The Beginnings of an Empire. The Transformation of the Ottoman State into an Empire, demonstrated at the example of Grand Vizier Mahmud Pasha’s life and accomplishments

The so-called ‘Edict of Inheritance’ of 1841 formalized the autonomous status of Egypt as a privileged province within the Ottoman Empire and secured hereditary succession to its government for the...

Depending on the angle of view, the first and second Balkan1 wars of 1912–13 have been considered either as the culmination of a freedom struggle2 for the Christian nations of south-eastern Europe ...

Köprülü Fazıl Ahmed Pasha's tenure as grand vizier from 1661 to 1676 stands as a seminal period in Ottoman history, and Fazıl Ahmed Pasha was a pivotal figure. This article draws upon the largely-overlooked dispatches written by Giovanni Battista Casanova, the imperial resident at the Sublime Porte. Through an analysis of Casanova's observations, this study offers fresh perspectives on the grand vizirate and of Fazıl Ahmed Pasha's enduring legacy within the Ottoman Empire. Following a brief introduction on Fazıl Ahmed Pasha's rise to power, the article's analysis unfolds across four dimensions: first, interactions between grand vizier Fazıl Ahmed and Sultan Mehmed IV; second, the closest associates of the grand vizier; third, Casanova's communication with the grand vizier; and fourth, Casanova's extensive negotiations for the release of prisoners of war.At the core of this analysis is the argument that the communications between Casanova and Köprülü Fazıl Ahmed Pasha reveal not only the complexities of Ottoman affairs but also the strategic foundation of Ottoman military campaigns and diplomacy during this period. Through an examination of Casanova's dispatches, this article elucidates how the resident's interactions with the Ottoman court offer insights into the Ottoman Empire's strategies vis-à-vis European powers, as well as its reforms. By revisiting Fazıl Ahmed Pasha's legacy through the eyes of a contemporaneous observer, this study contributes a nuanced perspective to the understanding of Ottoman history and governance during the seventeenth century.

In May 1678 Vienna’s resident in Istanbul predicted that Habsburg Hungary would join the Ottoman Empire unless the Turks decided to invade Ukraine. The emissary painted a dire scenario: “As soon as [the Hungarians] see the Turkish banners [they all], . . . irrespective of their estate, condition, or religion, will recognize the sultan as loyal vassals. . . . The entire Kingdom of Hungary will submit itself.” The good news, however, was that Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa (1676–83) was seriously contemplating foregoing the long-planned campaign in Hungary for war with Russia. In August 1677 the Russians had defeated a Turkish army in western Ukraine, which had been an Ottoman protectorate for nearly ten years. The resident was cautiously optimistic: “May God grant that the [grand] vizier . . . advances into Ukraine. May the Muscovites defeat him completely. . . . This will ensure peace in the Kingdom of Hungary.”1The resident’s secret report to Vienna sheds light on the little-known entanglement of Ukrainian and Hungarian history during a decisive period of world history. Since the late 1650s the Ottoman Empire had been surging to unprecedented heights under the warrior dynasty of the Köprülü grand viziers. In three military campaigns they had destroyed Transylvania and the Habsburg border defense system in Hungary. Ottoman garrisons had seized important Habsburg fortresses and the Habsburg-ruled parts of Hungary had greatly shrunk in size. To prevent the complete loss of Hungary, the Antemurale Christianitatis (“Bulwark of Christendom”), the Habsburgs poured in more and more troops; they also instituted a brutal Counter-Reformation campaign because the Spanish-educated Emperor Leopold I believed that Hungary’s majority Protestant population could not be trusted. In August 1666, the horrors of the Habsburg occupation induced Hungarian nobles to appeal to the sultan for protection. They would be willing to become Ottoman subjects as long as their constitutional rights would be guaranteed. This did not happen in large part due to events unfolding in Ukraine.The Ukrainians had recently gained their independence from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth after a major popular uprising (1648–49). Cossack leader Bohdan Khmelnytsky became the founder of the first independent Ukrainian state, the Cossack Hetmanate. The name “Ukraine” thus no longer signified a remote steppe borderland but a new nation-state that would become the inspiration for all future Ukrainian nation-building projects. But the existence of this new state was not acceptable to Polish and Russian rulers, who in 1667 signed an imperialist treaty: Ukraine east of the Dnipro would be ruled by Moscow and western Ukraine by Warsaw. This colonial project left Cossack leaders no choice. Khmelnytsky’s successor, Hetman Petro Doroshenko (1665–76), appealed to the Ottomans for help. If the sultan would guarantee Ukrainian independence, all the inhabitants of Ukraine would happily join the Ottoman Empire as vassals.Hungarian and Ukrainian emissaries flocked to Istanbul and started competing with each other for the Porte’s attention. The most successful met with Ahmed Köprülü (1661–76), the longest-serving of all Ottoman grand viziers. In June 1669, the Ukrainians received an imperial patent (berat) that declared all of Ukraine an Ottoman protectorate. Hungarian nobles wanted something similar. As one of them told Köprülü: “We want to recognize the authority of . . . more gentle overlords than the Germans [Austrians]. They have gotten used to raging over the living, dead, and even our souls. . . . May Europe recognize Your generous magnanimity. . . . Those who have suffered iniquities from others have found refuge with You and are . . . fleeing under Your wings.”2 Hopes were running high in Hungary that the Ottomans would liberate them from the Habsburg yoke. In the early 1670s, Hungarian Protestant nobles stirred up major popular revolts with promises that Sultan Mehmed IV (1648–87) had sworn on the tomb of Mohammed to come to their rescue. But the invasion did not come; instead, the Ottomans invaded Poland in 1672 and crushed the Polish army. The Polish military presence in Ukraine crumbled and grateful Ukrainians—including the Orthodox clergy—prayed for the sultan’s health.Hungarians were hoping that it now was their turn to be liberated. But the Kremlin moved large armies into eastern Ukraine and occupied Kiev with 50,000 troops. All hopes for a Hungarian campaign, long desired by the Köprülüs, seemed to vanish in the face of the Russian threat in Ukraine. The gaze of all major European powers—not just the Habsburg court—was now on Ukraine: Would the Ottomans go to war against the Russians or accept that much of Ukraine had lost its independence? A lot depended on whether the Ottomans would march their army into Ukraine or Hungary. The Dutch, for example, rooted for war with Russia; this would allow the Habsburg army to defend them against the troops of Louis XIV. The French, however, hoped for an Ottoman attack on Hungary; this would give them a free hand in the Netherlands. Vienna rejoiced when Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa finally launched a major campaign against the Russians in summer 1678; the campaign, though victorious, became a war of attrition that greatly weakened Ottoman military power. Without the Russo-Turkish war over Ukraine the Ottoman army would have been much stronger during the 1683 campaign against Vienna. Most of Hungarian society then embraced the Ottomans, but the collapse of Habsburg power was only short-lived.Thus, the histories of Ukraine and Hungary were closely intertwined during this pivotal period in the formation of Ukrainian and Hungarian nationhood. Ukraine and Hungary were then at the epicenter of world history as the Ottoman Empire reached its greatest expansion in East Central Europe. Nobody expected that the Ottomans would be defeated at the gates of Vienna, least of all the Ukrainians and Hungarians, who saw the Ottomans as their saviors and protectors against brutal imperial powers.3

The article is devoted to the peculiarities of diplomatic ceremonial in the Ottoman Empire in the 18th century. Special attention is paid to such elements of the protocol as the meeting of foreign representatives, the presentation of gifts, the meal, the location of officials during the reception, and some other features. The authors analyze the notes and reports of Russian diplomats who visited the receptions of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire and the Grand Vizier. Thanks to these sources, it was possible to learn the details of the ceremony and note the fact that Russian diplomats tried to describe what was happening at the receptions in such a way as to emphasize a special attitude towards themselves. In confirmation of this, the authors provide excerpts from preserved sources. In addition, the article draws attention to the fact that many elements of the protocol depended on the status of foreign representatives. In the Ottoman Empire, hierarchy played a significant role. The envoy could not be treated with the same dishware as the ambassador, and the ambassador, in turn, could not be treated with the same dishware as the Grand Vizier. The conclusion drawn in this article is that some elements of the diplomatic ceremonial could change depending on the representatives of which state came to the audience in the Ottoman Empire. Russian ambassadors and envoys were treated more hospitably than representatives of other states because of the Russian Empire's victories in the two Russo-Turkish wars. At receptions with Russian diplomats, there were changes in the protocol by decree of the Ottoman Sultan, in order to demonstrate respect not only for Russian officials, but also for the state as a whole.

The Ottoman Empire has been the subject of careful study by historians and legal scholars, especially in the last decade. Knowledge in the field of legal policy of this state, in the social, economic and cultural spheres has expanded and deepened. However, a little-studied area is the history of personalities, their legal status and functionality, which is necessary for a full assessment of the history of state and legal institutions of the Ottoman Empire. The purpose of the study is to classify the requirements for grand viziers under the three sultans of the XVIth century, Selim I, Suleyman I and Selim II, and systematize their powers. Certain trends in the formation of power structures during the period have been identified. These trends include the rules for appointment to the position of grand vizier: non-Turkic origin, training in administrative and economic schools created at the residence of the Sultan, long climb up the hierarchical ladder, personal connection with the ruling dynasty. Excellent education, a high level of administrative and military talents, and extensive experience in public administration allowed the grand viziers of the XVIth century concentrate a huge amount of power in their hands. At the same time, the sultans of the XVIth century constantly kept the activities of the grand viziers under control, harshly suppressing any threat to their authority. However, the strengthening of the legal and social status of the grand vizier by the end of the XVIth century, largely due to the irremovability and long tenure in the post, led to the creation of a separate state structure, which subsequently replaced the authority and powers of the sultans.

The Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Ottoman Attempts to Catch Up with Europe

A critical written source in the context of geographical and historical data is the encyclopedias of researchers who lived during the time of the Arab Caliphate, which existed before the capture of the Mamluk Sultanate by the Ottoman Empire in 1517. During the existence of the Arab Caliphate as the first Muslim state, outstanding researchers and scientists such as Al-Qalkashandi, Ibn Khordadbeg and Ibn Khaldun worked. The current article aims to conduct a comparative analysis of geographical information in the encyclopedias «The Dawn for the Blind in the Art of Writing» (Al-Qalkashandi), «The Book of Roads and Kingdoms» (Ibn Khordadbeg) and «Book of Lessons, Record of Beginnings and Events in the History of the Arabs and the Berbers and Their Powerful Contemporaries» (Ibn Khaldun). Data monitoring, comparison, historical-critical approach, and specification were chosen as the research methods. As a DOIresult of the comparative analysis, it was found that the authors almost do not contradict each other, supplementing the data given in their encyclopedias. This indicates that they often used the same sources, which is a consequence of the compiler nature of encyclopedias. The analysis results also revealed that Al-Qalqashandi and Ibn Khaldun used historical geography methods more actively than Ibn Khordadbeg. This indicates that the foundations of historical geography as a science in the Arab world were laid only in the fourteenth century. The prospect of further research is to compare the geographical information given in the works of Al-Qalqashandi, Ibn Khordadbeg and Ibn Khaldun and their colleagues from Europe of that time to identify the influence of the environment and place of residence of the researchers on the peculiarities of their worldview, which were reflected in their works.

Despite the large number of references to diplomatic blunders by the French during Süleyman Ağa's visit to Paris in 1669 and the charade-like character of much of Louis XIV's policies towards the Ottoman Empire during the period, few scholars have seen the humour in Le Bourgeois gentilhomme as directed towards the crown and court. In this article, I argue that Molière's comedy-ballet can be read as a pointed satire of how Hugues de Lionne, the foreign minister, and the king received the Ottoman envoy in their official audiences, and of French foreign policy with the Ottoman state itself. The mummery involved in Lionne's receiving Süleyman as the 'Grand Vizier' of France, and the king's pretence in expecting to be viewed as a crusading monarch while diligently pursuing commercial relations with the Porte, provided Molière with ample material for satirical development. The oriental trappings of the work, especially of the Turkish ceremony, might thus be considered as a means to mirror and criticize French governmental policies and behaviour rather than as a proto-colonialist attempt imaginatively to represent the Ottoman Turk.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes The Knighthood of the Garter could be considered a suitable example. M. Zeki Pakalın, Osmanlı Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri Sözlüğü [Dictionary of Ottoman Historical Expressions and Terms], (Istanbul: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları, 3 vols, 1993). Abdülaziz Bey, in K. Arısan & D.A. Günay (eds.), Osmanlı Adet, Merasim ve Tabirleri [Ottoman Customs, Ceremonies and Terms], (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları, 2002), 612 pp. The selâmlık was the colourful official procession of the Sultan along with high-ranking officials for the Friday congregational prayers. On important occasions, the mosque of Eyüp was chosen by the sultan as the venue for this weekly prayer. This mosque and a large cemetery surround the venerated tomb of Abu Ayyub b. Zayd al-Ansari, a Companion of the Prophet, who died while on one of the first military missions (in the late 7th century) to capture Constantinople. Several descriptive accounts of the selâmlık ceremony may be found in the travel diaries of visitors to Istanbul from South Asia. Among them may be mentioned the book in Urdu: Sir Sheikh Abdul Qadir, Maqām-e-Khilāfat [The Seat of the Caliphate], subtitled Safar-e-Istanbul ke Hālāt [Account of the journey to Istanbul], (Delhi: Makhzan Press, n.d.), 274 pp. See also S.T. Wasti, ‘Two Muslim Travelogues: To and From Istanbul’, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.27, No.3 (1991), pp.457–76. The Hırka-yı Saadet [the Cloak of Happiness]is a cloak belonging to the prophet Muhammed and was brought to Istanbul by the sultan Yavuz Selim (often referred to in European sources as Selim the Grim) when he assumed the title of Caliph. It has been the custom ever since to exhibit the cloak (in a sealed glass container) to visitors in special precincts in the Topkapı Palace for several days starting in the middle of Ramadan. Halid Ziya Uşaklıgil, q.v., writes that the sight of the cloak of the Prophet whose name had been proclaimed for centuries from every minaret to millions in every Muslim country caused every visitor regardless of rank to tremble with spiritual emotion. The ceremony of the kılıç alayı consisted of the girding of the sword (either that of the Prophet or of Osman, the founder of the Ottoman dynasty) in the mausoleum of Halid ibn-i Zeyd at Eyüp, and it was one of the several ceremonies forming part of the coronation festivities for a sultan. The baklava alayı or baklava procession involved the ceremonial offering by the sultan of a tray of baklava (a well-known Turkish dessert of flaky pastry interlaced with crushed pistachios and honey] for every ten janissaries and coincided with the fifteenth day of Ramadan. This ceremony was discontinued after the disbanding of the janissaries by sultan Mahmud II. Surre literally means a purse of the traditional type closed by drawn strings; alay means regiment and in this context would be rendered more accurately as procession. The official designation of the observance was Surre–i Hümâyûn; the word hümâyûn, meaning auspicious, was added to most royal activities, letters, property, etc. Here it should also be noted that the word surre is frequently spelled (not entirely correctly) as sürre. The Haremeyn is used for the two holy places of Islam, i.e. Mecca and Medina. The title Hâdim ül Haremeyn [Servant or Servitor of the Haremeyn] goes back to the Ottoman sultan Yavuz Selim [Selim the Grim] (1467–1520) who was once addressed by a preacher as Master of the Haremeyn and immediately responded by calling himself ‘Hâdim ül Haremeyn’. Çelebi Sultan Mehmed reigned in the then Ottoman capital of Bursa during AD 1413–21. Other sources claim that it was the Sultan Yıldırım Bayazıt (reigned AD 1389–1403) who was the first Ottoman ruler to send the surre, or purse of 80,000 gold coins, from Edirne [Adrianople] to Mecca and Medina. N.R. Farooqi, Mughal–Ottoman Relations (a study of political & diplomatic relations between Mughal India and the Ottoman empire, 1556–1748), (Delhi: Idarah-i Adabiyat-i Dilli, 1989), pp.107–43. Mahmil (often written as Mahmel or Mahmal) is used for a palanquin or camel litter. Traditionally, a camel with a decorated litter was often sent to Mecca around the Hajj season by the head of a Muslim state to indicate his assumption of rule. The mahmil was therefore a symbol both of the sovereignty and legitimacy of the ruler. For the Ottoman surre procession, the mahmil was also used as a term for the vehicles or camel litters containing the surre and presents sent by the sultan. Münir Atalar, Osmanlı Devletinde Surre- i Hümâyûn ve Surre Alayları [The Royal Purse and Purse Processions in the Ottoman State], (Ankara: Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı Yayınları, 1991), 377 pp. Ignatius Mouradgea D'Ohsson (1740–1807), referred to occasionally as Muradcan Tosunyan, was of Armenian origin and served for many years as a diplomat in the Swedish Embassy in Istanbul. Mouradgea D'Ohsson, Tableau Général de l'Empire Othoman, (Paris: Firmin Didot, 1788–1824), 7 volumes. It has not been possible to access this reference. In order, the 12 months of the lunar Muslim calendar (in modern Turkish orthography) are as follows: Muharrem, Safer, Rebiülevvel, Rebiülahir, Cemaziülevvel, Cemaziülahir, Recep, Şaban, Ramazan, Şevval, Zilkade and Zilhicce. Of these, Muharrem, Safer, Recep, Şaban and Ramazan are often used as names for male children born in these months. Called the kiswah [Kâbe kisvesi or Setre-i şerif in Turkish], this gold-embroidered black silk curtain or covering of the Ka'ba has an interesting history over the centuries. Otherwise famous as the Blue Mosque, because of the exquisite light blue colouring of the tiles that decorate its interior. Mehmed Ali Pasha (1769–1849) as Pasha and Viceroy of Egypt also undertook to send the kiswah during his reign. The Royal Ottoman Secretariat. Atalar gives the names of many sultans, queens and princes whose graves even at this date have coverings made from the Ka'ba covering. See Atalar, p.122 (note 14). Beytullah, or House of Allah, is often used to refer to the Ka'ba. Ayşe Osmanoğlu, Babam Sultan Abdülhamid (Hatıralar) [My father, the Sultan Abdülhamid (Memoirs)] (Istanbul: Selçuk Yayınları, 1984), pp.67–8. One of four important annual Muslim religious festivals in Turkey apart from the main feasts of ‘Id al Fitr [Şeker Bayramı in Turkish]at the end of the fasting month of Ramadan and the ‘Id al Adha [Kurban Bayramı in Turkish]which is the feast commemorating the sacrifice of Abraham. The Berat Kandili which heralds the arrival of the fasting month of Ramadan falls on the night of 15 Şaban in the lunar calendar. Literally, Allah is the Greatest. The expression forms part of the call to prayer and is also used as a pious exclamation. The Trustee of the Surre, or the Keeper of the Royal Purse. This was a privileged position, and among many illustrious holders was Ahmed Pasha of Manastır, father of Enver Pasha who became the Ottoman War Minister during the First World War. A corruption of the word ‘akkâm meaning a camel driver, but also used for the ushers or drummers taking part in the surre ceremony. A short distance across the Bosphorus, from the Dolmabahçe palace (in Europe) to Üsküdar (Scutari) on the Asian shore. Ayrılık Çeşmesi (literally, the fountain of parting) was one of the main points (within the district of Üsküdar, not far from the Haydarpaşa railway terminus) where friendly goodbyes were waved to the departing caravans that left Istanbul for the depths of Asia. Another such point was the nearby mosque of Ibrahim Ağa, built in AD 1580. The Trustee of the Hajj pilgrimage. The construction of the Hijaz Railway began on orders of the Sultan Abdülhamid in May 1900 and the line reached Medina in 1908. For more details, see S.T. Wasti, ‘Muhammad Inshaullah and the Hijaz Railway’, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.34, No.2 (1998), pp.60–72. Militant followers of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab (died 1792) temporarily occupied Mecca and Medina between 1801 and 1804. Mustafa IV reigned for 14 months between 1807 and 1808. The first quatrain of the poem composed by Aşık Necati reads: The House of God we wished to see Near the Black Stone we asked to be To stand on plain of Arafat But Fortune did not grant us that. Beytullah, or the house of God, is commonly used for the Ka'ba, in one corner of which the hajarul aswad or Black Stone is encrusted like a jewel. The plain of Arafat is where pilgrims congregate as part of the Hajj ceremony. A location just outside Mecca. One of the four festivals referred to in Note 20, the Mevlid Kandili celebrates the birthday of the Prophet of Islam and falls on 12 Rebiül evvel. S. Faroqhi, Pilgrims and Sultans (The Hajj under the Ottomans, 1517–1683) (London: I.B. Tauris,1994), pp.54–5. Atalar, p.245. The expression literally means the Bedouin purse. Faroqhi, p.7. Ercüment Ekrem Talu (1888–1956), a poet, novelist, critic, professor, diplomat and all-round man of letters. He was the son of Recaizade Mahmud Ekrem (1846–1913), also a famous civil servant and writer. See Atalar, pp.103–4. The well of Zamzam is located in Mecca, only a few metres east of the Ka'ba. The well, which is 35 metres deep and in continuous use, is also known as the well of Ismael, a son of the prophet Abraham. It has been suggested that the name is onomatopoeic, to imitate the sound of bubbling water. See note 26. Sultan Mehmed Reşad (1844–1918), a mild and pious ruler who was the second last Ottoman sultan. Halid Ziya Uşaklıgil (1866–1945), man of letters and civil servant, belonged to a well-known Turkish family. His novels, which are still in print, include Aşkı Memnu’ [Forbidden Love] and Ma'i ve Siyah [Blue and Black]. His recollections of life at the Ottoman court were collected as one volume of his autobiographical reminiscences under the title Saray ve Ötesi [The Palace and Beyond] (Istanbul: İnkılap ve Aka Kitabevleri Koll. Şirketi, 1981), 432 pp. For further information see S.T. Wasti, ‘The Last Chroniclers of the Mabeyn’, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.32, No.2 (1996), pp.1–29. The date of the Hajj is the 10th of the month of Zil Hicce, which is the last month of the Islamic calendar. As this calendar is lunar resulting in a year of about 354 days, the Hajj feast moves through the seasons, returning to any stated time period roughly once every 33 years. Here Uşaklıgil mischievously recalls that in those days, women who wore much jewellery and gaudy make-up were often referred to as ‘surre camels’. See Atalar, p.244. See S.T. Wasti, ‘The Defence of Medina, 1916–19’, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.27, No.4 (1991), pp.642–53. Sultan Mehmed Vahideddin (1861–1926) (1991), last Ottoman sultan, who reigned as Mehmed VI between 1918 and 1922. He died in exile in San Remo, Italy and lies buried in Damascus.

The basis for the relationships between the Iranian and Ottoman empires in modern times was the Treaty of Qasr-i Shīrīn (17 May 1639). It ended the war which had gone on between the two for over a century and it established the boundaries which were to survive with little change into modern times. The salient division of the Middle East was preserved: the Tigris–Euphrates basin and eastern Anatolia remained under the Ottoman Sultan while the Caucasus remained in Iranian hands, later to fall to Russia. The Ottomans thus failed to achieve their long-standing objectives in the Caucasus and Āzarbāījān, but Mesopotamia and the route to the Persian Gulf were definitely restored to them, with the removal of the principal foreign stimulus to revolt in Anatolia, thus greatly simplifying the efforts of subsequent Ottoman reformers to revive the empire from within and so save it from foreign attack. During the next century the treaty was observed by both sides, but less out of genuine friendship than as a consequence of internal weakness, preoccupation with reform, and foreign aggression.

Kiskirtici Bir Davranis: Kanuni Sultan Suleyman Doneminde Osmanli Sarayi’nda “Gosteris icin Tuketim” ve Patronlar Ozet Amerikali sosyolog Veblen’in “gosteris icin tuketim” diye adlandirdigi malin mulkun halka sergilenmesi durumu, 16. yuzyil Osmanli sarayinda statu ve gucu yansitmanin onemli yollarindan biri olmustur. Bu durum ayni zamanda Osmanli toplumunda yuksek bir pozisyona ulasmak icin de zorunlu bir hale gelmistir. Osmanli sarayinda, sultan gibi, sehzadeler, valide sultanlar, vezirler ve hazinedarbaslari da birer patron (sanat hamisi) olmuslardir. Kanuni Sultan Suleyman’in saltanati zamaninda (1520-1566) sanatla ilgili isler, basvezir veya sarayda zanaatci orgutunun (Ehl-i Hiref) basinda olan hazinedarbasi tarafindan yurutulmustur. Bundan dolayi, bu tur icice gecmis iliskiler, patronaj acisindan karmasik bir patron / musteri iliskisi yaratmistir; bu iliskiler icinde sultan her zaman uslup yaratici konumunda olmamistir. Egemenligin vazgecilmez ozelliklerin biri olan ihtisam fikrini one cikaran Basvezir Ibrahim Pasa (1523–1536), Venedikli tuccar ve sanatcilarla olan yakin iliskileri sayesinde Osmanli sarayindaki gosteris icin tuketimi harekete geciren en onemli ve guclu patronlardan biri olarak one cikmistir. Bu makalede, basvezirler gibi Osmanli sarayinda yuksek statuye sahip gorevlilerin sultan icin sanat uretimine nasil katildiklari aciklanmaya calisilacaktir. Ayrica, bu gorevlilerin, Osmanli Devleti ve “dunya hukumdari” olan sultanin evrensel egemenliklerini mesrulastirmada kullandiklari etkili unsurlardan biri olan siyasal statuyu guclendirmek amaciyla “gosteris icin tuketim”i nasil harekete gecirdikleri de tartisilacaktir. Abstract The public display of wealth in the form of material possessions, what the American sociologist Veblen called “conspicuous consumption” has always been an important way of projecting royal status and power at the Ottoman Court of 16th century. At the same time, consumption in order to create pomposity was an inevitable fact to acquire a high position in the Ottoman society. In the Ottoman Court, princes, valide sultans, vizierate and chief treasurers were the patrons of art as well as the sultan. In Suleyman I’s reign, artistic commissions of the sultan were usually conducted by the grand vizier or the chief treasurer who was at the head of the organization of royal artisans (Ehl-i Hiref). Hence, such interconnected relations created a complex network of patron/client relations for the patronage of art, in which the sultan was not always the chief tastemaker. Promoting the ideal of magnificence as an indispensable attribute of sovereignty, Grand Vizier Ibrahim Pasha (1523- 1536) was one of the most powerful and significant patron who instigated conspicuous consumption at the Ottoman Court in terms of his close relations with Venetian merchants and artisans. In this paper, it is intended to investigate the involvement of high rank officers, such as grand vizierate, with the art production for the sultan in and outside the Ottoman Court, and how they instigated the conspicuous consumption in order to reinforce their political status, as it was also a powerful fact for the legitimating of universal sovereignty of the Ottoman State and the sultan as the ruler of the world.

It is accepted that Ibn Khaldun established a scientific discipline with his work Muqaddimah, yet the literature on him contains contradictory statements. While some sources praise Ibn Khaldun both intellectually and personally, others portray him as an individual driven by ambition and willing to do whatever it takes to gain prestige in state administration. Despite the contrasting information regarding his personality, there is a consensus on his intellectual stature and the significance of the Muqaddimah as a work of great importance. With this work, Ibn Khaldun laid the foundations for the philosophy of history, founded the science of 'umrān' (sociology), and contributed to the development of a “cause-and-effect” approach to history within the Islamic world. However, it is a loss for the scholarly community that the world-historical sections of his work Kitāb al-'Ibar, which represents the practical application of his theoretical frameworks, remain relatively unknown. In the second part of this work, where he discusses the historical development of Arab tribes and states up to his own time, Ibn Khaldun also includes accounts of major empires such as the Romans, Persians, and Greeks, and under this category, he also addresses the history of the Ghaznavids. In Kitāb al-‘Ibar, Ibn Khaldun provides significant information about the Ghaznavid state, one of the prominent representatives of Turkish and Islamic history, and particularly about its founder, Sebük Tigin. In this study, the information transmitted by Ibn Khaldun regarding Sebük Tigin is examined and compared at times with data found in other contemporary sources.

Ibn Khaldun is a Muslim thinker who lived in North Africa in the Middle Ages. The places where he lived were in a geography where tribal management systems were dominant and political turmoil and wars were never lacking. It is possible to see the traces of the geography and era in which Ibn Khaldun lived in the shaping of his political views. At that time, due to the fact that the tribes were constantly at war with each other, the administrations changed hands frequently, some states were destroyed and some new ones were established in their place. These observations led Ibn Khaldun to liken the life of states to human life. According to him, every state is born, develops and dies just like people. The destruction of states is an inevitable end. Ibn Khaldun has been criticized by some thinkers because of these views. In fact, his book Mukaddime was banned in the Ottoman Empire for a while on the grounds that it led the people to pessimism. This study was created by examining the original works of Ibn Khaldun with the exploratory method and interpreting his views.

The Stone Woman is a complex story of the decline of the Ottomans and the rise of Christians in Europe. By abandoning the strong Turkish asabiyyah (social solidarity) and ignoring the prominent features of Islamic umran (civilisation), the Ottoman Empire fell, and the Christians gained power due to their advanced knowledge and strong social solidarity. As the fall of the Turks and the rise of the Christians occurred cyclically, the Cyclical Theory of the rise and fall of civilisations in Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddimah seems appropriate for the theoretical outline. It also explores how the Khaldunian concepts of asabiyyah and umran are related to Ali’s alternative history of the Christian-Muslim relations. The research concludes that Turkey has remained the center of the East-West conflict. The Middle East’s contemporary socio-political issues and ethnic strife originated in the Ottoman era.Keywords: Ibn Khaldun, Cyclic Theory, Ottoman Empire, Asabiyyah, Rise and Fall of Civilisations