The Ottoman and the Habsburg territories were the two major talked about empires that formed distinct categories in the Europe. The Mediterranean surrounded the two. Rooted in the Sunni Islam, the Ottoman Empire occupied the eastern and southern Mediterranean. On the other hand, with the Roman Catholic Christianity as their religion, the Habsburg Empire covered the western and northern Mediterranean. Though similar in some ways to the socio-economic ways, however, both the empires comprised of varying many different ethnic and religious groups. (Pál and Geza 47)
Inalcik narrates that “Ottoman judiciary the judges were the administrators in the courts, with assistance from the religious groups, called the ulema. The Sultans made the appointment of the Judges, and so similarly, they practiced a direct control over members of the religious bodies (74)”. He continues to say that although the Ottomans established their unique synthesis and did not imitate the work of their predecessors, they had a massive ‘debt’ to the Byzantines. Additionally, the Ottoman political system demanded its administrators and military. According to Johnson, the “Ottoman Empire in the seventeenth-century official were obligated to protect the locals in the practice of their religion, be it Islam, or Christianity in whatever disparity, for example, Sunni (66).”
Inalcik affirms that, “economically, the Ottomans regarded military expansion and fiscalism as their main way of getting financial resources (108)”. On the other hand, agriculture was also as more vital than manufacture and commerce. For the reasons of wealth in the industries, the mercantilists became a real reference point in the wealth-power model shifting towards embracing capitalism. “This consisted of developing industries and markets though the Ottomans went on with the course of territorial expansion, customary monopolies, conventional land holding, and agriculture” (Inalcik 148). As for the Habsburg Empire, at the era of the mercantilism, the empire embraced it, and it became well-known in the 17th century. The control of the industries was through the guild system. Their major source of revenue was through the industrial establishment which was built in the hereditary lands, with hardware manufacturing firms. Kann asserts that, “This was because of the rich Styrian iron-mines which got too much attention during the silver boom (116)”. Also, there was the development of the textile industries in the hereditary lands.
Contrary to the Ottoman’s way of governance, the Habsburg Empires system of governance had a dual structure. Pál and Géza say, “The monarchy consisted of two parts; the Austria referred to as Cisleithanian and the Hungarian kingdom, the so-called Transleithanian part of it. Franz Joseph was the leader of the Dual Monarchy (54).” Their monarchy had ministerial offices, which was not the case with the Ottoman Empire. There was the incorporation of the Defense, Foreign Affairs, and Finance Ministries. However, the status of Hungary did not interfere with, and it was similar to Austria’s. Subsequently, the kingdom of Hungary became a sovereign state in the structure of the Dual Monarchy. Just like the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg Empire a multi-ethnic, multilingual where the multilingualism was constituted and fully implemented to be regarded as a law.
The Habsburg significantly intermarried among themselves. The intermarriages were between the first and third cousins within the families and also it prevailed between the uncles and nieces and more remote family distant relatives in the respective families. This implied that among the lineage in the generations, with no let up on the amount of intermarriage, the degree of genetic inbreeding gradually built up. According to Inalcik, “the culture in the Ottoman Empire did not permit for marriage between the members of same families (39)”. This was of the stringent cultural laws that had been put in place to guard against such, and it was also propagated by the religious teachings the Ottomans practiced. The Ottomans embraced the customary, art and institutions of cultures in the territories that they conquered, and created new scopes to regions (Johnson 112). Several traditions and cultural aspects of the prior empires in the sectors of cuisine, music, leisure and architecture. This was one of the other areas which there existed a major relationship regarding borrowing with the Habsburg. Also, a comparison of the Ottomans to the Turkish folk tradition shows that the influence of these new traditions in establishing the customs was vivid.
Fodor & Géza affirms that, “Economic and political migrations resulted in consequences in the Ottoman. For example, Austria-Habsburg invasion of the Crimean and Balkan areas respectively led into an extensive number of Islamic refugees (75).” The authors continue by saying, “In the time of the two centuries, about 5–7 million refugees moved into the Ottoman Empire” (84). The aftermath of the migrations left unforgettable marks, for example, political tension in regions of the empire. Whereas divergent effects were seen in other territories, simpler demographics is emerging from diverse populations.
Inalcik narrates on the image the empire of Ottoman in a global, regional and country history. He says, “Through the assessment of some of the histories in the legacies of the monarchy, the author explains a confessional and perceptional blinders that act a barrier to the West from comprehending the extent of the legacy of the Ottoman monarchy. There is a contention that the historical and the current ideas have attributed into the distortion of the Arab ad Turkish empires” (168 ). However, there is a failure to assert that the Ottomans and the current Islamic disregarded the western ideologies. The Habsburgs exclusively emphasized their obligation as the antemurale of Christianity and did their best to uphold Catholicism in newly amassed territories. Moscow exerted pressure on its role as guardian of Orthodoxy. For example, it repetitively argued on the basis that Orthodox Ukrainians should embrace Moscow's sovereignty because it was their best defense on the Muslim (Khan 124).
In conclusion, we can see that the Ottomans and the Habsburgs have gone through a lot of military wars, some of which has resulted in good results like for the Ottomans, which war was their major source of financial stability. This shows that if nationalist conflicts were the greatest obstacle to the Habsburgs, social disruption posed the greatest danger to the Ottomans. An interesting question is why socialism, not nationalism, became the focal point of opposition. Relationships among the dynasties also prevailed especially in the situations of war and building of the economy.
Works Cited
İnalcık, Halil, Suraiya Faroqhi, Donald Quataert. An economic and Social history o the Ottoman empire. Cambridge University Press, 1997. Document.
Inalcik, Halil. The Ottoman Empire: conquest, organization, and economy. London: Variorum Reprints, 1978.
Johnson, Carina L. Cultural Hierarchy in Sixteenth-Century Europe: The Ottomans and Mexicans. Chicago: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Kann, Robert A. A History of the Habsburg Empire, 1526-1918. California: University of California Pres, 1980.
Pál F., Géza D. Ottomans, Hungarians, and Habsburgs in Central Europe: The Military Confines in the Era of Ottoman Conquest. BRILL, 2001. Document.
