the image of the ottomans in hungarian historiography (aoash 61, 1-2, 2008, 15-26)

Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hung. Volume 61 (1–2), 15–26 (2008) DOI: 10.1556/AOrient.61.2008.1–2.3

0001-6446 / $ 20.00 © 2008 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest

THE IMAGE OF THE OTTOMANS IN HUNGARIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY

GÁBOR ÁGOSTON

Department of History, Georgetown University Intercultural Center 600, 3700 O St., NW, Washington D.C. 20057-1035, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

This short essay overviews the changing image of the Ottomans in Hungarian historiography from the late 19th century to the 1990s. It maintains that whereas the Ottoman Empire had received a gen-erally negative treatment from the nationalist historiographies of the empire’s successor states in the Balkans and the Middle East, Hungarian historiography has been more divided and has offered a more diverse view with regard to the country’s Ottoman centuries. As in the case of the biased treatment of the new nation-states of the Balkans and the Middle East, the more balanced Hungar-ian attitude has its political and cultural-historiographical background, which is briefly addressed in the paper.

Key words: The image of the Ottomans in Hungary, Ottoman studies in Hungary, politics and his-toriography, Turkology, impact of Ottoman rule.

I. The 19th-century Background1

From the mid-15th century onward, Hungarian diplomats, travellers, interpreters (dragomans) and scholars have contributed considerably to the so-called Turcica-literature (that is to say, to the literature on the history, religion, customs, etc. of the Ottoman Turks) and have produced valuable works on the culture and history of the Ottomans. While the early works were published in Latin, the first Hungarian-lan-guage history of the Ottoman Empire, Sámuel Decsy’s (1742–1816) three-volume “Osmanographia” appeared in 1788–1789. In addition to the military and political history of the Ottomans and the Hungarian–Ottoman wars, Decsy gave due attention

1 The present article deals only with the changing image of the Ottomans in Hungarian his-

toriography. For overviews of Turkish and Ottoman studies in Hungary see Hóvári (1987); Ágoston (2002) and Dávid – Fodor (2002)

16 G. ÁGOSTON

Acta Orient. Hung. 61, 2008

to the empire’s geography and administration, and its religious affairs (Decsy 1788–1789). Although 19th-century Hungarian historiography followed the German and Austrian tradition, it had its local colour as far as works on the Ottomans, and Turk-ish studies in general, were concerned. The warm welcome of the Hungarian émigrés of the 1848–1849 revolution by the Ottoman government created a pro-Turkish atmosphere in Hungary. By that time, the hostis naturalis of the 16th century, i.e., the Ottoman Turks – who in 1526 destroyed the mediaeval Hungarian Kingdom and in the mid-16th century incorporated her central parts into their empire –, had become the generous supporters of the Hungarians and offered protection for the Magyar émigrés after the defeat of their War of Independence against the Habsburgs. On the other hand, the Habsburgs, who in the 16th and 17th centuries played an important role in establishing and maintaining the Hungarian border defence system that con-tained further Ottoman expansion, were construed as enemies who recently sup-pressed the War of Independence of the Magyars. Not surprisingly, after 1848–1849 the Habsburgs often received hostile press in Hungarian popular literature and his-toriography. In short, Hungarian nationalist historiography of the 19th century made the same mistakes in relation to the Habsburgs, as did the Balkan historiographical tradition in regards to the Ottomans, i.e., both projected 19th-century images back to earlier centuries. Hungarian political thinking and historiography in the late 19th century were also influenced by the growing fear of the political aspirations of Hungary’s stronger neighbour, Czarist Russia, in the Balkans, as well as by fears of Pan-Slavism and the nationalist-separatist movements of the Slavic people within the borders of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. In the early 1870s, during Gyula Andrássy’s ministry of foreign affairs, anti-Slav friendship with Istanbul and the defence of the Ottoman Empire’s integrity (in order to counter-balance Russian influence in the Balkan Peninsula and to maintain the status quo there) became an official policy of Austria-Hungary. All these circumstances produced a strong pro-Turkish political climate, which was rein-forced by the belief, at least in certain intellectual circles, of the Hungarians’ Turkic origin, a hot topic of scholarly debates and the popular press of the late 19th century, when the country and its historians were preparing for the millennium celebrations of Hungary’s foundation. The so-called “Ugor–Turkish war” (i.e., the Ugor-contra-Turkish debate) about the Finno-Ugric or Turkic origins of the Magyars or Hungari-ans, which reached far beyond the scholarly community, raised the interest of the public in studies related to the Turks and their history (Pusztay 1977). This general pro-Turkish atmosphere generated strong institutional support for Turkish studies. In 1850 János Repiczky (1817–1855), who was among the first scholars devoting great efforts to the study and translation of Ottoman archival docu-ments preserved in Hungary, was given the right to give courses in Oriental languages at the University of Pest. The Institute of Turkish Philology and Hungarian Pre-history, established in 1870 at the same university, was the first institute or chair in Europe devoted to the study of Turkology. It was held for almost four decades by Ármin Vámbéry (1832–1913), the most fervent advocate of the Turkish origin of the

THE IMAGE OF THE OTTOMANS IN HUNGARIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 17


Magyars. Besides the university, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences became one of the main supporters of Turkish studies. József Thúry’s (1861–1906) and Imre Kará-cson’s (1863–1911) abridged translations of 15th–17th-century Ottoman chronicles and other narrative sources (Tursun Bey, Aşıkpaşazade, Neşri, Ferdi, Lutfi Paşa, Ke-malpaşazade, Celalzade Mustafa, Saadeddin, Selaniki Mustafa, Peçevi, Koçibeg, Evliya Çelebi), and the campaign journals of Sultan Süleyman the Magnificent (r. 1520–1566), along with Antal Velics’s (1855–1915) translations of Ottoman tax registers, revenue surveys, pay registers, and cash books were all sponsored and pub-lished by the Academy (Thúry 1893, 1896; Karácson 1916; Velics – Kammerer 1886, 1890). Parallel to the activity of Turkologists, historians working in the Hungarian and Viennese archives also had their say about the country’s Ottoman past. Ferenc Salamon’s (1825–1892) Magyarország a török hódítás korában (Hungary in the Age of Turkish Conquest) (also published in German translation as Ungarn im Zeit-alter der Türkenherrschaft in 1887) was the first monograph that attempted to give a concise history of Ottoman rule in Hungary with chapters on Ottoman and Hungar-ian administration, jurisdiction, taxation, warfare, defence and diplomacy (Salamon 1864, 1885; 1887). Sándor Takáts (1860–1932), the archivist-historian of the Aus-trian Hofkammerarchiv (1898–1903) and a member of the famous group of Viennese Hungarian historians, and an indefatigable researcher in the Viennese and Hungarian archives over thirty years, devoted a great deal of his thirty volumes and some six hundred articles to the study of life on the Ottoman–Hungarian frontier. Driven by his dissatisfaction of the Austro-Hungarian Compromise or Ausgleich of 1867, he projected his anti-Habsburg sentiment back to the 16th and 17th centuries and under-took a total re-evaluation of Hungary’s Ottoman past, presenting a colourful and strongly anti-Habsburg and pro-Turkish picture. Besides the traditional military, financial, and administrative aspects of the Ottoman–Hungarian frontier, Takáts studied with equal enthusiasm the life of the conquerors and the conquered. In Takáts’ essays, Ottoman provincial and district governors (pashas and begs), road guides (kılavuzes), militiamen (martoloses), merchants, captives, diplomats, inter-preters, scribes, renegades, and musicians of the Ottoman garrisons got as much at-tention as did the generals, soldiers, captives, peasants, shepherds, horse dealers, city and village officials, artisans, coopers, merchants and millers on the Hungarian side. Though his idealised views of the Ottoman rule of Hungary ought to be handled with caution, his archive-based research articles on topics such as fishing, gardening, bee-keeping, wine-growing, brewery, salt-production, mining, glassworks, ship-building, construction of fortresses, eating and drinking habits, weddings, etc., are still valu-able contributions to what one might call the history of everyday life of the frontier (see, e.g., Takáts 1915; 1928; 1956; 1958; see also Vardy 1985a). Although Takáts was widely read, his influence on Hungarian historiography was limited, for he never established a school. The person who dominated Hungarian historiography in the first part of the 20th century, and who had a rather different view on the Ottomans, was Gyula Szekfű (1883–1955). Szekfű was the omnipotent history professor at the University of Budapest, the country’s most influential university until today, and co-

18 G. ÁGOSTON


author – with his noted Hungarian mediaevalist colleague and future minister of culture Bálint Hóman (1885–1951) – of the best-selling, multi-volume Magyar tör-ténet (Magyar History), the standard survey of Hungarian history during the interwar period.

II. The Interwar Period

An ardent Catholic and pro-Habsburg historian, the father of the Hungarian Geistes-geschichte school, Szekfű “made his readers believe that wherever the Turkish horse-men appeared, not even the grass would ever grow again” (Káldy-Nagy 1970a, p. 5, quoted in English by Vardy 1985b, p. 150). In the relevant volumes of the Magyar történet (Magyar History), Szekfű blamed “the Turks” for the general dislocation of the country’s historical evolution, her economic and social decay, as well as for her semi-arid “puszta-climate”, and the Great Hungarian Plain’s deforestation and puszta-vegetation. Moreover, Szekfű saw the “Turkish era”, with its decreasing Hungarian population, as primarily responsible for the tragic Trianon Peace Treaty (June 4, 1920), which deprived Hungary of more than two thirds of its territory and one third of its Hungarian-speaking population (Hóman – Szekfű 1935–1936, and see Vardy 1976, pp. 62–71; 82–89; 1985b). Szekfű’s Magyar történet (Magyar History), pub-lished originally in the mid-1930s, soon became a standard history handbook and, de-spite the political changes after World War II, had tremendous influence on genera-tions of historians: it was still an “unofficial” textbook in my university years in the early 1980s (at least at the University of Budapest), and was reprinted in 1990. Szekfű’s theses in regards to the Ottomans did not remain unchallenged, al-though his opponents never had an influence comparable with Szekfű’s. Sándor Do-manovszky (1877–1955), the most influential student of the rival Kulturgeschichte School, and co-editor of this school’s five-volume Magyar művelődéstörténet (Magyar Cultural History), for instance, blamed the 18th-century Habsburg-initiated settlement policy for the changed ratio of Magyar and non-Magyar population of the country which, together with the Habsburg’s policy of divide et impera, eventually led to the separatist movements of the nationalities (Domanovszky et al. 1939–1942, reprint 1990, 1993). Jolán Majláth, another exponent of the same school, argued that whereas in the Habsburg-ruled territories villages and market towns (oppida) were under the strict economic and legal control of the landed nobility, which hindered their eco-nomic and social development, in Ottoman-held territories the absence of the Hun-garian nobility gave birth to the emergence of flourishing market towns with a rela-tively free and rich bourgeoisie, who accumulated significant capital and developed their own civic attitudes. According to Majláth, Ottoman rule created an opportunity for large strata of society to escape from serfdom (Majláth 1943). Szekfű’s biased views were also challenged by the works of Lajos Fekete (1891–1969), the father of Ottoman archival studies and palaeography. However, being a professor of Turkology at a very small department, Fekete never had much influence on the larger student population. In the long run, however, it was he who



provided the first corrective studies. While his pioneering German-language studies on Ottoman palaeography and diplomatics are well known outside the borders of Hungary (Fekete 1926; 1955), it is less known that Fekete also published the first de-tailed revenue survey (mufassal tahrir defteri) of an Ottoman sub-province (sancak); a rare Ottoman house-register of an Ottoman-held Hungarian town; and a probate inventory of a 16th-century Ottoman financial bureaucrat from Buda (Fekete 1942; 1943; 1960). Moreover, he also published a series of short Hungarian summaries of hundreds of Ottoman documents relating to Ottoman rule in Hungary (many of these were reprinted in Fekete 1993). In doing so, he considerably broadened the evidence concerning Ottoman taxation and administration, as well as the economic and social life of the conquered territories. These sources seriously questioned some of the biased views on these subjects previously existing in Hungarian historiography. His studies on Ottoman land tenure, central and provincial bureaucracy, the geographical knowl-edge of the Ottomans, and especially his magisterial synthesis of Ottoman rule in Hungary in the form of an impressive 460-page monograph on the history of Otto-man-held Buda and Pest, published in 1944, offered a sophisticated and balanced view of the country’s Ottoman past.2

III. Marxist and non-Marxist Historiography until the Late 1980s

Political change after World War II created a very different situation for historical studies in Hungary. Although the most prominent professors of the interwar period were dismissed from universities, some of them, along with a few of their disciples who either accepted the new Marxist ideology and methodology or acted as if they did, were allowed to teach. Those who refused the new vulgar-Marxist ideology were forced to leave the universities and research institutes. By the second decade of the soft dictatorship of the Kádár era (1956–1988) that followed the 1956 Hungarian revolution, many were allowed to return to their disciplines and take jobs in archives and libraries. Thus, most of them were able to continue their research, and, provided their results did not threaten the prevailing ideology, were able to publish them. Another escape from joining the low-standard vulgar-Marxist trend of the 1950s was source-publication and the field of Hilfwissenschaften (palaeography, his-torical geography, chronology etc.) a traditional discipline of the training of Hungar-ian historians, which was tolerated and continued to be taught at the major universi-ties. In Turkish studies, it was philology and the Quellenkundliche orientation of the Hungarian school that saved the field from decay. Dealing with linguistics, palaeog-raphy and source publication was considered harmless by the ideologues of the new regime. Thus, it is hardly incidental that it was the time when Lajos Fekete, and his student and successor at the Department of Turkish Studies of the University of Buda-pest, Gyula Káldy-Nagy, published their translations of the Buda treasury registers,

2 The 1976 abridged English version of this monograph is only one-fifth of the original one

in length. See Fekete (1976).

20 G. ÁGOSTON


along with their seminal specialised studies on Ottoman taxation, administration, land-tenure, and trade (Fekete – Káldy-Nagy 1962a; 1962b; see also the bibliography of the works of Gyula Káldy-Nagy in this volume). Following his mentor’s pioneering tahrir defteri translation, Gyula Káldy-Nagy also made available in Hungarian translation numerous detailed revenue surveys (tahrirs) of various Ottoman sancaks or sub-provinces in Hungary (Káldy-Nagy 1960; 1971; 1977; 1982; 1985; 2000). When later generations too hastily judge the Hungarian defterology school for its narrowness, they should take into consideration the confining political-cultural climate in the country, under which our predecessors had to labour. This is not to say that it was only constricting political circumstances that favoured the continuation of the Quellenkundliche orientation. Outside Hungary, disciples of this school similarly devoted a great deal of their efforts to defterology (Tibor Halasi-Kun and Gustav Bayerle in the United States, or Josef Matuz in Ger-many come to mind). In Hungary, however, besides tradition and training, political circumstances determined the way Ottomanists could work. The Quellenkundliche orientation ensured that accumulated knowledge, techniques and methodology were transmitted to new generations of Ottomanists and historians, a non-negligible achieve-ment in Eastern Europe during the 1950s through the 1970s, when important disci-plines with great traditions were destroyed or silenced. As far as the image of the Ottomans was concerned, the 1950s and 1960s wit-nessed, in Marxist disguise and phraseology, the revival of many of the clichés of 19th-century nationalist historiography. Following the terminology of the anti-Habs-burg sentiment of the late 19th century, the Ottomans and the Habsburgs were the “two pagans”, a term known from the early 18th century, under whose rule the Ma-gyars suffered almost equally. In the works of this early Marxist historiography, the 16th century was the heroic struggle for freedom of the Magyars against the Turkish conquerors, led by soldiers of peasant origin serving in the Hungarian border for-tresses. The 17th century witnessed an equally heroic series of anti-Habsburg wars of independence led again by the garrison soldiers. By the late 1960s, however, the pic-ture, especially in scholarly research monographs and, to a lesser degree in university textbooks, became more sophisticated. Ottoman rule, however, received but modest attention: the relevant volume of the official university textbook, which covered the period between 1526 and 1780 and had been in use until the mid-1980s, for instance devoted only 24 pages out of the 625 pages to “Turkish rule”, and briefly discussed questions such as Ottoman administration and taxation, depopulation and economic decay (H. Balázs – Makkai 1972, pp. 42–53, 266–277). Influenced heavily by the findings of Ottomanists, Hungarian historiography during the 1970s and 1980s became more balanced with regard to the country’s Otto-man past. Historians working with Hungarian and Habsburg documents and Otto-manists alike produced seminal works on the history of trade, agriculture, the market towns, peasantry, and the Habsburg and Hungarian military, favoured topics of Marx-ist historiography of the time. Especially important are the works of Zsigmond Pál Pach (1919–2001), Győző Ember (1909–1993), László Makkai (1914–1989), Fe-renc Maksay (1916–1984), Imre Wellmann (1909–1994), and Vera Zimányi (1930–)



on trade, agriculture, and peasantry; Gusztáv Heckenast’s (1922–1999) and Oszkár Paulinyi’s (1899–1982) studies on mining; Ferenc Szakály’s (1942–1999) mono-graphs on the Hungarian–Ottoman condominium; István Sinkovits’s (1910–1990), Kálmán Benda’s (1913–1994), Domokos Kosáry’s (1913–2007), Gábor Barta’s (1943–1995), and Ágnes Várkonyi’s (1928–) works on political history; as well as Géza Perjés’s (1917–2003), Imre Szántó’s (1920–1993), and Gyula Rázsó’s (1930–2007) studies on military history. Except for Ferenc Szakály, however, the Ottoman-held territories usually remained outside the interest of these studies. It was Szakály who not only devoted much of his time to the study of the economic and social his-tory of the Ottoman-held territories on the basis of Hungarian sources, but also incor-porated the results of his Ottomanist colleagues into his works, though not necessar-ily always agreeing with them. While his general assessment of the Ottoman rule is negative, he appreciated the achievements of the Ottoman bureaucracy and military. He not only read the studies of his Ottomanist colleagues with great enthusiasm but also tried to direct their research towards topics he believed were important in order to better understand Hungary’s Ottoman centuries. Similarly, he did not necessarily blame the Ottomans for all the negative trends that he witnessed in his Hungarian and Habsburg sources concerning the Ottoman-held territories, and was ready to revise his views in light of the research of his Ottomanist colleagues. While Szakály stressed the negative trends of Ottoman rule (e.g. the impact of the Turkish wars on the econ-omy and population), he also noticed, especially in his latest works, the strength of the Hungarian institutions and society under Ottoman rule (Szakály 1994; 1995, es-pecially pp. 413–426; 1997). He devoted two monographs to the study of the condo-minium or joint Hungarian–Ottoman rule, in which he examined Hungarian taxation and the functioning of Hungarian governmental and judicial institutions in Ottoman Hungary (Szakály 1981; 1997). Using both Ottoman and Hungarian documents, Klára Hegyi, one of Lajos Fekete’s last disciples has also shown the limits of Ottoman rule in the empire’s Hun-garian provinces, and provided further examples with regard to the role and function-ing of Hungarian institutions in Ottoman Hungary (Hegyi 1976; 1995; Hegyi – Zimá-nyi 1989). Her latest work on Ottoman garrisons in Hungary, offers the most detailed monograph ever published on the military organisation of an Ottoman frontier (Hegyi 2007).

IV. Recent Developments: the 1990s

By the 1980s, the third generation of Ottomanists, almost all the students of Gyula Káldy-Nagy, has emerged. The distinctive feature of this group lays in the fact that almost all were trained as historians and Ottomanists, and work as historians and not as Turkologists. This means that, perhaps for the first time since the 19th century, Ottomanists have a wider audience and greater influence on Hungarian historical studies. As university lecturers they write university textbooks and teach Ottoman his-tory to hundreds of students compared with the handful of students taught usually at

22 G. ÁGOSTON


Turkology departments. Those who work in research institutes are also active partici-pants in all the major history projects and publications. What is equally important, the members of this informal group of some ten to fifteen Ottomanists and Hungarian historians are in good terms with each other and often work together on joint projects, a welcome development, especially considering the more isolated and much less friendly scholarly climate of the previous generation. Some of these projects, such as the ones financed by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA) and the His-torical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, were launched with the aim to make available the results of recent research of Hungarian historians and Ottoman-ists in English for a broader scholarly audience (see Dávid – Fodor 1994; 2000; 2007). The research interests of this generation are more diverse and are no longer restricted to the study of Ottoman Hungary. Recent research projects range from the administrative, economic, social and cultural history of Ottoman Hungary (Dávid 1997; 2005; Gerelyes – Kovács 2003; Gerelyes 2005a; 2005b; Ágoston – Sudár 2002; Sudár 2005) to the comparative study of the Habsburg and Ottoman military frontier (Dávid – Fodor 2000; Ágoston 1998; 2003; Pálffy 1999); from Ottoman policy, impe-rial ideology, and information-gathering to the role of the Crimean Tatars in Hungary and the relationship between Istanbul and its vassal Principality of Transylvania (Fo-dor 1991; 2000; 2001; Ágoston 2007; Ivanics 1994; Papp 2003); from Ottoman his-torical demography and prosopography to Ottoman warfare and arms industry (Dávid 1997; 2005; Ágoston 1999; 2005; see also Dávid – Fodor 2002, and the bibliography in Dávid – Fodor 2000). As far as the image of the Ottomans: let me mention but two examples that have already challenged many aspects of the traditional negative image concerning Hungary’s Ottoman centuries. The studies of Gyula Káldy-Nagy (1970a; 1970b) and Géza Dávid (who not only continues his mentor’s demographical studies but combines traditional defterology with the methodology of European historical de-mography), as well as the works of Erik Fügedi and András Kubinyi, who explored sources regarding population movements in pre-Ottoman Hungary, helped to revise the old view concerning the 16th-century depopulation of the country. Géza Dávid’s studies based on series of detailed and summary cadastral surveys (mufassal and icmal tahrir defteris), as well as on Hungarian documents, argue that contrary to what had been held before, the population of Hungary did not decline in the 16th century (Dávid 2007, pp. 142–148). Similarly, the rate of migration (average annual 0.6%), at least in the 1540s and 1550s, was much less than previously thought (Dávid 1997, especially pp. 37–77). This coincides with Ferenc Szakály’s and my own results concerning the eco-nomic consolidation of the Hungarian provinces of the Ottoman Empire in the 1570s and 1580s. While Szakály witnessed the consolidation of Hungarian taxation in the Ottoman-held territories in the 1570s and 1580s (Szakály 1994), my own findings suggest that the Ottomans too consolidated their financial situation in this faraway province during the same decades. The unpublished annual balance sheets of the pro-vincial treasury of Buda demonstrate that while in 1559/1560 local revenues covered only one third of expenditures, in the 1570s and early 1580s local revenues met more than 90% of expenses. In other words, the province, if only for a short period, be-



came almost self-sufficient. Hungarian and Ottoman financial and taxation data, to-gether with those concerning population movements and cattle-trade all suggest eco-nomic recovery during the latter part of the 16th century, following the Ottoman–Habsburg peace treaty in 1568. In other words, despite wars and Ottoman conquest, Hungary more or less followed an economic trend familiar in much of 16th-century Europe, even though such a picture seemed unthinkable for Szekfű and for the disci-ples of the biased anti-Turkish historical school (Ágoston 1992; 2000; Ágoston –Oborni 2000). Recent developments in our field in Hungary coincide with the ones that are taking place in many of the successor states of the Ottoman Empire, and are in line with developments in the field in Europe and the United States. Unlike Ottomanists in the United States, however, Ottomanists and historians in the successor states of the empire do not seem to have problems with regard to the relevance of Ottoman studies. The Ottomans are an integral part of Hungarian history, just like they are part of the history of the Balkans, the Black Sea littoral, the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Consequently, Ottoman studies are part of Hungarian and European historiogra-phy, and taught for all history majors at most universities. A considerable number of history majors in Hungary are familiar with the studies of our Turkish, European and American fellow-Ottomanists, and for them the Ottoman timar (land tenure) system, devşirme (child levy), or divan (Imperial Council) are as familiar terms as the feu-dum, knight, or the Venetian Senate. This seemingly handy situation in Hungary, and in many of the successor states of the Ottoman Empire, however, has its pitfalls. It is too tempting to view the empire from its Hungarian, Bulgarian, Syrian, or Iraqi prov-inces and make hasty generalisation, or present the peculiarities and unique situations of these provinces as general trends in Ottoman history. A useful corrective might be to view the particular province as one of many regions of this multiethnic, multi-religious, multi-lingual empire, which besides the peculiarities of the given region at a given time-period had its usual features common with other regions. There are more and more new studies available in Hungarian that view the Ottoman-held territories in Hungary as one of the empire’s many frontier provinces, and devote due attention to the empire as a whole. Due to the “publication-revolution” of the 1990s, several new and old publishing houses decided to come up with their own new syntheses of Hungarian and European history. Thus, Ottomanists of all generations have bound-less opportunities to communicate the results of their field with an ever wider audi-ence, especially since some of these books are sold in tens of thousands of copies. Another welcome recent development in Hungary, as in Europe and the United States, is the training of some young Ottomanist historians with either wider skills within the profession or with interdisciplinary skills. There is a growing number of young historians with the necessary linguistic, palaeographical, methodological skills in both Ottoman and European history. These scholars are (or will soon be) able to do research in one or more of the major European archives (Vienna, Venice, Siman-cas, St. Petersburg, Moscow, etc.) as well as in those in Istanbul. In Hungary, these welcome developments own much to our mentor, Professor Káldy-Nagy, to whom the essays in this volume are dedicated.

24 G. ÁGOSTON


References

Adanır, F.– Faroqhi, S. (2002): The Ottomans and the Balkans: A Discussion of Historiography. (The Ottoman Empire and its Heritage 25). Leiden–Boston [Mass.]–Köln.

Ágoston, G. (1992): A hódolt Magyarország. Budapest. Ágoston, G. (1998): Habsburgs and Ottomans: Defense, Military Change and Shifts in Power.

TSAB Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 126–141. Ágoston, G. (1999): Ottoman Warfare, 1453–1826. In: Black, J. (ed.): European Warfare, 1453–

1815. London, pp. 118–144. Ágoston, G. (2000): The Costs of the Ottoman Fortress-System in Hungary in the Sixteenth and

Seventeenth Centuries. In: Dávid– Fodor (2000), pp. 195–228. Ágoston, G. (2002): Politics and Historiography: The Development of Turkish and Balkan Studies

in Hungary and the Hungarian Research Institute in Istanbul. In: Güzel, H. C. et al. (eds): The Turks. Ankara, Vol. 4, pp. 708–713.

Ágoston, G. (2003): A Flexible Empire: Authority and its Limits on the Ottoman Frontiers. Inter-national Journal of Turkish Studies Vol. 9, Nos 1–2 (Summer 2003), pp. 15–31.

Ágoston, G. (2005): Guns for the Sultan. Military Power and the Weapons Industry in the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge.

Ágoston, G. (2007): Information, Ideology, and Limits of Imperial Policy: Ottoman Grand Strategy in the Context of Ottoman–Habsburg Rivalry. In: Aksan, V. H.– Goffman, D. (eds): The Early Modern Ottomans. Remapping the Empire. Cambridge, pp. 75–103

Ágoston, G.– Oborni, T. (2000): A tizenhetedik század története. Budapest. Ágoston, G.– Sudár, B. (2002): Gül Baba és a magyarországi bektasi dervisek. Budapest. Dávid, G. (1997): Studies in Demographic and Administrative History of Ottoman Hungary. Istan-

bul. Dávid, G. (2005): Pasák és bégek uralma alatt. Demográfiai és közigazgatás-történeti tanulmá-

nyok. Budapest. Dávid, G. (2007): Die Bevölkerung Ungarns im 16.–17. Jahrhundert. In: Historische Demographie

Ungarns (896–1996). (Studien zur Geschichte Ungarns 11). Herne, pp. 135–180. Dávid, G.– Fodor, P. (eds) (1994): Hungarian–Ottoman Military and Diplomatic Relations in the

Age of Süleyman the Magnificent. Budapest. Dávid, G.– Fodor, P. (eds) (2000): Ottomans, Hungarians and Habsburgs in Central Europe. The

Military Confines in the Era of Ottoman Conquest. (The Ottoman Empire and its Heritage 20). Leiden–Boston [Mass.]–Köln.

Dávid, G.– Fodor, P. (2002): Hungarian Studies in Ottoman History. In: Adanır– Faroqhi (2002), pp. 305–349.

Dávid, G.– Fodor, P. (eds) (2007): Ransom Slavery Along the Ottoman Borders – Early Fifteenth–Early Eighteenth Centuries. (The Ottoman Empire and its Heritage 37). Leiden–Boston [Mass.]–Köln.

Decsy, S. (1788–1789): Osmanografia, az az A’ Török Birodalom’ természeti, erköltsi, egy-házi, polgári, ’s hadi állapottyának, és a’ magyar királyok ellen viselt nevezetesebb hadakozásai-nak summás leirása. 3 vols. Vienna.

Domanovszky, S. et al. (eds) (1939–1942, reprint 1990, 1993): Magyar művelődéstörténet. 5 vols. Budapest.

Fekete, L. (1926): Einführung in die osmanisch-türkische Diplomatik der türkischen Botmässigkeit in Ungarn. Budapest.

Fekete, L. (1932): Türkische Schriften aus dem Archive des Palatins Nikolaus Esterházy, 1606–1645. Budapest.



Fekete, L. (1942): A törökkori Vác egy XVI. századi összeírás alapján. Budapest. Fekete, L. (1943): Az esztergomi szandzsák 1570. évi adósszeírása. Budapest. Fekete, L. (1944): Budapest a törökkorban. Budapest. Fekete, L. (1955): Die Siyāqat-Schrift in der türkischen Finanzverwaltung. Beitrag zur türkischen

Paläographie mit 104 Tafeln. 2 vols. Budapest. Fekete, L. (1960): Das Heim eines türkischen Herrn in der Provinz im XVI. Jahrhundert. Budapest. Fekete, L. (1976): Buda and Pest under Turkish Rule. Budapest. Fekete, L. (1993): A hódoltság török levéltári forrásai nyomában. Budapest. Fekete, L.– Káldy-Nagy, Gy. (1962a): Rechnungsbücher türkischer Finanzstellen in Buda (Ofen)

1550–1580. Türkischer Text. Budapest. Fekete, L.– Káldy-Nagy, Gy. (1962b): Budai török számadáskönyvek 1550–1580. Budapest. Fodor, P. (1991): Magyarország és a török hódítás. Budapest. Fodor, P. (2000): In Quest of the Golden Apple. Imperial Ideology, Politics, and Military Adminis-

tration in the Ottoman Empire. Istanbul. Fodor, P. (2001): A szultán és az aranyalma. Tanulmányok az oszmán-török történelemről. Buda-

pest. Fodor, P. (2006): Vállalkozásra kényszerítve. Az oszmán pénzügyigazgatás és hatalmi elit változá-

sai a 16–17. század fordulóján. Budapest. Gerelyes, I. (ed.) (2005a): Turkish Flowers. Studies on Ottoman Art in Hungary. Budapest. Gerelyes, I. (2005b): A History of Research in Hungary into Ottoman Art: In: Gerelyes (2005a),

pp. 11–18. Gerelyes, I.– Kovács, Gy. (eds) (2003): Archeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary. Budapest. H. Balázs, É.– Makkai, L. (eds) (1972): Magyarország története 1526–1790. A késő feudalizmus

korszaka. Budapest. Hegyi, K. (1976): Egy világbirodalom végvidéken. Budapest. Hegyi, K. (1995): Török berendezkedés Magyarországon. Budapest. Hegyi, K. (2007): A török hódoltság várai és várkatonasága. 3 vols. Budapest. Hegyi, K.– Zimányi, V. (1989): The Ottoman Empire in Europe. Budapest. Hóman, B.– Szekfű, Gy. (1935–1936): Magyar történet. 5 vols. (Reprint 1990). Budapest. Hóvári, J. (1987): Adalékok a magyarországi török hódoltság történetének historiográfiájához.

Keletkutatás 1987 tavasz, pp. 135–145. Ivanics, M. (1994): A Krími Kánság a tizenöt éves háborúban. Budapest. Káldy-Nagy, Gy. (1960): Baranya megye XVI. századi török adóösszeírásai. Budapest. Káldy-Nagy, Gy. (1970a): Harács-szedők és ráják. Török világ a XVI. századi Magyarországon.

Budapest. Káldy-Nagy, Gy. (1970b): Magyarországi török adóösszeírások. Budapest. Káldy-Nagy, Gy. (1971): Kanuni devri Budin tahrir defteri (1546–1562). Ankara. Káldy-Nagy, Gy. (1974): Szulejmán. Budapest. Káldy-Nagy, Gy. (1977): A budai szandzsák 1559. évi összeírása. Budapest. Káldy-Nagy, Gy. (1982): A gyulai szandzsák 1567. és 1579. évi összeírása. Békescsaba. Káldy-Nagy, Gy. (1985): A budai szandzsák 1546–1590. évi összeírásai. Demográfiai és gazdaság-

történeti adatok. Budapest. Káldy-Nagy, Gy. (2000): A csanádi szandzsák 1567. és 1579. évi összeírása. Szeged. Karácson, I. (1916): Török történetírók. Vol. 3: 1566–1659. Translation and notes by I. Karácson,

ed. and introduced by Gy. Szekfű. Budapest. Majláth, J. (1943): Egy alföldi cívis-város kialakulása. Nagykőrös gazdaság- és társadalomtörténete

a megtelepedéstől a XVIII. század elejéig. Budapest. Pálffy, G. (1999): A császárváros védelmében. A győri főkapitányság története. Győr.

26 G. ÁGOSTON


Papp, S. (2003): Die Verleihungs-, Bekräftigungs- und Vertragsurkunden der Osmanen für Ungarn und Siebenbürgen. Wien.

Pusztay, J. (1977): Az „ugor– török háború” után. Fejezetek a magyar nyelvhasonlítás történeté-ből. Budapest.

Salamon, F. (1864, 1885): Magyarország a török hódítás korában. Pest. (Second revised ed., Buda-pest, 1885.)

Salamon, F. (1887): Ungarn im Zeitalter der Türkenherrschaft. Trans. by Gustav Jurány. Leipzig. Sudár, B. (2005) A Palatics-kódex török versgyűjteményei. Török költészet és zene a XVI. századi

hódoltságban. Budapest. Szakály, F. (1981): Magyar adóztatás a török hódoltságban. Budapest. Szakály, F. (1994): Gazdasági és társadalmi változások a török hódítás árnyékában. Budapest. Szakály, F. (1995): Mezőváros és reformáció. Tanulmányok a korai magyar polgárosodás kérdésé-

hez. Budapest. Szakály, F. (1997): Magyar intézmények a török hódoltságban. Budapest. Szakály, F. (1999): Török kori történelmünk kritikus kérdései. Budapest. Takáts, S. (1915): Rajzok a török világból. Vols I– III. Budapest. Takáts, S. (1928): A török hódoltság korából. (Rajzok a török világból IV.) Budapest. Takáts, S. (1956): Bajvívó magyarok. Képek a török világból. Selected and introduced by P. Réz.

Budapest. Takáts, S. (1958): Macaristan türk âleminden çizgiler. Çeviren S. Karatay. Ankara. Thúry, J. (1893, 1896): Török történetírók. Vols I– II. Budapest. Vardy, S. B. (1976): Modern Hungarian Historiography. Boulder, Co. Vardy, S. B. (1985a): The Ottoman Empire in European Historiography: A Re-evaluation by

Sándor Takáts. In: Vardy, S. B. (1985): Clio’s Art in Hungary and in Hungarian-America. Boulder, Co., pp. 129–145.

Vardy, S. B. (1985b): The Changing Image of the Turks in Twentieth-Century Hungarian Historiog-raphy. In: Vardy, S. B. (1985): Clio’s Art in Hungary and in Hungarian-America. Boulder, Co., pp. 147–170.

Velics, A.– Kammerer, E. (1886, 1890): Magyarországi török kincstári defterek. 2 vols. Budapest.

the image of the ottomans in hungarian historiography (aoash 61, 1-2, 2008, 15-26)

Documents