This resulted in a period of reform, known as the Tanzimat.

The Ottoman Empire was a slave society and slavery was very popular among the Ottomans.

The slaves worked for nothing on plantations.

Anthropology is the study of humankind in terms of scientific inquiry and logical presentation. It strives for a comprehensive and coherent view of our own species within dynamic nature, organic evolution, and sociocultural development. The discipline consists of five major, interrelated areas: physical/biological anthropology, archaeology, cultural/social anthropology, linguistics, and applied anthropology. The anthropological quest aims for a better understanding of and proper appreciation for the evolutionary history, sociocultural diversity, and biological unity of humankind. See

It grows, transforms, evolves, and the American people evolve in parallel.

They were the Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe.

I don't mean to beat up on Nadeau and Barlow; for the problem is not them but is certainly the false impression that popular culture, and even many presentations of academic history, has given people.

In 1922 the Ottoman Empire officially came to an end and the Turkey was declared a republic.

We don't learn what citizens would be called outside the metropolis, but then Bowerstock isn't very forthcoming about the name or names that would have been the contemporary alternatives to "Roman."The next point, which uses "widely," still doesn't explain what they would have been called, and I can only conclude that it reflects a disinclination if not an antipathy to acknowledging the universal self-referential name of "Roman" for what it was.

Compare and Contrast on how Ming China and the Ottoman Empire viewed their merchant class


In 1877 the first parliament of the Ottoman Empire was opened.

Herrin returns the neglect, if not the contempt, with a certain shocking carelessness for Roman history of Late Antiquity (despite her being a professor of "Late Antique" as well as Byzantine Studies).

Therefore, history is very important.

The contempt here in Herrin, or at least the dissociation, is for the Roman identity of "Byzantium," as the opposite of Western contempt or neglect for Constantinople.

Even Mao admitted the Great Leap forward had been a failure....

In so doing, he summoned a history that stretched back from 1453 to the dedication of the city in 330, one thousand, one hundred and twenty-three years earlier, and identified the Byzantines with their glorious forebears, the pagan Greeks and Romans.

Therefore you are the legitimate Emperor of the Romans...

In relation to the quote above, that "Byzantine Empire" is "a modern misnomer redolent of ill-informed contempt," Herrin is at pains to address the "ill-informed contempt" part but gives us nothing, and expresses no appreciation, that the word might be "a modern misnomer."Indeed, Herrin's book would seem to represent the flip side of the "Rome is the City of Rome" school of historiography, with an equal and opposite proposition that "Byzantium is the Empire of Byzantium." For instance, Herrin says of the Emperor Constantine XI, as the City was about to fall to the Turks:

...the most Christian emperor called out in Greek to his people to prove themselves to be true Romans.

The Oxford dictionary is also missing "Romania," etc.

Herrin displays a similar reluctance; and she uses "Byzantium" constantly and unproblematically, despite the fact that it is, by her own admission, "a western name for the empire" -- although one used by Greeks also.

They certainly have enough to keep them busy before 284.

But what is more intriguing is that she applies no such gloss ("a western name for the empire") to the word "Byzantium," although early on she does mention of "Byzantium" that the "name was not given to it until the sixteenth century, when humanist scholars tried to find a way of identifying what remained after the collapse of Old Rome in the West" [p.25].