跳至內容

鄂圖曼帝國衰落論

本頁使用了標題或全文手工轉換
維基百科，自由的百科全書
鄂圖曼帝國在1683年領土擴張至極盛，在此之後便被有觀點認為帝國進入了停滯、衰弱期。
系列條目
鄂圖曼帝國歷史
Coat of Arms of the Ottoman Empire
崛起 (1299–1453)

大空位期 (1402–1413)

君士坦丁堡的陷落 (1453)
擴張 (1453–1566)
蘇丹女權時期(1533–1566)
轉型（英語：Transformation of the Ottoman Empire） (1566–1703)
科普魯律時期 (1656–1703)
滯止 (1703–1789)
鬱金香時期 (1718–1730)
衰落 (1789–1908)

新秩序（英語：Nizam-I Cedid） (18世紀末至19世紀初)
坦志麥特時期 (1839–1876)

一次立憲時期
解體（英語：Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire） (1908–1922)

二次立憲時期（英語：Second Constitutional Era） (1908–1920)
第一次世界大戰（英語：Ottoman Empire in World War I）(1914–1918)
分裂(1918–1922)
廢除鄂圖曼蘇丹（英語：Abolition of the Ottoman sultanate）(1922)

廢除哈里發（英語：Abolition of the Caliphate）(1924)
鄂圖曼帝國主題

鄂圖曼帝國衰落論或鄂圖曼帝國衰弱範式（土耳其語：Osmanlı Gerileme Tezi）是已經過時[1]的一種歷史觀點，它曾主導了鄂圖曼帝國歷史的歷史研究。根據該論點，鄂圖曼帝國在經歷蘇萊曼大帝統治的黃金年代之後，鄂圖曼帝國便進入了不可逆轉的衰弱，直至該帝國於1923年滅亡（英語：Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire）。[2]該論點在20世紀的大部分時間內一直被西方國家與土耳其共和國[3]所接受。

然而到了1978年，歷史學家開始重新審視該衰退論之基本假設。[4]隨着1980、1990、2000年代大量的新研究發表，並且用了以往沒被接觸過的史料與觀點來重新審視鄂圖曼帝國歷史之後，相關的學術歷史學家基本達成了一共識，即鄂圖曼帝國衰弱的整個說法純乃信口雌黃──事實上鄂圖曼帝國並沒有進入所謂的停滯、衰退，因為就算蘇萊曼大帝死去，鄂圖曼帝國仍然是個充滿活力且生機勃勃的國家。[1]很快地，該論點被批評為「目的論」、「倒退論」、「東方主義」、「過分簡單化」、「一維化」[5]，並且被描述為「一個在歷史分析中變得毫無用武之地的概念」。[6]是以，學者「以學習取代討論」。[7]

儘管專業歷史學家已經對此論點做出巨大的改變，然而該論點仍然在大眾文化與非相關之專家學者的學術史中佔有一席之地──這是由於他們仍然相信、依賴這個已經被推翻、過時的論點[8]；在某些狀況下，該論點也會因受益於政治利益而持續長存。[9]

論點起源

鄂圖曼帝國

蘇萊曼大帝被統治被認為是鄂圖曼帝國的黃金年代

造就鄂圖曼帝國衰弱論的第一個原因是鄂圖曼知識份子本身。[10]納西哈特（英語：Nasîhat）文學體制──又稱「蘇丹的鏡子」──的出現時間相當悠久，早在先前的穆斯林王朝（如塞爾柱帝國與阿拔斯帝國）便已出現，但它在17世紀後大幅擴展。[11]該體裁主要關注國家社會的秩序、動亂；它將統治者的概念化為正義的化身，並為了確保他的臣民能得到正義：這通常是透過所謂的正義之圈（鄂圖曼土耳其語：dāʾire-i ʿadlīye）的概念來表達。在這個概念中，統治者將為他的臣民提供正義將使這些臣民繁榮，並回饋給統治者[12]──然而一旦這個循環被打破，社會將停止正常運轉。

是以，像是蓋利博魯魯·穆斯塔法·阿里[13]之類的鄂圖曼作家將蘇萊曼大帝的統治時期稱為是該循環的完美型態，並提出該型態日後都不會再次出現的說法，並且他們將帝國的經歷變化視為是理想化的蘇萊曼方程式離去後逐漸產生的消極腐敗。然而，現在的人們都瞭解到，他們並不會簡單的描述客觀事實，而是經常利用衰落的體裁來表達他們自己的怨念。舉例來說：穆斯塔法·阿里之所以宣稱帝國已然走向衰弱，不過是因為他對自己未能獲得晉升與宮廷的贊助而感到沮喪罷了。[14]是以，這些納西哈特作家之主要目標，可能只是在瞬息萬變的世界中保護自己的個人或階級地位而已。[15][16]

西歐

在西方史學中提到鄂圖曼帝國衰弱的第一個參考文獻可在迪米特里耶·坎泰米爾[17]在1717年完成，並在1734年被翻譯成英文的《鄂圖曼宮廷之增減》（拉丁語：Incrementa atque decrementa aulae othomanicae）中看到。[18]後來接受其觀念的是19世紀的約瑟夫·馮·哈默-普格斯德（英語：Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall）[19]，他因為知曉鄂圖曼土耳其文，並直接接受了納西哈特作家的說法，因此，後來人們認為其衰弱勢解釋鄂圖曼帝國對外軍事失利的適當手段，同時為歐洲帝國主義作為擋箭牌。[20]是以，鄂圖曼帝國/伊斯蘭文明的衰弱之概念成了西方文明的陪襯品，並以「頹廢消極」的鄂圖曼帝國與「充滿活力」的西方世界成鮮明對比；同樣的，伊斯蘭教（作為一個包羅萬象的文明範疇來看）經常被描述為與西方大相逕庭的東西：西方社會看重的是自由、理性、進步，伊斯蘭世界看中的則是奴性、迷信與原地踏步。[21]此論點持續延燒至20世紀中葉，尤其是在H·A·R·吉布、哈羅德·鮑文與伯納德·劉易斯的作品，他們堅持伊斯蘭衰落的文明概念，同時用現代化理論的新社會學範式對其進行修改。[22]

不過，隨着歷史學家開始重新審視自己對鄂圖曼帝國和伊斯蘭歷史的基本假設，再加上1978年愛德華·薩依德的《東方主義（英語：Orientalism (book)）》出版，相關觀點開始受到越來越多的批評。[23]

原理

伯納德·劉易斯──鄂圖曼帝國衰弱論的最著名支持者之一

關於鄂圖曼帝國之衰弱論的最著名代表即為歷史學家伯納德·劉易斯[24]，他認為鄂圖曼帝國經歷了足以影響政府、社會，乃至文明的全面衰落。他在1958年的文章《對於鄂圖曼帝國沒落的一些反思》中闡述了自己的觀點[25]，不久，他成為了20世紀中葉東方學界的主流觀點。然而現在，這篇文章受到了大量批評，現代學者也不再認可他的內容。[26]劉易斯的觀點如下：

無庸置疑地，鄂圖曼帝國的前十位蘇丹（從鄂圖曼一世到蘇萊曼大帝）都具有卓越的個人素質，但至此之後的蘇丹都變得「無能、墮落且不稱職」──這是卡菲斯（英語：Kafes）繼承制度的結果，因為王朝的王子在登基之前都無法獲得省政府的經驗。領導階層的錯誤領導促使政府所有部門變得衰弱：他導致了官僚機構停止運作，他們紀錄的質量因而劣化，很快鄂圖曼帝國的軍隊失去了力量並開始在戰場上連連失利，也因為他們不再試圖跟上歐洲的軍事科技技術，使得其領土逐漸被後者所蠶食，並且，由於先前鄂圖曼帝國都是以不斷擴張來穩定其發展，一場突如其來的失敗的征服行動導致帝國跟不上與歐洲的全新關係。

經濟上，新大陸的發現及地中海、大西洋經濟平衡的變動，以及後來歐洲人發現印度，都使得鄂圖曼帝國港口的貿易量下降；此外，隨之產生的物價革命促使帝國貨幣變得不穩，並陷入嚴重的財政危機，再加上愈發上漲的戰爭成本，這些都被證實是災難性後果。隨着鄂圖曼的騎兵逐漸變得過時，蒂馬爾土地使用制顯得過時了，但是腐敗的官僚機構卻無法用功能性替代政策來取代他們，相反地，他們針對農業增加稅收，促使農民受到了壓迫，導致農業衰退。鄂圖曼帝國之所以在經濟、軍事上落後，是因為他們封閉的思想，並不願採納歐洲創新與對食用科技的日益鄙視，最終，他「再次成為了中世紀國家──因為它存在着中世紀的心理狀態與中世紀經濟模式──然而它增加了任何中世紀國家都無法負擔的官僚機構與常備軍。」[27]

值得注意的是，對鄂圖曼帝國衰弱的解釋，並不是僅限於該國在世界帝國中的地緣政治地位與軍事實力而已，該論點在19-20世紀初將不同的「文明」作為其歷史分析單位的概念，這不僅是參照其地緣政治，還將其定義為是社會、經濟、文化與道德之術語。是以，這個包羅萬象的關於鄂圖曼（更廣泛地說是伊斯蘭）文明的衰落之概念，成為16世紀以後大眾理解鄂圖曼歷史之框架。[28]

對該論點的批評

概念問題方面

達納·薩迪在一篇總結自1970年代以來對該論點的批評文章中指出，學者們已經證明了以下幾點：「一、鄂圖曼國家社會不斷變化的性質與適應性；二、本土或內部社會、經濟和/或智力過程顯示出早於西方的現代性跡象；三、鄂圖曼國家社會與同時期其他國家的相同可比性；四、一種邏輯或框架可替代衰退與其中隱含的歐洲中心主義：這是因考慮到了17-18世紀的現象」。[29]其中前兩點反駁了衰弱論指出的，鄂圖曼國家社會在「西方影響」之前的描述是落後、靜態且基本沒有創新；第三點指出鄂圖曼帝國在很大程度上是獨一無二的，因為他擁有自己的規則與內部邏輯運作，而非融入更加廣泛的世界歷史框架；至於最後一點則敘述了衰弱論很大程度上的忽視17-18世紀鄂圖曼帝國實際上的地方發展，而傾向於強調鄂圖曼帝國衰敗與歐洲優越的宏大敘事。[30]

根據這幾點來看，對衰落論點的普遍批評是它是目的論：也就是說，他將整個鄂圖曼帝國之整體歷史描述為帝國興衰的故事，以至於早期的歷史學家紛紛過分強調該帝國的困境而低估了該帝國的實力。根據琳達·達林的說法：「就是因為我們知道，鄂圖曼帝國後來變得愈來愈弱，並最終走向亡國之路，他們亡國前的種種困難都被認定為是衰弱之因，因此許多該帝國的成功與力量來源從此消失在紀錄上。」[31]衰落的必然結果是帝國早先達到頂峰的觀念同樣被質疑，該觀點將蘇萊曼大帝的統治被視為一個黃金時代，並認為帝國的所有其他歷史都可以與之相提並論，促使早期的研究人員認為，轉型和變化在本質上是負面的，因為帝國就此偏離了蘇萊曼浪漫化和理想化時代的既定規範。根據珍·海瑟薇的說法，這此種對「黃金時代」的過分關注使對其歷史產生了扭曲的影響，因為「一個存在了六個多世紀的龐大帝國，不可能只用一個理想的時刻和一個理想的排列，就可判斷帝國的整個年代和地理跨度」。[32]相反地，現代學者認為變化是帝國適應周圍世界的自然結果，是創新與靈活性的標誌，而非衰落。[33]

政治方面

在重新審視鄂圖曼帝國衰弱論之觀點時，歷史學家首先研究了構成衰落論支柱的納西哈特文本。許多學者，包括最著名的道格拉斯·霍華德[34]與麗貝卡·阿里·阿布拉吉[35]指出，這些鄂圖曼作家對當代社會的批評，並非不受其自身偏見的影響，並批評早期的歷史學家在沒有任何批判分析的情況下，就以其表面價值來看待它們。此外，「抱怨時代」實際上是鄂圖曼社會上的一種文學比喻，在蘇萊曼大帝所謂的「黃金時代」時期也存在。[36]而對於鄂圖曼作家來說，「衰落」是一種讓他們能夠對當代國家和社會做出判斷的比喻，而不是對客觀現實的描述，是以，這些作品不應被當作該帝國實際已衰的證據。[37][38]

其他相關的政治衰弱之觀念，即蘇萊曼大帝以後的蘇丹是「不稱職的統治者」之觀念也備受挑戰。[39]像艾哈邁德一世[40]、鄂圖曼二世[41]、穆罕默德四世[42]與其餘統治者都已在他們各自的時代背景下得以重新審視，而非不適當的用蘇萊曼大帝的黃金年代做比較。[32]事實上，對於是否是蘇萊曼大帝開創了該帝國的黃金年代之該念也開始受到質疑[43][44]；蘇丹不再陪同軍隊參與戰爭的行動也不再受人批評，而是被視為帝國轉變為久坐的帝國政體所產生的積極、必要之變化。[45]萊斯利·皮爾斯對鄂圖曼王朝的女性統治者之研究證明了，讓女性統治者治理國家的權力（即所謂女性蘇丹統治時期）的情況不是帝國變得軟弱之原因，就是開始衰弱之徵兆的假設是不準確的，相反地，鄂圖曼的蘇丹皇太后、公主、嬪妃在該帝國的動盪時期不僅鞏固了鄂圖曼王朝的統治權力，還在讓該王朝之統治合法化方面取得了重要功效。[46]此外，在借鑑了琳達·達林的研究成果後，該帝國迅速擴張的官僚機構之重要性現在被特別強調是17-18世紀該帝國穩定與力量的來源。[47][48]基於阿里爾·薩爾茨曼之研究表明，該帝國之地方知名人士在18世紀獲得權力的這一方面已被重新解釋為是一種有效之政府形式，而非衰弱的標誌。[49][50]

軍事方面

關乎鄂圖曼帝國在軍事方面的衰弱論點中最持久的說法，是鄂圖曼帝國軍隊在蘇萊曼時期之後的衰弱：據說，曾經令人聞風喪膽的土耳其禁衛軍因為愈來愈多為自己獲得特權，並且結婚生子，讓自己的子嗣加入軍團，而逐漸變得腐敗不堪，是以，他們的軍紀不再保持嚴謹，並開始兼職商人、店主等職業來補充收入，從而使之失去軍事優勢。然而現在可以理解的是，禁衛軍可以參與商業活動並非限於後蘇萊曼時期，他們早在15世紀便從事了，且並沒有因而影響軍紀[51]；此外，他們不僅沒有在戰場上變得無能，而且仍然是歐洲最先進的軍隊之一，與大多數歐洲軍隊並駕齊驅，他們甚至可能早於歐洲引進了齊射戰術（英語：Volley fire）。[52]

蒂馬爾體系在這個時代經歷的變化也受到了更多的關注，而現在，蒂馬爾體系的崩潰不再被視為政府無能的結果，而是一種有意識的政策，他的出現是為了幫助帝國適應16世紀後期日益貨幣化的經濟背景，是以，這並非是衰退的徵兆，而是軍事和財政現代化進程的一部分。[53][54][55]而到了17世紀，蒂馬爾體系所產生的騎兵軍隊逐漸過時，這使該帝國便用大量的持槍步兵取代之，繼而維持住他們的軍事競爭力。[56]到了1690年代，鄂圖曼軍隊中的步兵比例已然增加50-60%，相當於其對手哈布斯堡王朝。[57]

至於軍備生產與武器技術方面，17-18世紀的鄂圖曼帝國在大部分時間內基本與歐洲對手相差無幾。[58][59]軍事歷史學家加博爾·阿戈斯頓駁斥了鄂圖曼的加農炮鑄造廠以不成比例的速度生產超大型攻城炮，進而忽視了可移動野戰炮的理論。[60]儘管東方主義者宣稱伊斯蘭教固有的保守主義，阻止了鄂圖曼軍事採用歐洲的創新先進技術，但現在證實了鄂圖曼帝國實際上仍有採納外國發明的技術，並在後來的17-18世紀持續僱傭歐洲的叛徒與技術專家。[61][62]在武器生產方面，17世紀的鄂圖曼人仍然超越了歐洲的對手，一直到18世紀後期，除了極少數且短暫的例外，他們在火藥生產方面完全可以自給自足，並且他們一直能夠生產足夠的大砲和火槍來供應其整個武裝部隊及剩下的庫存。[63]根據加博爾·阿戈斯和羅茲·墨菲的說法，鄂圖曼帝國之所以在1683-99年與1768-74年之戰爭輸給了哈布斯堡與俄羅斯的最合理之解釋，是因為多線戰爭造成的後勤和通信壓力，而不是鄂圖曼帝國在技術和武器方面的劣勢，因為該劣勢實質上遠沒有以前所認為的那麼嚴重。[64][65]現在的人們認為，鄂圖曼軍隊在1760年代以前基本上仍與其對手大致的平衡，但後來由於該帝國長期的和平，繼而錯過了七年戰爭與相關之進展，才使之落後於西方。[66]

經濟財政方面

從經濟角度對衰落論的早期批評深受了1960與1970年代的安德烈·岡德·法蘭克和伊曼紐爾·沃勒斯坦等學者所闡述的依附理論和世界體系分析的新社會學觀點之影響，這些理論對當時在經濟學家和政治分析家中流行的現代化理論提供了有影響力的批評，並成為理解鄂圖曼帝國經濟史的框架，最重要的例子是伯納德·劉易斯在1961年出版的《現代土耳其的出現》。現代化理論認為，欠發達國家之所以貧窮，是因為它未能跟隨歐洲的一系列不同發展之階段前進（基於首先是法國和英國提供的模式），這些發展階段被認為適用於所有社會，並試圖找出阻礙鄂圖曼帝國進入「現代化」的因素之歷史學家因而轉向了構成衰落論基礎之刻板印象：鄂圖曼帝國是因對專制與貪睡的嗜好，因而阻礙了他們進入現代化世界並導致經濟停滯[67]；相比之下，依附理論將不發達國家視為是歐洲人從近代早期開始逐漸建立起來的不平等全球經濟體系之產物，因此他們認為這是歷史進程的結果，而不是所謂的非西方世界無法適應之簡單問題。[68]胡里·伊斯拉莫格魯-伊南和恰拉爾·凱德將依附理論引入鄂圖曼帝國歷史，繼而使歷史學家能夠突破曾經主導鄂圖曼經濟史的主導概念，尤其是「東方專制主義」[註 1]的概念：據稱他們忽視其經濟發展，而是從該帝國逐漸融入以歐洲為中心的新興世界體系的邊緣之角度來審視該帝國。後來，省級研究還強調了18-19世紀初鄂圖曼帝國正在經歷曾經獨立的經濟體系正被歐洲經濟滲透而產生的資本主義轉型──他反過來促進該帝國融入了世界經濟。[70]即使在帝國邊緣化以後，長期以來一直被認為在面對歐洲競爭時便已崩潰的鄂圖曼製造業，現在被認為在18-19世紀，受益於鄂圖曼國內市場的力量，製造業甚至發展至極盛。[71]

在早期，16世紀鄂圖曼帝國的經濟、財政之衰退與該世紀後期發生物價革命的災難性影響有關，然而其影響並不僅限於鄂圖曼帝國而已，歐洲也發生了同樣的狀況，這是因為他們都在努力地應對通貨膨脹、人口結構變化和戰爭成本不斷上升的各種壓力。在將待帝國與同時期的歐洲做比較後，學者們現在普遍認為該帝國的經濟財政之危機可被視為是廣泛的歐洲本體危機的一部分，也就是所謂的「17世紀經濟蕭條」，而非鄂圖曼帝國獨有的衰弱跡象。[72]鄂圖曼帝國經濟無法從這些危機中復甦的假設，不僅是相關領域並沒有對17-18世紀的鄂圖曼帝國經濟特別了解，而且他似乎很容易就跟關於鄂圖曼帝國衰落的預先想法相吻合。[73]然而，隨後的研究表明，以塞夫凱特·帕慕克的話來說，鄂圖曼帝國在18世紀的時候「實際上已經進入該帝國貨幣體系的復甦時期」，並表明「帝國持續衰落的舊論點是錯誤的」。[74]十八世紀上半葉是鄂圖曼帝國經濟顯著增長與擴張的時期，而非衰弱時期。[75]

此外，其他關乎鄂圖曼帝國經濟衰弱的點也相繼受到挑戰。歐洲商人在好望角周圍建立新的海上貿易路線，繞過鄂圖曼帝國領土之影響遠沒有人們所想像的那麼大。雖然早期學術研究表明葡萄牙幾乎壟斷了奢侈品──尤其是往返歐洲的香料──之貿易運輸，然而實際上，葡萄牙只是眾多印度洋商業競爭者的其中一國而已，即使是16世紀末，亞洲商人仍然利用傳統的紅海貿易路線穿越鄂圖曼國領土，運送的香料是葡萄牙商人的四倍[76]，18世紀初亦是如此，許多的銀幣都是從傳統的中東路線進口到印度，而不是走歐洲主導的開普敦路線。[77]後來17世紀的也門咖啡之貿易也多少補足了確實發生的一些收入損失，再加上與印度的緊密貿易往來，最終確保了紅海-開羅的沿海商業中心長盛不衰。[78]

先前伯納德·劉易斯等歷史學家曾將帝國官僚記錄的質量下降視為鄂圖曼行政機構停滯不前的跡象[79]，現在歷史學家認為這是子虛烏有。[80]記錄保存的變化並不因為是質量下降，而是因為土地評估性質的變化，這是該帝國為了適應17世紀日益貨幣化的經濟表現。蘇萊曼大帝時期所使用的評估方法非常適合確保將收入適當分配給構成鄂圖曼帝國絕大部分的封建騎兵軍隊，然而跨世紀之後，由於需要現金來籌集持槍步兵，促使政府改革現有之土地制度，並擴大稅收耕作（英語：Farm (revenue leasing)）的做法──這在當代歐洲也是常見做法。事實上，17世紀是鄂圖曼官僚機構顯着地擴張之時期，而非停滯、衰弱期。[81][82][83]與早期歷史學家所表示的論點相反，這些變化似乎並沒有使鄂圖曼帝國比同時代的歐洲國家存在更嚴重的深層腐敗與壓迫[84]，反而與整個17世紀的其他歐洲國家一都在努力應對迅速增長的開支，並最終得以進行改革，使該帝國能夠以預算盈餘的財政狀況進入18世紀。總之，用琳達·達林的話道：「將17世紀鄂圖曼帝國的預算赤字歸咎在帝國的衰落，並無法解釋18世紀的赤字停止。」[85]

21世紀的學術共識

主條目：鄂圖曼帝國的轉型（英語：Transformation of the Ottoman Empire）

撇開衰弱論來講，現今的鄂圖曼帝國歷史學家最常將後蘇萊曼時期（廣泛來說是1550-1700年之間）稱之為轉型時期（英語：Transformation of the Ottoman Empir）。[86][87]定義該時期的經濟與政治危機之作用相當重要，因為他證明了鄂圖曼帝國最終得以生存並適應瞬息萬變的世界[88][89]；鄂圖曼帝國在與他國進行比較方面（以同時期歐洲為主）之地位也愈發受到重視：當鄂圖曼人遭受嚴重的經濟與政治衰退之時，歐洲地區也發生了相差無幾的情況──這一時期經常被稱為「17世紀大危機時期（英語：The General Crisis）」[90]──是以他是包含了鄂圖曼帝國，乃至歐洲與地中海地區都曾面臨過的總體趨勢之一部分。[91][92]用埃胡德·托萊達諾（英語：Ehud R. Toledano）的話道：「在歐洲與鄂圖曼帝國，這些變化改變了國家及軍事行政精英發動、資助戰爭的方式以應對這些巨大挑戰，並透過社會經濟和政治變革來找到相對應之措施，這就是實際上的17-18世紀之鄂圖曼帝國歷史。其主要特點是對新現實的顯著適應，而非衰弱、瓦解；它反映了鄂圖曼軍事行政精英在思想與行動上的足智多謀、務實和靈活，而不是他們的無能或迂腐。[93]」是以，根據達納·薩迪的說法：「無論人們如何看待這個個別修正主義作品，或者特定方式與框架，學術的累積效應已經證明了衰落論的經驗與理論均為無效，並提供了一個鄂圖曼國家的內部動態和社會的寫照。它還確立了鄂圖曼帝國與其他（歐洲為主）的社會和政體之可比性，同時修訂了現有的分期方案。」[94]

現今21世紀對後蘇萊曼時期的學術共識總結如下：

鄂圖曼帝國歷史學家已否定了衰弱論的論述，並認為他是轉型與適應的一部分：在經歷16世紀末-17世紀初的一場悲慘的經濟與人口危機之後，鄂圖曼帝國的性質從軍事征服國家轉型為擁有穩定領土的官僚國家：他不再以征服新的領土為主，而是維持其固有領土內的收入，同時鞏固作為遜尼派伊斯蘭帝國的形象。

——珍·海瑟薇（由卡爾·K·巴比爾提供），《1516–1800年：鄂圖曼帝國治下的阿拉伯領土》（培生教育有限公司出版）之第8–9頁

參見

註釋

  1. ^ 「東方專制主義」是馬克思主義者分析歷史時所使用的一個術語。它被假定為一種中東國家社會之願景，在該願景中，所有大權都被集中在一個絕對統治者手中，並透過控制帝國的所有領地，阻止了本土資本主義的發展，繼而使資本主義無法在此落地生根。這個概念或類似的相關概念長期以來成為了鄂圖曼帝國乃至亞洲主體的社會研究準則，但是正如扎卡里·洛克曼所指出的，這個概念「實際上是個粗略的概括與對（相當多樣化的）『亞洲社會』歷史和社會結構，產生嚴重的錯誤理解」。[69]

註腳

  1. ^ 1.0 1.1 Hathaway, Jane. The Arab Lands under Ottoman Rule, 1516–1800. Pearson Education Ltd. 2008: 7–8. ISBN 978-0-582-41899-8. 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 favour of one of crisis and adaptation 
    • Kunt, Metin. Introduction to Part I. Kunt, Metin; Christine Woodhead (編). Süleyman the Magnificent and His Age: the Ottoman Empire in the Early Modern World. 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. 
    • Tezcan, Baki. The Second Ottoman Empire: Political and Social Transformation in the Early Modern Period. Cambridge University Press. 2010: 9. ISBN 978-1-107-41144-9. 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. 
    • Woodhead, Christine. Introduction. Christine Woodhead (編). The Ottoman World. 2011: 5. ISBN 978-0-415-44492-7. Ottomanist historians have largely jettisoned the notion of a post-1600 'decline' 
    • Ehud Toledano. The Arabic-speaking world in the Ottoman period: A socio-political analysis. Woodhead, Christine (編). The Ottoman World. Routledge. 2011: 457. ISBN 978-0-415-44492-7. In the scholarly literature produced by Ottomanists since the mid-1970s, the hitherto prevailing view of Ottoman decline has been effectively debunked. 
    • Leslie Peirce, "Changing Perceptions of the Ottoman Empire: the Early Centuries," Mediterranean Historical Review 19/1 (2004): 22.
    • Cemal Kafadar, "The Question of Ottoman Decline," Harvard Middle Eastern and Islamic Review 4/1–2 (1997–98), pp. 30–75.
    • M. Fatih Çalışır, "Decline of a 'Myth': Perspectives on the Ottoman 'Decline'," The History School 9 (2011): 37–60.
    • Donald Quataert, "Ottoman History Writing and Changing Attitudes towards the Notion of 'Decline,'" History Compass 1 (2003)
  2. ^ Linda Darling, Revenue Raising and Legitimacy: Tax Collection and Finance Administration in the Ottoman Empire, 1560–1660 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), [1].
    • Günhan Börekçi, "Factions and Favorites at the Courts of Sultan Ahmed I (r. 1603–1617) and His Immediate Predecessors," PhD dissertation (The Ohio State University, 2010), 5.
  3. ^ Suraiya Faroqhi, The Ottoman Empire and the World Around It (I. B. Tauris, 2004; 2011), pp. 42–43.
    • Virginia Aksan, "Ottoman to Turk: Continuity and Change," International Journal 61 (Winter 2005/6): 19–38.
  4. ^ 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.
  5. ^ Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy, 4.
    • Abou-El-Haj, Formation of the Modern State, pp. 3–4.
    • Karen Barkey, Bandits and Bureaucrats: The Ottoman Route to State Centralization, (Cornell University Press, 1994), ix.
  6. ^ Finkel, Caroline. The Administration of Warfare: The Ottoman Military Campaigns in Hungary, 1593–1606. Vienna: VWGÖ. 1988: 143. ISBN 3-85369-708-9. 
  7. ^ Kunt, Metin. Introduction to Part I. Kunt, Metin; Christine Woodhead (編). Süleyman the Magnificent and His Age: the Ottoman Empire in the Early Modern World. 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. 
  8. ^ Ehud Toledano. The Arabic-speaking world in the Ottoman period: A socio-political analysis. Woodhead, Christine (編). The Ottoman World. Routledge. 2011: 457. ISBN 978-0-415-44492-7. In the scholarly literature produced by Ottomanists since the mid-1970s, the hitherto prevailing view of Ottoman decline has been effectively debunked. However, only too often, the results of painstaking research and innovative revisions offered in that literature have not yet percolated down to scholars working outside Ottoman studies. Historians in adjacent fields have tended to rely on earlier classics and later uninformed surveys which perpetuate older, now deconstructed, views. 
  9. ^ Dana Sajdi refers on the one hand to nationalists in post-Ottoman regions of the world, and on the other, to the supporters of imperialistic intervention in the Middle East among some politicians in the West. Sajdi, Dana. Decline, its Discontents, and Ottoman Cultural History: By Way of Introduction. Sajdi, Dana (編). Ottoman Tulips, Ottoman Coffee: Leisure and Lifestyle in the Eighteenth Century. London: I.B. Taurus. 2007: 38–9. 
  10. ^ Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy, 3.
  11. ^ Howard, "Genre and Myth," pp. 137–139.
  12. ^ Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy, pp. 283–84.
  13. ^ Cornell Fleischer. Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: The Historian Mustafa Âli, 1541–1600, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986).
  14. ^ Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual, 103.
  15. ^ Douglas Howard, "Ottoman Historiography and the Literature of 'Decline' of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century," Journal of Asian History 22 (1988), pp. 52–77.
  16. ^ Abou-El-Haj, Formation of the Modern State, pp. 20–40.
  17. ^ Historians of the Ottoman Empire (Chicago University). September 2008 [2021-01-17]. （原始內容存檔於2022-05-24）. 
  18. ^ Cantemir, Dimitrie. The history of the growth and decay of the Othman empire. 1734 [2022-04-28]. （原始內容存檔於2022-12-12）. 
  19. ^ Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall, Geschichte des Osmanisches Reiches, (in German) 10 vols. (Budapest: Ca. H. Hartleben, 1827–35).
  20. ^ Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy, pp. 3–4.
  21. ^ Lockman, Zachary. Contending Visions of the Middle East: The History and Politics of Orientalism 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2010: 62–3. 
  22. ^ Lockman, Zachary. Contending Visions of the Middle East: The History and Politics of Orientalism 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2010: 104–12, 130–3. 
  23. ^ Howard, "Ottoman Advice for Kings," pp. 143–44; Edward Said, Orientalism, (New York: Pantheon, 1978).
  24. ^ Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy, 2.
  25. ^ Bernard Lewis, "Some Reflections on the Decline of the Ottoman Empire", Studia Islamica 1 (1958) 111–127.
  26. ^ Tezcan, Second Ottoman Empire, 242n.
    • Hathaway, "Problems of Periodization"
    • Darling, "Another Look at Periodization"
    • Quataert, "Ottoman History Writing"
    • Suraiya Faroqhi, Approaching Ottoman History: An Introduction to the Sources, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 180.
  27. ^ Lewis, "Some Reflections", pp. 112–127.
  28. ^ Sajdi, Dana. Decline, its Discontents, and Ottoman Cultural History: By Way of Introduction. Sajdi, Dana (編). Ottoman Tulips, Ottoman Coffee: Leisure and Lifestyle in the Eighteenth Century. London: I.B. Taurus. 2007: 4–6. 
  29. ^ Sajdi, Dana. Decline, its Discontents, and Ottoman Cultural History: By Way of Introduction. Sajdi, Dana (編). Ottoman Tulips, Ottoman Coffee: Leisure and Lifestyle in the Eighteenth Century. London: I.B. Taurus. 2007: 6. 
  30. ^ Sajdi, Dana. Decline, its Discontents, and Ottoman Cultural History: By Way of Introduction. Sajdi, Dana (編). Ottoman Tulips, Ottoman Coffee: Leisure and Lifestyle in the Eighteenth Century. London: I.B. Taurus. 2007: 5. 
  31. ^ Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy, pp. 4–5.
  32. ^ 32.0 32.1 Hathaway, "Problems of Periodization," 26.
  33. ^ Ehud Toledano. The Arabic-speaking world in the Ottoman period: A socio-political analysis. Woodhead, Christine (編). The Ottoman World. Routledge. 2011: 457. ISBN 978-0-415-44492-7. 
  34. ^ Douglas Howard, "Ottoman Historiography," pp. 52–77.
  35. ^ Abou-El-Haj, Formation of the Modern State, pp. 23–26.
  36. ^ Cemal Kafadar, "The Myth of the Golden Age: Ottoman Historical Consciousness in the post-Süleymanic Era," in Süleyman the Second [sic] and His Time, eds. Halil İnalcık and Cemal Kafadar (Istanbul: ISIS Press, 1993), pp. 44.
  37. ^ Rhoads Murphey, "The Veliyüddin Telhis: Notes on the Sources and Interrelations between Koçu Bey and Contemporary Writers of Advice to Kings," Belleten 43 (1979), pp. 547–571.
  38. ^ Pál Fodor, "State and Society, Crisis and Reform, in a 15th–17th Century Ottoman Mirror for Princes," Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 40 (1986), pp. 217–240.
  39. ^ Metin Kunt, "Introduction to Part I," 37–38.
  40. ^ Börekçi, "Factions and Favorites."
  41. ^ Tezcan, Second Ottoman Empire.
  42. ^ Marc Baer, Honored by the Glory of Islam: Conversion and Conquest in Ottoman Europe, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008)
  43. ^ Kafadar, "The Myth of the Golden Age", 37–48.
  44. ^ Kaya Şahin, Empire and Power in the Reign of Süleyman: Narrating the Sixteenth-Century Ottoman World, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013)
  45. ^ Hakan T. Karateke, "On the Tranquility and Repose of the Sultan," in Christine Woodhead eds. The Ottoman World, (Routledge, 2011), 116.
    • Leslie Peirce, The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire, (Oxford University Press: 1993), 185.
  46. ^ Peirce, The Imperial Harem, pp. 267–285.
  47. ^ Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy, pp. 200–306.
  48. ^ Hathaway, The Arab Lands, 9
  49. ^ Donald Quataert, "Ottoman History Writing", 5.
  50. ^ Salzmann, Ariel. An Ancien Régime Revisited: "Privatization" and Political Economy in the Eighteenth-Century Ottoman Empire. Politics & Society. 1993, 21 (4): 393–423. doi:10.1177/0032329293021004003. 
  51. ^ Cemal Kafadar, "On the Purity and Corruption of the Janissaries," Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 15 (1991): 273–280.
  52. ^ Günhan Börekçi, "A Contribution to the Military Revolution Debate: The Janissaries' Use of Volley Fire During the Long Ottoman-Habsburg War of 1593–1606 and the Problem of Origins." Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 59 (2006): 407–438.
  53. ^ Tezcan, Second Ottoman Empire, pp. 22–23.
  54. ^ Metin Kunt, The Sultan's Servants: The Transformation of Ottoman Provincial Government, 1550–1650, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983) 98.
  55. ^ Ariel Salzmann, "The Old Regime and the Ottoman Middle East," in Christine Woodhead eds. The Ottoman World, (Routledge, 2011), 412.
  56. ^ Halil İnalcık, "Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 1600–1700," Archivum Ottomanicum 6 (1980): 283–337.
  57. ^ Gábor Ágoston, "Firearms and Military Adaptation: The Ottomans and the European Military Revolution, 1450–1800". Journal of World History.' 25 (2014): 123.
  58. ^ Jonathan Grant, "Rethinking the Ottoman "Decline": Military Technology Diffusion in the Ottoman Empire, Fifteenth to Eighteenth Centuries." Journal of World History 10 (1999): 179–201.
  59. ^ Gábor Ágoston, "Ottoman Artillery and European Military Technology in the Fifteenth and Seventeenth Centuries," Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 47/1–2 (1994): 15–48.
  60. ^ Gábor Ágoston, Guns for the Sultan: Military Power and the Weapons Industry in the Ottoman Empire, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) pp. 195–98.
  61. ^ Ágoston, "Military Transformation," pp. 286–87.
  62. ^ Ágoston, Guns for the Sultan, pp. 192–195.
  63. ^ Ágoston, Guns for the Sultan, pp. 199–200.
  64. ^ Ágoston, Guns for the Sultan, pp. 200–201.
  65. ^ Rhoads Murphey, Ottoman Warfare: 1500–1700, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1999), 10.
  66. ^ Aksan, Virginia. Ottoman Wars, 1700–1860: An Empire Besieged. Pearson Education Ltd. 2007: 130–5. ISBN 978-0-582-30807-7. 
    • Woodhead, Christine. New Views on Ottoman History, 1453–1839. The English Historical Review (Oxford University Press). 2008, 123: 983. the Ottomans were able largely to maintain military parity until taken by surprise both on land and at sea in the Russian war from 1768 to 1774. 
  67. ^ Quataert, Donald. Ottoman History Writing and Changing Attitudes towards the Notion of 'Decline'. History Compass. 2003, 1: 2. doi:10.1111/1478-0542.038. 
  68. ^ Lockman, Zachary. Contending Visions of the Middle East: The History and Politics of Orientalism 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2010: 155–9, 169–70. 
  69. ^ Lockman, Zachary. Contending Visions of the Middle East: The History and Politics of Orientalism 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2010: 83–5. 
  70. ^ Sajdi, Dana. Decline, its Discontents, and Ottoman Cultural History: By Way of Introduction. Sajdi, Dana (編). Ottoman Tulips, Ottoman Coffee: Leisure and Lifestyle in the Eighteenth Century. London: I.B. Taurus. 2007: 12–4. 
  71. ^ Quataert, Donald. Ottoman History Writing and Changing Attitudes towards the Notion of 'Decline'. History Compass. 2003, 1: 5–6. doi:10.1111/1478-0542.038. 
  72. ^ Sajdi, Dana. Decline, its Discontents, and Ottoman Cultural History: By Way of Introduction. Sajdi, Dana (編). Ottoman Tulips, Ottoman Coffee: Leisure and Lifestyle in the Eighteenth Century. London: I.B. Taurus. 2007: 15. 
  73. ^ Quataert, Donald. Ottoman History Writing and Changing Attitudes towards the Notion of 'Decline'. History Compass. 2003, 1: 5. doi:10.1111/1478-0542.038. 
  74. ^ Pamuk, Şevket. A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000: xx. 
  75. ^ Salzmann, Ariel. An Ancien Régime Revisited: "Privatization" and Political Economy in the Eighteenth-Century Ottoman Empire. Politics & Society. 1993, 21 (4): 402. doi:10.1177/0032329293021004003. 
    • Pamuk, Şevket. Crisis and Recovery: The Ottoman Monetary System in the Early Modern Era, 1550-1789. Dennis O. Flynn; Arturo Giráldez; Richard von Glahn (編). Global Connections and Monetary History, 1470-1800. Aldershot: Ashgate. 2003: 140. the eighteenth century until the 1780s was a period of commercial and economic expansion coupled with fiscal stability. 
  76. ^ Levi, Scott C. Objects in Motion. Douglas Northrop (編). A Companion to World History. Wiley Blackwell. 2014: 331. 
  77. ^ Prakash, Om. Precious-metal Flows into India in the Early Modern Period. Dennis O. Flynn; Arturo Giráldez; Richard von Glahn (編). Global Connections and Monetary History, 1470-1800. Aldershot: Ashgate. 2003: 154. 
  78. ^ Faroqhi, "Crisis and Change," 507; Jane Hathaway, "The Ottomans and the Yemeni Coffee Trade," Oriente Moderno 25 (2006): 161–171.
  79. ^ Lewis, "Some Reflections," 113.
  80. ^ Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy, pp. 299–306.
  81. ^ Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy, pp. 81–118.
  82. ^ Michael Ursinus, "The Transformation of the Ottoman Fiscal Regime, c. 1600–1850," in Christine Woodhead eds. The Ottoman World, (Routledge, 2011) 423–434.
  83. ^ Tezcan, Second Ottoman Empire, pp. 19–23.
  84. ^ Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy, pp. 246–80.
  85. ^ Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy, 239.
  86. ^ Faroqhi, Crisis and Change, 553.
  87. ^ Carter Vaughn Findley, "Political culture and the great households", in Suraiya Faroqhi eds., The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603–1839, volume 3 of The Cambridge History of Turkey. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 66.
  88. ^ Hathaway, Arab Lands, 59.
  89. ^ Faroqhi, "Crisis and Change," 411–414.
  90. ^ Geoffrey Parker, Global Crisis: War, Climate Change & Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013)
  91. ^ Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy, pp. 8–10.
  92. ^ Ursinus, "The Transformation of the Ottoman Fiscal Regime," 423.
  93. ^ Ehud Toledano. The Arabic-speaking world in the Ottoman period: A socio-political analysis. Woodhead, Christine (編). The Ottoman World. Routledge. 2011: 459. ISBN 978-0-415-44492-7. 
  94. ^ Sajdi, Dana. Decline, its Discontents, and Ottoman Cultural History: By Way of Introduction. Sajdi, Dana (編). Ottoman Tulips, Ottoman Coffee: Leisure and Lifestyle in the Eighteenth Century. London: I.B. Taurus. 2007: 27. 

參考文獻

  • Abou-El-Haj, Rifa'at A. Formation of the Modern State: The Ottoman Empire, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries. 2nd ed. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2005.
  • Abou-El-Haj, Rifa'at A. "The Ottoman Vezir and Paşa Households 1683–1703, A Preliminary Report." Journal of the American Oriental Society 94 (1974): 438–447.
  • Ágoston, Gábor. "Firearms and Military Adaptation: The Ottomans and the European Military Revolution, 1450–1800". Journal of World History.' 25 (2014): 85–124.
  • Ágoston, Gábor. Guns for the Sultan: Military Power and the Weapons Industry in the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
  • Ágoston, Gábor. "Ottoman Artillery and European Military Technology in the Fifteenth and Seventeenth Centuries." Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 47/1–2 (1994): 15–48.
  • Aksan, Virginia and Daniel Goffman eds. The Early Modern Ottomans: Remapping the Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  • Aksan, Virginia. "Ottoman to Turk: Continuity and Change." International Journal 61 (Winter 2005/6): 19–38.
  • Aksan, Virginia. Ottoman Wars, 1700–1860: An Empire Besieged. Pearson Education Ltd. 2007: 130–5. ISBN 978-0-582-30807-7. 
  • Aksan, Virginia. "Theoretical Ottomans." History and Theory 47 (2008): 109–122.
  • Baer, Marc. Honored by the Glory of Islam: Conversion and Conquest in Ottoman Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • Barkey, Karen. Bandits and Bureaucrats: The Ottoman Route to State Centralization. Cornell University Press, 1994.
  • Börekçi, Günhan. "A Contribution to the Military Revolution Debate: The Janissaries』 Use of Volley Fire During the Long Ottoman-Habsburg War of 1593–1606 and the Problem of Origins." Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 59 (2006): 407–438.
  • Börekçi, Günhan. "Factions and Favorites at the Courts of Sultan Ahmed I (r. 1603–17) and His Immediate Predecessors." PhD dissertation. The Ohio State University, 2010.
  • Çalışır, M. Fatih. "Decline of a 'Myth': Perspectives on the Ottoman 'Decline'," The History School 9 (2011): 37–60.
  • Casale, Giancarlo, The Ottoman Age of Exploration. Oxford University Press, 2010.
  • Darling, Linda. Revenue Raising and Legitimacy: Tax Collection and Finance Administration in the Ottoman Empire, 1560–1660. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996.
  • Faroqhi, Suraiya. Approaching Ottoman History: An Introduction to the Sources. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
  • Faroqhi, Suraiya, eds. The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603–1839, volume 3 of The Cambridge History of Turkey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
  • Faroqhi, Suraiya. "Crisis and Change, 1590–1699." In An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914, 411–636. Edited by Halil İnalcık with Donald Quataert. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
  • Faroqhi, Suraiya. The Ottoman Empire and the World Around It. I. B. Tauris, 2004; 2011.
  • Findley, Carter Vaughn. "Political culture and the great households", in Suraiya Faroqhi eds., The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603–1839 (2006).
  • Finkel, Caroline. The Administration of Warfare: The Ottoman Military Campaigns in Hungary, 1593–1606. Vienna: VWGÖ. 1988. ISBN 3-85369-708-9. 
  • Fleischer, Cornell. Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: The Historian Mustafa Âli, 1541–1600. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.
  • Fodor, Pál. "State and Society, Crisis and Reform, in a 15th–17th Century Ottoman Mirror for Princes." Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 40 (1986): 217–240.
  • Gibb, H.A.R. and Harold Bowen. Islamic Society and the West: A Study of the Impact of Western Civilization on Modern Culture in the Near East. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1950, 1957.
  • Grant, Jonathan. "Rethinking the Ottoman 'Decline': Military Technology Diffusion in the Ottoman Empire, Fifteenth to Eighteenth Centuries." Journal of World History 10 (1999): 179–201.
  • Hammer-Purgstall, Joseph von. Geschichte des Osmanisches Reiches. (in German) 10 vols. Budapest: Ca. H. Hartleben, 1827–35.
  • Hathaway, Jane. The Arab Lands under Ottoman Rule, 1516–1800, with contributions by Karl K. Barbir. Pearson Education Limited, 2008.
  • Hathaway, Jane. "The Ottomans and the Yemeni Coffee Trade." Oriente Moderno 25 (2006): 161–171.
  • Hathaway, Jane. The Politics of Households in Ottoman Egypt: The Rise of the Qazdağlıs. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
  • Hathaway, Jane. "Problems of Periodization in Ottoman History: The Fifteenth through the Eighteenth Centuries". The Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 20 (1996): 25–31.
  • Howard, Douglas. "Genre and Myth in the Ottoman Advice for Kings Literature." In The Early Modern Ottomans: Remapping the Empire. Edited by Virginia Aksan and Daniel Goffman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  • Howard, Douglas. "Ottoman Historiography and the Literature of 'Decline' of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century." Journal of Asian History 22 (1988): 52–77.
  • İnalcık, Halil ed., with Donald Quataert. An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
  • İnalcık, Halil. "Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 1600–1700." Archivum Ottomanicum 6 (1980): 283–337.
  • İnalcık, Halil and Cemal Kafadar eds., Süleyman the Second [sic] and His Time. Istanbul: ISIS Press, 1993.
  • Kafadar, Cemal. "The Myth of the Golden Age: Ottoman Historical Consciousness in the post-Süleymanic Era." 37–48. In Süleyman the Second [sic] and His Time. Edited by Halil İnalcık and Cemal Kafadar. Istanbul: ISIS Press, 1993.
  • Kafadar, Cemal. "On the Purity and Corruption of the Janissaries," Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 15 (1991): 273–280.
  • Karateke, Hakan T. "On the Tranquility and Repose of the Sultan," In The Ottoman World, 116–129. Edited by Christine Woodhead. Routledge, 2011.
  • Kunt, Metin. "Introduction to Part I," in Süleyman the Magnificent and His Age: the Ottoman Empire in the Early Modern World. Edited by Metin Kunt and Christine Woodhead. London and New York: Longman, 1995.
  • Kunt, Metin. "Royal and Other Households," in The Ottoman World. Edited by Christine Woodhead. Routledge, 2011.
  • Kunt, Metin. The Sultan's Servants: The Transformation of Ottoman Provincial Government, 1550–1650. The Modern Middle East Series, 14. New York: Columbia University Press, 1983.
  • Lewis, Bernard. "Some Reflections on the Decline of the Ottoman Empire." Studia Islamica 1 (1958): 111–127.
  • Masters, Bruce. The Origins of Western Economic Dominance in the Middle East: Mercantilism and the Islamic Economy in Aleppo, 1600–1750. New York and London: New York University Press, 1988.
  • Murphey, Rhoads. Ottoman Warfare: 1500–1700. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1999.
  • Murphey, Rhoads. "The Veliyüddin Telhis: Notes on the Sources and Interrelations between Koçu Bey and Contemporary Writers of Advice to Kings." Belleten 43 (1979): 547–571.
  • Pamuk, Şevket. A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
  • Parker, Geoffrey. Global Crisis: War, Climate Change & Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013.
  • Peirce, Leslie. "Changing Perceptions of the Ottoman Empire: the Early Centuries." Mediterranean Historical Review 19/1 (2004): 6–28.
  • Peirce, Leslie. The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire. Oxford University Press: 1993.
  • Quataert, Donald. "Ottoman History Writing and Changing Attitudes towards the Notion of 'Decline,'" History Compass 1 (2003)
  • Şahin, Kaya. Empire and Power in the Reign of Süleyman: Narrating the Sixteenth-Century Ottoman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
  • Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon, 1978.
  • Salzmann, Ariel. "The Old Regime and the Ottoman Middle East." In The Ottoman World, 409–422. Edited by Christine Woodhead. Routledge, 2011.
  • Salzmann, Ariel. An Ancien Régime Revisited: "Privatization" and Political Economy in the Eighteenth-Century Ottoman Empire. Politics & Society. 1993, 21 (4): 393–423. doi:10.1177/0032329293021004003. 
  • Tezcan, Baki. The Second Ottoman Empire: Political and Social Transformation in the Early Modern World. Cambridge University Press, 2010.
  • Ehud Toledano. The Arabic-speaking world in the Ottoman period: A socio-political analysis. Woodhead, Christine (編). The Ottoman World. Routledge. 2011: 453–66. ISBN 978-0-415-44492-7. 
  • Ursinus, Michael. "The Transformation of the Ottoman Fiscal Regime, c. 1600–1850." In The Ottoman World, 423–435. Edited by Christine Woodhead. Routledge, 2011.
  • Woodhead, Christine eds. The Ottoman World. Routledge, 2011.
  • Woodhead, Christine. New Views on Ottoman History, 1453–1839. The English Historical Review (Oxford University Press). 2008, 123: 973–987. doi:10.1093/ehr/cen174. 

相關書籍

以下列出了幾本在推翻該論點方面影響特別大的作品：

  • Abou-El-Haj, Rifa'at A. Formation of the Modern State: The Ottoman Empire, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries. 2nd ed. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2005.（首次出版於1991年）
  • Barkey, Karen. Bandits and Bureaucrats: The Ottoman Route to State Centralization. Cornell University Press, 1994.
  • Darling, Linda. Revenue Raising and Legitimacy: Tax Collection and Finance Administration in the Ottoman Empire, 1560–1660. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996.
  • Fleischer, Cornell. Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: The Historian Mustafa Âli, 1541–1600. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.
  • Hathaway, Jane. "Problems of Periodization in Ottoman History: The Fifteenth through the Eighteenth Centuries". The Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 20 (1996): 25–31.
  • Howard, Douglas. "Ottoman Historiography and the Literature of 'Decline' of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century." Journal of Asian History 22 (1988): 52–77.
  • İnalcık, Halil. "Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 1600–1700." Archivum Ottomanicum 6 (1980): 283–337.
  • Kafadar, Cemal. "On the Purity and Corruption of the Janissaries," Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 15 (1991): 273–280.
  • Kunt, Metin. The Sultan's Servants: The Transformation of Ottoman Provincial Government, 1550–1650. The Modern Middle East Series, 14. New York: Columbia University Press, 1983.
  • Salzmann, Ariel. "An Ancien Régime Revisited: "Privatization" and Political Economy in the Eighteenth-Century Ottoman Empire." *Politics & Society* 21 (1993): 393–423.
取自 "https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=鄂圖曼帝國衰落論&oldid=81821458"