The foundation of the Ottoman Empire
were driven to expand solely because of the principle of ‘Gaza’, as the Ottomans would not force vassal states to convert to Islam, therefore they were expanding their territory rather than their religion.
It can also be argued that the advanced nature of the Ottoman administration was what set it apart and allowed for the ease in which it conquered much of central Asia and eastern Europe. The expansion of the Ottoman empire coincided with the rise of feudalism in Europe. However, while feudalism allowed the exploitation of the peasant class by landowners free from state control, the Ottomans established a ‘centralized administration’ , 3 meaning there was a consistent law for taxation and privileges across the empire, and that local leaders were unable to exploit in the manner of feudal landlords. Because of this, life was undeniably better for the peasant class under the Ottoman empire than under the local authorities in places like Serbia or Bulgaria. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the Ottomans were able to establish their authority over their new subjects with such ease. There was rarely any objection to the new Ottoman rule, and if there was any, it came from the tyrannical overlords, not the peasantry. Furthermore, the Ottomans were the first state in Europe to have a standing army, established by Orhan. The Ottoman Janissary Corps was an organized and, to an extent, loyal force, with many troops receiving a salary rather than the typical reward of loot and rapine. What set this army apart, however, was that the Janissary Corps were under the direct rule of the Sultan, meaning they could be held accountable for any of their actions. The Balkan states, on the other hand, were made up largely of unstable factions preoccupied with fighting each other over small territorial disputes. This disparity is what allowed for the ease of Ottoman dominance. Many factions were willing to join the Ottomans in return for the promise of their piece of land, and the factions that did chose to fight were disorganized and weak, and thus by 1393 the Ottomans had brought Bulgaria into direct Ottoman control, while forcing the Serbian despot to pay homage to the sultan. 4 The Ottomans were even happy to use religion in a slightly cynical way through the abuse of the term ‘Gaza’ . When marching against enemies in Asia of the Muslim faith, the Ottomans claimed that by resisting the Ottoman conquest, these nations were committing treason against the holy war and thus needed to be removed forcibly. Overall, the Ottomans ’ administrative and military effectiveness were superior to the majority of the surrounding states. On the other hand, it could be argued that the Ottoman empire’s rapid development was possible only because of the geographical and political circumstances of eastern Europe and central Asia. Firstly, it is unlikely that even an Ottoman state would have been established if not for the Mongol dominance of the 12 th and 13 th century: the transformative military techniques where soldiers would carry smaller bows that allowed them to shoot from horseback was unstoppable and thus allowed the Mongol Khans to expand rapidly in Asia. 5 Because of this, Anatolia, in the far reaches of western Asia, became somewhat of a safe haven for those fleeing the Mongols: a mountainous area with fertile lands which the Mongols barely controlled was an attractive prospect and thus the Turcoman tribes migrated to the Byzantine frontier in large numbers. At this time of mass migration, the Byzantines were, according to the contemporary historian Pachymeres, ‘ preoccupied with Balkan affairs to the consequent neglect of the Asiatic frontiers ’ . 6 More generally the Byzantine empire was beginning to decline. This allowed for
3 Wigen 2013: 54. 4 Inalcik 1954: 108. 5 Pelegro 2016: 19. 6 Pachymeres 2018: 2.
187
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker