The Ottoman Empire was, in some ways, extremely progressive. Because of this, it is somewhat confusing that practices that seem now barbaric and cruel were practiced. Non-Muslim groups were given a fair amount of autonomy, although they ultimately answered to the Empire. Some of these groups paid a tax to the Empire, and others that were considered valuable to the Empire were not required to pay. Jews and Christians were generally respected by the Ottomans. Both Christians and Jews were welcomed in Istanbul, and their presence was even encouraged. It is because of this secularism and peaceful coexistence between these differing religions that certain seemingly barbaric practices seem so out of place. While considerable freedom was given to non-Muslims, 20 percent of their male children were taken from them as a form of taxation under the devshirme system. These children were not only used as slaves, but also converted to Islam. The practice of conversion seems particularly out of place, given the Ottoman Empire’s strict adherence to the Islamic ideal of respecting other religions. It should be noted however that, while clearly it was not a good thing that these children were removed from their parents and forced into slavery, many of the children rose to well respected positions within the Empire. With the emphasis placed on Islamic law, it is also interesting that the practice of Fratricide became so widespread. Even after the executions ceased, the brothers of the Sultan were still imprisoned. As the BBC article points out, the Sultan’s Harem was also quite hypocritical. It was something of an institution in the Ottoman Empire, but involved many things that Islam condemned. The Ottoman Empire is by no means the only society to practice such hypocrisy. Nonetheless, I was struck by the presence of such contradictory practices and beliefs within the Empire.
I understand that an argument could be made that the devshirme system was a form of slavery (innocent children are taken from their parents against their will, etc), but I think that people need to be more open minded when analyzing this specific institution. It largely resembles Plato's idea of having philosopher kings (the brightest children who would be pulled from their families, raised together, and bred to reach their full intellectual potential). Though completely idealistic, I can't remember my humanities professor ever once referring to this as a form of slavery. I think often times we subconsciously villian-ize eastern institutions and forget that westerners have perpetuated very similar ideas that don't get nearly as much backlash. When you really think about it, the devishame system makes a lot of sense in the realm of an expanding empire, and ultimately benefitted both the empire and the products of this "slavery" who were to become powerful and respected based on merit and intellect. Furthermore, I'm not sure that the devshirme system was an intentional disrespect towards other religions on behalf of the sultan, but rather a way to strengthen the empire and create a loyal and uninfluenced group of future protectors of the empire. The BBC is a great source for world news and history but it's still British.
I think the discussion of slavery that we had in class today was very interesting. What is slavery? Niki raised the point that the boys that were converted from christianity to islam, and trained to join the Janissary were technically slaves because they were not allowed to leave. I happened to agree until professor Akman used the example of a US citizen going to a third world country and bringing back young boys and educating them and giving them the opportunity to join the CIA or other government agencies. Like pretty much everything else we have talked about this semester, this further exemplifies why it is important to consider perspective when reading or viewing information. I also agree that the BBC article was probably not as objective as the documentary perhaps, and that the two described this system very differently. The documentary acknowledged that it could be considered slavery, but also gave evidence to support that their lives were improved by it, rather than harmed.
I definitely agree with taking an openminded stance on the devshirme system, and what it means to call something a form of "slavery." Though I agree that "not being allowed to leave" is characteristic of slavery, that would inevitably mean broadening "slavery" to include the caste system, prevalent in so many cultures throughout history - because those in the caste system could not leave their caste. In any case, it certainly was rather privileged compared to other forms of slavery throughout history. The devshirme system, though questionably immoral, also served as a masterful political tool that only strengthened the army of the Sultan and his Empire. It is interesting how the Ottoman Empire kept such a balance between acting "questionably immoral" and remarkably tolerant. While they "enslaved" a number of Christian-born children and forced them to convert to Islam, they led incredibly privileged lives. Likewise, while they made Islam the national religion, and certainly converted a number of Christians, they were ultimately tolerant of the continued existence of alternative religious groups within their lands. This is also applicable to the millet system, which required many millets to pay a tax to the state as dhimmis. However, others were "exempted because they were seen to be performing services of value to the state" (BBC), again illustrating the Empire's willingness to peacefully co-exist with Christians and other religious groups - provided that they were loyal to the state.
While reading The Ottoman Empire and Europe: Cultural Encounters, I was struck by how science, cartography, and art once again act as a unifying agent for otherwise separate cultures. Dr. Renda discusses how Mehmed II, for example, was captivated by Western portraiture and sent away to many Italian artists, asking them to paint his portrait. At the time, the leading style in Ottoman art was that of miniatures, which were not perspective based, but rather placed the viewer almost in the position of Allah - that is, the pictures were not from human, animal, or object perspective, but all took the perspective of a higher being. Mehmed II's interest in perspective based portraiture speaks to an open-minded approach to other cultures, which is the opposite of how we often conceptualize the East today. Bellini's art also shows insight into how art acts as a unifying agent. In his depictions of scenes from the Bible, Bellini incorporated "Ottoman fabric and carpets" (4). This also demonstrates the ideas of Ottomanism we read about for this week. The Ottoman Empire was viewed as an other, yes, but it held clear wealth and power that the Western world envied. Within Dr. Renda's article, we see how art acted as a means to unify and explore other cultures for the Ottoman Empire.
The artistic aspect of the empire certainly acts as an interesting aspect for unification, but I think that the more important aspect of the art wasn't that the scenes had some decorations of Ottoman design, but rather that they were displayed from a divine perspective. Christians, Muslims and Jews all had the unifying belief in God, and by creating artwork that makes the viewer to see the world through the eyes of the divine, it brings everyone to a similar level, one that demonstrates how in the eyes of God, all of humanity is equal in terms of their inferiority. In this way, religion is displayed through art as a way of providing understanding to the fact that no man is truly great, because from the perspective of God all men are on the same level.
After reading "The Ottoman Empire" by Imber, filled with the chronologies and descriptions of centuries upon centuries of what seemed to be ceaseless conflicts and conquests among warring nations, the document titled "The Ottoman Empire and Europe", which I read soon thereafter seemed to give deeper insight into the Sultan's personal lives and the cultural exchanges that took place during their reign outside of warfare. The cultural impact the Ottoman Empire had on the world--while often eclipsed by political history--simply cannot be overstated enough, as, much trade between Europe and the Ottoman Empire had and continues to have profound influence on the cultures encapsulated within the past as well as the culture we live in and are a part of in present day. The greatly proliferated cultural relations between Europe and the Ottoman Empire were due largely in part to the Sultan Suleyman, of whom, such trade privileges were allowed and encouraged. Along with ceramics, carpets, and art works such as portraits and costumes that were exchanged-- I also found it interesting that The Ottoman Empire was an integral part of the widespread trade and consumption of such a modern day commodity in American culture, (among college students especially)-- coffee. Because of the alliance between the Ottomans and the French, those visiting the Sultan's palace often raved of the meals and coffee served to them, giving way to the spread of coffee soon thereafter in France. It then made it's way to Italy where they opened up their first coffeehouse in the mid-seventeenth century, which in not too long a time eventually became widespread in London as well. While having Turkish coffee only once in my life, I can note that while it is different (in a good way) than what is typically consumed in the American culture today, it is actually in many ways very similar (however more like espresso) and I found it interesting to learn the historical context behind its present day use, as I typically assumed previously that it had it's origins in either Italy or France.
After reading "The Ottoman Empire" by Imber I felt better acquainted with the background history of the Ottoman Empire which helped me read deeper in to "The Ottoman Empire and Europe Cultural Encounters". Imber discussed the multinational qualities of the Ottoman Empire and I saw this apparent in the other reading based on the discussion of the exchange of goods and ideas. However, the document pointed out more than the mere trifles of trade but the cultural effects- both positive and negative. The document discussed the development of "orientalism" and how the integration of the Ottoman culture in western society led Europeans to think of the East as exotic, unknown, and novel (18). So much so, that when travelers went to the Ottoman Empire they greatly exaggerated scenes, and images because they wanted to appeal to the viewer who was seeking the "oriental" manufactured image. In fact, the document explored the idea that European orientalists were "disappointed at Ottoman Westernization" because it did not fit the construct of "other" or "different." So while there was a great exchange of goods and ideas between Europeans and the Ottoman Empire, there was also an exchange of falsities- or false images and beliefs. The question remains, were the cultural interactions more hurtful to the Ottoman Empire or helpful? My answer is that the false images deteriorated the good that was gained by the connections. It put the Ottoman Empire down as inferior to Western civilization. This is even mentioned in the document when it mentions that after the Vienna defeat, the Ottomans opened up to the West and accepted their technical superiority. It is the scholarly journeys which contributed to the documentation of the accurate picture of the Ottoman Empire which include works by T. Allom and W. Bartlett. While it is argued that "different cultures can create powerful syntheses" it also should be cautioned that false representations can be destructive to the image of a culture.
I’ve learned a lot about Islamic history in Geneseo at this point. I am taking a course with Professor Lofkrantz on it, and I have heard many of Akman’s lectures on historical events and periods from Islamic perspectives. This has given me a good background, but I still appreciated the new perspectives provided by the readings on Ottoman history. It is by far the time period I am least familiar with. Just as I assume many others share with me, I had only preconceptions from the materials I have been exposed to. This leaves me with a specific and possibly inaccurate perspective of Ottoman culture. I always assumed that every Sultan was living in absolute luxury in a lush kingdom filled with beautiful gardens and women. My perspective was slightly changed as I learned about the migration of Central Asian cultures towards the Middle East in my Islamic History class. I now understand that each of the Sultans ran a unique Ottoman empire. The methods of inheritance fascinated me, and the infusion of Turkish customs into Middle Eastern and Mediterranean cultures was an enlightening perspective on the power of syncretism. I also found the way that each Sultan decided to either expand or defend his empire to create a new dynamic of the Ottoman Empire in my mind. There were myriad political decisions that each Sultan had to deal with and they all handled in the manner that they thought best fit for the situation. I was thankful for the narrative structure that the empire followed, with the peak at Suleyman the Great, because otherwise this particular reading was quite dry at points. The piece that went through their history Sultan by Sultan provides the reader with integral points in the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, and it definitely opened my eyes to their ferocity. The piece that ran through the history of the Ottomans contact with the European societies provided me with a new understanding of how syncretism was played out on both sides. I’ve always been told that there was influence in art and architecture in Europe from Turkish societies, but to hear that told point by point with figures that played pivotal parts adds a new depth to those claims. Also the luxuries that the Turkish people took from Europeans were great to understand in the same manner. All in all, these readings added a new understanding of Ottoman history and by proxy, Islamic history.
Greg I really enjoyed reading your blog post. Unlike you, I had never taken a class like this before (in the sense that we exclusively studied Islamic nations like the Ottoman Empire). I honestly wished I had though! I know we have said this before in class, but it still truly astounds me how much the western culture influences our school’s education in regards to what we learn. What I mean is that every history class I have ever taken usually just skims over the Ottomans so we can focus more on the Greeks, English, French and so forth.
The Ottomans were such a different type of civilization. Unlike many Christian lands, they were much more accepting of different ethnicities and religions. The idea that they saved many of the Jews from the Spanish exile astounds me (in a good way)! That doesn’t mean they were necessarily peaceful. Something that surprised me (and I know it shouldn’t have) was how certain Ottoman rulers killed their brothers to make sure they would not try to take the throne away from them. In a way, it sadly makes sense since one would not want any threat. But still! They were raised with their brothers since they were babies, and the idea of just turning suddenly on them took me back.
This might not make perfect sense, but it made me think of America. I know we do not kill our brothers for power (or at least the sane people don’t…), but we are very “cut throat” with politics. Political ads that are just out to destroy always bothered me, since sometimes the messages they share have no value or merit. They are simply designed just to hurt their opponent. Even though it is not actual murder, it can be political murder. We, a “western” nation say we are so “advanced” and yet we still happily stab on another in the back (again, not literally) to get what we want.
Overall, I did not find the readings to be dry since I truly knew nothing about the Ottomans before this. I still find it rather funny the difference between the “fall of Constantinople” and “the conquest of Istanbul.” I also didn’t know until class today how many Europeans still are bitter over this! I mean how many years was it ago? People need to calm DOWN! But on a serious note it really shows how the west never wants to believe the “east” can be better than them.
Thanks for sharing Greg! Your post really got me thinking!
This might seem anecdotal but I do feel that it has some relevance to the Ottomans and also to the larger ideas that this course has introduced time and again. In my sophomore year of high school, I took AP European History to fulfill my social studies credit. I remember studying the decline of the Byzantine Empire culminating in the fall of Constantinople in the mid-15th century to the Ottomans, and I also have a specific memory of our teacher telling us “not to worry” about the Ottomans because their conquest and achievements wouldn’t be on the test. It struck me as such an egregious omission to the cannon of “European History,” especially considering that the Ottoman Empire’s reign spanned nearly six centuries! How can it be that a culture that occupied Europe for 600+ years could be conveniently ignored in favor of studying more “important” figures and events that did make it on the AP test? Moreover, who was it that determined that one European culture was more worthy of historical study than another? I don’t think I would go so far as to say that it’s a deliberately racist practice, but I do feel that there is a certain bias in Western education that favors the study of “whiter” cultures to the cultures of Asia, Africa and the Middle East. The readings and the documentary this week are my first authentic look into the Ottoman Empire with any real depth or scholarly significance, and I must say I’m both surprised and disappointed that the AP Board deemed this culture not worthy of study. I’ve so far gathered that the Ottomans were fearless in their conquests and insatiable in their appetite for expansion. However, though their military might was unparalleled, the Ottomans were fair rulers who delegated justly and with a fair amount of autonomy. As well, rulers such as Mehmed II were patrons of the arts and helped further the achievements of the European Renaissance. I was also taken by the fact that in the documentary, it is declared that the Ottomans had fewer conflicts with Christians than rulers of their own faith, especially considering that Ottoman rule emerged in the wake of Crusade campaigns across Europe. The fact that Muslim children were often disguised as Christian-born in order to receive the type of education and success that the Empire provided for its Christian children speaks to the reverence for other cultures that the Ottomans held.
I remember vaguely learning about the Ottoman Empire in high school. I remember learning about its large size and the different rulers. However, I do not recall learning much else about the Empire in the past. Reading about the Ottoman Empire has shown me how significant this Empire was. I have known that the Empire lasted a long time but I have never thought about how long that really was. According to the BBC article, the Ottoman Empire began in 1301 and lasted until 1924. It is a big accomplishment that the Ottoman Empire could last that many centuries. Another thing that I did not previously know about the empire was devshirme system. Reading about how non-Muslims had to hand over their children was surprising since this Empire had a mixed population of different cultures and religions.
I too had a similar experience in high school. During one of my history classes we had an option to vote on what subjects we would cover for the semester. Ultimately, as a class we ended up voting on very "Western" subjects such as the French Revolution and Renaissance studies. Meanwhile, topics such as the Ottoman Empire and the Golden Ages of China were essentially disregarded. Looking back on this now I find it even more surprising, for it wasn't simply the teacher his pedagogical and historical knowledge that decided against more "Eastern" subjects, but the majority of the students. I'm sure there are many factors that played into this scenario but I cant help but attribute this to certain ethnocentric influences of our society and culture. It seems that already at an already age, many teenagers begin to view our own culture/Western culture as more important to know about than many Eastern ones.
When it was announced that we were going to start learning about the Ottoman, my first thought was, perfect-- I've already learned this material in high school! However, then I quickly realized, in my entire educational career, we never actually learned anything about the Ottoman Empire other than they were responsible for the fall of Constantinople (which we learned is a subjective phrase in itself). To then cmd to learn that this is one of the earliest, and really only totally religiously tolerant society was shocking. The people of America often make claims of greatness based upon the fact that we are granted religious freedom, free from persecution. Therefore, if these ideas are as valuable to us as we like to claim, why is it that we aren't spending the time to study one of the first empires that granted this freedom to its citizens? We like to credit our ideas of democracy to the Greeks, and use that as rational for adding Greek history and mythology to our curriculum. Yet, when it is a Islamic country that we should be praising, we simply skip over it. Now, at this point of the semester this is pretty much old news. We have learned of the translation movement, the medical, scientific, and technical advances of the Middle East that we benefit from, and almost take ownership of. Enough is enough. It's time our society gives credit where credit is due. It is the only way to close the gap that is orientalism.
I feel very similarly, I quickly realized my lack of understanding as to the ways of the Ottoman Empire while reading this. In high school history classes we had only really been taught how nations interacted in times of conflict: who was the aggressor/victim in various skirmishes. Textbook authors seem to find scorecards and timelines of aggressive acts (and their perpetrators) more important than explorations into subjective discussion. Would it be too provocative to attach some guilty party for the Ottoman Empire’s “Fall”? The historical phrasing makes it seem like an accident, implying that the Ottoman Empire was poorly run and bound for failure. The “Fall” of the Ottoman Empire is a shameless copout of a phrase. It’s ironic that I’ve come to learn about the true historical context. That sultans oversaw particular lands and therefore the ominously dubbed “Ottoman Empire” was more like a conglomerate of vassals. Rather than aggressively devastating new lands, rulers tolerated their peoples' ways (as long as they somewhat overlapped in belief). The fact that high school curriculum breezes over the subject and leaves the name “Ottoman Empire” and “The Fall of…” to speak for themselves. The lack of attention to the Ottomans early on, coupled with cultural and social traces of Orientalist supports a binary mindset. To myself and others, it seems as if the subject was breezed over all the way from the textbook distributors to the curriculum designers. Obviously there is a deep rooted pattern of denial. It would be worth teaching that this “Empire” was one that nestled itself into foreign territory, while acceptance and cooperation were emphasized. This respectful and pragmatic method lead to incredible development but eventually led to weakness against repeated aggression.
The Ottoman Empire is oftentimes remembered for its meritocracy, army and centralized dynasty. However, one thing that I found really striking in our readings about the Ottoman Empire was its relationship with Europe through culture. Whether it be artwork or architecture, Ottoman sultans tended to have keen cultural interests that "...led to the spread of the image of the Turks in European art." (3) Portraits immortalizing Mehmed II were valued so much that they actually became "...objects of diplomatic and cultural exchange." (3) Sultans frequently employed the services of European artists, who subsequently came to live and work in the East, leading to a positive relationship between the empire and their Western neighbors. During the reign of Sulieman the Magnificent, however, Ottomans began to play a more significant role in European power- leading to feelings of both inquisitiveness and anxiety among Europeans. These feelings led to the production of both propoganda and realistic artwork portraying the Turks. (3,4)
The history of cultural exchange between Europe and the Ottoman Empire show that underneath rulers' militaristic desires lay very genuine appreciations of the cultural productions of other groups of people. This relates to the accepting ways of the Ottomans that we discussed in class today. When the Ottomans weren't portrayed in a positive light, it was because of ignorant people who let their imaginations get the best of them. But through travel and education, artists during the sixteenth century onward were able to illustrate genuine "Ottoman country and culture." (6) These readings went to show that though the Turks were a force to be reckoned with, they respected millets and were wise enough to know that not only alliances but lasting relationships could slowly but surely be formed through cultural exchange. Too often the Ottomans are portrayed as ruthless conquerors, when something that is truly notable about them is that they were ahead of their time in terms of promoting the arts and trade through the commission and education of artists of varying backgrounds.
I think you raise some really fantastic points in regards to the Ottoman's being much more culturally advanced than often given credit for. Throughout this semester we have learned of the advances being made in Islamic culture during the European Dark Ages, and now we see the good that can come when these two cultures cooperate and exchange culture and ideas. This being said I think the point you make about Ottomans not being portrayed fairly as a cause of ignorance is not entirely accurate. The big reason I have for this is today's society. Even now when society is more intertwined than ever, people believe Islam to be an extremist military culture. Because this view is still so widespread, I think that it is not western ignorance, but rather a willful desire to keep a distinct "other" in the event blame needs to be placed on a people when something goes wrong. And I think this idea goes back to the Ottoman Empire and beyond.
I think the Ottoman Empire's success isn't just attributable to its effort to reach a common understanding with others via the world of art and trade. I think it is also based a lot on a culture of respect. The meritocracy the empire embraced disparaged judging someone based on their birth and affording them undue scorn or praise. In this way, every citizen was, at least initially, afforded a great deal of respect in the sense that any one of them could become a powerful leader later on. I feel that by patronizing foreign artists in the way they did, the Ottomans were affording those cultures that same sort of respect. The Janissary program is another example of how a foreign culture was afforded respect, although in a different way. I think it says something about European culture that these Western nations are still hard pressed to speak well of the empire.
One thing that stood out most to me in this week’s readings—and will most likely come up again as we continue to explore the Ottoman Empire and the West dichotomy—was the part in The Ottoman Empire and Europe: Cultural Encounters when Renda briefly mentions on page 10 how Suleyman Aga, an Ottoman ambassador, visits France and “aroused great interest”. Suleyman Aga “was so influential and after this, Turkish costumes started to be worn at masked balls organized by the court.” Apparently, a political visit from a Turkish diplomat was something that had a certain entertainment value for the French. The author continues on the same page, “Moliere added a Turkish ceremony to the play called Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme and Suleyman Aga was depicted as a comical character.” Based upon the other readings we were assigned, it did not seem like Ottoman diplomats would warrant a “comical” response from the French after visiting the West. This immediately reminded me of Flaubert because, in this instance, the culture of the East was not something that was taken seriously by the Europeans just as Flaubert did not take the East seriously when he was treating like a place that existed to entertain him. As early as two centuries before Flaubert was even a thought, the Europeans were exaggerating and exploiting the culture of the East. After the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, the West and East seemed genuinely interested in the artwork and cultures of one another, as we see earlier in this reading when the east adopts certain portraiture styles and the west begins producing Ottoman motifs of their own. It seems that the West only continues to abuse the culture of the Eastern nations, making the East appear to them as more exotic, inferior, and amoral. This is just a side thought, but I wonder if something could be said for the idea that with the conquest of Constantinople (more or less center of the two worlds at this point), the East was closing in on the metaphysical boundary that sustains the dichotomy between the East and the West; and the West—wanting uphold the metaphysical opposition—responded to the literal approach of the East by continuing to impose this image upon them even with the Ottoman Empire being as strong as it was. I just found it interesting that the closer the East gets to the West, the more the West works to blur the image of the East.
My personal favorite thing to learn about the Ottomans is how they expanded and ruled by accepting all religions and people. Although I’m sure that is an overly optimistic view on the history, but considering how often Christians are overly optimistic about their endeavors, it is fair to relish in this fact for a little while. For instance, the Crusades. The idea of Devshirme is conflicting for me because the children are taken from a young age in order to be trained and educated. These children were Catholic or Jewish, since Muslim children would have family allegiances that could lead to conflict against the Sultan. Of course, for practical reasons this makes sense. It is similar to the idea that once the next Sultan is selected, his brothers must be killed. Practically, these make sense to keep peace and power in the hands of the Sultan, but it is problematic. The Christian slave children would then become diplomats and Janissaries for the Sultan, which is quite prestigious, so the slavery was a way of lifting themselves in society. However, since they could not leave and were being manipulated to work for the Sultan, it can be seen as a problematic institution. (I have been wondering if the children of Janissaries could become Janissaries, since they would be Muslim from birth.) When the Ottoman ruler Mehmet II took Constantinople in 1453 his first act was to enter the Church of Holy Wisdom. In my knowledge of holy wars and invasion, I was expecting a blood bath, such as the Crusades. However, he simply made the church a mosque and told everyone inside that they were safe in his kingdom no matter what their religion. This seems like a much more effective way to rule, since he was then free to keep conquering more people and gaining more land rather than having to stay in the same city holding down uprisings. As usual, none of these positive aspects of the Ottoman Empire are brought up outside of this class, so I only knew of the Ottoman’s as people who ruined the Holy Roman Empire. It is becoming apparent that jealousy might take a part in hiding history.
Contradictions within the Ottoman Empire
ReplyDeleteThe Ottoman Empire was, in some ways, extremely progressive. Because of this, it is somewhat confusing that practices that seem now barbaric and cruel were practiced. Non-Muslim groups were given a fair amount of autonomy, although they ultimately answered to the Empire. Some of these groups paid a tax to the Empire, and others that were considered valuable to the Empire were not required to pay. Jews and Christians were generally respected by the Ottomans. Both Christians and Jews were welcomed in Istanbul, and their presence was even encouraged. It is because of this secularism and peaceful coexistence between these differing religions that certain seemingly barbaric practices seem so out of place. While considerable freedom was given to non-Muslims, 20 percent of their male children were taken from them as a form of taxation under the devshirme system. These children were not only used as slaves, but also converted to Islam. The practice of conversion seems particularly out of place, given the Ottoman Empire’s strict adherence to the Islamic ideal of respecting other religions. It should be noted however that, while clearly it was not a good thing that these children were removed from their parents and forced into slavery, many of the children rose to well respected positions within the Empire. With the emphasis placed on Islamic law, it is also interesting that the practice of Fratricide became so widespread. Even after the executions ceased, the brothers of the Sultan were still imprisoned. As the BBC article points out, the Sultan’s Harem was also quite hypocritical. It was something of an institution in the Ottoman Empire, but involved many things that Islam condemned. The Ottoman Empire is by no means the only society to practice such hypocrisy. Nonetheless, I was struck by the presence of such contradictory practices and beliefs within the Empire.
I understand that an argument could be made that the devshirme system was a form of slavery (innocent children are taken from their parents against their will, etc), but I think that people need to be more open minded when analyzing this specific institution. It largely resembles Plato's idea of having philosopher kings (the brightest children who would be pulled from their families, raised together, and bred to reach their full intellectual potential). Though completely idealistic, I can't remember my humanities professor ever once referring to this as a form of slavery. I think often times we subconsciously villian-ize eastern institutions and forget that westerners have perpetuated very similar ideas that don't get nearly as much backlash. When you really think about it, the devishame system makes a lot of sense in the realm of an expanding empire, and ultimately benefitted both the empire and the products of this "slavery" who were to become powerful and respected based on merit and intellect. Furthermore, I'm not sure that the devshirme system was an intentional disrespect towards other religions on behalf of the sultan, but rather a way to strengthen the empire and create a loyal and uninfluenced group of future protectors of the empire. The BBC is a great source for world news and history but it's still British.
DeleteI think the discussion of slavery that we had in class today was very interesting. What is slavery? Niki raised the point that the boys that were converted from christianity to islam, and trained to join the Janissary were technically slaves because they were not allowed to leave. I happened to agree until professor Akman used the example of a US citizen going to a third world country and bringing back young boys and educating them and giving them the opportunity to join the CIA or other government agencies. Like pretty much everything else we have talked about this semester, this further exemplifies why it is important to consider perspective when reading or viewing information. I also agree that the BBC article was probably not as objective as the documentary perhaps, and that the two described this system very differently. The documentary acknowledged that it could be considered slavery, but also gave evidence to support that their lives were improved by it, rather than harmed.
DeleteI definitely agree with taking an openminded stance on the devshirme system, and what it means to call something a form of "slavery." Though I agree that "not being allowed to leave" is characteristic of slavery, that would inevitably mean broadening "slavery" to include the caste system, prevalent in so many cultures throughout history - because those in the caste system could not leave their caste. In any case, it certainly was rather privileged compared to other forms of slavery throughout history. The devshirme system, though questionably immoral, also served as a masterful political tool that only strengthened the army of the Sultan and his Empire. It is interesting how the Ottoman Empire kept such a balance between acting "questionably immoral" and remarkably tolerant. While they "enslaved" a number of Christian-born children and forced them to convert to Islam, they led incredibly privileged lives. Likewise, while they made Islam the national religion, and certainly converted a number of Christians, they were ultimately tolerant of the continued existence of alternative religious groups within their lands. This is also applicable to the millet system, which required many millets to pay a tax to the state as dhimmis. However, others were "exempted because they were seen to be performing services of value to the state" (BBC), again illustrating the Empire's willingness to peacefully co-exist with Christians and other religious groups - provided that they were loyal to the state.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading The Ottoman Empire and Europe: Cultural Encounters, I was struck by how science, cartography, and art once again act as a unifying agent for otherwise separate cultures. Dr. Renda discusses how Mehmed II, for example, was captivated by Western portraiture and sent away to many Italian artists, asking them to paint his portrait. At the time, the leading style in Ottoman art was that of miniatures, which were not perspective based, but rather placed the viewer almost in the position of Allah - that is, the pictures were not from human, animal, or object perspective, but all took the perspective of a higher being. Mehmed II's interest in perspective based portraiture speaks to an open-minded approach to other cultures, which is the opposite of how we often conceptualize the East today.
ReplyDeleteBellini's art also shows insight into how art acts as a unifying agent. In his depictions of scenes from the Bible, Bellini incorporated "Ottoman fabric and carpets" (4). This also demonstrates the ideas of Ottomanism we read about for this week. The Ottoman Empire was viewed as an other, yes, but it held clear wealth and power that the Western world envied.
Within Dr. Renda's article, we see how art acted as a means to unify and explore other cultures for the Ottoman Empire.
The artistic aspect of the empire certainly acts as an interesting aspect for unification, but I think that the more important aspect of the art wasn't that the scenes had some decorations of Ottoman design, but rather that they were displayed from a divine perspective. Christians, Muslims and Jews all had the unifying belief in God, and by creating artwork that makes the viewer to see the world through the eyes of the divine, it brings everyone to a similar level, one that demonstrates how in the eyes of God, all of humanity is equal in terms of their inferiority. In this way, religion is displayed through art as a way of providing understanding to the fact that no man is truly great, because from the perspective of God all men are on the same level.
DeleteAfter reading "The Ottoman Empire" by Imber, filled with the chronologies and descriptions of centuries upon centuries of what seemed to be ceaseless conflicts and conquests among warring nations, the document titled "The Ottoman Empire and Europe", which I read soon thereafter seemed to give deeper insight into the Sultan's personal lives and the cultural exchanges that took place during their reign outside of warfare. The cultural impact the Ottoman Empire had on the world--while often eclipsed by political history--simply cannot be overstated enough, as, much trade between Europe and the Ottoman Empire had and continues to have profound influence on the cultures encapsulated within the past as well as the culture we live in and are a part of in present day. The greatly proliferated cultural relations between Europe and the Ottoman Empire were due largely in part to the Sultan Suleyman, of whom, such trade privileges were allowed and encouraged. Along with ceramics, carpets, and art works such as portraits and costumes that were exchanged-- I also found it interesting that The Ottoman Empire was an integral part of the widespread trade and consumption of such a modern day commodity in American culture, (among college students especially)-- coffee. Because of the alliance between the Ottomans and the French, those visiting the Sultan's palace often raved of the meals and coffee served to them, giving way to the spread of coffee soon thereafter in France. It then made it's way to Italy where they opened up their first coffeehouse in the mid-seventeenth century, which in not too long a time eventually became widespread in London as well. While having Turkish coffee only once in my life, I can note that while it is different (in a good way) than what is typically consumed in the American culture today, it is actually in many ways very similar (however more like espresso) and I found it interesting to learn the historical context behind its present day use, as I typically assumed previously that it had it's origins in either Italy or France.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading "The Ottoman Empire" by Imber I felt better acquainted with the background history of the Ottoman Empire which helped me read deeper in to "The Ottoman Empire and Europe Cultural Encounters". Imber discussed the multinational qualities of the Ottoman Empire and I saw this apparent in the other reading based on the discussion of the exchange of goods and ideas. However, the document pointed out more than the mere trifles of trade but the cultural effects- both positive and negative. The document discussed the development of "orientalism" and how the integration of the Ottoman culture in western society led Europeans to think of the East as exotic, unknown, and novel (18). So much so, that when travelers went to the Ottoman Empire they greatly exaggerated scenes, and images because they wanted to appeal to the viewer who was seeking the "oriental" manufactured image. In fact, the document explored the idea that European orientalists were "disappointed at Ottoman Westernization" because it did not fit the construct of "other" or "different." So while there was a great exchange of goods and ideas between Europeans and the Ottoman Empire, there was also an exchange of falsities- or false images and beliefs. The question remains, were the cultural interactions more hurtful to the Ottoman Empire or helpful? My answer is that the false images deteriorated the good that was gained by the connections. It put the Ottoman Empire down as inferior to Western civilization. This is even mentioned in the document when it mentions that after the Vienna defeat, the Ottomans opened up to the West and accepted their technical superiority. It is the scholarly journeys which contributed to the documentation of the accurate picture of the Ottoman Empire which include works by T. Allom and W. Bartlett. While it is argued that "different cultures can create powerful syntheses" it also should be cautioned that false representations can be destructive to the image of a culture.
DeleteI’ve learned a lot about Islamic history in Geneseo at this point. I am taking a course with Professor Lofkrantz on it, and I have heard many of Akman’s lectures on historical events and periods from Islamic perspectives. This has given me a good background, but I still appreciated the new perspectives provided by the readings on Ottoman history. It is by far the time period I am least familiar with. Just as I assume many others share with me, I had only preconceptions from the materials I have been exposed to. This leaves me with a specific and possibly inaccurate perspective of Ottoman culture. I always assumed that every Sultan was living in absolute luxury in a lush kingdom filled with beautiful gardens and women. My perspective was slightly changed as I learned about the migration of Central Asian cultures towards the Middle East in my Islamic History class.
ReplyDeleteI now understand that each of the Sultans ran a unique Ottoman empire. The methods of inheritance fascinated me, and the infusion of Turkish customs into Middle Eastern and Mediterranean cultures was an enlightening perspective on the power of syncretism. I also found the way that each Sultan decided to either expand or defend his empire to create a new dynamic of the Ottoman Empire in my mind. There were myriad political decisions that each Sultan had to deal with and they all handled in the manner that they thought best fit for the situation. I was thankful for the narrative structure that the empire followed, with the peak at Suleyman the Great, because otherwise this particular reading was quite dry at points. The piece that went through their history Sultan by Sultan provides the reader with integral points in the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, and it definitely opened my eyes to their ferocity.
The piece that ran through the history of the Ottomans contact with the European societies provided me with a new understanding of how syncretism was played out on both sides. I’ve always been told that there was influence in art and architecture in Europe from Turkish societies, but to hear that told point by point with figures that played pivotal parts adds a new depth to those claims. Also the luxuries that the Turkish people took from Europeans were great to understand in the same manner. All in all, these readings added a new understanding of Ottoman history and by proxy, Islamic history.
Greg I really enjoyed reading your blog post. Unlike you, I had never taken a class like this before (in the sense that we exclusively studied Islamic nations like the Ottoman Empire). I honestly wished I had though! I know we have said this before in class, but it still truly astounds me how much the western culture influences our school’s education in regards to what we learn. What I mean is that every history class I have ever taken usually just skims over the Ottomans so we can focus more on the Greeks, English, French and so forth.
DeleteThe Ottomans were such a different type of civilization. Unlike many Christian lands, they were much more accepting of different ethnicities and religions. The idea that they saved many of the Jews from the Spanish exile astounds me (in a good way)! That doesn’t mean they were necessarily peaceful. Something that surprised me (and I know it shouldn’t have) was how certain Ottoman rulers killed their brothers to make sure they would not try to take the throne away from them. In a way, it sadly makes sense since one would not want any threat. But still! They were raised with their brothers since they were babies, and the idea of just turning suddenly on them took me back.
This might not make perfect sense, but it made me think of America. I know we do not kill our brothers for power (or at least the sane people don’t…), but we are very “cut throat” with politics. Political ads that are just out to destroy always bothered me, since sometimes the messages they share have no value or merit. They are simply designed just to hurt their opponent. Even though it is not actual murder, it can be political murder. We, a “western” nation say we are so “advanced” and yet we still happily stab on another in the back (again, not literally) to get what we want.
Overall, I did not find the readings to be dry since I truly knew nothing about the Ottomans before this. I still find it rather funny the difference between the “fall of Constantinople” and “the conquest of Istanbul.” I also didn’t know until class today how many Europeans still are bitter over this! I mean how many years was it ago? People need to calm DOWN! But on a serious note it really shows how the west never wants to believe the “east” can be better than them.
Thanks for sharing Greg! Your post really got me thinking!
This might seem anecdotal but I do feel that it has some relevance to the Ottomans and also to the larger ideas that this course has introduced time and again. In my sophomore year of high school, I took AP European History to fulfill my social studies credit. I remember studying the decline of the Byzantine Empire culminating in the fall of Constantinople in the mid-15th century to the Ottomans, and I also have a specific memory of our teacher telling us “not to worry” about the Ottomans because their conquest and achievements wouldn’t be on the test. It struck me as such an egregious omission to the cannon of “European History,” especially considering that the Ottoman Empire’s reign spanned nearly six centuries! How can it be that a culture that occupied Europe for 600+ years could be conveniently ignored in favor of studying more “important” figures and events that did make it on the AP test? Moreover, who was it that determined that one European culture was more worthy of historical study than another? I don’t think I would go so far as to say that it’s a deliberately racist practice, but I do feel that there is a certain bias in Western education that favors the study of “whiter” cultures to the cultures of Asia, Africa and the Middle East. The readings and the documentary this week are my first authentic look into the Ottoman Empire with any real depth or scholarly significance, and I must say I’m both surprised and disappointed that the AP Board deemed this culture not worthy of study. I’ve so far gathered that the Ottomans were fearless in their conquests and insatiable in their appetite for expansion. However, though their military might was unparalleled, the Ottomans were fair rulers who delegated justly and with a fair amount of autonomy. As well, rulers such as Mehmed II were patrons of the arts and helped further the achievements of the European Renaissance. I was also taken by the fact that in the documentary, it is declared that the Ottomans had fewer conflicts with Christians than rulers of their own faith, especially considering that Ottoman rule emerged in the wake of Crusade campaigns across Europe. The fact that Muslim children were often disguised as Christian-born in order to receive the type of education and success that the Empire provided for its Christian children speaks to the reverence for other cultures that the Ottomans held.
ReplyDeleteI remember vaguely learning about the Ottoman Empire in high school. I remember learning about its large size and the different rulers. However, I do not recall learning much else about the Empire in the past. Reading about the Ottoman Empire has shown me how significant this Empire was. I have known that the Empire lasted a long time but I have never thought about how long that really was. According to the BBC article, the Ottoman Empire began in 1301 and lasted until 1924. It is a big accomplishment that the Ottoman Empire could last that many centuries. Another thing that I did not previously know about the empire was devshirme system. Reading about how non-Muslims had to hand over their children was surprising since this Empire had a mixed population of different cultures and religions.
DeleteI too had a similar experience in high school. During one of my history classes we had an option to vote on what subjects we would cover for the semester. Ultimately, as a class we ended up voting on very "Western" subjects such as the French Revolution and Renaissance studies. Meanwhile, topics such as the Ottoman Empire and the Golden Ages of China were essentially disregarded. Looking back on this now I find it even more surprising, for it wasn't simply the teacher his pedagogical and historical knowledge that decided against more "Eastern" subjects, but the majority of the students. I'm sure there are many factors that played into this scenario but I cant help but attribute this to certain ethnocentric influences of our society and culture. It seems that already at an already age, many teenagers begin to view our own culture/Western culture as more important to know about than many Eastern ones.
ReplyDeleteWhen it was announced that we were going to start learning about the Ottoman, my first thought was, perfect-- I've already learned this material in high school! However, then I quickly realized, in my entire educational career, we never actually learned anything about the Ottoman Empire other than they were responsible for the fall of Constantinople (which we learned is a subjective phrase in itself). To then cmd to learn that this is one of the earliest, and really only totally religiously tolerant society was shocking. The people of America often make claims of greatness based upon the fact that we are granted religious freedom, free from persecution. Therefore, if these ideas are as valuable to us as we like to claim, why is it that we aren't spending the time to study one of the first empires that granted this freedom to its citizens? We like to credit our ideas of democracy to the Greeks, and use that as rational for adding Greek history and mythology to our curriculum. Yet, when it is a Islamic country that we should be praising, we simply skip over it.
ReplyDeleteNow, at this point of the semester this is pretty much old news. We have learned of the translation movement, the medical, scientific, and technical advances of the Middle East that we benefit from, and almost take ownership of. Enough is enough. It's time our society gives credit where credit is due. It is the only way to close the gap that is orientalism.
I feel very similarly, I quickly realized my lack of understanding as to the ways of the Ottoman Empire while reading this. In high school history classes we had only really been taught how nations interacted in times of conflict: who was the aggressor/victim in various skirmishes. Textbook authors seem to find scorecards and timelines of aggressive acts (and their perpetrators) more important than explorations into subjective discussion. Would it be too provocative to attach some guilty party for the Ottoman Empire’s “Fall”? The historical phrasing makes it seem like an accident, implying that the Ottoman Empire was poorly run and bound for failure.
DeleteThe “Fall” of the Ottoman Empire is a shameless copout of a phrase. It’s ironic that I’ve come to learn about the true historical context. That sultans oversaw particular lands and therefore the ominously dubbed “Ottoman Empire” was more like a conglomerate of vassals. Rather than aggressively devastating new lands, rulers tolerated their peoples' ways (as long as they somewhat overlapped in belief). The fact that high school curriculum breezes over the subject and leaves the name “Ottoman Empire” and “The Fall of…” to speak for themselves.
The lack of attention to the Ottomans early on, coupled with cultural and social traces of Orientalist supports a binary mindset. To myself and others, it seems as if the subject was breezed over all the way from the textbook distributors to the curriculum designers. Obviously there is a deep rooted pattern of denial. It would be worth teaching that this “Empire” was one that nestled itself into foreign territory, while acceptance and cooperation were emphasized. This respectful and pragmatic method lead to incredible development but eventually led to weakness against repeated aggression.
The Ottoman Empire is oftentimes remembered for its meritocracy, army and centralized dynasty. However, one thing that I found really striking in our readings about the Ottoman Empire was its relationship with Europe through culture. Whether it be artwork or architecture, Ottoman sultans tended to have keen cultural interests that "...led to the spread of the image of the Turks in European art." (3) Portraits immortalizing Mehmed II were valued so much that they actually became "...objects of diplomatic and cultural exchange." (3) Sultans frequently employed the services of European artists, who subsequently came to live and work in the East, leading to a positive relationship between the empire and their Western neighbors. During the reign of Sulieman the Magnificent, however, Ottomans began to play a more significant role in European power- leading to feelings of both inquisitiveness and anxiety among Europeans. These feelings led to the production of both propoganda and realistic artwork portraying the Turks. (3,4)
ReplyDeleteThe history of cultural exchange between Europe and the Ottoman Empire show that underneath rulers' militaristic desires lay very genuine appreciations of the cultural productions of other groups of people. This relates to the accepting ways of the Ottomans that we discussed in class today. When the Ottomans weren't portrayed in a positive light, it was because of ignorant people who let their imaginations get the best of them. But through travel and education, artists during the sixteenth century onward were able to illustrate genuine "Ottoman country and culture." (6) These readings went to show that though the Turks were a force to be reckoned with, they respected millets and were wise enough to know that not only alliances but lasting relationships could slowly but surely be formed through cultural exchange. Too often the Ottomans are portrayed as ruthless conquerors, when something that is truly notable about them is that they were ahead of their time in terms of promoting the arts and trade through the commission and education of artists of varying backgrounds.
I think you raise some really fantastic points in regards to the Ottoman's being much more culturally advanced than often given credit for. Throughout this semester we have learned of the advances being made in Islamic culture during the European Dark Ages, and now we see the good that can come when these two cultures cooperate and exchange culture and ideas. This being said I think the point you make about Ottomans not being portrayed fairly as a cause of ignorance is not entirely accurate. The big reason I have for this is today's society. Even now when society is more intertwined than ever, people believe Islam to be an extremist military culture. Because this view is still so widespread, I think that it is not western ignorance, but rather a willful desire to keep a distinct "other" in the event blame needs to be placed on a people when something goes wrong. And I think this idea goes back to the Ottoman Empire and beyond.
DeleteI think the Ottoman Empire's success isn't just attributable to its effort to reach a common understanding with others via the world of art and trade. I think it is also based a lot on a culture of respect. The meritocracy the empire embraced disparaged judging someone based on their birth and affording them undue scorn or praise. In this way, every citizen was, at least initially, afforded a great deal of respect in the sense that any one of them could become a powerful leader later on. I feel that by patronizing foreign artists in the way they did, the Ottomans were affording those cultures that same sort of respect. The Janissary program is another example of how a foreign culture was afforded respect, although in a different way. I think it says something about European culture that these Western nations are still hard pressed to speak well of the empire.
DeleteOne thing that stood out most to me in this week’s readings—and will most likely come up again as we continue to explore the Ottoman Empire and the West dichotomy—was the part in The Ottoman Empire and Europe: Cultural Encounters when Renda briefly mentions on page 10 how Suleyman Aga, an Ottoman ambassador, visits France and “aroused great interest”. Suleyman Aga “was so influential and after this, Turkish costumes started to be worn at masked balls organized by the court.” Apparently, a political visit from a Turkish diplomat was something that had a certain entertainment value for the French. The author continues on the same page, “Moliere added a Turkish ceremony to the play called Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme and Suleyman Aga was depicted as a comical character.” Based upon the other readings we were assigned, it did not seem like Ottoman diplomats would warrant a “comical” response from the French after visiting the West. This immediately reminded me of Flaubert because, in this instance, the culture of the East was not something that was taken seriously by the Europeans just as Flaubert did not take the East seriously when he was treating like a place that existed to entertain him.
ReplyDeleteAs early as two centuries before Flaubert was even a thought, the Europeans were exaggerating and exploiting the culture of the East. After the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, the West and East seemed genuinely interested in the artwork and cultures of one another, as we see earlier in this reading when the east adopts certain portraiture styles and the west begins producing Ottoman motifs of their own. It seems that the West only continues to abuse the culture of the Eastern nations, making the East appear to them as more exotic, inferior, and amoral.
This is just a side thought, but I wonder if something could be said for the idea that with the conquest of Constantinople (more or less center of the two worlds at this point), the East was closing in on the metaphysical boundary that sustains the dichotomy between the East and the West; and the West—wanting uphold the metaphysical opposition—responded to the literal approach of the East by continuing to impose this image upon them even with the Ottoman Empire being as strong as it was. I just found it interesting that the closer the East gets to the West, the more the West works to blur the image of the East.
Blog March 25
ReplyDeleteThe Ottomans
My personal favorite thing to learn about the Ottomans is how they expanded and ruled by accepting all religions and people. Although I’m sure that is an overly optimistic view on the history, but considering how often Christians are overly optimistic about their endeavors, it is fair to relish in this fact for a little while. For instance, the Crusades.
The idea of Devshirme is conflicting for me because the children are taken from a young age in order to be trained and educated. These children were Catholic or Jewish, since Muslim children would have family allegiances that could lead to conflict against the Sultan. Of course, for practical reasons this makes sense. It is similar to the idea that once the next Sultan is selected, his brothers must be killed. Practically, these make sense to keep peace and power in the hands of the Sultan, but it is problematic. The Christian slave children would then become diplomats and Janissaries for the Sultan, which is quite prestigious, so the slavery was a way of lifting themselves in society. However, since they could not leave and were being manipulated to work for the Sultan, it can be seen as a problematic institution. (I have been wondering if the children of Janissaries could become Janissaries, since they would be Muslim from birth.)
When the Ottoman ruler Mehmet II took Constantinople in 1453 his first act was to enter the Church of Holy Wisdom. In my knowledge of holy wars and invasion, I was expecting a blood bath, such as the Crusades. However, he simply made the church a mosque and told everyone inside that they were safe in his kingdom no matter what their religion. This seems like a much more effective way to rule, since he was then free to keep conquering more people and gaining more land rather than having to stay in the same city holding down uprisings. As usual, none of these positive aspects of the Ottoman Empire are brought up outside of this class, so I only knew of the Ottoman’s as people who ruined the Holy Roman Empire. It is becoming apparent that jealousy might take a part in hiding history.