Customer Reviews

The Ottomans: Dissolving Images

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Andrew Wheatcroft opens his book by saying that he does not wish to write a full-blown history of the Ottoman Empire, as these already exist, mentioning Lord Kinross' book ["The Ottoman Centuries"] as an example. Indeed that is a first-class history. Rather, Wheatcroft continues, he wants to write about `the idea of the Ottomans and how in the West that idea became so completely divorced from the reality". I am not sure that THE OTTOMANS represents a successful attempt at doing that, but it is a very interesting book, well-worth reading for anyone with a desire to spend some hours thinking about the Turkish past.

The two last chapters, on `the lustful Turk' and `the terrible Turk', truly delve into the construction and propagation of these commonly-held European images of the Ottomans, images that have not yet quite died off. Elsewhere, Wheatcroft occasionally remarks on or talks briefly about such images as they grew, but his work is more like a very interesting tour of some aspects of Ottoman life and history. His fine descriptions of battles and sieges---the initial siege and fall of Constantinople, the battle of Mohacs, the sieges of Vienna in 1529 and 1683---do not really fit into his theme. The full chapter spent on telling how the proud, corrupt and troublesome janissaries were finally destroyed provide a fascinating story, but are not about `the idea of the Ottomans'. While describing Ottoman institutions like the harem or army and the city of Stamboul itself, we can look through European eyes to some extent, thus coming closer to the theme, and the process of change, discussed in Chapter 6, called "Dreams from the Rose Pavilion: the Meandering Path of Reform", also involves European interpretations of the need for reforms and European estimations of their success. One of the highlights of THE OTTOMANS is the fine collection of pictures done by European artists---definitely a European view of the Turkish past. Not as much is made of these as could be: they might have been the center of the whole book.

I liked Wheatcroft's constant attempt to make readers consider the exaggerations of the past, to make Western readers realize that the Ottoman Empire, despite its faults, was one of the major political entities of the world for over 400 years. For much of that time it had institutions that rivalled or outshone those of the West. Even when the Industrial Revolution and the concomitant rise of modern warfare tilted the scales of power towards the West, many European opinions of Turkish cruelty, corruption, or lack of cleanliness neglected European shortcomings in identical areas. If Westerners are ever going to accept Turkey as a member of the European community or merely as an equal ally and partner, a realization of these centuries of propaganda is a must. If you are looking for an academically useful book on the Ottoman Empire, this is probably not it. If, on the other hand, you just want a fascinating, well-illustrated book that is clearly-written and lucid, giving you details of a fascinating sweep of history, you will enjoy THE OTTOMANS. It could be the jumping off place for wider readings in Ottoman history and culture. And it helps set the record straight.

I liked this book by Andrew Wheatcroft. In the introduction, he made it certain to the readerwhat he wasn't going to do, which was the entire history of the Ottaman Empire. What he does is clear up some misconceptions about the old Turkish Empire, and how they related to developments in Western Europe. If you want a defininitive book on the Turkish Empire, you should read Lord Kinross's The Ottoman Centuries or Palmer's book. Wheatcroft relates the images of the Lustful Turk, and discards those images into the trash can. What emerges is a very conservative Islamic society trying to cope with the West and not being very successful at it. The Sick Man of Europe did indeed die, but for the after effects read David Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace.

Wheatcroft's book fills a niche on the shelf. It is not a dry recitation of dates and historical facts, nor is it a complex analysis of causes and effects in the Ottoman empire. Instead it is a brief and fascinating look at certain specific scenes: the fall of Constantinople, the harem, the janissaries, Abdul Hamid "The Red Sultan", the seige of Vienna. Using these elements as jumping off points, Wheatcroft exposes western myths about the Ottomans and with broad strokes traces the rise and fall of the empire. This book may not provide enough grist for committed scholars but it is wonderfully readable, well-researched, and colorful. It is an excellent first or second book on the subject for those interested in a vivid and balanced overview of the Ottoman empire.

Although the book has a rather questionable scientific value, it is good reading for those who have doubts about and refuse to accept the image of the Ottomans as presented in the west.

An excellent start for the history loving who wish to get a more balanced view on an empire and its people.

I liked this book a lot. This vivid narrative really brings the Ottomans to life and paints a colorful pictures of their interesting and (to westerners) exotic culture. Wheatcroft not only shows the good and bad spects of their society, and tells fabulous stories from Ottoman history, but he also seems to hold a mirror up to ourselves and shows how our own western culture has viewed the Ottomans through history. A fascinating study that will likely cause you to reevaluate your own view of the Ottomans and their history.

I liked this book. Not only for the interresting portrayal of specific Ottoman period and characters which were zealously researched that makes the book a higly capturing adventourous journey throughout the time but also for the reflection of the authors' opinion based on factual information. I did not feel compelled to agree or disagree with the author and thought it was only fair to build up on the historical documents and accessible data. This feature gave the book rather a different (and more desirable) taste rather than the one that can be found in a mere historical compilation. The author also was not trying too hard with the tone of the book as was the case in "Lord of the Horizons". Enjoyable, easy to read, an exciting book.

The book was deleveried within the time quoted and was in the exact condition as stated on the website. Thank you for the service, I am very satisfied.

I am only suprised about how people can call themselves modern and can call Turks as "animals".In every book except this one the idea on the above was sentenced the main idea but because it was a real, neutralist research (this book) I can only ask you to read and see if ottomans were animals with two feet -as you think- or human beings who managed to live for 7 centuries in three lands.

Either the author lost his focus or he became bored with his subject. That's the impression left after reading the final chapters of what the title implied would be a short history of the Turkish people known to history as The Ottomans.

In the early chapters, when Andrew Wheatcroft wrote of the stirrings of the fierce people of Anatolia (today's Turkey), how they organized under their dedication to Islamic belief, he adequately captured the drama of the time. When he described the blow-by-blow account of the fall of Constantinople, the jewel of the Byzantine World, in the mid-15th Century, a general reader's interest was whetted. The best was yet to come -- or so the reader thought.

But -- alas -- the best didn't come. The book petered out. A good start but no follow through.

It became clear though, that Mr. Wheatcroft wanted to leave his readers with the notion that the Ottomans -- that is the Turkish Ottomans -- were and are opposed to modernization and change. He went into great detail reporting that in the 18th and 19th Centuries, when successive sultans tried to change the ancient, clumsy and archaic war methods and dress of the janissary warriors, they met with rebellion. Change was not welcome, Mr. Wheatcroft wrote. It was bitterly opposed, even to death.

So purposefully does the author push this theme of abhorence to change, that in the final chapters he barely mentioned the explosive changes made in the 20th Century by Kemal Atatürk who was, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"One of the great figures of the 20th century, Atatürk rescued the surviving Turkish remnant of the defeated Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. He galvanized his people against invading Greek forces who sought to impose the Allied will upon the war-weary Turks and repulsed aggression by British, French, and Italian troops. Through these struggles, he founded the modern Republic of Turkey, for which he is still revered by the Turks. He succeeded in restoring to his people pride in their Turkishness, coupled with a new sense of accomplishment as their backward nation was brought into the modern world.

"He modernized the country's legal and educational systems and encouraged the adoption of a European way of life, with Turkish written in the Latin alphabet and with citizens adopting European-style names."

None of this in Wheatcroft's book. Instead he snagged on the concept that followers of Islam -- and Turks, in particular, were incapable of change. Instead, the author wrote chapters entitled "The Terrible Turk", "The Lustful Turk" and in one unbelievable departure from objective historical reporting and good taste, he wrote (p 234) that the Ottomans "were bloodthirsty savages."

So much for the effect of enlightenment in the Western World where Mr. Wheatcroft does his teaching and writing. I can only recommend this book as a study of crude anti-Islamic propaganda.

The book is mostly a standard history of the Ottoman Empire, covering the military, political, economic and cultural aspects of the empire from its rise to its fall. But beyond this, the book discusses the `image' of the Ottomans in Europe, that of the savage, sensuous, opium addled oriental who lacked the refined civilization of the Europeans, and which was "woefully separated from the reality". (xix). The final two chapters of the book are titled "The Lustful Turk" and the "The Terrible Turk", the two stereotypes well established in Europe by the nineteenth century, which enabled the Europeans to dismiss the Ottomans as lesser beings. Many of these stereotypes can still be found in western accounts of the Middle East to this day. With this he touches on some of the same themes as Edward Said's Orientalism, but in a manner that is much easier to understand. I read this book before I read My Name is Red, and they went well together, with this book giving the historical background to the fictional account of the novel. I found this book to be written very well, a clear and concise history without a lot of academic fluff, and for that reason I could definitely see myself using this book in a class someday.