Osmanlı Tarihinin Dönemlendirilmesi: Halil İnalcık, Mehmet Genç ve Kemal Karpat’ın Klasik Dönem Yorumları Üzerine Bir İnceleme
The Periodization of Ottoman History: A Study on Halil İnalcık’s, Mehmet Genç’s, and Kemal Karpat’s Interpretations of the Classical Period

Summary/Abstract: There is no consensus in the existing literature regarding the periodization of Ottoman history. One of the main reasons for this lack of agreement is that periodization is not merely a problem of chronological classification; it also reflects an epistemological choice concerning the conceptual tools through which historical periods are interpreted. In this sense, periodization is directly related not only to “how the past was,” but also to “how the historian reads the past.” The era in which the historian lives, along with their worldview, ideological assumptions, and theoretical framework, determines how they divide the past into segments. Therefore, historical periods are not “natural” divisions that exist in nature, but analytical constructs created by historians. This study addresses the issue of the periodization of Ottoman history primarily within the framework developed by Halil İnalcık, while comparatively examining the principal contributions of Mehmet Genç and Kemal Karpat along this axis. In explaining the end of the classical period, the study adopts a structural approach that centers on the interplay between the internal and external balance of political power, the land regime, economic mentality, and social power relations, rather than relying on teleological or military-centered narratives. Methodologically, the study employs a combination of comparative historiography and conceptual synthesis. While Halil İnalcık’s approach offers the most comprehensive and inclusive analysis, the approaches of Kemal Karpat and Mehmet Genç are treated as complementary analyses representing different dimensions of the same historical process; a holistic interpretation is developed without establishing a hierarchical ranking among these approaches. Thus, through the joint interpretation of these complementary approaches, the characteristics of the Ottoman classical period are highlighted, while the end of the classical period and the beginning of the post-classical period are conceptualized as a holistic process of transformation, rather than being reduced to a single cause.

• Details
• Contents