[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

It was certainly in a terrible state. I can hardly remember the name of a prominent Arabic piece of literature between the Ottoman conquest of the region and the Arab renaissance of the 19th century. Most Arabic texts from the time were religious in nature and this was a result of the decline in urbanism and literacy at the time. The trend technically started ever since the Mongol conquest but there was a small attempt at an Arabic revival by the Mamluks.

The thing is, it wasn't "rescued" by the West. The Arabic renaissance was mainly due to the rise of Mohammed Ali Pasha who was a great patreon of Arabic literature (ironically, despite speaking little to no Arabic). He helped create a network of writers and artists that linked the Levant, Arabian Penisula and North Africa from various religious backgrounds allowing Arabs from various parts of the Arab world to produce great artistic and literary works. His succesors weren't as interested as he was but the network he created continues (arguably) to this day.

When it comes to Western influences, it is undeniable there existed many. Basically, the form of literature that arose was intended to merge medieval Umayyad/Abassid styles with modern Western styles. They saw themselves as a continuation of the Medieval style after centuries of decline which can be seen in their continued use of a modernized and revived form of Classical Arabic (MSA) but they still were inspired heavily by styles from the West after they got exposed to them in their travels. For instance plays and novels entered the Arabic literary tradition at this period.

After everything I've learned about the Ottoman empire it really feels like they were a hermit crab empire. Turkish nomads invade Persia? They become Persianized. Turkish tribe conquers the former Byzantine lands? They adopt Byzantine regal ceremonial culture and many aspects of governance. Ottomans spread from Anatolia throughout the Arab world? Don't spread Turkish culture, just reinforce the Arab dominated culture that already existed, including literature. I've even heard this metaphor extended to Ottoman architecture, which mostly tried to maintain what has been built previously without a strong push to make something new and distinctly Turkish/Ottoman.

[removed]

[removed]

Probably helped them hold sway over such a large population as conquerors.

[removed]

[removed]

It’s because these people were nomads prior to that. They simply didn’t have written literature or architecture prior to getting settled. And creating a unique literature architecture takes centuries of work. Writing was invented in the Middle East in 3400 BC, the first time Turkish writings appeared was in 700s, almost 5000 years later.

Writing has nothing to do with cultural literacy. The Adyghe/Circassian Nart sagas are as old, if not older, than the Greek mythological origin stories of the Caucasus region they share. They were not recorded in a written Kabardian language system (non Indo-European) until the 19th century.

Ottoman empire was a bit of a weird phenomenon in history. In many ways because they were originally a nomad empire and the core Turkish population was not that big. While the empire was huge and it had a large population it wasn't really that big after all. Large part of the area of the empire was basically desert. At its height the whole population was a bit larger than population of France and a bit smaller than that of the holy roman empire. And most of the population was not Turkish, which is why it was probably a good move to strongly include the other ethnicities in the government and adopt their ways rather than trying to impose their own. At least in the beginning.

The Turkish nobility wasn't very loyal to the sultan and the sultans themselves were often quite weak. The sultans secured their positions by recruiting "Devshirme", who were mainly boys from Balkan Christian cultures recruited to the army or government offices as a child. These "foreigners" basically ran the empire from military generals to bureaucrats. They were mostly loyal to the sultan but also pushed the Turkish nobility out of power weakening the influence of the Turkish culture and creating a degree of resentment among the Turkish nobles. The Devshirme also grew to be very powerful in the weakness of the sultans and they created their own political factions which started to control the political appointments to further their own ends rather than those of the empire. For times the Sultans were basically powerless when this political machine (again comprised entirely of people who were neither Turkish nor Arab) did all the decisions.

What made the empire so strong around the times of Suleyman the magnificent and some time after was that hey were fabulously rich and could therefore more easily afford to raise massive military forces without going bankrupt like most European powers did many times. This was because of their control of all trade to east. All the gold and silver in Europe flowed to ottoman empire to buy luxury goods like silk and spices (like almost literally all, much faster than more could be mined, which caused a major economic crisis). And this was also the key to their downfall. The Portuguese found a route around Africa and built trade depots along the way. The Spanish on the other hand came to a new continent with all its riches in their effort to find a way around the ottomans. Italians built domestic production of things like silk. The old monopoly position was broken more and more as sea routes developed and they were left with an empire that was used to being fabulously rich but was no longer actually quite that rich. An empire with a political structure built to secure the Sultan but which left him almost powerless while concentrating in infighting and political squabbles rather than efficient ruling.

All in all the empire, after its rise to power, was never really Turkish. They never drove a clear distinct culture because the government simply didn't have one. The government was largely a hodgepodge of people from the Balkans who were taken as a child and raised in the Sultan's court and had their own weird culture disconnected from the reality of any of the peoples of the empire.

Turks also had sagas and myths. But neither those or the Caucasian ones you mentioned were comparable to the ancient Persian or Greek cultures.

I love it when these questions pop up because I'd never know to ask them. Fascinating

As someone who's very interested in poetry, 1200s-1800s is what i like to call the dark age of Arabic poetry.

Suheil Bushrui is an eminent scholar and humanist. Listen to him! I had the pleasure of knowing Dr. Bushrui when I worked at the University of Maryland in the 90s.

It was not the Ottomans who brought misery to Arab people by conquering their lands and burying their culture deep below. It was Arabs' incompetence that led Ottomans to seize their lands in the first place. Especially, after the scholar Imam gazzali's teachings, Arabic culture and science fell into some kind of stagnation. Mongol conquests took what is left behind and striped middle eastern countries naked. Then Ottomans came and find nothing but the sand...

Such western based mind's old-fashion "nationalistic" views are nothing but the nonsense. There were nothing left when the Ottomans came. All forms of art eas long forbidden and forgotten...

At least in Ottoman Egypt during the eighteenth century, manuscript culture and production were at their height. Many of the ulama or Muslim scholars didn’t just write texts on religious subjects, but language and literature manuscripts as well. Many of these were critical commentaries on 10-12th century Islamic Golden Age texts. See writing by Khaled Elrouahyeb, Jane Holt Murphy, and Jane Hathaway.

Dude stop being so racist. Your whole reddit personality ia about Turkish hate. Early Turkish texts are literally one of the first writings in the world. Stop spreading baseless claims that only sourced from your buttcheeks.

I think that you can argue that the literature produced by the Ottomans itself is part of Arabic literature, in which case you can argue that the state of Arabic literature wasnt so bad.

Im referring to the great works of literature produced in Istanbul/Constantinople, not the ones produced by Arabians in the Arabia region occupied by the Ottomans. These can be considered as part of Arabic literature because the Ottoman language was very similar to Arabic and Farsi languages and the language used in this literature was particularly closer to Arabic and Farsi since the nobles of Istanbul wanted to separate their literature from that of the common folk by using more and more Arabic and Farsi in their writing.

Not sure what the Turkish textbooks say these days but the first Turkish script is from 7th century, and as I said above it’s about 5000 years too late. For perspective Greek alphabet appeared around 1000 BC, Chinese around 1200 BC, Latin 500 BC and Arabic 100 BC. Compared to those Turkish script is very recent.

Couldn't believe how much Arabic is in Ottoman Turkish. It blew my mind when I checked out some manuscripts online. Before nationalism, Arabic, Farsi, and Turkish were syncretizing.

Thanks for proving you know nothing of the Caucasus or ancient literature.

The question of the state of Arabic literature and culture during the Ottoman Empire is a complex and nuanced one, and there are differing perspectives on the matter. The editors of "Desert Songs of the Night" present one perspective, which is that Arabic literature was almost completely lost from view under Ottoman rule, and that it was only through the influence of Western civilization, as represented by Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, that a resurgence in Arabic literature and culture occurred.

However, this perspective is not without its criticisms. Some scholars argue that this narrative of a stagnant and ossified Arabic culture under Ottoman rule is a product of Orientalism, which is the tendency to view the cultures and societies of the Middle East and North Africa as exotic, backward, and in need of rescue by the West. These scholars argue that the Ottoman Empire was a diverse and dynamic society, and that Arabic literature and culture were not in a state of decline.

Furthermore, the idea of a "Arabic Renaissance" or "Nahda" is not a simple matter and it's not only as a result of the influence of Western civilization, but also a product of internal factors, such as the emergence of a new urban middle class, the growth of printing and publishing, and the increased availability of education.

Additionally, The Ottoman Empire had a long history of literary and cultural achievements in the Arabic language, and there was a vibrant tradition of poetry, prose, and scholarship that existed alongside the dominant Turkish language culture of the court.

In conclusion, the state of Arabic literature and culture during the Ottoman Empire is a complex issue, and one that cannot be reduced to a simple narrative of decline and rescue by Western civilization. It's important to consider the multiple perspectives and factors that contributed to the development of Arabic literature and culture during this period.

pry because turks were nomads warriors for large parts of their history as they moved down from the east siberian steppe. so their culture adept to fit itself into preexisting culture while implementing its own.

[removed]

The author suggests that between the Ottoman conquest of the Mamluke Sultanate in the early 1500s and Napoleon's invasion of Egypt in the 1790s that Arabic culture was effectively dead.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]