rulers

Osman translated his geographic advantages into successes against the Byzantines. Under his leadership, the Turkish horsemen proved able to conquer territory to the south, north and west of Sogut. They could not so easily take the Byzantine cities of the region. Nomadic cavalry was at a disadvantage when it came to attacking city walls, which were impervious to even the best cavalrymen. The Ottomans could only lay siege to cities such as Bursa , Nicomedia and Icaea. Nevertheless, the Ottomans needed a city. Without one, they would appear to be distinctly inferior to the other Turkish principalities, and organizing a state and economy beyond the rudimentary nomadic system would have been impossible. With cities in their control the Ottomans could build mosques, sponsor craft-guilds, and draw Muslim scholars to their patronage. In other words, they could begin to act as traditional Muslim rulers. MAP

Osman's son, Orhan, finally accepted the surrender of the city Bursa in 1326, a number of years after the Ottoman siege had begun. Nicomdedia, Nicaea and Scutari soon fell as well, leaving Orhan in command of all of northwestern Anatolia. Ottoman territory could now be seen from the walls of Constantinople.Map With Bursa as their capital and their prestige increased, the Ottomans faced a choice. They could try to expand their control over the other Turkish states on their borders or attack into Europe. ... Europe... was a far more fertile source of booty than Anatolia. Moreover, Turkish ghazis were attracted to the fight to expand the role of Islam as well as to the booty. The Ottomans under Orhan (and his son, Murat) therefore adopted a policy of more or less peaceful acquisition of territory in Anatolia and of war in Europe.

Murat I succeeded the throne in 1361 or 1362. While the tradition of military and administrative slaves had passed to the Ottomans from the Great Seljuks through the Rum Seljuks, and Murat's two predecessors had made use of slaves as commanders and soldiers, it was under his sultanship that the Ottoman state slave system formally began. Tradition and law gave the sultan one-fifth of all booty taken by his troops. Murat took much of his one-fifth in the form of soldiers captured in battle. These were organized into 'new troops' (yeni ceri, Turkish) or janissaries. Upon succeeding to power, he briefly turned his attention to Anatolia... then turned to Europe where some of his forces had been expanding the empire even while the sultan was in Anatolia. In 1361, his forces took the major city of Adrianople (Edirne), which was to become the second Ottoman capital, signifying the Ottoman intention to concentrate on European conquest. A serbian army, which intended to expel the Ottomans from the south Balkans, was defeated in 1371. The Ottomans had cemented their hold over Thrace, southern Bulgaria and most of Macedonia, and the Bulgarian ruler and the Byzantine Emperor were forced to accept vassalage to the Ottomans. The Ottomans in the Balkans adopted a programme of conciliation and vassalage, rather than outright conquest. Defeated Kings were allowed, at least at first, to keep their lands, but as tribute-paying vassals who contributed troops for Ottoman wars. The Ottomans were thus provided with troops and funds., and the Balkan kings kept their thrones. In Anatolia, Murat extended his rule through marriage, accepting land from the Germiyan principality as the bride price for his son Bayezit's marriage to the daughter of the ruler. He also purchased land.

The Turkish principalities, from whose numbers the Ottomans themselves had sprung, were a thorny problem for Bayezit. Conquering them was obviously in the Ottoman interest, but it must be remembered the Ottomans had benefited from their status as ghazis , warriors dedicated to the expansion of the rule of Islam. Turks who rallied to them fought on the side of religion and self-interest, defeating non-Muslims who had riches to plunder. Could the sultan count on those same troops to attack brother Turkish Muslims with far less to plunder? Probably not. Bayezit relied on his European vassals to defeat the Anatolian Turks, just as he had relied on his Turkish troops to defeat the Europeans. Serbian, Byzantine, and other European vassal armies were used in campaigns in 1390-91 and 1393-4 against the principalities.

Along with the slave army, the European Christians provided an independent strength that made it difficult for the sultan's Turkish armies to refuse their orders. Bayezit's use of Christian troops was a stroke of military genius.... He could leave heavy garrisons of Turkish soldiers in Europe, taking with him to the Anatolian wars only the most loyal of his Turkish army. The Turks call Bayezit I "Bayezit the Lightning Bolt" because he was able to move so quickly from battles in Asia to battles in Europe.

Bayezit's conquests brought his rule far to the East, to lands claimed by the great conqueror, Timur. His ruthlessness makes it unlikely that he can truly be called a good Muslim, but he was willing to make Bayezit's conquest of brother Muslims a case for righteous indignation [jihad] forgetting his own far worse depredations against Muslims. When the Turkish beys who had lost their lands to Bayezit fled to him and asked for assistance, he saw a cause that would allow him to expand his empire and defeat the Ottomans, who by expanding east had become a threat to him. He invaded eastern Anatolia in 1400 then advanced into central Anatolia in 1402. The armies of Timur and Bayezit met outside Ankara (July 28, 1402), and the Ottomans were defeated. In the battle, at least some of his Turkish nomad forces turned against Bayezit. He was defeated and taken prisoner. He later died in captivity.

The Interregnum: during the period following Bayezit's death until 1413, the Ottoman empire was weakened by conflicts between his four sons -- Isa, Mehmet, Musa and Suleyman -- vying to take power. Ottoman armies fought each other. Alliances were made between brothers, then broken and the brothers defeated each other one by one, until only Mehmet remained, sutlan Mehmet I.

The reigns of Mehmet I and his son, Murat II exemplified the 'growing pains' that came with turning a nomadic state into a great settled empire. Bayezit I had begun one model of the Ottoman state, integrating Balkan traditions into the Ottoman system, reliance on Christian advisors, acceptance of vassal Christian states, and favouring the slave army. Against this model stood the traditional model -- a ghazi state, drawing its power from Turkish settled and nomad soldiers and excluding Balkan Christian influences, a state much like the Rum Seljuk empire. When Mehmet I finally took power from his brothers, both models existed within the empire. Mehmet had no choice but to appease the beys in Anatolia and the traditional Turkish elements in his own following.... when he became sultan, he favoured the Turkish notables.... Mehmet directed his empire back to the ghazi traditions: Christian advisors were put out. The slave army and kapi kullari officials were deprived of much of their power, although not abolished.

The reign of Sultan Murat II was essentially one of consolidation, not conquest. Most important of his successes was the reduction of Karaman to vassalage. The continuing threat from Timur's son, Shah Rukh, kept Murat from seizing Karaman altogether (see map).

In Europe, Murat experienced more difficulties. The major Ottoman enemies in Europe were Hungary and Venice. At first, the Ottomans were triumphant against the Venetians and Hungarians. Serbia had renounced vassalage to the Ottomans in favour of Hungary, but Murat invaded Serbia in 1428 and restored it to ottoman suzerainty.... Venice made peace in 1431.

All looked well, but the Ottoman Empire was about to be nearly overpowered by its enemies. In 1444, Murat abdicated his throne naming his son Mehmet to succeed him. Mehmet was then twelve years old.... The result of Murat's abdication was disaster. [Ultimately....] Murat resumed his sultanate in 1446 and ruled until he died in 1451. He seems to have warmed to, or at least resigned himself to the military duties of a sultan. The remainder of his sultanate was spent consolidating the victory at Varna by bringing the Balkans back into subjugation.

Murat II may be considered as a peaceful man, forced to make war. Personally, he was more concerned with the internal workings of his empire and court. Under him, the Ottoman court increasingly began to resemble the great courts of past Middle Eastern Rulers. Edirne increased greatly in size and economic power. The city took on the aspect of an islamic capital, despite a large Christian population, and Murat built a great madrasa and other distinctly Islamic buildings. Murat was concerned with the economic infrastructure of the empire, building bridges and roads for example. He and his officials were patrons of men of art and letters.

Mehmet II is known as Fatih -- "the Conqueror". It was under his sultanate that the Ottoman state became a great centralized and unified empire that rivalled the empires of antiquity in size and power. During the reigns between him and Suleyman I is the era known as the "Classical Age". The Ottoman empire was the most powerful on earth, stretching from the Atlantic shore of North Africa to the borders of Iran, Austria, Poland and Russia.

Immediately, Mehmet began to plan the conquest of Constantinople. His predecessors had previously laid siege to the city... [now] He had inherited an empire that was strong and unified. Despite opposition, Mehmet was able to bring all the Empire's power to bear on Constantinople. The city was such a prize that none in the Ottoman ranks could publicly oppose the undertaking.

The Europeans were still occupied with other things in Europe...no one was in position to come to the aid of Constantinople. In the East, Murat's campaigns had removed any immediate threat which might have competed for troops. The Italian naval powers -- Venice and Genoa, respectively, were engaged in a treaty relationship and commercial 'accommodation'. Although the emperor received some support from Christian troops, Constantinople was largely on its own.

The Ottoman army began the siege in spring of 1453. A fleet had been built to blockade the city by sea and a castle Rumeli Hisar (the European Castle) built on the Bosphorus to keep provisions from reaching the city by sailing down the Bosphorus from the Black sea. Special siege cannons were built. In all, the Ottoman force was overwhelming. The wonder is that Constantinople held out for months, until May 29 of 1453. The last Byzantine Emperor died in the fighting; the great church built by Emperor Justinian, Haghia Sophia became a Mosque.

Something of the nature of the impact of the taking of (or the fall of) Constantinople, depending on your perspective, can be seen be comparing European and Turkish accounts of the seige and battle. (Readings on Reserve: Wheatcroft, The Ottomans, and Tursun Beg, Mehmet the Conqueror, respectively.)

[from Tursun Beg] "After having completely overcome the enemy, the soldiers began to plunder the city. They enslaved boys and girls and took silver and gold vessels, precious stones and all sorts of valuable goods and fabrics from the imperial palace and the houses of the rich. In this fashion many people were delivered from poverty and made rich. Every tent was filled with handsome boys and beautiful girls. ... Then the gates of the fortress were opened and Sultan Mehmet toured the city with a group of commanders and religious dignitaries in his retinue. He visited the great buildings and bazaars and particularly expressed his desire to see Haghia Sophia. Over the years this church had deteriorated so that at this time only its dome was left standing.... He appointed Suleyman Beg governor of Istanbul [Constantinople was immediately renamed] and entrusted to him the work of reconstructing the city."

[from Wheatcroft] "Far away in western Europe, the doge and senate of Venice learned of 'the darkest day in the history of the world'. On 29 June messengers had arrived from the venetian towns on the Greek mainland and told them the gruesome accounts of massacre and enslavement recounted by Christian fugitives. On the same day, the Venetians sent dispatches to Pope Nicholas V in Rome. By the end of July the doleful story had reached the courts of Scandinavia and Scotland. Priests announced the catastrophe from their pulpits, and masses were said for those who had died as martyrs in defence of the city."

Responses in the West can be looked at in terms of perception and practicalities.

From the moment when Constantinople fell, Europeans regarded the Turks with a mixture of horror and fascination. They were outside the bounds of society, and almost beyond the real of humanity. John Lyly described the Turk as "vile and brutish". Other authors made much of the Turks' supposed addiction to unnatural vice...an image of the "Terrible Turk" who ate children alive -- a stereotype which rapidly was becoming universal in the West and which mothers found useful for terrifying naughty children.

Rare were those presenting an alternative image such as that of a young Venetian who depicted Mehmet as "noble in arms, ... pursuer of knowledge, gifted with princely liberality, stubborn of purpose, bold in all things... Every day he has Roman and other histories read to him... Diligently he seeks information ... on the Pope, of the Emperor, and how many kingdoms there are in Europe, of which he has a map showing the states and provinces. Nothing gives him greater pleasure than to study the state of the world and the science of war. A shrewd explorer of affairs, he burns with the desire to rule. It is with such a man that we Christians have to deal."

The first Western response was outrage, but expedience followed quickly in its wake. Those who had the closest involvement sought to negotiate with the triumphant Ottomans. Within a month of the capture of the city, the doge (Venice) had dispatched an ambassador to recover the 300.000 ducats which Venice had invested in the city. Genoa with even more at stake in the trading settlement at Galata, had everything to gain from a sensible agreement with the Turks.

Other states were equally reluctant to undertake a reconquest. When Pope Nicholas V called for a holy war in September 1453, his appeal was answered by a forthright declaration of support.... but no nation offered tangible support and the proposed crusade collapsed.

These contradictory responses presaged the ambivalent relationship between the Ottoman empire and western Europe. Christians abominated the Turks and believed that the Ottoman sultan was the "cruel enemy of God, the new Mohammed, violator of the Cross and the church, despiser of God's law and prince of the army of Satan.". Yet they were forced to respect their enemy's power and competence. Turkish armies were better trained and equipped than anything with Europe could put against them.

From a religious perspective, some theologians explained the Ottoman victory as a God-given retribution for the sins of the people "... the Turks of today are the Assyrians and Babylonians of the Christians and the rod and scourge of God." Like storm and pestilence, the Turks were an affliction sent to test God's chosen"

Mehmet sized churches, the visible sign of the Christianity of the city, and converted them into mosques. He did not, however, act against the Church as such. Islamic law commanded respect for the religious rights of Christians. There were also practical reasons for toleration. Christians were a majority of the population. A tolerant policy was likely to result in civil peace and resignation to Ottoman rule. The machinery of the Greek Church also afforded a method of administrative control of his Christian subjects... Mehmet's policy was to return authority to the centre, to give the Patriarch of Constantinople heightened authority over the Church, and to use the Church as a means to exercise his own power.

The fall of Constantinople and position of the Ottoman sultan as first ruler in the Islamic world brought changes to the Ottoman internal balance of power. For a time there was little to fear from the predominance of one group in the government. Mehmet's personal prestige as the Conqueror meant that his will could not be challenged. Internally, he kept any one leader or one group of the devshirme from claiming too much power by giving powerful posts to a number of devshirme leaders so that they would compete among themselves.... Mehmet II kept control of the devshirme and the devshirme fighting force, the janissaries, through his personal position and a good political sense. As the most powerful leader in the Islamic world, the conqueror of Constantinople, and a great general, Mehmet's personal position was unassailable.... Opposing Mehmet meant opposing the Sword of Islam.

For Mehmet the capture of Constantinople was the beginning not the end of his advance. As he said [to one European visitor]: 'he would go from the East to the West as the Westerners had gone to the East. The Empire of the world, he says must be one, one faith and one kingdom. To make this unity, there is no place more worthy than Istanbul'.

Mehmet cemented Ottoman control over the Balkans. By 1459 he had ended Serbian autonomy... Bosnia was occupied and incorporated into the Empire in 1463. Unable conclusively to defeat the Hungarians, Mehmet nevertheless kept them at bay... Mehmet was unable to completely defeat the forces of Stephen the Great of Moldavia, although he was neutralized. The lasting significance of the Ottoman campaigns in the north Black Sea region lay in the relations the Ottomans forged with the Crimean Tartars. The Tartars, Turkish speaking descendants of the conquerors of what today is southern Ukraine and southwest Russia, could not stand on their own against Poland, Moldavia and Muscovy. The Ottomans in turn needed the Tartars for their north Black Sea ports and for military support against their common enemies to the north. In 1475 the Tartars accepted Ottoman sovereignty. They remained most valuable Ottoman vassals until 1774 providing some of the best fighting men in the Ottoman army and standing for centuries against increasing Russian encroachment.

Selim was the antithesis of his father, Bayezit. He preferred to spend his time on campaign, away from Istanbul. He was an intelligent and ruthless general, and that was what was needed by the Empire. An ideological and political threat against the Ottomans was mounting in the East from another Turkish Dynasty, the Safavid rulers of Iran.... The other great power in the Middle East (and potential threat) was the Mamluk Empire. It was an empire run by slaves.

Selim was an accomplished strategist.... When he went east for the campaign of 1516 it was not known if he would attack the Safavids once again or move south against the Mamluks. Of the two, the Mamluks were surely the softer opponent. Poor leadership and their system of government had ensured that many in Syria and Egypt would gladly side with the Ottomans against the Mamluks.

The Ottoman and Mamluk armies met at Marj Dabik on August 24 1516, where the Ottomans won easily. They were welcomed by the people of Syria. The Mamluks in Egypt were beaten that winter and Syria and Egypt were incorporated into the Ottoman empire.

The Safavid rulers resembled what the Ottomans had been.They were leaders of Turkish nomads and were closely tied into the religious and social life of the Turks of eastern Anatolia and Iran. Their power began with religion. The Safavid family were shaykhs of a widespread mystical religious fraternity that had spread all over eastern Anatolia and western Iran. The beliefs spread by the Safavids were a mixture of heterodox religion and revolution against accepted order, both of which had great appeal to the Turkish nomads of the East. Partly because of personal belief and partly because the establishment adhered to Sunni Islam, the Safavids began to espouse a Shia version of Islam which also attracted new followers.

The Safavid combination of state and mystical religion had immense appeal to many of the sultan's Turkish subjects, whose personal religious beliefs were often very close to those of the Safavids. Moreover, the Janissaries Corps also found the Safavid religious ideas attractive.

Selim responded with cold calculation and ferocity to the Safavid threat. His forces hunted down safavid supporters in Anatolia, killing thousands. The Safavids themselves were met militarily. In spring of 1514 Selim's army moved east.

The two forces met at Caldiran on August 23, 1514, where the Ottomans gained a bloody victory. ... Selim moved on from Caldiran to take Tabriz, the Safavid capital but was forced to abandon it because of limited supplies for the Ottomans troops.

Ismail [the Safavid leader] learned the lessons of Caldiran. Henceforth he adopted a 'scorched earth' policy that denied the Ottomans the food they needed to campaign. For two centuries the Safavids were to continue the policy. It was an effective tactic, keeping the Ottomans from the Heartland of Iran.

In Europe, Suleyman was faced with a formidable obstruction in the way of the Ottoman conquest, the Hapsburg family. Charles V was unquestionably the most powerful ruler in Christian Europe.... His main conflict with the Ottomans came in Hungary. .. The upshot of a confusing set of conquests in the 1520s and 30s which led to the successful expansion of the Ottoman empire into Hungary in 1541 when it became a province of the empire.

Attempts to push the Hapsburgs further in Vienna ultimately failed. In the century following this, the Ottomans were to make small territorial gains at the expense of Austria but their expansion in Europe was effectively over.

Suleyman's forces also came up against the Hansburgs on the Mediterranean... The bulk of Muslim sea power was in the hands of pirates, well organized naval forces who mainly operated from North African ports, raiding Spanish and Italian coasts and attacking shipping.... The Ottoman and Pirate fleets were consolidates under the cammand of Hayrettin ("Barbarossa" in European sources). North African coastal regions, in particular Algiers, became tributaries of the Ottoman Empire.

Portuguese sea trade with the East began in 1500. In order to secure their trade supremacy, the Portughuese began a compaign to detroy Muslim trade. Suleyman realized the danger to the Middle Eastern Economy.... In 1552, the Ottoman fleet was completely routed in the Gulf ending Muslim control over the Gulf trade route.... The Ottomans were able to keep control of the Red Sea route, but European trade with the East grew and Muslim trade stagnated.

*Safavid possession of central and southern Iraq stood in the way of economic benefit [in light of Portuguese inroads to Eastern Muslim trade, see above]

*The Safavids were a perennial threat, due to their appeal to the heterodox ans semi-nomadic inhabitants of eastern Anatolia. Defeating them decisively would allow Ottoman attention to be focused elsewhere -- thus, a strategic advantage.

*Safavid adoption of Shia Islam as the state religion had led to a ruthless suppression of Sunni Islam, the faith of the Ottomans, throughout their dominions. Sunni religious leaders were being exiled or killed, religious establishments and properties were seized, and Sunni sacred shrines were being despoiled.

Suleyman first made peace with Austria in 1553, then prepared for war with the Safavids. While the Safavid ruler expected an attack in the northern region, where Selim had been active, Suleyman attacked instead from the south, over the mountains into central Iraq. By the end of 1553, Baghdad lay in Ottoman hands; later Basra was also taken and all of Iraq became Ottoman.

The conquest of Iraq put virtually all of the Arab Middle East under Ottoman control. The integration of most of the Arab world into the Ottoman Empire would last for nearly 400 years.

Political power increasingly resided in two areas -the 'political parties' od the devshirme and the harem. The former were parties based on personal loyalty and formed by devshirme leaders in furtherance of their political aims. The harem, especially the women of the sultan, possessed power because of their closeness to the center of power, the sultan.The harem women allied themselves with devshirme parties to control the empire.

Suleyman's most lasting contribution to the Ottoman state system lay in the codification of laws -- he is known as Kanuni or "the law giver". Building on the law code of Mehmet II, Suleyman's vezirs and ulema law experts wrote or recorded a great body of law that included the workings of the state and more. The codes emphasized the power of the sultan and government over people and property.

Suleyman is also known as 'The Magnificent'. His empire was mgnificent in size and power. In terms of ability to make enemies tremble, Suleyman's army and state were unquestionably magnificent. Suleyman was also magnificent in his charity, the sort of charity described earlier for Mehmet II, charity which built glorious edifices as well as providing for the poor.

On balance, Suleiman's reign must be considered a success. He left the Empire larger and better organized than he had found it.