Dissertation Defense: Said Kaymakcı
Candidate Name: Said Kaymakcı
Major: History
Adviser: Gabor Agoston, Ph.D.
Title: The Constitutional Limits of Military Reform: Ottoman Political Writing During the Times of Revolutionary Change, 1592-1807
The laws regulating the affairs of Ottoman janissaries and other communities were not the making of the sultan or a sovereign state; rather, they consisted of divine laws of sharia as interpreted by the jurists, and “immemorial” “ancient” laws of different communities. The continental European states established large standing armies under the control of the kings, and disciplined their soldiers through royal ordinances enacted with their legal sovereignty in accordance with the technological and tactical needs of the ages of Military Revolution. In contrast, the janissaries—originally the household army of the ruler that aimed to strengthen his power—had become by the eighteenth century an autonomous corporate body representing a wide range of religious, social, economic and political interests. Being mindful of their power and status, janissaries resisted to top-down disciplining operations that would infringe upon their rights and privileges, which were protected by sharia and their “ancient” laws.
During the early modern period, which is often considered an era of absolutism in continental Europe, the Ottomans followed a distinct constitutionalist path of decentralization characterized by a lengthy process of contestation and rejection of the sovereignty of the ruler and the state. The different path the Ottomans took during the early modern era was intertwined with the distinctive model of Ottoman state formation, and resulted in the relative decline of Ottoman military power vis-à-vis their European rivals. Dominant themes, concepts and concerns in Ottoman political writing, however, resembled those of their counterparts in early modern European political thought. My dissertation shows the interplay between political thought, state formation and prospects of military reform through a study of Ottoman political writing between 1592 and 1807 around questions of military reform. I argue that for the early modern Ottomans, military reform was a political, legal and religious matter that had to be resolved within constitutional limits. As they looked toward Europe, the Ottomans increasingly became aware that reform meant a refashioning of the relationship between religion and state, and reconfiguration of the traditional military disciplinary apparatus. Wary of the absolutist outcome of a military reform that would create a large disciplined central army under the control of the sultan and subject to sultanic laws, Ottoman constitutionalists sought a reform agenda that would respond to the needs of the times without upsetting the “ancient” Ottoman order. This
initially included denying legislative sovereignty to the acting sultans and creating an image of unchanging public laws. At times of deep crisis in the eighteenth century, when the need for reform appeared to be imperative, recognition of the need to change laws emerged, but Ottoman constitutionalism was a force that continued to shape political discourse. I argue that deep belief in a fundamental law prevailed throughout the era my dissertation covers, and served as a constitutional limit on government reform efforts.