2906 divided by 2

If the title went over your head, just do the math. When speaking of the great feats of the Ottoman Empire, it is truly necessary to talk about the 1453 capture of Constantinople. The man behind this expansion is the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II. I find Mehmet to be an interesting figure in Ottoman history. He did not have the prototypical childhood of a Sultan. According to Crowley, odds are that his mother was a not a Turk or a Muslim, but a Western slave of the Christian faith. Even more interesting is that Mehmet was Murad's third son(his two half-brothers were much older), making his odds of ascension to the throne even more slim.

From the time Mehmet came to power, it appears to me that he had his eyes set on winning the Byzantine stronghold of Constantinople. Strategic decisions, such as placing forts along the Dardanelles, ensured his ability to mount a formidable attack.

Despite the overpowering force of the Ottoman army, I was astonished to hear how long the city walls of Constantinople were able to withstand the assault brought about by the Ottomans. To me, this is a prime example of the importance of fortifying your city. As we have seen throughout history, if a city or state is unable to fend off external forces, they are destined to fall.

Not to get too far off topic, but this brings to mind the current situation we face in America with the high influx of illegal immigrants on our Southern border. Obviously, the situations are quite different, but the underlying theme is that there is a strong necessity to keep borders secure from outside forces.

I believe that the Ottoman's successes in Constantinople propelled them into a new era. Having captured this Western power made them a respected nation on the world stage.

Suleyman Le Magnifique

I would like to start by saying that it is absolutely incredible to think that in addition to Suleyman, such influential leaders as Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire, Phillip II of Spain, Elizabeth I of England, Ivan IV of Russia, and Akbar the Great of the Mughal Empire all reigned at the same time. Suleyman seems to be the quintessential Ottoman sultan. Within the Ottoman empire he was known as "Kanuni", or the lawgiver. He was a righteous man with his heart set on fixing the problems associated with his father's (Selim I) reign.

I have always been fascinated with historical "what-ifs". One of those giant "what-ifs" is "What if the Ottomans were not stopped at Vienna?" The Ottomans laid siege to Vienna twice (1529 and 1683). Both times they were fought off by the Habsburg forces. Had the Ottomans not been stopped in Vienna, isn't it possible that they would have overtaken all of Europe? No one knows the answer definitively, but if such a thing had happened, the world we live in today would be much different. We may have seen Islam become the dominant Western religion, and we would have seen the continual growth of the Ottoman Empire, rather than the slow decline. As I said earlier, it is somewhat pointless to debate these "what-ifs", but they remain interesting to consider.

Excellent Soldiers

It is very impressive the the Ottoman could take a group of people (Slavic youth) with essentially no allegiance to them and create such a disciplined, powerful army (The Janissary Corps). From what I gather, the Janissaries were masterful tacticians. There was obvious attention to detail in that they would plan attacks nearly a year in advance. A deeply considered plan accompanied by strength in numbers is the best way to guarantee victory in battle.

I found the idea of a Kazan (the large copper cooking pot) to be very intriguing. I cannot imagine a cooking tool being the most treasured possession of a U.S. Army division, but for some reason this was a symbol of great pride within the Janissary Corps. After a bit of thinking this idea seems brilliant. What better way to rally troops and maintain order than to make sure everyone recognizes who feed them. There are only a few things humans truly need for survival, one of them being food. The infantrymen within each Orta surely recognized the supremacy of their Corbasi and followed him accordingly.

In Faroqhi's "Subjects of the Sultan", a particular line on page 24 struck me as fascinating. The Ottomans were famous for their religious tolerance of non-Muslims. Despite this the testimony of a Muslim "carried much more weight in a court of law than that of a non-Muslim." I don't fault them for this line of thinking. At the time they surely thought that this was fair and just. In today's enlightened courts of law, we realize that the truth is the most important thing in a trial, regardless of a witness' religion or culture.

To wear of not to wear?

Yes, It is a lame title, but its 1:07 in the morning and I'm pretty tired. I wanted to get this post up before I go to bed though so here it is!!!

When discussing the Ottoman Empire, it is necessary to have at minimum a basic knowledge of Islam. As a “refresher”, we were given a brief overview from Dr. Metcalf. I was comfortable with most of the information in the presentation, but the discussion stemming from the topic of Muslim women and headdresses sparked my interest.

This is a hot subject in America as well as abroad. In recent history, the French government banned the wearing of the Hijab in their public schools, stirring outrage among the local Muslim community. This issue is quite difficult to talk about, because it can be analyzed in both a religious and a cultural sense.

I think when discussing the topic, it is important to realize that there is a big difference between a more restricting headdress, such as a burqa or a niqab, and the more traditional hijab. To me the burqa and niqab are symbols of societies where women are treated as inferior subjects to their male counterparts. In countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, women who are found in public without the proper headdress can be beaten as punishment. There doesn’t seem to be any room for a woman’s personal choice in that matter.

My interest led me to do a little research, and I came upon an interesting article about a 25-year old Egyptian journalist who chose to start wearing a hijab. This is common in Egypt, as most women still wear the hijab in public, but in Western societies, it is a relatively rare occasion to see a woman wearing a hijab. Ultimately, she found the experiences of daily life with a hijab to be quite liberating.

This is where the cultural differences are most important. I believe that her experiences in the West would be quite different from her experiences in the Middle East. Since the 9/11 attacks, there seems to be a certain degree of “Islamophobia” in the United States. Women who may have been inclined to wear the hijab prior to 9/11 are now forced to consider the negative impacts that it may have on their everyday routines.

Ultimately, the choice to wear a hijab is not for us to decide, it is a woman’s choice. Whether she wears the hijab to show her devotion to Islam or simply as a religious statement is her prerogative.