Constructing Early Ottoman History

Ottoman Rulers

Map Representing Empire’s Borders1300-1922

http://lexicorient.com/e.o/atlas/ottomans.htm

OttomanEmpire14th c.through17Th c.

OttomanEmpire1351 –1480

The Empire Grows• early phases of Ottoman expansion:

- Osman I (1281-1324) - Orhan (1324-1362)- Murad I (1362-1389)- Beyazid I (1389-1401)

• Expanding into Byzantine Empire, Bulgaria, Serbia.

• Bursa fell 1326; Adrianople ( Edirne) 1361: each became capital of the empire in turn.

Ottoman Rulers

The Empire Grows (cont.)

• Victories of Kosovo(1389 – saw death of Murad I) and Nikopol (1396) placed large parts of the Balkan Peninsula under Ottoman rule

• Europe awakened to Ottoman danger • Ottoman siege of Constantinople lifted at the

appearance of Timur, who defeated and captured Beyazid in 1402 (Ankara).

• Defeat short-lived; Ottomans soon rallied.

The Empire Grows (cont.)• The empire, reunited by Mehmed I, expanded

steadily under his successors:• Most notable:

- victory (1444) at Varna over a crusading army led by Ladislaus III of Poland - successful siege (1453) of Constantinople[Week of October 4]

• Within a century,Ottomans overtaken Byzantines as heirs of Roman empire[Contrast conceptual context with Mustafa Tahrali’s article from ‘Readings’, week Sept. 20]

• Expansion into Europe continued under Suleyman I (16th c.):- Hungarian defeat (1526) at Mohacs prepared the way for capture of Buda (1541)

• Thereafter absorption of most of Hungary by the Ottomans

• Followed by acquisition of Transylvania, Walachiand Moldavia as tributary principalities (vassals)

The Empire Grows (cont.)

Additional Information

The Empire Grows (cont.)

• Asian borders pushed deep into Persia and Arabia:- Selim I defeated powerful Mamluks of Egyptand Syria;- took Cairo (1517) and assumed succession to the caliphate

[see Map next slide ‘Western Eurasia 1405’ to situate Mamluks, Timurid Mongols and Ottomans prior to victories]

Additional Information

Western Eurasia 1405 [prior to Ottoman victories]

”

MamlukState c.1400: “TheGolden Age”

Mamluks

• “mamluk” meaning ‘owned’: slaves taken by rulers in Middle East and North Africa, incorporated as trained soldiers into armies and administration; widely used

• Mamluks in Egypt replaced Sultan, leader married Sultan’s wife

• 1260 Baybars I brought uncle of former Sultan from Baghdad to Cairo, establishing the Caliphate there: power remained in Mamluk hands [biography of Baybars I in “Additional Information”]

Dinars struck by Baybars I

The Empire on the Seas• Mediterranean commerce fell to gazi fleet of

admiral Khayr ad-Din (c. 1483–1546) –Europe’s “Barbarossa”:- Algiers taken from Spanish (1518) - 1533-44 control extended to other ‘Barbary’ (North African) states

- regulary attacked Spanish, Italian, Greek coasts/fleets- Venetian, other Latin possessions in Greece came under Ottoman influence

War Standard of Barbarossa

From the Conquest Sura:"Mohammed! Reveal

good news to the believers that the conquest is

soon."

For More Information See:

“War Standard”

“Barbarossa”

The Empire on the Seas (cont.)

• Italian admiral assisted Hapsburgs (Charles V) to take back Tunis (1535)

• Reinforced traditional friendship between France and Ottomans directed against Austria and Spain.

• 1559 Italians (with French aid) returned Corsica to Genoa 1559

What Explains Success?

• In some part due to weaknesses and disunity of adversaries

• Mostly must be attributed to excellence of military organization

• Evolution over course of 14th century

The Army: what do we know? How do we know?

• Kafadar: written chronicles date at earliest 15th century

• 14th century ‘knowledge’ written after-the-fact in social, political situation very different from that pertaining at time referred to in stories

• Key element of change:centralizing of state, ‘control’ of margins, exertion of power (economic, political, military)

• Gives examples of how that situation shaped the information we have

…what do we know? How do we know? (cont.)

• Fratricide upon succession to the throne: understood in the frontier ghazi society – in need of ‘legitimizing’ by time of Mehmed I

• Familial strife represented in the erasure of Osman’s brother Dundar from the Chronicles

• Stories (eg. Neshri, Apz) empahsizingchange in policy re:Christians with Osman’sghazi activity replaced by later chronicles tracing continuity of policy between Ertogruland Osman

The Army: what do we know? How do we know?

• Anonymous chronicles and Apz ‘celebrate’ the nostalgia of early ghazi days (extended back to Ertogrul)

• One theme is corruption of that tradition by arrival (and subsequent influence) of the ‘schoolmen’ – the learned clerics ulema

• Viewed in chronicles as source of ‘evil’: ironically, ‘evil’ seen by chroniclers of the time in same characteristics of ‘empire’ historians celebrate

… what do we know? How do we know?

“At that time [reign of Murad I] … the rulers were not greedy. Whatever came into their hands they gave away again… But when [Candarli] Hayreddin Pasha came to the Gate [of government] greedy scholars became the companions of the rulers….until then [the arrival of the Persians] nothing was known of keeping account books. …When [Candarli] Ali Pasha … became vizier, sin and wickedness increased. … The House of Osman was a sturdy people, but these outsiders came to them and introduced all kinds of tricks.” (p.111)

… what do we know? How do we know?

[see class handout‘the nature of history’

excerpt from H A R Gibbons, one of the stories of Ertogrul from Neshri]

…what do we know? How do we know?

“Compilers chose what to include and exclude, and there is a certain logic to these choices because there is a certain moral or argument of the tale that changes according to the editor.” (p.107)

• Therefore, ‘reading’ the chronicles is about more than just peeling away the layers in chronological fashion

• Understanding the editing process is itself a ‘clue’ to history

The Army: what do we know? How do we know?

• Most accounts of early Ottoman warfare itself not from Ottoman sources but from those of their enemies, Byzantines

• Some date to time of Osman (early 14th C.)• Descriptions of mounted attacks: tactics of

raiding, ambushing, fleeing• Attacks unexpected – often at night• Account of taking of Greek Fortress:

The Army: what do we know? How do we know?

• Greeks attacked at night by about 500 of enemy who had escaped detection, seized the roads to fortress

• More attacked from other side• Women and children and those who tried to

escape easy targets• Resisters cut down• When Byzantine forces regrouped and

pursued the Turks, latter retreated to the mountains, stopped and turned on former

The Army: what do we know? How do we know?

• Form of warfare (extension of ghazi raiding) effective in taking countryside, cutting off support to fortresses

• People from countryside took refuge in walled towns like Bursa but with food sources cut off, overcrowding – starvation, disease became weapons

• Story of Orhan against Byzantine Emperor shows tactics didn’t always work but exploiting possibilities of terrain worked in their favour

The Army: what do we know? How do we know?

• Chronicles indicate that under Orhanand Murad I, Ottomans learned how to conduct long, effective sieges as well as engage in field battle (one of Murad’s victories in Macedonia came after 4 years of siege)

• In contrast to quick raid-like attacks, longer-term strategies of studying weaknesses of fortifications – then exploiting them

The Army: what do we know? How do we know?

• By time of siege of Constantinople 1453, accounts show use of variety of techniques, including ramparts, mining, cannons, navy

[see two accounts, Wheatcroft and TurshinBeg, of “Taking of Constantinople” in ‘Course Pack; also ‘Diary’ of Nicolo Barbaroin ‘Readings’]

The Army: what do we know? How do we know?

• Underpinnings of army dependent on:- timar and ‘Six Divisions’ cavalry- Christian recruits (both Devshirme and

volunteers)- Janissaries- azab- raiders

• Most in evidence by 1453 (Siege accounts)

The Army: timar

• Origins undoubtedly predate Ottomans• First reliable statement of their numbers

1525 – at that time about 50,000 (including ‘armed retainers’)

• Calvary, rooted in ‘feudal’ system• Some fought on contract basis

The Army: Christians

• Many volunteers recruited from among vassal states

• Others as part of levy or “Collection”• Greek evidence 1395: “what would a man

not suffer were he to see a child whom he had begotten and raised … carried off by the hands of foreigners, suddenly and by force, and compelled to change over to alien customs and become a vessel of barbaric garb, speech, impiety and other contaminations…?”

The Army: Christians (cont.)• 1392 Italian source: “the Turks seize boys of

10 to 12 years for the army…”• Contrary to Islamic law per se; some argue

that this represents ‘limited understanding’ Islamic law – “devshirme” system: confusion over distinctions regarding slavery

• 1438 Christian Brother notes the barbarous practice of taking “one in ten” to become a ‘special slave’

• Eye witness accounts 1453-63 uses word meaning ‘one in forty’ – more likely levy

The Army: Christians (cont.)

• Know from 17th source “Laws of the Janissaries” officers were Not to take sons of important men, priests or men of ‘good descent’, nor only sons, nor orphans… list of ‘unsuitable’ sorts

• Above all Turks were not be be accepted (this would give families right to make claims to ‘janissary’ status)

The Army: Christians (cont.)

• Benefit of ‘taking the infidels’: “when they become muslims, they become zealous for the religion – an enemy to their family and dependents” (understood – totally loyal to and dependent upon the Sultan)

• Bosnians favoured: 1463 inhabitants submitted to Sultan and Islam but requested that they be subject to the Devshirme – most assigned prestigious positions in palace

The Army: Janissary

• “collection” or “Devshirme” system fed into the Janissary core

• Janissaries formed second half 14th century • Kafadar recounts fabled origins under

Murad I – part of increasing ‘central’ part of war booty (or at least perceived that way from the frontier): ‘the fifth’

• Small numbers, infantry, sultan’s body guard, loyal (Ankara, Varna)

The Army: Janissary• Numbers increased over 15th c.• Greek sources (1480s) give 5,000 at time of

Mehmed II’s succession• Said to have doubled in 1470s• Payroll figures from 16th century show

gradual increase to 20,000 (including ‘novices’)

• Served in provinces, garrisons• Numbers controlled by second half 16th

century – power feared (with reason)

The Army: Azabs• Infantry, served with janissaries but not elite• Drawn from peasants, craftsmen (1475

source) • Origins unclear: 15th c Ottoman chronicle

says late 14th c but problematic (Kafadar’sdiscussion of anachronisms etc.)

• Known to be in place by 1440s• References to their activities in siege of

Constantinople

The Army: Azabs (cont.)• Bayezid II’s “Law Book” (1499) instructs

local qadi and imams in how to ‘levy’ for azab: ‘able men’, not old, sick or slave

• If one family in 20 provide recruit, the other 19 pay expenses – amount determined by number of households; ‘guarantor’ also chosen

• Numbers fluctuated according to need• Served fortresses, battles -- ‘fodder’• Careful records kept

The Army: “raiders”

• Light cavalry, fought outside main battles, harkened back to ghazi – lived largely from booty

• Raised own horses, sometimes freed from taxation but other sources show support of azab, tithes

• Voluntary at first but by 16th century, subject to formal levy

• No longer appear in sources after end 16th

The Army: “Six Divisions”

• Elite cavalry, regulars, trained in Palace school

• Often used for ceremonial occasions as well as battles

• Greek sources tell of horsemen (sipahis), sword bearers, ‘flankers’ (on “left and right”)

• Although said to have tripled in numbers 16th

(possibly 6,000) – always few by comparison with timar

The Army: Weaponry• Descriptions of battles indicate important

development weapons• From bows and arrows (archers on

horseback), crossbows, short and long stabbing knives, swords – developed artillery and cannons

• Learned from campaigns in Hungary ‘wagonburg’: already successfully used in Kosovo 1448

The Army: Weaponry (cont)

• Craftsmen crossed frontiers, sometimes voluntarily – sometimes not

• Ottomans benefited from German cannon manufacturer taken into employ of King Bosnia, then into service of Sultan

• Gradually reduced size of weaponry for ease of transport

• By siege of Constantinople lessons and technology well learned and applied