Unless you're an absolute Ottomaniac, this one-volume history of the great Turkish Empire should suffice to fill in the blank space where knowledge of this fascinating and important culture should be. Rivaling, if not surpassing, the Roman Empire in magnificence, domination, accomplishment, corruption, and bizarre characters, the Ottoman Empire is far less known to the average person inasmuch as it was basically an Eastern/Islamic culture. But at a time when Europe was a disunited shambles, the Ottoman Turks were pretty much the pinnacle of human culture and from 1300-1920 were an important factor in world history.

There are no doubt other, more scholarly books written on the Ottoman Empire, filled with more statistics and sociopolitical detail than *The Ottoman Centuries* but for conciseness and readability I'd bet there are few than can match it. The interested reader can use *The Ottoman Centuries* as a springboard for further study if something here catches his fancy; while for those seeking primarily an informative overview of the Ottomans from their rise to their fall, this book should do the truck. To expect Kinross to cover 600 years in 600 pages in any more depth than he has in *The Ottoman Centuries* would be unrealistic. A sultan such as Suleiman, for instance, could--no less than a Julius Caesar--easily be the sole subject of a 600-page book all by himself.

For me, as I suppose for a great many other readers, *The Ottoman Centuries* will serve to satisfactorily answer the great historical "huh?" that an education biased towards European history has left us asking when coming across mention of the Ottoman Empire. No, it's not a kingdom of footrests, although the sultan did have an important council over which he presided while lounging on a kind of low couch. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

This book is a grand survey at the undergraduate level. You get a chronological treatment of the empire's expansion and then its stagnation and decline. Unfortunately, it gets lost in the details of territorial conquests, that is, which odd little principalities are in play at what moment, how the fight went, and what the ramifications were for the Ottoman empire's territorial integrity. While it is essential to understand this for the history of Europe and Asia minor from 1200 to the present day, this makes for a pretty thick slog at times. Unfortunately, there are far too few ideas as to what were the causes for this evolution or what its accomplishments were in the cultural realm. That means there is very little depth or flavor and predominantly facts and more facts.

The story, of course, is remarkable: a small tribe begins to build an empire in Central Asia and expands into Byzantine territory and then into the heart of Europe itself, all while conquering large swaths of territory in N Africa and the Arabian peninsula. It expanded unchecked for 200 years, also as a sea power, then began a long period of decline as "the sick man of EUrope." It then completely fell apart in the 1st world war, when the empire was divided up by the European powers, creating many of the disputes in the middle east that last to the present.

In the beginning, the organization of the empire was innovative: with a sultan at its head as an "enlightened despot", it functioned largely as a military meritocracy, where capable leaders were given huge new areas to govern (and exploit) for a period of time, but did not become a hereditary aristocracy (i.e. it avoided the way that talent was limited from rising in Europe by chivalric privilege). In addition, a superlative elite of soldiers was created in the Janissaries, who were Christian children levied into slavery from East southern Europe and converted to Islam, less as fanatics than as a professional corps with a coherent world view. This too preceded European nationalist armies and was superior to the mercenary forces then under development. The basic technique of the great sultans was to launch an expendable group of amateur soldiers to exhaust their opponents, then pound them by their elite troops and cavalry at the right moment. This made the Ottomans appear to be an unstoppable force that struck fear into adversaries for hundreds of years.

Finally, the Turks were relatively tolerant of the people within the empire: for a tax, subjects could do what they wanted in security. Or, they could enter service to the state, with good career paths if they converted to Islam. Not surprisingly, many preferred this situation to the heavy hand of the Latin and Orthodox churches of Christendom. Astonishingly, this cultural harmony stood until the rise of nationalism in the 19C. I was very disappointed that the cultural achievements of this society received absolute minimal treatment in this book.

Then once Suleiman the Magnificant reached the apogee of his territorial acquisitions, the problems of empire came to the fore. The necessity became to manage and defend vast territories, which was a far more complex task than to enlarge an empire whose only real administration consisted of dividing the spoils among the right potentates and casual warriors. Unfortunately, Suleiman's heirs did not understand for a long time that a fundamental change was underway and made no moves to reform what was essentially a medieval empire that was extremely cruel by today's standards (it was accepted routine that, to avoid civil war, the chosen Sultan murdered all of his brothers). It was no longer so simple as to allow soldiers to sack conquered areas in place of pay and divide new territories between trusted pashas, but the need for a more modern state. This sapped the empire's dynamism and soon led to the first defeats of the Ottoman Turks, which made the empire more of a diplomatic power than a military one, a factor (however major) in the maintenance of the balance of power in Europe over the next 400 years. Even worse, the Sultan's children no longer were given territories to administer while young, which acquainted them with both the issues of governance and the concerns of commoners, but literally remained hostages within the palace, where the pleasures and intrigues of the harem shaped their life view. Courtiers ran the Court, along with mistresses, Vizier ministers, and the top Janissaries by force of arms. It became simple despotism at this point.

Of course, Europe did not stand still, as a revolution in thinking and technology was underway with the Renaissance and then the Enlightenment. At this point, the Ottoman Empire began to gradually shrink, which this book describes in seriously excessive detail, i.e. over hundreds of pages. The task of understanding this is made harder by the poor maps in the book, which are of marginal aid in following developments in the Balkans that are complexity itself.

While there were a few reforming Sultans from the late 18C, the weight of history that they had to overcome was too great. What were innovative institutions had long ago become implacable obstacles to reform, such as the Janissaries who periodically revolted with extreme violence and often via coups d'etat, but also the beginning of hereditary privilege and truly legendary corruption. Even the massacre of the entire Janissary force was not enough to lead to the creation of a constitutional monarchy, though several Sultans tried to do so and were ousted. Eventually, this led to the persecution of minorities in the Empire, including the first genocide of the 20C, the Armenians, as nationalism replaced the earlier cultural tolerance.

The book concludes with a long part of the last Sultan, Abdul Hamid II, who was a capricious despot who hated people and yet completed the creation of an education system, providing the human infrastructure for the era of Attaturk. The story stops here, leaving the transition of TUrkey into a modern state based on laws and alternance of power holders. Throughout, the author makes the case, which I found convincing, that the Turks achieved a relative success in the creation of a stable and enlightened regime, when compared to their counterparts elsewhere in the Near East. It makes for an admirably balanced view and useful historical perspective.

To be sure, I learned a great deal from this book, but it was neither original nor a great narrative. Indeed, the bibliography is barely one page, and only a few primary sources appear in it. Contrast that to Tuchman's masterful Distant Mirror, which is popular but also a marvel of flavorful original research, and the pedestrian nature of this book is evident. I am glad I read it, but would not want to read it a second time.

This book is a grand survey at the undergraduate level. You get a chronological treatment of the empire's expansion and then its stagnation and decline. Unfortunately, it gets lost in the details of territorial conquest, that is, which odd little principalities are in play at what moment, how the fight went, and what the ramifications were for the Ottoman empire's territorial integrity. While it is essential to understand this for the history of Europe and Asia minor from 1200 to the present day, this makes for a pretty thick slog at times. Unfortunately, there are far too few ideas as to what were the causes for this evolution or what its accomplishments were in the cultural realm. That means there is very little depth or flavor and predominantly facts and more facts on which geographical territories were in play.

The story, of course, is remarkable: a small tribe begins to build an empire in Central Asia and expands into Byzantine territory and then into the heart of Europe itself, all while conquering large swaths of territory in N Africa and the Arabian peninsula. It expanded unchecked for 200 years, also as a sea power, then began a long period of decline as "the sick man of EUrope." It then completely fell apart in the 1st world war, when the empire was divided up by the European powers, creating many of the disputes in the middle east that last to the present.

In the beginning, the organization of the empire was innovative: with a sultan at its head, it functioned largely as a military meritocracy, where capable leaders were given huge new areas to govern (and exploit) for a period of time, but did not become a hereditary aristocracy (i.e. it avoided the way that talent was limited from rising in Europe by chivalric privilege). In addition, a superlative elite of soldiers was created in the Janissaries, who were children levied into slavery from East southern Europe and converted to Islam, less as fanatics than as a professional corps with a coherent world view. This too preceded European nationalist armies and was superior to the mercenary forces then under development. The basic technique of the great sultans was to launch an expendable group of amateur soldiers to exhaust their opponents, then pound them by their elite troops and cavalry at the right moment. This made the Ottomans appear to be an unstoppable force that struck fear into adversaries for hundreds of years.

Finally, the Turks were relatively tolerant of the people within the empire: for a tax, they could do what they wanted in security. Or, they could enter service to the state, with good career paths if they converted to Islam. Not surprisingly, many preferred this situation to the heavy hand of the Latin and Orthodox churches of Christendom. Astonishingly, this cultural harmony stood until the rise of nationalism in the 19C. I was very disappointed that the cultural achievements of this society received minimal treatment in this book.

Then once Suleiman the Magnificant achieved the apogee of territorial acquisition, the problems of empire came to the fore. The necessity became to administer and defend vast territories, which was a far more complex task than to enlarge an empire. Unfortunately, Suleiman's heirs did not understand for a long time that a fundamental change was underway and made no moves to reform what was essentially a medieval empire that was extremely cruel by today's standards (it was accepted routine that, to avoid civil war, the chosen Sultan murdered all of his brothers). It was no longer so simple as to allow soldiers to sack conquered areas in place of pay and divide new territories between trusted pashas. This sapped the empire's dynamism and led to the first defeats of the Ottoman Turks, which made the empire more of a diplomatic power than a military one, a factor (however major) in the maintenance of the balance of power in Europe. Even worse, the Sultan's children no longer were given territories to administer while young, which acquainted them with both the issues of governance and the concerns of commoners, but literally remained hostages within the palace, where the pleasures (and intrigues) of the harem shaped their life view.

Of course, Europe did not stand still, as a revolution in thinking and technology was underway with the Renaissance and then the Enlightenment. At this point, the Ottoman Empire began to shrink, which this book describes in seriously excessive detail, i.e. over hundreds of pages. The task of understanding this is made harder by the poor maps in the book, which are of marginal aid in following developments in the Balkans that are complexity itself.

While there were a few reforming Sultans, the weight of history that they had to overcome was too great. What were innovative institutions had long ago become implacable obstacles to reform, such as the Janissaries who periodically revolted with extreme violence and often via coups d'etat, but also the beginning of hereditary privilege and truly legendary corruption. Even the massacre of the entire Janissary force was not enough to lead to the creation of a constitutional monarchy, though several Sultans tried to do so. Eventually, this led to the persecution of minorities in the Empire, including the first genocide of the 20C, the Armenians, as nationalism replaced the earlier cultural tolerance.

To be sure, I learned a great deal from this book, but it was neither original nor a great narrative. Indeed, the bibliography is barely one page, and only a few primary sources appear in it. Contrast that to Tuchman's masterful Distant Mirror, which is popular but also a marvel of flavorful original research, and the pedestrian nature of this book is evident. I am glad I read it, but would not want to read it a second time.

The author wrote most of the stuff as a Christian not as a historian. You can see all of his feelings in the book. I just want to give an example; in the book when the Sultan Mehmet was entering the Hagia Sophia: "Entering the church, he walked toward the altar. On the way he noticed a Turkish soldier hacking at a piece of the marble pavement. The sultan then struck him with his sword, saying: For you the treasures and the prisoners are enough. The buildings of the city fall to me. The Turk was dragged away by his feet and flung outside."
Let's criticize these words. First of all can you imagine a soldier is going to be so foolish to try to hack a marble while a Sultan was getting in to Hagia Sophia with his commanders? Second of all, there is no such event recorded by eastern historians. And tell me what the possibility is for a local man being in the church while the sultan was entering the church. If there was no Christian to tell this moment to anybody you can see how Lord Kinross made this up when there was no such record in Turkish and Eastern history databases.

I've read a lot of world history, mostly to try understand today's conflicted world. A huge gap in my understanding was the Ottoman Empire. Lord Kinross' work honestly reads like a Clancy thriller full of strategic intrigue. I had no real notion as to how important a role the Ottoman Empire played in the evolution of modern Europe during the Middle Ages. An empire composed of Moslems and Christians and Jews, the Ottoman Empire transcended nationhood, religion and race. As a meritocracy it expanded east, west, north and south, taking in Greece, the Balkans, North Africa, and many, many other disparate lands and cultures, and it ultimately regenerated the European lands of Eastern Christendom.

The pace and excitement of the book intensified for me around the periods of Catherine the Great and Napoleon, a time during which the Ottoman Empire was past its prime and on the descent. One begins to understand how the powder keg of nationalism and revolution which led to the first world war slowly got built following one political intrigue, one war, and one inhumane atrocity at a time.

The French Revolution is taken up by the Ottoman Empire as a model for constitutional reform. The empire is by now no longer a meritocracy. There are now many a hereditary functionary not wanting change and risk to their livelihoods, and reactionary forces kick in hard, driving a politics of division. As territory is lost (mainly Christian lands) to the Russians, the Austria-Hungarians, the Germans, and so on, the very same powers, the French, English, Germans, Russians, and so on, all vie for control of ports, commerce, and military advantage, while the Greeks, the Serbians, the Bulgarians and many other peoples begin to revolt away from the Ottoman Empire on nationalistic grounds. The last sultan, in order to distract his Moslem peoples from the true state of the rapidly collapsing Ottoman Empire at the hands of Christian nations, begins vicious programs to isolate and commit atrocities against the last of the Christians of his empire. Perhaps half a million Armenian Christians are butchered in ways Hitler would have been proud of.

Reading Lord Kinross' work, in fact, I can't help but to wonder if Hitler and Stalin and future madmen in China, Cambodia, Africa, and so forth, didn't study from the last sultan of the Ottoman Empire in the modern ways of propaganda, genocide and other high crimes against humanity. I also wonder if Europeans and Arabs and Turks and Russians, basically the peoples of the Old World, still might have a lesser sense of life than peoples of the New World. There was incessant war and killing off of whole villages and towns from the times of Alexander the Great all through the Cold War and into the 90s in Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro. In the New World, the Spanish massacred many an American native. So too did Americans during their expansion to the west, but both of these periods were of much shorter duration, and the scale of conflict was much smaller. Alabama was not in constant war with New York City, Mexico, or Canada, and whole villages and towns weren't constantly being put to the sword man, woman, child, baby and dog the way Old World Muslims and Christians so loved to do in the name of their verisimilar lord. Life is cheap for kids growing up in East L.A., initiated into gangs by a requisite killing, compared to kids growing up in Iowa. The peoples of the New World, I think, are more "innocent" than the peoples of the Old World. Because of this, I don't believe Americans are capable of understanding how much misery they've caused in Iraq to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dead civilians and millions of displaced refugees. But we definitely know and deeply care about the minutia of Paris Hilton and company.

Regardless, thanks to, "The Ottoman Centuries," by Lord Kinross, I've attained a much better understanding of today's world, and how religion can be used as an effective tool for division and power and attrocity. I see it in the Muslim Arab nation states, and in Christian Bush and Christian Americans who want to protect us from gay marriage and Christianize the world for oil and profit.

[...]

I purchased Lord Kinross's "The Ottoman Centuries" on a whim one cold winter evening, and have thoroughly enjoyed reading it: the book is a very detailed examination of the Ottoman Empire's growth and decline. It is for the most part well written, though Kinross' phrasing is often quaint and some of the passages require re-reading to figure out what the author is trying to say. I found his viewpoints to be objective: not tainted with the Anglo-centric cultural bias that many British authors of his generation have been afflicted-with.



The book focuses-on the political and military history of the Ottoman Empire: centered on the lives of its rulers and their court. Kinross includes a fair amount of information on how the Empire's society and economy were structured and functioned, but this is presented mostly as background information in support of the main narrative.



The book filled in many gaps for me in terms of European history, in particular, and described many historical episodes I was unaware of, as well as being a good analysis of the factors and personalities involved in the Empire's rapid rise to prominence, followed by its centuries-long decline. There are some discussions of the Empire's interactions with the tatars and Persians, but only a few brief mentions of the Empire's history and exploits in Africa (or the region now known as the Middle East).



I was fascinated with Kinross' detailed discussions of the many interactions the Ottomans had with nearly every major and minor European state over the centuries. It was also interesting to see how the nature of these interactions changed as Europe evolved from a collection of Feudal Kingdoms into modern Nation-States, while the Turkish state stagnated and was eclipsed.



His analyses of the military tactics and strategies and innovations employed by the Ottomans are very good, as is his examination of how their social, economic and political systems gave them a competitive advantage early in the empire's history, but became an impediment that contributed to the decline, and also impeded attempts to reverse that decline.



I was impressed with the open-mindedness of most of the Sultans in terms of not only tolerating, but promoting Christians and other religious minorities - to the point where populations of Orthodox Christians often favored being conquered by the Ottomans in preference to being dominated by Christian rulers affiliated with Rome (who were often very intolerant of the Orthodox Christian tradition).



The major concern I have with about this book is not with the text, but with the publisher's presentation of this book. The paperback edition contains what I assume are reproductions of the artwork from the original 1977 publication; but, in this edition, the representations had poor detail and contrast; giving the impression of having been run off on a cheap copier. They do a disservice to the quality of the text itself.



All in all, an excellent book, well worth the read. Anyone seeking to gain a good understanding to the Ottoman Empire and its impact on European and Mediterranean history will find this book a well written starting point with vast amounts of detail.

I purchased Lord Kinross's "The Ottoman Centuries" on a whim one cold winter evening, and have thoroughly enjoyed reading it: the book is a very detailed examination of the Ottoman Empire's growth and decline. It is for the most part well written, though Kinross' phrasing is often quaint and some of the passages require re-reading to figure out what the author is trying to say. I found his viewpoints to be objective: not tainted with the Anglo-centric cultural bias that many British authors of his generation have been afflicted-with.

The book focuses-on the political and military history of the Ottoman Empire: centered on the lives of its rulers and their court. Kinross includes a fair amount of information on how the Empire's society and economy were structured and functioned, but this is presented mostly as background information in support of the main narrative.

The book filled in many gaps for me in terms of European history, in particular, and described many historical episodes I was unaware of, as well as being a good analysis of the factors and personalities involved in the Empire's rapid rise to prominence, followed by its centuries-long decline. There are some discussions of the Empire's interactions with the tatars and Persians, but only a few brief mentions of the Empire's history and exploits in Africa (or the region now known as the Middle East).

I was fascinated with Kinross' detailed discussions of the many interactions the Ottomans had with nearly every major and minor European state over the centuries. It was also interesting to see how the nature of these interactions changed as Europe evolved from a collection of Feudal Kingdoms into modern Nation-States, while the Turkish state stagnated and was eclipsed.

His analyses of the military tactics and strategies and innovations employed by the Ottomans are very good, as is his examination of how their social, economic and political systems gave them a competitive advantage early in the empire's history, but became an impediment that contributed to the decline, and also impeded attempts to reverse that decline.

I was impressed with the open-mindedness of most of the Sultans in terms of not only tolerating, but promoting Christians and other religious minorities - to the point where populations of Orthodox Christians often favored being conquered by the Ottomans in preference to being dominated by Christian rulers affiliated with Rome (who were often very intolerant of the Orthodox Christian tradition).

The major concern I have with about this book is not with the text, but with the publisher's presentation of this book. The paperback edition contains what I assume are reproductions of the artwork from the original 1977 publication; but, in this edition, the representations had poor detail and contrast; giving the impression of having been run off on a cheap copier. They do a disservice to the quality of the text itself.

All in all, an excellent book, well worth the read. Anyone seeking to gain a good understanding to the Ottoman Empire and its impact on European and Mediterranean history will find this book a well written starting point with vast amounts of detail.

I purchased Lord Kinross's "The Ottoman Centuries" on a whim one cold winter evening, and have thoroughly enjoyed reading it: the book is a very detailed examination of the Ottoman Empire's growth and decline. It is for the most part well written, though Kinross' phrasing is often quaint and some of the passages require re-reading to figure out what the author is trying to say. I found his viewpoints to be objective: not tainted with the Anglo-centric cultural bias that many British authors of his generation have been afflicted-with.

The book focuses-on the political and military history of the Ottoman Empire: centered on the lives of its rulers and their court. Kinross includes a fair amount of information on how the Empire's society and economy were structured and functioned, but this is presented mostly as background information in support of the main narrative.

The book filled in many gaps for me in terms of European history, in particular, and described many historical episodes I was unaware of, as well as being a good analysis of the factors and personalities involved in the Empire's rapid rise to prominence, followed by its centuries-long decline. There are some discussions of the Empire's interactions with the tatars and Persians, but only a few brief mentions of the Empire's history and exploits in Africa (or the region now known as the Middle East).

I was fascinated with Kinross' detailed discussions of the many interactions the Ottomans had with nearly every major and minor European state over the centuries. It was also interesting to see how the nature of these interactions changed as Europe evolved from a collection of Feudal Kingdoms into modern Nation-States, while the Turkish state stagnated and was eclipsed.

His analyses of the military tactics and strategies and innovations employed by the Ottomans are very good, as is his examination of how their social, economic and political systems gave them a competitive advantage early in the empire's history, but became an impediment that contributed to the decline, and also impeded attempts to reverse that decline.

I was impressed with the open-mindedness of most of the Sultans in terms of not only tolerating, but promoting Christians and other religious minorities - to the point where populations of Orthodox Christians often favored being conquered by the Ottomans in preference to being dominated by Christian rulers affiliated with Rome (who were often very intolerant of the Orthodox Christian tradition).

The major concern I have with about this book is not with the text, but with the publisher's presentation of this book. The paperback edition contains what I assume are reproductions of the artwork from the original 1977 publication; but, in this edition, the representations had poor detail and contrast; giving the impression of having been run off on a cheap copier. They do a disservice to the quality of the text itself.

All in all, an excellent book, well worth the read. Anyone seeking to gain a good understanding to the Ottoman Empire and its impact on European and Mediterranean history will find this book a well written starting point with vast amounts of detail.

My current field of research is the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. I thought it would be a good idea to read about some of the ancient history in the region though so I read John Julius Norwich's A Short History of Byzantium as well as his History of Venice. Both excellent works. Then I read Lord Kindross' work, Ottoman Centuries. This was my first historical work that I have read devoted entirely to the Ottoman Empire.

I was very disappointed. I gave the work two stars because it reads excellently, at times like a novel. However, now that I am finished reading it I am left wondering how much of what I read was in fact, true. I state this because a lot of the statements about the Balkan countries aren't factually correct. The most glaring one I'll provide. On page 356 the author writes:
"Thus a peace conference was held in the last months of 1698 at Karlowitz, in Croatia, on the right bank of the Danube."

He is refering to the Treaty of Karlowitz. However, the treaty was signed in Sremski Karlovci which is in modern day Serbia. I should know, I've had a private tour of the building where the treaty was signed. The city was never actually a part of Croatia, at the time of the treaty it was, one could argue, a part of Hungary but never Croatia.

Also, the author has a common theme of trying to argue that the Ottoman army never practiced forced conversion to Christianity. But then will describe the Janissaries and admit that the very foundation of the Janissaries was taking Christian children forcing them to be Muslims by raising them as such with no other option. He also discusses how churches were converted to mosques constantly following conquests but apparently, that doesn't fall within the realm of forcible conversion. Here is another example of what I am talking about:

On page 559 "Abdul Hamid...offer(ed) his enemies, at the point of a bayonet, the choice between death and forcible conversion to Islam--a practice previously renounced, under British pressure, by Sultan Abdul Mejid." (Which was the previous Sultan). However, on page 26 (just as one of many examples) the author writes, "There was no general Islamization of Christians--least of all by compulsion--within Ottoman territory."

The list goes on and on of constant contradictions within this work which makes this it so hard to take seriously.

Also, the author, or perhaps editor, has an annoying habit of placing words in quotation marks. Serbian Emperor Dusan is "Emperor" Dusan who rules over an "empire" and the balkan states are "nations" though later in the book they become nations without quotation marks.

I would only recommend this work to be read for entertainment purposes. I shall now search for another history of the Ottomans, hopefully one that is more academic.

My current field of research is the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. I thought it would be a good idea to read about some of the ancient history in the region though so I read John Julius Norwich's A Short History of Byzantium as well as his History of Venice. Both excellent works. Then I read Lord Kindross' work, Ottoman Centuries. This was my first historical work that I have read devoted entirely to the Ottoman Empire.

I was very disappointed. I gave the work two stars because it reads excellently, at times like a novel. However, now that I am finished reading it I am left wondering how much of what I read was in fact, true. I state this because a lot of the statements about the Balkan countries aren't factually correct. The most glaring one I'll provide. On page 356 the author writes:
"Thus a peace conference was held in the last months of 1698 at Karlowitz, in Croatia, on the right bank of the Danube."

He is refering to the Treaty of Karlowitz. However, the treaty was signed in Sremski Karlovci which is in modern day Serbia. I should know, I've had a private tour of the building where the treaty was signed. The city was never actually a part of Croatia, at the time of the treaty it was, one could argue, a part of Hungary but never Croatia.

Also, the author has a common theme of trying to argue that the Ottoman army never practiced forced conversion to Christianity. But then will describe the Janissaries and admit that the very foundation of the Janissaries was taking Christian children forcing them to be Muslims by raising them as such with no other option. He also discusses how churches were converted to mosques constantly following conquests but apparently, that doesn't fall within the realm of forcible conversion. Here is another example of what I am talking about:

On page 559 "Abdul Hamid...offer(ed) his enemies, at the point of a bayonet, the choice between death and forcible conversion to Islam--a practice previously renounced, under British pressure, by Sultan Abdul Mejid." (Which was the previous Sultan). However, on page 26 (just as one of many examples) the author writes, "There was no general Islamization of Christians--least of all by compulsion--within Ottoman territory."

The list goes on and on of constant contradictions within this work which makes this it so hard to take seriously.

Also, the author, or perhaps editor, has an annoying habit of placing words in quotation marks. Serbian Emperor Dusan is "Emperor" Dusan who rules over an "empire" and the balkan states are "nations" though later in the book they become nations without quotation marks.

I would only recommend this work to be read for entertainment purposes. I shall now search for another history of the Ottomans, hopefully one that is more academic.

Superbly written. Excellent overwiew of the Ottoman Empire, in such a short space.It may not reflect some of the newly uncovered facts, but so what.
Very highly recommended.

Superbly written. Excellent overwiew of the Ottoman Empire, in such a short space.It may not reflect some of the newly uncovered facts, but so what.
Very highly recommended.

Lord Kinross was the author of many splendid books but The Ottoman Centuries remains his crowning achievement. Published in 1977 shortly after his death and dedicated to Freya Stark, The Ottoman Centuries offers a positive view of the Turkish Empire without glossing over any of its shameful episodes.

Amongst the nomadic warrior hordes that poured out of the Eurasian steppe and into Eastern Europe and Asia Minor, Kinross points to the exception of the Ottoman Turks who `were no longer mere nomads but settlers, creators, and builders too. As time went on they evolved their own frontier civilization, compounded of elements Asiatic and European, Moslem and Christian....This was the prototype of a society destined to inherit and transform.' Conquer and transform is more like it, as these were tumultuous centuries full of the clash of arms.

Kinross's thrilling narrative crosses over to Europe with the Ottoman advance, but reminds us they were initially invited over as mercenaries, securing Gallipoli and eventually assisting a rival faction come to power in one of Byzantium's many civil wars. Marriage took place between the usurpers daughter, now a Byzantine princess, and the Ottoman Sultan.

Kinross gives a brief account of the controversial battle of Kossovo that took place in 1389 and became the graveyard of Serbian independence. Serbian clans betrayed each other, some allied with the Turks by remaining absent from the field, diminishing their own forces. The son of the Serbian prince responsible, by way of atonement, sought a personal audience with the Sultan and stabbed him with such force the blade appeared out his back.

In this divisive atmosphere and after the crippling blow of the Fourth Crusade in 1204, the lands of the Byzantine Empire were swallowed piecemeal by the Ottomans until Constantinople was like a head without a body. The dramatic end finally came in 1453 when Mehmed the Conqueror wrested his way into the city; Belgrade and Vienna would soon come into view, epic film material waiting to be born!

Kinross alternates between the advances made on the battlefield with close up portraits of the Sultans whose combination of `shrewd political judgments' and innovative ability were essential in these early stages of a quickly expanding empire; an empire that developed a meritocracy, where Christian slaves could advance up to the highest rungs on the career ladder simply by having talent. It was that peculiar mix of Greek and Turk, Christian and Moslem, that led to such a unique and dynamic empire, the likes of which Christian Europe had never seen before.

Kinross tends to over use the word `destiny' to explain the rise and fall of empire, suggesting an unnecessary Arnold Toynbee influence. Otherwise, his narrative remains cohesive throughout and full of detailed knowledge, whether exploring the impossible entanglements of the Balkans, `Russian Rivalry,' the courts of Europe or the Sublime Porte.

Turkophile though he was, we are given a chilling description of the Armenian genocide and are left in no doubt that this was a pre-meditated, orchestrated act by the imperial Ottoman government that became it's disgraceful epitaph.

The Ottoman Centuries is a vibrant canvass that shows what became of the shattered Byzantine empire; the phoenix that rose was an equally stunning, Islamic mosaic.

this is a well written book, but there are some mistakes in it, especially when the author talks about homosexual inclinations of some of the Ottoman (Osmanli) rulers e.g. Mehmet the Conqueror (Mehmet Fatih) fell in love with a teenage boy and so on. This is simply not true, there are no historical facts to support this claim. That's why I do not give 5 stars to this book.

I have been slogging through this book for weeks now, it was a terrible shock to the system after John Julius Norwich's excellent book on Byzantium. The book lacks any narrative thrust, often stopping and retreading events slightly out of chronological order and frequently bringing all forward motion to a halt by describing the intricacies of some bureaucratic office or another. The one consistent thing throughout this book is the author's obvious agenda to "set the record straight" and prove that the Ottoman empire was far superior to its "barbaric" European contemporaries.

I have been slogging through this book for weeks now, it was a terrible shock to the system after John Julius Norwich's excellent book on Byzantium. The book lacks any narrative thrust, often stopping and retreading events slightly out of chronological order and frequently bringing all forward motion to a halt by describing the intricacies of some bureaucratic office or another. The one consistent thing throughout this book is the author's obvious agenda to "set the record straight" and prove that the Ottoman empire was far superior to its "barbaric" European contemporaries.

First of all, I should tell that I was surprised with how small the "references" were. This might be understandandable given the fact that the book was written almost 40 years ago, about the time when Turkey was slowly opening the Ottoman archieves.
I read this book right after reading "Lords of the Horizons" and
another Ottoman History book (Zaman Publication, E. Ihsanoglu, Ed.) written in Turkish so I had the chance of fresh comparison a little bit. How the author depicted Mehmed the Conqueror was a little bit unrealistic. Yes, Mehmed was very tolerant against Orthodox Christians, but Kinross goes so far to mean that "he didn't like Muslims, favored Christians over Muslims, killed his Orthodox Muslim Vezirs for zeal", etc. He tries to attribute this to the probability of his mom being a Christian, which is not ture. Although this might have to do nothing with this, Mehmed's mom, Alime Hatice Huma Hatun, who was granddaughter of Isfendiyar Bey, who was the Bey of Candarogullari, who lived in Kastamonu-Sinop area. Every year, around the end of May, near the birthplace of her, people make festivities (Devrekani/Kastamonu) commemorating her. Her grave is in a courtyard near Muradiye Mosque in Bursa, since she died before the siege of Constantinople/Istanbul.
Kinross's depiction Mehmed's sexual orientation is unrealistic, and I would like to track his resources, if any, keeping in mind that he only has 2 pages of references - and he does not refer to them directly. Kinross himself says that Mehmed was a religious man, raised under Aksemseddin who was a great religious figure of his time. Mehmet got a good religious as well as scientific and philosophical education, spoke at least 6 languages, was tolerant to other cultures and religions and was an open-minded innovative man, achieved a lot in his time. At the same time, he was a religious Muslim.
Some important portions of the Empire's history has been overlooked, such as the battle of Gallipoli (Canakkale). That battle changed the course of WWI, and the world history, and has been refered only by quarter of a page in his book.

First of all, I should tell that I was surprised with how small the "references" were. This might be understandandable given the fact that the book was written almost 40 years ago, about the time when Turkey was slowly opening the Ottoman archieves.
I read this book right after reading "Lords of the Horizons" and
another Ottoman History book (Zaman Publication, E. Ihsanoglu, Ed.) written in Turkish so I had the chance of fresh comparison a little bit. How the author depicted Mehmed the Conqueror was a little bit unrealistic. Yes, Mehmed was very tolerant against Orthodox Christians, but Kinross goes so far to mean that "he didn't like Muslims, favored Christians over Muslims, killed his Orthodox Muslim Vezirs for zeal", etc. He tries to attribute this to the probability of his mom being a Christian, which is not ture. Although this might have to do nothing with this, Mehmed's mom, Alime Hatice Huma Hatun, who was granddaughter of Isfendiyar Bey, who was the Bey of Candarogullari, who lived in Kastamonu-Sinop area. Every year, around the end of May, near the birthplace of her, people make festivities (Devrekani/Kastamonu) commemorating her. Her grave is in a courtyard near Muradiye Mosque in Bursa, since she died before the siege of Constantinople/Istanbul.
Kinross's depiction Mehmed's sexual orientation is shocking and unrealistic, and I would like to track his resources, if any, keeping in mind that he only has 2 pages of references - and he does not refer to them directly. Kinross himself says that Mehmed was a religious man, raised under Aksemseddin who was a great religious figure of his time, he got a good religious as well as scientific and philosophical education, spoke at least 6 languages, was tolerant to other cultures and religions and was an open-minded innovative man, achieved a lot in his time; his other depictions simply contradict with these.
Some important portions of the Empire's history has been overlooked, such as the battle of Gallipoli (Canakkale). That battle changed the course of WWI, and the world history, and has been refered only by quarter of a page in his book.

This was the first book about Ottoman History I ever read. Having now read litterally hundreds of books about the subject, I re-read Kinross and have some comments:

- Kinross has an engaging style, and this book may ignite an interest in Ottoman history in readers, but only for the EARLY history of the empire, which is clearly where Kinross' interests lie. Even then he doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between history and legend, and a rich and dynamic history is reduced to an Oriental soap opera. His account of the decline is depressing, reflective of Victorian bigotry and bias, and innaccurate and condescending to the point of being mildly insulting.

- Kinross uses NO Ottoman or Turkish sources whatsoever, but then he doesn't really use anything written later than the 19th c.

- He brushes over the 19th c, and subscribes to the 19th c British static view of imperial decay - the Ottomans just sat around declining and having things done to it. In reality, the 19th c is one of the most interesting periods of Ottoman history, wherin the empire was forced to respond to th impact of European capitalism and imperialism. Really dynamic and creative reform programs were instituted with the result that the Ottomans at the turn of the 20th c were incalculably stronger than they were at the turn of the 18th. The Tanzimat is given short shrift as an insincere effort to please the powers and is portrayed as the idea of the British Ambassador (!) and the Hamidiyan era is portrayed as a period of retrenchment, fanaticism, and decadence, when in reality Abdul Hamid, albeit with oppressively autocratic means, enormously modernized the empire and created the school system that educated later reformers including Ataturk. Kinross is totally ignorant of intellectual trends in the Ottoman Empire and their interplay with other Muslim lands and the West.

If this is your first Ottoman history book, I would read it up until the death of Suleyman and then drop it. I am not aware of a more modern and accurate general survey of the same type that is not too dry and academic for the casual reader, but I would highly recommend Selim Deringil's "The Well-Protected Domains" to get a feel of the self-perception of the Ottomans in the late 19th c.

This book is exceptionally readable and provides a good background for people who are interested in the Ottoman Empire. The personalities of the major Sultans and Grand Viziers come through via Kinross's vivid descriptions and character analysis. However, there are some major gaps in the work.

Kinross is at his strongest when describing the Ottoman advance into Europe, which ultimately ended with the second siege of Vienna. Even as the Ottoman successes were rolled back by the European powers he is clearly in his element. Much of what he has written regarding the Balkan campaigns and the rise of Balkan nationalism has relevance to the current conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. Moreover, Kinross also does an admirable job of describing the major reform movements and internal battles of the Ottoman Empire, particularly after 1700.

However, there are major weaknesses in the work. First, Kinross spends precious little time examining the Asian and African conquests by the Ottomans and the patterns of rule established in places like contemprary Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. These are issues that anyone reading in the post 9/11 world would likely have found particularly interesting and relevant to understanding today's events.

Similarly, Kinross spends little time examining social institutions, especially the Caliphate that resided in Istanbul until its abolition by Ataturk. Again, what happened with regard to Islamic belief in the Ottoman Days is a critical component of the rise of Islamic radicalism in the 21st century.

Kinross's writing regarding the 19th and 20th centuries is largely derived ultimately from European sources, particularly diplomatic traffic from the various European ambassadors posted to the Sublime Porte. These dispatches tend to overexaggerate both the power of the European states as well as the backwardsness of the Turks, to the detriment of his writing on the final days of the Empire. Indeed, the final two chapters regarding the collapse of the Sultanate are the most unfulfilling, reading like a term paper rushed to conclusion to meet a deadline.

Overall, these comments should not distract from the fact that the book is generally well written and for the most part covers the major events of Ottoman history well. It is just a shame that given the obvious aptitude Kinross had for writing that he could not have compiled a more comprehensive work.

Footnotes to give your claims a little credibility? Who needs 'em! Primary sources? Ha! Scholarly research? Nope. Total number of pages devoted to a bibliography in a book that covers more than 700 years? TWO.

This has to be a joke. I am unspeakably frustrated at the bad history, bad research, and wild speculations that Lord Kinross is passing off as a real nonfiction book. An undergraduate should be ashamed of his bibliography for a 10-page research paper, much less a hulking volume like this with pretensions to accuracy.

Within a handful of pages, I found so many errors, misreprentations, and glosses that I couldn't go on. Kinross's primary (and ONLY) source for the last years of the Byzantine Empire appears to be Gibbon, of all people, which is one huge red flag right up front. He clearly has no comprehension of the true struggles, national or international, of the dying Empire, and instead, he parrots things from God-knows-where that simply make no sense and have absolutely no basis on fact. The emperor was strong-armed to recant orthodoxy by Amadeo of Savoy, who rescued him from captivity????? Please! Given the generations of emperors desperate to heal the schism in hopes of getting Latin support and that emperor's continuing efforts in that direction, this claim is beyond ludicrous. John VI introduced the FIRST Turkish troops into Europe???? *rolls eyes* Turkish mercernaries had been hired by the Byzantines almost since the Turks appeared on the scene in the Near East, and, in fact, one Emir had even been required to supply a group of his own troops to the Byzantines after a military defeat.

Kinross also is so completely out of touch with the culture that he's researching that his theories about the methods and motives of the Sultans is simply painful. Why didn't the early Sultans force all the Christians in te Balkans to convert or die? According to Lord Kinross, it's because his army wasn't big enough to inforce such a decree and the population of his Anatolian provinces wasn't enough to replace the Christian population. No hint of Islamic law concerning people of the Book. I doubt he even knows what that is. Another example of blatantly false information: All of the Christians were enslaved instead, though some could ransom themselves and others were essentially made into serfs (minus all the attractive women who, according to Kinross, were always made into the concubines of the conquerors.) I can't even begin to say how wrong this is.

He also presents as absolute fact things that are only speculated by reseachers (often far more convincingly than inhis version of the facts), such as the first origins of the Turks and the social structure of the early Turcoman tribes. In addition, he turns the migrations of the Turcomans into a muddled mess, skipping and jumping around so that a reader with no prior experience gains no clear picture of anything.

The worst of it is that I am NOT a researcher or an expert in this field, yet Lord Kinross's account is so wrong in so very many ways that almost every page caused me to blink in disbelief. I'm sure an expert would be even more appalled. The only reason I did not give this a single star is that it isn't an out-and-out fabrication, merely a perpetuation of other old, bad "research."

The Ottomans were an important force in Asian and World affairs for six centuries, from 1300 to the end of World War I. This book attempts to take a comprehensive look at their empire, the political forces that drove it, personalities that ran it, and causes of its collapse.

The book *is* reasonably well-written, if the British upper-class writing style is your preference. It's illustrated (my edition, anyway) profusely throughout, with pictures of the various personalities involved and the places that they visited or lived. Though interesting, the book does have several flaws.

The first is an interesting one, and one that I don't believe would occur if the book were written today. This is a book about the Ottoman Empire, where almost everyone spoke Turkish, and there's not one book in that language in the bibliography. This leads me to wonder how much of the language the author spoke, even though he was writing a history of the Empire. Back in the day British historians could get away with this (to them, all of the important sources would be in English, or perhaps French, anyway) but of course these days things would be different. And of course the author does have a rather Western point of view, though he is at times sensitive enough to attempt objectivity.

This is a rather dated book---about 30 years old. There is, no doubt, a newer, more comprehensive book out there on the Ottoman Turks, and if there isn't, there will be soon. On the other hand, if you run across this in a used bookstore or somewhere, it's not a bad place to start.

I bought this book over 15 years ago and I always go back to it as a reference. Lord Kinross writes very clearly and if you want a solid reference on the Ottoman Empire this should be on your bookshelf. Gives a description of major Sultans and events in Ottoman Turkish history. I also recommed Kinross's other excellent book on Ataturk the founder of modern Turkey. Once again Kinross does not dissapoint.

I think this is a fine work in general. Its an absolutely comprehensive narrative history. It takes a nice long sequential look at the Empire's rise and fall. However, this book suffers from a pair of major flaws. First, the book lacks a sense of the wider forces at work in the empire. Its a very classical top-down or leadership focus for the entire book. You are left with little understanding of social pressures other than the other monotheist minority. Even then, it would seem that the Caliph-Sultan was almost a secular state because Kinross does little to discuss the nature of Islam. It is always present but it reads like a western secularist who doesn't really care much for much on these sort of things.

Second, the back of the book has a blurb stating how well written this book is. I have to say that I felt that Kinross' writing was not always clear and easy. I feel like he uses terms of art without providing a contextual interpretation for some of them. In addition, he will repeat exact same phrases within 100 pages of each other-- e.g. this was the worst naval loss since X... and then say that again later. It seemed to me that he was in a hurry to get it all out before he forgot it all himself.

However, this book is truly a nice primer. To cover 5 centuries of dynastic and political rise and fall within 700 pages is amazingly impressive.

The Ottoman Empire has always intrigued me. In doing research on the history of Turkey I picked up Lord Kinross' book and was fascinated by the intrigue, the way government was handled, the brutality of it all. From the beginings of the Ottoman period to the sad demise of a once great empire the reader gets an idea of how things were in palace life. The different sultans were of interest to me too. From Murad IV who was crazy to Suliman the Great (wicked as he was, and great conqueror) to the overthrow of the empire led by Kemal a colonel in the Turkish military in the early part of the 20th century.

This is a must read for anyone interested in Turkish or Ottoman history. I also recommend it for anyone who is interested in history in general or in government.

What an excellent book. It reads as easily as a novel, yet provides as much information as a textbook. It is so important, especially in these times for us to do our best to understand the foundations of the Moslem world, and this book is a perfect place to start. It combines a solid historical knowledge with an unbiased standpoint and is the ideal way to break into the history of Central Asia. If I could I would assign it as required reading for all students in thier senior year of high school- the history is not that complicated- it is difficult to understand only because it is unfamiliar to us, which is just unfortunate. As a college student studying Turkish language, I came upon it by mistake- searching for something that would help me to understand the foundations of the civilization in which i am attempting to immerse myself- but it has inspired me to extend my studies beyond the language as much as possible. I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in everything from current events to language and history, or even anyone who just enjoys an enthralling and involving book.