full-text-search

Alte Universitätsstraße 19
55116 Mainz / Germany
Tel.: +49/6131 / 3 93 93 60

You are here Publication Portal

Until the Peace of Passarowitz (1718), some writers since the end of the 18th century have declared that, Turkey, its »provinces« and subject countries were terra incognita for many Europeans. »After the Peace of Passarowitz, the Porte got into an ever closer relationship with the European, Christian powers«, pointedly writes the diplomat Alfred de Bessé in 1854.[1] The Treaty of Passarowitz, in particular, heralded a paradigm shift in the Western European perception of the Ottoman Empire and the regions under its control. The treaty was closely related to the Peace Treaties of Karlowitz (1699) and Belgrade (1739)[2] that the powers of Habsburg, Venice, Poland and the Ottoman Empire were involved in. Those three peace treaties raised the awareness and influenced the knowledge that Western Europeans had of the Ottoman Empire. The following questions remain: What images and topoi did the historical sciences in the 18th and 19th centuries convey of the Turks, who were seen as hereditary enemies until around 1600? What sentiments did they reinforce or erode?

The proposed paper will discuss what experts in the 18th and 19th centuries did and did not know about the Osmanian Empire. The following will analyze empirical and profane works and studies in English, French and German publications from 1700 till 1860 for those topoi. They are geographical, historical, political and statistical works, which had attracted great public interest since the early 18th century and were part of the standard literature at universities.

  1

2.

Since 1739, the number of scientific publications in Western Europe on the Ottoman Empire had been rising significantly. With the increasing information on the Ottoman Empire public opinion also diversified. The successful military campaigns of the Habsburgs since 1683 were the basis for this new era of Western European equanimity in dealing with the Ottoman Empire, on which historical, political, geographical and statistical studies could thrive. Yet one cannot conclude that the result was a positive and friendly attitude or even an understanding for cultural differences. It is true that the Peace of Passarowitz is considered to be a milestone in the international relations of European powers with the Ottoman Empire. However, with an entirely different approach than in the introductory quote by Alfred de Bessés. Ivan Parvev sees the Peace Treaty of Passarowitz, which was advantageous for the Habsburgs, as the beginning of the race for more clout and influence on the Balkans, both by the Habsburgs and other European powers such as Russia, as well as Turkey: »How far Karl VI would be able to turn his advantage into actual political supremacy in the Balkan peninsula would not depend on the state of the Habsburg-Ottoman relations alone. In this sense the year 1718 was a turning point in the development of European-Ottoman relations in general«.[3]

These newly formed relationships between Europe, Turkey and the Balkans also generated a new approach towards receiving more knowledge and information on the Ottoman Empire. Jürgen Osterhammel, Almut Höfert and Martin Wrede, just to name three experts, concurred that the image of Turkey and Turks in Western Europe changed radically in parallel with the increasing political and military defensiveness of the Ottoman Empire in the 17th and 18th centuries. The perception of the Ottoman Empire was no longer exclusively shaped by the topos of the »Turkish threat« (Höfert).[4] Martin Wrede notes that, from the Western European point of view, Turkey metamorphosed from being perceived as the »Antichrist« towards being recognized as a political opponent. The image of the Turks was not primarily motivated by the Christian salvation history, and Turks were no more the »Scourge of God« that punished Western Europeans for their sins, as had been described in the 16th century.[5]

Instead, since the mid-17th century, the Ottomans had become nothing but another competitor for prestige, territorial gains and trade advantages in Europe. Martin Wrede explains that the war against the Turks 1737 was treated in the political realm, that is the subject of Turkey was no longer treated in pamphlets but by the »historico-political« media. For the European powers, the Ottoman Empire had not turned into a normal partner but a normal enemy.[6] Even the war against the Turks between 1715 and 1718 was not a crusade, any more, but a »European-style cabinet war«, that is a guerre reglée with limited goals and limited deployment. Overarching religious metaphors and images, with which the Turks and Ottomans were characterized and described (the dynasty, the empire and the nation), made way for political, historical, constitutional and statistical studies. All of Asia was demystified (Osterhammel).[7]

  2

3.

The perception of Turkey in empirical – constitutional, political, historical, religious, statistical and geographical – studies was shaped by diplomats, private scholars, university professors, clergymen, travelers, journalists, and also officers. Constantinople, with its active information exchange among Europeans – including the Turks –, was the center and marketplace of the knowledge transfer, which was primarily driven by diplomat circles. The motives were manifold: scientific interest, commerce, and pedagogical backgrounds alternated with propagandistic intentions. Starting in 1730, opinion-leading political, historical and statistical studies on Turkey with a European impact were published in almost every second decade, and after 1800 even more frequently. French and English writers set the tone of research on Turkey, until the Austrian Joseph v. Hammer published his masterpiece (selected literature see appendix). Yet new »mental maps« were not only created in Austria, France and England, but also in Italy and the German Empire.[8]

Aside from the Turkey-related studies by Montesquieu, the »Letters« by Lady Montagu (1689–1762), who tarried in Belgrade up until shortly before the beginning of the peace negotiations of Passarowitz in 1718, are among the most sensational and most frequently quoted works. Of further interest are the famous travelogue by Carsten Niebuhr (1733–1815) and Constantin-François Chassebœf, comte de Volney (1757–1820), the studies by Claude Charles de Peyssonnel, father (1700–1757) and son (1727–1790), as well as the »Memoirs« by Baron François de Tott (1733–1797).

Lady Mary Wortley Montagu (1688–1762), who, among others, underlines the rights of Turkish women, tended to construct a more positive image of the Turks, as did the two Peyssonnel and Abraham-Hyacinthe Antquetil-Duperron (1731–1805), who refuted Montesquieu’s charge of despotism, and James Porter, Peter Busenello, Christoph Wilhelm Lüdeke, Ignatus Mouradgea d’Ohssons as well as Philipp Wilhelm Hausleutner.

Works that were translated from the Turkish language are particularly insightful when it comes to the transfer of Western European and Turkish expertise. In 1822, the study »Précis historique de la Guerre des Turcs contre les Russes« by the Turkish historian Vassif-Éfendi, edited by P:A. Caussin, was published in Paris. Worth mentioning is also Omer Effendy’s »Die Kriege in Bosnien in den Feldzügen 1737, 1738 und 1739« (1789), which Johann Depomuk Dubsky translated from Turkish.

Despite the new familiarity, a general alienation and uncertainty with regard to Turkish law, the religion, society and day-to-day life remained. As will be shown in the following, the metaphors used in those treatises demonstrate that even the empirical works conveyed knowledge as well as ignorance, fortifying the cultural barriers between Western Europe and Turkey even more.

  3

4.

One of the leading German-speaking geographers of the first half of the 18th century was Johann Hübner. His »Geographie« is very interesting, since it was the basis of most university and academic knowledge in the German Empire for a long time. Seven editions were published until 1763. In his work, Hübner unambiguously reveals his attitude towards the Turks, who he wished to be ousted from Europe. For him, Turks continued to be »enemies of the Christian name«. He writes: »Meanwhile the disunity of the Christian potentates has prevented us from completely driving the enemies of the Christian names away from European grounds; the damned vermin still owns a big piece of land at the Black Sea, which is called the European Turkey [...]«.[9] Hübner argues in a space-oriented way, making the geographical and natural conditions – the course of the Danube – responsible for the political situation: »Wenn nun die Donau von Osten gegen Westen stösse, gleichwie sie ihren Lauf von Westen gegen Osten gerichtet hat, so möchten sie vielleicht viel weiter in die Occidentalische Christenheit eingedrungen seyn«.[10] For Hübner, the Ottoman Empire is not, as the other European dynasties, a consciously acting, expansion- and prestige-seeking power, but an annoying natural phenomenon.

This attitude is not unique. The Scotsman John Reid, in his study »Turkey and the Turcs«, used geography as a tool of analysis.[11] For him the European Turks are a mountain people, a fact that generally characterizes the appearance of the Turks in Europe. According to him, the Turks broke into the lower-lying Europe like a flood of locusts. »About the middle of the 14th century the Turks made their first appearance in Europe, already formidable by the report of their conquests; they poured down in quantities, of which no man could reckon the number, covering the fairest portion of the world with the blighting of locusts; destroying or appropriating whatever fell in their way, and massacring the inhabitants without mercy«.[12]

However, there was also a group of scholars that strongly protested against the allegation that Turks were barbarians without culture. Johann Georg Meusel, for instance, included the Ottoman Empire in his European »Lehrbuch der Statistik«, which was published in various editions from 1792 onwards. He thus differentiated himself from his teacher Gottfried Achenwall, who, among others, did not take Turkey into account. In his introduction, Meusel refutes the prejudices against the Turks: »One generally judges them in a partisan and unkind manner. They are supposed to be barbarians, lazy and clumsy people for the largest part: yet, at least nowadays, it is really not all that bad with them any more. As is the case with all nations, there is a mixture of bad and good«.[13] Meusel describes the European states according to a clear pattern: borders, inhabitants, primary agricultural products, manufactured goods, terrain, inhabitants’ ways of life, fundamental laws, form of government, succession to the throne, Great Sultan (Emperor), title, crest, royal household, orders of knights, government councils, judicial, financial and warfare system, political relationship. Despite all the aspiration towards objectivity, however, even Meusel reveals certain sentiments against Turkey, in that he describes it as a big empire, bound by traditions and rather undynamic. In one of his later prefaces he explains why, in the case of two states, no corrections to the preceding editions were necessary. Meusel does not correct anything in the case of Switzerland and Turkey, because, according to him, there were no political and/or cultural changes. He describes Switzerland positively as a »calm« state, while characterizing the Ottoman Empire negatively as a state sticking to traditions.[14]

  4

For Meusel the Ottoman Empire is a state in decline in Europe, which fails to conduct long overdue reforms and innovations.[15] By including the Ottoman Empire into the European statistic, Meusel changes the profile of Europe: He does not exclude the Ottoman Empire from Europe, but divides Europe into a Christian and a Muslim-Turkish Europe.

In order to overcome prejudices against the alleged uncultured nature of the Turks, a group of experts studied Turkish libraries, printing presses and publications. The book »Litteratur der Türken« by the Italian Todelini, translated into German by Hausleutner, puts forward an ideal of information supply and cultural exchange, which hasn’t lost its relevance to this day. This is because Todelini not only consults Western European experts, but also takes the knowledge of Turkish scholars into account. Todelini obtains his information on Turkish sciences and literature from different sources, that is German, Italian and Turkish. He not only uses Turkish academies and libraries, but also questions Turkish scholars.[16]

Another »translator« of cultures was the Göttingen orientalist and historian for Eastern Europe, August Ludwig Schlözer. His motto was »C’est tout comme chez nous« – a view that Leopold Ranke challenged in 1827 (»Fürsten und Völker von Südeuropa: Die Osmanen«).[17] In the end, says Schlözer, the similarities between the states of Western Europe and the Ottoman Empire predominated. He does not, for example, draw a distinct line between the Christian Europeans and the Islamic Turks, who, in his »UniversalHistorie« appear as a people and culture on an equal footing with Franks, Slavs, Normans, Arabs and Mongols in the competition for power and prestige. The Turks, writes Schlözer in his controversial work in 1772, are a noble people, strong with love, with a beautiful countenance and a proud, faithful, and brave disposition.[18] Schlözer even maintains that, in view of their physical and mental capabilities, the Turks would have the potential to become the most human, most enlightened and most dignified people of the world.[19] Schlözer does not consider constitutional and religious differences to be responsible for the alienation in his Western European contemporaries’ perception of Turkey, but he sees communication as the problem. This is a truly innovative aspect of the discourse at the time. In his opinion, the potential for conflict results from the difficulty in learning the script and language of the Turks! As is mirrored in the work of the well-known German geographer Büschung, Schlözer demonstrates that this results in a permanent mistranslation and misinterpretation of Turkish declarations and texts in Europe. He thus views the European ignorance of the Ottoman Empire as the cause for the future »total expulsion« of the Turks from Europe.

It is obvious that in those days, special efforts were necessary to overcome and to translate the prevailing cultural distance. In general, only outliers such as Schlözer tended to succeed in it. The officer Ernst von Skork relates that he fundamentally adjusted his ideas on Turkey and the Turks after studying the relevant literature. In 1829 he published his »Das Volk und Reich der Osmanen in besonderer Darstellung ihrer Kriegsverfassung und Kriegswesens« and writes: »The author has, with delight and diligence, read the best works on the Ottomans and particularly their warfare, and must admit that he has acquired entirely opposite perspectives to the ones he used to have«.[20] Joseph Hammer, Leopold Ranke, James Porter, Thomas Thornton and Mouradgea d’Ohsson had significantly enriched his knowledge and constituted his new, more positive image of the Turks.[21] Now he sees the Turks as a role model for the Europeans: the Turks were morally superior, more robust as a people, rougher but more passionate at the same time, more vigorous, religious and charitable than the Christian Europeans, who he describes as superstitious, egoistic, limp, sluggish and hedonistic.[22] It is true that the officer wishes to banish the Ottomans to Asia, but the history of the Ottoman Empire simultaneously serves him as a stark criticism of Europe.

  5

One focus of Turkish studies is the political and judicial relationship of the Ottoman Empire to Europe.[23] Turks are often described as immigrant »strangers« in Europe, who had descended from the »remotest corner« of Asia and then entrenched themselves in Europe through conquests. This was the predominant opinion. According to Jürgen Osterhammel, the image of Turkey in Western Europe changes along with the Turks’ increasing ostracism from Europe throughout the 18th century. Edmund Burke, for example, still calls the Ottoman Empire »a great power of Europe« in 1765, while in 1791, he already locates Turkey in Asia and excludes it from the European state and value system.[24]

As a general rule though, the experts in the 18th and 19th centuries do not discuss the question of Turkey’s affiliation with Europe. They reason on the assumption of a tripartite Ottoman Empire, knowing an Asian, European and African Turkey. All of Europe rarely looked at Turkey alone. According to J. Hütz (1828), the European Turkey is inhabited by the following people: Turks, Tartars, Abadiots, Armeniens, Jews and Hindu. Hütz also counts Greeks, Slavs, Albanians, Walachs, and Franks as inhabitants of the European Turkey. Slavs, according to his knowledge, are divided into Bosnians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Croats and others. Entirely a child of his times, he constructs a clear image of the Turkish state, people and culture, as well as of the nature and physique of the Turks. The European Turk, he says, differs from other people regarding his character, his way of life and even his body type! In his descriptions, Hütz draws the opposite conclusion from Skork. While Hütz characterizes the Turk as superstitious, ignorant, money-grubbing, creeping, magnanimous and despotic, he distinguishes the Tartars in the Balkans as peaceful and hospitable.[25] He has particularly nice things to say about the Serbs: The Serbs are Slavs with a particularly fine and pure dialect; they are very cultivated, have industry and excel in cotton weaving; the men have a solid physique, fiery eyes and friendly faces.[26]

The focus is rather on the question of how the Turks, who are described as resistant towards education, anti-enlightenment and unwilling to reform, managed to persist in Europe for so long. From the point of view of opinion-leading, Western European scholars, two explanations impose themselves. On the one hand there is the internal authoritarian force of the Turkish rulers. Montesquieu, among others, developed the first rationale at length, elaborating on a specific Turkish despotism (thereto Osterhammel).[27]

  6

On the other hand, the historians of the 18th and 19th centuries see Europe, of all places, as the savior of the Ottoman Empire. It was widely believed that Europe was preventing the demise of the Ottoman Empire, which should have been bankrupted long ago. Only the European system of balance of power had protected the former archenemy. The idea that Europe itself sustained the continued existence of the Ottoman Empire was one of the central topoi of the historical research on Turkey in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Ottoman Empire was therefore an important element in the power constellation of the European state system. It was not assigned to the system of European powers and balances, yet it affected it from the outside. It was argued that individual European states used Turkey to achieve their goals and follow their interests within Europe. This meant that Europe didn’t seem able to act consistently against Turkey, because it lacked the hegemonic power or instruments, which would have resulted in a common European consensus. Leopold Ranke writes in 1827: »They [the Turks] have thus survived in their decline through the centuries. Firstly, they were lucky that no emigration of nations from the East broke out, just as in those previous ones, which had been the basis for their own good fortune. Moreover, that the West developed its own style of European politics, the kind of jealousy with which each of our states keeps an eye on all the others, and all others on each one; even in their greatest perils, this always granted them allies and rescue«.[28]

The retired Captain C. Junck argues similarly 26 years later. According to Junck, the Peace of Passarowitz demonstrated the increasing weakness of Turkish power. He explained the fact that Austria was not able to conquer more of the Turkish-ruled areas within the system of European powers, which secured the survival of the Ottoman Empire against Austria’s interests.[29]

At the time, most people were convinced that there was no lack of military, organizational and technical possibilities to beat Turkey. In his travelogue, Carsten Niebuhr repeatedly makes it clear that Constantinople could be easily defeated. The »expulsion of the Turks« from Europe remained an academic demand.

  7

AINÉ, Blanque: Considération sur l’État social de la Turquie d’Europe, Paris 1842.

BESSÉ, Alfred de: Das türkische Reich. Geschichte und Statistik, Religions- und Staatsauffassung, Sitten und Gebräuche, Leipzig 1854.

BOUÉ, Ami: La Turquie d’Europe, Paris 1840.

BUSENELLO, Pietro (Peter): Historische Nachrichten von der Regierungsart, den Sitten und
Gewohnheiten der Osmanischen Monarchie, hg. v. Christoph Wilhelm Lüdeke, Leipzig 1778.

CANTEMIR, Dimitrie: The History of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Empire, London 1734–1735.

CIRIACY, Ludwig Friedrich von: Versuch einer militärischen Beschreibung des Osmanischen Reichs, in besonderer Darstellung seines Kriegswesens, und der topographisch-militairischen Beschaffenheit seiner europäischen Provinzen, Berlin 1824.

CORNER, Julia: The History of Turkey, and the Ottoman Empire. From the earliest period to the present time, London 1841.

CREASY, Edward S.: History of the Ottoman Turks: From the Beginning of their Empire to the Present Time, Band 2, London 1856.

D’HERBELOT ET AL.: Bibliotheque Orientale ou Dictionnaire Universel [...], Den Haag 1779.

D’OHSSON, Ignatus Mouradgea: Tableau général de l’empire Ottoman, Paris 1791.

DUCHHARDT, Heinz / PETERS, Martin (Hg.): https://www.ieg-friedensvertraege.de (eingesehen am 2. Dezember 2008).

ETON, William: A survey of the Turkish Empire [...], London 1798.

FOWLER, George: Turkey, or, a history of the origin, progress and decline of the Ottoman Empire, London 1854.

FRASER, Robert William: Turkey ancient and modern: A history of the Ottoman Empire from the period of its establishment to the present time, Edinburgh 1854.

GALLETTI, Johann Georg August: Geschichte des türkischen Reichs, Gotha 1801.

GRECS, Des, des Turcs et de l’esprit publique Européen, Paris 1828.

GUIGNE, Joseph de: Histoire Générale des Huns, des Turcs, des Mogols, et des autres Tartares occidentaux [...], Paris 1756.

HABESCI, Elias [alias Sahib-el-Sicia]: The present state of the Ottoman Empire, containing a more accurate and interesting account [...] of the Turks than any yet extant. Including a particular description of the court and seraglic of the Grand Signor, London 1784.

HAMMER (-Purgstall), Joseph, Freiherr von: Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches, Pesth 1827–1835.

HILL, Aaron: A full and just account of the present state of the Ottoman Empire In all its Branches [...], London 1733.

HÖFERT, Almut: Den Feind beschreiben. »Türkengefahr« und europäisches Wissen über das Osmanische Reich 1450-1600, Frankfurt/M. 2003.

HÜBNER, Johann: Vollständige Geographie, Theil 2, 7. verbesserte Auflage, ohne Ort 1763.

HÜTZ, J[osef].: Beschreibung der europäischen Türkei nebst einer allgemeinen Uebersicht des ganzen Türkischen Reichs, München 1828.

JACOB, Samuel: History of the Ottoman empire, including a survey of the Greek empire and the crusades, 2. Auflage, London 1854.

JUNCK, C[arl].: Grundriss der Geschichte des Osmanischen Reichs, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der neuesten politischen Ereignisse im Orient, Marburg 1853.

KNOLLES, RICHARD / RYCAUT, PAUL ET AL.: The Turkish History, comprehending the origin of the nation, and the growth of the Ottoman Empire, 2 Bände, London 1701.

KOCH, Wilhelm Christoph: Abrégé de l’histoire des traités entre des Puissances de Paix, Band 4, Basel 1797.

LAPORTE, Joseph de: Tableau de l’Empire Ottoman, ou l’on trouve tout ce qui concerne la religion, la milice, le gouvernement civil des Turcs, & les grandes charges & dignités de l’empire, Paris 1757.

LAVALLÉE, Théophile Sebastian: Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman depuis les temps anciens jusqu’a nos jours, Paris 1855.

LÜDEKE, Christoph Wilhelm: Beschreibung des Türkischen Reiches nach seiner Religions- und Staatsverffassung in der letzten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts, Leipzig 1771-1778.

MABLY, GABRIEL DE: Le Droit Public de l’ Europe fondé sur les traites, in: Collection complete des Œuvres de L’ Abbé de Mably, Band 16, Paris 1794-1795.

MARSIGLI, Luigi Ferdinando: L’État militaire de l’Empire Ottoman, Den Haag/Amsterdam 1732.

MEBES, Johann August: Über die Ursachen der Grösse und des Verfalls des osmanischen Reichs, Nürnberg 1783.

MENTELLE, Edme: Géographie comparée ou analyse de la Géographie ancienne et moderne des peuples de tous les pays et de tous les ages: Turquie d’Europe, Paris 1779.

MEUSEL, Johann Georg: Lehrbuch der Statistik, 4. größten Theils umgearbeitete Ausgabe, Leipzig 1817.

MIGNOT, Vincent: Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman, depuis son origine jusqu’à la paix de Belgrade en 1740, Paris 1771.

MOLBECH, Christian: Das Tuerkische Reich in historisch-statistischen Schilderungen von Christian Molbech, Francis Rawdon Chesney und Edward Henry Michelsen, Leipzig 1854.

OSTERHAMMEL, Jürgen: Die Entzauberung Asiens. Europa und die asiatischen Reiche im 18. Jahrhundert, München 1998.

PARVEV, Ivan: Habsburgs and Ottomans between Vienna and Belgrade (1683-1739), New York 1995 (East European Monographs, CDXXXI).

PORTER, James: Observations on the Religion, Law, Government and Manners of the Turks, Band 1, Dublin 1768.

POUJOULAT, Baptistin: Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches von der Eroberung Konstantinopels bis zum Tode Mahumeds II., Leipzig 1853.

RANKE, Leopold: Fürsten und Völker von Süd-Europa im sechzehnten und siebzehnten Jahrhundert, Erster Band: Osmanen, Hamburg 1827.

REID, John: Turkey and the Turks, being the present state of the Ottoman Empire, London 1840.

RÜDER, Friedrich August: Das Türkische Reich in Beziehung auf seine fernere Existenz und die Sache der Griechen, Leipzig 1822.

RUSSEL, [John:] The Establishment of the Turks in Europe, London 1828.

RYCAUT, Paul: The History of the Turkish Empire from the year 1623 to the year 1677 containing the reigns of the three last emperors, London 1680.

SALABERRY, Charles-Marie: Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman, depuis sa fondation jusqu’a la Paix D’Yssi, en 1792, Band 4, Paris 1813.

SCHLÖZER, August Ludwig: Vorstellung seiner Universal-Historie, Göttingen 1772.

SCHLÖZER, August Ludwig: Constantinople, January 17th, 1777, in: Briefwechsel, Bd II, Heft VIII, p. 113–114.

SCHLÖZER, August Ludwig: kritisch-historische NebenStunden. Orgines Osmanicas [...], Göttingen 1797.

STÖVER, Johann Herrmann: Historisch-statistische Beschreibung des osmanischen Reichs, Hamburg 1784.

SKORK, Ernst von: Das Volk und Reich der Osmanen in besonderer Darstellung ihrer Kriegsverfassung und Kriegswesens, Pirna 1829.

THEATRUM Europaeum

THIELEN, Maximilian Friedrich: Die europäische Türkey. Ein Handwörterbuch für Zeitungsleser, Wien 1828.

THORNTON, Thomas: The Present State of Turkey [...], Band 1, 2. Auflage, London 1809.

TODELINI, [Giambatista:] Litteratur der Türken, Aus dem Italienischen. Mit Zusätzen und Anmerkungen von Philipp Wilhelm Gottlieb Hausleutner, 1. Theil, Königsberg 1790.

URQUHART, David: La Turquie, ses ressources, son organisation municipale, son commerce, Paris 1836.

WREDE, Martin: Das Reich und seine Feinde. Politische Feindbilder in der reichspatriotischen Publizistik zwischen Westfälischem Frieden und Siebenjährigem Krieg, Mainz 2004 (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz, Abteilung für Universalgeschichte, 196; Beiträge zur Sozial- und Verfassungsgeschichte des Alten Reiches, 15).

ZINKEISEN, Johann Wilhelm: Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches in Europa, Hamburg 1840.

ANMERKUNGEN

---

back

print

top