Opposition and Legitimacy in the Ottoman Empire

Riedler, Florian

doi:10.4324/9780203834879

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is next important to discuss the works of a group of scholars that has recently started to deconstruct the lens of the Ottoman imperial center (Constantinou, 2000;Go¨lbas -ı, 2009Go¨lbas -ı, , 2011Riedler, 2011;Turan, 2009). Costas Constantinou initially focuses on the colonization of the Western European diplomatic imagination at the Ottoman imperial capital, demonstrating how such diplomats viewed and imposed binary interpretations onto the complex process of Ottoman administrative rule.…”

Section: Deconstructing the Hegemony Of The Imperial Centermentioning

confidence: 99%

Parameters of a Postcolonial Sociology of the Ottoman Empire

Göçek¹

2013

Political Power and Social Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The traditional postcolonial focus on the modern and the European, and pre-modern and non-European empires has marginalized the study of empires like the Ottoman Empire whose temporal reign traversed the modern and pre-modern eras, and its geographical land mass covered parts of Eastern Europe, the Balkans, Asia Minor, the Arabian Peninsula, and North Africa. Here, I first place the three postcolonial corollaries of the prioritization of contemporary inequality, the determination of its historical origins, and the target of its eventual elimination in conversation with the Ottoman Empire. I then discuss and articulate the two ensuing criticisms concerning the role of Islam and the fluidity of identities in states and societies. I argue that epistemologically, postcolonial studies criticize the European representations of Islam, but do not take the next step of generating alternate knowledge by engaging in empirical studies of Islamic empires like the Ottoman Empire. Ontologically, postcolonial studies draw strict official and unofficial lines between the European colonizer and the non-European colonized, yet such

show abstract

Section: Deconstructing the Hegemony Of The Imperial Centermentioning

confidence: 99%

Parameters of a Postcolonial Sociology of the Ottoman Empire

Göçek¹

2013

Political Power and Social Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In May 1853, a poster on the wall of Şehzade Mosque called for a jihad against Russia and a petition signed by fanatical groups and religious leaders voiced the same demand. Some dervishes demanded the standard of the Prophet stored at Eyüp Mosque to lead them into the upcoming battle (Riedler, 2010, pp.19–20). However, Ottoman decision-makers prioritized diplomatic negotiations and preferred to make concessions to Russia over war.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Doves Feed Hawks: Ottoman War Decision and European Powers Towards the Crimean War

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When does the war party win in the decision-making process? Why does the peace party lose even if war is too risky? In this article, we show that certain balancing acts of the peace party might increase the confidence of the war party. We examine how the Ottoman Empire’s risky Crimean War decision and its war declaration against Russia on 4 October 1853 were shaped by internal debating through time, foreign penetration, and dynamic interplay between the Ottoman decision makers and a changing European strategic environment. The large literature on the Crimean War does not include a systematic analysis of the Ottoman origins of the Crimean War and the Ottoman war decision. We trace the Ottoman decision-making process in the fateful months of 1853 to establish the origins of the Crimean War. We empirically demonstrate the gradual formation of the Porte’s war decision by showing how the peace front stumbled upon war by inadvertently changing the decision structure in favor of the war party within a year.

show abstract

“Please Deny These Manifestly False Reports”: Ottoman Diplomats and the Press in Belgium (1850–1914)

Alloul¹,

Markey²

2016

Int. J. Middle East Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Similar to ruling elites in Western Europe, the Ottomans were preoccupied with foreign “public opinion” regarding their state. Historians have devoted attention to Ottoman state efforts at image building abroad and, to a lesser degree, related attempts to influence the European mass press. Yet, an in-depth study of this subject is lacking. This article turns to one of the prime, though largely neglected, actors in Ottoman foreign policy making: the sultan's diplomats. Through a case study of Ottoman envoys to Belgium, it demonstrates how foreign “press management” evolved and was adapted to shifting domestic and international political circumstances. Increasingly systematic attempts to influence Belgian newspapers can be discerned from the reign of Abdülhamid II onward. Brokers between Istanbul and “liberal” Belgium's thriving newspaper business, Ottoman diplomats proved essential to this development. Ultimately, however, Ottoman efforts to counter Belgian (and European) news coverage of the empire had little impact and occasionally even worked counterproductively, generating the very Orientalist images they aimed to combat in the first place.

show abstract

Opposition and Legitimacy in the Ottoman Empire

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Parameters of a Postcolonial Sociology of the Ottoman Empire

Parameters of a Postcolonial Sociology of the Ottoman Empire

When Doves Feed Hawks: Ottoman War Decision and European Powers Towards the Crimean War

“Please Deny These Manifestly False Reports”: Ottoman Diplomats and the Press in Belgium (1850–1914)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About