Centralization and opposition in Mongol and Ottoman state formations

Download

index.pdf

Date

2008

Author

Somel, Gözde

Metadata

Show full item record

Item Usage Stats

167
views

65
downloads

The Mongol and the Ottoman leadership structures emerged in milieus where identities were changeable, mobility was high and the alliances were shifting. Chinggis Khan arose to degree of Khanate of entire Mongolia from an extremely marginal position in tribal politics and his experiences in this process provided him an anti-tribal political vision. He at the very beginning of his career formed the nucleus of his political power by his relationships and entourages. Later, he reorganized the clans and tribes, which submitted their loyalty to him around those principal participants in his army of conquest. Osman Bey made successful conquests thanks to the advantageous geographical position of his principality, became famous in a short time and managed to attract various elements of complex social structure of the Byzantine frontiers to him. He did not involve in a harsh struggle for leadership. Instead of monopolization of power, he favored sharing of it with his companions in arms. Mongols, after monopolizing power in the steppes devoted their energies to frontier conquests. However, during Chinggis Khan’s reign, the Mongols saw the centre of the authority there. Their relation with the societies outside the Mongolia was indirect. Ottomans on the other hand, built up their administrative apparatus in the conquered territories. The Ottomans created a new bureaucratic group which did not have a power base besides the posts in Ottoman state and placed them to the centre of administration. Those posts did not have any hereditary dimension. The Mongols, contrary to the Ottomans, turned the state offices to hereditary posts and in time they began to distribute peoples, armies, lands and resources throughout the empire as appanages to state officers. Therefore, the Chinggisids created a new aristocracy who had the power in their hands to shake the centralist order of Chinggis Khan.

URI

http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12609849/index.pdf
https://hdl.handle.net/11511/18177

Collections

Graduate School of Social Sciences, Thesis

Suggestions

OpenMETU
Core

Identity Formation and the Political Power in the Late Ottoman Empire and Early Turkish Republic Şeker, Nesim (2005-09-01) This article examines the reasons, consequences and penetration ways of the nationalist movement in the lands that made up the Ottoman Empire. But if many academics have studied this issue and offered an agreed vision of the disruptive effect that nationalism had in the heart of the Ottoman Empire, an evaluation of the impact and consequences that this process had in the population and the political configuration of the new states that appeared after the end of the Turkish domination has not been made. This...
Procreation, family and 'progress': Administrative and economic aspects of Ottoman population policies in the 19th century Dursun, Selçuk (Informa UK Limited, 2011-06-15) The making of the modern Ottoman state in the 19th century was closely interrelated with population issues and policies. 'Population' became an important component of Ottoman history throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. As the state identified the 'population' as a source of income after the Tanzimat, it tried to protect and procreate it through certain institutional arrangements and regulations. These policies consisted of protecting the existing population, controlling population movements, promo...
Institutionalization of History in the Ottoman Empire Ergut, Ferdan (Informa UK Limited, 2015-04-03) This article examines the process within which history was institutionalized in the Ottoman Empire. Institutional space for history had begun to be constructed within the context of interstate rivalry during the mid-nineteenth century. History had the task of "proving" the fact that the Turks had been from the very beginning a part of the "Western civilization." The essential period for the institutionalization history was that of the regime of the Committee of Union and Progress in 1908-18, providing histo...
Turkish sociology in a sociology of knowledge perspective : the double-bind of survival/identity Mühürdaroğlu, Anıl; Tokluoğlu, Ayşe Ceylan; Department of Sociology (2014) Ottoman-Turkish modernization discourse is structured on the bases of a double-bind between survival and identity which had emerged as a result of the belief that a break had taken place in the Ottoman Empire in the unity between the methods of governing and the qualities with which Ottomans defined themselves. Debates on the disruption of this unity had been conducted in a period when linear conception of history became the predominant framework for understanding historical processes. As a result, categori...
Symbol space and meaning in hittite architecture Onurlu, Sema; Güven, Suna Naziyet; Department of History of Architecture (2004) The importance of the Hittites derives from the fact that they were an organized central power extending over a large territory within which a number of societies maintained their language, culture and traditions. The archaeological findings of Hattusha, the Hittite capital reveal that the city had reached its maximum limits during the Great Kingdom period and the most magnificient and monumental buildings of the city are dated to this period. Yazilikaya, the open air sanctuary which reached to its final fo...

Citation Formats

G. Somel, “Centralization and opposition in Mongol and Ottoman state formations,” M.S. - Master of Science, Middle East Technical University, 2008.