Brittany Towe
The Ottoman Empire was renowned for its zeal for battle and its formidable military and navy. This was particularly true during the 16th century under the rule of Sultan Sulyeman. In the Ottoman Empire’s Golden Age, which is synonymous with this Sultan’s reign, the empire saw continuous expansion and advances on its frontiers. The Ottomans contested the power of both the Habsburgs and the Safavids.
In order to understand Ottoman military and expansion it is important to have a broad understanding of the Ottoman government and the factors that affected the decision making within its confines. The Sultan was the head of the government. Though Suleyman led 13 campaigns himself, his reign marked the increasing isolation of Sultans within the Topkapi palace walls. Sultans also withdrew from their viziers and often corresponded with them through written reports (Aksan 151). This detachment was reflected in the Ottoman Advice for Kings literary genre in which the author would step into the role of vizier (Aksan 151). Various administrators served underneath the Sultan. The Grand Vizier, “the sultan’s foot”, enjoyed considerable power and autonomy with the Ottoman Sultan. The Grand Vizier regularly led military campaigns and could appoint officials within the Empire and its provinces (Goodwin 62). The Chief White Eunuch was the grand vizier’s deputy. He controlled the palace officials during the vizier’s regular absences (Goodwin 76). The Divan was made up of secondary viziers and council who met regularly (Goodwin 76). Appointed governors ruled the provinces and some conquered territories retained their leaders but were made to pay tributes to the Sultan as his vassals. An array of diplomatic envoys and travelers, visiting and residing in Istanbul, contributed to the Ottoman information and espionage network that informed its imperial decisions. According to various documents including registers and correspondences, “resident ambassadors of competing European governments in Istanbul often shared information concerning their rivals with the Ottomans” (Aksan 84). Dragomans or interpreters and the staff of these diplomats often shared information with the Ottoman government as well. Due to the empire’s diversity and inclusiveness, many of its subjects had Christian relatives living outside the empire that were potential sources of information about the happenings in enemy territories and neighboring kingdoms (Aksan 86).
The Ottoman’s had an imposing standing army and its military was made up of volunteers and janissaries. Sultan Murad II introduced the tribute system in 1432 that would be the basis for the Devsirme system. Sultan Mehmet II extended the system during his reign. Every few years, a representative would travel to villages in Greece and the Balkans to select young Christian boys to participate in the Devisrme system. Muslim subjects were excluded from becoming janissaries because “no born Muslim could be enslaved” (Goodwin 56). These boys were taught Turkish, converted to Islam and underwent vigorous physical and intellectual training. They were typically poor and being chosen for the tribute usually translated into the opportunity for social advancement. These tributes could take several pathways. They could be selected for the palace schools if they displayed a particular talent such as singing or architecture. Some graduated to the Noble Guard or became part of the Sultan’s infantry. Those who weren’t selected for the palace schools often became part of the navies, marines or infantry. They habitually were given leadership positions in the Ottoman provinces (Goodwin 59). Janissaries also doubled as military police and contributed to domestic surveillance (Aksan 79).They were slaves in a limited sense. They weren’t bought or sold but lived a life of strict service. They were also compensated financially but their banishment or death resulted in the funneling of their wealth back into the system (Goodwin 60). The spahi, or cavalryman, was generally a Muslim volunteer. They were given a military stipend, the timar, in exchange for military service. A timar would take the form of the tax revenue belonging to the area that the soldier governed. The higher the official the larger the area the tax would be drawn from (Goodwin 68). Other volunteers joined the Ottoman military in their marches and reaped rewards from pillaging and booty (Goodwin 77). The navies were also important for raiding, conquest and to defend ports and trade. The Ottoman fleet generally consisted of the war galley. The Early Modern Ottomans: Remapping the Empire depicts the war galleys as agile ships that were “relatively fragile” because they couldn’t withstand rough seas. They were also noted to have little storage room and therefore couldn’t stay at sea for long periods of time (Aksan 109). Weapons varied from swords and arrows to guns and canons.
The motivations for war can be seen in various forms of projected ideology including how the Ottomans envisioned space through maps and their own imperial titles. In The Early Modern Ottomans: Remapping the Empire, Ottoman self-representation was said to have “privileged war space, sacred space, and the projection of imperial ambitions” (Aksan 24). Their borders were thought of as “porous”. There were numerous frontiers and disputed spaces as imperial projections and ideologies clashed. This can be seen in the conflicting sacred space such as the “Holy Land” Jerusalem. Taken in 1516 by the Ottomans, Jerusalem was coveted as sacred space for both Christians and Muslims and was the object of many crusades This is best displayed in the titles of rulers. The Early Modern Ottomans suggests that a title can not only “designate space” but also “expansive power and authority” (Aksan 47). This idea is also mirrored in The Ottoman Age of Exploration that represents one notable Portuguese king as having a title that “represented a theoretical ideal rather than a realistic description of his authority” (Casale 30). Using the same model as other rulers Sultan Selim I, adopted the titles “Caliph”, “Protector of the Holy Cities” and “Servant of the Two Sanctuaries” (Casale 31). According to The Ottoman Age of Exploration, the title of Caliph, the highest position in Islam, promoted Sultan Selim I as a “universal Islamic ruler whose sovereignty, […], extended far beyond the borders of the areas of his physical control” (Casale 31). Being “Protector of the Holy Cities” of his faith also legitimizes this claim (Aksan 94). These titles were passed on to later generations of Ottoman Sultans and provided part of the basis of their aggressive expansionism. Sultan Suleyman perpetuated this model of “universal empire” as well (Casale 30). Being the “defender of Islam” and the Holy Cities was another pretext for war as Sultan Suleyman, inheriting the throne from Sultan Selim I, was tasked with protecting the pilgrimage routes to Mecca and Medina (Aksan 97). Suleyman competed with Charles V who held the titles such as “Last World Emperor” and “King of Spain, Sicily, Jerusalem, The Balearic Islands, Hungary, Dalmatia, Croatia and the Indies” (Aksan 97). Like many other Christian rulers, Charles V was charged with wresting Jerusalem from the hands of the Ottomans. War with the Shi’ite Safavids also took on a similar form because they “challenged Ottoman sovereignty and religious legitimacy in eastern Anatolia and Azerbaijan” (Aksan 93). Though the Mamluks in Egypt were largely Sunni they allied with the Safavids and were thus seen as “rebel Muslims” who needed to be subdued. This was the task of the Sultan as he was “defender of Islam” (Aksan 95). The competing ideologies and sovereign space inherent in the projections of these titles perhaps made Holy war inevitable.
Another motive for Ottoman expansionism was revenue and free trade. The Ottoman provinces contributed to the wealth of the empire and the Ottoman military. In administrator Ayn Ali’s Laws of the Ottoman Dynasty he states, “Either state revenues were collected and redistributed for state demands in the province through the timar system, or instead state demands were satisfied by a payment of an annual tribute” (Aksan 153). Therefore, a province or territory that could accumulate a handsome revenue would be an advantageous acquisition. Such was the case in Sultan Suleyman’s campaign against Hungary and Belgrade. The Early Modern Ottomans suggests that one of the motives for the campaign against Hungary was profit. According to the text a Venetian report from 1519 states that the Venetians sent “sent exaggerated reports to Istanbul regarding the wealth of the Hungarian kingdom and the weakness of its military” (Aksan 96). Several campaigns against Hungary failed but the conquest of Belgrade opened the way to the possibility of further expansion into Europe. After Ferdinand I invaded Hungary following the death of the Ottoman supported John Zapolya, the Siege of Hungary’s capital Buda in 1541 finally led to the annexation of Hungary (Aksan 96). Some ports were acquired either to defend existing Muslim trading centers from raids led by competing parties or to open up areas for trading in competition with other powers such as the Portuguese. The campaign in Egypt gave the Ottomans control over the Eastern Mediterranean and gave them access to its natural resources. Consequently, the Egyptian grain levy was re-established (Aksan 107). Egypt also opened up the Red Sea as a route for Ottoman access to the lucrative Indian Ocean spice trade dominated by the Portuguese (Casale 11). Transit tariffs were also collected at Egyptian ports creating revenue for the Ottomans and trade was opened up to other parties whereas it was restricted by the Portuguese (Casale 29). The battle between the Ottomans and the Knights of Rhodes in 1522-23 coupled religious and revenue/trade motives. The Knights of Rhodes or the Knights of St. John were a Christian military and religious order who had firmly entrenched themselves in the island of Rhodes in the Mediterranean Sea in the 14th century (Casale 105). According to Lords of the Horizon, they had been “preying on Muslim shipping, sheltering Christian pirates, and massacring their prisoners” (Goodwin 84). They also disrupted maritime pilgrimage to Mecca and shipment of grain and revenue from Egypt. The defeat and expulsion of the Knights of Rhodes pushed the hostile Christian presence and frontier west and helped protect trade and pilgrimage (Goodwin 85). Lastly, the conquering and re-conquering of Yemen during Sultan Suleyman’s reign had similar motives. It secured routes of pilgrimage to Mecca, created revenue and opened up the possibility of trade (Casale 43). In The Ottoman Age of Exploration, it is asserted that “the conquest of Yemen secured a direct sea route from Egypt to the Indian Ocean and a permanent Ottoman military presence in the Arabian Sea (Casale 65). It also diminished Portuguese presence in the Red Sea.
The Ottomans had a continuously growing empire during the Golden Age that was comparable to other Imperialist powers in Europe. They shared competing ideologies, Imperialist ambitions and a desire to protect their sacred spaces, increase their revenue and multiply their existing influence in the relevant parts of the world. These mutual goals and the effectiveness with which they sought to attain them made the Ottoman Empire a competitive force in maritime trade, conquest and history.
The Ottoman Empire was renowned for its zeal for battle and its formidable military and navy. This was particularly true during the 16th century under the rule of Sultan Sulyeman. In the Ottoman Empire’s Golden Age, which is synonymous with this Sultan’s reign, the empire saw continuous expansion and advances on its frontiers. The Ottomans contested the power of both the Habsburgs and the Safavids.
In order to understand Ottoman military and expansion it is important to have a broad understanding of the Ottoman government and the factors that affected the decision making within its confines. The Sultan was the head of the government. Though Suleyman led 13 campaigns himself, his reign marked the increasing isolation of Sultans within the Topkapi palace walls. Sultans also withdrew from their viziers and often corresponded with them through written reports (Aksan 151). This detachment was reflected in the Ottoman Advice for Kings literary genre in which the author would step into the role of vizier (Aksan 151). Various administrators served underneath the Sultan. The Grand Vizier, “the sultan’s foot”, enjoyed considerable power and autonomy with the Ottoman Sultan. The Grand Vizier regularly led military campaigns and could appoint officials within the Empire and its provinces (Goodwin 62). The Chief White Eunuch was the grand vizier’s deputy. He controlled the palace officials during the vizier’s regular absences (Goodwin 76). The Divan was made up of secondary viziers and council who met regularly (Goodwin 76). Appointed governors ruled the provinces and some conquered territories retained their leaders but were made to pay tributes to the Sultan as his vassals. An array of diplomatic envoys and travelers, visiting and residing in Istanbul, contributed to the Ottoman information and espionage network that informed its imperial decisions. According to various documents including registers and correspondences, “resident ambassadors of competing European governments in Istanbul often shared information concerning their rivals with the Ottomans” (Aksan 84). Dragomans or interpreters and the staff of these diplomats often shared information with the Ottoman government as well. Due to the empire’s diversity and inclusiveness, many of its subjects had Christian relatives living outside the empire that were potential sources of information about the happenings in enemy territories and neighboring kingdoms (Aksan 86).
The Ottoman’s had an imposing standing army and its military was made up of volunteers and janissaries. Sultan Murad II introduced the tribute system in 1432 that would be the basis for the Devsirme system. Sultan Mehmet II extended the system during his reign. Every few years, a representative would travel to villages in Greece and the Balkans to select young Christian boys to participate in the Devisrme system. Muslim subjects were excluded from becoming janissaries because “no born Muslim could be enslaved” (Goodwin 56). These boys were taught Turkish, converted to Islam and underwent vigorous physical and intellectual training. They were typically poor and being chosen for the tribute usually translated into the opportunity for social advancement. These tributes could take several pathways. They could be selected for the palace schools if they displayed a particular talent such as singing or architecture. Some graduated to the Noble Guard or became part of the Sultan’s infantry. Those who weren’t selected for the palace schools often became part of the navies, marines or infantry. They habitually were given leadership positions in the Ottoman provinces (Goodwin 59). Janissaries also doubled as military police and contributed to domestic surveillance (Aksan 79).They were slaves in a limited sense. They weren’t bought or sold but lived a life of strict service. They were also compensated financially but their banishment or death resulted in the funneling of their wealth back into the system (Goodwin 60). The spahi, or cavalryman, was generally a Muslim volunteer. They were given a military stipend, the timar, in exchange for military service. A timar would take the form of the tax revenue belonging to the area that the soldier governed. The higher the official the larger the area the tax would be drawn from (Goodwin 68). Other volunteers joined the Ottoman military in their marches and reaped rewards from pillaging and booty (Goodwin 77). The navies were also important for raiding, conquest and to defend ports and trade. The Ottoman fleet generally consisted of the war galley. The Early Modern Ottomans: Remapping the Empire depicts the war galleys as agile ships that were “relatively fragile” because they couldn’t withstand rough seas. They were also noted to have little storage room and therefore couldn’t stay at sea for long periods of time (Aksan 109). Weapons varied from swords and arrows to guns and canons.
The motivations for war can be seen in various forms of projected ideology including how the Ottomans envisioned space through maps and their own imperial titles. In The Early Modern Ottomans: Remapping the Empire, Ottoman self-representation was said to have “privileged war space, sacred space, and the projection of imperial ambitions” (Aksan 24). Their borders were thought of as “porous”. There were numerous frontiers and disputed spaces as imperial projections and ideologies clashed. This can be seen in the conflicting sacred space such as the “Holy Land” Jerusalem. Taken in 1516 by the Ottomans, Jerusalem was coveted as sacred space for both Christians and Muslims and was the object of many crusades This is best displayed in the titles of rulers. The Early Modern Ottomans suggests that a title can not only “designate space” but also “expansive power and authority” (Aksan 47). This idea is also mirrored in The Ottoman Age of Exploration that represents one notable Portuguese king as having a title that “represented a theoretical ideal rather than a realistic description of his authority” (Casale 30). Using the same model as other rulers Sultan Selim I, adopted the titles “Caliph”, “Protector of the Holy Cities” and “Servant of the Two Sanctuaries” (Casale 31). According to The Ottoman Age of Exploration, the title of Caliph, the highest position in Islam, promoted Sultan Selim I as a “universal Islamic ruler whose sovereignty, […], extended far beyond the borders of the areas of his physical control” (Casale 31). Being “Protector of the Holy Cities” of his faith also legitimizes this claim (Aksan 94). These titles were passed on to later generations of Ottoman Sultans and provided part of the basis of their aggressive expansionism. Sultan Suleyman perpetuated this model of “universal empire” as well (Casale 30). Being the “defender of Islam” and the Holy Cities was another pretext for war as Sultan Suleyman, inheriting the throne from Sultan Selim I, was tasked with protecting the pilgrimage routes to Mecca and Medina (Aksan 97). Suleyman competed with Charles V who held the titles such as “Last World Emperor” and “King of Spain, Sicily, Jerusalem, The Balearic Islands, Hungary, Dalmatia, Croatia and the Indies” (Aksan 97). Like many other Christian rulers, Charles V was charged with wresting Jerusalem from the hands of the Ottomans. War with the Shi’ite Safavids also took on a similar form because they “challenged Ottoman sovereignty and religious legitimacy in eastern Anatolia and Azerbaijan” (Aksan 93). Though the Mamluks in Egypt were largely Sunni they allied with the Safavids and were thus seen as “rebel Muslims” who needed to be subdued. This was the task of the Sultan as he was “defender of Islam” (Aksan 95). The competing ideologies and sovereign space inherent in the projections of these titles perhaps made Holy war inevitable.
Another motive for Ottoman expansionism was revenue and free trade. The Ottoman provinces contributed to the wealth of the empire and the Ottoman military. In administrator Ayn Ali’s Laws of the Ottoman Dynasty he states, “Either state revenues were collected and redistributed for state demands in the province through the timar system, or instead state demands were satisfied by a payment of an annual tribute” (Aksan 153). Therefore, a province or territory that could accumulate a handsome revenue would be an advantageous acquisition. Such was the case in Sultan Suleyman’s campaign against Hungary and Belgrade. The Early Modern Ottomans suggests that one of the motives for the campaign against Hungary was profit. According to the text a Venetian report from 1519 states that the Venetians sent “sent exaggerated reports to Istanbul regarding the wealth of the Hungarian kingdom and the weakness of its military” (Aksan 96). Several campaigns against Hungary failed but the conquest of Belgrade opened the way to the possibility of further expansion into Europe. After Ferdinand I invaded Hungary following the death of the Ottoman supported John Zapolya, the Siege of Hungary’s capital Buda in 1541 finally led to the annexation of Hungary (Aksan 96). Some ports were acquired either to defend existing Muslim trading centers from raids led by competing parties or to open up areas for trading in competition with other powers such as the Portuguese. The campaign in Egypt gave the Ottomans control over the Eastern Mediterranean and gave them access to its natural resources. Consequently, the Egyptian grain levy was re-established (Aksan 107). Egypt also opened up the Red Sea as a route for Ottoman access to the lucrative Indian Ocean spice trade dominated by the Portuguese (Casale 11). Transit tariffs were also collected at Egyptian ports creating revenue for the Ottomans and trade was opened up to other parties whereas it was restricted by the Portuguese (Casale 29). The battle between the Ottomans and the Knights of Rhodes in 1522-23 coupled religious and revenue/trade motives. The Knights of Rhodes or the Knights of St. John were a Christian military and religious order who had firmly entrenched themselves in the island of Rhodes in the Mediterranean Sea in the 14th century (Casale 105). According to Lords of the Horizon, they had been “preying on Muslim shipping, sheltering Christian pirates, and massacring their prisoners” (Goodwin 84). They also disrupted maritime pilgrimage to Mecca and shipment of grain and revenue from Egypt. The defeat and expulsion of the Knights of Rhodes pushed the hostile Christian presence and frontier west and helped protect trade and pilgrimage (Goodwin 85). Lastly, the conquering and re-conquering of Yemen during Sultan Suleyman’s reign had similar motives. It secured routes of pilgrimage to Mecca, created revenue and opened up the possibility of trade (Casale 43). In The Ottoman Age of Exploration, it is asserted that “the conquest of Yemen secured a direct sea route from Egypt to the Indian Ocean and a permanent Ottoman military presence in the Arabian Sea (Casale 65). It also diminished Portuguese presence in the Red Sea.
The Ottomans had a continuously growing empire during the Golden Age that was comparable to other Imperialist powers in Europe. They shared competing ideologies, Imperialist ambitions and a desire to protect their sacred spaces, increase their revenue and multiply their existing influence in the relevant parts of the world. These mutual goals and the effectiveness with which they sought to attain them made the Ottoman Empire a competitive force in maritime trade, conquest and history.