This article argued that the Suleiman series was the product of an Orientalist interpretation of the life of the sultan. This biased perspective describes Suleiman's life as centered on his harem and downplays his important judicial and... more
This article argued that the Suleiman series was the product of an Orientalist interpretation of the life of the sultan. This biased perspective describes Suleiman's life as centered on his harem and downplays his important judicial and administrative reforms.
How the Ottoman State founded? Which motivations drove the Ottoman Beylik to expand, institutionalize and become a state? What was the extent of historical and institutional roots of the Ottomans with Seljukids and Eastern Romans? Which... more
How the Ottoman State founded? Which motivations drove the Ottoman Beylik to expand, institutionalize and become a state? What was the extent of historical and institutional roots of the Ottomans with Seljukids and Eastern Romans? Which factors and motivations featured the Ottomans among so many other Turcoman tribes and other local powers? How can we track the ethnical roots of Ottomans? Where was “fountainhead” of the Ottomans? This sort of questions constituted a fertile and lively ground for historical debates since the publishing of the path-breaking and very controversial work of H. A. Gibbons, “The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire” at 1916.
Since 1916 up to today, historians are seeking answers and explanations for the “foundation question”. Up to today, mainstream theories can be classified as “Gaza theory” (and its derivatives or modified versions) and “non-Gaza theories” (which has many sub-branches among themselves). This study is going to discuss these two main branches of theorization based on key issues of historical debate. I am going to focus on just main scholars of the debate such as Herbert Adams Gibbons, Paul Wittek, Halil İnalcık, Fuad Köprülü, Colin Imber, Colin Heywood, Cemal Kafadar, Heath Lowry and Feridun Emecen.
