Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq

Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq was an ambassador of the Holy Roman Emperor at the Sublime Porte (the Turkish Sultan's court in Constantinople) from 1555-62. In essence Ogier was a was a writer, herbalist and diplomat.
De Busbecq was the illegitimate son of the Seigneur de Busbecq, Georges Ghiselin, and his mistress Catherine Hespiel. He was born in 1522 and spent his lifetime in the employ of three generations of Austrian monarchs. He was very well- learned man who had pursued his education at some of Europe's most prestigious Universities including advanced Latin studies at Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium and later on in Italy's northern universities.
The majority of what is known of de Busbecq's experiences in the Ottoman lands is as according to his accounts written in letters which he wrote. These letters were part of personal correspondence to his friend, Nicholas Michault, who was also a Hungarian diplomat. The letters represent primary sources of historical Ottoman Empire from a western perspective and have been hailed as some of the world's first travel literature.
The letters themselves largely describe Ogiers activities and involvement in Ottoman politics He is also known for having been a keen collector who acquired precious manuscripts, rare coins and main other mementos of the Ottomans.
In his first letter de Busbecq says: "As we passed through this district [on the road from Adrianople to Constantinople] we everywhere came across quantities of flowers--narcissi, hyacinths, and tulipans, as the Turks call them. We were surprised to find them flowering in mid-winter, scarcely a favourable season....The tulip has little or no scent, but it is admired for its beauty and the variety of its colours. The Turks are very fond of flowers, and, though they are otherwise anything but extravagant, they do not hesitate to pay several aspres for a fine blossom. These flowers, although they were gifts, cost me a good deal; for I had always to pay several aspres in return for them."- Busbecq, Turkish Letters (I, pp.24-25)
It is because of this letter that de Busbecq is reputed to have made tulips and other flowers such as the lilac popular in Europe.yet because of his herbalist background, Ogier wrote a lot about plants and animals that he saw in the Ottoman lands. It was because of this that he sent some tulip bulbs to his friend Charles de l'Écluse, who breeded and adapted them to life in the European climate. Other than this, de Busbecq is also credited to have been the first European to describe yoghurt and by so doing introduce it to Europe.
Other issues tackled in de Busbecq's letters are warnings and exhortations to his fellow countrymen willing them to take the Ottomans as an example of military strength and discipline. He goes into detail about his encounters with the Janisarries, their attire and how they held themseves in strict discipline and obeisance to the Sultan.
In one of his letters, he starts off initially by describing the grace and respectfulness in which he was greeted by the Janissaries during his first visit saying "To tell you the truth, if I had not been told beforehand that they were Janissaries, I should, without hesitation, have taken them for members of some order of Turkish monks, or brethren of some Moslem college. Yet these are the famous Janissaries, whose approach inspires terror everywhere."
Later on he expands on their fortitude and skill by saying "From this you will see that it is the patience, self-denial and thrift of the Turkish soldier that enable him to face the most trying circumstances and come safely out of' the dangers that surround him. What a contrast to our men! Christian soldiers on a campaign refuse to put up with their ordinary food, and call for thrushes, becaficos [a small bird esteemed a dainty, as it feeds on figs and grapes], and suchlike dainty dishes! ... It makes me shudder to think of what the result of a struggle between such different systems must be"- The Turkish Letters, 1555-1562
In this and other ways de Busbecq uses his letters to criticize the Western system of the superiority of bloodlines and aristocracy over merit and personal ability. This is understandable not only because of the Ottoman example that de Busbecq was observing but also in light of his own illegitimacy which had impacted on his life path. One can also not ignore the fact that de Busbecq is definitely not unbiased since at the times of the letters he was one of the people advocating for reform in his country thus his representations of the Ottomans while highly accurate are tainted with his own motives.
There are many other references of de Busbecq in history but his most famous works remains the Turkish Letters that he wrote as a result of his tenure in Constantinople. De Busbecq left the Ottoman lands in 1562 at which time he became a counselor in the court of Emperor Ferdinand in Vienna.


Works Cited
1. Epistolae ad Rudolphum II. Imperatorem e Gallia scriptae (1630) - Posthumous publication of Busbecq's letters to Rudolf II detailing the life and politics of the French court.
2. The Turkish Letters of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq Imperial Ambassador at Constantinople 1554 - 1562 (1927) translated by Edward Seymour Forster

History and its added on glory

To what extend can we believe in history? Or books written on historical figures? In a way it is almost like playing that telephone game where each person hears differently and adds their own perception of it. That is history in a sense.

The documentary "Mustafa" created a great furor at its debut because it depicted the Father of Turkey, President Mustapha Kemal Pasha "Ataturk" as a more human guy who had weaknesses, depression and struggled like everyone of us. Using information garnered from letters and diaries of Mustafa, the documentary focuses more on the personal particulars of this Turkish icon, recounting letters to the ladies in his life, his mother and a certain Corrine. Those that have greatly opposed the film cite that it goes against the glory of his achievements and that this is an inaccurate depiction of a great man. I for one liked the film because seeing Mustafa as a normal human being makes his achievements all the greater simply because it shows that he conquered unbeatable odds.

But regardless of whether it's good or not, the reaction to this documentary makes me wonder how much of what we know of historical figures is actually true given how possessive people are of their forefathers. I mean, to what extend are the stories about America's forefathers true? Where they all that visionary, strong and great or where they normal men looking out for their own and doing the best they can in hard times. How true are the historical accounts of the kings, heroes and illustrious men and women who have walked the faces of time? Or is it all a manipulation of facts and assumptions designed to achieve a particular goal?

Finances of the Ottomans

The Tanzimat initiated a system of standardized taxation. In previous times local rulers and tax collectors had been guilty of enriching themselves at the expense of locals. This new system meant that taxes were more evened out and equal across the board. There was an abolition of the capitation tax on non−Muslims, with a regular method of establishing and collecting taxes in 1856. However this caused an uproar because non-Muslims were now having to pay more taxes under the new system than they had before. The system of taxation also applied to military conscription and training, a system that now was regulated, and involved less pressure on the locals.
One other change that occurred in the finances of the Ottomans during the Tanzimat was the reorganization of the finance system according to the French model. As the empire looked more and more towards the West in its remodeling, the circulation of money and financial institutions were made to imitate the French. This resulted in changes such as the introduction of the first Ottoman paper banknotes in 1840 and the launching of the first Stock Exchange in Istanbul was established in 1866.

Economic Blunders of the Tanzimat

As much as the Ottomans were reforming the education and government systems, there was very little being done in terms of fiscal and economic reform. That is to say that the empire’s intentions with methods such as bank notes and the stock exchange were not in coherence with its spending or monetary policies.
According to Roger Owen "Limited financial resources, the lack of competent administrators, the growing technological gap between Europe and the rest of the world, and the constraints imposed by Turkey's social structure and weakened international position all combined to set strict limits on the types of economic politics pursued" (Owen, p. 116). This resulted in over-stretching of the Ottoman monetary supplies and debt accumulation.
This was not aided by the fact that in its reformation, the Ottiman Empire was having to make a great many capitulations to foreign powers. On one hand France and England used their diplomatic influence in Constantinople to accommodate imperialist expansion at the expense of economic reform within Ottoman realms.

Some examples of the capitulations that the Ottomans made which had a financial impact on the empire are:

a) The 1838 Anglo-Turkish commercial convention in which the empire needed British support in fighting Egypt, one of the conditions was the spread of European imports in Ottoman markets.

b) In the 1850s and 1860s, the British and French established investment banks designed to channel domestic savings into overseas loans and projects. These banks were the cornerstone of Ottoman borrowing activities and resulted in the indebtedness of the empire. This history of debt would be kicked off by the 3 million British pounds borrowed to pay war expenses in 1854 and followed by the many payments needed to service these loans.
Other failures of the Tanzimat’s financial reforms were the lack of a government apparatus that would carry out these reforms. An example would be that though the tax collection system was reformed, there was a lack trained personnel that would collect and handles taxation matters within the empire. This continued until after 1859 when the Mekteb-i Mülkiye school to train bureaucrats was established.
The efforts for economic development during the Tanzimat were not so much a failure as it was the fact that they were overwhelmed by external factors. The Tanzimat period occurred at about the same time as the industrial revolution in Europe. This meant that there was a boom in building roads, ports, and other economic infrastructure that facilitated the transport of goods. This trade however remained profitable only to foreign traders and investors as opposed to merchants from the empire and this was due to a poorly developed tariff system.
It is reputed that Ottoman exports increased nearly 500 percent between 1840 and the 1870s. However these exports were less than 10 percent of total production in the empire. There largely constituted of raw agricultural materials sent to England and France.Moreover, local Ottoman industries faced an increase in competition from foreign companies such that some collapsed while others became appendages of foreign business and not part of Ottoman production. Those that faced a boom were Ottomans in the port ares were ships docked but even then, theirs were profits gained from connection with foreigners trading on Ottoman soil and not from local industry. It is no wonder that Ottoman finances during the Tanzimat continued to worsen until the empire eventually declared bankruptcy in 1875.


Work Cited
1. Davison, Roderic H. Reform in the Ottoman Empire,1856 - 1876. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1963.
2. Lewis, Bernard. The Emergence of Modern Turkey, 3d edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
3. Owen, Roger. The Middle East in the World Economy,1800 - 1914. New York: Methuen, 1981.
4. Pamuk, Şevket. The Ottoman Empire and European Capitalism,1820 - 1913: Trade, Investment, and Production. Cambridge, U.K., and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
5. Shaw, Stanford J., and Shaw, Ezel Kural. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Vol. 2: Reform, Revolution, and Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey, 1808-1975. Cambridge, U.K., and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

Minorities in the Ottoman Empire

So on questioning the existence of minorities in the Ottoman empire, one has to consider the definition of the term minority and then see if truly applies to the Ottomans. I had been of the opinion that minorities had existed based on race, religion and social status, but when the question of whether the definition of minority could truly have been applied to the non-Muslims living and working in the empire, i clearly had to change my stance. After all the Jews, Christians and other non-Muslim people, most probably did not consider themselves to be a lesser and abused sector of the empire. They lived and worked like everyone else, with opportunities for advancement and privileges that would have defied the term "minority". Their taxes may have been different or some such responsibilities, but this enabled them to be excused from paying all the other taxes that Muslims were obligated to pay. If anything, this class taught me to question how i would apply when talking in a historical context. Not only has the meaning of the terms evolved with time and events, but they may not even capture the true meaning of the state of events in history.

On the Ottoman bill of rights

The bill of rights is very good in that introduces to us the conception of political rights in as well as showing that individual right were prominent in the Ottoman mind.

This is especially important because of the popular perception in many circles that the Islamic faith cannot conceivably be associated with granting individual rights. People would rather think of them as barbaric and incapable of human rights but the Bill of Rights disproves this notion.

It is further elevated in value by the fact that it represents proof that under the Ottomans’ Muslim empire, Christians and Jews enjoyed equal rights and expectations as Muslims. Before the Bill, they had had rights but within their own communities with the distinction that they were not equal to Muslims, hence practices such as enslaving Christians and Jews but never Muslims. With the Bill of rights things change as it initiates the process of ensuring equality between Christians, Muslims, and Jews in the Ottoman Empire.

The Gulhane proclamation

I was going through the Gulhane Proclamation in regards to the snow day assignment and i felt i should post my discussion board responses here.

Looking at this document, it seems to me that the Gulhane Proclamation talks about change. At first it looks to be very backward looking as it sorts of tries to reincarnate the good old days when the empire was at its greatest. As you go further in the reading, the tone struck me as being more a stylistic way of writing than actually being an exhortation about the need to return to the past when the empire ran according to the law.

This is best described when one see that there are actually new changes being spoken about in the proclamation thereby indicating that it is forward looking and not just wanting the old days. In cases where the proclamation declares that “From henceforth” this shows that this was an example of reform introducing something that was never there before thus the document looks forward. An example of reforms suggested is the practice that without judgment being pronounced, a person can neither secretly nor publicly kill someone else. This shows a clear progression from the old ways of meting justice.

The proclamation also suggests other changes that are useful as well as progressive in approach such as ensuring property rights. For me this was most impressive considering that even today many countries around the world are only beginning to understand the importance of property rights to a well functioning society, while some have not even gotten there yet. For the Ottomans to have been suggesting this in 1839, when the modern world had to go through colonialism in Africa, two world wars and communism to understand the same thing, is quite impressive.

Hats off to an absoultely stunning empire

There is a lot to be said about the complexities and efficiency of the Ottoman empire. Looking at its composition, hierarchies and institutions, it is easier to understand how it was one of the most influential empires spanning over centuries. The idea that they would have a form of slavery that is supported by a human tax collected every seven years from non-Muslim families yet enable these same slaves to gain political advancement based on merit, is simply mind-boggling. It puts to shame all of the slave systems that all of the western states ever put together that were oppressive and denigrating to the slaves unlike with the Janissaries that were an integral part of the Sultan's court and were absolutely loyal to him. That is genius in my book, when you conscript so called outcasts of society, in this case non-Muslim children, and incorporate them into your culture and giving them the dignity and opportunity to advance based on their ability. Although they later turned out to be the downfall of the Ottoman Empire, at its peak, the Janissaries were a huge power force that was admired within the Ottoman society. This was regardless of the fact that they were never full Muslims having been inculcated into the faith.