The Rise of the Ottoman Empire by Percy T. Magan

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Oct 28, 1909

The Rise of the Ottoman Empire

By Percy T. Magan

PERCY T. MAGAN

IN the previous article the chivalrous and romantic story of the birth of the Ottoman empire was traced. In this paper will be shown the rapid and remarkable rise of that people to opulence and power, and also the motive force back of this and all Mohammedan movements.

Perhaps it will be best to take the last feature first. The Turks hold that they are descended from Japheth, the son of Noah. He was the father of three sons. The Turks teach that to his firstborn, Aboul-Turk, he gave the sovereignty of Turkestan.

Again: the Turks profess the religion of Mohammed. The creed of that faith is generally compressed into the well-known formula: “There is no god but God, and Mohammed is his prophet.” But there is another and longer form, which reads as follows:—

“I believe in God, and his angels, and his books, and his prophets, and the last day, and the predestination of good and evil by God, and the resurrection after death. I bear witness that there is no God but God, and I bear witness that Mohammed is his slave and his prophet.” (Cited by Sir Charles Eliot, “Turkey and the Turks,” chap. 6, par. 3.)

From the above it must be perfectly clear that Mohammedanism is very far from being a heathen religion, as some are wont to believe. It teaches belief

in God, angels, the prophets, the last day, and the resurrection of the dead. More than this, “about one half of the Koran is a polemic against polytheism and Trinitarianism.” In fact, the word Allah is an abbreviation of Al-iah, which means the one, true, only God. There is something in the nature of a challenge in the word itself to the dominant Christian church of the period when Mohammedanism arose. For that church was sunk in the mazes of the worship of saints and images when Mohammed came asserting that everlasting truth: “There is but one God.” “And he did not engage in vain metaphysics, but applied himself to improving the social condition of his people by regulations respecting personal cleanliness, sobriety, fasting, prayer. Above all other works he esteemed almsgiving and charity.” See Sir Charles Norton Eliot, “Turkey in Europe,” chap. 6, pages 155, 156; Draper, “Intellectual Development of Europe,” Vol. I, chap. II, par. 10.

And, conquering and to conquer, this Mohammedan religion rolled forth from the East and flowed over the West. Says Draper:—

“From its most glorious seats Christianity was forever expelled; from Palestine, the scene of its most sacred recollections; from Asia Minor, that of its first churches; from Egypt, whence issued the great doctrine of Trinitarian orthodoxy; from Carthage, who imposed her belief on Europe.

“It is altogether a misconception that the Arabian progress was due to the sword alone. The sword may change an acknowledged national creed, but it can not affect the consciences of men. . .

“The explanation of this political phenomenon is to be found in the social condition of the conquered countries. The influences of religion in them had long ago ceased; it had become supplanted by theology—a theology so incomprehensible that even the wonderful capabilities of the Greek language were scarcely enough to meet its subtle demands; the Latin and the barbarian dialects were out of the question. How was it possible that unlettered men, who with difficulty can be made to apprehend obvious things, should understand such mysteries? Yet they were taught that on those doctrines the salvation or damnation of the human race depended. They saw that the clergy had abandoned the guidance of the individual life of their flocks; that personal virtue or vice was no longer considered; that sin was not measured by evil works but by the degrees of heresy. They saw that the ecclesiastical chiefs of Rome, Constantinople, and Alexandria were engaged in a desperate struggle for supremacy, carrying out their purposes by carnal weapons and in ways revolting to the conscience of man. What an example when bishops were concerned in assassinations, poisonings, adulteries, blindings, riots, treasons, civil war; when patriarchs and primates were excommunicating and anathematizing one another in their rivalries for earthly power, bribing eunuchs with gold, and courtezans and royal females with concessions of episcopal love, and influencing the decisions of councils, asserted to speak with the voice of God, by those base intrigues and sharp practises resorted to by demagogues in their packed assemblies! Among legions of monks, who carried terror into the imperial armies and riot into the great cities, arose hideous clamors for theological dogmas, but never a voice for intellectual liberty or the outraged rights of man. In such a state of things, what else could be the result than disgust or indifference? Certainly men could not be expected, if a time of necessity arose, to give help to a system that had lost all hold on their hearts.

“When, therefore, in the midst of the wrangling of sects, in the incomprehensible jargon of Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Mariolatrists, and an anarchy of countless disputants, there sounded through the world, not the miserable voice of the intriguing majority of a council, but the dread battle-cry, ‘There is but one God,’ enforced by the tempest of Saracen armies, is it surprising that the hubbub was hushed? Is it surprising that all Asia and Africa fell away?”—Draper, “Intellectual Development of Europe,” Vol. I, chap. II, pars. 13-16.

From the above it will be seen that Mohammedanism adheres to the belief that both Judaism and Christianity have failed to do the work to which God called them. Mohammedanism arose in A. D. 622. The Papacy was operating full force, and none understood better than the Prophet and his followers the apostasy that had taken place in the Christian church. And because of that apostasy, he claimed divine right and calling to set up a new and purer faith, which should take the place, and do the work, that the so-called Christian church had failed to take and to do.

Once waken in the breast of the Mohammedans of to-day the flame of this their old-time faith, and there is no reason to doubt that they will pull themselves together again and make the fight of their lives to hold their place in Europe and to do the work to which they believe God has called them, and which they claim the Christians have utterly failed in doing.

But let us now turn our attention to the tremendous victories which the Turks gained, and the conquests which they made, spurred on by these motives and principles.

The rise of Othman was alluded to in our last article. His descendants are the Ottoman Turks of the present day. In 1300 A. D., the time of Othman’s rise, the Greek empire was in decay, and one by one Othman and his warriors subdued and possessed the Greek provinces, and made them part of the Ottoman empire. He died in 1326, and was succeeded by his son Orkhan, to whom he bequeathed the “auspicious beginnings of a powerful Ottoman empire.”

Orkhan took Nicomedia and Nicea from the Greeks, and added them to his kingdom. But the great work of his life was the work of establishing the foundations for a military empire in the organization of the famous corps of the Janizaries.

Orkhan was followed by Murad I (1359-1389). He it was who led the Turks across the Hellespont and laid the foundation for an Ottoman empire in Europe by the capture of Adrianople, Philippopolis, and a large part of Rumelia.

The appearance of the Turks in Europe sent consternation into the ranks of the Christian powers. The antagonism between Ottoman and European, which has never abated jot or tittle since, began in good earnest. The military forces of the kings of Hungary, Servia, and Bosnia moved on Adrianople, but Murad won an overwhelming victory over them all. Later he fought the allied armies of Hungary, Bosnia, Albania, Wallachia, and Servia, and by a magnificent triumph in the great battle of Kossova he added Servia to his dominions.

Mohammed II (1451-1481), “accomplished the most significant conquest in the rise of the Ottoman empire—the conquest of Constantinople.” On the twenty-ninth day of May, 1453, the proud capital of the imperial Constantine passed under Ottoman rule. Nearly five hundred years have rolled away since then. And during all that period the Turk has been hated by the European, and viewed as an interloper. Ten times in two hundred years has the might of Russia been hurled against him, but in spite of all this the star and crescent banner still floats from the dome of St. Sophia.

Mohammed II did even more than to possess Constantinople. He annexed Trebizond and Karaman in Asia; established a suzerainty over the Crimea, and captured from Venice and Genoa a number of islands in the Greek archipelago.

Selim the Grim (1512-1520) was one of the greatest monarchs who ever occupied the Ottoman throne. He annexed Persia, Kurdistan, Syria, and Egypt, and doubled the area of what was then the Ottoman empire.

Suleiman I, dubbed the Legislator, the Magnificent, and the Sublime, succeeded Selim (1520-1566). The first event of his reign was a war with Hungary, and the splendid city of Belgrade was added to his domain as a result. He took Rhodes from the Knights of St. John, Tripoli and Algiers he made tributary states. “The reign of Suleiman the Magnificent marks the climax in the rise of the Ottoman empire; for, while Cyprus, Crete, Georgia, and Tunis were subsequently conquered, and the real downward turn in the road was not reached for nearly forty years, the Ottoman empire, henceforth, in all that concerns power, wealth, and prosperity, must look to the past.”—Monroe, “Turkey and the Turks,” page 23.

The mean and ignoble Selim II, known as the Drunkard, next came to the throne (1566-1579). His reign was inaugurated by the first of a long (and probably still unfinished) series of wars with Russia.

He did better, however, to the south, and conquered Tunis and Cyprus.

The reign of Mohammed III (1595-1603) brings to a close the third century of Ottoman history, “and with it terminates the expansion of Ottoman dominion.” Henceforth the road sweeps downward in giant curves.

And great indeed was the Turkish empire of this time:—

“It comprised all the most celebrated cities of Biblical and classical history, except Rome, Syracuse, and Persepolis. The sites of Carthage, Memphis, Tyre, Nineveh, Babylon, and Palmyra were Ottoman ground; and the cities of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Smyrna, Damascus, Nice, Prusa, Athens, Philippi, and Adrianople, besides many of later but scarce inferior celebrity, such as Algiers, Cairo, Mecca, Medina, Basra, Bagdad, and Belgrade, obeyed the sultan of Constantinople. The Nile, the Jordan, the Orontes, the Euphrates, the Tigris, the Tanais, the Borysthenes, the Danube, the Hebrus, and the Ilissus, rolled their waters ‘within the shadow of the Horse-tails.’ The eastern recess of the Mediterranean, the Propontis, the Palus Macotis, the Euxine, and the Red Sea, were Turkish lakes. The Ottoman crescent touched the Atlas and the Caucasus; it was supreme over Athos, Sinai, Ararat, Mount Carmel, Mount Taurus, Ida, Olympus, Pelion, Hæmus, the Carpathian and the Acroceraunian heights.” (Sir E. Creasy, page 197, edition 1877, quoted by Stanley Lane-Poole, Turkey, chap. 10, par. the last.)

In the palmy days of the Porte her banners waved not only over the insignificant territory now known as Turkey in Europe, but over Hungary, Bulgaria, and Greece, Rumania and Eastern Rumelia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Servia, and the Sanjak of Novibazar, together with the Crimean peninsula and a portion of what is now southern Russia.

South and across the Euxine she was mistress of Asia Minor to the confines of Persia; as well as of Egypt, Syria, Tripoli, Tunis, and Algiers, together with vast inland possessions in the Mediterranean—to say nothing of the great but principally desert tract of Arabia.

The measure of this magnificent domain was over two million square miles,—nearly double the size of Europe, excepting Russia. The population of the above territory which once lay within the Ottoman ring fence is now over sixty million souls.

And all of the above had been acquired by the descendants of Ertoghrul, in three centuries from the day when their forefathers wandered homeless and countryless at the head of his little band of less than half a thousand men.

Madison, Tenn.