Author 丨 [Japanese] Lin Jia Shizi
Trace Ottoman history in Turkey
Visit the modern Republic of Turkey and arrive in Istanbul, where you will feel that it bears the glory of history as the capital of the Ottoman Empire: the magnificent and sprawling mosques, the exquisite and delicate Topkapi Palace, the bustling bazaar (market)...
However, leaving Istanbul and entering the Anatolian region, the historical imprint of the Ottoman Empire gradually faded. Most of the monuments and other monuments in central Anatolia are left over from the Roman Sultanate, which predates the Ottoman Empire, and belongs to the Persian style. On the Mediterranean and Aegean coasts, the historical sites of the Greek and Roman era are so grand that no trace of the Ottoman Empire can be found in them. Where does this gap come from?
In every town in Anatolia, if you look closely, you will find one or two authentic mosques, schools, baths or grand bazaars left over from the Ottoman period, and these buildings are usually still in use. Buildings of this magnitude during the Ottoman Empire can also be seen in European countries from Hungary to Greece, and in North African Arab countries such as Syria and Egypt. In towns and cities in the Anatolian region, there are many buildings commemorating the Ottoman Empire, although not ubiquitous.
The simple facts show that the Anatolian region, now Turkey, was not the only territory of the Ottoman Empire, or rather, an inherent territory. The book argues that the historical Ottoman Empire grew up as a balkan power and later conquered much of Anatolia. It was not an empire built by the Turks of Anatolia who had its origins in Anatolia.
The Ottoman Empire: Five Hundred Years of Peace, by Lin Jiashizi, translated by Zhong Fang, January 2020 edition of Beijing Daily Press
Therefore, the Ottoman Empire could not be confined to the territory of contemporary Turkey. Under the Ottoman Empire, most of the Turkic peoples, like the Balkan and Arab peoples, were conquered. As for the national affiliation of the ruling class, it can only be said that the rulers of the Ottoman Empire had a sense of identification with the title "Ottoman", and this sense of identity was acquired. From a modern perspective, the "Ottomans" group was joined by Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians, Bosnians, Albanians, Macedonians, Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Armenians, Caucasus nationalities, Crimean Tatars, etc., as well as a small number of Hungarians and Croats. In this way, it does not make sense to explore which people ruled the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire "belonged to no one", and no country considered itself the successor of the Ottoman Empire.
But why is it that only the Turks are considered to be descendants of the Ottoman Empire?
"Descendants" of the Kingdom without Heirs
In other words, why are peoples outside Turkey not considered descendants of the Ottoman Empire?
The answer is that many countries, from the Balkans to the Arab world, broke away from the Ottoman Empire, were in a state of hostility to the Ottoman Empire at a specific stage of history, and completed the process of nation-building thereafter. As a result, both the Balkans and the Arab states denied identity as "descendants of the Ottoman Empire."
Moreover, since the second half of the 19th century, many countries have regarded their structural problems as "negative legacies of the Ottoman Empire" and blamed the Past Ottoman Empire. As a result, they could not see themselves as subjective "descendants of the Ottoman Empire." The idea of seeing oneself as a victim of the Ottomans is ubiquitous in the politics of the Balkan and Arab states. In these regions, the Ottoman Empire was seen as a turkic state, an easy-to-understand imaginary enemy created by many countries to strengthen national unity.
Something similar happened in the Republic of Turkey. In Turkey, the Ottoman Empire was also denied. This denial of the Ottoman Empire proceeded from a perception that it was "not so much a successor as a victim." As readers may not know, the early history textbooks of the Republic of Turkey were full of strong Turkish nationalism, linking the Turkic peoples of Central Asia, the westward expansion of the Turkish nation, the Seljuk dynasty of Anatolia, and the history of the Republic of Turkey, while the Ottoman Empire was denied.
That is, the nation-state, which was born in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, refused to see the Ottoman Empire, which "belonged to no one," as part of its own history. However, the above-mentioned Balkan countries and Arab countries have invisibly inherited the legacy of the Ottoman Empire, and in addition to the belated modernization as a negative legacy, the bureaucracy, political culture, and living habits of the Ottoman Empire have also been inadvertently preserved. These are not Turkish influences, but the common heritage of the Ottoman Empire.
The reality of ethnic relations under the Ottoman Empire has not been clarified, but it has always been emphasized as a negative legacy, and even ethnic disputes in the modern Balkans and the Middle East have been attributed to this. However, the unanswered historical inter-ethnic relations do not constitute a negative legacy. Ethnic strife in the relevant regions is the result of the interaction between international relations and domestic politics in the 20th century.
The Ottoman Empire in Turkey
In fact, there were great fractures in the history of the Ottoman Empire. Before the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire, which "belonged to no one", came to an end in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. For the next hundred years, the "modern Ottoman Empire" was in the midst of a new world order. After a protracted struggle, the nation-states moved towards independence, and the last remaining part was the "Turkic state". From this history, the Republic of Turkey was naturally regarded as the successor of the Ottoman Empire, because in the end, the successor of the empire returned to the birthplace of the empire.
Of course, there are twists and turns. The fact that the Republic of Turkey has Ankara rather than Istanbul as its capital is a manifestation of this. For about twenty years after the founding of the republic, the Ottoman Empire and Istanbul were taboo for the new regime. However, the Republic inherited the tangible legacy of Istanbul. It is also an indisputable fact that the Ottoman Empire made Turkish the official language. The Ottoman family was a Turkic nomadic tribe, and many of the leaders of the Republic of Turkey came from the Ottoman Empire. After the Turkish Republic achieved political stability, the taboo was diluted. The unaccepted status of "successor of the Ottoman Empire" even became the "capital" of the Republic of Turkey.
As a result, the following historical facts are all dusted off in the pile of old papers, and few people mention it: the army of Janissary (the New Army), the core of the standing army that carries the glory of the Ottoman Empire and enjoys a high reputation, has almost no Turks; the designers of the ornate mosques in Istanbul are not Turks; the word "Turks" in the Ottoman Empire refers to peasants and herders; and the Turkish nomadic peoples often launch rebellions against the Sultans of the Ottoman Empire. Paradoxically, the glory of the Ottoman Empire ultimately belonged to Turkey.
In the 20th century, when only a nation-state qualified as a "state," it was not without reason to equate the Ottoman Empire with a Turk state. Initially, Europeans, as neighbors of the Empire, could not articulate the characteristics of the Ottoman rulers, but simply regarded the Ottomans as the "Turkish state of Turkey", thus associating the Ottoman Empire with the modern Republic of Turkey.
Mustafa Kemal
For the Republic of Turkey, inheriting the ottoman Empire's former glory was an effective means of propaganda, but it was also politically risky. This remains true today. In an era when religious and political taboos were already lacking, the glory of ottoman history was able to inspire the national consciousness of the Turks as Muslims. But risk always goes hand in hand with value, and in vast areas from the Balkans to the Middle East, the claim that the responsibility for all disputes is attributed to the historical Turks is popular among the general public.
In any case, the Ottoman Empire was by no means just a turk-ruled country, but after its demise, its history gradually "turkized".
Behind the history of the Ottoman Turkish Empire
The past of the Ottoman Empire is mistaken for the history of the Turks' state, "Ottoman Turkey", but this history is not comprehensive and raises two questions:
First, countries outside the Republic of Turkey could not rationally face the period of Ottoman rule. As mentioned earlier, the Balkan and Middle Eastern countries saw the era of the Ottoman Empire as a dark age of Turk rule, and the various advances made in the region since recent times were used as props to encourage nationalism.
Second, the "no successor" System of the Ottoman Empire was not fully recognized. What was the impetus for Ottoman society, including multi-ethnicity, to keep pace with the times under the influence of multiple factors? There is still a lack of thinking about these kinds of issues. As a result, in the image of European countries, the image of the Ottoman Empire (or Islamic civilization) in the 16th century was a stereotypical "turk threat", and the once glorious and powerful Ottoman Empire entered a long period of decline, becoming a servant of Western European civilization, which contributed to the "Western European centrism". In fact, after the rise and fall of the 14th century and the 18th century, the Ottoman Empire still occupied a vast territory in the modern 19th century, which can be called a pole of Influence on European politics.
This book examines the Ottoman Empire
This book explores the history of the Ottoman Empire, which lasted about five hundred years from the formation of the Ottoman state in the early 14th century to the beginning of the 19th century. The Ottoman state was the "kingdom of the Ottoman family", and it was more appropriate to think of it as the Ottoman dynasty, which in terms of state form formed an empire in the mid-15th century. In view of this, the Ottoman state in this book was called the "Ottoman Princely State" in the 14th century and the "Ottoman Empire" from the mid-15th century to the early 19th century. The history of the Ottoman Empire from the beginning of the 19th century to 1922 is only briefly covered. This kind of writing conception, in addition to the author's lack of learning and space limitations, there are the following reasons:
First, by the 19th century, on the vast territory described in this book, it was no longer simply the history of the Ottoman Empire, and the new countries born of division or independence belonged to the "descendants" of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire in the 19th century was just the largest of many "descendants" .
Second, the modern Ottoman Empire had adopted many institutions that were in every way very different from the pre-modern period, and in the vortex of nationalism and colonialism in the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire had to face challenges from Western colonialism, and its own nationalism was forming.
Arguably, the system that brought vast territories under the rule of the True Ottoman Empire died out by the end of the 18th century. The Ottoman Empire, which "belongs to no one", was sustained by a specific system, and it can be said that in this region, the Ottoman Empire was in fact extinct. On the surface, from the 14th century to the 20th century, the Ottoman sultans ruled the country consistently, but it is difficult to say that the Ottoman Empire crossed the threshold between "pre-modern" and "modern".
This book explores the five-hundred-year history of the ottoman Empire as a political entity that gradually rose, prospered, and declined. The motives for its formation and the mechanisms for development are unique. If Europe was seen as a political unit, the Ottoman Empire could also be self-contained. Before the 19th century, similar motives and mechanisms may have existed all over the world.
Around the same time that the Ottoman Empire was on its way to decline, the development mechanisms of the Asian countries, including Japan, also faced collapse. There is a time lag in the course of history around the world, but countries are still roughly in the "same world". The European countries that dominate change are also riding the terrifying waves of the process of differentiation and combination of "one world (globalization)". The Ottoman Empire also played an important role in the formation of the "same world". This book will be analyzed in detail in the relevant chapters.
Was the Ottoman Empire an Islamic Empire?
The pre-modern Ottoman Empire, which this book examines, is a country that lasted for five hundred years and is often referred to as the "Turkish Empire" or "Islamic Empire." In fact, neither of these labels corresponds to the facts. The question of whether the Ottomans were not the "Turkish Empire" has been clarified, so is it an "Islamic Empire"?
The answer to this question must be reserved, as it is relevant to the definition of Islamic empire. It must be noted that the meaning of "Islam" is vague. If the Islamic Empire is defined as a state that "tries its best to expand Islam, and the operation of the state and the social life embodies the islamic ideals", the answer to the previous question is no.
The Ottoman Empire did hold high the banner of Islam, but the rulers of the Empire only preached universal ideals including justice and fairness in the name of "for Islam" and to win wars. They fought against Christians who also waved the banner of religion, and the two ended in the same place. For example, the wars between the Ottoman Empire and Austria under the Habsburgs were all about competing for territory that brought wealth. Religion, as a spiritual weapon, can boost morale, but this is only a function of religion. To emphasize only the relationship between the Ottoman Empire and religion here would be a misunderstanding.
The Ottoman Empire did, however, make use of Islamic methods of rule. In other words, "the rule of law using Islam". For the Ottoman Empire, the use of Sharia law had advantages in many senses.
First, before the Ottoman Empire was founded, Islamic law was already in place. It is widely accepted as an authority, which is conducive to the stability of the rule. Second, Sharia law is a very inclusive legal system. Thus, the secular rules of the Ottoman Empire, which had nothing to do with Islamic law, could also be incorporated into the system. Third, Sharia law sets out principles on how to rule and treat non-Muslims. As will be mentioned later, although the Ottoman Empire was established in areas with few Muslims, the principle and legitimacy of "governing non-Muslims according to Sharia law" derives from this.
In the above sense, is the importance of Islamic law to the Ottoman Empire, and it is not impossible to attach importance to this, and it is not impossible to call it an Islamic Empire, but the fact that the entire country uses Islam and its legal system should still not be overemphasized. Many of the Empire's measures were carried out in the name of Islam, but the substance of these measures was more important. To take it for granted that the Ottoman Empire is an "Islamic empire" is not possible to rationalize many historical facts.
What was the Ottoman Empire?
Neither the "Turkish Empire" nor the "Islamic Empire", so what kind of country was the Ottoman Empire and what kind of historical changes did it undergo? This is precisely the theme of this book.
First of all, the conclusion: the Ottoman Empire was a centralized state that inherited the existing cultural traditions of the Balkans, Anatolia and the Arab region, absorbed various systems, and effectively ruled the above-mentioned regions; the Empire maintained internal stability and peace through foreign wars in the surrounding areas.
Taking the institutional changes at the end of the 16th century as the boundary, the history of the Ottoman Empire can be explained in two stages.
The essence of state finance is that the central government distributes tax revenues among the ruling class to ensure that it assumes corresponding obligations. The image of the state, established by nomadic peoples in a tradition of separation of powers and sustained by conquest, is far from the reality of the Ottoman Empire. The history of the Ottoman Empire of more than five hundred years is a history of centralization. The long-established centralized system was in decline, and the Ottoman Empire itself had to disintegrate from within. What was the essence of the Ottoman Empire's centralization during this period? Exploring the inner problems of the state is the purpose of this book.
The study of the history of the Ottoman Empire has progressed rapidly in the last two decades, which is the result of many factors, but in the final analysis, it is due to the situation in the Balkans and the Situation in the Middle East that has received widespread attention. Academics proceed from reality and then focus on the historical issues of the Ottoman Empire. In addition, the publication of various historical materials and international academic cooperation also supported the down-to-earth research on the history of the Ottoman Empire.
As the research progressed, some self-evident existing conclusions were questioned, and new historical interpretations emerged one after another. For example, the fact that the Ottoman Empire was not "most prosperous in the 16th century and then gradually declined" has been proven from all angles. Research is progressing rapidly, and perhaps in ten years' time the Ottoman Empire will show a new historical image. There are many incomprehensions in the history of the Ottoman Empire, and it would be an honor for this book to present the general picture of the results of recent research.
Excerpt 丨 Xu Yuedong
Editor 丨 Xu Yuedong
Proofreading 丨 Xue Jingning