Several years ago I wrote a review of Candan Badem's excellent book "The Ottoman Crimean War" whi... more Several years ago I wrote a review of Candan Badem's excellent book "The Ottoman Crimean War" which turned out to be too long for the journal and before I got around to cutting it down, it got too late for a review of a 2010 book. It seems a shame to let it sit on my hard drive forever so I thought I'd at least post it here.
This article analyzes the changing treaty law and practice governing the Ottoman state’s attitude... more This article analyzes the changing treaty law and practice governing the Ottoman state’s attitude toward the subjects of its most important neighbor and most inveterate rival: the Russian Empire. The two empires were linked by both migration and unfreedom; alongside Russian slaves forcibly brought to the sultans’ domains, many others came as fugitives from serfdom and conscription. But beginning in the late 18th century, the Ottoman Empire reinforced Russian serfdom and conscription by agreeing to return fugitives, even as the same treaties undermined Ottoman forced labor by mandating the return of Russian slaves. Drawing extensively on Ottoman archival sources, this article argues that the resulting interimperial regulations on unfreedom and movement hardened the empires’ human and geographic boundaries, so that for many Russian subjects, foreign subjecthood under treaty law was not a privilege, but a liability.
This article tells the story of one group of Greek-speaking privateers caught between the Ottoman... more This article tells the story of one group of Greek-speaking privateers caught between the Ottoman and Russian empires during a protracted war between those two states in the late eighteenth century (1787-1792). The work uses the incident to explore the complex question of “who was an Ottoman,” and the vital effects the answer could have on the lives and livelihoods of those who negotiated their way between these two Black Sea imperial rivals. Drawing on a convenient overlap in Ot- toman, Russian, and British archival sources, the article approaches this story from multiple viewpoints, first explaining the context of Aegean maritime violence from which this particular group of corsairs emerged. It then discusses their enlistment in Russian service, their capture by Ottoman forces, and the subsequent attempts of rank-and-file sailors to maneuver between the demands of their Russian employers and their Ottoman captors and rulers, all the while trying to assert their own interests. As captives and governments alike wrestled with the complex question of defining legal identity and imperial loyalty, the story became most interesting when it came time to release the captives at the close of the war in 1792.
This article considers the relationship between law, diplomacy, and identity in delineating slave... more This article considers the relationship between law, diplomacy, and identity in delineating slavery and freedom in the Black Sea imperial milieu. Examining the release processes for captives which followed each of the many wars between the Ottoman and Russian empires in the eighteenth century, I argue that these matters were increasingly handled according to written and unwritten legal understandings, rather than through ransoms or threats. The two empires agreed that the Ottoman state would set free enslaved Russian subjects, even those in private hands, but also that the Russians would not demand the release of others. This discussion, therefore, offers a window on the legalization of international relations, and on the growing importance of individuals’ relationship with central states. Moreover, these understandings endured, consciously or uncon- sciously, into the nineteenth century, arguably shaping Russo-Ottoman and Ottoman-European relations on issues of intervention and the slave trade.
This article examines the role of religious conversion in the rules worked out, on paper and in p... more This article examines the role of religious conversion in the rules worked out, on paper and in practice, between the Ottoman and Russian empires for the return of captives following their frequent eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century conflicts. The author shows that the abolition of ransom led the Ottoman state to take the central role in the liberation of captives in private hands in its territories. For cultural and fiscal reasons, this required the state to define a test for captives’ conversion to Islam, a matter which had previously been communally and religiously defined. The author traces the changing conversion tests used, and the ways they were manipulated by both captors and captives for their own ends, arguing that the legal definition of conversion undermined official trust, and perhaps community trust more broadly, in conversion’s social role. This discussion sheds light on the connections between state knowledge, centralisation, and identity, while suggesting that Ottoman state intervention in matters of slavery and conversion, which has previously been seen as a product of the consciously reforming nineteenth-century Tanzimat, emerged earlier as a pragmatic result of Ottoman participation in the international arena.
Journal of the History of International Law, Nov 2015
In November 2015, the Journal of the History of International Law published a special issue entit... more In November 2015, the Journal of the History of International Law published a special issue entitled "International Legal Histories of the Ottoman Empire". The symposium was co-edited by Umut Özsu (Assistant Professor of Law, University of Manitoba) and Thomas Skouteris (Associate Professor of Law, American University in Cairo). It included articles by Davide Rodogno (Professor of International History, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies); Will Smiley (Assistant Professor of History and Humanities, Reed College); Berdal Aral (Professor of International Relations, Istanbul Şehir University); Will Hanley (Assistant Professor of History, Florida State University, Tallahassee); and Sarah Shields (Professor of History, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill). The short introductory essay that appeared at the beginning of the special issue is available here.
This article tells the story of one group of Greek-speaking privateers caught between the Ottoman... more This article tells the story of one group of Greek-speaking privateers caught between the Ottoman and Russian empires during a protracted war between those two states in the late eighteenth century (1787-1792). The work uses the incident to explore the complex question of “who was an Ottoman,” and the vital effects the answer could have on the lives and livelihoods of those who negotiated their way between these two Black Sea imperial rivals. Drawing on a convenient overlap in Ottoman, Russian, and British archival sources, the article approaches this story from multiple viewpoints, first explaining the context of Aegean maritime violence from which this particular group of corsairs emerged. It then discusses their enlistment in Russian service, their capture by Ottoman forces, and the subsequent attempts of rank-and-file sailors to maneuver between the demands of their Russian employers and their Ottoman captors and rulers, all the while trying to assert their own interests. As captives and governments alike wrestled with the complex question of defining legal identity and imperial loyalty, the story became most interesting when it came time to release the captives at the close of the war in 1792.
Several years ago I wrote a review of Candan Badem's excellent book "The Ottoman Crimean War" whi... more Several years ago I wrote a review of Candan Badem's excellent book "The Ottoman Crimean War" which turned out to be too long for the journal and before I got around to cutting it down, it got too late for a review of a 2010 book. It seems a shame to let it sit on my hard drive forever so I thought I'd at least post it here.
This article analyzes the changing treaty law and practice governing the Ottoman state’s attitude... more This article analyzes the changing treaty law and practice governing the Ottoman state’s attitude toward the subjects of its most important neighbor and most inveterate rival: the Russian Empire. The two empires were linked by both migration and unfreedom; alongside Russian slaves forcibly brought to the sultans’ domains, many others came as fugitives from serfdom and conscription. But beginning in the late 18th century, the Ottoman Empire reinforced Russian serfdom and conscription by agreeing to return fugitives, even as the same treaties undermined Ottoman forced labor by mandating the return of Russian slaves. Drawing extensively on Ottoman archival sources, this article argues that the resulting interimperial regulations on unfreedom and movement hardened the empires’ human and geographic boundaries, so that for many Russian subjects, foreign subjecthood under treaty law was not a privilege, but a liability.
This article tells the story of one group of Greek-speaking privateers caught between the Ottoman... more This article tells the story of one group of Greek-speaking privateers caught between the Ottoman and Russian empires during a protracted war between those two states in the late eighteenth century (1787-1792). The work uses the incident to explore the complex question of “who was an Ottoman,” and the vital effects the answer could have on the lives and livelihoods of those who negotiated their way between these two Black Sea imperial rivals. Drawing on a convenient overlap in Ot- toman, Russian, and British archival sources, the article approaches this story from multiple viewpoints, first explaining the context of Aegean maritime violence from which this particular group of corsairs emerged. It then discusses their enlistment in Russian service, their capture by Ottoman forces, and the subsequent attempts of rank-and-file sailors to maneuver between the demands of their Russian employers and their Ottoman captors and rulers, all the while trying to assert their own interests. As captives and governments alike wrestled with the complex question of defining legal identity and imperial loyalty, the story became most interesting when it came time to release the captives at the close of the war in 1792.
This article considers the relationship between law, diplomacy, and identity in delineating slave... more This article considers the relationship between law, diplomacy, and identity in delineating slavery and freedom in the Black Sea imperial milieu. Examining the release processes for captives which followed each of the many wars between the Ottoman and Russian empires in the eighteenth century, I argue that these matters were increasingly handled according to written and unwritten legal understandings, rather than through ransoms or threats. The two empires agreed that the Ottoman state would set free enslaved Russian subjects, even those in private hands, but also that the Russians would not demand the release of others. This discussion, therefore, offers a window on the legalization of international relations, and on the growing importance of individuals’ relationship with central states. Moreover, these understandings endured, consciously or uncon- sciously, into the nineteenth century, arguably shaping Russo-Ottoman and Ottoman-European relations on issues of intervention and the slave trade.
This article examines the role of religious conversion in the rules worked out, on paper and in p... more This article examines the role of religious conversion in the rules worked out, on paper and in practice, between the Ottoman and Russian empires for the return of captives following their frequent eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century conflicts. The author shows that the abolition of ransom led the Ottoman state to take the central role in the liberation of captives in private hands in its territories. For cultural and fiscal reasons, this required the state to define a test for captives’ conversion to Islam, a matter which had previously been communally and religiously defined. The author traces the changing conversion tests used, and the ways they were manipulated by both captors and captives for their own ends, arguing that the legal definition of conversion undermined official trust, and perhaps community trust more broadly, in conversion’s social role. This discussion sheds light on the connections between state knowledge, centralisation, and identity, while suggesting that Ottoman state intervention in matters of slavery and conversion, which has previously been seen as a product of the consciously reforming nineteenth-century Tanzimat, emerged earlier as a pragmatic result of Ottoman participation in the international arena.
Journal of the History of International Law, Nov 2015
In November 2015, the Journal of the History of International Law published a special issue entit... more In November 2015, the Journal of the History of International Law published a special issue entitled "International Legal Histories of the Ottoman Empire". The symposium was co-edited by Umut Özsu (Assistant Professor of Law, University of Manitoba) and Thomas Skouteris (Associate Professor of Law, American University in Cairo). It included articles by Davide Rodogno (Professor of International History, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies); Will Smiley (Assistant Professor of History and Humanities, Reed College); Berdal Aral (Professor of International Relations, Istanbul Şehir University); Will Hanley (Assistant Professor of History, Florida State University, Tallahassee); and Sarah Shields (Professor of History, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill). The short introductory essay that appeared at the beginning of the special issue is available here.
This article tells the story of one group of Greek-speaking privateers caught between the Ottoman... more This article tells the story of one group of Greek-speaking privateers caught between the Ottoman and Russian empires during a protracted war between those two states in the late eighteenth century (1787-1792). The work uses the incident to explore the complex question of “who was an Ottoman,” and the vital effects the answer could have on the lives and livelihoods of those who negotiated their way between these two Black Sea imperial rivals. Drawing on a convenient overlap in Ottoman, Russian, and British archival sources, the article approaches this story from multiple viewpoints, first explaining the context of Aegean maritime violence from which this particular group of corsairs emerged. It then discusses their enlistment in Russian service, their capture by Ottoman forces, and the subsequent attempts of rank-and-file sailors to maneuver between the demands of their Russian employers and their Ottoman captors and rulers, all the while trying to assert their own interests. As captives and governments alike wrestled with the complex question of defining legal identity and imperial loyalty, the story became most interesting when it came time to release the captives at the close of the war in 1792.
Uploads