The Ottoman Empire, 1300–1650: the Structure of Power

Colin Imber
(Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002).
ISBN 0-33-361-387-3
xiv + 405pp., £17.99
http://www.palgrave.com/products/Catalogue.aspx?is=0333613872

‘To write a general history of the Ottoman Empire is a foolhardy undertaking, and one
that needs justification’ (p. xiii). Such are the inauspicious words with which Colin
Imber, Senior Lecturer in Turkish at the University of Manchester, begins his own
general history of the Ottoman Empire. Dr. Imber bemoans what he considers to be
the patchy and variable quality of specialist research on the Ottoman Empire and
considers this an inadequate basis on which to write a general history. Furthermore,
Imber is in some doubt as to whether there are any meaningful historiographical
debates taking place: ‘Historians of the Ottoman Empire quickly find that not only
have the major questions not been answered, but that more often than not they have
never been asked’. This is essentially the same the argument that Imber made in
1978 in his review of Stanford J. Shaw’s two-volume History of the Ottoman Empire
and Modern Turkey. Back then, Imber conceded that such a work ‘might, however,
serve a useful purpose if it is stimulating, provocative or, at the very least, accurate.
The present two volumes are none of these’. 1 Imber was even more scathing towards
Justin McCarthy’s The Ottoman Turks: An Introductory History, published in 1997:
‘Junk food, junk bonds and now junk history… This is a cruel description, but one
which is perfectly appropriate for a book which is carelessly written, is often
misinformed and shamelessly follows a Turkish nationalist agenda’. 2 Imber himself
had previously been content to bask in the reflected glory of Halil Inalcik’s The
Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300 – 1600; a now classic work which he
translated into English together with Norman Itzkowitz back in 1973, although he has
previously written a history of the early Ottoman period, The Ottoman Empire, 1300 –
1481, (Istanbul, 1990).3

Imber’s own justifications for now writing a general history are to provide an
introduction to the field for the non-specialist and a context in which to read more
specialist studies. He also hopes that it might prove useful to his fellow Ottomanists
‘in giving the straightforward chronology of events which has hitherto been lacking –
however unfashionable chronological narrative might be’ (pp. xiii – xiv). In his
response to Colin Heywood’s review, Imber justifies his chronological overview
further by conceding that Ottomanists ‘are very prone to chronological errors and

© 2007 Daniel J. Bamford. Page 1 of 7

 Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300–1650: the Structure of Power (2002).

oversights, which occasionally lead to mistaken conclusions. (I once read, for

example, that the 1680s – a decade of continuous warfare and dramatic territorial
losses – was a ‘quiet period’ in Ottoman history)’. On this occasion, Dr. Imber
mercifully declines to name and shame the culprit.4

By giving an introductory chronological overview, followed by topical chapters, Imber

is also following the example of Halil Inalcik. However, while Inalcik’s books went on
to cover the four topics of ‘The State’, ‘Economic and Social Life’ and ‘Religion and
Culture’, Imber’s book covers ‘The Dynasty’, ‘Recruitment’, ‘The Palace’, ‘The
Provinces’, ‘The Law’, ‘The Army’ and ‘The Fleet’. This structure arises from Imber’s
desire to challenge ‘a tendency among Ottoman historians no longer to refer to the
Ottoman ‘Empire’, but rather to the Ottoman ‘State’. As with McCarthy’s book, it is a
‘nonsense’ Turkish nationalist theory about Turks having a genius for ‘state-creation’
which has raised Dr. Imber’s ire. His own approach is, therefore, to ‘describe those
institutions through which the Ottoman Sultan projected his power’, (p. xiv) pursuing
the argument that the Ottoman Empire ‘was a dynastic Empire in which the only
loyalty demanded of all its multifarious inhabitants was allegiance to the sultan’ (p.3).
It is this central argument to which Imber returns in his brief conclusion. This is
entitled ‘Some Conclusions’, rather than simply ‘Conclusions’, presumably to
emphasize its provisional and cursory nature. Imber ultimately credits the continuity
in the ‘mundane functions of government’ provided by the scribal service and the
courts with having enabled the Ottoman Empire to weather the storms of the late
sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, but claims that the loss of military
supremacy that would become more evident in the late seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries was already ‘clear’ in the ‘Austrian’ (or rather ‘Habsburg’ or ‘Hungarian’)
war of 1593 – 1606 (p.124.f).

Thus, despite having denied the existence of any meaningful historiographical

debates in Ottoman studies, Dr. Imber makes a robust case for the central
importance of the Ottoman dynasty against anachronistic notions of a 'state' and
advances the claim that the Ottomans failed to keep abreast of advances in the much
debated ‘military revolution’. As regards the former, it is significant that the only point
that R. C. Repp took issue with in his review of Inalcik’s The Ottoman Empire: the
Classical Age, was the claim that ‘the Ottoman Sultans were little more than cogs in
a machine’.5 As regards the latter, Imber acknowledges a difference of opinion with
Rhoads Murphey’s ‘well-documented work’, Ottoman Warfare, 1500 – 1700, which

© 2007 Daniel J. Bamford. Page 2 of 7

 Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300–1650: the Structure of Power (2002).

‘largely argues against the idea of the Ottomans failing to adapt to a ‘military
revolution’ (p.346).

Incidentally, Dr. Imber is quite right to criticise the continued tendency amongst
Europeans to talk of the ‘Turkish Empire’ and ‘Turks’, rather than ‘Ottomans’, since
the empire was ‘heterogeneous in religion, language and social structure’ (p.1).
However, it would have been appreciated if he had returned the favour by not
constantly referring to ‘Austria’ at a time when the four Austrian provinces (Inner,
Outer, Upper and Lower) were just part of the Habsburg hereditary lands (Erbländer),
which were unified only by Habsburg dynastic rule. For example, in what meaningful
sense can the Albanian-Italian Habsburg general, Giorgio Basta, be referred to as an
‘Austrian commander’ (p.284)? This is unfortunate, since Imber’s attention to the
Hungarian wars in his ‘Chronology’ and his argument about the significance of
Basta’s tactical innovations are very helpful.

However, Dr. Imber can be forgiven for being confused by the constantly shifting
claims of the rulers of Transylvania regarding the Hungarian crown. Imber rightly
refers to John Szapolyai as ‘King of Hungary’ (pp.50 – 52), but goes on to adopt the
curious formula ‘King of Transylvania’ for Szapolyai’s successors rather than ‘Prince’
or ‘Voivode' / 'Vayvoda’ of Transylvania. No ruler of Transylvania was ever crowned
after Szapolyai’s son, John-Sigismund, handed over the Holy Crown of Saint
Stephen to the Habsburgs in an ill-fated succession pact. Any claims to kingship
advanced after then would still be over the Kingdom of Hungary as a whole rather
than just Transylvania, but could not be fulfilled without a coronation. 6 Imber’s
adoption of the curious and inaccurate formulation ‘King of Transylvania’ appears to
reflect the terminology of Ottoman primary sources. Apparently, the Ottomans often
referred to the rulers of Transylvania as ‘kings’ (kirali) as well as hakim (ruler,
governor, judge), voyvode and bey.7

One aspect of the ‘Chronology’ which sits ill at ease with the topical chapter on ‘The
Dynasty’ is the fact that Imber follows the common, but very misleading, practise of
automatically referring to Constantinople by the colloquial name Istanbul after the
Ottoman conquest of 1453 (p.29 cf. p.37). Yet when we come to his discussion of
‘The Dynasty’ we learn that Ottoman claims to fulfil Islamic prophesy in becoming the
inheritors of the Roman Empire became an important part of anti-Habsburg
propaganda in the sixteenth century (p.117, 125). Why then does Imber follow others
in giving the false impression, without any comment or explanation, that the

© 2007 Daniel J. Bamford. Page 3 of 7

 Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300–1650: the Structure of Power (2002).

Ottomans undermined these imperial claims by apparently re-naming the city? Even
the Encyclopaedia of Islam (Leiden: Brill, 1960 - ) article on ‘Istanbul’ concedes that
Constantinople (Ḳu(n)sṭanṭīniyya) remained the official name of the city throughout
Ottoman times. It seems a shame to undermine efforts to clear up this misconception
by I. Metin Kunt in Suleyman the Magnificent & His Age (London, 1995) and Cemal
Kafadar in the Handbook of European History 1400-1600, (Leiden: Brill, 1994 –
1995), edited by Thomas A. Brady, et al.

It would also have been helpful to the ‘non-specialist’ reader if Dr. Imber had been
more open about the historiography concerning the ‘Sultanate of Women’. While
mentioning in a footnote that this phrase was coined as a title for a book by Ahmed
Refik (1880 – 1937), Imber does not actually give us any bibliographical details
(p.331). More seriously, Imber recommends Leslie Peirce’s 1993 study, The Imperial
Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire, as ‘the fullest account of the
structure and politics of the Ottoman royal family’, without pointing out that Peirce’s
argument that the ‘Sultanate of Women’ was largely benign and stabilising
challenges the negative view of all previous scholarship on the subject (p.330). For
his own part, Imber appears to be rather too easily persuaded by Pierce, dwelling on
the positive influence of Kösem Mahpeyker and Turhan Sultan in the role of Queen
Mother (Valide Sultan), but passing over the altogether more negative impact of their
predecessor Safiye (p.91.f).

Historiographical details aside, Imber is largely successful in his stated aims of

providing a general introduction and a context in which more specialist works can be
read, since he provides plentiful references to all the latest scholarship. His target
audience of non-specialist English-language readers is reflected in the fact that the
bibliography is ‘not exhaustive and includes only works in English, French and
German’. Imber does, however, recommend, Klaus Kreiser’s Der osmanische Staat,
1300-1922 (München, 2001) as a ‘bibliographical guide’ (p.362). The one serious
deficiency in Imber’s general history is a chapter on economic matters. Imber
apologises for this with the self-depreciating, but rather unconvincing, claim that he
has decided to ‘leave this important topic to someone who, unlike me, understands
figures’ (p.xiv). When pressed on this matter by Colin Heywood (see below), Imber
conceded that ‘[t]he absence of a chapter on the finance bureaucracy is, I feel, a
more serious lacuna, and one which I may one day be able to remedy. However, it
will require either a major research effort on my part, or a body of competent
secondary literature to which I can refer. At the moment, as in many other fields

© 2007 Daniel J. Bamford. Page 4 of 7

 Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300–1650: the Structure of Power (2002).

within Ottoman studies, the latter scarcely exists’. In the meantime, Imber could have
at least recommended Inalcik’s introduction to An Economic and Social History of the
Ottoman Empire, (Cambridge, 1994) edited by Inalcik together with Donald Quataert,
but this is strangely absent from Imber’s bibliography.

Imber’s final stated aim in his ‘Introduction’ is to ‘keep the reader in touch with the
primary sources’ (p. xiv). Imber’s success in this last regard is probably one of the
main reasons why this general history is so engaging and rich with historical detail,
while at the same rarely having the feeling of getting bogged down in minutiae. One
particularly gratifying perk is not simply that Imber provides plentiful translated quotes
from many sources otherwise available only in Ottoman Turkish, but that he also
provides light relief by translating the epithets of the various viziers. This also serves
to humanise a bewildering procession of otherwise largely faceless courtiers. Thus,
we are introduced to Koja (‘the Elder’) Sinan Pasha (p.61), Biyikli (‘the Mustachioed’)
Mehmed Pasha (p.45) and Yemishci (‘the Fruiterer’) Hasan Pasha (p.70). This is in
marked contrast to the wilful obscurity of some Ottomanists, who refer to Suleyman
the Magnificent, one of the few Ottoman Sultans the general reader is likely to have
heard of, as Suleyman Kanune, or, even worse, as ‘Suleyman II’ rather than as the
generally accepted Suleyman I. On the other hand, it is unfortunate that Imber does
not provide exact references for many of these translated quotes, for example his
frequent references to Ibrahim Pechevi regarding war on the Hungarian front in 1593
– 1606. However, in the latter case, anyone looking for a more thoroughly referenced
discussion of Pechevi as a source on military developments can now refer to Imber’s
contribution to Frontiers of Ottoman Studies, (London, 2004) edited by Imber
together with Keiko Kiyotaki and Rhoads Murphey.

Imber includes a helpful glossary of Ottoman terminology, although it is a shame that

Palgrave Macmillan could not have assisted him in obtaining better quality maps than
the apparently free-hand sketches ‘adapted from’ works by Claude Cahen, Palmira
Brummet, Rhoads Murphey and Robert Mantran. The splendid full-colour cover
artwork reproduces a detail from an Ottoman miniaturist painting. The only real
concern is whether the spine of the stout paperback edition will withstand repeated
readings and constant referencing, which this fecund volume surely deserves.

For a more authoritative review by one of Imber’s peers, who provides a valuable
summary of the historiographical lineage, see Colin Heywood’s review for the
Institute of Historical Research (London) website:

© 2007 Daniel J. Bamford. Page 5 of 7

 Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300–1650: the Structure of Power (2002).

Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300–1650: the Structure of Power, reviewed by
Colin Heywood (University of Hull) - with a response from the author. Reviews in
History, (Institute of Historical Research, London), 2005, Review #431.

http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/heywood.html

http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/imberresp.html

DANIEL BAMFORD, March 2007.

© 2007 Daniel J. Bamford. Page 6 of 7

1
History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, I, Empire of the Gazis. The Rise and Decline of the
Ottoman Empire 1280-1808, Stanford J. Shaw; History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, II,
Reform, Revolution, and Republic. The Rise of Modern Turkey 1808-1975, Stanford J. Shaw; Ezel Kural
Shaw. Review author: Colin Imber, The English Historical Review, Vol. 93, No. 367. (Apr., 1978), pp. 393-
395.
http://www.jstor.org/view/00138266/ap020367/02a00150/0

2
The Ottoman Turks: An Introductory History, Justin McCarthy. Review author: Colin Imber, British Journal
of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 26, No. 2. (Nov., 1999), pp. 307-310.
http://www.jstor.org/view/13530194/ap010009/01a00090/0
3
Inalcik, Halil. The Ottoman Empire: the Classical Age, 1300-1600. Translated by Norman Itzkowitz and
Colin Imber. (New York and Washington: Praeger, 1973; London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973; New
Rochelle, NY: Caratzas, 1989; London: Phoenix, 1994). This received warm praise from R. C. Repp when it
was first published and has recently been described as a ‘classic’ by Suraiya Faroqhi. The recent reprints are
testimony in themselves to the book’s enduring value.
4
Author's Response: The Ottoman Empire, 1300–1650: the Structure of Power, Colin Imber. Reviewer: Colin
Heywood (University of Hull). Reviews in History. (London: Institute of Historical Research), Review #431
(2005).
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/imberresp.html

5
The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300-1600, HaliW l İnalcik; Norman Itzkowitz; Colin Imber. Review
author: R. C. Repp, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 37, No.
3. (1974), pp. 695-696. cf. Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: the Classical Age, 1300-1600, (1973), p.85.

6
See, for example, Gabor Barta, The First Period of the Principality of Transylvania (1526 – 1606)., History
of Transylvania. Volume 1: From the Beginnings to 1606. Laszlo Makkai and Andras Mocsy (ed.s). (Boulder,
CO: Atlantic Research and Publications, Inc., 2001), IV, 1, p.634, p.642.

7
Viorel Panaite, The Ottoman Law of War and Peace: The Ottoman Empire and Tribute Payers. (Boulder,
CO: Atlantic Research and Publications, Inc., 2000), p.341.f.