WAS THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE A TURKISH STATE?

19 Şubat 2025 Çarşamba

19.02.2025

Various nations live within empires. Many languages are spoken. The ruler assumes the position of a father to all and strives to maintain harmony. Everyone lives within their own sphere, preserving their own culture. The idea that "every bird sings in its own nest" remained one of the unwritten principles of the empire until its end. In the Ottoman Empire, the millet system served as an administrative strategy for governing a multi-religious empire. It persisted in various forms for over five centuries—a period far longer than the lifespan of liberal democracy or the nation-state. The word "millet" means “religious community” or “people” in Turkish. In medieval Islamic states, the term referred to certain non-Muslim minorities, primarily Christians and Jews. In the heterogeneous Ottoman Empire (c. 1300–1923), a millet was an autonomous, self-governing religious community, each organized under its own laws and led by a religious authority who was responsible to the central government for ensuring that the millet fulfilled its obligations, particularly in paying taxes and maintaining internal security.

The Ottoman State was founded by a Turkmen community that had migrated from Khorasan to Anatolia due to the Mongol invasion, as a frontier principality on the Byzantine border of the Anatolian Seljuk State. Within a short period, due to conquests, a large number of Christians and Jews came under Ottoman rule. Although the ruling class was Muslim, non-Muslims were numerically dominant. After the conquests of Sultan Selim I, the Muslim population slightly surpassed the non-Muslim population.

From 1071 onward, only a small number of Turks came to Anatolia. Their numbers increased somewhat due to the Mongol invasion in the 13th century. However, the significant increase in the Turkish population occurred after the 16th century through the Ottoman government’s policy of settling nomads. Among Muslims, Turks were numerically dominant, and they also formed the ruling group through the dynasty, the ulama (religious scholars), and the military.

Istanbul: An Armenian woman, a Jewish bride, and a Greek girl (from the left - 1873)

The Dominant Nation (Millet-i Hakime )

From the 15th century onwards, the Ottoman State conducted systematic land and population censuses every thirty years. Since these were based on military and tax obligations, only the male population was counted. Accordingly, it is estimated that the Ottoman population in the 16th century was around 30 million. Slightly more than half of this population was Muslim. In 1844, out of 35 million people, 20 million were Muslim, and 15 million were non-Muslim. Among the Muslims, there were 10 million Turks, 7 million Arabs, and 1 million Kurds. Half of Istanbul’s population of 800,000 was non-Muslim. Due to territorial losses, the population fell to 21 million in 1905, with 15.5 million Muslims. By 1914, out of 18.5 million people, 15 million were Muslim. Nevertheless, Turks were still not the majority.

Various nations lived in empires, and many languages were spoken. The ruler assumed the position of a father to all and sought to maintain harmony. Everyone lived in their own sphere, preserving their own culture without mixing with others. Sultan Mahmud II expressed this principle clearly:

"I wish to distinguish my Muslim subjects in mosques, my Christian subjects in churches, and my Jewish subjects in synagogues. Apart from this, there is no other difference between them. They are all my children."

"The ruler could even belong to a foreign race. The royal families of England, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, and Portugal were German. The royal families of Spain and Sweden were French. The Turk Babur Shah’s people were Indian, while Ahmed Tulun’s people were Arab. The ruler had guards from various ethnic groups. The English king sometimes wore a Scottish kilt; the Austrian emperor attended ceremonies in a Hungarian uniform. Sultan Abdulhamid II, in addition to his Söğütlü Ertuğrul guards (from the Karakeçili tribe to which the Ottoman family belongs), also formed national guard regiments from Albanians and Arabs. When people wanted to celebrate the conquest of Istanbul, he refused, saying, "Our Greek citizens would be offended."

King George V of England, of German origin, in traditional Scottish attire

In the last century, a theoretical historical understanding emerged that considered the Ottoman State as part of a centuries-old Turkish history. This is correct in the sense that it was a state led by Turks. However, this was an era in which nationalism did not exist, and racial or ethnic identity had no real significance. The dynasty was Turkish. Turkish was spoken in official and military circles. However, there was no consciousness of Turkishness or a connection between Turkish identity and sovereignty. Turkish history is filled with struggles and wars among Turkish communities.

For an Ottoman citizen, true identity was based on religion. From the 19th century onward, Ottoman identity became a pragmatic overarching identity. The term Ottoman referred to the citizens of the state, named after the founding sultan of the dynasty. It was unifying rather than divisive. Muslims were the ruling class—first among equals. While Serbs were considered part of the Orthodox Christian millet, Bosnians, who spoke the same language, were included in the dominant Muslim millet. When Europe referred to Ottomans as Turks, it meant Muslims. "He became a Turk" meant "He became a Muslim."

Arab Zouave Guard Regiment during the reign of Sultan Abdulhamid II

A bugler from the Albanian Guard Regiment

The Hopeless Turkification Policy

To keep the weakening empire intact, the Young Turks initially embraced Ottomanism. However, they failed to retain non-Muslims, who were intoxicated by the lure of nationalism. Consequently, they embarked on a hopeless Turkification policy, which alienated Arabs and Albanians. The republic governments, infiltrated by the Young Turks, continued this policy. The Rumelian and Caucasian peoples who migrated to Anatolia had no choice but to remain silent. However, the Kurds, who had lived in this region even before the Turks, resisted.

Moreover, the Turkification policy inflicted the greatest harm on the Turkish nation itself. It created a deep chasm between the Turks and their historical culture. The Turkish language, religion, and culture were degraded. While the past was wholly rejected on one hand, on the other, it was viewed as part of a rich heritage. In Egypt, for instance, the names of the pharaohs were given to streets, and their statues were erected in squares. Shah Reza Pahlavi celebrated the 5,000th anniversary of the founding of the Iranian state in Persepolis.

The nation-state emerged as an alternative to the empire. There was a dominant nation and minorities in conflict with it. Ankara also followed this trend. However, due to its religious legacy, it considered only non-Muslims as minorities. Kurds and other Muslim peoples were neither included among the minorities nor recognized as part of the dominant nation. Under the Ottomans, however, they were part of the dominant nation (millet-i hakime). Non-Muslims were not assimilated through religious means but rather through extreme nationalist efforts. The root of today’s problems lies in this.

In modern democracies, ethnic identity is not emphasized. England and America derive their names from geography rather than race. Everyone can feel a sentimental attachment to their own nation and preserve their culture and language. However, this cannot be used as a tool of dominance or oppression. There is no example of this in the Islamic-Turkish political tradition.

Söğütlü Ertuğrul Guard Regiment

Önceki Yazılar

Diğer makaleler için tıklayınız