Your Learning Journal is where you will post six insights every week , highlighting new knowledge you gained from both the reading assignments of the respective week and the videos. An insight is a sh

The Rise of the Ottoman Turks In the late thirteenth century, a new group of Turks under the tribal leader Osman (os-MAHN) (1280–1326) began to consolidate their power in the northwestern corner of the Anatolian peninsula. At first, the Osman Turks were relatively peaceful and engaged in pastoral pursuits, but as the Seljuk Empire began to disintegrate in the early fourteenth century, they began to expand and founded the Osmanli (os-MAHN-lee) dynasty, with its capital at Bursa (BURR-suh). The Osmanlis later came to be known as the Ottomans. The Ottomans gained a key advantage by seizing the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, between the Mediterranean and the Black Seas. The Byzantine Empire, of course, had controlled the area for centuries, serving as a buffer between the Muslim Middle East and the Latin West. The Byzantines, however, had been severely weakened by the sack of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade in 1204 and the Western occupation of much of the empire for the next half century. In 1345, Ottoman forces under their leader Orkhan (or-KHAHN) I (1326–1360) crossed the Bosporus for the first time to support a usurper against the Byzantine emperor in Constantinople. Setting up their first European base at Gallipoli (gah-LIP-poh-lee) at the Mediterranean entrance to the Dardanelles, Turkish forces expanded gradually into the Balkans and allied with fractious Serbian and Bulgar forces against the Byzantines. In these unstable conditions, the Ottomans gradually established permanent settlements throughout the area, where Turkish provincial governors, called beys (BAYS) (from the Turkish beg, ‘‘knight’’), drove out the previous landlords and collected taxes from the local Slavic peasants. The Ottoman leader now began to claim the title of sultan (SUL-tun) or sovereign of his domain. In 1360, Orkhan was succeeded by his son Murad I (moo-RAHD) (1360–1389), who consolidated Ottoman power in the Balkans and gradually reduced the Byzantine emperor to a vassal. Murad now began to build up a strong military administration based on the recruitment of Christians into an elite guard. Called Janissaries (JAN-nih-say-reez) (from the Turkish yeni chert, ‘‘new troops’’), they were recruited from the local Christian population in the Balkans and then converted to Islam and trained as foot soldiers or administrators. One of the major advantages of the Janissaries was that they were directly subordinated to the sultanate and therefore owed their loyalty to the person of the sultan. Other military forces were organized by the beys and were thus loyal to their local tribal leaders. The Janissary corps also represented a response to changes in warfare. As the knowledge of firearms spread in the late fourteenth century, the Turks began to master the new technology, including siege cannons and muskets (see the comparative essay ‘‘The Changing Face of War’’ on p. 409). The traditional nomadic cavalry charge was now outmoded and was superseded by infantry forces armed with muskets. Thus, the Janissaries provided a well-armed infantry who served both as an elite guard to protect the palace and as a means of extending Turkish control in the Balkans. With his new forces, Murad defeated the Serbs at the famous Battle of Kosovo (KAWSS-suh-voh) in 1389 and ended Serbian hegemony in the area. Expansion of the Empire Under Murad’s successor, Bayazid (by-uh-ZEED) I (1389–1402), the Ottomans advanced northward, annexed Bulgaria, and slaughtered the French cavalry at a major battle on the Danube. When Mehmet (meh-MET) II (1451–1481) succeeded to the throne, he was determined to capture Constantinople. Already in control of the Dardanelles, he ordered the construction of a major fortress on the Bosporus just north of the city, which put the Turks in a position to strangle the Byzantines. THE FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE The last Byzantine emperor issued a desperate call for help from the Europeans, but only the Genoese came to his defense. With 80,000 troops ranged against only 7,000 defenders,

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 408). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

The Changing Face of War SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ‘‘War,’’ as the renowned French historian Fernand Braudel once observed, ‘‘has always been a matter of arms and techniques. Improved techniques can radically alter the course of events.’’ Braudel’s remark was directed to the situation in the Mediterranean region during the sixteenth century, when the adoption of artillery changed the face of warfare and gave enormous advantages to the countries that stood at the head of the new technological revolution. But it could as easily have been applied to the present day, when potential adversaries possess weapons capable of reaching across oceans and continents. One crucial aspect of military superiority, of course, lies in the nature of weaponry. From the invention of the bow and arrow to the advent of the atomic era, the possession of superior instruments of war has provided a distinct advantage against a poorly armed enemy. It was at least partly the possession of bronze weapons, for example, that enabled the invading Hyksos to conquer Egypt during the second millennium B.C.E. Mobility is another factor of vital importance. During the second millennium B.C.E., horse-drawn chariots revolutionized the art of war from the Mediterranean Sea to the Yellow River valley in northern China. Later, the invention of the stirrup enabled mounted warriors to shoot bows and arrows from horseback, a technique applied with great effect by the Mongols as they devastated civilizations across the Eurasian supercontinent. To protect themselves from marauding warriors, settled societies began to erect massive walls around their cities and fortresses. That in turn led to the invention of siege weapons like the catapult and the battering ram. The Mongols allegedly even came up with an early form of chemical warfare, hurling human bodies infected with the plague into the bastions of their enemies. The invention of explosives launched the next great revolution in warfare. First used as a weapon of war by the Tang dynasty in China, explosives were brought to the West by the Turks, who used them with great effectiveness in the fifteenth century against the Byzantine Empire. But the Europeans quickly mastered the new technology and took it to new heights, inventing handheld firearms and mounting iron cannons on their warships. The latter represented a significant advantage to European fleets as they began to compete with rivals for control of the Indian and Pacific Oceans. The twentieth century saw revolutionary new developments in the art of warfare, from armored vehicles to airplanes to nuclear arms. But as weapons grow ever more fearsome, they are more risky to use, resulting in the paradox of the Vietnam War, when lightly armed Viet Cong guerrilla units were able to fight the world’s mightiest army to a virtual standstill. As the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu had long ago observed, victory in war often goes to the smartest, not the strongest. Why were the Europeans, rather than other peoples, able to make effective use of firearms to expand their influence throughout the rest of the world?

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 409). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

from the north and prepared to make their final stand behind the 13-mile-long wall along the western edge of the city. But Mehmet’s forces seized the tip of the peninsula north of the Golden Horn and then dragged their ships overland across the peninsula from the Bosporus and put them into the water behind the chains. Finally, the walls were breached; the Byzantine emperor died in the final battle. THE ADVANCE INTO WESTERN ASIA AND AFRICA With their new capital at Constantinople, renamed Istanbul, the Ottoman Turks had become a dominant force in the Balkans and the Anatolian peninsula. They now began to advance to the east against the Shi’ite kingdom of the Safavids (sah-FAH-weeds) in Persia (see ‘‘The Safavids’’ later in this chapter), which had been promoting rebellion among the Anatolian tribal population and disrupting Turkish trade through the Middle East. After defeating the Safavids at a major battle in 1514, Emperor Selim (seh-LEEM) I (1512–1520) consolidated Turkish control over the territory that had been ancient Mesopotamia and then turned his attention to the Mamluks (MAMlooks) in Egypt, who had failed to support the Ottomans in their struggle against the Safavids. The Mamluks were defeated in Syria in 1516; Cairo fell a year later. Now controlling several of the holy cities of Islam, including Jerusalem, Mecca, and Medina, Selim declared himself to be the new caliph, or successor to Muhammad. During the next few years, Turkish armies and fleets advanced westward along the African coast, occupying Tripoli, Tunis, and Algeria and eventually penetrating almost to the Strait of Gibraltar (see Map 16.1). The impact of Turkish rule on the peoples of North Africa was relatively light. Like their predecessors, the Turks were Muslims, and they preferred where possible to administer their conquered regions through local rulers. The central government appointed pashas (PAH-shuz) who collected taxes (and then paid a fixed percentage as tribute to the central government), maintained law and order, and were directly responsible to Istanbul. The Turks ruled from coastal cities like Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli and made no attempt to control the interior beyond maintaining the trade routes through the Sahara to the trading centers along the Niger River. Meanwhile, local pirates along the Barbary Coast—the northern coast of Africa from Egypt to the Atlantic Ocean—competed with their Christian rivals in raiding shipping in the Mediterranean. By the seventeenth century, the links between the imperial court in Istanbul and its appointed representatives in North Africa had begun to decline. Some pashas were dethroned by local elites, while others, such as the bey of Tunis, became hereditary rulers. Even Egypt, whose agricultural wealth and control over the route to the Red Sea made it the most important country in the area to the Turks, gradually became autonomous under a new official class of Janissaries. TURKISH EXPANSION IN EUROPE After their conquest of Constantinople in 1453, the Turks tried to extend their territory in Europe. Under the leadership of Suleyman (SOO-lay-mahn) I the Magnificent (1520– 1566), Turkish forces advanced up the Danube, seizing Belgrade in 1521 and winning a major victory over the Hungarians at the Battle of Moha´ cs (MOH-hach) on the Danube in 1526. Subsequently, the Turks overran most of Hungary, moved into Austria, and advanced as far as Vienna, where they were finally repulsed in 1529. At the

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 410). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

same time, they extended their power into the western Mediterranean and threatened to turn it into a Turkish lake until a large Turkish fleet was destroyed by the Spanish at Lepanto (LEH-pahn-toh or LIH-pan-toh) in 1571. In the second half of the seventeenth century, the Ottoman Empire again took the offensive. By mid-1683, the Ottomans had marched through the Hungarian plain and laid siege to Vienna. Repulsed by a mixed army of Austrians, Poles, Bavarians, and Saxons, the Turks retreated and were pushed out of Hungary by a new European coalition. Although they retained the core of their empire, the Ottoman Turks would never again be a threat to Europe. The Turkish empire held together for the rest of the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries, but it faced new challenges from the ever-growing Austrian Empire in southeastern Europe and the new Russian giant to the north. The Nature of Turkish Rule Like other Muslim empires in Persia and India, the Ottoman political system was the result of the evolution of tribal institutions into a sedentary empire. At the apex of the Ottoman system was the sultan, who was the supreme authority in both a political and a military sense. The origins of this system can be traced back to the bey, who as tribal leader was a first among equals, who could claim loyalty from his chiefs only as long as he could provide them with booty and grazing lands. Disputes were settled by tribal law, while Muslim laws were secondary. Tribal leaders collected taxes—or booty—from areas

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 411). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

under their control and sent one-fifth on to the bey. Both administrative and military power were centralized under the bey, and the capital was wherever the bey and his administration happened to be. But with the rise of empire came the adoption of Byzantine traditions of rule. The status and prestige of the sultan now increased relative to the subordinate tribal leaders. Court rituals inherited from the Byzantines and Persians were adopted, as was a centralized administrative system that increasingly isolated the sultan in his palace. The position of the sultan was hereditary, with a son, although not necessarily the eldest, always succeeding the father. This practice led to chronic succession struggles upon the death of individual sultans, and the losers were often executed (strangled with a silk bowstring) or imprisoned. Heirs to the throne were assigned as provincial governors to provide them with experience. THE HAREM The heart of the sultan’s power was in the Topkapi (tahp-KAH-pee) Palace in the center of Istanbul. Topkapi (meaning ‘‘cannon gate’’) was constructed in 1459 by Mehmet II and served as an administrative center as well as the private residence of the sultan and his family. Eventually, it had a staff of 20,000 employees. The private domain of the sultan was called the harem (‘‘sacred place’’). Here he resided with his concubines. Normally, a sultan did not marry but chose several concubines as his favorites; they were accorded this status after they gave birth to sons. When a son became a sultan, his mother became known as the queen mother and served as adviser to the throne. This tradition, initiated by the influential wife of Suleyman the Magnificent, often resulted in considerable authority for the queen mother in affairs of state. Members of the harem, like the Janissaries, were often of slave origin and formed an elite element in Ottoman society. Since the enslavement of Muslims was forbidden, slaves were taken among non-Islamic peoples. Some concubines were prisoners selected for the position, while others were purchased or offered to the sultan as a gift. They were then trained and educated like the Janissaries in a system called devshirme (dev-SHEER-may) (‘‘collection’’). Devshirme had originated in the practice of requiring local clan leaders to provide prisoners to the sultan as part of their tax obligation. Talented males were given special training for eventual placement in military or administrative positions, while their female counterparts were trained for service in the harem, with instruction in reading, the Qur’an, sewing and embroidery, and musical performance. They were ranked according to their status, and some were permitted to leave the harem to marry officials. Unique to the Ottoman Empire from the fifteenth century onward was the exclusive use of slaves to produce its royal heirs. Contrary to myth, few of the women of the imperial harem were used for sexual purposes, as the majority were members of the sultan’s extended family— sisters, daughters, widowed mothers, and in-laws, with their own personal slaves and entourage. Contemporary European observers compared the atmosphere in the Topkapi harem to a Christian nunnery, with its hierarchical organization, enforced chastity, and rule of silence. Because of their proximity to the sultan, the women of the harem often wielded so much political power that the era has been called ‘‘the sultanate of women.’’ Queen mothers administered the imperial household and engaged in diplomatic relations with other countries while controlling the marital alliances of their daughters with senior officials or members of other royal families in

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 412). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

the region. One princess was married seven separate times from the age of two after her previous husbands died either in battle or by execution. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT The sultan ruled through an imperial council that met four days a week and was chaired by the chief minister known as the grand vizier (veh-ZEER) (Turkish vezir). The sultan often attended behind a screen, whence he could privately indicate his desires to the grand vizier. The latter presided over the imperial bureaucracy. Like the palace guard, the bureaucrats were not an exclusive group but were chosen at least partly by merit from a palace school for training officials. Most officials were Muslims by birth, but some talented Janissaries became senior members of the bureaucracy, and almost all the later grand viziers came from the devshirme system. Local administration during the imperial period was a product of Turkish tribal tradition and was similar in some respects to fief-holding in Europe. The empire was divided into provinces and districts governed by officials who, like their tribal predecessors, combined civil and military functions. Senior officials were assigned land in fief by the sultan and were then responsible for collecting taxes and supplying armies to the empire. These lands were then farmed out to the local cavalry elite called the sipahis (suh-pah-heez), who obtained their salaries by exacting taxes from all peasants in their fiefdoms. Religion and Society in the Ottoman World Like most Turkic-speaking peoples throughout the Middle East, the Ottoman ruling elites were Sunni Muslims. Ottoman sultans had claimed the title of caliph (‘‘defender of the faith’’) since the early sixteenth century and thus were theoretically responsible for guiding the flock and maintaining Islamic law, the Shari’a. In practice, the sultan assigned these duties to a supreme religious authority, who administered the law and maintained schools for educating Muslims. Islamic law and customs were applied to all Muslims in the empire. Like their rulers, most Turkic-speaking people were Sunni Muslims, but some communities were attracted to Sufism (see Chapter 7) or other heterodox doctrines. The government tolerated such activities as long as their practitioners remained loyal, but in the early sixteenth century, unrest among these groups—some of whom converted to the Shi’ite version of Islam—outraged the conservative ulama and eventually led to war against the Safavids (see ‘‘The Safavids’’ later in this chapter). THE TREATMENT OF MINORITIES Non-Muslims— mostly Orthodox Christians (Greeks and Slavs), Jews, and Armenian Christians—formed a significant minority within the empire, which treated them with relative tolerance. Non-Muslims were compelled to pay a head tax (because of their exemption from military service), and they were permitted to practice their religion or convert to Islam, although Muslims were prohibited from adopting another faith. Most of the population in European areas of the empire remained Christian, but in some places, such as the territory now called Bosnia, substantial numbers converted to Islam. Technically, women in the Ottoman Empire were subject to the same restrictions that afflicted their counterparts in other Muslim societies, but their position was ameliorated to some degree by various factors. In the first place, non-Muslims were subject to the laws and customs of their own religions; thus, Orthodox Christian, Jewish, and Armenian Christian women were spared some of the restrictions applied to their Muslim sisters. In the second place, Islamic laws as applied in the Ottoman Empire defined the legal position of women comparatively tolerantly. Women were permitted to own and inherit property, including their dowries. They could not be forced into marriage and in certain cases were permitted to seek a divorce. As we have seen, women often exercised considerable influence in the palace and in a few instances even served as senior officials, such as governors of provinces. The relatively tolerant attitude toward women in Ottoman-held territories has been ascribed by some to Turkish tribal traditions, which took a more egalitarian view of gender roles than the sedentary societies of the region did. The Ottomans in Decline By the seventeenth century, signs of internal rot had begun to appear in the empire, although the

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 413). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

imperial territory did not occur until 1699, when Transylvania and much of Hungary were ceded to Austria in the Treaty of Karlowitz (KARL-oh-vits). Apparently, a number of factors were involved. In the first place, the administrative system inherited from the tribal period began to break down. Although the devshirme system of training officials continued, devshirme graduates were now permitted to marry and inherit property and to enroll their sons in the palace corps. Thus, they were gradually transformed from a meritocratic administrative elite into a privileged and often degenerate hereditary caste. Local administrators were corrupted and taxes rose as the central bureaucracy lost its links with rural areas. Constant wars depleted the treasury, and transport and communications were neglected. Interest in science and technology, once a hallmark of the Arab Empire, was in decline. In addition, the empire was beset by economic difficulties caused by the diversion of trade routes away from the eastern Mediterranean and the price inflation brought about by the influx of cheap American silver. Other signs of change were the increasing material affluence and the impact of Western ideas and customs. Sophisticated officials and merchants began to mimic the habits and lifestyles of their European counterparts, dressing in the European fashion, purchasing Western furniture and art objects, and ignoring Muslim strictures against the consumption of alcohol and sexual activities outside marriage. During the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, coffee and tobacco were introduced into polite Ottoman society, and cafe´ s for their consumption began to appear in the major cities (see the box above). One sultan in the early seventeenth century issued a decree prohibiting the

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 414). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

consumption of both coffee and tobacco, arguing (correctly, no doubt) that many cafe´ s were nests of antigovernment intrigue. He even began to wander incognito through the streets of Istanbul at night. Any of his subjects detected in immoral or illegal acts were summarily executed and their bodies left on the streets as an example to others. There were also signs of a decline in competence within the ruling family. Whereas the first sultans reigned twenty-seven years on average, later ones averaged only thirteen years, suggesting an increase in turmoil within the ruling cliques. The throne now went to the oldest surviving male, while his rivals were kept secluded in a latticed cage and thus had no governmental experience if they succeeded to rule. Later sultans also became less involved in government, and more power flowed to the office of the grand vizier, called the Sublime Porte (PORT), or to eunuchs and members of the harem. Palace intrigue increased as a result. Ottoman Art The Ottoman sultans were enthusiastic patrons of the arts and maintained large ateliers of artisans and artists, primarily at the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul but also in other important cities of the vast empire. The period from Mehmet II in the fifteenth century to the early eighteenth century witnessed the flourishing of pottery, rugs, silk and other textiles, jewelry, arms and armor, and calligraphy. All adorned the palaces of the rulers, testifying to their opulence and exquisite taste. The artists came from all parts of the realm and beyond. ARCHITECTURE By far the greatest contribution of the Ottoman Empire to world art was its architecture, especially the magnificent mosques of the second half of the sixteenth century. Traditionally, prayer halls in mosques were divided by numerous pillars that supported small individual domes, creating a private, forestlike atmosphere. The Turks, however, modeled their new mosques on the open floor plan of the Byzantine church of Hagia Sophia (completed in 537), which had been turned into a mosque by Mehmet II, and began to push the pillars toward the outer wall to create a prayer hall with an uninterrupted central area under one large dome. With this plan, large numbers of believers could worship in unison

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 415). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

(si-NAHN), began erecting the first of his eighty-one mosques with an uncluttered prayer area. Each was topped by an imposing dome, and often, as at Edirne, the entire building was framed with four towering narrow minarets. By emphasizing its vertical lines, the minarets camouflaged the massive stone bulk of the structure and gave it a feeling of incredible lightness. These four graceful minarets would find new expression sixty years later in India’s white marble Taj Mahal (see ‘‘Mughal Culture’’ later in this chapter). Earlier, in the thirteenth-century the Seljuk Turks of Anatolia had created beautiful tile decorations with twocolor mosaics. Now Ottoman artists invented a new glazed tile art with painted flowers and geometrical designs in brilliant blue, green, yellow, and their own secret ‘‘tomato red.’’ Entire walls, both interior and exterior, were covered with the painted tiles, which adorned palaces as well as mosques. TEXTILES The sixteenth century also witnessed the flourishing of textiles and rugs. The Byzantine emperor Justinian had introduced the cultivation of silkworms to the West in the sixth century, and the silk industry resurfaced under the Ottomans. Perhaps even more famous than Turkish silks are the rugs. But whereas silks were produced under the patronage of the sultans, rugs were a peasant industry. Each village boasted its own distinctive design and color scheme for the rugs it produced. The Safavids FOCUS QUESTION: How did the Safavid Empire come into existence, and what led to its collapse? After the collapse of the empire of Tamerlane in the early fifteenth century, the area extending from Persia into Central Asia lapsed into anarchy. The Uzbeks (ooz-BEKS), Turkic-speaking peoples from Central Asia, were the chief political and military force in the area. From their capital at Bukhara (boh-KAHR-uh or boo-KAH-ruh), east of the Caspian Sea, they maintained a semblance of control over the highly fluid tribal alignments until the emergence of the Safavid dynasty in Persia at the beginning of the sixteenth century. The Safavid dynasty was founded by Shah Ismail (IS-mah-eel) (1487–1524), the descendant of Sheikh Safial-Din (SAH-fee ul-DIN) (hence the name Safavid), who traced his origins to Ali, the fourth imam of the Muslim faith. In the early fourteenth century, Safihad been the leader of a community of Turkic-speaking tribespeople in Azerbaijan, near the Caspian Sea. Safi’s community was only one of many Sufimystical religious groups throughout the area. In time, the doctrine spread among nomadic groups throughout the Middle East and was transformed into the more activist Shi’ite version of Islam. Its adherents were known as ‘‘red heads’’ because they wore a distinctive red cap with twelve folds, meant to symbolize allegiance to the twelve imams of the Shi’ite faith. In 1501, after Ismail’s forces seized much of Iran and Iraq, he proclaimed himself the shah of a new Persian state. Baghdad was subdued in 1508 and the Uzbeks and their capital at Bokhara shortly thereafter. Ismail now sent Shi’ite preachers into Anatolia to proselytize and promote rebellion among Turkish tribal peoples in the Ottoman Empire. In retaliation, the Ottoman sultan, Selim I, advanced against the Safavids in Iran and won a major battle near Tabriz (tah-BREEZ) in 1514. But Selim could not maintain control of the area, and Ismail regained Tabriz a few years later. The Ottomans returned to the attack in the 1580s and forced the new Safavid shah, Abbas (uh-BAHS) I the Great (1587–1629), to sign a punitive peace acceding to the loss of much territory. The capital was subsequently moved from Tabriz in the northwest to Isfahan (is-fah-HAHN) in the south. Still, it was under Shah Abbas that the Safavids reached the zenith of their glory. He established a system similar to the Janissaries in Turkey to train administrators to replace the traditional warrior elite. He also used the period of peace to strengthen his army, now armed with modern weapons, and in the early seventeenth century, he attempted to regain the lost territories. Although he had some initial success, war resumed in the 1620s, and a lasting peace was not achieved until 1638 (see Map 16.2). Abbas the Great had managed to strengthen the dynasty significantly, and for a time after his death in 1629, it remained stable and vigorous. But succession conflicts plagued the dynasty. Partly as a result, the power of the more militant Shi’ites began to increase at court and in Safavid society at large. The intellectual freedom that had characterized the empire at its height was curtailed under the pressure of religious orthodoxy, and Iranian women, who had enjoyed considerable freedom and influence during the early empire, were forced to withdraw into seclusion and behind the veil. Meanwhile, attempts to suppress the religious beliefs of minorities led to increased popular unrest. In the early eighteenth century, Afghan warriors took advantage of local revolts to seize the capital of Isfahan, forcing the remnants of the Safavid ruling family to retreat to Azerbaijan, their original homeland. As the Ottomans seized territories along the western border, the empire finally collapsed in 1723. Eventually, order was restored by the military adventurer Nadir Shah Afshar (NAH-der shah ahf-SHAR), who launched an extended series of campaigns that restored the country’s borders and even occupied the Mughal capital of Delhi (see ‘‘The Shadows Lengthen’’ later in this

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 416). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

chapter). After his death, the Zand dynasty ruled until the end of the eighteenth century. Safavid Politics and Society Like the Ottoman Empire, Persia under the Safavids was a mixed society The Safavids had come to power with the support of nomadic Turkic-speaking tribal groups, and leading elements from those groups retained considerable influence. But the majority of the population were Iranian; most were farmers or townspeople, with attitudes inherited from the relatively sophisticated and urbanized culture of pre-Safavid Iran. Faced with the problem of integrating unruly Turkic-speaking tribal peoples with the sedentary Persian-speaking population of the urban areas, the Safavids used the Shi’ite faith as a unifying force (see the box on p. 418). The shah himself acquired an almost divine quality and claimed to be the spiritual leader of all Islam. Shi’ism was declared the state religion. Although there was a landed aristocracy, aristocratic power and influence were firmly controlled by strongminded shahs, who confiscated aristocratic estates when possible and brought them under the control of the crown. Appointment to senior positions in the bureaucracy was by merit rather than birth. The Safavid shahs took a direct interest in the economy and actively engaged in commercial and manufacturing activities, although there was also a large and affluent urban bourgeoisie. Like the Ottoman sultan, one shah regularly traveled the city streets incognito to check on the honesty of his subjects. When he discovered that a baker and butcher were overcharging for their products, he had the baker cooked in his own oven and the butcher roasted on a spit. At its height, Safavid Iran was a worthy successor to the great Persian empires of the past, although it was Po R. Danube R. Me dit e rra n e an Se a Re d Se a Arabian Sea Caspian Sea Syr Darya R. Nile Dnieper R. Volga R. TUNISIA TRIPOLITANIA CYRENAICA EGYPT MOREA WALLACHIA HUNGARY TRANSYLVANIA MOLDAVIA PODOLIA CRIMEA NEJD GEORGIA AZERBAIJAN UZBEKS AFGHANS MUGHAL EMPIRE SAFAVID EMPIRE Belgrade Buda Salonica Edirne Nicopolis Istanbul Bursa Aleppo Damascus Tabriz Baghdad Bukhara Isfahan Shiraz Bandar Abbas Herat Jerusalem Cairo Alexandria CIRCASSIANS Black Sea Persian Gulf Aral Sea Tigris Euphrates R. R. R. 0 250 500 Miles 0 250 500 750 Kilometers Ottoman Empire Safavid Empire Mughal Empire A MAP 16.2 The Ottoman and Safavid Empires, c. 1683. During the seventeenth century, the Ottoman and Safavid Empires contested vigorously for hegemony in the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. This map shows the territories controlled by each state in the late seventeenth century. Which states shared control over the ancient lands in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys? In which modern-day countries are those lands? CHRONOLOGY The Safavids Ismail seizes Iran and Iraq and becomes shah of Persia 1501 Ismail conquers Baghdad and defeats Uzbeks 1508 Reign of Shah Abbas I 1587–1629 Truce achieved between Ottomans and Safavids 1638 Collapse of the Safavid Empire 1723 ª Cengage Learning The Safavids 417

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 417). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

probably not as wealthy as its Mughal and Ottoman neighbors to the east and west. Hemmed in by the sea power of the Europeans to the south and by the land power of the Ottomans to the west, the early Safavids had no navy and were forced to divert overland trade with Europe through southern Russia to avoid an Ottoman blockade. In the early seventeenth century, the situation improved when Iranian forces, in cooperation with the English, seized the island of Hormuz (hawr-MOOZ) from Portugal and established a new seaport on the southern coast at Bandar Abbas (BUHN-der uh-BAHS). As a consequence, commercial ties with Europe began to increase. Safavid Art and Literature Persia witnessed an extraordinary flowering of the arts during the reign of Shah Abbas I. His new capital of Isfahan was a grandiose planned city with wide visual perspectives and a sense of order almost unique in the region. Shah Abbas ordered his architects to position his palaces, mosques, and bazaars around a massive rectangular polo ground. Much of the original city is still in good condition and remains the gem of modern Iran. The immense mosques are richly decorated with elaborate blue tiles. The palaces are delicate structures with unusual

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 418). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.

slender wooden columns. These architectural wonders of Isfahan epitomize the grandeur, delicacy, and color that defined the Safavid golden age. To adorn the splendid buildings, Safavid artisans created imaginative metalwork, tile decorations, and original and delicate glass vessels. Textiles, however, were the area of greatest productivity. Silk weaving based on new techniques became a national industry. The silks depicted birds, animals, and flowers in a brilliant mass of color with silver and gold threads. Above all, carpet weaving flourished, stimulated by the great demand for Persian carpets in the West. The long tradition of Persian painting continued into the Safavid era, but changed dramatically in two ways during the second half of the sixteenth century. First, taking advantage of the growing official toleration of portraiture, painters began to highlight the inner character of their subjects. Secondly, since royal patronage was not always forthcoming, artists sought to attract a larger audience by producing individual paintings that promoted their own distinctive styles and proudly bore their own signature. The Grandeur of the Mughals FOCUS QUESTIONS: What role did Islam play in the Mughal Empire, and how did the Mughals’ approach to religion compare with that of the Ottomans and the Safavids? What might explain the differences? In retrospect, the period from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries can be viewed as a high point of traditional culture in India. The era began with the creation of one of the subcontinent’s greatest empires—that of the Mughals (MOO-guls). For the first time since the Mauryan dynasty, the entire subcontinent was united under a single government, with a common culture that inspired admiration and envy throughout the entire region. The Mughal Empire reached its peak in the sixteenth century under the famed Emperor Akbar (AK-bar) and maintained its vitality under a series of strong rulers for another century (see Map 16.3). Then the dynasty began to weaken, a process that was hastened by the challenge of the foreigners arriving by sea. The Portuguese, who first arrived in 1498, were little more than an irritant. Two centuries later, however, Europeans began to seize control of regional trade routes and to meddle in the internal politics of the subcontinent. By the end of the eighteenth century, nothing remained of the empire but a shell. But some historians see the seeds of decay less in the challenge from abroad than in internal weakness—in the very nature of

Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 419). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.