History is rarely a neutral recording of facts; rather, it is a contested battlefield where the narratives of the past are forged into the political weapons of the present. This is the central thesis explored by Marc David Baer, an eminent historian and author whose recent work, The Ottomans: Khans, Caesars and Caliphs, challenges centuries of Western-centric historiography. Speaking at the Jaipur Literature Festival, Baer delved into the complex intersection of imperial history and modern identity politics, explaining why certain nations remain enthralled by the ghosts of their former empires.
From the halls of Westminster to the television screens of Lahore, the "imperial dream" continues to shape how modern states view their place in the world. Baer’s insights provide a critical framework for understanding why historical nuance often falls victim to the populist demand for glorious myths, and why the "culture wars" of the 21st century are being fought on the terrain of the 16th.
Main Facts: Redefining the Ottoman Narrative
Marc David Baer’s scholarship seeks to dismantle the "Decline Thesis"—the long-held historical assumption that the Ottoman Empire began a slow, inevitable decay following the death of Suleiman the Magnificent in 1566. Instead, Baer presents the Ottomans as a dynamic, evolving global power that functioned simultaneously as a Turkic Khanate, a Roman Caesarate, and an Islamic Caliphate.
The core of Baer’s argument is that the Ottomans were not an "Eastern" anomaly at the gates of Europe, but an integral part of European history itself. By framing themselves as the successors to the Roman Empire after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, the Ottoman Sultans saw themselves as "Caesars" (Kayser-i Rûm), a title that placed them in direct competition with the Holy Roman Emperors of the West.
However, Baer’s most provocative assertions involve the modern utility of this history. He argues that history is being "refurbished" by modern leaders to serve contemporary agendas. Whether it is the British right-wing’s lionization of Winston Churchill or the Pakistani public’s fascination with Ottoman-era dramas, the past is being used to compensate for a perceived loss of global influence in the present.
Chronology: From Imperial Grandeur to Political Branding
To understand how history becomes a tool of the state, one must look at the evolution of Ottoman self-presentation. Baer identifies several key shifts in how the empire projected its image:
1. The Eclectic Foundation (1300s–1500s):
The early Ottoman state was characterized by a pragmatic synthesis of cultures. They integrated Persian administrative styles, Byzantine structures, and Islamic law. During this period, the empire was a "frontier" state that thrived on expansion and the inclusion of diverse religious groups, particularly Christians and Jews, who often formed the majority of the population in its European territories.
2. The 19th Century: The Birth of Modern "Image Management":
As the empire faced external pressures from European colonial powers, Sultan Abdul Hamid II (r. 1876–1909) pioneered the use of history as a PR tool. He spent significant resources refurbishing the tombs of the first two sultans, Osman and Orhan. This was not merely an act of piety; it was a calculated move to establish a direct, "unbroken" lineage that would bolster his legitimacy among a restive Muslim population.
Furthermore, Abdul Hamid II was one of the first leaders to recognize the power of photography. He commissioned albums to be sent to Western capitals, showcasing a "civilized," modernized Ottoman state to counter Orientalist tropes of the "Sick Man of Europe."
3. The Post-Imperial Vacuum (1923–Present):
Following the collapse of the empire and the rise of the secular Turkish Republic under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the Ottoman past was initially suppressed. However, in the 21st century, under the leadership of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, "Neo-Ottomanism" has surged. This revivalist sentiment has exported itself globally, finding a particularly receptive audience in South Asia.
Supporting Data: The Culture War and the "Leftist" Dilemma
A significant portion of Baer’s analysis focuses on why progressive or "left-wing" movements struggle to win the narrative battles regarding national history. According to Baer, the fundamental disconnect lies in the methodology of the historian versus the goal of the nationalist.
- The Critical Lens vs. The Mythic Lens: Critical historians (whom Baer identifies with the "left" in the context of culture wars) seek to interrogate the past. They look at the atrocities of empire, the systemic racism of colonial figures, and the complexities of power.
- The Case of Churchill: In the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill is a primary figure in this tug-of-war. To the right, he is the unimpeachable savior of Western democracy. To critical historians, he is also the man whose policies contributed to the Bengal Famine and who held deeply racist views toward Indians. Baer argues that because the left insists on this nuance, they cannot provide the simple, heroic "tonic" that a disillusioned public craves.
- The "Middle-Power" Syndrome: Baer notes a correlation between a nation’s declining global status and its obsession with imperial history. He points to the UK and Pakistan as prime examples.
- The UK: Post-Brexit Britain often invokes "Global Britain," a concept rooted in the nostalgia of the British Empire, to mask the reality of its diminished economic and political weight.
- Pakistan: Despite being a modern nation-state formed in 1947, there is a significant movement in Pakistan to identify with the Ottoman Caliphate. The immense popularity of the Turkish television series Diriliş: Ertuğrul (Resurrection: Ertuğrul) serves as "imperial dreaming." It allows a population facing economic and political instability to find pride in a trans-national Islamic golden age.
Official Responses and Academic Perspectives
Baer’s work sits within a broader movement of "Revisionist Ottoman History." For decades, the standard academic narrative was written by Western scholars who viewed the Ottomans through the lens of the "Crusades" or as a "despotic" foil to the Enlightenment.
- The Academic Shift: Modern scholars have praised Baer for reintegrating the Ottomans into the European story. By highlighting that the Ottomans ruled over a Christian majority for centuries and were deeply involved in European diplomacy and trade, Baer challenges the "Clash of Civilizations" narrative popularized by Samuel Huntington.
- The Nationalist Pushback: Conversely, Baer’s critical look at the empire—including its role in the Armenian Genocide and its internal persecutions—often draws fire from nationalist historians in Turkey who prefer a sanitized, purely heroic version of the Ottoman past. Baer’s work on Hugo Marcus (a gay, Jewish convert to Islam in Nazi Germany) further demonstrates his commitment to uncovering the "marginal" histories that both Eastern and Western nationalists often prefer to ignore.
Implications: The Dangers of Imperialist Ideals
The "popularization of imperialist ideals," as Baer describes it, has profound implications for modern governance and international relations. When history is reduced to a tool for "popular Muslim support" or "British pride," the lessons of the past are lost.
1. The Erosion of Pluralism:
Baer points out that while the Ottomans and Mughals were "eclectic" and integrated diverse groups, they were still absolute monarchies built on conquest. When modern democracies romanticize these empires, they often accidentally validate the authoritarian structures of those eras. He notes that the Mughals in India were perhaps even more pluralistic than the Ottomans, yet modern Indian politics is increasingly moving toward a "conqueror vs. invaded" narrative that ignores the complex integration that occurred over centuries.
2. The Trap of Nostalgia:
For countries like Pakistan and the UK, clinging to imperial ghosts can be a barrier to modern progress. If a nation’s identity is rooted in what it was 400 years ago, it struggles to adapt to its reality as a "middle-sized power" in the 21st century. This nostalgia often fuels populism, as leaders promise a return to a "golden age" that never truly existed in the way it is remembered.
3. The Future of the Culture War:
Baer’s assessment of the "culture war" suggests a grim outlook for those advocating for historical nuance. As long as history is used as a psychological comfort for populations feeling the sting of modern crises, the critical, messy, and often painful truths of the past will remain unpopular.
Conclusion
Marc David Baer’s insights serve as a warning that the study of history is never purely academic. In the hands of a politician, a refurbished tomb or a high-budget television drama is a means of manufacturing consent and building a national identity based on exclusion. By comparing the Mughals, the Ottomans, and the British Empire, Baer reminds us that while the actors change, the script of empire—the desire for superiority and the manipulation of memory—remains remarkably consistent. To move forward, Baer suggests, nations must stop "dreaming of the past" and start critically engaging with it, acknowledging both the grandeur and the rot that exists in every imperial legacy.
