- For more than six centuries, the Ottoman Empire stood as one of history’s most formidable and complex political entities. Stretching across three continents and encircling the eastern Mediterranean, it ruled over a vast mosaic of peoples, religions, languages, and cultures.
- Its longevity was not sustained by military conquest alone. In an era when many states persecuted, expelled, or exterminated minorities, the Ottoman Empire developed a pragmatic system of governance that, for centuries, managed diversity with relative stability.
- Without idealizing its nature or benevolence, the Ottoman experience remains one of history’s most significant experiments in pluralism.
PELAKITA.ID – The Ottomans began humbly in the late thirteenth century as one among many nomadic warrior groups roaming the frontier zones of what is now central Turkey. These lands were once part of the Byzantine Empire, the heir to Roman imperial authority, but by then Byzantium was collapsing into chaos.
From Frontier Tribe to World Empire
Out of this turbulence emerged a charismatic chieftain named Osman, whose name would give birth to the Ottoman dynasty.
Osman’s success lay in his flexibility. Rather than limiting his following to one ethnic or religious group, he welcomed anyone who could contribute to the survival and expansion of the fledgling state. Allies included not only Muslim warriors but also Byzantine and Serbian Christians. From the outset, the Ottomans cultivated a reputation for order and reliability—an attractive alternative in a landscape plagued by instability. People were often willing to “hitch their wagon” to the Ottomans because they offered predictability where none existed.
Although the Ottomans identified themselves as a Muslim state, their early ideology was less doctrinal than pragmatic. Religion was a powerful tool, but not the sole driver of policy. At times Islam served as a unifying call; at others, material incentives proved more persuasive. Like other pre-modern powers, the Ottomans waged constant war—but they were unusually successful at it. Strategic geography, control of trade routes, and the establishment of tribute-paying vassal states all contributed to their rapid expansion.
Governing Diversity: The Ottoman Formula
By the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the Ottomans had secured control over the Balkans, a mountainous region populated largely by Christians. Remarkably, many local populations welcomed Ottoman rule. The empire brought stability, security, and often lower taxes than previous rulers. Ottoman political philosophy emphasized what was known as the “Circle of Equity,” which placed peasant welfare at the heart of economic and fiscal stability. In many cases, ordinary people lived better under Ottoman administration than they had before.
What distinguished Ottoman rule was not merely tolerance, but restraint. Despite centuries of violent conflict between Christians and Muslims, the Ottomans did not attempt to annihilate or forcibly convert their Christian subjects. They survived not because the Ottomans lacked power, but because they chose not to exercise it in that way. Peaceful governance allowed the empire to focus its energies on further expansion rather than constant internal rebellion.
This approach was reinforced by Islamic legal principles. Christians and Jews, recognized as “People of the Book,” were entitled to protection of life, property, and religion, though they occupied a lower legal status than Muslims. Forced conversion was forbidden. While these rules were occasionally bent for political reasons, the formal standard remained one of protection rather than persecution.
Merit Over Blood: The Devshirme System
One of the most controversial yet innovative Ottoman institutions was the devshirme system—the periodic collection of Christian boys from Balkan villages to be trained as Muslims for state service. While deeply traumatic for many families, the system allowed the Ottomans to bypass entrenched aristocracies and recruit talent based on ability rather than birth.
In contrast to contemporary European systems, where leadership was tied to noble lineage, the Ottoman state offered extraordinary social mobility. The brightest devshirme recruits rose to become administrators, judges, and even Grand Viziers—the second most powerful office after the Sultan. The strongest formed the Janissaries, Europe’s first standing army and the backbone of Ottoman military dominance for centuries.
Although devshirme recruits adopted Muslim identities, many retained strong ties to their places of origin. Some later endowed charitable institutions in their hometowns, including schools, soup kitchens, mosques, and even churches for Christian communities. Ethnic origin mattered little; loyalty, competence, and devotion to the empire mattered most.
Constantinople and the Height of Power
The conquest of Constantinople in 1453 marked a turning point. The city—Rome’s eastern successor and the heart of Byzantine civilization—became the Ottoman capital and transformed the empire into a true world power. Rather than obliterate Byzantine culture, the Ottomans absorbed and reinterpreted it. Hagia Sophia became an imperial mosque, symbolizing not destruction but succession.
Ottoman openness extended beyond its borders. In the late fifteenth century, when Catholic Spain and Portugal expelled Jews and Muslims during the Reconquista, the Ottomans welcomed the refugees. Sultan Bayezid II recognized both the moral and economic value of this persecuted population. In a Europe scarred by religious violence, the Ottoman Empire stood as a refuge.
Under Suleyman the Magnificent in the sixteenth century, the empire reached its territorial zenith, stretching from Vienna to North Africa and from the Balkans to the Arabian Peninsula. Conquest slowed, and governance took precedence. Provinces enjoyed significant autonomy as long as taxes were paid and order maintained. By 1600, many Ottomans lived longer, healthier, and more secure lives than their European counterparts.
Christians and Jews maintained their own schools, courts, and communal institutions. Though subject to special taxes and restrictions, they often experienced considerable legal autonomy. In some cases, minority women even preferred Islamic courts because inheritance laws offered them greater protections than their own religious systems.
Decline, Nationalism, and Collapse
No empire is eternal. From the seventeenth century onward, Western Europe surged ahead through colonial wealth, industrialization, and military innovation. The Ottomans fell behind, particularly in military technology and economic competitiveness. Cheap European goods undermined local crafts, and costly reforms plunged the state into debt. By the 1870s, the empire was bankrupt, and European creditors gained control over key sectors of its economy.
More devastating than economic decline was the rise of nationalism. The Ottoman system depended on coexistence among diverse communities. Nationalism—based on exclusive ethnic and linguistic identities—undermined this foundation.
Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, and others sought independence, often with European backing. As territories broke away, millions of Muslims—many not ethnically Turkish—were expelled and resettled in shrinking Ottoman lands, fueling resentment and competition for scarce resources.
The state attempted reforms under the banner of “Ottomanism,” promoting equal citizenship regardless of religion. Yet European powers simultaneously demanded special privileges for Christian minorities, placing the Ottomans in an impossible position. Equality before the law could not coexist with externally imposed exemptions.
War, Genocide, and the End of an Era
World War I proved catastrophic. Aligning with Germany in a desperate bid for survival, the empire suffered massive losses. One-fifth of the population perished from warfare, starvation, and disease. Amid this chaos, the Armenian population suffered genocide—an atrocity that must be named as such.
Explaining the historical context does not and cannot morally justify the mass killing of civilians based solely on identity. Yet this tragedy should not be used to portray the entirety of Ottoman history as inevitably genocidal; such simplification is both false and dangerous.
As the war ended, European powers planned to divide Ottoman territories. Their ambitions were thwarted in Anatolia by Mustafa Kemal, later known as Atatürk, who expelled foreign forces and founded the Republic of Turkey in 1923. He rejected the Ottoman past and built a secular nation-state. Elsewhere, new states carved from the empire sought to define themselves by rejecting Ottoman identity—often through ethnic cleansing and exclusion.
Lessons from the Ottoman Experience
In the twentieth century, colonial powers and successor states worked hard to erase the Ottoman legacy. Yet this legacy deserves reconsideration. For centuries, the empire demonstrated that large-scale, multi-ethnic coexistence was possible—not through ideology, but through pragmatic governance. Ottoman history reminds us that identity is not fixed or anciently hostile; it is shaped by political and historical circumstances.
The conflicts of the post-Ottoman world are often described as ancient hatreds. In reality, while differences are old, the hatreds themselves are largely modern—manufactured in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and sustained by contemporary politics. The Ottoman experience shows that even deeply divided societies can change, and that systems built on inclusion, however imperfect, can endure far longer than those built on exclusion.
History, like identity, is never final. And that, perhaps, is the most enduring lesson of the Ottoman Empire.
Source: