Ottoman Holy War & Conquest: The Battle for Contantinople, 1453
At the center of the ghazi debate are two diametrically opposed theses. The first is Paul Wittek's 1938 thesis that claims that ghazi tradition was the motivating factor in the formation of the Ottoman Empire. A relative consensus formed around his influential thesis and it remained largely unchallenged for half a century. In the 1980s, several scholars began to challenge Wittek's basic assumptions. Among them was Rudi Paul Lindner, whose elaborate, systematic, and anthropological approach to dismantling ghazi theory became the most recognized work in his 1982 article and subsequent book.[8] He claimed that ghazi ethos had nothing to do with the Empire's formation.
Both Wittek and Lindner rely on the issues of genealogy, migration, and the value of a fifteenth century chronicler's account - Ahmedi's chronicles. There are several other differences in approach leading to diametrically opposed conclusions. What follows is the essence of the two theories (they are to be kept in mind during the subsequent discussion - see "Conclusions" for this author's appraisal):
The Wittek Thesis[9]
Since the early formation of the Ottoman Empire, the principal factor in their political tradition was the struggle against their Christian neighbors. This struggle remained of vital importance. As such, Ottoman tradition emphasized their struggle against Christendom, over the establishment of a homogony in the Muslim world. According to Wittek, the Ottoman Empire, "finally took possession of Constantinople, the natural centre of this area, and thus obtained a capital which for more than a thousand years past had been the seat of imperial traditions." Therefore, the decisive turning point in the Ottoman's evolution towards an empire was the capture of Constantinople by Mehmed II in 1453.
It was during the reign of Mehmed II that the genealogical tree was cemented. Accordingly, the Ottomans descent from the Oghuz tribe and the story of the fate of the tribe and leader is "an artificial creation of later speculative historiography" and these legends must be attributed to the fifteenth century. "The fact that at this time the historians were free to invent contradictory accounts is sufficient proof that a true tribal tradition did not exist." Therefore, the Ottoman state's unity could not be due to tribal tradition but something else.
According to the fifteenth century chronicle of Ahmedi - the oldest Ottoman written historical source - Osman's grandfather "is given quite a different name and Sulayman and his exploits are not mentioned at all...no information whatever going back beyond Osman's father, Ertoghrul." Rather, Ahmedi explains what the Ottomans felt about themselves and their state: "they were a community of Ghazi, of champions of the Mohammedan religion; a community of Moslem march-warriors, devoted to the struggle with the infidels in their neighbourhood."
In the introduction of Ahmedi's account, he declared his intention to write a book about the holy war of the ghazis. He explained: "Just as the definitive prophet Mohammed came after the others, just as the Koran came down from heaven after the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospels, so also the Ghazi appeared in the world at the last...A Ghazi is the instrument of the religion of Allah, a servant of God who purifies the earth from the filth of polytheism; the Ghazi is the sword of God, he is the protector and the refuge of the believers." It is important to recall that Islam regards the Christian Trinity as polytheism, yet they are also 'people of the book'.
According to Wittek, Ahmedi's chronicle is the best source available. The reason one should not doubt Ahmedi's account is because of the inscription in the mosque at Bursa dating from 1337. It was then and there that Orhan declared himself: "...the great and magnificent emir, the warrior of the Holy War...Sultan, son of the Sultan of the Ghazis, Ghazi, son of Ghazi, marquis of the horizons, hero of the world and of the faith...Orhan son of Osman." It clearly demonstrates that holy war was the prevailing concept and embedded within the consciousness of the emerging empire.
The movement of the ghazis attracted the unemployed and discontented warlike elements in Anatolia "for the purpose of fighting infidels and heretics. It was, of course, primarily the hope of booty which brought together these hordes." As a ghazi, one's economy is based on raids along the frontier. The collections of loose emirates were naturally led by the tribe of Oghuz who were most familiar with the Byzantine defenses, given their location.
With the coming of the Mongols, an increasing mass of people including prominent families from the Seljuk state, moved from the east to the frontier lands in Anatolia where again, "the Ghazis were the deciding factor." The second important element was the emigration of the dervishes and holy men who fled before the Mongol invasions. Whereas the Seljuks of Islamic orthodoxy disdained these dervishes and Sufis, they found a warm reception among the frontier ghazis. "They carried religious enthusiasm into those dense and excited masses who were prepared for any daring enterprise. Here at the frontier, and in the milieu of the Ghazis, this enthusiasm soon took on the forms of a fantastic resolve to war against the infidels."
The increasing victories over the weakening Byzantine Empire saw the formation of many tribal emirates. The tribe of Oghuz and Osman were thus destined to unify and lead the Islamic tribes given their location and warrior skill. It was ghazi tradition that provided the glue that would later form the Ottoman Empire. All tribes could relate to the chief ingredient of Islam, jihad, holy war, and ghazi spirit.
The Lindner Thesis[10]
Lindner questions the existing works on the Ottomans, specifically that "the threads of their history are gathered, knotted and woven in a loom powered by ghaza." This is largely due to Wittek's 1938 thesis, which while brilliant, was written at a time when only "confusing, disparate and poorly-known source material" was available. With new evidence and scholarship coming to light by 1982, Lindner questioned whether it was in fact the "zeal for holy war" that provided the primary motivation for the Ottomans' actions and whether it was the best explanation for their success. He concluded: "zeal for the holy war had nothing to do with causing the rise of the first Ottomans."
He argues that Wittek's philosophy where ideas serve as dynamic and causative forces in history and may be decisive in creating predetermined consequences is false. It is because Wittek lived during the interwar period that he, like many scholars, took this approach. Lindner wonders whether "such a feeling for the force and appeal of ideas in history would impel Turkish nomads to the extent that it captivated twentieth century intellectuals." Wittek never raised the question, and thus would have answered 'yes' to the preceding question. Lindner believes Wittek overstated his case.
He points to several historians since 1938 who offered independent criticism of Wittek's thesis, such as George Arnakis who suggested that the early Ottomans had no desire to impose Islam or vanquish Christianity. Ahmedi's words reflected a poet's desire to understand an earlier past in Muslim terms.[11] Halil Inalcik published a work explaining that forced conversion had no role in early Ottoman policy - he found examples of cooperation between the Ottomans and the Byzantines in the same era as the 1337 mosque inscription.[12] Kaldy-Nagy contends that Ahmedi redefined earlier events in Muslim terms and points to the Arab traveler, Ibn Battua, who traveled through Ottoman lands six years before the production of the Bursa inscription and didn't mention Muslim schools even though he commented on anything else related to Islam.[13] Therefore, the 1337 mosque inscription is not a solid basis on which to judge ghazi ethos. On this basis, Lindner contends that Wittek's thesis is weak.
Lindner sought to separate the two possibilities of ghazi tradition contained in the older chronicles of Ottoman history. Was an ideology the cause of the resulting acts, or was it propaganda retroactively imposed to place the past in the most attractive possible light? Was it a stimulus or justification? He resists the natural impulse to question whether such a classification can only exist in the extreme - that it is black or white; one or the other; empty of shades in-between - because one cannot be 'slightly zealous' or possess a 'modest zeal'. Therefore, "either it existed in fact (stimulus) or in refurbished memory (justification)."
Given the intermarriages between Islam and Christianity and the simultaneous erecting of a monument to Muslim-Christian confrontation and a monument to support Muslim Christian trade in the same place, is anathema to a quest for holy war. Christians also played significant roles in early Ottoman governance and they appeared to not be under any specific pressure to convert. There is also evidence of friendly relations between the Christians and Muslims, as Inalcik alluded to. "Not only Osman but also his fellow tribesmen attempted to treat the Christians well in order to preserve prosperity and loyalty in their lands. These policies were obviously successful, for certain Christians preferred Ottoman to Byzantine rule."
On the issue of tribal genealogy, Wittek argued that the confused and later imposed genealogy leading back to Noah was the proof that tribal affiliation paled in comparison to the institution of ghazi tradition. Without a concrete establishment of genealogy, there could be no tribal past. Lindner disagrees: "exactly such genealogies, confused in the middle and precise at both ends points, are the characteristic hallmark of tribes...In fact, a tribal perspective, such as Wittek unwittingly revealed, is the most appropriate way of looking at early Ottoman history...Early Ottoman tribalism, thus, lasted for no more than a century, but it gave birth to the cosmopolitanism which always marked the Ottoman enterprise."
Ahmedi's accounts were justifications for Ottomans actions; embellished tales imposed retroactively to give the glowing sheen of Islam on all of Ottoman history. Because he had entered Ottoman service, he needed to flatter his new patrons. "Portraying the Ottomans as Holy Warriors was a first step in reviving the image of the Ottomans as champions of Islam against Christian lands and erasing the memory of their earlier aggression against their Muslim neighbors. Lindner thus concludes that "a 'ghazi spirit' did not cause the rise of the Ottomans, nor did it permeate their society." Therefore, it was a later justification.
Aside from Lindner's critique of Wittek's thesis, his examination of early Ottoman history reveals instances that could not fit the definition of holy war. These include warfare with neighboring Muslims; Christian advisors and supporters of Osman and Orhan; friendly economic and social relations with some Christians; a lack of ghazi terminology in Byzantine sources; and a lack of concern for the tenets and implications of the true Islamic faith in practice. These instances could not be possible if ghazi spirit was the motive force.
[8] Lindner, Rudi Paul. Nomads and Ottomans in Medieval Anatolia. Bloomington, Indiana: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies Indiana University, 1983.
[9] Wittek, Paul. The Rise of the Ottoman Empire. London: The Royal Asiatic Society, 1938. pp. 1-32.
[10] Lindner, Rudi Paul. "Stimulus and Justification in Early Ottoman History." Greek Orthodox Theological Review 27 (1982): 207-24.
[11] Arnakis, George Georgiades. Ho Protoi Othomanoi (1282-1337): The Early Osmanlis. Texte Und Forschungen Zur Byzantinisch-Neugriechischen Philologie; Nr. 41. Athens: s.n., 1947.
[12] Inalcik, Halil. Fatih Devri Üzerinde Tetkikler Ve Vesikalar. Türk Tarih Kurumu Basmevi, Ankara, 1954.pp. 41-43.
[13] Kaldy-Nagy, Gyula. "The Holy War (Jihad) in the First Centuries of the Ottoman Empire." Harvard Ukranian Studies 3.4 (1979-1980): 467-73.