HIST 203 Final Paper The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300-1600 by Halil Inalcik
The Palace: A Microcosm of the Empire
The history of the palace in terms of early Ottoman history is crucial to our understanding of power and social structures within the empire. In Inalcik’s book on the Classical Age, he devotes many pages to discussing the importance of the palace and its position at the centre of ottoman imperial power. Inalcik’s argument seems to predominantly be that the origin for all aspects of ottoman life, be it cultural or political, began at the palace. He states that the palace was the living representation and the source of Ottoman imperial ideology. Whilst this is certainly true of the judicial, political, military and hierarchical …show more content…
I liked the table where he looked at the relative number of people within the palace and what they did. One can see that the janissaries increased from 10000 men in 1480 to 53849 men in 1670. This is significant as it symbolises the weakening of the sultanate and the growing strength of the military corps who would eventually meet their downfall. There was also a shift in the Ottoman administrative structure during the seventeenth century as the Sultan officially separated his administration and gave more power to his Grand Vizier. This change was mirrored, and supported by, the removal of the grand vizier to his own establishment next to the Topkapi in 1654. This served to separate the several arms of the Sultans power that had been governed from the Topkapi. The Bab-i Ali took over part of the responsibility. Of course, the Grand Vizier had been an important and powerful figure in the court of the Sultan, however, by giving him a separate building from which he controlled his spheres, Sultan Mehmet IV sent out a public message that the Sultan no longer wanted to be involved in every decision. It was not perhaps a loss of power for the Sultan, as he maintained executive power, but a change in imperial ideology, and the building arrangements had to change to match. Barber, however, suggests that ‘the sultans of …show more content…
He states that the ‘palace was the principal creative source in ottoman culture… most poets and writers had some connection with the palace’ p. 88. Indeed, I would suggest that it was the opposite: the coffee houses, for example, were often not the abode of the aristocracy but the moneyed bourgeoisie. The reason that the coffee houses were seen as possibly seditious was because they were not effectively policed by the sultan’s men. Those not so privileged men and women interested in literature and poetry would often access it via the mystical path which often was far removed from palace
The Palace: A Microcosm of the Empire
The history of the palace in terms of early Ottoman history is crucial to our understanding of power and social structures within the empire. In Inalcik’s book on the Classical Age, he devotes many pages to discussing the importance of the palace and its position at the centre of ottoman imperial power. Inalcik’s argument seems to predominantly be that the origin for all aspects of ottoman life, be it cultural or political, began at the palace. He states that the palace was the living representation and the source of Ottoman imperial ideology. Whilst this is certainly true of the judicial, political, military and hierarchical …show more content…
I liked the table where he looked at the relative number of people within the palace and what they did. One can see that the janissaries increased from 10000 men in 1480 to 53849 men in 1670. This is significant as it symbolises the weakening of the sultanate and the growing strength of the military corps who would eventually meet their downfall. There was also a shift in the Ottoman administrative structure during the seventeenth century as the Sultan officially separated his administration and gave more power to his Grand Vizier. This change was mirrored, and supported by, the removal of the grand vizier to his own establishment next to the Topkapi in 1654. This served to separate the several arms of the Sultans power that had been governed from the Topkapi. The Bab-i Ali took over part of the responsibility. Of course, the Grand Vizier had been an important and powerful figure in the court of the Sultan, however, by giving him a separate building from which he controlled his spheres, Sultan Mehmet IV sent out a public message that the Sultan no longer wanted to be involved in every decision. It was not perhaps a loss of power for the Sultan, as he maintained executive power, but a change in imperial ideology, and the building arrangements had to change to match. Barber, however, suggests that ‘the sultans of …show more content…
He states that the ‘palace was the principal creative source in ottoman culture… most poets and writers had some connection with the palace’ p. 88. Indeed, I would suggest that it was the opposite: the coffee houses, for example, were often not the abode of the aristocracy but the moneyed bourgeoisie. The reason that the coffee houses were seen as possibly seditious was because they were not effectively policed by the sultan’s men. Those not so privileged men and women interested in literature and poetry would often access it via the mystical path which often was far removed from palace