Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Suleiman the Magnificent - Lies - Extra History (Patreon)

Published:
2016-04-23 17:07:00
Imported:
2026-06
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

Why was Suleiman called "the Magnificent"? And why did he make choices that, in the end, doomed his empire?

Files

Previews only

Suleiman the Magnificent - Lies - Extra History

Buy the limited edition Suleiman & Justinian shirt! http://bit.ly/23AtasO Suleiman lost faith in those who surrounded him, fearing that they schemed to replace him. Why do we so rarely see such destructive suspicion in our governments today? We also need to talk about what made the West dub Suleiman "Magnificent," and the flourishing of arts and education which took place under his reign.

Comments

Chamboz

Well, I suppose I can’t be surprised that the Lies video didn’t address the major problems with the series’ presentation of Süleyman. I assume there's no chance for a "Lies of the Lies" video? Though I do have to say, I was especially disappointed to see this quote: “And why did he make choices that, in the end, doomed his empire?” Apparently Süleyman’s decision to kill Mustafa (or whatever else you’re referring to) doomed the Ottoman Empire to fall… almost four hundred years later. What nonsense! I could analyze the problems with this video too, but I doubt anything would come of it. I just hope that you’ll keep in mind my advice about choosing sources, and that your future videos will be based on the work of actual historians. For those interested in analysis of the series, see the comments in: <a href="https://www.patreon.com/posts/suleiman-vi-of-5151962">https://www.patreon.com/posts/suleiman-vi-of-5151962</a>

ExtraCredits
>>1692501

Well, I can't honestly say I expected you to be happy, but even if we clearly have some standing points of disagreement (wholly apart from some issues I've acknowledged as mistakes), I do take your feedback to heart. I would certainly encourage anyone interested to read Chamboozer's very detailed analysis (which includes some source suggestions for those interested in further reading!) which was linked.

Chamboz
>>1692501

I don’t think my expectations were outrageous. Your series had clear problems with its presentation which could have been noted, if not in the video then at least in the description beneath it. What exactly are our points of disagreement, though? I’m also disappointed that you didn’t mention the problems with your research, and your reliance on a pop-history source. It’s important that you acknowledge this mistake, even if it might harm your credibility. All knowledge comes from research, and people have the right to know that this show's angle is based in large part on a source which was unreliable.

Avery
>>1692501

Hi Chamboozer, although Extra Credits seems reluctant to talk with you, I'd like to offer my positive outlook on their show as well as your reply. It seems to me that there was a Eurocentric angle here. Extra Credits wanted to show how how Ottoman history was relevant and important for Western viewers, and referring to Hürrem Sultan as Roxelane, emphasizing the continuity with the Byzantines, the attacks on Europe and the siege of Vienna, etc. were all clearly towards this end. In defense of this, I would say that this is a good way to demonstrate for “European history” fans the necessity of learning more about the Ottomans. Considering that this is a popular YouTube channel trying to draw in people with a generic and possibly superficial interest in history, this strategy could paradoxically help direct people with a Eurocentric bent towards a subject that might seem marginal to their main interest. The story they focused on is also one that’s a lot easier to tell without having to spend a whole episode explaining the minute details of Ottoman law. But obviously there’s a lot to be said for your reply, because as you correctly pointed out, the result is an Ottoman history that doesn’t focus on the Ottomans, which is not particularly desirable. The sources you supplied would have surely been helpful to help us know who exactly Suleyman was in charge of and why he made their lives better. So, I agree with your complaint, but I think I understand what James was trying to do. Hope someone from the team will correct me if I’m wrong.

Avery
>>1692501

To make a weird analogy, it seems to me that Extra History's strategy in general has been to give readers the "Romance of Three Kingdoms". Everyone is wowed by the cool stories, then people who really want to know the details read an actual history book instead of watching a cartoon or playing a game, and can take pleasure in correcting their friends (which happens constantly with the Three Kingdoms period, it makes discussions a lot of fun). And maybe more interesting works will come out of it.

Thor

I like these videos but the problems pointed out by Chamboozer is too great, it will taint whatever else you create in the future because in all likelihood there wont be an expert commenting on those future topics and so I wont know how bad the mistakes where. Meaby they wouldnt have mattered or meaby they would, I wont know. Removing you guys from Patreon, hope you tighten up the research before episodes. For example you could send the manuscript to a PhD student in whatever field the video is on before to catch the worst stuff. It probably wont cost all that much.

Chamboz
>>1692501

You’re absolutely right about the nature of the series being to attract new people to history, which is why I understand the disproportionate emphasis on Süleyman’s activity in the west. However this still leaves some problems unexplained. As far as I’m concerned, the main problems are twofold: 1. Presenting Süleyman and the Ottomans as obsessed by the idea of conquering all of Europe: “His legacy would be an Ottoman Europe,” “before he could stab at Europe’s heart,” “if he was ever to have his European empire,” etc. Whenever they showed a map of Süleyman’s imagined empire, it depicted all of Europe as a part of it. In this Extra History universe, the Ottomans engage in violent conquest just because that’s what they wanted to do, hardly providing a serious justification. It’s an old stereotype to say that the Ottomans were obsessed with war and European conquest. Modern historians tend to look deeper. 2. Explaining Süleyman’s executions of Ibrahim and Mustafa as a result of his rage: They made these seem like snap decisions; a result of Hürrem’s whisperings and some rumors. As if Süleyman would kill his best friend and his son on the basis of rumors and suggestions and not on the basis of logic. That’s not to say that Hürrem didn’t have a role to play, but rather that “scheming harem woman controls the sultan’s actions” is another Orientalist trope. They did improve on this somewhat in the Lies video, but still left out a great deal of the essential context. However, both of these problems simply point to the larger one: they didn’t check the veracity of their sources. André Clot’s book was clearly unusable, and a basic search on his name would have revealed that he wasn’t a professional historian. If they didn’t check this source, then it is entirely reasonable to conclude that they didn’t check the others. But we can’t know for sure, because they've said that they don't want to tell us what their sources were. As for the "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" analogy: the important difference is that the Romance of the Three Kingdoms is distinctly legendary. It's fiction set in a historical era. Extra History portrays itself as factual and accurate nonfiction, and that's why it must be held to a higher standard.

Chamboz
>>1693317

Indeed, it’s a great idea! Most historians consider themselves educators after all. Some would jump at the chance to contribute to a show with such a wide audience. Extra Credits should be emailing professors asking for help finding reliable sources on which to base the show. Perhaps they could even find professors willing to contribute to the “Lies” videos, helping them to avoid mistakes and further educate their audience from a historian's perspective.

Robbie the Gnome

Something did feel off about this series in particular. I know you guys are doing your best. I have to say I agree with Chamboozer and Thor, publishing your sources would be a good thing and having those sources checked by professional historians is an excellet idea. You have a large fan base of educators, reach out to them and use them. In your conversation with Chamboozer you mention not wanting to publish your sources because you don't want people thinking of you as reputable essentially, but that's ridiculous. Many people already think of you as a reputable source regardless of your wishes. I've also seen many educators reach out to you guys in the comments asking if they can use your videos in their classrooms. You guys have encouraged and reinforced that behavior in many ways. You can't encourage teachers to use your videos but not publish your sources. As they say, you can't have it both ways. My education stopped at high school and I love having these little history lessons to look forward to every week. I do not want them EH to stop. I don't pretend to know better than anyone but it seems that the suggestions made by Chamboozer and Thor are not unreasonable. I also noticed that during Suleyman you guys were doing two different sponsored series. Maybe the division of labor of essentially producing two shows simultaneously is too much? I wouldn't mind if you delayed the some Patreon voted topics for a sponsored series if it means covering each topic thoroughly. You have to keep the lights on after all and the sponsored series are a big help in that regard. I think that publishing your sources will need to happen and not being willing to do so or even discuss your sources makes it look like you're trying to cover something up and ends up distilling bad faith. I don't want to see the series discredited. I know you guys lead busy lives. We all do but that extra effort of publishing your sources and checking with real historians just for suggestions of the best sources will go a long way not only to adding to your credibility but also in delivering a stronger cohesive and reliable view of the subject you're covering. Having been a fan of your group for awhile now I can say this fairly confidently: you guys want to do good work and handle each topic with care and respect it deserves. You guys educate and in doing so make the world a better place. I've enjoyed your work even in topics I was uninterested in at first. Do you know how tired my friends are of me boring them with stories of Justinian? I've picked up several books on the subject, and the Punic Wars, and Sengoku Jedai, and Admiral Yi... Half Priced Books loves taking my money like that... Tangential Learning is strong but it is a roulette. Only a few people will chose to research past the videos. I love learning, I love you guys and your work. Please consider the views expressed by Chamboozer. Different note: I love the They Might Be Giants image reference when speaking of Istanbul during Lies. I was sincerely hoping for something like that!

Mask
>>1692501

The invasion of Hungary was inspired by a refusal to pay expected tribute and for killing messengers of the Ottomans. The fights with the Knights of Rhodes were because they were support enemy ships and raiders. Attacking Vienna fits in well as a response to European aggression trying to take by Hungary. What do you find unsatisfactory about EH's presentation of the overlying reasons for war? Why do you complain about them saying Suleiman had ambitions over Europe, when he himself was happy to let it be known? "Slave of God, powerful with the power of God, deputy of God on earth, obeying the commands of the Qur'an and enforcing them throughout the world, master of all lands, the shadow of God over all nations, Sultan of Sultans in all the lands of Persians and Arabs, the propagator of Sultanic laws (Nashiru kawanin al-Sultaniyye ), the tenth Sultan of the Ottoman Khans, Sultan, son of Sultan, Suleyman Khan. Slave of God, master of the world, I am Suleyman and my name is read in all the prayers in all the cities of Islam. I am the Shah of Baghdad and Iraq, Caesar of all the lands of Rome, and the Sultan of Egypt. I seized the Hungarian crown and gave it to the least of my slaves."

Mask
>>1693317

I asked my history instructor to look at the series. He doesn't specialize in Suleiman. Still, he commented it seemed an OK summary. He found more issue in the treatment of Suleiman's enemies, and those were minor points often mistaken even by professional historians.

Mask
>>1695107

As Soraya has said elsewhere, there are some disagreements they have with his readings of the history. I would prefer EH tell their reading of the story with some input from historians, then dictate the reading of whichever historian they find. So long as they're factual. Aside from the dream sequence, and some weighted opinions on a couple of matters, I can't think of anything factually incorrect with this telling. I don't think I would like this series if Chamboozer had been involved. Even when EH justified every war Suleiman fought, with exception to the campaign where he died, he considered EH to be depicting Suleiman as a blood-crazed warlord obsessed with conquering Europe. I did not get that impression from this series' depiction at all.

Mask

Great job on the series, EH/EC! This was a really interesting style to experiment with. Some people have had complaints about it, but I don't think it was a bad idea. It's important to experiment with and practice with your craft. I think you did this the best in the series about Franz Ferdinand, a very touching and moving series. You may have decided to scale back on this formula, but I hope you won't abandon it entirely. The series on Ferdinand was the height of EH for me.

Avery
>>1695107

With the exception of the awesome Broad Street Pump series, I don't think anything on EH so far could be considered usable inside a classroom. I think the entire idea has been to keep history interesting after school gets out, including for adults who don't usually read history -- and while I'm not sure I would recommend this episode in particular, most of the episodes have served that end beautifully.

Robbie the Gnome
>>1695107

Well said, and my main problem with the Suleyman series. in particular was how rushed the last few episodes felt story wise. I wasn't asking for Historians to be involved with the writing at all, please no. Just the selection of the source materials. James is a fantastic writer and a very intelligent man, he does not need help in writing. The art direction in this series was visually impressive and stunning and I loved it. I just worry. I mean what will providing sources do? Lend creditability to the series, and allow viewers who are interested a good jumping off point for furthering their understanding of the subject being covered. I'm not trying to be down in EH.

Mask
>>1695107

It is up to the creator to choose what to include or omit, based off their honest interpretation of the history. I think Extra History have a right to that. Extra History's previous series have done a good job of reading the original sources and material close to them in the past, and I would say any failing in their choice of reading material is an uncharacteristic mistake. I am fine with EH getting advisement on their sources and the subject matter, but I would hope the series remains their telling and reading of the situation.

ExtraCredits

[Soraya's Note: Patreon's formatting is still broken, which means that I can't separate this into paragraphs. I've tried to simulate them by adding a whole bunch of hyphens, but it won't be pretty. Sorry for that. But anyway, I asked James to please comment on this since I did not feel comfortable speaking for him. With no further ado, here's James:] Hi everyone. I try not to step in here because I don’t want to influence the discussion, but the policy on sources is my policy and it’s unfair to Soraya to make her defend it. At the bottom of this I’ll list all the sources for the Ottoman series, but in general I will not be posting sources because I want Extra History to be a starting point for people, not an ending point. ------------- I don’t want people simply reading the sources we’ve read and I certainly don’t want them copying and pasting our list and writing a paper having just looked at our videos. More than that though, I’ve learnt from making games that if we don’t just provide something easily packaged people will go out and search for it. Think of all the times you might have looked up something for Dark Souls or Pokemon. And that’s what we want. We want Extra History to be a jumping off point, not an end. ------------ We are not historians, we have far too much respect for historians to ever claim that title, we are entertainers and, I’d like to flatter myself and say that perhaps we can claim to be educators. Our work here is synthesis, bringing together may independent viewpoints into an interpretation. ------------- And one of the key points of Extra History is that interpretations aren’t “wrong”. You may disagree with them. We had people who said we were too hard on the crusaders during The First Crusade and we had people that said we were too soft on the Soviet Union in Kursk. You may feel that Suleiman’s execution of his son didn’t lead to the decline of the empire or that Marcus Aurelius choosing his son Commodus over some far more qualified individual didn’t initiate the decline of that empire. I do, but it’s ok we disagree, interpretations of history are fought over and changed all the time. In fact understanding history, rather than simply knowing names and dates is what Extra History is all about. And finding an understanding that helps you make sense of decisions we have to make here and now, today, is the most important part. It’s why we have Lies. So everyone knows we aren’t “right” but that, like all history, we offer a perspective. -------------------- Which leads us to the other reason we don’t show sources. I’d rather have a vigorous debate over whether Suleiman actually lead to the decline of his empire than the thing that I think academia too often gets sidetracked by: quibbling over sources. Listing whole pages of source and reference material back and forth at one another is something I too often see in academia and on the internet, and I’d rather move to a more substantive form of discussion where we reflect on and interpret the events to help us make better sense of our world. -------------------- And many of you may be studying some of the topics we cover; I will 100% cede that you probably know more about them than I do, but I’d ask you not to use that as a basis to “speak from authority” and dismiss viewpoints which are not your own or your institutions as I think it hampers the dialog that, to me, is the most important part of discussing history. Which brings us back to sources. Because this is at the root of how we get into cycles of just citing sources at one another as happens on so many internet message boards: we have two groups of people with different viewpoints and, rather than discussing the merits of those viewpoints, they begin to search for sources that agree with them to “prove” they’re right. ----------------- So, at the outset of Extra History, I made a personal decision that the educational merits of the show would be higher if it drove people to find their own sources and to discuss differing perspectives than to list our sources. I continue to believe that to be correct. That said, because there was such interest, this one time, I will hand out our source list: ---------------- (This is incomplete because I did wrote this series in November/December and have had to return most of the books, but here we go ; ) --------------- Ibrahim Pasha by Hester Jankins ------------------- Osman's Dream by Caroline Finkel ------------ Suleiman the Magnificent: Sultan of the East by Harold Lamb ------------- Ottoman Centuries by Lord Kinross --------------- Suleiman the Magnificent by Andre Clot -------------- For Suleiman’s poetry, I’d love to know if anyone found a good anthology in English. I ended up just using a ton of websites to cross reference because I couldn’t find one I liked.

ExtraCredits
>>1692501

Okay everybody. I took Saturday afternoon for myself, and came back Sunday morning to find this discussion had grown very long. It'd reached a point where I felt like we'd all be better served if I reached out to James. I posted his comment in a separate comment post in this video's replies, where it will be more visible than I think it would be at the bottom of this comment chain. So I would encourage you all to read there, as it touches on some of the questions raised in this discussion. I also don't want to interrupt the conversation you're already having so I shall simply leave it at that! -Soraya

ExtraCredits
>>1693317

Thor, James has written a post explaining why the series handles sources in the way it does. Chamboozer asked if we had used one particular source and I confirmed it, but that doesn't mean it was our only source and I tried to make that clear when I shared it. I would suggest checking out the post (which is in the Patreon thread for this video), and you remain of course quite free to make your own decision about whether this is an approach you would like to support. Regardless of that decision, I wanted to clear up our policy on this, and think James's comments are worth a read.

ExtraCredits
>>1695107

Robbie, James wrote a comment explaining our position on sources and why we don't share them. As I've mentioned earlier, I started a new comment chain for it since I figured that would be more visible, but it's on this same Lies video if you want to check it out! I won't reprise his points since he does a fine job explaining them for himself. I will however say briefly that on many series, historians have reached out to us to recommend sources and we absolutely use their suggestions and appreciate the input. And the fact that, in this case, 6 episodes proved too brief to handle all of Suleiman's reign in as much detail as we would have liked is a problem that we do acknowledge (I have in comments, and James did in Lies), but one we're talking about ways to make up for with respect to Suleiman and also one that we'll bear in mind the next time we're faced with a reign as storied as Suleiman's.

ExtraCredits
>>1695724

Don't worry, we're not going to stop experimenting with styles on Extra History! I'm really glad you enjoyed this particular experiment, and for all that it was divisive, I'm actually really glad we tried it. I did see a lot of people commenting who loved the series more than any other, and that's to be expected I think since no one style works for every person, and something that works really poorly for one person is going to be perfect for another. While I don't know that we would come back to something with this amount of narrative oversight, the framing concept worked really well, and the general pathos is something we've always done to one degree or another.

Chamboz
>>1698113

“And one of the key points of Extra History is that interpretations aren’t “wrong”. You may disagree with them… You may feel that Suleiman’s execution of his son didn’t lead to the decline of the empire… I do, but it’s ok we disagree, interpretations of history are fought over and changed all the time.” I’m sorry James, but this just isn’t a valid position to hold. There is such a thing as an academic consensus. “Interpretations of history are fought over” is only a valid thing to say if the interpretation you’re discussing is actually being fought over. Decline isn’t. There is consensus among the modern academic community that Decline was a myth. You can disagree with that interpretation, but that means you’re teaching pseudohistory. When presented by evidence that professional historians (i.e. the people I cited on the other page) disagree with your position, you shouldn’t be saying “well it’s my interpretation and I’m justified in having it.” That’s no different from people who reject mainstream science because they want to protect their own worldview. You are simply not as educated in this topic as the professional historians and you can’t claim to contest their theories. Now maybe you don’t believe me (or the historians I quoted beneath the other video) when we say that Decline is considered a myth by modern-day academia. If that’s the case, I can provide you with however many citations you need. Now if you really think Decline is debatable, I challenge you to provide a single citation from any modern historian (which for this purpose I will classify as anything published since the year 2000) who says that he believes in the Decline Thesis. We can say that an interpretation of history is wrong when the overwhelming majority of modern academics believe that that interpretation is wrong. In this case they not only believe that it is wrong, they believe that it is poisonous. I’m merely grateful that you didn’t give Decline a very big role in your series. I can understand you believing in it before, because you relied on bad sources. But I can’t understand this attitude that you’ve expressed in the above quote. On that topic, Lord Kinross’ book “The Ottoman Centuries” is another which stands out as even more outdated and inappropriate. Just like Clot, Kinross was not a professional historian. Go pick up his book right now and look at how small his bibliography is. Hester Jenkins – do you realize when that book was written? 1911! Harold Lamb’s book is from 1951! It’s 65 years old! And you thought they weren’t going to mislead you? Of the ones you listed, only Caroline Finkel’s book qualifies as reliable: it’s both recent and written by an academic. Indeed it’s a very good book. But that gives us one good book out of five you’ve listed. “I’d rather have a vigorous debate over whether Suleiman actually lead to the decline of his empire than the thing that I think academia too often gets sidetracked by: quibbling over sources.” Are you seriously saying that you’d rather have an uninformed discussion than defer to the experts? That’s what it sounds like. To be honest, from this statement it seems like you might simply not understand or respect actual historians. When people want to discuss a scientific topic like black holes, should they just debate about how they might work among themselves or find a source which explains the topic? It’s the same with history. The people who spend their lives studying it are the ones who must be deferred to when discussing it. “And many of you may be studying some of the topics we cover; I will 100% cede that you probably know more about them than I do, but I’d ask you not to use that as a basis to “speak from authority” and dismiss viewpoints which are not your own or your institutions as I think it hampers the dialog that, to me, is the most important part of discussing history.” I'm not speaking from authority. I’ve offered to provide my sources from the very beginning. And saying that Decline is a myth is not my view, and it is not my institution’s view. It is the view held by all of Western academia. Thirty years ago you could have said that Decline was in debate. It is no longer so. I just don’t understand how you can claim to know this history, or to have valid interpretations of it, when you think ancient books and those written by pop-historians are a good place from which to learn. And James, I'm really truly sorry to have to make this comparison, but this belief that "all interpretations are valid" makes you to actual historians what Flat-Earthers and Climate Change deniers are to actual scientists. An interpretation can only be valid if it is backed up by reliable historical sources.

ExtraCredits
>>1698113

Chamboozle, that's enough. When your idea of discussion is to say things like "you've sunk to a new low" and compare people to Flat-Earthers and Climate Change deniers, then you are letting your anger cloud your viewpoint. You want to pick apart the sources, feel free. You have them now and can say what you will. But enough of this stooping to personal attacks. It's beneath you and not welcome on this forum.

Robbie the Gnome

James & Soraya, Thank you for explaining your stance in regards to sources. I had not thought of the possibility of someone copying and pasting sources for reports and the like. I was trying to be fair to both sides. I really enjoy EH and you guys have my support. I've learned a lot and studied a lot of things I wouldn't have without the spark of interest you guys have gave me. I'm sure many others feel the same. At the end of the day I think everyone here wants to support you guys. I mean why else would we be here, right? I did not know that you guys have historians and such reach out to you to help select source material. I'm very glad to hear that. I'm glad that you guys plan on doing some touch ups on Suleiman. I feel there's a lot more there to be sussed out. You guys do a great job of making history approachable and engaging. I will continue to support you. Thanks responding to my concerns. ------------------------------------------- Also to reiterate I love the They Might Be Giants visual nod in the Lies! An amusing touch that I truly enjoyed.

ExtraCredits
>>1698589

Wait, did Carrie sneak another They Might Be Giants nod into Lies that I somehow missed? She's a sly one! But yes, we do get most of our source requests from students who want to write a paper. I'm usually happy to provide them with one or two sources as a jumping off point, but a good dive through a bibliography or even plugging into Google will get them a lot further even than reading our sources and thinking that's enough. And if you yourself have gone spelunking through some research to find out more about an EH topic, then that's fantastic! That's one of my two favorite things about working on this show - tied with the moment when someone says "I'm not normally into history, but I loved this!"

ExtraCredits
>>1698589

And as soon as I said this, I remembered the They Might Be Giants nod - she clipped the music video. I even remember being entranced by it, and watching the video clip instead of James while it was on. ;D

Robbie the Gnome
>>1698589

Unfortunately I do love history but not the way it is generally taught. I prefer listening to someone knowledgeable discuss the subject rather than a barrage of dates and battles. I'd rather know why the battles happened than when they happened which seems to be the focus of more conventional education. And yes Carrie did just that, that wily minx. It's hard to concentrate on James when there's a puppet show right next to his head.

ExtraCredits
>>1698589

I actually found that the higher I got into my history education, the more concerned my professors were with the why than the when of things! Even in college GER courses, I think there's a tendency to try and reduce it down to the barest level and often that means memorization. But later on they're much more interested in whether you can discuss why things happened and how this thing affected the other, so it's basically storytime for adults. At least, it was for me!

Robbie the Gnome
>>1698589

Well that's excellent. As I said before, my formal education stopped at the high school level so I can't attest to how things are handled after that.

ExtraCredits
>>1698589

Hey, I'm just happy we get to pass the storytime for adults feeling along so you can enjoy it as well!

Chamboz
>>1698113

It’s not my intention to insult you, but to help you to see this from another perspective. I hope you understand where I’m coming from – Ottoman history is something that I’m devoting my life to. It pains me to see the Decline myth propagated in the same way it must pain you whenever you see video games vilified on the news. That’s why I want you to consider the following quotes from numerous historians commenting on the Decline Thesis, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. You will see quite clearly that it has been totally rejected by professional historians. 1. Rifa’at ‘Ali Abou-El-Haj, Formation of the Modern State: The Ottoman Empire, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries 2nd Ed. (Syracuse University Press, 2005), pp. 3-4. “A noteworthy example [of a nonspecialist writing comparative history that includes the Ottomans] is Perry Anderson, who in a book focused on European absolutist states, has included a chapter on the Ottoman Empire… Anderson goes further, picking up the traditional Orientalist theme of Ottoman decline and attributing it to the usual external causes… It should be pointed out than in Anderson’s defense that he is not a specialist in Early Modern Ottoman history, and he has arrived at his simplistic and narrow explanation of Ottoman affairs by faithfully following the available secondary literature. As a consequence, he winds up doing something that was not necessarily a part of his original intention, namely, reinforcing regressive paradigms through the reintroduction, in what seems to be totally new garb, of the same old clichéd interpretations of Ottoman history.” In Abou-El-Haj’s words, Decline is “clichéd,” “Orientalist,” “regressive,” “simplistic,” and “narrow.” It is not true history. 2. Howard, Douglas A. “Genre and myth in the Ottoman advice for kings literature,” in Aksan, Virginia H. and Daniel Goffman eds. The Early Modern Ottomans: Remapping the Empire (Cambridge University Press, 2007; 2009), 143. “Twentieth-century Anglo-American scholarly interest in the nasihatname, however, was due in no small measure to the role of these works in reinforcing an important modern historiographical metanarrative: the rise and fall of civilizations that culminated in the rise of western civilization. The cultural significance of this story in the twentieth century, communicated to millions of Americans through the university "Western Civ" course, can hardly be overstated. In the metanarrative of rise and fall, the decline of Islamic civilization coincided with the rise of modern western civilization, and the decadent Islamic world became the main foil of the new and vigorous West and its nations... Especially after 1978 in the United States academic historians, motivated partly by appeals to a standard of verisimilitude that required a corrective to the older historical metanarrative, increasingly became preoccupied with refuting the Ottoman decline as an untrue myth.” Douglas Howard explains the role that Decline played in Western self-conception, and the emergence of the anti-Decline historiographical movement in the seventies. He originally wrote this article in 1988, and opposition to the Decline Thesis has since expanded from just the United States to be supported by the whole of Western academia. 3. Suraiya Faroqhi, The Ottoman Empire and the World Around it (I. B. Tauris, 2007; 2011), pp. 42-3. “These expectations and assumptions [of decline] permeate many European archival sources dealing with the history of the sultanic domains. Since these materials usually became accessible to researchers long before their counterparts in the Ottoman archives, it is not surprising that they have left profound traces in the relevant historiography. This impact was reinforced by the fact that early republican historiography in Turkey also was much inclined to dwell on Ottoman 'corruption' and 'decline'.” The idea of Decline permeated the European conception of the Ottomans, and thus it is logical that older histories, written before the Ottoman archives were opened to research, have this distorted view of the empire. 4. “Introduction: The Myth of Decline,” in Linda Darling, Revenue Raising and Legitimacy: Tax Collection and Finance Administration in the Ottoman Empire, 1560-1660 (1993) pp. 1-2. “Specialists have become skeptical of this decline paradigm, feeling that it fails to explain Ottoman transformation and change. It is teleological; because we know that eventually the Ottomans became a weaker power and finally disappeared, every earlier difficulty they experienced becomes a "seed of decline," and Ottoman successes and sources of strength vanish from the record.” The whole first chapter of Linda Darling’s book is entitled “The Myth of Decline,” and is devoted to combating the Decline thesis. She summarizes the historical literature which was then disproving that thesis. This was back in 1993! 5. Jane Hathaway, The Arab Lands under Ottoman Rule 1517-1800 (2008) pp. 7-8. “One of the most momentous changes to have occurred in Ottoman studies since the publication of Egypt and the Fertile Crescent (1966) is the deconstruction of the so-called 'Ottoman decline thesis' - that is, the notion that toward the end of the sixteenth century, following the reign of Sultan Suleyman I (1520-66), the empire entered a lengthy decline from which it never truly recovered, despite heroic attempts at westernizing reforms in the nineteenth century. Over the last twenty years or so, as Chapter 4 will point out, historians of the Ottoman Empire have rejected the narrative of decline in favor of one of crisis and adaptation: after weathering a wretched economic and demographic crisis in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the Ottoman Empire adjusted its character from that of a military conquest state to that of a territorially more stable, bureaucratic state whose chief concern was no longer conquering new territories but extracting revenue from the territories it already controlled while shoring up its image as the bastion of Sunni Islam.” Jane Hathaway clearly notes that “historians of the Ottoman Empire have rejected the narrative of decline.” Not just that she personally has, but that all Ottomanist historians have done so, collectively. 6. Leslie Pierce, “Changing Perceptions of the Ottoman Empire: the Early Centuries,” Mediterranean Historical Review 19/1 (2004): 22. “Scholarship of past [30] years has liberated the post-Süleymanic period from the straightjacket of decline in which every new phenomenon was seen as corruption of pristine ‘classical’ institutions.” Leslie Pierce, 11 years after her previously cited book, says definitively that scholarship has been “liberated” from decline. 7. Metin Kunt, “Introduction to Part I,” in Süleyman the Magnificent and His Age: the Ottoman Empire in the Early Modern World, ed. Metin Kunt and Christine Woodhead (London and New York: Longman, 1995), 37-38. “…students of Ottoman history have learned better than to discuss a “decline” which supposedly began during the reigns of Süleyman’s “ineffectual” successors and then continued for centuries. Süleyman’s sons and grandsons, as sultans, merely continued in the same detached imperial tradition that was first fashioned during Süleyman’s long reign. As for broader institutional and social fluctuations and dislocations, these are properly to be seen as features of a transition which eventually reached a new equilibrium in the seventeenth century. The “time of troubles” may have seemed of millennial significance to Ottomans themselves; we should see its features rather as aspects of the Ottoman effort to confront the challenges of a changing and widening world, beyond their frontiers and experience.” Metin Kunt, more than twenty years ago, here repeats what the previous historians cited here were saying: historians have learned better than to speak of decline. Decline is a theory which has been disproven and abandoned. 8. Baki Tezcan, The Second Ottoman Empire: Political and Social Transformation in the Early Modern World (Cambridge University Press, 2010), 9. “Ottomanist historians have produced several works in the last decades, revising the traditional understanding of this period from various angles, some of which were not even considered as topics of historical inquiry in the mid-twentieth century. Thanks to these works, the conventional narrative of Ottoman history – that in the late sixteenth century the Ottoman Empire entered a prolonged period of decline marked by steadily increasing military decay and institutional corruption – has been discarded.” Tezcan doesn’t say that the Decline Theory is being challenged. He doesn’t say it’s being debated. He says it has been “discarded.” It is no longer considered acceptable history. It is wrong. There’s just no getting around it. I’m not “silencing dissenting views,” or anything like that. I’m talking here about facts. There is no debate, because all modern historians agree: the decline of the Ottoman Empire did not happen.

ExtraCredits
>>1698113

Thank you for that. I understand that this is a subject you care about passionately, and I admire that. Please do have some care with the way you present that passion, though, because when you do let it get the best of you and throw in deprecatory statements along with your researched evidence, it transforms your tone from educational to demeaning. I don't believe that was your intent, and with your permission, I'd like to move past it, and trust that we can assume each other's good intentions from now on. Okay. So, onto your paragraphs! That was quite a lot of work you put in, and I'm as much flattered by it as I am concerned that we've driven you to distraction. Nevertheless, I read it all with great interest. I personally have not studied the Ottoman Empire in any great detail, and so it's a pleasure to hear new perspectives from people who have. The gradual transformation of historical perspective as we get better at sifting evidence and assumptions is one of my favorite things about studying history, and flipping traditional narratives on their head is an especial favorite. At this time, not having read the sources in full, I can't guarantee that it will change anything about the way this series is currently presented. But I will guarantee that James and I will go over it, and also that if we do another series on the Ottomans (especially if it's post-Suleiman, in the period we referred to as decline), then we will definitely check out these sources in more detail. Gonna level with you, though: we probably won't be able to get every single one of the sources you named here, in part because of the limitations of time and in part because of the combined cost and difficulty of obtaining some academic texts. Should that opportunity roll around, I would, however, be very happy to reach out to you, if you're still willing, and ask for a few of your preferred recommendations on the subject. If we do get there, and after we read the texts we conclude that the decline is a myth, then we're not too proud to admit it and discuss that in a Lies episode.

Batman O'Brien

It's ok. I forgive you for not using me as a unit of measurement.

Chamboz
>>1698113

Of course, I’ll always be willing to offer my help should you want to discuss topics pertaining to the Ottomans, or even to pre-Modern Islamic History more generally. I can also help you acquire sources more cheaply and conveniently should the need arise – no one should be barred from learning on account of the cost. When it comes to topics outside of my own area of expertise, I could potentially try to get you in touch with others who would be more qualified. You have my email address, and can contact me there if you ever come across a situation in which I might be able to help you.

ExtraCredits
>>1698113

I thought I replied to this but I'm scrolling through now and don't see it. Since Patreon's comment system still bugs out a lot, I'm guessing my original reply is gone, but I wanted to say that of course we'll reach out if we can use your help with future series. And also that I very much appreciate the offer. :)

Jon Davis

I wanted to follow up with a comment I posted on the last video. I said that the last several minutes of episode 6 was overdone, and that I hoped that would be addressed in Lies, which it was, literally first thing, so good on you. That said, what we have in the first 10 minutes of Lies feels very much like a sort of reinterpretation of his history to not appear Islamophobic. Frankly, there was so much dark about what Süleyman did that, if we approached it with the same unforgiving vigor in the name of historical truth that was given to the First Crusade video, it would be attacked. Well, if you choose to do a series on these people, they should shown for what they were. Granted, the arts and architecture that Süleyman's patronage brought was great, but the atrocities and complete and utter barbarism towards those closest to him were glossed over. In their place, it seemed to me, was an artsy expression which attempted to tie the choices of the Ottomans and other Islamic caliphates with "our" problems. The constant comparisons to Justinian seemed to show that they were the same, when they very clearly were not, as stated in the example presented by you of systemic filicide. More over, it was to tie his reign to the line of evolution of Western ideology, when our evolution broke from one another long before. That was literally the goal, as stated, in the first 9 minutes of Lies. We are all the same, we would have all done the same things, but why don't we? While I totally agree that battles like in Hungry and Rhodes were totally justified from an empirical standpoint, and I have no problems with them; the viewpoints, ideology, and rationale for why so much of the actual decisions he made, the laws of The Lawgiver, were rooted in a codified system of political and religious governance that, to our viewpoint today, was barbaric even compared to much of the Europe at the time. As I said, I have been a fan of your show for a long time and will continue to be a patron of it. I'm just disappointed that it felt like the team went to such efforts to tell the story artfully, rather than brave the arrows of being called an Islamiphobe by stating truthfully where Islamic rulers acted in accordance with Islam and it was terrifying, you pulled your punches in a way that wasn't seen with the Japanese Sengoku Jidai or Admiral Yi, the Zulu, or the First Crusade. I'm just saying, you guys have earned my respect in the past, but if you aren't interested in displaying the unwholesome acts of Islamic history, for fear of reprisal, please don't offer it as a segment of a show I really like.