HINE 109: Final Essay

Through their dominant role in European trade, intercontinental conflicts that demonstrated their military might, and other foreign connections, the Ottomans were undoubtedly a strong European force. Initial contact between the Ottomans and European kingdoms was violent and bloody, but the Ottomans were victorious. As we discussed in lecture, the Cretan War in 1645 saw the Ottoman fleet play the underdog against the collective strength of Venice, France, the Papal States, and the Knights of Malta. Still, the Venetians were defeated, and Crete was added to the empire(Lecture 7-2, slide 5). At this time, many other great nations and empires worldwide could not defeat the European powers, thereby underscoring the Ottomans' strong position on the Western stage. In addition to fighting against European powers, they joined internal conflicts and engaged in foreign politics. The Ottomans joined the Second Coalition against Napoleon and his French forces, hoping to expel them from Egypt and impede their advance into key regions of the empire (Lecture 10-2, slide 4). These conflicts and military interactions between the Ottomans and the European continent, as well as their participation in the coalition, conveyed their standing among other powerful nations. In addition, the Ottomans created strong diplomatic and economic ties with Europe, particularly through trade and cultural exchange. As connections between nations increased, so did the exchange of ideas, culture, and performances with overseas elites. Despite near-constant conflict for much of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, “Military engagements themselves did not necessarily prevent the cultural exchange: music, manuscripts, and other war booty traveled to Europe with Ottoman troops” (Bevilacqua and Pfeifer, “Turquerie,” 77). Communication between soldiers and people in towns and cities across Europe helped spread information about the Ottoman Empire, fostering a desire for trade and relations with this incredible, distant power. Trade and commerce relations increased further after the Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699. This resolution ended conflicts between the Ottomans and the Habsburg dynasty, allowing for more peaceful and profitable ties to flourish (Lecture 9-2, slide 3). This sharing of knowledge and the beginnings of trade demonstrate the power of the Ottoman Empire and its standing in Europe, playing an essential role in the continent's enterprise. Strong business ties show that the Ottomans were seen as equal in status to European kingdoms, and their diplomatic relations, including foreign advisors and royal visits between the powers, would further attest to their good standing. Yet, what was most telling of the power the Ottomans held in Europe was their dominance in trade, meaning their advantage and near-monopoly over certain commodities. As in the early days of European trade with China, the Ottomans and their exotic, alien products were in high demand among the European elite, and the elite used this demand to boost their trade. Tobacco, for example, was sold at higher prices to foreign nations than in the homeland. As Grehan describes, “The prosperity of the Ottoman regional trade, sustained by its own cheap and readily available supplies, may very well have ensured that the Ottoman consumers had better access to tobacco than their European counterparts, who had to contend with colonial monopolies and high import taxes” (Grehan, Smoking and Early Modern Sociability, p.1356). When a country has an advantage in producing a highly sought-after product, it will try to capitalize on that advantage and make money by selling it to foreign buyers. The Ottomans had a near-monopoly on tobacco sales to Europe and thus could set their prices. This kind of economic influence demonstrates the Ottomans' status as a major European empire with significant leverage in trade. Not only were their products valuable, but the Ottomans also had a lively market of domestic buyers eager to purchase from Europe. To profit off of foreign traders in their ports and reestablish their dominance, “The Ottomans behav(ed) as the most powerful empire in the region, providing “capitulations” – permission to trade – which friendly foreign nations would acquire. The Europeans, in contrast, valued these capitulations … and watched one another compete for further dispensation” (Barkey, Empire of Difference, p.237). In terms of trade, the Ottomans were so dominant that other powerful European kingdoms had to compete for influence within their trade system. This ability to impact a vast commercial system is the most critical piece in understanding the Ottomans as a European power. By winning battles against great military strength in the West, creating good diplomatic relations with foreign notables and kingdoms, and placing themselves near the top of a massive, multi-continental trade network, the Ottomans demonstrated their standing both in Europe and on the world stage. (639)

Decentralization, including the increasing local power of noble families, the central government's reliance on external funding, and revolts against the royal family through legally and religiously sanctioned channels, was the key factor in the decline of the Ottoman Empire. As expansion slowed, the Ottoman government turned to solidifying its grip on its territories, but quickly discovered how widespread and weak its control had become. Many regions suffered from a lack of government support, including food shortages and attacks by rebel bands. In these instances, local wealthy families “distinguished themselves as responsible leaders of their community … they assumed in due course the role of ‘fiscal protectors’ of whole communes, thus establishing, at least in some parts of the Balkans, a certain control over village finances” (Anadir, Semi-autonomous Provincial Forces, pp.172-3). By aiding the community when the sultan could not, these families gained immense power in their respective regions, essentially becoming lords in a feudal society. Their influence in many cities across the empire put the Sultan’s weakening power on full display. The Ottoman policy of indirect rule also gave rise to notables in positions of power. During expansion, the government kept most local governing bodies intact since they could not instate a whole new system in such a large empire. Now, areas that were “quasi-independent” from the beginning looked to their local lords for protection and support (Lecture 9-1, slide 8). Affluent, notable families could assist their districts better than the stretched-thin central government could, and their increasing power would soon rival that of the sultan. The decentralization of power from the sultan and his government to lords and nobles throughout the empire conveyed the fragility of leadership and strength in the capital. Another key issue that also aided in the rise of noble families was the Ottoman government’s dependence on their money and other external funding to support increased spending in the capital. As we discussed in lecture, the Malikane system, a plan to sell taxing rights to wealthy patrons to raise money in the short term, would later take a significant toll on the revenue the central government was able to bring in due to the lifetime nature of these agreements (Lecture 8-1, slide 30). Needing resources to fund their continued conflicts in Europe and to pay the large standing army of Janissaries in the capital, the sultan sold away his ability to tax his subjects. By giving away his rights so freely, the royal family made clear its financial issues and gave even more power and influence to the notable families already amassing greater authority in their regions. Additionally, the revenue generated from these tax farming agreements became so crucial to the government that it couldn’t undo the system once it began to recognize the system’s effects. As Karen Barkey explains, “Yet, when it became clearly in the interest of the rulers to do away with tax farming, the English and the French states were much more successful at switching to a public system of tax administration … Halil Inalcık, in fact, describes tax farming as “the backbone of the administrative structure of the state” (Barkey, Empire of Difference, p.230). The Ottoman government was forced to continue selling the sultan’s powers to the highest bidder to keep up with rising costs in the capital and in wars abroad. These hits to the sultan’s influence gave way to revolts and rebellions led by Janissaries who were underpaid or at risk of losing their jobs. What made these movements so compelling was the support of the notables and the ulema, or religious figures. As Barkey conveys, “Significant elite input into this movement came from the ulema, who associated with the rebels not for economic reasons, but for their own political and religious motives, swaying the Muslim masses against a Westernizing state” (Barkey, Empire of Difference, p.217). By using religious law to justify the revolts and the ousting of sultans, the rebels gained support from most of the population. This was a clear sign of the deteriorating sultan's authority amid decentralization: the once-mighty religious leader could now be removed if influential figures outside the capital disapproved of his actions. A specific example of this is the Edirne event in 1703, which resulted in the ousting of Mustafa II as Sultan and his advisor/teacher, Feyzullah, at the hands of the Janissaries (Lecture 8-2, slide 9). The Janissaries were established as a standing army loyal to the sultan, whom they protected and, in turn, were granted prestige in the empire. Now, sultans were forced to appease their own protectors for fear of them turning on the throne. These Janissary movements would be funded by wealthy families attempting to place people they liked or trusted in positions of power in the government. Thus, with the rising power of notables through tax farming agreements and proxy control of territories outside the capital, as well as the increasing danger within the capital represented by the Janissaries and the religious leaders, the sultan had been reduced practically to a figurehead, reliant on money from nobles to cover expenses and forced to satisfy various groups to keep them from rebelling. Key systems, such as tax farming and indirect control, meant to keep Ottoman power, resulted in the decentralization of the sultan’s influence and gave rise to factions and wealthy families vying for control of the empire.