Abstract
This is a sequel to a paper given in November 1994 at the conference ‘Greeks and Armenians in Southeastern Europe in the XIX and XX Centuries.’1 In the present essay, I shall summarize the concept of an Ottoman race theory, a central element of the previous paper, and shall examine a new issue which would explain the attempt to annihilate Ottoman and former Ottoman subject populations. Previously, Ottoman conservatism has been poorly understood, and its influence even on Young Ottoman and Young Turkish modernists has never been explained fully.2 Once Ottoman cosmic race theory has been explained in brief, this essay will describe the Ottoman concept of tyranny. Medieval beliefs that tyranny was spread into the world by Satan served as the basis of a socio-political philosophy of empire which assumed that certain peoples were the propagators of this tyranny (zulm, sitam, fesâd and so on) and caused instability in the world. This belief served first as the justification for the Ottoman millet structure, for example, in which Islam assumed a dominant position, and further justified the subjection of non-Muslims through strict government and denial of many freedoms. Ottoman government was understood as restraining the tyrannous compulsions of the non-Muslim subjects.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
An exception to this comment is Sherif Mardin, The Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought ( Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962 ).
On military history, see James J. Reid, ‘Social and Psychological Factors in the Collapse of the Ottoman Empire ca 1780–1918’, Journal of Modern Hellenism 10 (1993): 117–156; idem. ‘Irregular Military Bands and Colonies in the Balkans’, Études Balkaniques [Paris] 3 (1996):133–65; idem. ‘Total War, the Annihilation Ethic, and the Armenian Genocide, 1870–1918’, in Richard G. Hovannisian, ed., The Armenian Genocide: History, Politics, Ethics (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992), pp. 21–52; idem., The Ottoman Crimean War, 1853–1856 forthcoming; idem., The Collapse of the Ottoman Empire, 1821–1918 forthcoming. On bureaucracy
see Carter V. Findlay, Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire: the Sublime Porte, 1789–1922 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989);
See Carter V. Findlay, Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire: the Sublime Porte, 1789–1922 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989);
Halil Inalcik, ‘The Application of the Tanzimat and its Social Effects’, Archivum Ottomanicum 5 (1973): 97–127.
Stanford J. Shaw and Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977 ), pp. 323, 325–6.
Yusuf Hikmet Bayur, Türk Inkilâbï Tarihi [History of the Turkish Revolution] (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basïmevi, 1957, III.3 (1983), pp. 6–87, is predicated upon the notion that Armenian komiteciler [revolutionary bands] murdered thousands of Turks and caused most of Eastern Anatolia’s problems. Bayur was the source for the Shaws’ discussion.
Jalâl al-Dîn Rûmî, The Mathnawi of Jalalu’ddin Rûmî ed. R. A. Nicholson, vol. 3 (Gibb Memorial Series, Leiden: E. J. Brill; London: Luzac and Co., 1929), pp. 495ff.
Sarï Mehmed Pasha, The Defterdâr, Ottoman Statecraft, The Book of Counsel for Vesirs and Governors (Nasâ’ih ül-vüzerâ ve’l-ümerâ) ed. and trans. Walter Livingston Wright, Jr, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1935; Repr. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1971), pp. 118ff. 37v-38r.
C. Bahadïr Alkïn et al., Redhouse Yeni T Trkçe-Ingilizçe Sözlük [New Red-house Turkish-English Dictionary] (Istanbul: Redhouse Yayïnevi, 1968), p. 232, one of the meanings of cümhür.
Ihsan Sungu, ed., ‘Mahmud II, nin Izzet Molla ve asâkir-i Mansûre hakkinda bir hattï’, Tarih VesikalarïI.1–6 (1941–2), pp. 166–7, question and answer no. 2.
Priscilla Robertson, Revolutions of 1848: a Social History (New York: Harper & Brothers, [1952] 1960), pp. 5–6.
William Langer, Political and Social Upheaval, 1832–1852 Rise of Modern Europe Series (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1969), p. 149.
Ahmed Jevdet Pasha, Tezâkir 1–12, ed. Cavid Baysun (Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basïmevi, 1953), pp. 67ff.
Mahmud Celâleddin Pasha, Mir’at-i Hakïkat, ed. Ismet Miroglu (Istanbul: Berekât Yayïnevi, 1983 ), p. 86.
For details on these arrangements, see James J. Reid, ‘Militarism, Partisan War, and Destructive Inclinations in Ottoman Military History’, Armenian Review 39, no. 3–155 (1986): 8–17.
Amedée Le Faure, Cour martiale du Séraskérat, Procès de Suleiman Pacha avec portrait et carte ( Paris: Gamier Frères, 1880 ), pp. 30–2.
On paranoid personality disorder, see Thomas F. Oltmanns, John M. Neale, and Gerald C. Davison, Case Studies in Abnormal Psychology, 2nd edn. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1982 ), pp. 112–27.
American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd edn ( Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 1980 ), p. 309.
Valentine Baker Pacha, War in Bulgaria, a Narrative of Personal Experiences I(London: Sampson, Low, Marston, Searle, & Rivington, 1879), pp. 322–4.
Ertugrul Zekâi Ökte et al., Ottoman Archives, Yildiz Collection: the Armenian Question, Talori Incidents ( Istanbul: Tarihi Arashtirmalar ve Dokumentasyon Merkezleri Kurma ve Gelishtirme Vakfi, The Historical Research Foundation, Istanbul Research Center, 1989 ), pp. 80–1.
Enver Pascha, Um Tripolis, Feld-Ausgabe ( München: Hugo Bruckmann Verlag, 1918 ), pp. 57–8.
Enver Pasha, Enver Pasha Anïlarï 1881–1908 ed. Halil Erdogan Cengiz (Istanbul: Iletishim Yayïnlarï, 1991), pp. 45, 50.
Thomas Carlyle, On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History ed. Carl Niemeyer (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1966), p. 196 saw the king as the ultimate hero and the combination of all other hero-types that he discussed. The king was, for him, the ‘Commander over Men; he to whose will our wills are to be subordinated, and loyally surrender themselves, and find their welfare in doing so... ‘Enver Bey’s similar surrender to the ‘great enterprise’ endowed him with the will to power which characterized the hero in the thinking of his age, and, somewhat self-consciously, in Enver’s own self-perception as well.
Halidé Edib, Turkey Faces West, a Turkish View of Recent Changes and Their Origin ( New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930 ), p. 144.
The Assembly of Turkish American Associations, Armenian Allegations: Myth and Reality, A Handbook of Facts and Documents (Washington D.C.: 1986), p. 54.
See James J. Reid, ‘Terrorism in the Ottoman Empire and Modern Greece, 1821–1878’, Journal of Modem History 12–13 (1995–6), pp. 57–93.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1999 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Reid, J.J. (1999). Philosophy of State-Subject Relations, Ottoman Concepts of Tyranny, and the Demonization of Subjects: Conservative Ottomanism as a Source of Genocidal Behaviour, 1821–1918. In: Chorbajian, L., Shirinian, G. (eds) Studies in Comparative Genocide. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-27348-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-27348-5_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-27350-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-27348-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)