Historiography of the fall of the Ottoman Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Fall of the Ottoman Empire)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about theories purporting to explain the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. For the events, see Defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1908–1922). For the partitioning, see Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire.
Part of a series on the
History of the
Ottoman Empire
Coat of Arms of the Ottoman Empire

Many twentieth-century scholars argued that power of the Ottoman Empire began waning after the death of Suleiman the Magnificent, and without the acquisition of significant new wealth the empire went into decline, a concept known as the Ottoman Decline Thesis. Since the late 1970s, however, historians increasingly came to question the idea of Ottoman decline. In modern times there is a consensus among academic historians that the Ottoman Empire did not decline.[1]

The Decline Thesis[edit]

Itzkowitz and İnalcik state Ottoman writers attributed the Empire’s troubles to the dissolution of the circle of equity, erosion of the sultan’s authority, disruption of the timar sytem and the demise of the devşirme, "describing symptoms rather than causes".[2][3] They argue causes consisted of geographical and logistical limitations, population growth after the 16th century, inflation due to influx of Peruvian silver and the end of profitable conquests.[4] Itzkowitz states, "the state could find no remedy" to these problems, and İnalcik, "As a result of these upheavals, the Ottoman Empire of the seventeenth century was no longer the vital empire it had been in the sixteenth"[5] – however neither show the issues remained a long-term problem.

Berkes was one of the first writers in the 1960s to summarise the works on Ottoman socio-economic history.[6] He suggested one of the reasons for Ottoman economic decline was the inability of the ruling class to make a clear choice between war and the more conventional types of capital formation.[7][8] Berkes' work however focused on the confrontation of the Ottomans and the Europeans, and though important, had little detail on the commercial activities of the state.

The Ottomans saw military expansion and fiscalism as the primary source of wealth, with agriculture seen as more important than manufacture and commerce. Berkes described the Ottoman economy as a "war economy" where its primary profits consisted of booty from expansion. This idea has been supported by Ottomanists Halil İnalcik and Suraiya Faroqhi Western mercantilists gave more emphasis to manufacture and industry in the wealth-power-wealth equation, moving towards capitalist economics comprising expanding industries and markets whereas the Ottomans continued along the trajectory of territorial expansionand agriculture. In contrast, neither the Marxian Asiatic mode of taxation, nor the feudal mode found in mediaeval Europe reflects the Ottoman mode accurately, as it falls somewhere in between the two — excess peasant production was taxed by the state as opposed to it being paid in rent to feudal lords;[9]

Over the 19th century, a shift occurred to rural female labor with guild organized urban-based male labor less important. The global markets for Ottoman goods fell somewhat with certain sectors expanding. However, any changes were compensated by an increase in domestic consumption and demand.[10] Mechanized production even at its peak remained an insignificant portion of total output. The lack of capital, as in other areas of the economy, deterred the mechanization of production. Nonetheless, a number of factories did emerge in Istanbul, Ottoman Europe and Anatolia. In the 1830s steam powered silk reeling factories emerged in Salonica, Edirne, West Anatolia and Lebanon.[11]

Under the late 18th century fine textiles, hand-made yarns and leathers were in high demand outside the empire. However, these declined by the early 19th century and half a century later production for export re-emerged in the form of raw silk and oriental carpets. The two industries alone employed 100,000 persons in 1914 two-thirds in carpet-making for European and American buyers. Most workers were women and girls, receiving wages that were amongst the lowest in the manufacturing sector. Much of the manufacturing shifted to the urban areas during the 18th century, in order to benefit from the lower rural costs and wages.[12]

Guilds operating prior to the 18th century did see a decline through the 18th and 19th centuries. Guilds provided some form of security in prices, restricting production and controlling quality and provided support to members who hit hard times. However, with market forces driving down prices their importance declined, and with the Janissaries as their backers, being disbanded by Mahmut II in 1826, their fate was sealed.[13]

By far the majority of producers targeted the 26 million domestic consumers who often lived in adjacent provinces to the producer. Analysing these producers is difficult, as they did not belong to organizations that left records.

Manufacturing through the period 1600-1914 witnessed remarkable continuities in the loci of manufacturing; industrial centers flourishing in the 17th century were often still active in 1914.[14] Manufacturing initially struggled against Asian and then European competition in the 18th and 19th centuries whereby handicraft industries were displaced by cheaper industrially produced imports. Quataert’s study of the Istanbul port workers and their struggle over two decades against the European companies with indirect support from the state highlights the difference between colonial administrators elsewhere and the Ottoman government. However, manufacturing achieved surprising output levels, with the decline of some industries being more than compensated by the rise of new industries.[15] Decline of handicrafts production saw a shift of output move to agricultural commodity production and other manufacturing output.[16] In short of this the Ottoman Empire relied on there trades too much and over populated leaden to shortages of food and soon sanitation.(desetafacation)


The Ottoman Empire was an agrarian economy, labour scarce, land rich and capital poor. Majority of the population earned their living from small family holdings and this contributed to around 40% of taxes for the empire directly as well as indirectly through customs revenues on exports.[citation needed]

Cultivator families drew their livelihoods from a complex set of different economic activities and not merely from growing crops. This included growing a variety of crops for their own consumption as well as rearing animals for their milk and wool. Some rural families manufactured goods for sale to others, for instance Balkan villagers traveled to Anatolia and Syria for months to sell their wool cloth. İslamoğlu-İnan's study of Anatolia from the seventeenth century onwards finds state policy by way of taxation and inheritance laws encouraged peasants to commercially develop fruits, vegetables and sheep;[17] This pattern established for the 18th century had not significantly changed at the beginning of the 20th century.[18] That is not to say that there were no changes in the agrarian sector. Nomads played an important role in the economy, providing animal products, textiles and transportation. They were troublesome for the state and hard to control – sedentarization programs took place in the 19th century, coinciding with huge influxes of refugees. This dynamic had the effect of a decline in animal rearing by tribes and an increase in cultivation. The rising commercialization of agriculture commencing in the 18th century meant more people began to grow more. With increased urbanisation, new markets created greater demand, easily met with the advent of railroads. State policy requiring a greater portion of taxes to be paid in cash influenced the increased production. Finally, increased demand for consumer goods themselves drove an increase in production to pay for the same.[19]

Quataert argues production rose due to a number of factors. An increase in productivity resulted from irrigation projects, intensive agriculture and utilisation of modern agricultural tools increasing in use throughout the 19th century. By 1900, tens of thousands of plows, reapers and other agricultural technologies such as combines were found across the Balkan, Anatolian and Arab lands. However, most of the increases in production came from vast areas of land coming under further cultivation. Families began increasing the amount of time at work, bringing fallow land into use. Sharecropping increased utilising land that had been for animal pasturage. Along with state policy, millions of refugees brought vast tracts of untilled land into production. The empty central Anatolian basin and steppe zone in the Syrian provinces were instances where government agencies parcelled out smallholdings of land to refugees. This was a recurring pattern across the empire, small landholdings the norm. Foreign holdings remained unusual despite Ottoman political weakness – probably due to strong local and notable resistance and labour shortages. Issawi et al. have argued that division of labour was not possible, being based on religious grounds.[20] İnalcik however demonstrates that division of labour was historically determined and open to change. Agricultural reform programs in the late 19th century saw the state founding agricultural schools, model farms, and education of a self-perpetuating bureaucracy of agrarian specialists focused on increasing agricultural exports. Between 1876 and 1908, the value of agricultural exports just from Anatolia rose by 45% whilst tithe proceeds rose by 79%.[21]

However, cheap American grain imports undermined agricultural economies across Europe, in some cases causing outright economic and political crises.[22]

Domestic Trade[edit]

Domestic trade vastly exceeded international trade in both value and volume though researchers have little in direct measurements.[23] Much of Ottoman history has been based on European archives that did not document the empire’s internal trade, resulting in it being underestimated.[24]

Quataert illustrates the size of internal trade by considering some examples. The French Ambassador in 1759 commented that total textile imports into the empire would clothe a maximum of 800,000 of a population of at least 20 million. In 1914 less than a quarter of agricultural produce was being exported the rest being consumed internally.[25] The early 17th century saw trade in Ottoman-made goods in the Damascus province exceeded five times the value of all foreign-made goods sold there. Finally, amongst the sparse internal trade data are some 1890s statistics for three non-leading cities. Their sum value of their interregional trade in the 1890s equaled around 5% of total Ottoman international export trade at the time. Given their minor status, cities like Istanbul, Edirne, Salonica, Damascus, Beirut or Aleppo being far greater than all three, this is impressively high. These major trade centres, dozens of medium-sized towns, hundreds of small towns and thousands of villages remains uncounted – it puts into perspective the size of domestic trade.[23]

Two factors that had major impact on both internal and international trade were wars and government policies. Wars had major impact on commerce especially where there were territorial losses that would rip apart Ottoman economic unity, often destroying relationships and patterns that had endured centuries. The role of government policy is more hotly debated – however most policy-promoted barriers to Ottoman international and internal commerce disappeared or were reduced sharply.[26] However, there appears little to indicate a significant decline in internal trade other than disruption caused by war and ad-hoc territorial losses.

International Trade[edit]

As regards trade imbalance, only Istanbul ran an import surplus. Both Lampe and McGowan argue that the empire as a whole, and the Balkans in particular, continued to record an export surplus throughout the period. As early as 1850, French authorities became concerned that imports of 27.3 million francs from the Ottoman Empire exceeded what France was exporting to them 19.9 million francs and were anxious to balance the two figures [27] The balance of trade however moved against the Ottomans from the 18th century onwards. They would re-export high value luxury goods, mainly silks from the Far East and exported many of its own goods. Luxury goods began being imported. Through the 18th century, exports moved to unprocessed goods whilst at the same time commodities were imported from European colonies. Most of these commodities were produced by slave labor undercutting domestic production. However, according to most scholars, a favourable balance of trade still existed at the end of the 18th century.[28] 19th century trade increased multi-fold, however exports remained similar to 18th century levels. Foodstuffs and raw materials were the focus with carpets and raw silk appearing in the 1850s.[29]

From the 18th century onwards, foreign merchants and Ottoman non-Muslims became dominant in the growing international trade. With increasing affluence, their political significance grew especially in Syria. Muslim merchants however dominated internal trade and trade between the interior and coastal cities. In 1793, Aleppo alone issued 1,500 certificates to Ottoman non-Muslims for such privileges which through the course of the eighteenth century allowed them to replace their European counterparts. Istanbul boasted over 1,000 registered merchants in the early twentieth century, of which only 3% were British, French or German merchants;[30]


During the 19th century, new technologies radically transformed the challenge of distance to both travel and communications. Through the invention of the steam engine in Britain, water and land transport revolutionised the conduct of trade and commerce. The steam ship meant journeys became predictable, times shrank and unimaginable weights could be carried more cheaply. Quataert cites the Istanbul-Venice route, a main trade artery, taking as much as eighty-one days in the past, was now reduced to ten days. Sail ships would carry 50 to 100 tonnes — steamships could now carry 1,000 tonnes.Comparatively ships like the RMS Titanic could carry 66,000 tonnes;[31]

New routes once not possible could now be traversed – rivers that carried cargoes only in one direction could now be traversed both ways bringing innumerable benefits to regions. New routes like the Suez Canal were created, prompted by steamships, changing trade demographics across the Near East as trade was rerouted. Quataert’s research shows volume of trade began to rise in the 19th century. By 1900 sailboats accounted for 5% of ships visiting Istanbul, however this 5% was greater in number than any year of the 19th century. In 1873, Istanbul handled 4.5 million tons of shipping – this was 10 million tons by 1900. These ships accelerated growth of port cities with deep harbours to accommodate ever-growing ships. Europeans however owned 90% of commercial shipping operating in Ottoman waters. Not all regions benefited from steam ships as rerouting meant trade from Iran, Iraq and Arabia now did not need to go through Istanbul, Aleppo, and even Beirut, leading to losses in these territories.[32][33]

The Ottoman world split into the European provinces of wheeled transport and non-wheeled transport in Anatolia and the Arab world. Railroads revolutionized land transport profoundly, cutting journey times drastically, promoting population movements, and changing rural-urban relations. Railroads offered cheap and regular transport for bulk goods, allowing the potential for fertile interior regions to be exploited for the first time. When built near these regions, agriculture developed rapidly, with hundreds of thousands of tons of cereals being shipped by this way. Railroads had additional benefits for non-commercial passengers who began using them, with 8 million passengers using the 1,054-mile Balkan lines and 7 million using the 1,488-miles Anatolian. Railroads also created a new source of employment for over 13,000 workers by 1911. With low population densities and lack of capital, the Ottomans did not develop extensive railroad or shipping industries. Most of the capital for railroads came from European financiers, which gave them considerable financial control.[34]

Existing economic activity did not fall, on the contrary rising. The business and animals used previously to transport goods between regions found new work in moving goods to and from trunk lines. The Aegean areas alone had over 10,000 camels working to supply local railroads — Ankara station had a thousand camels at a time waiting to unload goods.[35] Furthermore, additional territories running by railroads came under development and agriculture. Like sailing vessels, land transport contributed to and invigorated trade and commerce across the empire.


Ottoman bureaucratic and military expenditure was raised by taxation, generally from the agrarian population.[36] Pamuk notes considerable variation in monetary policy and practice in different parts of the empire. Although there was monetary regulation, enforcement was often lax and little effort was made to control the activities of merchants, moneychangers, and financiers. Under Islamic law usury was prohibited, Pamuk quotes a number of stratagems that were used, notably double-sale agreements:[37][38] During the "price revolution" of the 16th century, when inflation took off, there were price increases of around 500%[39] from the end of the 15th century to the close of the 17th.[40] However, the problem of inflation did not remain and the 18th century did not witness the problem again.

The 18th century witnessed increasing expenditure for military related expenditure and the 19th century for both bureaucracy and military. McNeil describes an Ottoman stagnation through centre-periphery relations – a moderately taxed centre with periphery provinces suffering the burden of costs.[41] Though this analysis may apply to some provinces, like Hungary, recent scholarship has found that most of the financing was through provinces closer to the centre.[42] As the empire modernized itself in line with European powers, the role of the central state grew and diversified. In the past, it had contented itself with raising tax revenues and war making. It increasingly began to address education, health and public works, activities that used to be organised by religious leaders in the communities – this can be argued as being necessary in a rapidly changing world and was a necessary Ottoman response. At the end of the 18th century, there were around 2,000 civil officials ballooning to 35,000 in 1908.[43] The Ottoman military increasingly adopted western military technologies and methods, increasing army personnel from 120,000 in 1837 to over 120,000 in the 1880s.[44] Other innovations were increasingly being adopted, including the telegraph, railroads and photography, and utilised against old mediators who were increasingly marginalised. These were diverse groups such as the Janissaries, guilds, tribes, religious authorities and provincial notables.[44]

Up to 1850, the Ottoman Empire was the only empire to have never contracted foreign debt and its financial situation was generally sound.[45] As the 19th century increased the state’s financial needs, it knew it could not raise the revenues from taxation or domestic borrowings, so resorted to massive debasement and then issued paper money.[46] It had considered European debt, which had surplus funds available for overseas investment, but avoided it aware of the associated dangers of European control.[47][48] However, the Crimean war of 1853-1856 resulted in the necessity of such debt. Between 1854 and 1881, the Ottoman Empire went through a critical phase of the history. Beginning with the first foreign loan in 1854, this process involved sporadic attempts by western powers to impose some control. From 1863 a second and more intense phase began leading to a snowballing effect of accumulated debts. In 1875, with external debt at 242 million Turkish pounds, over half the budgetary expenditures going toward its service, the Ottoman government facing a number of economic crises declared its inability to make repayments. The fall in tax revenues due to bad harvests and increased expenditure made worse by the costs of suppressing the uprisings in the Balkans hastened the slide into bankruptcy. After negotiations with the European powers, the Public Debt Administration was set up, to which certain revenues were assigned. This arrangement subjected the Ottomans to foreign financial control from which they failed to free themselves, in part because of continued borrowing. In 1914, the Ottoman debt stood at 139.1 million Turkish pounds, and the government was still dependent on European financiers [49] [50]

Why had the Ottomans not developed their own financial system in line with London and Paris? It was not for the want of trying. Since the beginning of the 18th century, the government was aware of the need for a reliable bank. The Galata bankers, mostly Greeks or Armenians, as well as the Bank of Constantinople did not have the capital or competence for such large undertakings.[48][51] As such, Ottoman borrowings followed the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem.

Borrowing spanned two distinct periods, 1854-1876. The first is the most important resulted in defaults in 1875. Borrowings were normally at 4% to 5% of the nominal value of the bond, new issues however being sold at prices well below these values netted of commissions involved in the issue, resulting in a much higher effective borrowing rate – coupled with a deteriorating financial situation, the borrowing rate rarely went below 10% after 1860.[52]

European involvement began with the creation of the Public Debt Administration, after which a relatively peaceful period meant no wartime expenditures and the budget could be balanced with lower levels of external borrowing. The semi-autonomous Egyptian province also ran up huge debts in the late 19th century resulting in foreign military intervention. With security from the Debt Administration further European capital entered the empire in railroad, port and public utility projects, increasing foreign capital control of the Ottoman economy.[53] The debt burden increased, consuming a sizeable chunk of the Ottoman tax revenues – by the early 1910s deficits had begun to grow again with military expenditure growing and another default may have occurred had it not been for the outbreak of the First World War.


Ottoman censuses began in the early 19th century, with population approximations having to be created with demographic patterns for earlier periods. The Ottomans developed an efficient system for counting the empire’s population in 1826, a quarter of a century after such procedures were introduced in Britain, France and America;[54] It is unclear why the population in the 18th century was lower than that in the 16th century. However, it began to rise to reach 25-32 million in 1800, with around 10 million in the European provinces (primarily the Balkans), 11 million in the Asiatic provinces and around 3 million in the African provinces. Population densities were higher in the European provinces, double those in Anatolia, which were triple Iraq or Syria and five times Arabia.[55] In 1914, the Ottoman population was 26 million, similar to that of 1800, despite being reduced from over 3 million square kilometres to around a third of that. This means there was a doubling of population, increasing population densities in the empire. The average lifespan was 49 years towards the end of the empire, compared to mid-twenties in Serbia at the beginning of the 19th century.[56] Epidemic diseases and famine caused major disruption and demographic changes. In 1785 around one sixth of the Egyptian population died from plague and Aleppo saw its population reduced by 20% in the 18th century. Six famines hit Egypt alone between 1687 and 1731 and the last famine to hit Anatolia was four decades later.[57] They were brought under control in the 19th century with improvements in sanitation, healthcare and transportation of foodstuffs.

The rise of port cities saw the clustering of populations caused by the growth of steamships and railroads. Urbanization increased from 1700–1922, with towns and cities growing, especially with the improvements in health and sanitation, which made them more attractive to live and work in. Port cities like Salonica, in Greece, saw a population rise from 55,000 in 1800 to 160,000 in 1912 and Izmir saw 150,000 in 1800 grow to 300,000 in 1914.[58] Some regions conversely had population falls — Belgrade saw its population drop from 25,000 to 8,000 due to political causes.[59] Population statistics thus mask varying experiences in different regions.

Economic and political migrations had impact across the empire, for instance the Russian and Austria-Habsburg annexation of the Crimean and Balkan regions saw large influxes of Muslim refugees – 200,000 Crimean Tartars fleeing to Dobruja.[60] Between 1783 and 1913, approximately 5-7 million refugees flooded into the Ottoman Empire, at least 3.8 million of whom were Russians. Some migrations left indelible marks such as tensions (Turkey and Bulgaria) whereas centrifugal effects were noticed in other territories, simpler demographics emerging from diverse populations. Economies were also impacted with the loss of artisans, merchants, manufacturers and agriculturists.[61]

Criticism of the decline theories[edit]

The decline thesis has come under considerable criticism by Ottomanists in recent decades. Attempts at identifying abstract theories rely on essentialising Muslim history in ahistorical ways, going against the considerable range of variation, contours and trends, in favour of implicit ideal types. The Ottomanist scholar Toledano states:

The main flaw of explanations based on the Ottoman decline is their all encompassing nature. With the growth in scope and sophistication of studies treating the history of the empire in the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, it has become increasingly difficult to maintain the uniform view of processes over such a large geographical expanse, during such a long period of time, and covering all aspects of human history – the political, the economic, the social, the cultural and others.[62]

With explanations of a general decline thesis heavily contested amongst scholars this renders them doubtful. With such vastly varied accounts of the same phenomena, it questions the credibility of a decline thesis.

As part of anti-Ottoman nationalist movements, many writers and politicians wrote about the Ottoman presence in very hostile and negative terms, with many works being vacuous, based on suspect sources and heavily biased. Quataert states:

Given the nationalist logic of the nineteenth- and twentieth-century history writing, the Ottoman legacy has been difficult to assess and appreciate. The biases come from many sides. West and central European... old fears have persisted to the present day and arguably have been transformed into cultural prejudices... now being directed against the full membership of an Ottoman successor state, Turkey, into the European Union. Moreover, nationalist histories have dismissed the place of the multi-ethnic, multi-religious formation in historical evolution... In the more than thirty countries that now exist in territories once occupied by the Ottoman Empire, the Ottoman past until recently has been largely ignored and/or considered in extremely negative terms.[63]

Arabs and Turks in seeking a new identity and foundation for their states exhibited similar hostility, preferring to go back to the Pharaohs, Kings of Babylon and the Hittites of pre-Ottoman Anatolia. This hostility and often vilification,[64] appears less to actual Ottoman policies and more to their state building processes.[65] Doumani’s study of the Arab region of Ottoman Palestine notes,

...most Arab nationalists view the entire Ottoman era as a period of oppressive Turkish rule which stifled Arab culture and socioeconomic development and paved the way for European colonial control and the Zionist takeover of Palestine... The intellectual foundation for this shared image can be traced to the extensive literature published during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by Westerners bent on "discovering," hence reclaiming, the Holy Land from what they believed was a stagnant and declining Ottoman Empire.

European economic history concentrated on trade around the Mediterranean, the Americas, India and South East Asia, ignoring the empire in between that was the centre of the known world throughout this period.[66]

Ottoman history has been rewritten for political and cultural advantage and speculative theories rife with inconsistent research, ahistorical assumptions and embedded biases. Regarding the Ottoman Industrial Revolution, Edward Clark said,

Ottoman responses to this European economic challenge are relatively unknown, and even the extensive and costly Ottoman industrial efforts of the 1840s seemingly have been dismissed as the casual, if not comical games of disinterested bureaucrats... What were the nature and magnitude of these Ottoman responses? What were Ottoman objectives? What main factors contributed to their failures? What if any achievements resulted?[67]

The complexity and multi-faceted nature of the Ottoman economy does not lend itself to the analyses that have been provided to date. Faroqhi cites earlier scholars (Gibbs and Bowen) who realised with the commencement of archival studies, details as well as major generalisations would need to be modified or even totally discarded.[68] She cites errors present in secondary literature passed over by generations,[69]

Some errors may be just amusing, such as the story that the heads of the Ottoman religious-cum-legal hierarchy, the seyhulislams, if executed, were ground to death in a gigantic mortar and pestle... Others are more serious and have much hampered research, such as the inclination to explain anything and everything by Ottoman decline.[70]

Jonathan Grant questioned an inexorable decline thesis by considering military technology, showing the Ottomans could reproduce the latest military technology (however it is disputed whether the help of foreign expertise was necessary or not from the 15th century onwards Kenneth Chase (2003)) maintaining this relative position through two technology diffusions until the 19th century. They failed to keep pace with technology from the industrial revolution becoming dependant on imported weapons.[71]

İslamoğlu-İnan in her work on the peasants of Corum and Sivas takes an alternative view arguing an increase in population increased economic growth, cultivating more market-oriented crops as their numbers increased, rather than stunting it.[72]

McCloskey argued that an increase in population should increase the volume of transactions and economic activity and lead to a decline in prices.[73] (Comparatively, historians argue one of the factors of Britain’s industrial revolution was a population increase growing from 7.5 million to 18 million in the late 18th century.)[74] Pamuk however highlights Morineau’s recent research with specie flows into Europe continuing to increase during the 17th century even after prices declined, casting doubts on the causality of inflation by bullion inflows.[75]

Palairet and Pamuk argue domestic trade was more important to the empire, surpassing exports throughout the 19th century. Both Quataert and Palairet’s work suggest that in the second quarter of the 19th century there were impressive economic advances in the Ottoman Empire contradicting Wallerstein and Kasaba’s claim that "in the long run, the effects of incorporation of the Ottoman Empire into the world-economy proved to be catastrophic for manufacturing in the Ottoman realms as a whole."

See also[edit]



  • Faroqhi, Suraiya (1999). Approaching Ottoman History: an Introduction to the Sources. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-66648-0. 
  • Quataert, Donald (2000). The Ottoman Empire, 1700–1922. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-63328-4. 
  • Quataert, Donald (2004). "A provisional report concerning the impact of European capital on Ottoman port workers, 1880–1909". In Huri İslamoğlu-İnan. The Ottoman Empire and the World-Economy. Studies in Modern Capitalism. 12. Cambridge University Press. pp. 300–310. ISBN 978-0-521-52607-4. 
  • Pamuk, Şevket (1987). The Ottoman Empire and European Capitalism, 1820-1913. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
  • Issawi, C. (1966). The Economic History of the Middle East, 1800–1914: a Book of Readings. London: University of Chicago Press. 
  • İnalcik, Halil (1994). 1300–1600. An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire. 1. 
  • Toledano, E. R. (1997). "The emergence of Ottoman–local elites in the Middle East and North Africa, 17th–19th centuries". In I. Poppe & M. Ma'oz. Essays in Honour of Albert Hourani. Oxford & London: St Antony's College and Tauris Press. 
  • McNeil, W (1964). Europe's Steppe Frontier 1500-1800. London: University of Chicago Press. 
  • Itzkowitz, N. (1980). Ottoman Empire and Islamic Tradition. London: University of Chicago Press. 
  • İslamoğlu-İnan, Huri (2004). "State and peasants in the Ottoman Empire: a study of peasant economy in north-central Anatolia during the sixteenth century". In Huri İslamoğlu-İnan. The Ottoman Empire and the World-Economy. Studies in Modern Capitalism. 12. Cambridge University Press. pp. 101–159. ISBN 978-0-521-52607-4. 
  • Brown, Richard (2000). Revolution, Radicalism and Reform, England 1780–1846. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-56788-6. 



  1. ^ Hathaway, Jane (2008). The Arab Lands under Ottoman Rule, 1516-1800. Pearson Education Ltd. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-582-41899-8. historians of the Ottoman Empire have rejected the narrative of decline in favor of one of crisis and adaptation ;
    Tezcan, Baki (2010). The Second Ottoman Empire: Political and Social Transformation in the Early Modern Period. Cambridge University Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-1-107-41144-9. Ottomanist historians have produced several works in the last decades, revising the traditional understanding of this period from various angles, some of which were not even considered as topics of historical inquiry in the mid-twentieth century. Thanks to these works, the conventional narrative of Ottoman history – that in the late sixteenth century the Ottoman Empire entered a prolonged period of decline marked by steadily increasing military decay and institutional corruption – has been discarded. ;
    Woodhead, Christine (2011). "Introduction". In Christine Woodhead. The Ottoman World. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-415-44492-7. Ottomanist historians have largely jettisoned the notion of a post-1600 ‘decline’ 
  2. ^ Itzkowitz (1980),p. 94
  3. ^ İnalcik (1994), pp. 22–24.
  4. ^ Itzkowitz (1980), pp. 93–99.
  5. ^ İnalcik (1994), p. 25.
  6. ^ Berkes, N, 100 Soruda Turkiye Iktisat Tarihi, vol. 1: Osmanli Ekonomik Tarihinin Temelleri, vol. 2 Istanbul: Gercek Yayinevi, cited by Faroqhi (1999), p. 189.
  7. ^ Berkes (1964) pp. 23–29
  8. ^ Faroqhi (1999), p. 188–189.
  9. ^ Faroqhi (1999), pp. 189–191.
  10. ^ Quataert (2000), p. 132.
  11. ^ Quataert (2000), pp. 132–137; Frangakis-Syrett (1994), p. 116.
  12. ^ Quataert (2000), p. 133.
  13. ^ Reeves-Ellington; Quataert (2000), pp. 132–137.
  14. ^ İnalcik (1994), p. 5.
  15. ^ Quataert (2000), p. 110.
  16. ^ For instance, silk reel production from the Levant emerged in the nineteenth century, as did the production of raw silks and carpets; Pamuk (1987), p. 8.
  17. ^ İslamoğlu-İnan (2004), p. 123
  18. ^ Quataert (2000), pp. 128–129.
  19. ^ Quataert (2000), pp. 129–130.
  20. ^ Issawi (1966), p. 114.
  21. ^ Quataert (1975), pp. 210–211.
  22. ^ Critz et al. (1999)
  23. ^ a b Quataert (2000), pp. 126–127.
  24. ^ Faroqhi (1999), p. 142.
  25. ^ Quataert (2000), p. 126; Pamuk (1984), p. 109.
  26. ^ Quataert (2000), pp. 124–125.
  27. ^ Raccagni (1980), p. 342.
  28. ^ Quataert (2000), p. 126.
  29. ^ Pamuk (1984), pp. 109–111.
  30. ^ Quataert (2000), pp. 127–128.
  31. ^ Quataert (2000), pp. 117–118.
  32. ^ Quataert (2004), p. 302
  33. ^ Quataert (2000), pp. 116–118.
  34. ^ Quataert (2000), p. 116–121.
  35. ^ Pamuk (1987), p. 124.
  36. ^ Quataert (2000), p. 71.
  37. ^ Wilson (2003), p. 384;
  38. ^ Pamuk (2000).
  39. ^ These figures are based on price indices Pamuk constructed for Istanbul in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; other scholars have recorded similar trends for the period; Pamuk (2000)
  40. ^ Pamuk argues the Turkish economic historian Omer Barkan is incorrect in attributing price rises to imported inflation rather the cause being the velocity of circulation of money drove prices up, as well as increasing commercialization with the growing use of money as a medium of exchange; Pamuk (2001), pp. 73–85; Wilson (2003), p. 384.
  41. ^ McNeil's contribution was informed by his research on relations between centres and peripheries of world empires; McNeil (1964).
  42. ^ Finkel, C, The Administration of Warfare: The Ottoman Military Campaigns in Hungary 1593-1606, Vol I, Vienna, VWGO, 1988, p. 308, cited by Faroqhi (1999), p. 180.
  43. ^ Quataert (2000), p. 62.
  44. ^ a b Quataert (2000), p. 63.
  45. ^ Quataert (2000), p. 341; Pamuk (1984), p. 110.
  46. ^ Clay (2001), p. 204; Pamuk (2001)
  47. ^ Clay (2001), p. 71;
  48. ^ a b Raccagni (1980), p. 343;
  49. ^ Clay (1994), p. 589;
  50. ^ Pamuk (1987), p. 57.
  51. ^ Clay (1994), pp. 589–590.
  52. ^ Pamuk (1987), p. 59.
  53. ^ Pamuk (1987), p. 130–131.
  54. ^ Shaw (1978), p. 325.
  55. ^ Quataert (2000), pp. 110–111.
  56. ^ Quataert (2000), p. 112.
  57. ^ Quataert (2000), p. 113.
  58. ^ Quataert (2000), p. 114;
  59. ^ Quataert (2000), p. 114.
  60. ^ Quataert (2000), p. 115.
  61. ^ Quataert (2000), p. 116.
  62. ^ Toledano (1997), p. 157.
  63. ^ Quataert (2000), p. 192.
  64. ^ Toledano (1997), p. 145.
  65. ^ In countries such as Serbia to Rumania, Turkey to Syria and Iraq; Quataert (2000), pp. 193–195.
  66. ^ Lewis, B, "Some Reflections on the Decline of the Ottoman Empire", Studia Islamica, No. 9, 1958, pp. 111-27; "The Ottoman Empire stood at the crossroads of intercontinental trade... from the early sixteenth century up to World War I. At its peak in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, its population exceeded 30 million. One might have expected that the economic institutions that sustained this large, multiethnic entity for so long would be of interest to economic historians. Unfortunately, mainstream economic historians have long neglected the land regime, manufactures, economic policies, and the daily existence of ordinary men and women. As a result, the longevity of the Ottoman Empire remains an anomaly and even a mystery for many." – Özmucur & Pamuk (2005), p. 295.
  67. ^ Clark (1974), pp. 65–66.
  68. ^ Faroqhi (1999), p. 177.
  69. ^ For the same reason the Ottomanist van den Boogert (2005) warns against the use of perceptions of the eighteenth-century Ottoman capitulatory system by European and Western diplomats.
  70. ^ Faroqhi (1999), p. 29.
  71. ^ Grant, J, 1990, pp.179-202; cited also by Alam, 2002, op cit, p. 11; Alam, M S, op cit, pp. 64-8
  72. ^ Faroqhi (1999), pp. 104–106.
  73. ^ Pamuk (2001), pp. 71–72.
  74. ^ Brown (2000), pp. 116–117.
  75. ^ Pamuk (1987), p. 1; Pamuk (2001)