Weaponry of the Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire, founded by Osman I (r. 1290-1326), dominated much of southeastern Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa between the fourteenth and early twentieth century.

In the early centuries the Ottomans effectively used siege weapons and artillery, such as mortars, catapults, and large cannons, that fired both iron and stone shot. Mehmed II, also called Mehmed the Conqueror, wished to have the most modern weapons and ordered a Hungarian gunsmith to build him large cannons, one of which was used at Constantinople, that could fire 1,200-pound cannonballs.

Janissaries used scimitars, knives, stabbing swords, battle-axes, and harquebuses. Their adoption of firearms as their weapons of choice must have occurred sometime before the 1449 Battle of Kossovo Polje, making them the first elite battle-winning infantry unit in Europe to adopt gunpowder weapons as their weapon of choice.

The Janissaries were firing their weapons row-by-row from the early 16th century. It seems, however, that Janissaries started to use volley fire of the West European type only in the1590s.

Gunpowder played a crucial role in the Ottomans' conquest of Constantinople in 1453. The Turks were also skilled marksmen using muskets.
Weaponry of the Ottoman Empire

Battle of Vaslui

The Battle of Vaslui was fought by Stephen III of Moldavia on January 10, 1475, against Ottoman Beylerbeyi of Rumelia, Hadım Suleiman Pasha.

Battle of Vaslui was also referred to as the Battle of Podul Înalt or the Battle of Racova. In this battle, Stephen of Moldavia faced the biggest Ottoman army ever assembled during the Battle of Vaslui where the Ottomans outnumbered the Moldovans 3 to 1 and were better equipped.

Battle of Vaslui

Hadim Suleyman Pasha led an army of about 120,000 men to restore Ottoman authority in the region. Gathering 40,000 men and supported by Hungarians and Poles, Stephen met the enemy at Podul Înalt, near the town of Vaslui.

The Moldavian success in this battle and the Turks were forced to withdraw. Stephen was named the ‘athlete of Christ’ by Pope Sixtus IV for his resistance to Ottoman expansion, but he received little help from other European rulers.

He withstood a further Turkish invasion in 1884, but at the cost of the parts of Chilia and Cetatea Alba, and finally agreed to pay tribute to the Turks as the price of Moldavian independence.
Battle of Vaslui

Siege of Belgrade (1456)

Ottoman siege of Belgrade happened from July 4 to 22, 1456, broken when a relief force led by John Hunyadi defeated the Ottoman forces in a battle outside the city.

Having captured Constantinople in 1453, Mehmed II marched his Ottoman Turks into the Balkans. Southern Serbia fell under his control.

Although George Brankovic of Serbian kingdom signed treaty with Mehmed to respect what remained of his kingdom, the Mehmed II returned in 1456 with invasion army.

Janos Hunyadi defeats Turks in 1456

His invasion force of around 100,000 reached Belgrade in July 4, Mehmed deployed almost 200 guns in his siege lines and guarded the Danube and the marshes to the northeast of the city.

Mehmed’s guns had breached the fortifications of the city in a number of places, and on July 21, Mehmed ordered an assault.

The city seemed doomed, but Janos Hunyadi, led a Hungarian army to relief of Belgrade.  The following day Christian forces raided the Ottoman lines. This attack was reinforced by forces under the command of Giovani de Capistrano, despite the fact that Hunyadi had instructed his forces not to bring in a general engagement.

Ottoman forces were caught off guard and began to flee. His 1456 siege of Belgrade failed, but Mehmed did seize areas in the Peloponnesus and captured Trebizond in the early 1460s.
Siege of Belgrade (1456)

Battle of Başkent

Battle of Başkent was a battle between the armies of Mehmed II and the Ak Koyunlu ruler Uzun Hasan on the plain of Tercan near Erzurum. The Battle of Başkent also known as Battle of Otlukbeli.

The expansionist drive of Mehmed II into Anatolia impelled the Ak Koyunlu, who ruled Iran and southern Caucasus to form an alliance with Venice and other Christian powers. Venice, a long time naval power in the Levant had hoped for control of a port on the Syrian or south Anatolian coast and to that end had attempted a military alliance with Uzun Hasan.

Both the Ottoman and Ak Koyunlu armies were ready for a final confrontation. Finally, on 11 August 1473, in a pitched battle at Başkent near Otluk Beli, Uzun Hasan’s army was completely routed.

The Venetians, who at that time were at war with the Ottomans, sent artillery units to support the Ak Koyunlu. Though the Ak Koyunlu army was superior in terms of manpower, the Ottoman troops were better organized and equipped. In this battle, Ottoman artillery employed in concert worth war wagons created havoc within the ranks of the nomadic Ak Koyunlu army. While other factors such as discipline were important, the artillery overshadowed the rest.

The battle took nearly a whole day. With this defeat, the Ak Koyunlu in effect no longer played a serious role in the great power’s struggle for Anatolia.
Battle of Başkent

Osmanlı Tarih Kitapları ve Halil İNALCIK

Bugün konumuz tarih. Bu ara, görmüş olduğunuz Halil İnalcık kitaplarının ikisini birden okuyor olmamın konuyu belirlememde büyük bir etkisi oldu tabiki. Halil İnalcık Osmanlı tarihi denildiği zaman, ülkemiz ve dünyada en önde gelen tarihçilerin başında. Tarihle pek ilgilenmeyenler bile kendisinin ismini elbet duymuşlardır, hem o'nun hem de öğrencisi İlber Ortaylı'nın son yıllar da toplumumuza tarihi sevdirme açısından çok büyük faydaları olduğu aşikar. Klasik dönem Osmanlı tarihi kavramını bu kitap ile ortaya atan İnalcık'ın kitabı 1973 yılında Londra' da,  'The Ottoman Empire:The Classical Age 1300-1600' olarak, ülkemizde  ise ikibinli yılların başında çevirilip basılmış.

 Daha önceleri Osmanlı tarihi kuruluş , yükseliş, duraklama vs. gibi dönemlere ayrılıp incelense de bu dönemlemenin daha çok toprak kazanımına bakılarak yapılan yetersiz bir dönemleme olması yeni bir kavram arayışını gerekli kılmış sanırım ve 'Klasik dönem Osmanlı' ile 'Klasik sonrası' gibi terimlerle sınıflamaya gidilmeye başlanmış. Fakat belirtmek lazım ki lise kitaplarında hala daha aynı sınıflama mevcut, akademik kadroların lise kitaplarındaki yanlışları düzeltme adına başvurularının da dikkate alınmayıp ısrarla yanlış bilgilerin öğrencilere dayatılmış olduğunu ne yazık ki biliyorum. Klasik dönem denilince Osmanlı Devleti'nin kurulup, teşkilatlanmasının meydana geldiği ve oluşturulan yapının aksamadan, kusursuz şekilde işlediği dönem aklımıza geliyor. 

'Klasik Çağ' kitabının hem Osmanlı idari teşkilatına hem de sosyo-ekonomik yapılarına özet olarak değinmiş olması genel okuyucuya hitap eden bir kitap olmasını da sağlamış fakat bunları silsile halinde vermesi belki de bir süre sonra bazı okuyucuları sıkabilir diye düşünüyorum.

 Devlet-i Aliyye kitabının 1.cildinde ise  yine klasik dönemi görmekteyiz burada olgulardan ziyade daha çok olaylar bazında bir değerlendirme yapıldığı için daha ayrıntılı bir anlatım mevcut.

İçerikten de görüldüğü üzere ilk kitapta genel konular başlıkları oluştururken Devlet-i Aliyye' de padişahların dönemindeki gelişmeler ayrı ayrı ele alınıp olaylar incelenmiş. Her iki kitabın da her okuyucaya hitap ettiğini düşünüyorum hem benim gibi eğitiminin bir parçası olarak okuyanlar için subjektiflikten uzak, net bilgilerle dolu hem de tarihi sevenler için oldukça yalın, bilgilendirici ve faydalı. Genelde televizyonlara çıkıp: "Aman efendim, Padişahlar böyle iyiydi" "Aman efendim öyle yaparlar mı hiç? herşeyin en doğrusunu yapardı Osmanlılar" diyen, tarih biliminin en önemli gereği olan objektifliği bir kenara atan sözde tarihçilerden farkı açıkça görülüyor, kısacası Halil İnalcık Osmanlı tarihi için ilk okunması gereken yazarlardan, tabi ki hocaları olan , Mehmet Fuad Köprülü, İsmail Hakki Uzunçarşılı gibi Cumhuriyet'in ilk akademisyenlerini unutmamakta fayda var kendileri hala daha güncel kitapların kaynağını oluşturan eserleri bizlere kazandırmışlardır, onlara ait kitaplara ise Türk Tarih Kurumu yayınlarından ulaşılanabilir. 

Ankara'da olanlar direkt Dil ve Tarih'in yanında TTK satış yerinden Ankara'da olmayanlar ise TTK'nın alışveriş  sitesi yoluyla bu kitaplara ulaşabilirler. Kendilerinin pek kâr amacı olmadığı için bütün kitapların, 10 lira civarı gibi uygun miktarlarda olduğunu göreceksiniz diğer hocalar ve başka konularda ki kitaplar için de aynı şey geçerli , oldukça geniş bir kitap çeşitliliği var elbette ilginizi çeken bir kitaba denk gelirsiniz, tereddüt etmeyip alabilirsiniz. 

Herkese bol okumalı bir haftasonu diliyorum.

Sevgiler

Historian

Harry Pirie-Gordon and the Palestine Guide-Books

Gill, D. W. J. 2013. "Harry Pirie-Gordon and the Palestine Guide Books." Public Archaeology 11: 169-78.

Abstract
Harry Pirie-Gordon (1883–1969) was responsible for the preparation of a series of guidebooks published by the Palestine News immediately after the First World War. The information had been prepared for the British attack on Palestine. Pirie-Gordon first went to Syria in 1908 ostensibly to study Crusader castles. He took part in the survey of the Syrian coast around Alexandretta and worked as a foreign correspondent for The Times. Pirie-Gordon was commissioned in the Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve (RNVR) and initially worked through the Arab Bureau in Cairo. After a spell in Salonica, he was commissioned in the Army, returned to Cairo, and took responsibility for the publication of the Palestine News for the Egyptian Expeditionary Force. Allenby’s campaign in Palestine drew on the developing technology of aerial photography to prepare accurate maps of troop dispositions.

[DOI]

Spain is The Great Power in The 16th Century

Spain is The Great Power in The 16th Century
By middle of the sixteenth century Spain was the greatest power in Europe. The dominions of Philip II (1556 – 98) of Spain stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific: his continental territories included the Netherlands in the North and Milan and Naples in Italy.

In 1580 Philip II became king of Portugal, uniting all the states of the Iberian Peninsula. With the addition of Portugal’s Atlantic ports and its sizeable fleet, Spanish maritime power now was unsurpassed. Spain was also a great cultural and intellectual center. The fashions and tastes of its golden age dominated all the courts of Europe. The expansion of Spanish domination and the increase of Spain’s wealth and prestige was reflected in a self conscious spirit of national pride that could be seen in the story of Don Quixote, the knight who tilted at windmills in search of greatness in the novel published by Miguel de Cervantes between 1605 and 1615.

In Mediterranean Spain alone stood out against the expansion of Ottoman power. The sultan’s navy continually threatened to turn the Mediterranean into a Turkish lake, while his armies attempted to capture and hold Italian soil. All Europe shuddered at the news each Ottoman advance. Pope called for holy wars against the Turks but only Philip heeded the cry. From nearly moment that he inherited the Spanish crown he took up the challenge of defending European Christianity.

For over a decade Philip maintained costly coastal garrison in North Africa and Italy and assembled large fleets and larger army to discourage or repel Turkish invasions. This sparring could not go on indefinitely, and in 1571 both sides prepared for a decisive battle. A combined Spanish and Italian force of over three hundred ships and eighty thousand men meet an even larger ottoman flotilla off the coasts of Greece. The Spanish naval victory of Lepanto was considered one of the great events of the sixteenth century, celebrated in story and songs for the next three hundred years, though the Turks continued to menace the Mediterranean islands, Lepanto marked the end of Ottoman advanced.
Spain is The Great Power in The 16th Century

Archaeology in the Ottoman Empire

Debbie Challis has published her study of British archaeology in the Ottoman Empire. This covers three main areas:

• Asia Minor: Lycia and Caria
• North Africa: Carthage and Cyrene
• Ionian Greece: Ephesus and Smaller Excavations

This book discusses the period before the establishment of the Asia Minor Exploration Fund (see also Funding) and the later work by students of the British School at Athens (see Gill 2004).

References
Challis, D. 2008. From the Harpy Tomb to the Wonders of Ephesus: British archaeologists in the Ottoman Empire 1840-1880. London: Duckworth. [WorldCat]
Gill, D. W. J. 2004. "The British School at Athens and archaeological research in the late Ottoman Empire." In Archaeology, anthropology and heritage in the Balkans and Anatolia: the life and times of F.W. Hasluck, 1878-1920, edited by D. Shankland, pp. 223-55, vol. 1. Istanbul: The Isis Press. [WorldCat]

Asia Minor Exploration Fund: Funding

One of the constant refrains of the BSA Managing Committee in the early years concerned finance. Yet this is hardly surprising given the demands from other archaeological projects in the eastern Mediterranean. George Macmillan was Honorary Treasurer of the Asia Minor Exploration Fund (AMEF) and made constant appeals:

• 1882: £520 raised
• 1883: £300 spent on travels in Anatolia; further appeal for £500.
  
• 1890: appeal for £500 to cover the 1890 season
  
• 1891: appeal for £400 to cover the 1891 season
  
• 1893: £150 raised (of which £100 from the Royal Geographical Society)
  
• 1893: appeal for £2000 to excavate at Derbe or Lystra

The BSA students were often involved with the work of AMEF from its earliest years, notably David Hogarth, John A.R. Munro, and Vincent W. Yorke.

The appeal for funds took a nationalistic tone:

It would be little to the credit of England if want of funds should oblige Professor Ramsay to leave the completion of his task to foreign hands. (1890)

One might wish that a foreign nation had not stepped in to a field which, with more liberality on the part of Englishmen, could have been covered completely by our own explorers, but the work is so vast that in the interests of knowledge the application of foreign zeal and money is not altogether to be regretted. (1891)

Very much yet remains to be done, and if the work so well begun by a small band of Englishmen is not to be left unfinished or transferred to foreign hands, English liberality must supply the funds necessary for its continuance. (1893)

It is little wonder that the BSA was only raising some £500 a year when there were such competing demands on the same subscribers.

Asia Minor Exploration Fund

The Asia Minor Exploration Fund was an initiative of the Hellenic Society. It was established during 1882, and by 1883 the Fund had raised £500.

The committee consisted of:

• James Fergusson (1808-86), architectural historian
  
• David Binning Monro (1836-1905), Provost of Oriel College. [Later on the Managing Committee of the BSA]
• Henry Francis Pelham (1846-1907). [Later on the Managing Committee of the BSA]
• George Augustin Macmillan (1855-1936). Honorary Treasurer and Secretary. [Later on the Managing Committee of the BSA]

Fergusson had links with Heinrich Schliemann, and published on Halicarnassus and Ephesus.