Leading Turkish historian Halil İnalcık dies at age 100

[PiriReis]

Historian and writer Professor Halil İnalcık passed away at the age of 100 on Monday in Ankara where he had been receiving medical treatment. İnalcık died of multiple organ failure and will be buried in the family grave on July 28.

Dubbed later in life "the professor of professors," İnalcık was born in Istanbul on Sept. 7, 1916. His father Seyit Osman Nuri Bey and his mother Ayşe Bahriye Hanım were Crimean migrants. İnalcık once told some biographers that he was of Crimean Tatar origin, but his ancestors were Kipchak Turks, who resided in Crimea, too, for centuries. He went to Ankara Gazi Elementary School before enrolling in teaching school in Sivas. After studying in Sivas for a few years, İnalcık was transferred to the teaching school in Ankara from where he graduated. He finished Necati Bey Teaching School, which was one of the best high schools in Turkey back then, received his bachelor's degree from Ankara University's Faculty of Languages, History and Geography (DTCF) and completed his master's studies in 1940. He attended lectures of such prolific professors at the faculty as M. Göker, B. S. Baykal and F. Köprülü. İnalcık graduated from the faculty in 1940.

In the same year, İnalcık prepared a special seminar on Timur I of the Timurid Dynasty, which attracted the attention of Fuat Köprülü. Thus, İnalcık was appointed as a scientific assistant for the Modern Era Branch of the history department.

After he wrote his thesis "Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi" (Tanzimat and the Bulgarian Question), which is one of the earliest examples of socio-economic history writing in Turkey, he finished his doctorate in 1942.

İnalcık was assigned to Ankara University DTCF's New Age Chair as an assistant on April 28, and in 1942 wrote another thesis titled "Viyana'dan Büyük Ricat'e Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ve Kırım Hanlığı" (The Ottoman Empire and the Crimean Khanate from the Siege of Wien to the Big Retreat), which brought him an assistant professorship.

In 1945 he married Şevkiye Işıl, who was also a scholar at the Department of Arab Language and Literature at Ankara University.

He was elected as a member of the Turkish History Institute (TTK) in 1947, obtained a professorship with his thesis "Viyana Bozgun Yıllarında Osmanlı-Kırım Hanlığı İşbirliği" (The Collaboration of Ottoman Empire and Crimean Khanate during the years after Vienna Defeat) on Jun. 2, 1952.

İnalcık is known for his document-based understanding of historiography. His usage of archives is limitless. He has searched not only Ottoman archives but other national archives of various countries as well. He likes to use comparative texts on a specific issue, such as Ottoman histories and Byzantine chronicles on the establishment of the Ottoman state and conquest of specific places.

İnalcık spent 1949-1951 in Britain to examine Turkish documents in the British Museum and make bibliographic research in the Public Record Office. He also attended lectures given by prominent European historians, including Paul Wittek, who was giving a series of seminars at the School of Oriental and African Studies, where he met significant historians like Bernard Lewis and E. Zachariadou.

After returning to Turkey, İnalcık worked in the Ottoman Legal Archives ("Şeriyye Sicilleri") in Bursa, which offered much information about social and economic life in the Ottoman State, and initiated the classification of the same archives.

İnalcık obtained a professor title in 1952, before he traveled to the United States to work as a visiting professor at Columbia University in 1953-54. He also worked at Harvard University as a research fellow in 1956-57 with a Rockefeller scholarship. He attended the History of Islam classes of H. A. R. Gibb at Harvard. While at Harvard, he revised the Islamic articles in the fourth edition of the Encyclopaedia of World History.

He worked in Turkey from 1957 until 1972, and his papers and academic publications were under the radar of international scholars and universities. Upon receiving an invitation from the University of Chicago's Department of History in 1972, İnalcık moved to the U.S. A year later, he published his critically acclaimed work, "The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300-1600," in the U.K. His masterpiece has been published in several languages and was also listed among the books that are taught in the most prominent universities around the world. In 1978, he is also chosen as the honorable member of the Royal Asiatic Society.

After he graduated from the University of Chicago in 1986, after 15 years, İnalcık was presented with an honorary Ph.D. by Boğaziçi University. İnalcık also lectured at Harvard and Princeton universities as a guest professor between 1900 and 1992.

In 1991, he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal and Diploma by the Republic of Turkey Minister of Foreign Affairs due to his contributions to Turkish history and culture. He founded Bilkent University's Department of History for graduate students in 1992 upon an invitation from then chancellor of Bilkent University, Professor Ali Doğramacı. The same year, İnalcık was elected as a member of the Atatürk Culture, Language and History Supreme Institution and an honorable member of the Turkish Academy of Sciences (TÜBA).

In 1998, the ninth president of the Republic of Turkey, Süleyman Demirel, presented the Istanbul University Institute of Turkic Studies Award to İnalcık. The book, which was commissioned by Turkey's Culture and Tourism Ministry and compiled by a commission supervised by İnalcık, won the grand prize at the World Book Fair.

İnalcık continued his academic studies in years to come. In 2001, he received an honorary Ph.D. from the University of Sofia, was awarded by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in 2002, received the Culture and Art Grand Prize from the Culture and Tourism Ministry and was presented the Hungarian Order of Merit by then Hungarian President Ferenc Madl.

Thanks to his academic work, which contributed to cultural development, İnalcık was awarded the Turkish Presidency Culture and Art Grand Award in 2005 and an Honorary Award from Parliament in 2008. İnalcık was also presented with an honorary medal by the International Organization of Turkic Culture (TÜRKSOY) in 2012.

The Cambridge International Biographical Center also listed İnalcık among the 2,000 social scientists who made their mark in the 20th century. İnalcık published numerous works on Ottoman history and knew seven languages.

Source Source 2

​

 

[Galaahd]

Rest in peace, and interesting. You made me want to read one of his books.

 

[Chamboozer]

The field of Ottoman history would simply not have been the same without him. He was without a doubt the single most important historian of the early modern Ottoman Empire of the twentieth century, with an astronomical number of publications. He laid the groundwork of the modern understanding of my field of study, the political and social history of the seventeenth century, with his seminal article “Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 1600-1700" (1980), and continued publishing new works right up until his death. I'm currently reading a recent book of his, Devlet-i 'Aliyye: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Üzerine Araştırmalar - III, Köprülüler Devri (2015). He was 99 when it was published.

It's worth mentioning to anyone looking to read his works that Halil İnalcık never fully accepted some of the revisionist trends in the Ottoman historiography of the past twenty to thirty years. It's understandable given the fact that his education and most famous publications all took place at a time when Orientalist historiography was still at its peak, and he was 'old guard' through and through. Everyone interested in delving into the depths of Ottoman history should read the works of Halil İnalcık, but should do so with the understanding that much of his original ideas have since been revised, expanded, or rewritten by other historians building upon the foundations he established. Others, like the "Rise and Decline" paradigm of explaining Ottoman history, have been thrown out entirely.

Nevertheless, I can say that we'd be very lucky to ever have another historian with the depth and range of knowledge which Halil İnalcık demonstrated over the course his long career.

 

[Maq]

Halil İnalcık never fully accepted some of the revisionist trends in the Ottoman historiography of the past twenty to thirty years.

Interesting reading.
Because I'm absolutely ignorant on this topic, yet I can see its importance in other fields, let me ask you: What are those traditionalist and revisionist trends in Turkish historiography about? What are the key differences?

 

[Chamboozer]

Interesting reading.
Because I'm absolutely ignorant on this topic, yet I can see its importance in other fields, let me ask you: What are those traditionalist and revisionist trends in Turkish historiography about? What are the key differences?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Decline_Thesis

Normally I wouldn't recommend Wikipedia, but you can trust this article - I wrote it myself

Essentially, most modern historians have thrown out the idea that there ever was a "decline of the Ottoman Empire." The original idea was based on some very flawed foundations and uncritical reading of source material, and books have come out over the past 30 years challenging basically every aspect of it. Although Halil İnalcık's own research played a major role in refuting the idea of decline, he was one of the few people who still made use of it (in a revised form) in some of his later works.

 

[Maq]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Decline_Thesis

Revelatory...
... to me. It'll take time till I fully digest it. I'll have to re-verify many of my views and judgements.
Thank you.

 

[PiriReis]

Essentially, most modern historians have thrown out the idea that there ever was a "decline of the Ottoman Empire." The original idea was based on some very flawed foundations and uncritical reading of source material, and books have come out over the past 30 years challenging basically every aspect of it. Although Halil İnalcık's own research played a major role in refuting the idea of decline, he was one of the few people who still made use of it (in a revised form) in some of his later works.

The whole declining narrative is mostly based on the military defeats and the accompanying loss of territory for most Turks, a known phrase is land is honour, motherland is honour. In my opinion the rest Europe just catched up and the military defeats were mostly due to waging war against multiple factions on multiple fronts and the accompanying logistically restrains. By the way I still disagree with you on the quality of the sultans, in my opinion a man such as Fatih Sultan Mehmed is on whole other level than people like Mustafa the Mad or Ibrahim the Mad.

 

[Chamboozer]

By the way I still disagree with you on the quality of the sultans, in my opinion a man such as Fatih Sultan Mehmed is on whole other level than people like Mustafa the Mad or Ibrahim the Mad.

You're comparing the best possible example with the worst possible examples - try Bayezid II and Ahmed I.

Anyway, the fundamental problem with these comparisons is that these rulers were ruling under entirely different circumstances. Put Mehmed II in the shoes of Osman II and he might just have wound up with the same fate. Mehmed II could control the entire government through his kuls while hardly facing any opposition. The ulema and other religious figures were weak and unable to do anything other than complain about him. But the seventeenth century was another world, with sultans needing to balance the factional interests of ulema, ümera, kapıkulu, etc. all while operating under a succession system which guaranteed that there would be a replacement available should the ulema declare their deposition lawful. Mehmed II never had to worry about being deposed a second time - there was no other person who could have taken his place. Thus the historian Baki Tezcan has argued that the Ottoman Empire of this period was becoming a limited monarchy with an unwritten constitution. Of course the sultans of this era couldn't rule in the same manner as Mehmed II. Doesn't inherently mean that they had weaker personalities, just that they were ruling in a different system. You can say that the sultanate was weaker in the seventeenth century, no doubt about that. But I don't think most of the individual sultans necessarily were.