The Ottomans: Khans, Caesars, and Caliphs

by Marc David Baer

A “panoramic and thought-provoking” (The Guardian) history of the Ottoman dynasty, revealing a diverse empire that straddled East and West   
 
The Ottoman Empire has long been depicted as the Islamic, Asian antithesis of the Christian, European West. But the reality was starkly different: the Ottomans’ multiethnic, multilingual, and multireligious domain reached deep into Europe’s heart. Indeed, the Ottoman rulers saw themselves as the new Romans. Recounting the Ottomans’ remarkable rise from a frontier principality to a world empire, historian Marc David Baer traces their debts to their Turkish, Mongolian, Islamic, and Byzantine heritage. The Ottomans pioneered religious toleration even as they used religious conversion to integrate conquered peoples. But in the nineteenth century, they embraced exclusivity, leading to ethnic cleansing, genocide, and the empire’s demise after the First World War.  
 
The Ottomans vividly reveals the dynasty’s full history and its enduring impact on Europe and the world. 

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Middle East, World History, European History, Audiobook, Medieval

576 pages, Paperback

First published October 5, 2021

About the author

Professor Baer earned his BA degree at Northwestern University and his PhD at the University of Chicago. Before joining LSE in 2013, Baer taught at Tulane University, New Orleans, and the University of California, Irvine.

Professor Baer’s research focuses on the connected histories of Christians, Jews, and Muslims in European and Middle Eastern history, from the early modern era to the modern .

His first book, Honored by the Glory of Islam: Conversion and Conquest in Ottoman Europe (Oxford, 2008, Turkish translation, IV. Mehmet Döneminde Osmanlı Avrupasında İhtida ve Fetih, Hil, 2010), analyzes how Muslim proselytizers conceived and practiced converting other Muslims, as well as Christians and Jews to their interpretation of Islam. Honored by the Glory of Islam was awarded the Albert Hourani Prize of the Middle East Studies Association of North America as the best book in Middle East Studies, 2008. The monograph was also short listed as the best first book in the History of Religions by the American Academy of Religion, 2009. He ends Honored by the Glory of Islam with the conversion to Islam of a group of messianic Jews in seventeenth-century Ottoman Salonika, which is the focus of his second monograph, The Dönme: Jewish Converts, Muslim Revolutionaries, and Secular Turks (Stanford, 2010, Turkish translation, Selânikli Dönmeler: Musevilikten Dönenler, Müslüman Devrimciler, ve Laik Türkler, Doğan, 2011). The Dönme is the first complete history of a secretive Ottoman community from its origins to its dissolution in twentieth-century Istanbul. The Dönme was named finalist, Sephardic Culture category at the National Jewish Book Awards, 2010.

Reviews

[Liam Ostermann · Rating 1 out of 5]

My problems with this book can be neatly exampled by the following paragraph:

"How indeed did Filippo Brunelleschi, a goldsmith with no formal architectural training, manage to create the most sublime monument of the Renaissance? Perhaps because the Ilkanid Oljeittu's turquoise-blue, double-shell, domed mausoleum, built at the beginning of the fourteenth century at Sultaniye in Iran, anticipated Brunelleschi's double-shell, domed cathedral in Florence by a century. It may in fact have been its inspiration."

At the time Brunelleschi was messing around with goldsmithing there were no 'architectural courses' to attend so there was no way for him to get 'training' as an architect, I am not even sure that being an 'architect' existed as a profession or singular job description in the 14th century. Is it any more improbable that Brunelleschi was ignorant of Oljeittu's double-shell domed mausoleum 100 years after its completion then it is for me or any one else to be ignorant of it after 700? Is it not possible that the knowledge he gained studying the ruins and buildings of Rome including the dome of the Pantheon, as every other authority on the dome suggests, provided him with the inspiration for his ground breaking work?

If you are wondering why I have devoted time to discussing Brunelleschi's dome in a review of a history of the Ottomans and their empire by an academic historian it is because on reading this paragraph (the only reference given to support the idea that Brunelleschi was influenced by Ottoman architecture to create the dome in Florence is a National Geographic article by a journalist whose latest book was about scandals in the Italian oil oil business, not exactly the reference you expect in a well researched and argued history book) I eventually threw this book across the room because I could not take the extravagant and totally unprofessional propagandising the author indulges in. That I did it only once is purely down to the fact it was not mine but a library book.

I have no problem with Professor Baer's arguments about the way the Ottoman empire differed in many attractive ways from the way things were done in Europe, particularly with regard to religious toleration. But Baer is not the first academic or popular historian to pass on this information. Philip Mansel in his 'Constantinople: City of the World's Desire' published over thirty years ago is rich in praise for many aspects of the Ottoman empire. Mansell's is a popular history so aimed a broad audience and there are countless others including more academic works who have covered this ground.

There is always something dubious in a writer making a big deal out of overturning 'myths', almost inevitably you find that they are coming late to the job of demolition but are relying on the ignorance of most reviewers to get away with it - and the reviewers of this book have uncritically swallowed all the PR claims of his publishers rather then reading the book. So they accept Professor Baer's nonsensical claims that his book demolishes long held 'myths' about the Ottomans. He denounces as myth the idea that the Renaissance was the result of Greek scholars fleeing the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the spread of Greek culture goes back centuries and Europe received its Greek culture via Muslim Spain and Sicily and that the conquest on Constantinople did not close trade route to the east via the Mediterranean to Westerners thus did not cause western Europeans to embark on exploration via the Atlantic. There is nothing new or controversial about any of this, the debt everyone owes to Muslims (not Ottomans specifically) for the preservation and transmitting back to Latin Europe of Greek writings and knowledge has been acknowledge for decades, even in popular television histories.

He devotes time to denouncing those same Greek refugees who didn't cause the Renaissance with inordinate influence in forming the picture of the Ottomans as 'enemies', particularly exiled Orthodox clergy. What makes this argument bizarre is that Baer had previously spent a great deal of time explaining how sultan Mehmed II after conquering Constantinople had created an environment very welcoming to former Greek noblemen, court officials and churchmen. If Ottoman Constantinople was such a marvellous place for Greek Christians and clergy it does beg the question of why there so many exiles.

He then goes on to argue for Mehmed II being as much a 'Renaissance' ruler as the Medici. No one would dispute that he had himself painted by Bellini and collected a mass of 'Renaissance' bric a brac and books. But buying a load of bits and pieces from places like Italy and then keeping them hidden away in the back rooms of Topakai palace doesn't make someone a Renaissance man, nor is it an attempt to bring Renaissance ideas to your empire. It makes you a Renaissance shopper at best.

The Renaissance was not about creating a few beautiful works of art. When Cosmo de Medici commissioned Donatello to create the first free standing male nude sculpture since ancient times what was important was that he put it in the courtyard of the Medici Palazzo were it could be seen by everyone coming to see him. Because of it Florence would welcome Michelangelo's gigantic nude David as an image of the city and its freedoms into its most important public space. The importance of the Renaissance was the way it ideas moved out from a few scholars and noblemen to everyone and gradually embarked on opening up and changing the way people, all people, thought.

Because he is obsessed with presenting the Ottoman's favourably Professor Baer ends up making many asinine statements. He proclaims that it was only in 1648 at the conclusion of the Thirty Years War that toleration of different religions was accepted in Europe which would have been news to French protestants in 1685 when the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes was issued or to Irish Catholics in 1695 when the Penal Laws were issued.

I want to stress I am not trying to say that the Ottomans were bad, they were different, of course their history interacts with European history, but professor Baer's arguments and the way he presents them has less to do with re-examining or re-interpreting history then kowtowing to the non-historical interpretations demanded by politicians. Since Turkey's president Erdogan entered politics he has consistently propagated a new version of Turkish history which embraces it's Ottoman past, which is fine, but also dictates the way it is presented by foreign scholars. Professor Baer admits that to gain access, for example, to the Topakai Palace archives, scholars have not only to present details of what they are researching but the way they are going to present any information. In essence before researching anything a scholar must declare what the research will reveal. Ignore this and future access to the archives will be denied.

I eventually abandoned reading this book a quarter of the way through and skimmed the rest, with decreasing interest, because it was so frustrating to read a history written with such an obvious and clear agenda to please civil servants/politicians. To go back to the paragraph at the start of the review from National Geographic, no reputable scholar puts such unsupported ideas into their books unless they are desperately trying to curry favour with someone other then their peers in the academic community. There probably are good things in this book, Baer's research is impressive but to me it is tainted by the unacknowledged influence and constraints that have been imposed. I can not trust it and that is why I stopped reading it.

[L.A. Heberlein]

While I was reading Alan Mikhail’s book God’s Shadow, about Selim I (and also, relentlessly, about Mikhail’s obsession with the role of Ottoman Islam in instigating Western expansion to America), I realized how ignorant I am of Ottoman history, and I thought it would be good to read an overview.  So when I saw a review of Baer’s new history of the Ottoman empire, I immediately put it on my library queue, and excitement about the Ottomans being perhaps not as fervid as for some of my other interests, the book showed up at the neighborhood library quickly. 
 
Several brief observations:
 
1)     The Ottoman Empire lasted 600 years and had 40 sultans, so any history is going to contain way too many summaries of battles and quick characterizations of rulers that don't quite establish them as unique characters in your mind.  There are stretches of this book that remind me why I was not a history major. 

2)    Several chapters in the middle of the book do cover topics rather than chronology, and those were great reading.  One describes “The Ottoman Way,” including the empire’s recruitment strategies.  I think my favorite chapter is on the harem, which Western readers brought up on an “othered” view of their neighbors to the east eroticize, but which is probably better seen as a center of child-rearing, education, and power.  There’s also a chapter on the much-neglected history of man-boy love, not just in the Ottoman Empire, but in European history as well, that’s bound to leave any reader with a lot to mull over.

3)    Reading the history of an empire starts to warp your thinking after a bit – you start thinking about what conduces to the health of the empire and neglect thinking about whether the very concept of empire is a good thing.

4)     Baer is insistent that any history of “Europe” needs to include the Ottomans, and he’s convinced me that he’s right about that.  Their exclusion from most histories is an unjustified omission based on racism and religious bias.

5)    I’d never understood the Crimean War at all – it’s just this mess that Victorian Britons return from – and I still can’t say it makes sense to me, any more than any war makes sense, but at least Baer’s history puts it in some kind of context.  Likewise, the Balkan wars must interest students of military history, early tryouts for the new technologies of mass slaughter more extensively employed in World War I, with the Ottoman Army trained and directed by Germans.

6)    It’s not news that Sufism is interesting, but I couldn’t help observing while reading this history that, though on one level I already felt like I was being punished, like I was punishing myself for wanting more after a previous history, I’d still be really interested in a history of Sufism.  I’m sure there’s an encyclopedia somewhere, actually, there must be people with graduate degrees in the history of Sufism.  Over and over, throughout the 600-year history of the empire, political events are mixed up with the latest emergence of a new doctrine or particularly charismatic new Sufi leader.

7)    The chapter on the Armenian genocide, besides making you want to be a member of some other species, makes you think about the accidents of history.  Yes, there was a structural problem, yes there was some ethnic and religious animosity, but basically Interior Minister Talat Pasha was making a complete botch of his part of World War I, wasting almost the entire army in badly managed battles, many of which could have been and ought to have been avoided.  (Add his name to the list of fools who attacked Russia in winter.) He desperately needed a scapegoat, and claiming that a cabal of treacherous Armenians were colluding with the Russians helped divert attention from his utter incompetence.  I know, you can’t make infinity bigger and you can’t make a genocide worse, but it does make it worse to me that it was all so completely pointless and superficially motivated.

8)    If it wasn’t clear enough before why my friend Henry has devoted his scholarly life to the study of Turkish architecture, it certainly is now.  How can I possibly justify never having been to Istanbul?  And isn’t it time to start reading some of the literature?  Have you even read a Pamuk novel?  Yes, yes, I know you own them, I can see some of them from where I sit, but have you ever read them?    
 

[Henk · Rating 4 out of 5]

A broad, sweeping read on the rise and fall of the Ottomans. Besides a historical account, the author also presents the position of women, the prevalence of same-sex relationships and the age of discovery/renaissance from the perspective of the Ottomans.
Ottoman tolerance is European tolerance

General reflections and modern day musings
It might be strange to say of a book that has people being killed every other page, but The Ottomans: Khans, Caesars and Caliphs left me feeling meditative on the inherently transitory nature of power. As in Dune, the Ottomans go from battle-hardened, austere and warlike nomads to indulgent, boy loving, palace building administrators. Begetting power seems to mean that you will lose power, with vested interests leading to inertia and inability to change.

I wonder what the account of the fall of the West will be in a few hundred years and if our billionaires, people eating a million dollar banana from an art fair and cryptocurrency bubbles will be called the portents of our indulgence and indolence, similar to the tulip mania, wealth of regional tax collectors and vast harems signalled retrospectively the doom of the Ottoman Empire.
Also how uncertain times (and the limits to material gains for the general population, for the Ottomans being territorial gains, for the West maybe the collapse of the middle-class/education route to materially being well off) lead to conservative strong men and messianic leaders gaining power, and end up in genocide, is a warning to our current times.

I enjoyed this read in preparation of going to Istanbul in April this year! Detailed thoughts below:

Stratospheric rise to a full European power
Marc David Baer takes us chronological through the rise of the Ottomans, initially as one of the many horseback, migratory tribes in Anatolia. A recurring theme at the start of the book is the problem of succession, either violent and leading to warlike, competent sultan or peaceful/purely hereditary and leading to powerless, unfit sultans.
Originating on the Anatolian heartland as nomadic tribes, initially paying tribute to the Il Khanate, soon more and more of their conquests lead to regional forces joining the Ottomans. Christians remained the numerical majority for at least two decades into the rule of the Ottomans, and the forefather of the dynasty was married with a Byzantine princess in an effort by them to appease one of their warlike neighbours. In many places Christians made up the majority of Ottoman troops, and the key weakness of Byzantium stemming from being sacked during the Fourth crusade by Latin troops.

Primogeniture descent helped to unify the territorial holdings, compared to the equal sharing across heirs that their Mongol overlords followed. Initially one in forty Christian boys were being levied as elite servants and soldiers as janissaries, called the collection. Already at the 16th century this amounted to 200.000 people each year, swelling the military ranks.
Institutionalised killings of all brothers of the Sultan to keep unity of command, with the Ottomans from early on being a part of the balance of power in Europe, and a main trading partner to western European states and part of ideas of an anti-catholic coalition.

While I understand the janissaries as an advantage in war, how did the Ottomans actually build their technological edge? Is this due to proximity to the Chinese on the silk road, leading to faster adoption of gunpowder technology, or has Anatolia got natural nitre and sulphur resources? This would have been an interesting angle that Marc David Baer could have dived into more deeply.

Tudor dress inspired by Ottoman clothing and an Ottoman French alliance and lots of intra-Islamic conflicts point to a vivid cultural exchange after the shock of the fall of Constantinople.
In some countries sayings like Rather Turkish than popish propagated.
Also the idea that the Ottomans where insular and not keen on exploration is dispelled, with them having an own major Mediterranean fleet, including dominion of major islands like Cyprus.
Not just Protestants saw the Ottomans as a potential ally, also Jewish refugees turned to Ottoman empire with its promise of meritocracy, with many high ranking officers and servants being from low birth and conquered peoples, but also a clear hierarchy of differences, leading to conversion over time to ever larger parts of the populace.
Practical taxing of pork and alcohol, showing the primogeniture of imperial aspirations above religious qualms.

Conquering Cairo and Bagdad, and plundering those cities, while bringing Mecca and Medina under their control to elevate their religious authority and prestige. Mehmed II as part of a renaissance Europe, including inviting Michelangelo to design a bridge over the Bosporus.

Sexual morales and the role of females
After this chronological account, we get some thematic interludes.
A one mother, one son approach in the harem, enforced by birth control. Until 16th century fratricide was mandatory in the family of the sultan.
Beloved slaves, including same sex relationships and fast tracked promotion to grand vizier under Suleyman the first. Murder by strangulation follows, after scandal about a sultan preferring a man older than a beardless youth.

Sultana’s (and a jewish lady in waiting as well) corresponding with Elizabeth the first, before her being lynched in the hippodrome by the janissaries in Istanbul (only the name of Constantinopel from 1930s onwards).

Castration being illegal under islam, but circumvented by hiring Christian doctors.
Eunuch guarding the women of the harem and administering foundations and taxation in Mecca and Medina.
Man boy love encompassed London, Florence through to Istanbul, with letters and poems containing words like Heart stealer, soul’s beloved, for whom my heart is bursting of ecstasy - they were roommates, right

Sexual relationships between grown men were however unacceptable, very much emulating classical Greek practices.

Those who concentrate on pleasure grant man and female equal measure - 16th century poet and champion of bisexual love.

Books dedicated to beautiful boys per city being sold in bazars and famous dildo women being commented upon in big cities, with treatises containing odes to the anus and vagina.

The long decline
When we turn from this apex to the long decline, we see sultans turning into figureheads instead of military leaders from the 16th century onwards, and the diffusion of firearms within the empire and abroad leading to less easy conquest and harder to enforce stability. In addition little Ice Age making lands less productive and janissaries versus cavalry more influential. Decentralised revenue gathering impacted the empire as well.

In the two centuries after Osman his dethronement and murder 7 of 14 sultans were deposed.

Captured canons of the Ottomans being melted into the bells of the St Stephen cathedral in Vienna, with Mehmed IV turning from a manly reformer and evangeliser to being remembered the profligate hunter, even though the empire being at it’s largest size during his reign.

Dutch tulip craze originated from the Ottoman Empire and coffee being imported initially solely through the Ottomans until Dutch colony Java started producing.
Grand viziers being ripped into pieces often to appease janissary and popular riots against taxes.

1789 French Revolution also coinciding with pressure from Russia and further decline of the Ottoman Empire and nationalist movements, but also the hiring of French military advisers and embassies in Berlin, London, Paris and Vienna. In 1806 British ships bombarded Istanbul as part of the Napoleonic wars.

Purge of janissaries and killing of Jewish elites to which sultans owned money did not help to stop weakness against foreign forces, leading to independence of Greece and self-rule in the Balkan. Reform (Tanzimat) from 1840 secularised society, the closure of the slave market, construction of a new public, European styled palace and a decree of the rose garden, promising rights to civilians. In 1843 the last apostate was executed, if not lifting illegality of renouncing Islam, showing the competing demands of foreign powers and Islamic traditions.

Crimean war being the first modern war, leading to the first use of anaesthesia by the Russians and Florence Nightingale at the side of the allies.
While the Crimea was preserved for the Ottomans, the loans from French and British banks made the empire financially subservient to the West.

Young ottomans executing a coup in 1876, leading to a first constitution, modelled on Prussia, Belgium and Armenia.

7 wars with Russia since the 17th century.
Continued use of Christian minorities as a basis for interference in the Ottoman Empire by Western powers. But also using Kurdish elites as a tool to enforce order in regions bordering Iran, even letting them militarily train in Petrograd.

The Ottomans referring to Libya as their colony, paternalising their non-Turkish subjects in a Western fashion, with 34 of the last 39 grand viziers being Turkish

Sultan Abdulaziz visiting the world exposition in France and travelling to Austria, Belgium, England, Germany and Hungary.

None of the four founders of the Young Turks actually being Turks, and their base of operations being in Thessaloniki, aided by Masonic lounges, instead of in Istanbul.
Germans aiding the Ottoman empire in genocide.
Rudolph Hess fighting for the Ottomans in the first world war, with German commanders training Ottoman troops and social Darwinism being exported from Germany to the new government of Turkey.

Arabs cooperating with the British to gain independence during the first world war after 400 years. Armenians forming a scapegoat in the face of the military setbacks, including not being able to capture the Suez Canal.

Armenian genocide architects of murder on 1 million people being prosecuted by Britain and the Ottoman government post 1918, during the allies occupation of Istanbul, but abandoned as the new Turkish Republic came to power. Leading to the Palestine mandate of the British.

A fascinating narrative overall, and I learned a lot, while this was very readable as well!

[Josh Coe · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had a hard time rating this. The author’s knowledge and scholarship are apparent and the thesis is sound. Baer posits that the Ottoman Empire was an important member of the European community and contributed significantly to the history of the continent. There were sections of insightful analysis, especially in the chapters covering the Renaissance and the Armenian genocide. However, these illuminating moments were not sufficient to overcome the lack of explanatory detail and storytelling ability in the rest of the book.

The introduction began with a beautiful description of Baer’s experience in the Topkapi Palace Library; the space came alive, and I felt the author’s enthusiasm for poring over ancient maps and manuscripts. This section made me so excited to work through the next 500 pages. But nothing in the rest of the book rose to this level of interest. Instead, the book overwhelmed with facts and details without explanations, requiring a lot of Googling to understand the author’s references. If the book was meant for laypeople, it could have used a gentler hand, with more explanation and storytelling instead of dry facts. If the audience was academic, the book probably would have benefited from more limited scope.

The Ottoman Empire contained extremes of human experience in piety, ruthlessness, sumptuousness, and beyond. I really wanted to walk away from this book understanding the Ottomans in all their diversity. I think 3 stars reflects how well this book helped me understand them and internalize what I read. Nonetheless, if you already have a decent working knowledge of the Ottomans and are interested in a reexamination of the dynasty’s relationship with Europe, this book is for you!

Thank you to NetGalley and Basic Books for the advance copy!

[Andreea · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pasionată de cultura turcă, am considerat că o privire mai atentă la istoria lor m-ar ajuta să mai înțeleg câte ceva din frumusețea neamului lor. De unele aspecte știam, auzisem de unii sultani, dar cartea vine cu foarte multe informații. Intrigile de la palat au fost mult mai complexe decât ce am aflat până la această carte, și nu doar între bărbați, dar și între femei, fiind ursite tot feluri de planuri pentru a ajunge la conducerea imperiului cine se voia.

Este o carte complexă, care trece în revista istoria întreagă a Imperiului Otoman, de la formarea lui din triburi, cucerirea Constantinopolului fiind un moment de cotitură, și până la destrămarea lui, după Primul Război Mondial, când la conducerea statului cunoscut azi ca Turcia a venit Atatürk. Puțin greuță și plictisitoare pe alocuri, dar valoroasă în conținut.

[Randall Wallace · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Ottoman Empire lasted from 1288 to 1922 and was multi-ethnic, although Muslims living there got first billing. Many unread people have trouble seeing Muslims with any role in European history. But, it’s hard for the Spanish to ignore the influence of the Moors, just as its hard upon reading to ignore the Ottoman Empire’s European/Muslim connection. The Ottomans also ruled what is today called Greece, for over five hundred years, and Serbia for almost five hundred years. They had a secular streak in ruling because they recruited their elites from most of the conquered (except Shi’a). Most European countries starved their secular sector at the time; John Locke couldn’t even include Catholics in his conception of tolerance. On the dark side though, Ottoman Muslim apostates were executed. Later on, near the death of the Empire, the Ottomans turn from diversity towards ethnic cleansing genocide. The Ottomans (led by the Young Turks) then gave us the Armenian Genocide (assisted by the Germans) in 1915. This killed between 600,000 to 1.5 million Armenians. As of 2021, thirty-one countries have recognized the genocide.

Ottoman founder Osman I was in power from 1288 to 1324 while the Golden Horde still ruled Moscow and Kiev. The Ottomans had begun as nomads living in tents in Anatolia. It was nice, but intense. It was common for Christians to make up the majority of Ottoman troops. Part of the Ottoman reason for religious toleration was money: you paid through extra taxes for the right to practice a non-Muslim faith. “The Ottomans were outsiders who made themselves into insiders.” The Ottomans committed what today is an act of genocide with its “Collection”: swiftly taking children away from their parents for forced education by the state (albeit less brutal than what the US did: ripping Native children from their parents to be Christianized in Indian Boarding Schools where many died). Murad I was doing it to create loyal soldiers and administrators. Murad I also started the nasty game of killing all your male relatives when you come to power (fratricide). His theory was that it’s better to kill targeted individuals than involve everyone with instability. This was romanticized as cutting the other heads off the many headed “Hydra of division”. For example, when Mehmed II is told it’s his time to rule, he leapt into action; he had his one-year-old brother “Little Ahmed” strangled. Then our little baby killer decided to take Constantinople from the Byzantines.

Constantinople is first cut off from the Black Sea. Any ship approaching from the South to supply it gets bombed out of the water by a big-ass cannon from an Ottoman-held fortress. The first supply ship thus targeted had “its crew brought ashore and decapitated, and its captain impaled by a stake up his anus.” The first Turkish Shish kebab. Mehmed II enters Constantinople on day 54 of the siege. His soldiers spend the next 24 hours “raping women, maidens, nuns, and beautiful young boys.” I’ll bet the ugly boys were thinking, “finally …an advantage.” Either way, afterward you got murdered or enslaved. The Dardanelles bronze cannon’s actions had told Europe, if I can take out even Constantinople’s 16-foot walls, you might want one of these puppies for yourself (Constantine XI turned down this cannon due to cost, Mehmed II buys it and uses it against the guy who balked at the cost. This Basilic cannon was 27 ft long, weighed 16.8 tons and shot a 1200 pound ball a full mile. It also became permanently non-functional within only six weeks). Mehmed II’s history says in 1453 he had his share of conquered virgins and “the handsomest boys.” Rape-aholic Mehmed II also converts Hagia Sophia into a mosque. The Ottomans announce they are the inheritors of Rome (yes, just like they were the inheritors of STDs during their rape fests). “Until the end of the sixteenth century, (Ottoman) succession was accompanied by fratricide.”

Europeans like to say the peace of Westphalia in 1648 ushers in European religious tolerance. This ignores Ottoman history (as well as Andalusian where/when Muslims, Jews and Christians created a culture of tolerance, see Menocal). Mehmed II institutionalized religious toleration for practical reasons; to control a diverse population you need a carrot they all want. Ottomans saw Sunni as the way, Christianity and Judaism as meh, and Shi’a, Paganism, and Atheism, were completely banned. Tycho Brahe was a Hapsburg emperor; I’ll bet that’s where the rare and mega expensive Tychobrahe Guitar pedal gets its name from.

Venice and Florence were big beneficiaries from the Fall of Constantinople. The British and French got much of their silks and cottons from the Ottomans. In fact, during the Renaissance, the Ottomans were the largest trading party in Europe. Elizabeth I lost her teeth to Moroccan sugar. “The Ottoman’s only claim to legitimacy was their might.” Selim I conquers Tabriz and gets to work with his soldiers by “raping women, boys and girls.” When he’s done, Tabriz needs Fabreze. Much of Kurdistan comes under Ottoman control and Selim I virtually re-establishes the Ottoman state. Selim I slaughters tens of thousands of shi’ites. The Ottomans conquer the Mamluks, Egypt and Syria and part of Sudan and they will rule the Middle East until 1917. The Ottomans actually noticeably contributed to the Protestant Reformation in Europe because its enemy, the Hapsburgs, were Catholic; Martin Luther called the Ottomans the instrument of divine punishment against the church. In Spain, Hungary and the Netherlands the Ottomans were a bee in the Hapsburg bonnet. Anti-Hapsburg rebels in the Netherlands actually made coins printed with “Rather Turkish than Popish” in the 1570’s.

The Ottoman Empire was a refuge for Jews, and there they could even rise at court. To attract expertise in all fields, “Ottoman society was open to newcomers.” Ottomans possessed both a land and sea empire. The Ottoman and Portuguese maritime empires began at the same time, before Spain. Starting with Mehmed II, sultans ruled Mediterranean and Black seas. “From Egypt to Indonesia the Ottomans rivaled the Portuguese”. The Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494 is where Spain and Portugal divide up the entire non-European world “despite not even controlling one part of it.” These were the days of cannons onboard carracks. By 1499, the Portuguese reach India’s west coast.

When he left Spain, Christopher Columbus was first trying to avoid the Mamluk-controlled eastern Mediterranean; this is why he brought a translator with him who spoke Arabic. Wonder where the money came for his voyages? Confiscated Jewish and Muslim wealth. Columbus couldn’t leave from Cadiz because it was filled with fleeing Jews and so he left from Palos. Don Quixote in written in exactly that time of Muslim exodus, although Cide Benegeli’s writings were the true origin of Don Quixote. Ottomans thought that the “Abkhaz were masturbating simpletons.” Istanbul during Suleiman I had 350,000 people and one third of them were Christian. Ottomans welcomed Jews and Muslims fleeing from Spain. England banished their Jews in 1290. Ottoman harems were actually like a convent; they were the private part of any household large enough to have its own private quarters.

“The fact that mature men had boy lovers means that the Ottomans were quintessentially European.” What? It wasn’t just the Ottomans? According to the author, man-boy action was found then in England, Florence, Venice, Rome and Istanbul. It was seen as a building block of culture in schools and the military. Assuming hundreds of thousands of boys raped during the Ottoman Empire, why not one story of revenge by the parents or family of the raped? Because of the power of the Collection? Even Rumi was in on the man-boy thing; time for cancel-culture liberals to reread his love poems as instead, written to little boys. Not to be left out, Mehmed II actually wrote a love poem to a Christian boy. My very rough translation, “Roses are red, violets are blue, do what I say, or I’ll strangle you.”

Suleiman I’s butt buddy Ibrahim gets murdered publicly by others; apparently the well-known Ottoman pastime of raping young boys at will, gets them closer to God, while two men sharing consent is just too far for the Ottomans. Gotcha: No stubble, no trouble - once there’s hair, don’t you dare - or - if he’s grown, they’ll stone you prone. Suleiman I’s days of My Little Pony and Hide the Kielbasa were suddenly over. Selim II the obese takes over, and gets back to royal pederasty. While he does get the amazing Selimiye mosque built, Selim II dies by falling in the bath, which takes skill. Byzantine women had had lots of power, but Ottoman women were treated like furniture Ottomans.

When the future Mehmed III had his circumcision festival, Istanbul looked like a NAMBLA parade thrown by Jeffrey Epstein. Openly displayed man/boy eroticism was the bold theme of that day. “Each group of bearded tradesmen masters included a troupe of their boy beloveds”. What? Make a few candles or work on an oud, then on your break, rape some kid without his consent and then get back to work; it’s hard for us to understand this illness today, unless maybe you’ve been a Catholic priest, or worked at Neverland Ranch.

“African eunuchs typically lost both their testicles and their penis, whereas Caucasians and Eastern European eunuchs only had their testicles removed.” If someone crudely cut your dick off, you would of course have health repercussions. Eunuchs smelt strongly of urine. “They carried quills in their turbans to act as catheters.” Sleeping in a eunuch barracks back then would be like living in a urinal with a group of Wayne Newton impersonators. And castrating boys before puberty also led to improperly developed bones and skeletal deformities. “Most poetry concerned boys. Poets who were attracted to women rather than boys were described as peculiar.” There were serious 16th century fatwas about whether good looking boys should be allowed to sit up front of a mosque lest they give the men behind him erections (page 233). Ottoman taverns were like English molly houses, places for men only to go for above mentioned activities. This book thoughtfully gives you such charming Ottoman verses as: “When he was done, the boy stood up and farted several times on the sheikh’s exhausted head. He said ‘Oh, what pleasure you gave me.’ And left.” One author back then wrote that boys were best, because their orifices were tightest. Critical point: “Sexual encounters between men and youths were always meant to be based on an unequal power and status relationship. The relationship was predicated on dominance and submission”. “Violence and force were also often used.” In one literary work, a boy waking up hungover from a clear gang rape, jokes, “the wine would be just dandy – if only it weren’t such a pain in the butt.” This is why there are no Ottoman stand-up comedians; audiences can’t laugh while their jaws are dropped.

Murad III is the last prince to engage in fratricide. One could say he went all out: he had all nineteen of his brothers including infants, strangled with a silken bow string. Seniority then sensibly replaces fratricide. Ahmed I builds the amazing Blue Mosque in Istanbul. After Suleiman, the military achieved nothing and so a slow Ottoman decline happens for 356 years before the empire expires. Ottoman free speech was non-existent; treason or blasphemy got you executed. Most hated sultan? Osman II (who was executed). Only English king to be executed? Charles I in 1649. These two executions acted as European Candygrams to rulers everywhere, announcing the new limits of royal power. Mehmed IV enjoyed “the local oil-wrestling festival”; I’ll spare you the lengthy prurient details. On a Friday in 1680, “hundred of thousands of people crowded into the Hippodrome to stone to death a Muslim woman” who committed adultery with an infidel Jew who was to be beheaded. This proves that even before the NLB, you simply got bigger audiences with a double header. “She was buried in a pit up to her waist.” Get this: her own brother threw the first stone. Such compassion. The Ottomans are routed at Vienna in 1683. Mozart’s The Abduction from the Seraglio (1783) is about this time. Also, around this time, Sweden steals the Turkish kofte (meatball) and by merely replacing pork for lamb, then calling it Swedish meatballs.

The Ottoman’s created the first military band music of any country. Think about it: which country today makes the best cymbals for a marching band? Turkey. Ottomans added the tambourine, bass drum, kettledrum and Turkish Crescent (google that on YouTube w/ Berlioz). I picture popular Ottoman marching hits like, “We’ll take Your Son, in Ways More than One” and “Never leave Your Buddies Behind.” At this time, European elites are introduced to Ottoman fabrics, furniture (divan & ottoman), and Turkish coffee. Beardless Albanian youth worked in Ottoman public baths as shampooers and prostitutes. How difficult was it for Ottomans to shampoo their own damn head? When was the last time you thought, “Oh my God! Why can’t someone other than me, shampoo me?”

In 1826, The Janissaries, the Ottoman elite military for five centuries, were all wiped out in less than a half hour – all 6,000. Sensing they were next, the Februaries quickly vanished. Government surveillance strongly increased. To appease European diplomats, Abdulmecid I ceases apostasy from legally requiring a death sentence by beheading, after the diplomats aghast watch a man in western dress being beheaded by Ottomans. The Crimean War is a dress rehearsal for WWI, introducing all kinds of heavy metal weaponry and transport by rail. It introduced battlefield triage, surgery and anesthesia. Serbia, Romania and Montenegro go independent in 1878. Britain demands Cyprus from the Ottomans who has just lost 1/3 of its territory. From the 14th to 17th century, the Ottomans had looked cool and exotic to the Europeans, but once Europeans had gotten full-on colonial, then Orientalism (proto-anti-Islam) rose its head.

The Ottomans were becoming much more Turkish; thirty-four of the last thirty-nine Ottoman grand viziers were Turks. This was the time (1880’s to 1913) of the Young Turks, who used violence to take power. The leading British authority on harems had never been in one. In 1911, Italy invades Libya. The Ottomans boldly went after the Armenians genocidally while ignoring that Christian and Muslim Arabs plotting with the British were clearly the most dangerous of the Ottoman’s internal enemies. The Arab Revolt of 1916 and 1917 made the Ottomans lose Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. Apparently washing down centuries of unchecked pederasty with a tall glass of undeserved genocide seemed the only choice for the losers in charge and so Armenians were led on intentionally long marches calculated to slowly kill them off. With the convenient logic of a paranoid, it was believed if you didn’t kill off the Armenians, they were going to kill you.

The Ottomans also killed off a quarter of a million Assyrians. And so, an empire that had left different religions to live in peace for centuries decided at its end to say screw that and become a leading source of violence and oppression for internal groups. Ottoman actions here perfectly explain Lemkin’s definition of genocide. At war’s end, the League of Nations gives France mandate over Syria and Jordan while Britain gets mandate over Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq. In 1923, the Ottoman Empire is replaced by a constitutional Turkish Republic which abrogated the caliphate. Their leader of this secular nationalist republic, Kemal, is given the name Ataturk. Positive things Turkey does is education for men and women and voting rights for women. The Turks are total scumbags to the Kurds, they are considered savages in need of civilizing. Tens of thousands of Kurds were massacred at Dersim in 1838. Turkey outlawed every dialect of the Kurdish language and made using the words “Kurds”, “Kurdish” and Kurdistan” a crime. Turkish teachers and broadcasters still can’t use Kurdish. Great book: I learned a lot.

[wmvdbiii · Rating 1 out of 5]

Marc David Baer seems to have many friends in the right places. The back cover of his book (like the ad in the New York Review) is plastered with praise: "sweeping, colorful, and rich" says pop-historian Tom Holland; "compellingly readable" says top-drawer Princeton scholar Eugene Rogan; "colorful, readable" says James McDougall; "scintillating and brilliantly panoramic...clear and engaging" says Peter Sarris, the last two weighing in for Oxbridge. To paraphrase Hamlet, methinks these gentlemen do protest too much. Readable? The prose is barely serviceable generally and sometimes unfortunate. For example, Baer has a habit of trying to cram long, information-laden parenthetical phrases into the middle of his sentences. For example, "Even the Jewish quartermasters of the Janissaries—Celebi Bekhor Isaac Carmona, Yehezkel Gabay of Baghdad, and Isiah Aciman, among the most wealthy and influential Jews in the empire, who also served as money changers to the dynasty—were murdered as part of the collective punishment of all Janissaries." This jerky but agglutinating effect is also characteristic of the book as a whole. Got those names down? One presumes they are there because it helps you to know them, although they don't find a place in the index, so we don't even know if the quadruple-barreled one at the front is a mistake and wants a comma, let alone why we're supposed to know it. Scintillating? It's a slow, sultan-by-sultan slog through the centuries, each with chunks of summary to characterize the regime, but very little examination of causation or broader context. For an idea of what is possible in the way of Ottoman history that is both scholarly and readable by the layman, take a look at Rogan's The Fall of the Ottomans. Yes, you can learn something from Baer, but it is definitely "over-hyped" (which implies that something can be "appropriately hyped" and that is what the blurbists probably thought they were doing). No the blurbs are "over-exaggerated."

[Ethan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thorough history of the Ottoman Empire from its origin in Anatolia in the 13th century until its collapse in the early 20th century.

The author correctly recognizes how the Ottoman Empire is generally only tangentially studied and appreciated: it is known for finally capturing Constantinople and eliminating the Byzantine Empire; it was romanticized as the land of sultans and his harem; it represented a continual threat to central Europe; they were part of the Central Powers. Yet the Ottomans are seen as wholly Other, Eastern; not part of the European world.

The author thus tells the history of the Ottomans to try to refute that view. He speaks of their alliances with the Byzantines at times, the multinational, multiethnic, and multireligious nature of the Empire, its frequent tolerance, and how it saw itself as the next iteration of the Roman Empire, its leaders as Caesars, and the people of southeastern Europe as Rumis, or Romans.

The lives of the various leaders are told as well as their successes and failures; much is said about the nature of the harem and the institutional bureaucracy. Much is made of the sexuality of the age and how it privileged the love of young boys over that of women, but also how that view was attempted to be fully reformed in the 19th century. The author tries to suggest that the Ottomans were about discovery also, but the evidence for such a view is spotty. He is on much firmer ground regarding how Ottoman influence was profoundly felt throughout Europe, and how European influence profoundly influenced the Ottoman Empire.

It is somewhat anachronistic to glorify the empire as a multicultural haven; yes, many groups found greater tolerance under the Ottomans than they did under other regimes, but even as this story goes, it becomes clear that in times of crisis it reasserted itself as a fundamentally Muslim enterprise. Its undoing is well described by the nationalism that fueled the 19th and early 20th centuries: both the nationalism of the peoples who separated from the empire, and the Turkish nationalism that overtook the empire's leadership.

A good corrective to neglect of the Ottoman Empire, even if its arguments are often a bit overstated.


**--galley received as part of early review program

[Julian Worker · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a comprehensive history of the Ottoman empire right up until WWI and the Armenian Genocide. The individual rulers are described in order and their successes and failures are considered with equal seriousness by the author. This book covers the years 1288 to 1924 and describes in detail the Ottoman society of the time along with their interactions with their neighbouring empires. This is a reference book in the future as I feel sure any questions about the Ottomans will be answered by this book.

[Lynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best book I’ve read so far about the Ottomans. I learned much more than I have before. I look forward to reading more!

[Sud666 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Marc David Baer's work on the history of the Ottomans is quite good. It offers up a great picture of the rise and fall of the Ottoman Empire. While his central thesis of the Ottomans being "European" is a bit of a stretch, it might be better to say "They were a large part of European history". Simply because the Ottomans invaded Europe and then established a multi-ethnic,multi-linguistic, and multi-religious state (at least in the beginning) does not make them "European", any more than the Mongol Empire that was similarly an invading force that also established a similar Empire.

That being said, this is still a wonderful history that enlightens us about many of the incorrect ideas of the Ottomans. In 1288, the Gazi (a mix of spiritual/military leader) Osman led Turkic steppes peoples into Anatolia and established a kingdom. His son Orhan greatly expanded it.
By 1401, a century later, Murad I became the first Sultan and established the "Collection", where Christian boys were kidnapped, circumcised, and converted into Islamic salve-soldiers known as "Janissaries".

In 1453 the Ortomans shocked the Christian world by conquering Constantinople, under Mehmed II. From here the Ottomans established a multi-ethnic and multi-religious empire. It could be described as their high point. From Selim I to Suleiman I "The Magnificent", the Sultan morphed into the Caliph and the Ottomans enjoyed a golden age.

As the power shifted to viziers and eunuchs, as well as the harem, the Caliphs went from being warrior princes to nearly deity-like individuals who rarely mixed with ordinary people. From here the various power plays and religious conflicts (Sunni vs Shia, Dervishes vs the Imams, and obviously Christianity vs Islam) all caused the state to become more corrupt, and more religiously intolerant and this leads to the horrific genocides of the Armenians and Kurds in the 19th and 20th centuries. Eventually, the whole corrupt structure would come crashing down during World War I and lead to the rise of the Young Turks (who then promptly started the ethnic genocide to turn Ottoman lands into Turkish lands) in 1900s, which led to the modern state of Turkey.

Very informative and well-written. I enjoyed this book while disagreeing with its main thesis of the Ottomans being European, as opposed to an outside force that plays prominently in European history. If you're interested in the rise and fall of the Ottoman EMpire then this is a highly recommended book.

[Hasan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This might've been the best book that I've read all year. I've known its and bits about various Ottoman rulers and about the Empire in general but I didn't know much about them as a whole. This book breaks down the entire Ottoman Empire from start to finish. Worth a read if you're interested in learning about the entire Empire.

[Andrés CM · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Marc David Baer,​​ profesor de Historia Internacional en la London School of Economics and Political Science, busca en su nuevo libro Otomanos, Kanes, Césares y Califas, contar la historia de “la parte no reconocida de la historia que Occidente cuenta sobre sí mismo”: la historia del Imperio Otomano, durante mucho tiempo marginada por la historiografía. Como sugiere el subtítulo, Baer enfatiza la naturaleza de los otomanos: césares europeos y kanes asiáticos a la vez..."
RESEÑA COMPLETA: https://atrapadaenunashojasdepapel.bl...

[Jean-Luc · Rating 5 out of 5]

A rollicking and often truculent tapestry of the Ottoman Empire from its birth to its demise at the end of WWI, especially through the lives, deeds and misdeeds of its rulers & their accomplishments throughout the long history of their infamous and higly resilient dynasty. A worthy addition to the historiography of that uniquely exceptional Empire and its incredible influence in the Balkans & around the Mediterranean World, Mr.Baer as gifted us with a solidly researched and very comprehensive study that is not only easily accessible to anyone interested to discover the Ottomans and their historical legacies but is also a very entertaining journey from start to finish.

Many thanks to Netgalley and Perseus Books for giving me the opportunity to read this wonderful book prior to its release date

[Mohamad Jaber · Rating 4 out of 5]

After travelling regularly to Türkiye for work, I found myself more and more interested in this country and it’s history and so I began reading books on the Ottoman Empire of which this was the first.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book and found myself effortlessly finishing the chapters. Learning about the janissaires and the developing role or the Harem was fascinating. I also found the last few chapters on the collapse the empire particular interesting.

Time and time again, when an empire has the confidence and strength to open its borders to absorb foreigners looking for a better life and a meritocratic system, that empire thrives and grows. Conversely, when an empire closes itself off and believes itself to be superior on the basis of race, culture or religion, desolation is around the corner.

[Hashin Jithu · Rating 5 out of 5]

It covers a comprehensive history of the Ottoman Empire, written to dispel many popular misconceptions about the period. I would suggest it for everyone, especially those who have thought about the way modern nation states organise our world and how different it is from the ancients. It also discusses the age-old question of rise and fall of empires.

The author dedicates a lot of space - and rightly so - discuss the life of the people under the empire and what it meant to be an "Ottoman". I wish more authors followed suit. It helps to see how people from the past looked at themselves. It helps us in understanding the choices they made.

Recommended for general reading and amateur historians alike.

[Colin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was recently teaching my children a homeschool unit about the Ottoman Empire, and realized I did not know very much about it myself. I remembered I had this book recommended to me recently, so I picked it up and pursued it. Not just a bare-bones account of names and dates, but a thoughtful analysis of the importance of the Ottoman Empire and the odd neglect of it in traditional histories. The author is at pains to point out the ways in which the Ottoman Empire pioneered ideas later claimed to be Western innovations, and participated more fully in European history than Europe has ever been willing to admit. It made for interesting reading.

[Gokul Hariharan · Rating 5 out of 5]

What an amazing read!

From Khans to Caesars to Caliphs, the book sums up the entire Ottoman history in tandem with the European history. From the beginning of the empire through Osman, to capturing of Constantinople the book eclipses the rise of the empire. Moving further, we see the rise and fall of Sultans, the churning geopolitical landscapes, wars, and rising powers. Finally, we witness the rise of CUP, the Armenian genocide, the end of world war 1, and the abolishment of the Ottoman sultanate (after 600 years!)

The best part about this book to me was how it unravels the context for all geopolitical tensions in Europe and Middle East today, through the lens of Ottoman history.

[Evan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is definitely the most accessible and best-written overview of the Ottomans that I've read. While it strikes this (prude, Victorian) reader as a bit heavy on its praise and/or contextualization of the widespread early-modern love of pederasty, it offers many refreshing and eye-opening insights into the empire and its centrality to European history. The opening chapters on the establishment of the empire are particularly good, as is the one on "Ottoman Orientalism" in the 19th century. Overall, an excellent addition to the canon, and the most enjoyable to read.

[Dimitar Ivanov · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book. As a person born, raised and educated in one of the countries conquered by the Ottomans, this book was a mind opening. Most of the Southeast European countries learn the history only from their point of view and this is the view about the "bad and evil" Ottomans and Turks. The coin has another side though. I wish more people from Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia and so on could read this amazing book. I like the narrative and the whole structure. No boring facts. A lot of information that isn't taught in schools and it would never be, unfortunately.

[Daniel Kukwa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Until someone can come up with something better...this is easily the up-to-date, definitive history of the Ottomans and their empire. It offers a plethora of detail, and asks us to look at just how European this empire actually was...which will make more than one reader address their preconceptions. This is superb work, and a joy to read.

[Richard Derus]

STARRED LibraryJournal review! https://www.libraryjournal.com/?revie...

[Alana · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am going to be honest, I forget how influential and powerful the Ottoman empire was and the lasting cultural influences it still has. I took AP World History in high school (not that that was the be all end all of learning world history) and I can say for sure the Ottomans and their expansive history were not at all stressed to me. It was illuminating to read a book that did a fairly good job of representing that history and influence. It was especially interesting to read about the last 100 years or so of the Ottomans and realize how impactful the disintegration of the empire was. I mean it literally was the Balkanization process. The only issue I had with this book was the repetitiveness in the beginning about "toleration" and how the Ottomans should be considered European in order to better contextualize their successes. Especially with that "European" argument, I am not sure that was necessary. But oh well! Very cool read overall.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Ottoman Empire controlled a large part of Southeast Europe, Western Asia, and Northern Africa between the 14th and early 20th centuries. It crushed the Byzantine Empire and after it won in the Balkans it became a genuine transcontinental empire. It has been perceived in history as being the Islamic foe of Christian Europe, but the reality was utterly different, it was a multiethnic, multilingual, and multireligious society that accepted people from everywhere.

They were keen on converting people to Islam, but this was not a prerequisite to being a member of this society. Jews that were fleeing European persecution found a home here and could even rise high in the elite service of the sultans. In fact, the tolerance and acceptance of a whole variety of peoples became its strength over the greater part of its history.

The book follows both the political leaders of the empire over the six centuries of rule. The way that each new sultan would put to death brothers and cousins to ensure that they had no threat to their leadership was shocking reading. For me, I found, the descriptions of the way that the society worked and the cultural aspects much more interesting reading.

To say there is a lot to take in in this book is an understatement. Baer covers the 600 years of the ebb and flow of the history of this empire in a remarkably readable book. It has a strong narrative and only occasionally descends into detailed academic prose about very specific or particular events. It also shows that Ottoman history is unequivocally European history too.

[stl̓laqsšn̓ · Rating 4 out of 5]

I marked this book as “started reading” when I was at about 70%.

Political histories are described in mountains of corpses, rivers of blood.

[Andres Felipe Contreras Buitrago · Rating 4 out of 5]

Este libro me pareció uno muy completo para entender la historia del imperio otomano, en comparación con el otro libro que ya había leído, sobre una corta historia del imperio otomano, este texto me pareció más completo y se centra más en el auge otomano, un aspecto negativo es que no hay mapas, pero, me parece uno de los mejores libros para entender este complejo imperio, el autor desmitifica muchos mitos en torno a estos y aporta nuevas tesis.

El primer capítulo inicia con el jinete Osman, el fundador del imperio otomano, llegando a anatolia producto de las invasiones mongolas, buscaban en nuestras nuevas tierras pastos para sus caballos, los turcos ya habían empezado una gran migración desde hacía central luego de la victoria en Manzikert, por mucho tiempo los turcos de anatolia fueron vasallos de los mongoles. Este territorio era un mosaico de muchos pueblos y etnias como musulmanes y cristianos, como se había mencionado las estepas de anatolia eran muy similares a las de Asia central, las mujeres turcas eran muy importantes para estos, se puede decir que os mal y su gente vivían como nómadas, logrando así su primera victoria contra los bizantinos, uno de los grandes logros de Osman fue unir diferentes grupos musulmanes sin intentar reconciliar sus diferencias. Con el tiempo se escribieron leyendas para mostrar el favor divino que había hacia Osmán, este último en sus conquistas también sometió a otros pueblos y principados turcos, Osman también integró a cristianos leales, para 1331 se fundó la primera Universidad otomana y para 1324 Osman muere y lo sigue su hijo Orhan.

Para entender el éxito inicial de los otomanos, hay que mencionar una serie de factores, los cuales son: los posibles rivales otomanos como el sultanato de Rum o el ilkanato ya habían desaparecido, los mongoles Por su parte no estaban tan interesados en someter a los otomanos, puesto que éstos no eran una gran amenaza, como si lo eran otros principados turcos; los otomanos se favorecieron del comercio de la península; lograron establecer alianzas, sus éxitos militares atrajeron más personas y el botín que dejaba la guerra los hacía más ricos. Se estableció que un único heredero fuera el nuevo sultán, por lo que se diferenciaron de los mongoles al dividir el imperio entre los hijos. Retomando la historia de Orhan, este capturó la ciudad rica de Bursa, para 1326, los otomanos ya no dependían únicamente de los arqueros montados, sino que también usaban infantería, por supuesto que la debilidad bizantina fue aprovechada de gran manera por los otomanos que, para muchos súbditos bizantinos, era mejor aliarse con estos. La peste negra que impactó al imperio bizantino y un terremoto, ayudaron a que los otomanos se expandieron por Europa desde Galípoli. Para entonces llegaría al poder Murad I, que establecería los primeros jenízaros y concedería tierra a los mejores guerreros, Murad, fue el primero en denominarse sultán ya pensar a los otomanos como un verdadero imperio.

Los niños capturados en las conquistas otomanas eran importantes ya que estos servirían como futuros soldados o sirvientes de la élite, principalmente se usaban cristianos convertidos al islam, para evitar futuros conflictos, estos esclavos podían ascender socialmente. Algo importante en la sucesión otomana, era la necesidad de matar a los hermanos por el poder, ya que se habían varios sultanes a la vez, podría haber una guerra civil. Murad I, murió en 1389 en la guerra de Kosovo, para los años siguientes aumentaron las conquistas otomanas, como en Macedonia o al baño, una de las grandes victorias del nuevo sultán Bayezid I, fue en Nicópolis en contra de los cruzados, además de someter a otros principados turcos.

Una nueva amenaza se cernirá para los otomanos Timur y los safávida. El primero logró un gran avance hasta llegar a Ankara, donde los otomanos serían derrotados y el sultán capturado y luego asesinado, por lo que el imperio otomano sería repartido, además de esto hubo una época de rebeliones sufíes. Sería Mehmet I, quién ganaría la batalla al trono otomano y conseguiría sofocar las rebeliones que había, ya para principios del siglo XIV, el Ejército otomano era más de pólvora, para 1421, empezó la recuperación de los territorios perdidos y sería Murad II, quien expandirá aún más el imperio, conquistando tesalónica y ganando a una cruzada en Varna en 1444, aunque se había pactado una paz con Hungría, estos traicionaron el acuerdo, y fueron aniquilados.

Mehmet II, sería el que consiguiera el granito de conquistar Constantinopla, para aquel entonces esta ciudad estaba en decadencia, lo primero que hizo este sultán, fue construir una fortaleza cerca de Constantinopla y cortar el acceso al mar negro, para enfrentar el problema de la cadena que impedía el acceso a la ciudad se movieron los barcos por tierra, una de las grandes innovaciones en esta guerra fue el uso de la artillería, posterior a la conquista de la ciudad hubo todo un día de saqueos y matanzas, luego de esto, se empezó a reconstruir la ciudad como una musulmán, se atrajo a diferentes comerciantes, se construyó un gran bazar para comercial y se construyeron lugares de culto para cristianos y judíos, por lo que demostraba la tolerancia que había en el islam. Se construyó el Palacio de Topkapi, que era una prueba de la herencia bizantina, turco mongola y musulmana. Este sultán también empezó la burocracia imperial y se establecieron códigos legales para establecer rangos y deberes, se impulsó la meritocracia. Los otomanos ahora se veían como sucesores del imperio romano de Oriente, por lo que ahora se veían como emperadores.

Mehmet II, era un gran aficionado por la sabiduría de Oriente y Occidente, atrajo eruditos de diferentes lugares a su nueva capital, prueba de ello son las tablas estelares de Asia central que le llegaron a los otomanos y los artistas del Renacimiento que hicieron pinturas relacionadas con el imperio otomano. No hubo como tal un Renacimiento otomano puesto que ellos siempre estuvieron en contacto con el conocimiento clásico. Contrario a lo que se cree, los otomanos nunca cerraron el comercio hacia oriente, inclusive había europeos que admiraban a los otomanos y se usaron árabes para las campañas marítimas de Portugal, basta con decir que el Renacimiento fue un fenómeno global y que no solo se redujo al norte de Italia. Bayezid II, encargó relatos históricos sobre las victorias otomanas, para así tener mucha más legitimidad, uno de los grandes problemas otomanos eran sus rivales mamelucos en Egipto, los cuales tenían el control de las ciudades santas y técnicamente eran los líderes supremos del islam sunita, los primeros enfrentamientos contra estos no dejan grandes victorias, otra rebelión de los sufíes es acallada.

Aparte de los mamelucos, el otro rival otomano era el imperio safávida, los cuales eran chiítas, su líder Ismail I, logró expandir este imperio hasta chocar contra los otomanos, el nuevo sultán Selim I, conseguiría grandes victorias en contra de los georgianos y los safávida, gracias en parte a los 2.000.000 de esclavos traídos desde los puertos de Crimea, en esta época es que se marca una mayor división entre los sunitas y chiitas, los safaris representaban un peligro para la frontera otomana en Mesopotamia, además de que Ismail I, alentaba muchas protestas chiitas, pero esto no duró mucho, ya que los otomanos capturaron la capital del imperio rival gracias a su ventaja de las armas de fuego, pero no pudieron dar fin a este imperio debido a su lejanía. Una vez eliminado este rival el siguiente serían los mamelucos, los cuales serían derrotados fácilmente en Alepo gracias a las armas de fuego otomanas, por lo que llegará a Egipto fue tarea sencilla, con ello se hicieron de tierras ricas en agricultura y en las ciudades sagradas del islam, por lo que ahora el sultán también era un califa.

Solimán I, sería uno de los gobernantes más famosos del imperio otomano, lograría la conquista de Belgrado, la caída de la isla de Rodas a manos de los caballeros hospitalarios y pondría fin al reino de Hungría, todo ello gracias a la gran ventaja de las armas de pólvora, pero éste fracasó en su intento de tomar Viena a causa de las lluvias. Este mismo se veía como alguien casi divino y profético, que debía gobernar todo el mundo, Solimán apoyó a los protestantes y a sus causas revolucionarias dentro de la Europa cristiana, todo sea para favorecer sus intereses. este es sultán erradicó cualquier cosa chiita, así como cualquier intento de rebelión en contra de éste, muchos judíos que fueron expulsados de la península Ibérica llegaron al imperio otomano y pudieron trabajar en diferentes oficios, por ello los judíos tenían gran respeto y lealtad hacia los otomanos, inclusive vieron con buenos ojos la caída de Constantinopla.

Los otomanos eran una potencia naval, tenían grandes conocimientos geográficos y tecnológicos gracias a los judíos que llegaron a su imperio, este imperio, usó tanto italianos como griegos para mejorar su flota, por lo que hubo grandes mejoras en sus embarcaciones, prueba de ello fue la toma de la isla de Rodas y eso lucha por el Mediterráneo, el océano Índico fue uno muy luchado por parte de los otomanos y los portugueses, aunque se tomar Yemen, nunca lograron derrotar a los portugueses en el estrecho de Ormuz, otra gran victoria naval fue la toma de Chipre y aunque fueron derrotados en Lepanto, los otomanos demostraron que tenían una gran flota, este pueblo musulmán siempre estaba abierto a comercial con cualquier tipo de persona e imperio, estos introdujeron el café o el cultivo de tabaco a Europa. El imperio duró mucho tiempo gracias a una organización política única que se basaba en la meritocracia, la tolerancia y la proyección de poder. Había recompensas según los logros y los cargos, muchos pueblos sometidos se usaban para el imperio y no eran forzados a la conversión.

Mucho de las políticas tomadas por los sultanes fueron tomadas desde el hogar privado, muchas mujeres del harén del sultán eran poderosos, los sultanes podían tener múltiples matrimonios y sus hijos podían aprender el arte de la guerra y el gobierno, la esclavitud era una parte importante de la vida privada de los sultanes, ya que usaba a muchos esclavos para sus tareas, retomando con la historia del imperio otomano luego de la muerte de solimán llega al poder Selim II, el cual era un sultán muy gordo, pero conquistó Chipre y Túnez, pese al gran poder de las mujeres otomanas no lo tenían tanto como las emperatrices bizantinas, los eunucos, eran los que cuidaban el Palacio y al sultán, los que cuidaban a las mujeres eran hombres negros los cuales se les extirpan los testículos y el miembro viril, por lo que había mucho dolor al orinar y un gran desequilibrio hormonal.

Los sultanes tenían un gran deseo por los hombres jóvenes, era bien visto que un hombre adulto pudiera amar a los jóvenes, pero una vez estos jóvenes les crecía la barba, ya no podían ser objeto de deseo, por lo que había una dualidad sexual entre activo y pasivo. El sexo no era tan oculto entre el imperio otomano ya que había incluso manuales para tener orgasmos y en los teatros de sombra se tocaban temas eróticos. Murad III, llegaría al poder a finales del siglo XVI luego de matar a sus 5 hermanos menores, empezaría una lenta decadencia otomana donde se tenía más en cuenta las conexiones que el mérito para ascender, por lo que se inicia la corrupción otomana, donde ya no se tiene tanto en cuenta el mérito.

Los nuevos sultanes ya no eran más guerreros y las mujeres del harén empezarían a tener cada vez más poder, los nuevos sultanes ya no serían más entrenados, ni le darían ejércitos, sino que se quedarían más en el Palacio. Las rebeliones fueron muy comunes a causa de que mucha de la población estaba armada, los jenízaros se revelaban junto con la gente pobre a causa de la pequeña edad de hielo que produjo sequías y hambrunas, los safávida es para principios del siglo XVII habían retomado muchas de las tierras que habían conquistado los otomanos, frente a esta crisis, Osman II, intentó liderar campañas militares al norte De Europa, pero fracasaron, HP también falló su intento de querer reemplazar a los jenízaros, todo ello dio como resultado el primer asesinato de un sultán, los próximos sultanes tendrían mucho más control, estarían más subordinados a los jenízaros, por lo que el poder real se ve disminuido.

Murad IV, lograría algunas reconquistas y establecería la paz con los safávida, Ibrahim I, Por su parte sería muy criticado por estar rodeado siempre de mujeres, por lo que en 1648 sería destituido y luego asesinado, su sucesor Mehmet IV, estaría más interesado en la conquista, lo que lo llevaría a capturar Creta e invadir dos veces Polonia, durante su mandato se buscó convertir mucha gente al islam, lo que afectó mucho a los judíos, los cuales perdieron el poder, lo que fomentó que girarán en torno a un supuesto mesías que tenía mensajes radicales sobre la igualdad de las mujeres, este supuesto mesías luego sería arrestado y convertido al islam. los otomanos empezarían avances hacia el norte de Europa donde llegaron hasta Viena la cual intentaron capturarla pero fracasaría a causa del clima y las malas líneas del suministro, este fracaso le costó la vida al sultán, ya que aparte este fracaso también se perdió Belgrado y Buda, sucedería el nuevo sultán solimán segundo, donde el sultán ya no era el centro del Gobierno sino ahora todo se centraba en la administración, pese a las críticas Ahmed cuarto este logró grandes éxitos como la toma de Creta. De aquí en adelante la mayoría de los gobernantes serían mediocres y sus guerras contra los Habsburgo no terminarían en nada. En Estambul empezaría toda una afición por el consumo de productos europeos, por supuesto que continuaron las rebeliones internas organizadas por los jenízaros, pero la nueva amenaza era la expansión imperial rusa.

el surgimiento de los nacionalismos a causa de las revoluciones francesas y estadounidenses tendrían un gran impacto en el imperio otomano, que vio la necesidad de modernizar a su Ejército, en este periodo serían invadidos por los franceses en Egipto, pero, Selim III, que intentó crear un nuevo Ejército sería depuesto. el nuevo sultán, Mustafá IV, estaba en una posición desfavorable a causa de la independencia de Grecia y la autonomía de Serbia y Egipto, por ello para 1826, sí erradicó definitivamente a los jenízaros por un nuevo Ejército al estilo occidental, se impulsaron también reformas como la igualdad en religión, nuevas escuelas, cerrar el comercio de esclavos y nuevas formas de recaudar impuestos. La guerra de Crimea fue una de las más importantes para la historia otomana del siglo XIX, una que mostró cómo sería la guerra moderna, que, pese a la victoria otomana con ayuda francesa e inglesa, demostró que ya no era más una potencia europea. Por aquellos años también surgen las primeras constituciones otomanas hacia los armenios y los jóvenes otomanos que traen ideas occidentales hacia el territorio otomano, es para 1877 que se crea la Constitución otomana y el Parlamento.

Abülhamid II, aunque en un principio se mostró como un reformador liberal luego se volvió un dictador, los rusos se vengarán por su derrota en Crimea y le quitaría mucho territorio en los Balcanes a los otomanos, surgen también a finales del siglo XIX los primeros jóvenes turcos, los cuales serían importantes para la historia del imperio otomano, los cuales se veían a sí mismos como superiores frente a otros pueblos musulmanes como los árabes o kurdos, aunque ya para esta época los europeos tenían muchos estereotipos negativos respecto a los otomanos.

Los jóvenes turcos impulsarían reformas a través de revoluciones y guerras, sus objetivos eran que se devolviera la Constitución y parlamento ya que estos habían sido eliminados por el sultán, las reformas políticas ayudaron a crear un nuevos puestos políticos, esto conlleva una mayor oposición hacia el sultán lo que implicaría a futuro una revolución en 1908 la cual lograría que volviera nuevamente la Constitución y el Parlamento, pero en 1909 iniciaría una contrarrevolución en el que se pedía una restauración islámica, su éxito fue tal que logró deponer al sultán por Mehmet V, algo importante a mencionar es que los jóvenes turcos eran variados ya que habían tanto cristianos como musulmanes y tenían ideas antirreligiosas y darwinistas sociales, las dos guerras en los Balcanes haría que se perdiera la mayor parte del territorio otomano en Europa.

Finalmente tenemos todo lo relacionado con la Primera Guerra mundial, desde el punto de vista otomano, se los menciona en el acuerdo secreto que tenían estos con el Alemania, la yihad que propusieron, las revueltas árabes y por supuesto el genocidio en contra de los armenios la cual fue impulsada principalmente por la Primera Guerra mundial, más no porque hubieran unas razones históricas de odio hacia los cristianos armenios, también otra matanza importante fue en contra de los asirios, luego de la rendición otomana se da inicio a una guerra de reconquista luego de la división del imperio turco en la que se lograría la creación de la República turca la cual nunca olvidaría los legados del imperio otomano, se volvería así Turquía más secular pero reprimiendo siempre a otros pueblos como a los kurdos, concluimos así que los otomanos son parte de la historia europea.

[Shawn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was, and I mean this sincerely, the gayest book I’ve ever read.

[Jase · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great book that focuses on the Ottoman empire and its society. It's worthy read for those that want to know about European history from the easten side. Very readable. Only give it four stars instead of five because I find editing needs work. The writer knows his stuff but jumps backwards and forwards on certain subjects, assuming you understand too. However, it doesn't take away from the amount of effort and information in the book. I recommend giving it a read regardless.

[Miles Procter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Such a good history book. So so interesting and readable, incredibly summarised and pulled together - I loved every bit and every era!

Such a fascinating dynasty and empire with so much more influence in the west than is given credit too. Really adds to the history of the east/west divide and how this narrative is nowhere near as clear cut across history as it is seen today.

Would absolutely recommend for anyone and everyone

[Mark Mills · Rating 4 out of 5]

The thematic chapters are stronger than the narrative ones, which can be a bit confusing and repetitive. That said it's worth reading just for the throughly convincing argument that the Ottoman Empire was a European power and that European history during its existence is only comprehensible if one considers its role.