Ottoman history - Research Paper Example

?Though the use of superlatives is often incorporated with regards to understanding and defining many geopolitical structures that have existed sincethe dawn of time, it is not hyperbole to state that the Ottoman Empire was one of the longest lived, richest, and most successful empires that the world has ever seen. Beginning in the year 1299 and lasting up until the establishment of the Turkish Republic in 1922, the 623 year span of time in nearly continual power that this Empire was able to exert was unmatched at that time; either within Europe or elsewhere in the world. The key to this great wealth and power was due to the fact that the Ottoman Empire existed upon the nexus of trade between Asia and Europe. Occupying this important chokepoint, the Ottomans were able to derive a great deal of riches based upon control and management of the trade that forever flowed between East and West. Much like the Byzantines before them, the Ottoman Empire served as a link between Europe and Asia in greatly benefited from the profits of the exchange that was perennially flowing over these geographic boundaries. Although there can be many identifications and definitions for the means by which the Ottoman Empire was able to exert such powerful degree of influence, military might, and cultural dynamism, it will be the purpose of this analysis to discuss and analyze the means by which a pervasive in nearly continual process of centralisation can ultimately be understood as the most powerful dynamic that allowed the Ottoman Empire to survive and thrive for such a very long period of time. As such the following analysis will trace this trend through three different secondary sources: The Great Ottoman-Turkish Civilization, The Ottoman Empire, and The Ottoman Empire and the World around It. Whereas other, lesser powers, have grown powerful, wealthy, and then almost mysteriously vanished into the annals of history, the Ottoman Empire, through this process of centralisation, was able to oversee and ensure that the continued strength and wealth that such a process had previously been able to integrate was furthered into the future. This process was referenced specifically by the book The Great Ottoman Turkish Civilization. The notes that it can and should be noted that the process of centralisation is not a process that can be defined one dimensionally. Rather, the only one dimensional aspect of centralisation refers to the level to which a central figure in power structure oversaw, directed, analyzed, and guided nearly every decision that was made within the state/Empire. Accordingly, the multidimensional aspects of what centralisation necessarily implies will be discussed and analyzed as a means of integrating the reader with an understanding of how centralisation was ultimately affected within the Ottoman Empire (Cicek 47). Moreover, by identifying the level and extent to which centralisation played with regards to ensuring that the Ottoman Empire remained resilient and strong, the author will further be able to detail particular practices and unique approaches that the Ottoman Empire utilized with regards to dealing with its large, multi-religious, and multiethnic population. The second text under consideration within this analysis, The Ottoman Empire, argues that centralization played an important role within the administration and direction of any empire; so much so that it helped to define and constrain the way in which the entire process of imperial power was directed. By the very nature of Empire, it is a system in which territories and peoples that are otherwise not necessarily similar to the conquering power are incorporated into the governing structure (Kia 82). As a function of this incorporation, the Empire is usually made relatively wealthier, more populous, and more secure due to the fact that it has been able to extend its boundaries beyond the regions to which it previously laid claim to. Yet, the fundamental drawback that has been seen by a host of imperial powers within the past is the fact that the creation of a multiethnic, and oftentimes multi religious, empire necessarily weakens the level of identity, patriotism, and allegiance that the members of such an empire display. The traditional approach to this concern for instability and non-homogeny has been too slow the rate of imperial expansion and distribute a larger degree of power/military personnel into these regions as a means of ensuring that they will not mutiny. Such an approach is oftentimes one of the main reasons why imperial powers began to decline. As they have expanded over such a large geographic distance and incorporated so many non-native individuals within the collective, they are ultimately faced with a situation in which the greatest enemy to their continued integrity is not without but within. Ultimately, the disunion that necessarily derives from such a situation often is the precipitating factor that tears these empires apart. Yet, there is an alternate path to such an approach; and it is this path that the Ottoman Empire successfully integrated with an employed for much of the 623 years of its existence. This method, as has previously been stated, is of course that of centralisation. The Ottoman Empire the World Around It argues that the traditional approach to empire stipulated that the governing power would seek to divest certain powers to regional and local individuals, such an approach did not represent a unified or central understanding of what it meant to be a member of a given empire. Rather, what was affected was situation in which a multitude of miniature states made up a region, administered by yet another bureaucrat, that made up the Empire which was administered by a range of bureaucrats. One of the interesting aspects of the way in which the Ottoman Empire ultimately adopted centralisation was likely due to the fact that the first known leader of the Ottoman Empire, Osmin Bey, began his imperial quest. Ultimately, Osmin Bey wanted to carve out a homeland for Turks who existed on the very borders of a militaristic, expansive, and ruthless Mongol Empire (Farooq 122). What all three of the texts agree on is the fact that the Ottomans were able to learn from the mistakes that the Mongols had made with regards to administering their own Empire. As such, the Ottoman Empire realized that in order to affect a powerful level of control over a range of ethnicities and religions, it would be necessary to have a strong central leader and regions that specifically adhered to directives, edicts, and communications from a central imperial authority. This realization was doubtless due to the fact that the Ottomans realized the Mongol Empire was ultimately hamstrung by their inability to effectively govern many of the regions that should have been under their purview. It is not the place at this particular research paper to delve in depth with regards to how the Mongol Empire administered its regions as compared to the Ottoman Empire; however, suffice it to say that their approach, although somewhat effective, divested far too much power into local/regional leaders and opened the door to situations of revolt and rebellion. In short, the Mongol approach can be understood as one which was highly uncentralized. Clans and khanates operated semi-independently up until the time that the risk of re-invasion or tribute was demanded. Naturally, this fundamental shortcoming with regards to the means by which the Mongol Empire was administered, served as a powerful lesson for the Ottoman Empire in its formative years as well as beyond. In seeking to create a more resilient system that was better able to integrate with the needs of a multiracial, geographically diverse, and religiously varied group of stakeholders. Without delving into the actual mechanics of how centralisation was affected within the Ottoman Empire, it can and should be noted that the application of centralisation allowed for two distinct benefits. The first of these was the fact that it reduced the level to which the central government needed to maintain a heavy troop presence within the regions. With a reduced fear of revolt and rebellion, the manpower in resources of Empire could be directed elsewhere with regards to securing its borders and continuing the expansive jihad that so defined the Ottoman Empire during its six centuries of prominence. An ancillary benefit of this was the fact that such a level of centralisation allowed for the stakeholders within the regions to identify themselves more closely with the government of Istanbul. Whereas other empires merely sought to control their regions via heavy-handed tactics and troop presence, the Ottoman Empire opted for the more virtuous and thrifty application of centralisation as a means of slowly but surely integrating with the populace and bending them to the will of the Sultan. The reader can and should realize that this level of centralisation served as something of an initial means of propaganda and information identification. Ultimately, such a level of centralisation can also be understood within the context of the ingenious application of soft power as a means of winning stakeholder support and/or patriotism to the ruler. Due to the highly successful means by which such a process was integrated, the remainder this analysis will be concentric upon analyzing the actual means by which centralisation was affected and the overall level to which these means served to benefit such a cause. Due to the fact that the Ottomans were seeking to rule over ethnically and religiously diverse people groups, the implementation of Islam and the Sultan’s perennial understanding of his role as “the protector of Islam”, led to a degree of unnecessary conflicts between the compounded parts of the Ottoman Empire at various times throughout history. One could argue that the centralization that the use of Islam was able to affect far outweighed any of the drawbacks that it exhibited. Nonetheless, striking figures such as Vlad III and others attest to the fact that Ottoman rule and its utilization of Islam as a centralizing and homogenizing influence was often resented to the point that open insurrection and rebellion resulted. Yet another aspect of this utilization of Islam being negative for the growth and development of the Empire over time is with respect to the visceral response the jihadist often had within the West. Naturally, empires and nations are continually in competition with one another. However, the Ottoman Empire, alongside its Roman Catholic counterpart in Europe, added an additional threat to its neighbors due to the fact that it defined its conquest not through the increase of lands or riches, but due to the Islamic precept of jihad. Such an understanding, combined with the threat that the military might and power of the Ottoman Empire had to Southern and Eastern Europe, prompted many would-be foes to step over whatever reservations they may have had and judge that the threat that the Ottoman Empire exhibited, both from the religious and militaristic standpoint, was sufficient to warrant conflict with it. In effect, the use and integration of Islam as a guiding fundamental precept of centralization served to antagonize and exacerbate many situations that otherwise might not result in war. Such a continual level of conflict with the bordering nations and empires necessarily weakened the Empire and required a continual influx of money, supplies, material, and personnel to continue these conflicts wherever they might spring up. Rather than focusing upon a single means by which centralisation was beneficial to the Ottoman Empire, this brief piece of research has been able to quantify and discuss the means by which three specific aspects of centralisation were able to aid the Ottoman Empire in the administration and dominance over a broad territory for nearly 7 centuries time. It is further the belief of this author, from the analysis which is preceded, that without such a level of centralisation as is been evidenced within the pages of this research, is unlikely if the Empire itself it lasted for as long as it did. Moreover, centralization itself, as described by the three texts in question, should only be understood as the umbrella by which each of these extraordinarily important actions that have been illustrated within this brief response entail. Work Cited C?ic?ek, Kemal. The great Ottoman-Turkish civilisation. Ankara: Yeni Tu?rkiye, 2000. Print. Faroqhi, Suraiya. The Ottoman Empire and the world around it. London New York: I.B. Tauris, 2004. Print. Kia, Mehrdad. The Ottoman Empire. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2008. Print. Read More