The Ottoman Identity: Turkish, Muslim orRum?

It is awkward for historians to depict a clear-cut portrayal of Ottoman identity. Scholarly analyses by and large lay emphasis on the Islamic and Turkish character of the Ottoman Empire. However, it would be reductionist to evaluate an empire that lasted for six centuries, on three different continents, with solely monolithic ethno-religious tools. A new approach around the term Rum may help to get rid of this reductionism and to understand the sui generis structure of the Ottoman identity. Instead of focusing on ethnic and religious aspects, this novel approach would add both a territorial dimension of Ottoman hegemony and also a social component regarding the relations between the rulers and the ruled. The Rum, with a meaning above Orthodoxy, Greek or Roman Empire, can highlight the ingredients of Ottoman identity and help to overcome the influence of modern nationalist discourses in historical readings. Notes C. Kucuk, ‘Osmanlı Imparatorlugu'nda “Millet Sistemi” ve Tanzimat’, in H. İnalcık and M. Seyitdanlioglu (eds.), Tanzimat: Degisim Surecinde Osmanli Imparatorlugu, 2nd ed. (Ankara: Phoenix, 2006), p.394. I. Ortayli, Ottoman Studies (Istanbul: Bilgi University Press, 2004), pp.18–19. Halil Inalcik explained this attitude with the Islamic Gaza tendency (fighting in the name of Allah) of the Ottomans. According to Inalcik, the conquest of lands in the name of God, had been the Ottoman motivation of the since its formation. For his interpretation of the Gaza idea please see, ‘Halil Inalcik ile Soylesi: Osmanli Tarihi En Cok Saptirilmis, Tek Yanli Yorumlanmis Tarihtir’, Interview by I. Ortayli, Cogito, Vol.19 (Summer 1999), pp.25–41. Needless to say, this hypothesis about the origin of the Ottoman sultans' names should be analysed by etymologists and linguists, in order to banish with any misconceptions. However, this type of linguistic study is beyond the limits of this study. H. Inalcik, From Empire to Republic: Essays on Ottoman and Turkish Social History (Istanbul: ISIS Press, 1995), pp.141–43. K. Karpat, ‘Tarihsel Sureklilik, Kimlik Degisimi ya da Yenilikci, Musluman, Osmanli ve Turk Olmak’, in K. Karpat (ed.), Osmanli Gecmisi ve Bugunun Turkiyesi (Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi Universitesi Yayinlari, 2005), p.35. F. Georgeon, Osmanli-Turk Modernlesmesi (1900–1930), trans. A. Berktay (Istanbul: Yapi Kredi Yayinlari, 2006), p.12. Ortayli, Ottoman Studies, p.15. S. Ozbaran, Bir Osmanli Kimligi: 14.–17. Yuzyillarda Rum/Rumi Aidiyet ve Imgeleri (Istanbul: Kitap Yayinevi, 2004), pp.38–9. H. Inalcik, ‘The Meaning of Legacy: The Ottoman Case’, in L.C. Brown (ed.), Imperial Legacy: The Ottoman Imprint on the Balkans and the Middle East (New York: Columbia United Press, 1996), p.19. S. Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains: Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman Empire, 1876–1909 (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 1998). S. Aksin, ‘Osmanli Devleti Uzerine’, in S. Aksin (ed.), Ataturkcu Partiyi Kurmanin Sirasi Geldi (Istanbul: Cem Yayinevi, 2002), p.152. Quoted from U. Haarmann, ‘Ideology and History, Identity and Alterity: The Arab Image of the Turks from the Abbasids to Modern Egypt’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol.20 (1988), pp.177 and 191, quoted in Ozbaran, Bir Osmanli Kimligi, pp.51 and 60–61. S. Mardin, ‘Center–Periphery Relations: A Key to Turkish Politics’, Daedalus, Vol.1, No.102 (1973), pp.169–90. The text was translated into English from Turkish by the author of this article and some explanations or hidden meanings were added within square brackets in order to give the original meaning. Quoted from Guvahi, ed. M. Hengrimen, Pend-name (Ankara, 1981), p.165, quoted in H. Erdem, ‘“Osmanli Kaynaklarindan Yansiyan Turk Imaj(lar)i’ in O. Kumrular (ed.), Dunyada Turk Imgesi (Istanbul: Kitap Yayinevi, 2005), pp.24–5. Karpat, ‘Tarihsel Sureklilik, Kimlik Degisimi ya da Yenilikci, Musluman, Osmanli ve Turk Olmak’, pp.42–4. Erdem, ‘Osmanli Kaynaklarindan Yansiyan Turk Imaj(lar)i’, pp.19–25. Ozbaran, Bir Osmanli Kimligi, p.107. The text was translated from Turkish to English by the author of this article. Z. Gokalp, Turkculugun Esaslari (Bordo Siyah Turk Klasikleri Inceleme), ed. K. Bek (Istanbul: Trend Yayin Basin, 2006; originally published 1923), pp.68–9. Ibid., p.69. H. Millas, Gecmisten Bugune Yunanlilar: Dil, Din ve Kimlikleri (Istanbul: Iletisim Yayinlari, 2003), p.163. This term is a shorter version of the idiom Galat-i Meshur Lugat-i Fasihadan Evladir, which means that a common misusage of a concept may legalize this usage, although it is defined differently in the dictionary. Salih Ozbaran used the expression, galat-i meshur to mention the wrong conceptualization of Rum; Ozbaran, Bir Osmanli Kimligi, p.89. Quoted from M. Akdag, Turkiye'nin Iktisadi ve Ictimai Tarihi 1 (Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu, 1971), pp.107–9 quoted in Ozbaran, Bir Osmanli Kimligi, p.89. J. McCarthy, The Ottoman Turks: An Introductory History to 1923 (New York: Longman Limited, 1997), pp.124–5, or for a more detailed analysis, please see G. Goodwin, The Janissaries (London, San Francisco and Beirut: Saqi Books, 2006). Ozbaran, Bir Osmanli Kimligi, pp.90–91. Quoted from P. Wittek, ‘Rum Sultani’, Bati Dillerinde Osmanli Tarihleri (Istanbul: Turkiye Yayinevi, 1971), pp.95–9, quoted in Ozbaran, Bir Osmanli Kimligi, p.49. F. Koprulu, Turk Edebiyatinda Ilk Mutasavviflar, 3rd ed. (Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu, 1976), p.257; B.E. Behar, Iktidar ve Tarih: Turkiye'de ‘Resmi Tarih’ Tezinin Olusumu (1929–1937) (Istanbul: AFA Yayinlari, 1992), pp.109–10. For discussions of the First Turkish Congress of History, see Behar, Iktidar ve Tarih, pp.119–60. H. Inalcik, ‘Rumeli’ in Islam Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfi, 1988). H. Inalcik, ‘Kultur Etkilesimi, Kuresellesme’, Dogu Bati (Dunya Neyi Tartisiyor: Kuresellesme 1), No.18 (2002), pp.97–8. From Wittek, ‘Rum Sultani’, p.89, quoted in Ozbaran, Bir Osmanli Kimligi, p.49. S.E.T.M.T. Bahadiroglu, Timur'un Gunlugu: Tuzukat- i Timur, trans. and ed. A. Aslan and K. Sakirov (Istanbul: Insan Yayinlari, 2010), pp.66–7. H. Inalcik, ‘The Socio-Political Effects of the Diffusion of Fire-arms in the Middle East’, in V.J. Parry and M.E. Yapp (eds.), War, Technology and Society and Society in the Middle East (London: Oxford University Press, 1975), p.204. B. Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, 3rd Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002; originally published 1961), pp.1–2. Lewis went beyond the Ottoman and put a question mark over the Hittite–Turk relationship and said, ‘The survival of Anatolian elements in modern Turkey is now beyond dispute. There is no need to assert that Turks are Hittites or that the Hittites were Turks – but it is clear that there was a large measure of continuity’. Ibid., p.4. B. Lewis, The Multiple Identities of the Middle East (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1998), p.11. I. Ortayli, ‘Ucuncu Roma Imparatorlugu’, Hurriyet, 18 Oct. 1999. Ismail Tokalak underlines the similarities between the Ottoman and Byzantine cultures and organizations. He claims that the Turks had undergone a change with the influence of Byzantium with which they lived for 400 years, since they came to Anatolia in the eleventh century. Not only the Turkish culture, social structure or political organizations changed, but also the racial appearance of the Turks had changed during the mixture with Byzantium. I. Tokalak, Bizans-Osmanli Sentezi: Bizans Kultur ve Kurumlarinin Osmanli Uzerinde Etkisi (Istanbul: Guler Boy Yayincilik, 2006).