David Nicolle's Ottoman Fortifications 1300-1710 offers an informative overview to the military architecture and defensive organization of the Ottoman Empire. It is a concise publication intended for a broad, educated audience interested in medieval military history. Responsible for several other titles on medieval and Islamic fortifications and warfare, the author addresses a largely unexplored topic while convincing his reader of its intriguing complexity; rightly so, as the history of Ottoman fortifications bridges the military experience of the medieval and the early modern worlds.
Nicolle draws from an array of secondary sources, extending from overviews of Ottoman history, art and architecture to more specialized publications on specific fortification works. The publication is richly illustrated with photographs, ground plans and historical reconstructions of selected monuments that help to inform and visually acquaint the reader with the monuments of Ottoman military architecture.
Following a short introduction stating the limited scholarly attention to the topic and a passing reference to the beginnings of the Ottoman state, the book's three chapters trace the development and organization of Ottoman fortifications. Overall, the chronological, geographical and thematic arrangement of the material presents organizational difficulties. This is partially due to the insufficient distinction between original, rebuilt, improved, or simply appropriated fortifications under Ottoman rule. Nevertheless, the rich array of defensive works cited by Nicolle demonstrates the diversity of Ottoman military architecture.
Nicolle also discusses the role of fortification works in historical contexts, such as the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century expansion of the Ottoman state in the Balkans and the Middle East. Fortifications were an integral part of the Ottoman war machine, whether used to enforce tight blockades of besieged cities or to support their defense. The fortifications of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, that controlled access to Constantinople, serve as a key example of Ottoman planning and the continuous improvement of military works along key passages, waterways and rivers. The victorious results of military campaigns were sustained by defensive systems that had a dual role: they controlled strategic locations and borderlines, as well as offered bases for a second wave of offensive raids and expeditions. Special mention is made of the key frontier against Hungary, parts of which were defended with the palanka system: a network of timber and earthworks fortifications of various sizes and shapes that were used as fortified army camps. Another example of a comprehensive fortification scheme employed and sustained by the Ottomans were the series of forts protecting the hajj routes to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.
Besides Ottoman efforts to control rural space and frontiers, the author highlights the role of fortifications in urban contexts; specifically, works designed to secure Ottoman presence in great cities like Constantinople, Thessaloniki, Jerusalem and Cairo. The strengthening of existing works and the construction of new fortifications aimed at the creation of urban strongholds for the protection of Ottoman authorities and their garrisons. The Yedikle in Istanbul, the citadels in Cairo and Jerusalem, and the White Tower in Thessaloniki are prominent examples of Ottoman urban fortifications. Especially in big cities, the organization and composition of garrisons was critical. Nicolle addresses this theme in the chapter on The Living Sites drawing from published textual and tax register sources. Although selective, his discussion moves beyond the frequently limited perspective of military architectural history to remind the reader of the complex socioeconomic, ethnic and religious networks that sustained defensive works. The role of local populations and building traditions in the successful implementation and operation of Ottoman fortification schemes was of central importance.
The last part of the book follows the decline of Ottoman military power and fortification from the seventeenth century onwards. Besides a few notable exceptions of modernized defensive works, that followed developments in artillery warfare, the majority of fortifications under Ottoman rule in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries fell into gradual disrepair or assumed other uses as prisons or residences. Rumeli Hisari, for example, functioned as a settlement; the Yedikle (Eptapyrgion) and the White Tower in Thessaloniki served as prisons. Nicolle's discussion of the uneven state of preservation of Ottoman military architecture today serves as an epilogue. He attributes the difficulty to identify and conserve Ottoman phases in layered fortification works due to the ambivalent attitudes towards to their importance in favor of earlier structures.
David Nicolle's work presents an instructive panorama of Ottoman fortification activity which should inspire the interested reader to further pursue research on the topic. There are various aspects of this introductory study that remain inconclusive, possibly due to the limited access to more recent archaeological and restorative work in regions with important monuments of Ottoman fortification, such as the southern Balkans. For example, E. Brouskari, ed., Ottoman Architecture in Greece, Athens (2008) [in Greek], abd A. Stephanidou, ed., The Conservation and Rehabilitation of Ottoman Monuments in Greece, University Press, Thessaloniki (2010) [in Greek].
Nonetheless, besides its valuable contribution to a little known subject, this introduction to Ottoman fortifications fails to identify their role in the history of military architecture. Most of the fortifications presented in the book concern the additive reuse or improvement and strengthening of earlier defensive works. As such, it is rather difficult to assess the Ottoman contribution to layered defensive complexes. Even though our views are still clouded by the selective and dismissive perspective of historiographical sources, the surviving monuments of Ottoman fortification urge a different approach. As Slobodan Curcic discusses in the final chapter of his critical Architecture in the Balkans. From Diocletian to Suleiman the Magnificent (Yale University Press [2010], 766ff), the Ottomans showed a limited interest in fortifications compared to their overall building activity. Even when they did become engaged in fortification works, they were frequently content with simple, outdated solutions, as in the case of their works in Albania or in the Middle East. They frequently restored earlier works, adding the necessary components to support their control of urban and rural landscapes. In Thessaloniki for example, a city that remained confined behind its walls through the Ottoman period, additions to the existing enclosure were limited. Nonetheless, when necessary, like in seacoast and harbor fortifications built to repel Venetian attacks, the Ottomans exhibited their ability to produce works that conformed to the latest technological developments in artillery warfare.
A closer look to the early beginnings of Ottoman fortification activity and the establishment of its tradition can offer a better understanding of its contribution to military architecture. Nicolle points to the influence of Byzantine and Islamic traditions; however these issues call for further clarifications in the context of the nature of Ottoman expansion in regions like the Balkans. The referred transition from Byzantine akritai to uc begleri (5) in the Anatolian frontier, is a complex and chronologically debatable issue. Equally dubious is the reference to the practices of Muslim gazis and Byzantine akritai (40) as predecessors to those of the Ottoman border garrisons. In addition, the direct influence of earlier Islamic military traditions (9) in early Ottoman fortifications is also arguable if one considers the geographic expansion of the Ottoman state and the traditions they encountered. The influence of Byzantine fortification practice, as is evident in the walls of Thessaloniki, for example, as well as that of Western fortifications in the Eastern Mediterranean need to be further explored. In addition, it is necessary to further consider the fortification works of the Seljuks who interacted with both the Byzantines and the Crusaders.
I believe that the culture and rationale of Ottoman fortification was shaped in the context of Byzantine and Seljuk traditions that exhibited a sophisticated and historically educated adaptability. In this context, the ability of Ottoman military architecture to adjust to different landscapes and sociopolitical conditions, as well as to selectively appropriate and reuse earlier structures or, to produce original up-to-date defensive works demonstrates historical sensibility, confidence and access to technological expertise. Nicolle provides a valuable contribution to the neglected topic of Ottoman fortifications. But as this field progresses, Byzantine and Seljuk precedents, as well as the direct influence of contemporary western fortifications, should not be overlooked.