Skip to main content

Istanbul: The Ottoman Empire


The Ottoman Empire, at its zenith spanned across three continents namely Asia, Africa and Europe. The Ottomans controlled the Mediterranean waters and the lands on its periphery including Spain on the west and modern day Turkey on the East. The name ‘Ottoman’ has its history in the founder of the dynasty, Osman 1, ‘Ottoman’ being the anglicized version of Osman.

The Ottomans established themselves formally as an empire with the fall of the Byzantine capital Constantinople, modern day Istanbul, in 1453. Now, to me, The City of Istanbul attracts. I am not sure about the source of that attraction but I believe the history and the culture of the city play a significant part substantiating that attraction apart from Bollywood’s portrayal of the city.

Istanbul has a very special geographical status in terms of the modern day nation-state arrangement of territories across continents. The city cannot be discussed in isolation with the Ottoman Empire and its history. The story of the rise of the Ottoman Empire is as interesting as it gets. It has lessons concerning how religion can be made a weapon to wage wars and expand territories. The history of the Ottoman Empire teaches us the art of sustaining an overarching government with immense diversity within its subjects; a lesson modern day nation states continue struggling with.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nuclear Proliferation and the role for International community

Put simply, nuclear proliferation refers to the spread of nuclear weapons in the world. Given their lethal powers, nuclear weapons attract a great amount of space in the discussions involving strategy. Complex as it is, strategy unfolds multiple and often contrasting aspects of nuclear weapons and their spread. With a multitude of divergences in terms of stands one takes on nuclear weapons, there is a broad understanding that nuclear proliferation is not in the larger good of the global community. It is here that the question of proliferation and the ways of preventing it come up. This discussion will take into account the journey to limit proliferation and challenges involved in the same. It will also try to delve into some systemic factors that make non-proliferation difficult. Before we go forward, it will be helpful to go through the basics of the nuclear world order along with some terminologies regarding the same. The United states of America became the first country to have succ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The US-Iran rivalry in the Middle East

West Asia is a region full of twisted realities where the simplest of events can have the most complex underpinnings. Speaking of complexities in the region, Iran is one such country in the region whose sheer size and clout make it a prominent regional power. Iran being a theocracy led by the Shi'ite clergy has religion entwined with its politics. Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, from the American lens, Iran has emerged as an untamed beast in the region with its own sense of purpose and an independent worldview to decide its state policy independently. Unlike Saudi Arabia, Iran does not align itself with the USA. Rather, Iran and USA share a relationship of animosity since the revolution in 1979. Multiple theories are proposed to explain the bitterness in Iran-US relationship. However, none prove sufficient enough to accomplish the arduous task of explaining the role of Iran in the region and its implications for the stability in West Asia. Put in one sentence, Iran as a st...
Post a Comment
Read more

War on Terror and Constructivism

Put simply, Constructivism provides a bridge between Realism and Liberalism. It attempts to answer the questions left unanswered by both of these theories. Constructivism does this by introducing the aspect of identity and social interactions in relations. Since, Constructivism developed as a critique to Realists and Liberals; it is opportune to revisit Realism and Liberalism briefly before delving any deeper into the Constructivist thought. The realist and liberal thought structures present a diametrically opposite view of human nature. Evidently, this contrast in their outlook is also reflected in the interpretation of International Relations. For realists, all human actions are designed to further their personal gain. All humankind being self-regarding, there is little concern in their minds for their fellow human beings. In the words of Thomas Hobbes, it is war of all against all. Realists argue; human mind seeks conflict. It looks at relations in terms of relative gains. A gai...
Post a Comment
Read more