Tags: Dual Personality EssayHow To Write A Research Paper ApaPendahuluan AssignmentCriteria For Ib Chemistry Lab ReportsEssay Question 1950s AmericaAids Research Paper
Even were İnalcık still alive, it would still be fair to say that there is no mainstream scholar who supports the decline thesis.
Corrupt and counter-productive ideas such as slavery, which were abandoned in Europe, were never abandoned in the Ottoman empire (see Slavery in the Ottoman Empire).
None of this is a "decline" of the Ottoman empire per se - the empire did not become any worse - it just didn't improve (or improved slowly), and declined **compared** to its European neighbors and enemies.
), although you could of course discuss its causes, and I am pretty confident most specialists of International Relations would feel the same....
Quotes such as these are not hard to find in works on Ottoman history.
But who is actually talking (or still talking) about the decline of the Ottoman Empire on its own?
There was no decline of the empire itself, but there definitely was a decline compared to the countries of Europe who continued to improve (in technology, economy, science, military etc.) while the Ottoman empire did not.It's true that İnalcık retained more elements of the decline thesis than most other scholars, but he was also the man who popularized the notion of transformation: İnalcık, Halil."Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 1600–1700." Archivum Ottomanicum 6 (1980): 283–337.using whig history) that are out of place in an encyclopedia (and would rather remind me of some politically engaged literature).As far as I am concerned, the Ottoman decline is a fact of history (as indicated by the fact that it lost gradually large swathes of its territory over 3 centuries, before eventually disappearing!Very one-sided and subjective, sounds more like an opinion piece than an encyclopedia article.Is the situation similar in other articles in Wiki Project Ottoman Empire? Nozulani (talk) , 26 December 2016 (UTC) I don't see how it's one-sided and subjective when it's based very thoroughly in the academic literature. Chamboz (talk) , 26 December 2016 (UTC) It's one-sided because it gives impression that the decline has been rejected by virtually all mainstream scholars, when in fact several eminent scholars have supported it at least in part, the late Halil İnalcık and Donald Quataert to name two. Donald Quataert, "Ottoman History Writing and Changing Attitudes towards the Notion of 'Decline,'" History Compass 1 (2003), 1.Chamboz (talk) , 24 June 2019 (UTC) I have to agree with the critics above, it's absolutely one sided, the article clearly supports the "non decline" theory, and is trying to disqualify the decline thesis, this is not exact science, a lot of scholars agree with the decline thesis, the time in which one argument was presented is not a serious factor, so if in XIX century the decline thesis was more accepted, and nowadays this is supposedely not the case, this not show that the thesis is "wrong".Sorry for the possible mistakes in my english spelling.Yet it was the British who came to dominate the Atlantic slave system.British Empire ships carried more African captives than any nation (an estimated three million); Britain's colonies in the Caribbean and mainland North America produced vast quantities of tropical goods (sugar, tobacco, rice, indigo) for the home market; and the country as a whole grew rich on the profits of enslaved African labor.