Topics of interest regarding the Ottoman Empire?
- Thread starter Karalysia
- Start date
I did my dissertation on a combination of the two periods. It is definitely easier to find more Western literature and translated sources on the second period.
Their early roots are effectively 1300 so not sure what you're getting at there, they were barely a blip before then!
I have a couple of ideas;
1) You could look at the administrative side of the Ottoman empire, the seperation of the Empire into seperate districts, the training of those in charge as well as the system put in place to avoid corruption (it can be seen that the decline of the Ottoman Empire was, in part, precipitated by this), the seperation of the rule of law (focus of my dissertation really) from the military- i.e. an independent person was in charge of the law in the provinces but the military guy sent along had to implement it- both of which were always under review. This sort of focuses on the second half of the second period- Suleiman and Selim period.
2)The quick conquest of so much of the surrounding regions, whether this was precipitated by the Ottomans quick adaptation of gunpowder based weapons (and the successful implementation of them), whether it was more based on their mindset (quite an antiquated view but still some historians enjoy it but it's based on comtemporary christian writings) or whether the Ottomans simply took advantage of a highly fractured region- decline of the Mamaluks, disastrous battle of Varna, ability to press so far into Europe before coming up against a large power.
I suppose 3 you could always look at how the Ottoman invasions precipitated the Renaissance by having Greeks fleeing back to Western Europe and bringing their literary work with them, i didn't look too far into this so i'm not sure how much there is really about this.
Their early roots are effectively 1300 so not sure what you're getting at there, they were barely a blip before then!
I have a couple of ideas;
1) You could look at the administrative side of the Ottoman empire, the seperation of the Empire into seperate districts, the training of those in charge as well as the system put in place to avoid corruption (it can be seen that the decline of the Ottoman Empire was, in part, precipitated by this), the seperation of the rule of law (focus of my dissertation really) from the military- i.e. an independent person was in charge of the law in the provinces but the military guy sent along had to implement it- both of which were always under review. This sort of focuses on the second half of the second period- Suleiman and Selim period.
2)The quick conquest of so much of the surrounding regions, whether this was precipitated by the Ottomans quick adaptation of gunpowder based weapons (and the successful implementation of them), whether it was more based on their mindset (quite an antiquated view but still some historians enjoy it but it's based on comtemporary christian writings) or whether the Ottomans simply took advantage of a highly fractured region- decline of the Mamaluks, disastrous battle of Varna, ability to press so far into Europe before coming up against a large power.
I suppose 3 you could always look at how the Ottoman invasions precipitated the Renaissance by having Greeks fleeing back to Western Europe and bringing their literary work with them, i didn't look too far into this so i'm not sure how much there is really about this.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
I don't suppose you're interested in things like poetry in the Balkans during the Ottoman periods, or medieval Turkish cuisine?
Yeah, you can always explore the position of Grand Vizier if you want a more focused essay, for a while this alternated between a 'new man' and an 'old man' it was also when this position stopped alternating that the Ottoman Empire began its decline.
Yeah, though you mentioned military so i figured i'd throw it out. My dissertation was discussing the extent to which the Ottoman Empire was built on guns, was it just a conquest state as some historians asserted or was there more to it. In the end i decided there was, my old thread on sources is in this forum somewhere- might be worth a look if you're interested or i can try and dig up one of my bibliographies for it if you're really interested.
A couple of credible authors hinted at it during my reading but i can honestly say i didn't have the time/inclination to explore it further.
Indeed. Though there was expansion beyond the 16th century, structurally this might in fact be the beginning of the end - that is, if it actually entailed the loss of the innovative edge the Otomans had before. I've always felt the era of Sulayman the Great as marking a turning point in Ottoman history, after which it was a story of decline - not so much in territorial expansion, but internally, resulting in the many failed attempts at reform until the empire's final demise in WW I. (In itself perhaps also interesting: how an empire in decline was still able to maintain itself for so long.)
Or that.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
You could do it on the battle of Vienna, which should be fun to write about.
The decline of the Western Roman empire also didn't suddenly happen with the removal of Romulus Augustulus. The first indications can be seen with the advent of the military emperors, making clear the importance of the military in the empire. Gradually it becomes clear that even with military emperors the empire can't be sustained, as it has a structural flaw. (Another key factor ofcourse being the growing acculturation of its bordering peoples, making the Roman military losing its edge.)
The same might be argued with the Ottoman empire, which, despite, continued though fluctuating military successes, began to stagnate internally, resulting in a gradually developing technological gap with its adversaries. That it took so long to complete its fall does not imply there was no decline, as several attempt at internal reform clearly show there was genuine concern about it within the empire itself (as there also were attempts at reform in the Roman Empire, succeeding only in the Eastern part). Pointing to a particular 'key development' might be tricky, but it might also be interesting to note if any such decline coincides with the permanent acquisition of islamic territories and the growing influence thereof on imperial proceedings.
First Battle if you want to examine the successes and limitations of the Ottoman Empire at its strongest, Second Battle if you want to examine resurgent Ottoman ambition after years of stagnation and Ottoman limitation in an age of emerging Western powers.
Aw, it's too bad, I kinda liked that weirdo religious revolt.
You should totally compare and contrast the Petrine actions against the streltsy with the Auspicious Incident.
