to Byzantium: A Brief History……...………....……………………...[6] Current Status………………………………………………………………[9] Keywords………………………………………………………………….[12] Questions for Consideration……………………………………………….[14] Character List…………………...………………………………………….[15] Citations……..…………………...………………………………………...[23] 2 [FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE] PMUNC 2018 ​ ​ LETTER FROM THE CHAIR Dear delegates, Welcome to PMUNC! My name is Atakan Baltaci, and I’m super excited to conquer a city! I will be your chair for the Fall of Constantinople Committee at PMUNC 2018. We have gathered the mightiest commanders, the most cunning statesmen and the most renowned scholars the Ottoman Empire has ever seen to achieve the toughest of goals: conquering Constantinople. This Sultan is clever and more than eager, but he is also young and wants your advice. Let’s see what comes of this! Sincerely, Atakan Baltaci Dear delegates, Hello and welcome to PMUNC! I am Kris Hristov and I will be your crisis director for the siege of Constantinople. I am pleased to say this will not be your typical committee as we will focus more on enacting more small directives, building up to the siege of Constantinople, which will require military mobilization, finding the funds for an invasion and the political will on the part of all delegates.. Sincerely, Kris Hristov 3 [FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE] PMUNC 2018 ​ ​ COMMITTEE DESCRIPTION The year is 1451, and a 19 year old has re-ascended to the throne of the Ottoman Empire. Mehmed II is now assembling his Imperial Court for the grandest city of all: Constantinople! The Fall of Constantinople (affectionately called the Conquest of Istanbul by the Turks) was the capture of the Byzantine Empire's capital by the Ottoman Empire.
    [Show full text]
  • I TURKEY and the RESCUE of JEWS DURING the NAZI ERA: a RE-APPRAISAL of TWO CASES; GERMAN-JEWISH SCIENTISTS in TURKEY & TURKISH JEWS in OCCUPIED FRANCE
    TURKEY AND THE RESCUE OF JEWS DURING THE NAZI ERA: A REAPPRAISAL OF TWO CASES; GERMAN-JEWISH SCIENTISTS IN TURKEY & TURKISH JEWS IN OCCUPIED FRANCE by I. Izzet Bahar B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, 1974 M.Sc. in Electrical Engineering, Bosphorus University, Istanbul, 1977 M.A. in Religious Studies, University of Pittsburgh, 2006 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Art and Sciences in partial fulfillment Of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Cooperative Program in Religion University of Pittsburgh 2012 i UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences This dissertation was presented by I. Izzet Bahar It was defended on March 26, 2012 And approved by Clark Chilson, PhD, Assistant Professor, Religious Studies Seymour Drescher, PhD, University Professor, History Pınar Emiralioglu, PhD, Assistant Professor, History Alexander Orbach, PhD, Associate Professor, Religious Studies Adam Shear, PhD, Associate Professor, Religious Studies Dissertation Advisor: Adam Shear, PhD, Associate Professor, Religious Studies ii Copyright © by I. Izzet Bahar 2012 iii TURKEY AND THE RESCUE OF JEWS DURING THE NAZI ERA: A RE-APPRAISAL OF TWO CASES; GERMAN-JEWISH SCIENTISTS IN TURKEY & TURKISH JEWS IN OCCUPIED FRANCE I. Izzet Bahar, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2012 This study aims to investigate in depth two incidents that have been widely presented in literature as examples of the humanitarian and compassionate Turkish Republic lending her helping hand to Jewish people who had fallen into difficult, even life threatening, conditions under the racist policies of the Nazi German regime. The first incident involved recruiting more than one hundred Jewish scientists and skilled technical personnel from German-controlled Europe for the purpose of reforming outdated academia in Turkey.
    [Show full text]
  • Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: the Abridged Edition
    EXCERPTED FROM Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Abridged Edition edited by Benjamin Braude Copyright © 2014 ISBNs: 978-1-58826-889-1 hc 978-1-58826-865-5 pb 1800 30th Street, Suite 314 Boulder, CO 80301 USA telephone 303.444.6684 fax 303.444.0824 This excerpt was downloaded from the Lynne Rienner Publishers website www.rienner.com Contents Preface vii List of Abbreviations ix Note on Transliteration x 1 Introduction 1 Benjamin Braude 2 Transformation of Zimmi into Askerî 51 İ. Metin Kunt 3 Foundation Myths of the Millet System 65 Benjamin Braude 4 The Rise of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople 87 Kevork B. Bardakjian 5 Ottoman Policy Toward the Jews and Jewish Attitudes Toward the Ottomans During the Fifteenth Century 99 Joseph R. Hacker 6 The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire 109 Richard Clogg 7 The Dual Role of the Armenian Amira Class Within the Ottoman Government and the Armenian Millet 133 Hagop Barsoumian 8 Foreign Merchants and the Minorities in Istanbul During the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries 147 Robert Mantran 9 The Transformation of the Economic Position of the Millets in the Nineteenth Century 159 Charles Issawi v vi Contents 10 The Millets as Agents of Change in the Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Empire 187 Roderic H. Davison 11 The Acid Test of Ottomanism: The Acceptance of Non-Muslims in the Late Ottoman Bureaucracy 209 Carter V. Findley 12 Communal Conflict in Ottoman Syria During the Reform Era: The Role of Political and Economic Factors 241 Moshe Ma‘oz 13 Communal Conflict in Nineteenth-Century Lebanon 257 Samir Khalaf 14 Unionist Relations with the Greek, Armenian, and Jewish Communities of the Ottoman Empire, 1908 –1914 287 Feroz Ahmad 15 The Political Situation of the Copts, 1798 –1923 325 Doris Behrens-Abouseif Selected Bibliography 347 About the Contributors 355 Index 357 About the Book 374 1 Introduction Benjamin Braude Thirty years ago the first edition of this book appeared.
    [Show full text]
  • The Making of Sultan Süleyman: a Study of Process/Es of Image-Making and Reputation Management
    THE MAKING OF SULTAN SÜLEYMAN: A STUDY OF PROCESS/ES OF IMAGE-MAKING AND REPUTATION MANAGEMENT by NEV ĐN ZEYNEP YELÇE Submitted to the Institute of Social Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History Sabancı University June, 2009 © Nevin Zeynep Yelçe 2009 All Rights Reserved To My Dear Parents Ay şegül and Özer Yelçe ABSTRACT THE MAKING OF SULTAN SÜLEYMAN: A STUDY OF PROCESS/ES OF IMAGE-MAKING AND REPUTATION MANAGEMENT Yelçe, Nevin Zeynep Ph.D., History Supervisor: Metin Kunt June 2009, xv+558 pages This dissertation is a study of the processes involved in the making of Sultan Süleyman’s image and reputation within the two decades preceding and following his accession, delineating the various phases and aspects involved in the making of the multi-layered image of the Sultan. Handling these processes within the framework of Sultan Süleyman’s deeds and choices, the main argument of this study is that the reputation of Sultan Süleyman in the 1520s was the result of the convergence of his actions and his projected image. In the course of this study, main events of the first ten years of Sultan Süleyman’s reign are conceptualized in order to understand the elements employed first in making a Sultan out of a Prince, then in maintaining and enhancing the sultanic image and authority. As such, this dissertation examines the rhetorical, ceremonial, and symbolic devices which came together to build up a public image for the Sultan. Contextualized within a larger framework in terms of both time and space, not only the meaning and role of each device but the way they are combined to create an image becomes clearer.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ottomans Build a Vast Empire
    Guiding Questions What empires preceded the Ottoman Empire and when? What factors contributed to the rise of Ottoman power in Eurasia? Can you trace the path across Asia taken by the Turks, bringing them Greek Empire: 8th Century BC – 1st Century BC Roman Empire: 1st Century BC – 5th Century AD Byzantine Empire: 6th Century AD – 15th Century AD Essential Questions: What factors & events contributed to the rise of the Ottoman Empire? What factors and events contributed to the expansion of Sultan rule in Eurasia? Geographic origin of the “Turks” The “Turks” begin in central Asia (Lake Baikal) Turks Move West Turks raid Asian Steppes as overland pirates sustained by the bountiful ecosystems of central Asia, particularly Lake Baikal and its surrounding areas Turks pushed west by similarly sustained Mongol tribes Turks encounter Islam in Persia and gain foothold therein Create the “Turkish Belt” stretching from Lake Baikal to Anatolia/Asia Minor under leadership of the Seljuk Turks Turks seek out territory within the Byzantine Empire and therefore access to the Mediterranean Sea Turks erode Byzantine frontiers in east Anatolia Turks gain foothold in Anatolia/Asia Minor Geographic origin of the “Turks” Lake Baikal in central Asia Turks move west raiding Asian Steppes The Seljuks – Become ruling family of the westward nomadic Turks. Flee west from Mongol invasion – Turkic nomads follow Gain foothold in Persia (modern day Iran) Influenced by Islam and convert Create “Turkish Belt” across central Asia to Anatolia/Asia Minor Disrupt Persian economy (as caravans continue and nomads stream into Persia, sustaining the “Turkish Belt”) Retain shamanistic rituals (create special brand of Islam) Culture and ambition compels Turks further westward to eastern edge of Byzantium.
    [Show full text]
  • From Sultanate to Republic Kevin Jackson Ouachita Baptist University
    Ouachita Baptist University Scholarly Commons @ Ouachita History Class Publications Department of History 12-18-2014 From Sultanate to Republic Kevin Jackson Ouachita Baptist University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.obu.edu/history Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Jackson, Kevin, "From Sultanate to Republic" (2014). History Class Publications. 5. https://scholarlycommons.obu.edu/history/5 This Class Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of History at Scholarly Commons @ Ouachita. It has been accepted for inclusion in History Class Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons @ Ouachita. For more information, please contact [email protected]. From Sultanate to Republic Kevin Jackson 12/18/14 Dr. Bethany Hicks World at War The Turkish Revolution exemplifies the rise of the nation-state and signified the complete destruction of the old order in the Middle East. The currents of thought and the political developments that rose to prominence in Turkey’s formation have had long-lasting implications. The entire once-Ottoman world has had to come to grips with nationalistic movements, democratization, and the relation between faith and state. The Young Turk movement provided a demonstration of what modern nationalism could accomplish, both in positive terms of inclusion and modernization and also in terms of ethnic and religious exclusion. By the time World War I began in Europe, the Ottoman Empire was an antiquated and dying system. Though merely a shell of its former glory, the Empire was once a dynamic and powerful force. The center of imperial power was originally found in the Sultan, who ruled a centralized system.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Decline' in the Spanish and Ottoman Empires a Thesis
    THE MENTALITIES OF ‘DECLINE’ IN THE SPANISH AND OTTOMAN EMPIRES A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY SEVEN AĞIR IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS AUGUST 2003 ABSTRACT THE MENTALITIES OF ‘DECLINE’ IN THE SPANISH AND OTTOMAN EMPIRES Ağır, Seven M. Sc., Department of Economics Supervisor: Assist. Prof. Dr. Onur Yıldırım August 2003, 70 pages This study is an attempt to challenge the conventional decline-irrationality literature in the Ottoman historiography. Conventional view presented a way of thinking that is unfavorable to the rational economic behavior as the explanatory factor for the so-called decline of Ottoman Empire. Using an explicitly comparative approach, main aim of the study is to account for the specific trajectory of the Ottoman transformation without recourse to the conventional view. Juxtaposing the Ottoman and Western experience, the traditional explanation runs through the specific trajectory of Ottoman transformation in terms of its mental inferiority with respect to the so-called Western rationale. In contradistinction, this study aims to demonstrate that the Ottoman and Spanish experiences can be analyzed within the same comparative framework without an eye to such factors as ‘irrationality’. Keywords: Ottoman Empire, Spanish Empire, Economic Mentality, Ottoman Economy, Ottoman Economic Thought iii ÖZ OSMANLI VE İSPANYOL İMPARATORLUKLARINDA ‘GERİLEME’ ZİHNİYETİ Ağır, Seven Yüksek Lisans, İktisat Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Yr. Doç. Dr. Onur Yıldırım Ağustos 2003, 70 sayfa Bu tez, Osmanlı tarih yazınında egemen olan gerileme-akıldışılık yaklaşımını farklı bir çerçeveden sorgulamayı amaçlamaktadır. Geleneksel tarih yazınında, Osmanlı gerilemesi olarak adlandırılan dönem Osmanlı toplumunda akılcı iktisadi davranışın doğasına elverişsiz bir düşünce yapısının varlığıyla açıklanmaktadır.
    [Show full text]
  • The Divinely-Protected, Well-Flourishing Domain: the Establishment of the Ottoman System in the Balkan Peninsula by Sean Krummer
    The Divinely-Protected, Well-Flourishing Domain: The Establishment of the Ottoman System in the Balkan Peninsula By Sean Krummerich Throughout history a number of states and individuals have aspired to the goal of establishing their rule over the entire world, and many of these have managed to establish large empires encompassing vast stretches of land and a spectrum of diverse peoples. Some of the best known of these multinational empires were the Roman, Habsburg and Russian empires. No less impressive than these is that multinational empire which figured prominently in the history of Europe and the Middle East, the empire established by the Ottoman Turks. The Ottoman state was founded in the early 1300s as one of many small Turkish states in Anatolia by the hand of Osman, from whom the names "House of Osman" (the designation of the ruling family) and "Ottoman" are derived. The state steadily grew under Osman’s successors, and, by the time of the battle of Kosovo in 1389 the Ottomans held extensive areas of land in Anatolia and Eastern Europe. And while state suffered a temporary setback in 1402 when the Turks were defeated by the forces of Tamerlane, it was able to recover. It was under the reign of Mehmed II (1444-81) that the Ottomans realized their longtime goal of conquering the city of Constantinople (1453), which became the new Ottoman capital of Istanbul. The reign of Selim I saw relatively little advance in Eastern Europe but saw the conquest of the Arab Mamluk state of Egypt in 1517, bringing most of the Arab world under Ottoman control.
    [Show full text]
  • Worringer on Imber, 'The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: the Structure of Power'
    H-Levant Worringer on Imber, 'The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power' Review published on Saturday, May 1, 2004 Colin Imber. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. xiv + 405 pp. $27.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-333-61386-3; $19.95 (paper), ISBN 978-0-333-61387-0. Reviewed by Renee Worringer (School of History, Philosophy, Religion, and Classics, University of Queensland) Published on H-Levant (May, 2004) Until recently the Ottoman historian was at a marked disadvantage when teaching an undergraduate course on the Ottoman Empire's rise and interactions with Europe. There was an absence of suitable general histories explaining the particulars behind the emergence of the Ottoman principality on the Byzantine-Seljuk frontier; its subsequent expansion into the Balkans and into Anatolia, culminating in the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453; and ultimately Ottoman ascension to the status of world empire. As a result, the Ottomanist was forced to assemble myriad collections of book chapters, articles, and essays from different publications into an accessible form. At times the chronology of events leading to the establishment of the Ottoman state was lost in the scramble to collect materials explicating the minutiae of Ottoman governing structures and dynastic power. Other times, historiographical debates and the effects of earlier Western and Turkish nationalist approaches to Ottoman history had to be ignored to convey basic information about what happened when, what battles were fought, or what territories were annexed and by which reigning Ottoman Sultan. Several long-overdue monographs have now been published in an attempt to respond to this deficiency in the field.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ottoman Empire
    TEACHING MODERN SOUTHEAST EUROPEAN HISTORY Alternative Educational Materials The Ottoman Empire THE PUBLICATIONS AND TEACHER TRAINING ACTIVITIES OF THE JOINT HISTORY PROJECT HAVE BEEN MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH THE KIND FINANCIAL BACKING OF THE FOLLOWING: UK FOREIGN & COMMONWEALTH OFFICE Norwegian People’s Aid United States Institute of Peace Swiss Development Agency DR. PETER MAHRINGER FONDS TWO ANONYMOUS DONORS THE CYPRUS FEDERATION OF AMERICA Royal Dutch Embassy in Athens WINSTON FOUNDATION FOR WORLD PEACE And with particular thanks for the continued support of: 2nd Edition in the English Language CDRSEE Rapporteur to the Board for the Joint History Project: Costa Carras Executive Director: Nenad Sebek Director of Programmes: Corinna Noack-Aetopulos CDRSEE Project Team: George Georgoudis, Biljana Meshkovska, Antonis Hadjiyannakis, Jennifer Antoniadis and Louise Kallora-Stimpson English Language Proofreader: Jenny Demetriou Graphic Designer: Anagramma Graphic Designs, Kallidromiou str., 10683, Athens, Greece Printing House: Petros Ballidis and Co., Ermou 4, Metamorfosi 14452, Athens, Greece Disclaimer: The designations employed and presentation of the material in the book do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the publisher (CDRSEE) nor on the sponsors. This book contains the views expressed by the authors in their individual capacity and may not necessarily reflect the views of the CDRSEE and the sponsoring agencies. Print run: 1000 Copyright: Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe (CDRSEE)
    [Show full text]
  • Human and Physical Geography
    Human and Physical Geography Anatolia (AN-uh-TOH-lee-uh), also called Asia Minor, is a huge peninsula in modern-day Turkey that juts out into the Black and Mediterranean seas. Anatolia is a high, rocky plateau, rich in timber arid agriculture. Nearby mountains hold important mineral deposits. By the 1300s, Anatolia was inhabited mostly by the descendents of nomadic Turks. Many Anatolian Turks saw themselves as ghazis (GAH-zees), or warriors for Islam. They formed military societies under the leadership of an emir, a chief commander, and followed a strict Islamic code of conduct. They raided the territories of the "infidels," or people who didn't believe in Islam. These infidels lived on the frontiers of the Byzantine Empire. Rise of the Ottomans The most successful ghazi was Osman. People in the West called him Othman and named his followers Ottomans. Osman built a small Muslim state in Anatolia between 1300 and 1326. His successors expanded it through land purchases, alliances, and conquest. The Ottomans' military success was largely based on the use of gunpowder. They replaced their archers on horseback with musket-carrying foot soldiers. They also were among the first people to use cannons as offensive weapons. Even heavily walled cities fell to an all-out attack by the Turks. The second Ottoman leader, Orkhan I, was Osman's son. He felt strong enough to declare himself the sultan, meaning "overlord" or "one with power." In 1361, the Ottomans captured Adrianople (ay-dree-uh-NOH-puhl), the second most important Byzantine city. A new Turkish empire was on the rise.
    [Show full text]