Conquest

Last updated
The Triumph of Victory by Peter Paul Rubens Peter Paul Rubens - The Triumph of Victory - WGA20328.jpg
The Triumph of Victory by Peter Paul Rubens

Conquest is the act of military subjugation of an enemy by force of arms. [1] [2]

Contents

Military history provides many examples of conquest: the Roman conquest of Britain, the Mauryan conquest of Afghanistan and of vast areas of the Indian subcontinent, the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire and various Muslim conquests, to mention just a few.

The Norman conquest of England provides an example: it built on cultural ties, led to the subjugation of the Kingdom of England to Norman control and brought William the Conqueror to the English throne in 1066.

Conquest may link in some ways with colonialism. England, for example, experienced phases and areas of Anglo-Saxon, Viking and Franco-Norman colonisation and conquest.

Methods of conquest

The Ottomans used a method of gradual, non-military conquest in which they established suzerainty over their neighbours and then displaced their ruling dynasties. This concept was first systematized by Halil İnalcık. [3] Conquests of this sort did not involve violent revolution but were a process of slow assimilation, established by bureaucratic means such as registers of population and resources as part of the feudal timar system. [4]

Ancient conquests

The ancient civilized peoples conducted wars on a large scale that were, in effect, conquests. [5] In Egypt the effects of invasion and conquest are to be seen in different racial types represented in paintings and sculptures. [6]

Improved agriculture production was not conducive to peace; it allowed for specialization which included the formation of ever-larger militaries and improved weapon technology. This, combined with growth of population and political control, meant war became more widespread and destructive. [7] Thus, the Aztecs; Incas; the African Kingdoms Dahomey and Benin; and the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria and Persia all stand out as more militaristic than the less organized societies around them. Military adventures were on a larger scale and effective conquest for the first time became feasible.

Leading to migration

Military conquest has been one of the most persistent causes of human migrations. [8] There is a significant influence of migration and conquest on political development and state formation. Conquest leading to migration has contributed to race mixture and cultural exchange. The latter points influence on conquest has been of far greater significance in the evolution of society. Conquest brings humans into contact, even though it is a hostile contact.

Plunder

William the Conqueror leads his troops at the Battle of Hastings, 1066, Bayeux Tapestry. Bayeux Tapestry scene55 William Hastings battlefield.jpg
William the Conqueror leads his troops at the Battle of Hastings, 1066, Bayeux Tapestry.

Plunder has in all times and places been a result of war, the conquerors taking whatever things of value they find. The desire for it has been one of the most common causes of war and conquest. [9]

The state

Vasily Vereshchagin, The Apotheosis of War, 1871; dedicated "to all conquerors, past, present and to come", a pile of skulls in a wasteland. 1871 Vereshchagin Apotheose des Krieges anagoria.JPG
Vasily Vereshchagin, The Apotheosis of War , 1871; dedicated "to all conquerors, past, present and to come", a pile of skulls in a wasteland.

In the formation of the modern state, the conspicuous immediate causes are the closely related facts of migration and conquest. [10] The state has increased civilization and allowed increased cultural contact allowing for a cultural exchange and stimulus; frequently the conquerors have taken over the culture of their subjects. [11]

Subjugation

With subjugation, further class distinctions arise. The conquered people are enslaved; thus the widest possible social classes are produced: the enslaved and the free. The slaves are put to work to support the upper classes, who regard war as their chief business. [12] The state is in origin a product of war and exists primarily as an enforced peace between conquerors and conquered. [13] From slavery and from conquest, another result of war, sprang differentiation of classes and occupations termed the division of labour. [14] Through conquest, society became divided into a ruling militant class and a subject industrial class. The regulative function devolved upon the conquering soldiers and operations side to the serfs and slaves.

Culture after conquest

After a conquest where a minority imposes itself on a majority, it usually adopts the language and religion of the majority, through this force of numbers and because a strong government can be maintained only through the unity of these two important facts. [15] In other cases, especially when the conquerors create or maintain strong cultural or social institutions, the conquered culture could adopt norms or ideas from the conquering culture to expedite interactions with the new ruling class. These changes were often imposed on the conquered people by force, particularly during religiously motivated conquests.

Post-World War II

Scholars have debated the existence of a norm against conquest since 1945. [16] [17] Conquest of large swaths of territory has been rare, but states have since 1945 continued to pursue annexation of small swaths of territory. [17]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mehmed I</span> 5th Sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1413 to 1421

Mehmed I, also known as Mehmed Çelebi or Kirişçi, was the sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1413 to 1421. The fourth son of Sultan Bayezid I and Devlet Hatun, he fought with his brothers over control of the Ottoman realm in the Ottoman Interregnum (1402–1413). Starting from the province of Rûm he managed to bring first Anatolia and then the European territories (Rumelia) under his control, reuniting the Ottoman state by 1413, and ruling it until his death in 1421. Called "The Restorer," he reestablished central authority in Anatolia, and he expanded the Ottoman presence in Europe by the conquest of Wallachia in 1415. Venice destroyed his fleet off Gallipoli in 1416 as the Ottomans lost a naval war.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ottoman Empire</span> Turkish empire (1299–1922)

The Ottoman Empire, historically and colloquially known as the Turkish Empire, was an empire that controlled much of Southeast Europe, West Asia, and North Africa between the 14th and early 20th centuries. The empire also controlled a southeastern region of Central Europe from the 16th to the late 17th century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ottoman Turks</span> Founding Turkic ethnic group of the Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Turks were a Turkic ethnic group. They founded the Ottoman Empire in the early modern era and remained sociopolitically the most dominant group in the Empire for the duration.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timariots</span>

Timariot was the name given to a Sipahi cavalryman in the Ottoman army. In return for service, each timariot received a parcel of revenue called a timar, a fief, which were usually recently conquered plots of agricultural land in the countryside. Far less commonly, the sultan would grant a civil servant or member of the imperial family a timar. Also non-military timar holders were obliged to supply the imperial army with soldiers and provisions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Burji Mamluks</span> Dynasty of Egyptian monarchs (1382–1517 CE)

The BurjiMamluks or Circassian Mamluks, sometimes referred to as the Burji dynasty, were the rulers of the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt from 1382 until 1517. As with the preceding Bahri Mamluks, the members of the Burji Mamluk ruling class were purchased as slaves (mamluks) and manumitted, with the most powerful among them taking the role of sultan in Cairo. During this period, the ruling Mamluks were generally of Circassian origin, drawn from the Christian population of the northern Caucasus. The name Burji, meaning 'of the tower', refers to the traditional residence of these Mamluks in the barracks of the Citadel of Cairo.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ottoman Old Regime</span> Refers to a period of stagnation and reform in Ottoman history

The history of the Ottoman Empire in the 18th century has classically been described as one of stagnation and reform. In analogy with 18th-century France, it is also known as the Ancien Régime or Old Regime, contrasting with the "New Regime" of the Nizam-i Cedid and Tanzimat in the 19th century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Classical Age of the Ottoman Empire</span> Ottoman Empire from circa 1450 to 1570

The Classical Age of the Ottoman Empire concerns the history of the Ottoman Empire from the Conquest of Constantinople in 1453 until the second half of the sixteenth century, roughly the end of the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent. During this period a system of patrimonial rule based on the absolute authority of the sultan reached its apex, and the empire developed the institutional foundations which it would maintain, in modified form, for several centuries. The territory of the Ottoman Empire greatly expanded, and led to what some historians have called the Pax Ottomana. The process of centralization undergone by the empire prior to 1453 was brought to completion in the reign of Mehmed II.

Franz Babinger was a well-known German orientalist and historian of the Ottoman Empire, best known for his biography of the great Ottoman emperor Mehmed II, known as "the Conqueror", originally published as Mehmed der Eroberer und seine Zeit. An English translation by Ralph Manheim is available from Princeton University Press under the title Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time. His many doctrines were speculative and not supported with evidence.

Under the Ottoman Empire, Mukata’a were hass-ı hümayun, parcels of land owned by the Ottoman crown. These were distributed through the iltizam auction system; rights to collect revenue from the land were sold to the highest bidder, eventually for the life of the buyer. As the Ottoman Empire began to move into the early modern period, vacant timars, instead of being reassigned, were often added to the iltizam system, paving the way for a fundamental change in the Ottoman fiscal system into a monetized system, and allowing various power-brokers to involve themselves in the Ottoman bureaucracy, which had previously been limited to the kul.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Purépecha Empire</span> State in central Mexico (c. 1300–1530)

The Purépecha Empire, also known by the term Iréchikwa, was a polity in pre-Columbian Mexico. Its territory roughly covered the geographic area of the present-day Mexican state of Michoacán, as well as parts of Guanajuato, Guerrero, and Jalisco. At the time of the Spanish conquest, it was the second-largest state in Mesoamerica. The state is also known as the Tarascan Empire, an exonym often considered pejorative by the Purépecha people.

A timar was a land grant by the sultans of the Ottoman Empire between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries, with an annual tax revenue of less than 20,000 akçes. The revenues produced from the land acted as compensation for military service. A holder of a timar was known as a timariot. If the revenues produced from the timar were from 20,000 to 100,000 akçes, the land grant was called a zeamet, and if they were above 100,000 akçes, the grant would be called a hass.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Köprülü era</span> c. 1656–1703 Ottoman period dominated by grand viziers of the Köprülü family

The Köprülü era was a period in which the Ottoman Empire's politics were frequently dominated by a series of grand viziers from the Köprülü family. The Köprülü era is sometimes more narrowly defined as the period from 1656 to 1683, as it was during those years that members of the family held the office of grand vizier uninterruptedly, while for the remainder of the period they occupied it only sporadically.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Byzantine–Seljuk wars</span> Series of conflicts in the Middle Ages

The Byzantine–Seljuk wars were a series of conflicts in the Middle Ages between the Byzantine Empire and the Seljuk Empire. They shifted the balance of power in Asia Minor and Syria from the Byzantines to the Seljuk dynasty. Riding from the steppes of Central Asia, the Seljuks replicated tactics practiced by the Huns hundreds of years earlier against a similar Roman opponent but now combining it with new-found Islamic zeal. In many ways, the Seljuk resumed the conquests of the Muslims in the Byzantine–Arab Wars initiated by the Rashidun, Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates in the Levant, North Africa and Asia Minor.

Halil İnalcık was a Turkish historian. His highly influential research centered on social and economic approaches to the Ottoman Empire. His academic career started at Ankara University, where he completed his PhD and worked between 1940 and 1972. Between 1972 and 1986 he taught Ottoman history at the University of Chicago. From 1994 on he taught at Bilkent University, where he founded the history department. He was a founding member of Eurasian Academy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of Turkey</span> Aspects of regional history of Turkey

The history of Turkey, understood as the history of the region now forming the territory of the Republic of Turkey, includes the history of both Anatolia and Eastern Thrace. These two previously politically distinct regions came under control of the Roman Empire in the second century BC, eventually becoming the core of the Roman Byzantine Empire. For times predating the Ottoman period, a distinction should also be made between the history of the Turkic peoples, and the history of the territories now forming the Republic of Turkey From the time when parts of what is now Turkey were conquered by the Seljuq dynasty, the history of Turkey spans the medieval history of the Seljuk Empire, the medieval to modern history of the Ottoman Empire, and the history of the Republic of Turkey since the 1920s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mamluk–Portuguese conflicts</span> 1505–1517 conflict in the Indian Ocean

Egyptian Mamluk–Portuguese conflicts refers to the armed engagements between the Egyptian state of the Mamluks and the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean, following the expansion of the Portuguese after sailing around the Cape of Good Hope in 1498. The conflict took place during the early part of the 16th century, from 1505 to the fall of the Mamluk Sultanate in 1517.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mesih Pasha</span> Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire from 1499 to 1501

Mesih Pasha or Misac Pasha was an Ottoman statesman of Byzantine Greek origin, being a nephew of the last Roman emperor, Constantine XI Palaiologos. He served as Kapudan Pasha of the Ottoman Navy and was Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire in 1501.

The spread of Islam spans almost 1,400 years. The early Muslim conquests that occurred following the death of Muhammad in 632 CE led to the creation of the caliphates, occupying a vast geographical area; conversion to Islam was boosted by Arab Muslim forces conquering vast territories and building imperial structures over time. Most of the significant expansion occurred during the reign of the rāshidūn ("rightly-guided") caliphs from 632 to 661 CE, which were the first four successors of Muhammad. These early caliphates, coupled with Muslim economics and trading, the Islamic Golden Age, and the age of the Islamic gunpowder empires, resulted in Islam's spread outwards from Mecca towards the Indian, Atlantic, and Pacific Oceans and the creation of the Muslim world. The Islamic conquests, which culminated in the Arab empire being established across three continents, enriched the Muslim world, achieving the economic preconditions for the emergence of this institution owing to the emphasis attached to Islamic teachings. Trade played an important role in the spread of Islam in some parts of the world, such as Indonesia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ottoman decline thesis</span> Historical narrative

The Ottoman decline thesis or Ottoman decline paradigm is an obsolete historical narrative which once played a dominant role in the study of the history of the Ottoman Empire. According to the decline thesis, following a golden age associated with the reign of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, the empire gradually entered into a period of all-encompassing stagnation and decline from which it was never able to recover, lasting until the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in 1923. This thesis was used throughout most of the twentieth century as the basis of both Western and Republican Turkish understanding of Ottoman history. However, by 1978, historians had begun to reexamine the fundamental assumptions of the decline thesis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transformation of the Ottoman Empire</span> c. 1550 – c. 1700 period of the Ottoman Empire

The Transformation of the Ottoman Empire, also known as the Era of Transformation, constitutes a period in the history of the Ottoman Empire from c. 1550 to c. 1700, spanning roughly from the end of the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent to the Treaty of Karlowitz at the conclusion of the War of the Holy League. This period was characterized by numerous dramatic political, social, and economic changes, which resulted in the empire shifting from an expansionist, patrimonial state into a bureaucratic empire based on an ideology of upholding justice and acting as the protector of Sunni Islam. These changes were in large part prompted by a series of political and economic crises in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, resulting from inflation, warfare, and political factionalism. Yet despite these crises the empire remained strong both politically and economically, and continued to adapt to the challenges of a changing world. The 17th century was once characterized as a period of decline for the Ottomans, but since the 1980s historians of the Ottoman Empire have increasingly rejected that characterization, identifying it instead as a period of crisis, adaptation, and transformation.

References

  1. Miquelon, Dale. 1977. Society and Conquest. ISBN   0-7730-3132-4
  2. Day, David. 2008. Conquest: How Societies Overwhelm Others. ISBN   0-19-923934-7
  3. Pál Fodor (2000), In quest of the golden apple: imperial ideology, politics, and military administration in the Ottoman Empire, p. 111
  4. Halil Inalcik (1954), "Ottoman Methods of Conquest", Studia Islamica (2): 103–129, doi:10.2307/1595144, JSTOR   1595144
  5. Cambridge Ancient History . Vol I pg. 261, 519; Vol III, 99, 100-101 ISBN   0-521-85073-8
  6. Petrie, W. Races of Early Egypt. JAI XXX, 103.
  7. Sumner, W. 1914. War Pg. 3.
  8. Howitt, A. 1910. Native Tribes. pg. 185-186, 678, 682-683
  9. Spencer, H. 1969. Principles of Sociology I . pg. 631. ISBN   0-208-00849-7
  10. Jenks, E. 1919. The State and the Nation. pg. 121, 133, 152
  11. Wissler, C. 1923. Man and Culture. pg 42, 179.
  12. Gumplowicz, L. 1909. Der Rassenkampf pg. 163-175, 179-181, 219-238, 250-259
  13. Keller, G. 1902. Homeric society pg. 248
  14. Nieboer, H. 1900. Slavery as an industrial system.
  15. Smyth, R. 1878. The Aborigines of Victoria. Vol I. pg. 181
  16. Goertz, Gary; Diehl, Paul F.; Balas, Alexandru (2016), "The Development of Territorial Norms and the Norm against Conquest", The Puzzle of Peace, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199301027.001.0001, ISBN   978-0-19-930102-7
  17. 1 2 Altman, Dan (2020). "The Evolution of Territorial Conquest After 1945 and the Limits of the Territorial Integrity Norm". International Organization. 74 (3): 490–522. doi:10.1017/S0020818320000119. ISSN   0020-8183. S2CID   226467742.