Reign of Murad IV

An overview of Ottoman intelligence and security systems under Murad IV. Ottoman practices mandating sending copies of records and reports to the central government formed a large part of intelligence gathering for internal security purposes, while external intelligence gathering was accomplished by a variety of officials. Internal security functions were carried out by a variety of agencies, often with overlapping responsibilities. There seems to be no evidence for a single "Imperial Intelligence Agency." Instead, information flowed to the center from a variety of sources.

1526 yılında Macaristan’ın Kanuni Sultan Süleyman tarafından fethi ile ciddiyet kazanan Osmanlı-Avusturya münasebetleri, neredeyse üç asır boyunca Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun en yoğun uluslararası meşguliyeti olacaktı. XVI. yüzyıl boyunca Avusturya Habsburgları aleyhine ilerlediği söylenebilecek bu mücadelede, iki taraf arasında 1606 yılında imzalanan Zitvatorok Antlaşması ile yeni bir denge sağlanmıştı. Bu denge üzerine kurulu Osmanlı-Avusturya ilişkilerine odaklanan mevcut çalışmada, XVII. yüzyılın ilk yarısında Osmanlılar ve Habsburglar arasında vukubulan siyasi-askeri-diplomatik gelişmeler mercek altına alınacaktır.
Çalışmanın öncelikli amacı, yerli ve yabancı kaynakları kullanarak Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Safevilerle mücadeleyle, Avusturya Habsburglar’ının ise Otuz Yıl Savaşları ile meşgul olduğu dönemde birbirlerine karşı izledikleri politikayı anlamlandırmaktır. Bu meyanda çalışmanın merkezine Sultan IV. Murad’ın hükmüne denk gelen 1623 ilâ 1634 yılları arasındaki sınır müzakereleri ve büyükelçilik teatileriyle yoğun olan dönem yerleştirilmiş, böylece savaşın olmadığı bir dönemde ilişkilerin nasıl seyrettiğini aydınlatmak hedeflenmiştir.
Çalışmanın ikinci bir gayesi de genel geçer yargılarla ele alınagelmiş Osmanlı diplomasi pratiklerinin hususi bir kesitini detaylı incelemek olmuştur. Bu meyanda XVII. yüzyılın ilk yarısında genel olarak Osmanlı diplomasisinin nasıl işlediği farklı kategoriler altında, hem dönemin Avrupa sefaretnameleri hem de Osmanlı kayıtları bir araya getirilerek ve özellikle Avusturya örnekleri vurgulanarak mercek altına alınmıştır. Keza yine Yeniçağ Osmanlı diplomasi tarihinin nispeten gözardı edilen bir alanı olan, Osmanlı taşrasındaki ve karşı başkentlerdeki diplomasiyi anlamak adına Osmanlı Budin’i ve Viyana’daki diplomatik çerçeve tasvir edilmiştir.
Üçüncü bölümde ise ilk iki bölümün kurmuş olduğu kronolojik, kurumsal ve kavramsal bağlam içerisinde bir vaka analizi yapılmıştır. Literatürde nispeten yeri olsa da Osmanlı tarihçiliği kapsamında daha önce değerlendirilmiş olmayan 1628-29 tarihli Hans Ludwig Kuefstein büyükelçiliği detaylı olarak ele alınmıştır. Bu bölümde ayrıca Kuefstein ile mübadele edilen Recep Ağa’nın Viyana’daki günlerine de eğilerek ikili ilişkilerin gözardı edilen bir diğer zaviyesine de odaklanılmıştır.
Nihayetinde mevcut çalışma 1606 Zitvatorok Antlaşması’nı takip eden dönemde Osmanlı diplomasisinin Habsburglar’a müstesna bir yaklaşım sergilediğini iddia etmektedir. Ayrıca, savaş ve kriz odaklı ikili ilişkiler haricinde de karşılıklı münasebet ve diplomasinin nasıl işlediğini hem taşraya hem de merkeze odaklanarak sorgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Osmanlı-Habsburg ilişkileri, Yeniçağ diplomasisi, Sultan IV. Murad, 17. yüzyıl, Otuz Yıl Savaşları (1618-1648)

ABSTRACT

Ottoman-Habsburg Diplomatic Interactions and the Ottoman Diplomacy during the First Half of the Seventeenth Century

Dramatically escalating in the aftermath of the Battle of Mohacs (1526), the tension between the Ottomans and the Austrians would claim the utmost importance in Ottoman foreign relations for almost three centuries. Throughout the sixteenth century, the struggle seemed to continue in favour of the Ottomans until the Treaty of Zsitvatorok (signed in 1606) set up a balance between the two parties. Built upon the background of this balance, the present study will seek to highlight political, military and diplomatic developments taking place between the Ottomans and the Austrian Habsburgs during the first half of the seventeenth century.
The primary aim of this work is to understand the bilateral relations between the Ottomans and the Habsburgs at a time period when the former were tied by the hostilities with the Safawids, while the latter found themselves enmeshed in the Thirty Years War. In that line, the period between 1623 and 1634, which corresponded to Sultan Murad IV’s reign (r. 1623-1640), is chosen to scrutinise the busy traffic of diplomatic exchanges and border negotiations in the absence of large scale warfare.
The second target of the study is to present in detail a specific aspect of the early modern Ottoman diplomacy (with a limited time frame and with separate examples from a variety of European states) that has traditionally been dealt with in rather generalising terms: the actors and dynamics of Ottoman diplomacy during the
first half of the seventeenth century are analysed on the basis of European embassy reports and Ottoman fiscal evidence, with a particular focus on the Habsburg examples. Furthermore, further underrated areas of early modern Ottoman diplomacy, that is, the diplomacy conducted in the Ottoman province of Buda and the Habsburg capital (Vienna), are also depicted.
The third chapter is a case study built upon the chronological, institutional and conceptual contexts of the first two chapters. Even though the existing literature provides enough of references for the Istanbul embassy of Hans Ludwig Kuefstein in 1628-29, it is studied in detail for the first time within the scope of Ottoman history. This chapter focuses also on Recep Ağa (the Ottoman counter ambassador exchanged with Kuefstein) during his days in Vienna in order to bring into light a neglected aspect of bilateral relations, that is, the Ottoman envoys in Europe.
Ultimately, the study at hand asserts that the Ottoman diplomacy subjected the Habsburgs to an exceptional treatment in the aftermath of the 1606 Zsitvatorok Peace Treaty. While doing so, it also questions the functioning of diplomatic interactions beyond conflict- and crisis-ridden bilateral relations by focusing on both the provinces and the centres.

Keywords: Ottoman-Habsburg relations, early modern diplomacy, Sultan Murad IV, seventeenth century, the Thirty Years War (1618-1648)

Abstract :
The main concern of the present study is to make a foreign policy analysis of the Ottomans on the one hand and to try demonstrating how policy-making might have affected the Ottoman take during the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) on the other. Under the light of former studies and primary evidence, it tries to prove that there were concrete instances of Ottoman military intervention in the war. Second, it also seeks to answer why the Ottoman Empire should be regarded as a player on the scene of this continental political crisis, even though they remained largely non-participant: In this vein, it points out to the psychological effect of the Ottoman power on the European states, which is clearly reflected on contemporary European diplomatic reports.


L’objet de cet article est, d’une part, d’analyser la politique étrangère ottomane et, d’autre part, de tenter de montrer comment le processus de prise de décision a affecté l’attitude ottomane pendant la guerre de Trente Ans (1618-1648). En se fondant sur l’historiographie et sur des sources contemporaines des événements, on s’efforce de montrer qu’il y eut à certaines périodes intervention militaire de la Porte. Il s’agit également de se demander en quoi l’Empire fut, de facto, un acteur de cette crise politique continentale, alors qu’il n’en fut pas partie prenante. Sur ce point, l’étude souligne le poids psychologique de l’Empire ottoman pour les États européens du temps, ce dont témoignent les rapports diplomatiques européens.

The present study depicts the developments which took place at the Polish-Ottoman frontier and in the Ottoman imperial centre between 1633 and 1634, when a full-scale war between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Ottoman Empire was imminent. Even though the major episodes of the conflict have been highlighted from the Polish perspective several times before, it is hard to say the same regarding the Ottoman vantage point. Therefore, this paper tries to make use of major European embassy reports from the Ottoman capital, with cross-references to the Ottoman archival documentation of the period. In this way the paper aims to expound the escalation and resolution of the conflict from the Ottoman point of view and seeks to fi ll the gap left by the already-established Polish stances. It will also serve the purpose of attracting attention both to the Polish diplomatic presence in the Ottoman capital and to the Ottoman diplomatic activity with regard to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the years specified.

This paper examines the activities of the seventeenth century's notorious Abaza Mehmed Pasha during his governorship in the European provinces of the Ottoman Empire between 1629 and 1634. It is puzzling that academic literature has never evaluated Abaza Pasha outside the framework of the chronicles of the time. Furthermore, the lack of any modern biography regarding the pasha makes it difficult to study even his term in Anatolia when he was quite influential in Ottoman domestic politics due to his rebellion, let alone his period of office in the Balkan provinces of the Empire, where the pasha rose to prominence as an internationally influential figure. The present paper hence describes the chronology of the pasha's governor-generalship in Bosnia and Silistra by relying both on documentation from European archival holdings (major European embassy reports sent from the Porte and the correspondence of provincial officials) and on Ottoman fiscal evidence, however limited the information that the latter offers might be. Accordingly, the pasha was a proxy participant in European politics during his term in Bosnia, whereas he exerted influence on the Ottoman-Polish relations while administering Silistra. Moreover, the paper touches on the pasha's gradual fall from political power during Sultan Murad IV's (unfulfilled) Polish campaign in 1634. Ultimately, it points to the tension in Ottoman daily politics, leading to Abaza Mehmed Pasha's execution.

The peace treaties of Gyarmat and Szöny, signed between the Habsburg and Ottoman dynasties during Sultan Murad IV's reign reflected the continuation of a diplomatic tradition that came into life after the Zsitvatorok Treaty (1606). Relentless military activities along the Hungarian frontier made it imperative to renew the Zsitvatorok with subsequent treaties. This study is an attempt to highlight certain complications related to the treaties and their formation process. In this respect, the influence of both Ottoman and Habsburg frontier figures are emphasized as semi-independent actors.
-------------------------
ÖZET Garmat (1625) ve Sön (1627) Muahedeleri Sultan IV. Murad devrinde Osmanlı hanedanı ve Avusturya Habsburgları arasında imzalanan Garmat ve Sön muahedeleri, diplomatik nitelikleri bakımından Zitvatorok Antlaşması ile başlayan bir geleneğin devamını teşkil etmektedirler. Zitvatorok sonrasında Macaristan sınırının civarında yapılan akınlar, bu muahedeyi yenilemeyi zorunlu kılmıştır. Mevcut çalışmanın gayesi bu barış anlaşmalarının kimi özelliklerine ve teşekkül süreçlerine dikkat çekmektir. Bu bağlamda hem Osmanlı hem de Habsburg serhat aktörlerinin sahip oldukları salahiyet vurgulanmıştır.

IV. Murat, Bağdat İranlılar tarafından işgal edince, 1635 -1636 tarihinde Bağdat’ın fethi için buyurmuştur. Fetih için gemilerle getirtilen iki büyük top karadan Bağdat’a taşınmıştır. Bu toplar sayesinde kaleler aşılmış ve İran yenilgiye uğratılmıştır. Böylece Bağdat 278 yıl daha Osmanlı hâkimiyetinde kalmıştır. Fetihten sonra şehrin savunması için Sultan topların bir kısmını Bağdat’ta bırakmıştır. Bunlardan biri Ebul-Hizme Topu’dur. Halk daha önce böyle muazzam bir top görmemiştir. Muazzam bir büyüklükte olan bu top sarı pirinç ve demir maddelerinden yapılmıştır. Halk topun ağzındaki yarığa hızma takıldığını sandığı için topa “Ebul-Hizme Topu” adını takmışlardır. Topun sırtındaki şekil ve resimlerin birer hikâyeleri vardır. Şehir halkının ağzında topa bağlı hurafeler ve birçok efsaneler dolaşmıştır. Halk, kuvvetli bir inanç içerisinde zorunlu ihtiyaçlarını gerçekleştirmek, hastalarına şifa ve diğer gereksinimleri için çokça ona yalvarıyor ve ondan isteklerinin gerçekleşmesini diliyor. Ayrıca çocuklar çeşitli hastalıklara yakalanınca bu suskun topun altından geçiriyorlardı, çocuk kızamık olunca kırmızı elbise giydirip diğer kardeşinin idrarını ona içiriyorlar. Bunun gibi halk arasında birçok hikâyesi yayılmıştır.

When Baghdad was engrossed by Iranian, IV. Murad ordered the conquest of Baghdad in 1635 -1636. Two big cannons which were brought by ships were transported by land to Baghdad. With these cannons Ottoman could go beyond the castles and Iran was defeated. Thus Baghdad was got holded by Ottomans for 278 years more. After the conquest, Sultan left some of the cannons for defence of the city. One of these was Ebul-Hizme Cannon. Public hadn’t seen a maginificent cannon like this before. This huge cannon was made of iron and brass. The name “ebul-hizme cannon” is given because public thought that a ring was put at the cleft near the chop of cannon. There are stories of these symbols and diagrams at the back of the cannon. So legends and superstition were spreaded about the cannon. Public prayed and begged to the cannon for their urgent demands, cure and other needs. Also when children got sick and when they develop measles they wore red clothes and drink other brother or sister’s urine, then they were passing under the cannon. Such stories were common in public.

Osmanlı timar sistemi; devletin malî, sosyo-ekonomik, ziraî, idarî ve askerî organizasyonlarının temelini oluşturur. Bu yüzden de devletin iki ana kurumundan biridir, diğeri ise kul sistemidir. XVI. yüzyılın son çeyreğinden itibaren değişen şartlar -savaşların uzun sürmesi, ateşli silahların gelişimi, sosyo-ekonomik, idarî bazı uygulamalar- timar sisteminde problemlerin çıkmasına sebep olmuştur. Osmanlı taşra idaresinin ve kırsal organizasyonun temeli olan bu müessese de değişen şartlardan oldukça etkilenmiştir. Sürekli savaşlar sebebiyle elde hazır asker bulundurmak, merkezî kuvvetlerin (kapıkulu) sayısının artırılmasını mecburî hale getirmiştir. Bu durum, askerlerin düzenli talimi ve sürekli bir arada bulunmasını gerektiriyordu. Timarlılar ise sefer sona erince dirliklerinin bulunduğu bölgeye gitmek zorundadır. Timarlı sipahiler, klasik dönemin savaşçılarıydı. Diğer yandan enflasyon da timar sahiplerinin gelirlerinin azalmasının nedenleri arasındaydı. Bu ifade ettiğimiz şartlar, onları olumsuz yönde etkiledi. Bu sebeple IV. Murad zamanında timar sistemindeki aksaklıkların giderilmesi hususunda bir çaba sarf edildiği ve bunun için padişahın ülke genelinde bir timar ve zeamet yoklaması yaptırdığı görülmektedir. IV. Murad’ın timar sistemi ile ilgili yaptığı düzenleme, özellikle idarî ve askerî amaca yönelikti. Yoklama da ilk hedef, Abaza Mehmed Paşa’nın başını çektiği taşrada ortaya çıkan isyanların tekrarlanmasını önlemek ve ikincisi de Bağdad üzerine yeni bir sefer düzenleyerek Osmanlı ordusunu güçlendirmekti. Kısacası bu reformun amacı, taşradaki karışıklığı düzeltmek ve Bağdad’ı geri almaktı. Nitekim IV. Murad’ın bizzat komuta ettiği ordu Bağdad’ın Osmanlılar tarafından yeniden alınmasını sağladı. Böylelikle ilk olumlu sonuç alındı./The Ottoman timar system is the basis of the financial, socio-economic, agricultural, administrative and military organizations of the state. Therefore, it is one of the two main institutions of the state; the other is the slave/servant system. Changing conditions since the last quarter of the sixteenth century-the long duration of wars, the development of firearms, socio-economic, and some administrative practices-have caused problems in the timar system. This institution, which was the foundation of the Ottoman provincial administration and rural organization, was also affected dramatically by these changing conditions. Due to constant wars, having soldiers ready for the battle is a main reason to increase the number of central forces (kapikulu). This situation requires regular military training and permanent readiness of the army. Timariotes, on the other hand, must go to the area where their timar is located when the campaign ends. Timariots were warriors of the classical period. Inflation, on the other hand, was among the reasons why the income of timar owners decreased. These circumstances have negatively affected them. For this reason, we can see that Murad IV made an effort to eliminate the failures in the timar system, and for this purpose in the reign of him, the Sultan conducted a timar and zeamet survey throughout the country. The purpose of Murad IV’'s arrangement was towards the administrative and military aspects of the timar system. The first goal was to prevent the repeat of the uprisings in the provinces led by Abaza Mehmed Pasha, and the second was to strengthen the Ottoman army by organizing a new expedition to Baghdad. In short, the purpose of this reform was to correct the confusion in the province and reclaim Baghdad. In fact, Bagdad was re-taken by the Ottomans. Thus, the first positive result was obtained.

(See below for the proceeding) Wallachia and Moldavia were two major tributaries of the Ottoman Empire throughout the early modern period.Their economic and material obligations towards Ottomans are well knwon and studied. However, this study chooses to focus on how the rulers of these principalities came to power during the early 1630s. That is to say, it tries to find the determining factors in play with regards to the enthronement of the princes. The primay source of the study is the letters penned down by Dutch resident ambassador in Constantinople Cornelius Haga (in office 1612-1638), adressed to the Estates General of the Dutch Republic.The letters written between 1629-1633 are taken into consideration to see how the tributary princes were invested with power. The preliminary findings suggest that Ottoman peripheral/frontier figures (likr governors or tributary princes) had by this time attained a certain level of authority that could impose their wills at the Ottoman center.

ABSTARCT

Narration of any real or fake incident comes after the incident itself. This is the case in the narratives on Bekri Mustafa, who lived in Istanbul in the period of Murad IV (1623 - 1640). In the present study, the differences (anachronism) between the time when the incident takes place (hereinafter incident time) and when the incident is narrated (hereinafter narration time) will be described with specific reference to Bekri Mustafa, a Turkish anecdote character. In this study, the spatial markers on the European and Anatolian sides of Istanbul are discussed in their relation to temporal factors. Systematic sampling method has been adopted to investigate whether anachronism is influential in the popularity and effect of the anecdote character and to analyze and describe the effect of this probability on the taxonomy of the anecdote types.
Keywords: Bekri Mustafa, Turkish humour, anecdote character, anachronism, prohibition of alcoholic beverages, Istanbul