A COMPARISON OF THE MAIN ATTRIBUTES OF RENAISSANCE EUROPEAN

DIPLOMACY AND OTTOMAN UNILATERAL DIPLOMACY

INTRODUCTION
The modern diplomacy has emerged in the Italian city-states and spread to
Europe during the Renaissance era. Diplomacy became a permanent institution and its
most significant characteristic was the resident envoys. The new style of diplomacy
slowly developed through centuries along with the development of centralized, secular,
territorial, nation states in Europe and an international system between these states. On
the other hand, the most powerful rival of them, the Ottoman Empire, was a different
political entity with its imperial nature and this was the main reason that Ottomans did
not adopt the permanent diplomacy until the reforms in the end of the 18 th century. This
essay attempts to introduce the conditions that forced the European states to use this
new style of diplomacy and the reasons of Ottomans persistence on unilateral
diplomacy. In addition to this, a comparison is made on the approach, mechanisms,
institutions, agents and traditions of diplomacy between the European States and the
Ottoman Empire in the early modern era.

THE EMERGENCE OF NEW DIPLOMACY IN EUROPE

The new style of diplomacy was invented and began to develop slowly in Italian
city-states between 13th and 15th centuries and this new formation rested upon some
political, economical and cultural incentives. After the decline in power of the Popes
and of the Holy Roman Emperors over Italy, the city-states slowly evolved to be
secular, centralized, sovereign states that they could be called as the ancestors of the
nation states. The transformation in the state structure led to the development of new
institutions. Permanent diplomacy was one of them.
The weak and relatively equal states of Italy began to compete with each other
for power and survival and in the new political atmosphere, every ruler needed to be
aware of his rivals situation, goals, capacity and intentions. The threats of the

continuous wars between them and the absence of hegemonic authority above all,
forced them to conduct permanent diplomatic activity.1
Political Environment
The nature of the interaction between the five major Italian city-states; Milan,
Florence, Venice, Rome and Naples in the Renaissance era and whether there had
emerged a balance of power between them is a debated issue. While some describe 15 th
century Italy as a relatively self contained system, every state trying to prevent the
hegemony of one state over the others; some scholars state that the system was not selfcontained, their power was not equal and the balance of power is misconceived. 2
However, in the letters of the Prince of Florence Lorenzo de Medici (ruled between
1469 and 1492) to his envoys, his endeavour to preserve the alliances and to mediate
between the groups within the peninsula in order to avoid the foreign intervention by
France can be observed.3 According to Mattingly Italy was isolated from the pressures
of European kings and thus no ruler in Italy would make alliance with a great power to
gain superiority in the peninsula and thus the balance between them in the middle of
the 15th century persisted.4
In any case, a permanent professional diplomatic activity was needed as a tool to
preserve the existing system, to make alliances against enemies and get any kind of
information from the neighbouring states that needed to compose foreign policies and
take measures. On the other hand the greatest threat over Italian states was the Ottomans
and the possibility of war with them made the exchange of resident embassies crucial.5
The Contribution of Economic Relations

1 Mattingly, G., Renaissance Diplomacy, (New York : Dover Publications, 1988), p. 48-50.
2 Wright, M. (ed.), Theory and Practice of the Balance of Power, 1486-1914, (London : Dent ; Totowa, N.J. :
Rowman and Littlefield, 1975), p. ix.

3 Wright, Theory and Practice of the Balance of Power, p. 4. The translations of the two letters of
Medici to his envoys can be found in the same source in pages 1-7.
4 Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, p. 52.
5 Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, p. 76.
2

The intense trade activities of the Italian states especially with the East played a
crucial role in the development of resident diplomacy. Nicolson asserts that Venetians
learned the art of diplomacy from the Byzantine Empire through their close trade
relationships for centuries. Venices practice of diplomacy was served as a model to
other Italian cities, France and Spain and later to the whole Europe. 6 When Ottoman
Empire replaced and inherited the role of the Byzantine Empire in 1453 by conquering
Constantinople, the contribution of trade relations to the development of diplomacy in
Europe continued.
Previously, the merchants used to charge resident consuls to organise their trade
relations and maintain their economic interests. These consuls duty slowly evolved to
be a political one; they were appointed by the governments now and they took on the
functions of the resident ambassadors. The Venetian bailo in Constantinople in 15th
century was an example who became an agent performing both consular and diplomatic
functions.7 As a matter of fact, one of the most significant changes in the diplomacy was
the perception that conducting diplomatic relations through representatives was the right
of the rulers only.8
Cultural Basis
The new Renaissance way of thinking provided an eligible basis for the
development of modern diplomacy. The perception that war was now a more civilised
and rational activity rather than a glorious one, led to the idea that the diplomat was
needed to supplement the soldier.9 On the other hand diplomacy began to be regarded
as an honourable undertaking by the society, public rhetoric gained much importance
with the affect of the interest in classical literature and so ...as public orator and as
secret negotiator the fifteenth century Italian tended to value the successful diplomat

6 Nicolson, H., The Evolution of Diplomatic Method (London: Constable, 1954), p. 24-25.
7 Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, p. 58-59.
8 Anderson, M. S., The Rise of Modern Diplomacy, 1450-1919 (Essex: Longman, 1993), p. 4
9 Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, 53.
3

with or above the successful general.10 Thus, the Renaissance ideals provided a
theoretical framework for the new diplomacy.
Italian Diplomatic Attitude Criticised
Harold Nicolson criticises Italian diplomacy because of its flaws originated from
Oriental (Byzantine) diplomatic methods. The priority of national interest over
international justice, the habit of cheating and opportunism were its moral flaws. On the
other hand, Nicolson argues that their perception of diplomacy made them to search for
gaining immediate goals instead of contributing to an idea of gradual good negotiation
and creating confidence on the interlocutors.11
However their attaching more importance to national interests rather than moral
values may be resulted from their state structure. Mattingly describes the new Italian
states as secular and amoral ones after their release from the pressure of two heads
of Christendom12. Besides, Mattingly asserts that these negative characteristics of the
Italian diplomacy can be attributed to the basic insecurity of political life in the
peninsula in the 15th century.13

THE SPREAD OF PERMANENT DIPLOMACY IN EUROPE

15th century Italy was a small-size example of European state system with the
secularization and centralization of states and occurring of a balance of power also in
Europe. Ottoman Empire had a considerable effect on the European balance of power
especially in the 16th and 17th centuries. Ottomans supported England to balance the
Venetian threat in the Mediterranean, helped some Italian city-states against their
enemies, answered the French call for help against Spain and used the ProtestantCatholic conflict in Europe to reduce the risk of the threat of their rivals. 14 Ottoman

10 Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, p. 54.

11 Nicolson, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method, p. 46.
12 Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, p. 48-49.
13 Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, p. 81.
4

Empire used the diplomatic devices to intervene in European politics as soon as she
emerged as an imperial power.
Permanent representative system was adopted by other European states one
generation after it emerged in Italy. However the states were favourable to apply
resident diplomacy only when they decided that they really needed it for political and
strategic reasons. France was one of the slowest states to charge permanent
representatives because of her relative strength against the other European countries.
The same reason can be mentioned for the three centuries late adoption of the resident
embassy in by the Ottomans.15
The evolution of modern diplomacy was not a linear process. Mattingly asserts
that there was a contradiction inherent in new diplomacy which was weakening it:
According to the medieval rationalization on which they [the diplomatic
institutions] were based, they were supposed to preserve peace among
Christians. In fact, they were usually used by the power eating territorial
states for egoistic, often aggressive, ends. The tension between formal
and actual purposes, between traditional sentiments and new allegiances
inevitably revealed flaws in the system and in the individuals involved.16
In addition, the religious struggles beginning in mid-16th century damaged the
process by decreasing the diplomatic contacts between the Catholic and Protestant states
and even the practice of exchanging resident ambassadors between European states was
terminated.17 Goffman states that the most important problem about diplomatic relations
in that era was the warship freedom of the envoys and it was solved with the concept of
extraterritoriality only after the religious wars in the 17th century. He claims that with
full freedom of warship in embassies and the ambassadors ownership of legal
jurisdiction over their nation (this term is referred to a religious belonging in Ottoman
14 Ar, B., 'Early Ottoman Diplomacy: Ad Hoc Period', in Ottoman Diplomacy: Conventional Or
Unconventional?, Ed: A. Nuri Yurdusev, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillans Global Academic
Publishing, 2004), p. 38.
15 Anderson, The Rise of Modern Diplomacy, p. 9.
16 Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, 167-168.
17 Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, 168-169.
5

terminology) it seems that Ottomans applied the practice of extraterritoriality from the
very beginning.18
Nonetheless, the modern diplomacy continued to develop in Europe and the
French System in diplomacy made an impact in the continent during 17 th and 18th
centuries. The theory of modern diplomacy came into being in that period with the idea
that the art of negotiation should be permanent and the goal of diplomacy was national
interest, not to please the religion or the rulers19. The institutionalisation of diplomacy
continued and the foreign ministries were established to administer and organise the
increasing diplomatic interactions.20 Regarding the Ottoman Empire, although Reis-ulkuttap began to play almost the role of a foreign minister since the Carlowitz Peace in
169921, Ottomans did not establish a foreign ministry until 1836 when they tried to
organise and handle the diplomatic affairs under a separate institution.22

OTTOMAN UNILATERAL DIPLOMACY

The Ottoman Empire generated continuous political, economic and cultural
relations with the European states from the very beginning to its collapse in the 20th
century. Although she had trade relations with Venice and Genoa, the adoption of the
resident diplomacy by the Ottomans happened three centuries later from the Europe.
Ottomans continued to use an ad hoc diplomacy not only with the Christian European
States but also with her Muslim rivals such as the Safavid Empire and the Mamluk
State. The unilateral and non-permanent style of Ottoman diplomacy was advantageous

18 Goffman, D., The Ottoman Empire and early modern Europe, (Cambridge : Cambridge University
Press, 2002), p. 187.
19 Nicolson, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method, p. 50-51.
20 Anderson, The Rise of Modern Diplomacy, p. 73-74.
21 Anderson, The Rise of Modern Diplomacy, p. 79.
22 Krkolu, ., The Adoption and Use of Permanent Diplomacy, in Ottoman Diplomacy conventional or
unconventional?, Ed: Nuri Yurdusev, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillans Global Academic Publishing, 2004), p.
136-137.

for the Empire in that period and it had some political, ideological and structural
reasons.
Ottoman Empire was a Muslim state which applied the Islamic Sharia law.
According to Islamic politics law the world is divided into two categories of dar-al
Islam and dar-al-harb. Dar-al-Islam means the land of Muslims that live under Islamic
law and the dar-al-harb refers to the land of infidels living outside the Islamic law.
There is an ontological superiority of Islamic states over non-Muslim ones because of
this differentiation and the Muslims were regarded to be in continuous war with the daral-harb lands.23 This was a crucial difference with the secular states of Europe that did
not have a sense of such superiority over each other. Besides, their economic, political
or strategic concerns forced them to establish permanent relations to Muslim states such
as the Ottomans and Mamluks.
However, to claim that there was no room for diplomacy because of their
permanent war and conquest idea did not reflect the reality. Ottomans established
diplomatic relations with both the Muslim and also non-Muslim states by sending nonpermanent envoys and accepting from them. Moreover the ahd-name and eman
documents which are regarded to be the Islamic legal basis of Ottomans dealing with
non-Muslim people, also determined their approach to the foreign representatives. The
broadness of the extraterritorial rights given to the diplomatic corps in Constantinople
from the very beginning of diplomatic relations with Europe is an example here.24
As Islamic law permits a state to conduct diplomatic relations with nonMuslims, the question why Ottoman Empire did not establish permanent diplomacy, is
mostly related with the empires imperial character and its superiority of power over the
European states and also the contemporary Muslim states. A highly institutionalised
diplomatic system requires a sovereign, centralised, territorially consolidated state and
the acceptance of the reciprocity and equality rules between states. Ottoman Empire
from the 14th century to the 18th century was far from being such a state. The disregard
of the Ottomans of the equality between the sovereigns can be understood from the fact

23 Yurdusev, N., The Ottoman Attitude toward Diplomacy, in Ottoman Diplomacy conventional or
unconventional?, Ed: Nuri Yurdusev, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillans Global Academic Publishing, 2004), p. 6.

24 Yurdusev The Ottoman Attitude toward Diplomacy, p. 25.

7

that the Sultans did not regard themselves equal to European Kings until the late 17th
century; they were seen as equivalent to the Ottoman Grand Viziers.25
Ottoman Empire is regarded to be the heir of Byzantine institutions by the
historians. It is known that Byzantine Empire used the diplomatic methods effectively
for centuries to maintain the survival of the Empire and taught the art of diplomacy to
Europe as Nicolson suggested. Hence, a study that introduces the similarities between
the two empires diplomatic attitude both in theory and practice may help to generate a
deep understanding in Ottoman diplomacy and its comparison with European
diplomacy.
As it is mentioned above diplomatic activity begins when states need it.
Ottomans as being the military, economical, political superpower of the day did not
need to reciprocate the resident ambassadors of European countries in their capital. This
was not only an Ottoman behaviour that in the development process of modern
diplomacy in Europe; the stronger states such as the Papacy, France, England and Spain
were reluctant to send resident diplomats to Italian states too.26
Trade activities were the most important incentives to conduct relations with
Europeans. The ahd-name (capitulations) is the name of the document that is
unilaterally granted by the Sultan to the subjects of a non-Muslim country that provide
permission to trade in the Ottoman territories and regulate their legal status during their
stay27. Ahd-name term is also used for treaties and they also provide a legal basis for
the diplomats activities along with the berat given by the Sultan to the ambassadors
and consuls which meant that they were accredited. It should be noted that the
ambassadors were the representatives of the merchants not their rulers in earlier times. 28
Thus, ahd-name practice was the centre and crucial document for Ottoman diplomacy.
The unilateral character of Ottoman diplomacy shows itself in the ahd-names
although they included the insistence of Ottomans for reciprocal rights for their
25 Ar, Early Ottoman Diplomacy: Ad Hoc Period, p. 42.
26 Yurdusev The Ottoman Attitude toward Diplomacy, p. 26.
27 Ar, Early Ottoman Diplomacy: Ad Hoc Period, p. 60.
28 Ar, Early Ottoman Diplomacy: Ad Hoc Period, p. 41.
8

merchants.29 However this effective and advantageous practice of Ottomans was

abused by the European states with the decline of the Empire and became a threat on the
Ottoman economy in the end of the 18th century. It became a symbol of the European
imperialism over the Ottoman Empire by making her the political and economic
subordinate of them. Ottomans tried to get rid of the ahd-names until the collapse in the
20th century.30
Berridge asserts that the Ottoman style of diplomacy was also advantageous for
the Europeans. Diplomats enjoyed the unilateral extra privileges and immunities granted
by the Ottomans and they preferred to negotiate in Constantinople rather than in Europe
because of the language problems and their confidence on their skills to negotiate with
Porte. The Europeans were also pleased that the Ottomans did not establish resident
embassies because they were distrustful of foreign ambassadors on security grounds.31
Until the end of the 18th century the Ottoman diplomacy preserved its unilateral
character. However in the reign of Selim III after 1789 it was now obvious that Ottoman
military and political failures necessitated significant reforms in every area. Ottoman
state structure entered into a period of transformation in political, military and
administrative issues. According to Karpat this was the result of the economic, social
and cultural changes that came into existence within the society prior the European
influence over Ottoman Empire.32
The Ottoman statesmen decided that adopting the European model of state
would overcome the problems and transformed the state into a centralized,
bureaucratized pre-modern one which was a pre-requirement for modern diplomacy.
According to Naff diplomacy had, by Selims reign, become the vital branches of the
Ottoman government.33 Adopting the European style permanent diplomacy was a
necessity of the Ottoman state if she liked to be a part of the European state system and
29 Yurdusev, The Ottoman Attitude toward Diplomacy, p. 28.
30 nalck, H., Imtiyazat, in Encyclopedia of Islam, vol III, CD-ROM Edition (Brill) p. 1187-1188.
31 Berridge, G.R., Diplomatic Integration with Europe before Selim III, Ed: Nuri Yurdusev, (Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillans Global Academic Publishing, 2004) p. 122-123.

32 Karpat, K. H., The Transformation of the Ottoman State, 1789-1908, International Journal of Middle East
Studies, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Jul., 1972), p. 243.

also was a necessity to compensate the military weaknesses. By all means, the new
circumstances because of the loss of power urged the Ottomans to accept the rules of
equality and reciprocity.
The first attempts of sending Ottoman ambassadors were not so successful
which was the reflection of the Ottoman weakness. The uncoordinated Ottoman foreign
ministry, the Ottoman officials disregard of the ambassadors and their missions, the
first ambassadors lack of diplomatic formation, the poor budget allocated to them and
the absence of consular services to assist the ambassadors, were the causes of this
failure in the beginning.34

THE ELEMENTS OF DIPLOMACY: COMPARISON

The Agents of Diplomacy
The types and the titles of the diplomats (ambassadors and other agents
operating below them) in Europe were not determined certainly until the end of the 17 th
century. The characteristics of a good Renaissance diplomat were having good language
skills, hospitality, attracting the art and science communities of the country, being
patient and calm, having a clean private life, to be prepared for the suspicions of his
hosts and the ignorance of his own country and to be careful not to humiliate his
interlocutors in order to avoid further attempts of revenge.35
Another task of the Renaissance ambassadors was to inform their country about
the updates in the country they reside in the shortest time. Working like a journalist was
not appropriate and could be so difficult for a diplomat who usually was elder and
trained for another profession.36

33 Naff, T., Reform and conduct of Ottoman diplomacy in the reign of Selim III, 1789-1807,
Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 83, 1963, p. 295.
34 Krkolu, The Adoption and Use of Permanent Diplomacy, p. 134-136.
35 Nicolson, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method , p. 35-36.
36 Nicolson The Evolution of Diplomatic Method, p. 37-38.
10

On the other hand, although Ottomans did not establish resident embassies in
foreign countries they continuously charged temporary envoys for the following
purposes: to inform the acceding to the throne of the new sultan, to announce their
military victories, to negotiate for the peace conditions, to send the ratified texts of the
treaties, to affirm the peace after the treaty, to overcome the conflicts that rise in the
frontiers and to send letters to their interlocutors.37
The selecting of diplomatic agents shows the differences between the European
and Ottoman state structure and administrative traditions. In Europe the special and ad
hoc envoys were often nobles and the resident ones were of lower birth, usually they
were a lawyer or a churchman.38 The reason was the fear of the bad treatment to the
resident ambassadors in the host countries. Later all diplomats were decided to be
chosen from upper classes39 and the relation of diplomacy and nobility became a
tradition in Europe. Regarding the Ottoman Empire, there was no division of the society
into classes in the same sense and the appointment of the envoys was done according to
their profession, character and language skills. After the reform in late 18th century the
ambassadors were chosen from the Reis-ul-kuttaps (the head of Ottoman Foreign
Policy).40
The size of an embassy was important for its efficiency. In the Renaissance
Europe the tendency was to appoint one particular person to represent the ruler of a
country. However, the medieval tradition continued especially in the Eastern Europe and
it led to problems such as delays and the arguments between the diplomats who all
represent the same ruler equally.41

37 pirli, M., Eli (Envoy), Trkiye Diyanet Vakf slam Ansiklopedisi (The TDV Encyclopedia of Islam),
vol. XI (Istanbul: Trkiye Diyanet Vakf Yaynlar 1995), p. 9.

38 Anderson, The Rise of Modern Diplomacy, p. 12.

39 Nicolson, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method, p. 34
40 Unat, F. R., Osmanl Sefirleri ve Sefaretnameleri (Ottoman Ambassadors and Their Sefaretnames),
ed. Bekir Stk Baykal (Ankara: TTK, 1968), p. 23-24.
41 Anderson, The Rise of Modern Diplomacy, p. 31-32.
11

The payment of diplomats was a weakness of European diplomatic system in

that period. The diplomatic activity in a foreign country was an expensive undertaking
because of personal expenditure, presents, and the costs of the embassy. However the
resident diplomats were not financed with adequate amount of money and they faced
with shortage of money because of the arbitrary and disorganised salary system. The
ambassadors usually received payments from the rulers of the host country.42 This
practice was mostly a characteristic of Ottomans that all the envoys (ad hoc or
permanent) costs were met from the Ottoman treasury as soon as they entered Ottoman
lands until they left it. Ottomans carried on this practice which was an indicator of the
magnificence and the hospitality of the sultans until their adoption of modern diplomacy
in the end of the 18th century.43 On the other hand, the poor financing of the
ambassadors was also a problem for the Ottoman resident envoys that were sent as from
the reign of Selim III when the empire was in an economic crisis. They had to lend
money from the host governments either.44
Other agents of the Ottoman diplomacy were the dragomans who were the nonMuslim subjects of Ottoman Empire and served as interpreters between the foreign
envoys and the Ottoman authorities. Dragoman system was advantageous for Ottomans
because it gave the great deal of the responsibility for conducting negotiations on
behalf of the embassies to the sultans own all-too-easily intimated subjects and the
demands of the ambassadors could be moderated during the interpretation. Besides, the
dragomans provided information about them to the Ottomans.45
Diplomatic Immunity and Extraterritoriality
Diplomatic immunity of the representatives began to develop in the Renaissance
Europe, although its limit was questioned and there were differences in the practice
between the states. The concept mainly refers to the freedom of the diplomats from

42 Anderson, The Rise of Modern Diplomacy, p. 32-35.

43 Yurdusev, The Ottoman Attitude toward Diplomacy, p. 28.
44 Naff, Reform and conduct of Ottoman diplomacy in the reign of Selim III, 1789-1807, p. 305.
45 Berridge, Diplomatic Integration with Europe before Selim III, p. 121.
12

legal action in both civil and criminal cases.46 They did not have to pay taxes or were
not responsible for other customs duties and they had the freedom of worship in the
embassy. Moreover even for the crimes such as organising plots, their punishment
would be expulsion at the most. The embassies were usually regarded to be private,
protected places under the control of the government.47
Nevertheless, the permanent ambassadors were not trusted both by their own
country and by the host governments. Although they all needed this institution they
were suspicious about the foreign diplomats that they could use the diplomatic
immunity as an opportunity to spy. A diplomat was also distrusted by his home country
because he may have lost his national character and adopt the mentality of the country
he lived working as a representative.48 The distrust in diplomats was most significant in
Eastern Europe and Russia. Their activities and contacts with natives were limited and
controlled by the government. For example in 15th century in Russia and Venice the
houses of ambassadors were guarded by soldiers in some circumstances.49
On the other hand, although the capital of the Ottoman Empire has welcomed so
many embassies50 and the envoys were ...in theory the Sultans guests 51, this did not
mean that they had absolute diplomatic immunities. Ottomans used to imprison the
ambassadors in the Seven Towers when their governments declared war or supported an
enemy of the Ottoman Empire. The French, Venetian and Russian ambassadors were
imprisoned several times.52 The absence of diplomatic immunity was to some degree the
result of the Ottoman unilateral diplomacy which meant that there were no Ottoman
46 Anderson, The Rise of Modern Diplomacy, p. 24.
47 Anderson, The Rise of Modern Diplomacy, p. 24-25.
48 Nicolson, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method, p. 34-35.
49 Anderson, The Rise of Modern Diplomacy, 14.
50 Mansel, P., Constantinople: City of the world's desire, 1453-1924 (London : John Murray Publishers, 1995),
p. 189.

51 Mansel, Constantinople, p. 191.

52 Mansel, Constantinople, p. 193.
13

resident envoys out to guarantee the immunities of the ones in Constantinople. 53 On the
contrary, Ottomans did not fear from the ambassadors contact with the natives because
the non-Muslims in Constantinople did not have any political claim and the
conversation with the Turks was nearly impossible because of the language problems.
Thus, the embassies in Constantinople were not under the strict control of Ottoman
soldiers for this purpose as happened in Russia.54
Collecting Information
As the permanent diplomacy rose in Europe because of the need of the states to
get information from their rivals, it may be concluded that by conducting unilateral
diplomacy the Ottomans neglected to collect intelligence from their rivals. However,
Ottomans used different methods to get news from their enemies. They received news
from the non-permanent or extraordinary envoys that they sent on several occasions,
from the converts who worked for the Empire, from the merchants of Phanariot Greek
families that traded with Eastern or Western countries, from the resident ambassadors in
Constantinople by using the rivalry and conflicts between them 55, from the Jews of
Europe, from the spies and from the princes of Wallachia, Moldavia, Dubrovnik and
Crimea.56 Whether this diversified information provided from several channels could
substitute for the deeper knowledge of a resident ambassador is open to question.
Diplomatic Documents
The most important goal of the resident diplomacy was to get news from the
foreign states. Thus the diplomatic documents sent by the ambassadors to their home
country deserve much attention in the studies of diplomacy. Venetians gave much
importance to these diplomatic documents that they were first to establish systematic
state archives that contained the records of instructions given to diplomats and the
diplomatic reports received from them.57 The final reports for specific missions were
seen in other states but the two types of ambassadorial reports the dispatches and the
53 Berridge, Diplomatic Integration with Europe before Selim III, p. 114.
54 Berridge, Diplomatic Integration with Europe before Selim III, p. 121.
55 pirli, Eli, p. 9.
56 Ar, Early Ottoman Diplomacy: Ad Hoc Period, p. 45.
14

relazioni- were the characteristics of Venice. The relazioni provided a broad and
comprehensive synthesis, periodically brought up to date by successive ambassadors, of
the political, military, economic and social conditions of the country visited. 58 On the
other hand dispatches included the information of daily events, conversations, quick
interpretations and impressions of the ambassador.59
Relazioni has some similarity with the sefaretnames of Ottoman diplomats
whose most important duty was to observe the political, economic and social life in
Europe. Their reports prepared for the centre would be the crucial sources of the
Ottoman modernization project.60 Relazionis and sefaretnames gave the opportunity to
familiarize with the foreign country deeply.
Ceremonies
The exaggerated importance given to protocol rules and diplomatic ceremonies
were also inherited from Byzantine Empire by the Italians and according to Nicolson it
damaged the accuracy and efficiency of the diplomatic activities and was a waste of
time. Every action in a meeting with the King was planned and taught in detail for
weeks to the ambassador before the official reception.61
The problem of precedence of the ambassadors was another difficulty for
Renaissance diplomacy that the competition for superiority between the representatives
could end up with wars sometimes, as occurred between Spain and France in 1661.
Moreover the signature of international treaties was a problem that they had to sign the
treaties in a circular form in order not to offend any monarch by the signing of his
representative below any other monarchs. The European diplomacy could overcome

57 Nicolson The Evolution of Diplomatic Method, p. 27.

58 Queller, D. E., The Development of Ambassadorial Relazioni, in Renaissance Venice, Ed: Hale, J. R.,
(London : Faber and Faber, 1973), p. 174-175.

59 Queller, The Development of Ambassadorial Relazioni, p. 176.

60 Karpat, The Transformation of the Ottoman State, 1789-1908, p. 252
61 Nicolson, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method, p. 43.
15

these sensitivities about precedence in Vienna Congress in 1815 by classifying the

diplomats and accepting to sign the treaties in an alphabetical order.62
Ottomans were also so careful about the diplomatic ceremonies and protocol
rules. The envoys were welcomed after a splendid ceremony to the Ottoman court
which was the symbol of the greatness of the Sultan and which also honoured the envoy
and his ruler.63 A letter sent by the ruler was a requirement to meet with the Sultan,
nonetheless, sometimes it would be so difficult for the envoys to meet with him face to
face. The valuable presents brought by the envoys and the costumes presented to the
envoys were important parts of the diplomatic ceremony.64

CONCLUSION
The scope of this essay did not permit to make a deep analysis and inclusive
comparison between the European and the Ottoman diplomacies; however the nature,
main dynamics, and elements of them are tried to be mentioned. The institutions, rules
and traditions of modern diplomacy slowly developed in Europe being influenced by
the changing political environment and sometimes the restoration of the old diplomacy
was observed during this process. On the other side, Ottomans used a special kind of
diplomacy that was suitable for them. Understanding why the European states and the
Ottoman Empire of the same era adopted different types of diplomacy is strongly
related with the difference of their ontology, degree of power and state structure. It is
obvious that the political developments determine the diplomatic attitude of a state at
most and it is not surprising that Ottomans and the European states adoption of the
permanent diplomacy happened just because of the same motivation: They established
resident embassies in foreign countries only when they needed it. As Berridge asserted,
the unilateral character of the Ottoman diplomacy was advantageous both for the
Ottoman Empire and contemporary European states in that period. With the domination
of the European political, cultural and economical system over the whole world, the

62 Nicolson, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method, p. 44-46

63 Yurdusev, The Ottoman Attitude toward Diplomacy, p. 28.
64 pirli, Eli, p. 10-11.
16

declining Ottoman Empire was forced to transform herself into a modern state gradually
and the modern European diplomacy became the standard in the international system.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, M. S., The Rise of Modern Diplomacy, 1450-1919 (Essex: Longman, 1993).
Ar, B., Early Ottoman Diplomacy: Ad Hoc Period, in Ottoman Diplomacy:
Conventional Or Unconventional?, Ed: A. Nuri Yurdusev (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillans
Global Academic Publishing, 2004), p. 36-65.
Berridge, G.R., Diplomatic Integration with Europe before Selim III, in Ottoman
Diplomacy: Conventional Or Unconventional?, Ed: Nuri Yurdusev (Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillans Global Academic Publishing, 2004), p. 114-130.
Goffman, D., The Ottoman Empire and early modern Europe (Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press, 2002).
nalck, H., Imtiyazat, in Encyclopedia of Islam, vol III, CD-ROM Edition (Brill), p.
1178-1188.
pirli, M., Eli (Envoy), in Trkiye Diyanet Vakf slam Ansiklopedisi (The TDV

Encyclopedia of Islam), vol. XI (Istanbul: Trkiye Diyanet Vakf Yaynlar, 1995), p. 3-15.
Karpat, K. H., The Transformation of the Ottoman State, 1789-1908, International
Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. III, No. 3 (Jul., 1972), p. 243-281.
Krkolu, ., The Adoption and Use of Permanent Diplomacy, in Ottoman
Diplomacy conventional or unconventional?, Ed: Nuri Yurdusev (Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillans Global Academic Publishing, 2004), p. 131-149.
Mansel, P., Constantinople: City of the world's desire, 1453-1924 (London : John Murray
Publishers, 1995).

17

Mattingly, G., Renaissance Diplomacy (New York : Dover Publications, 1988), p. 4850.
Naff, T., Reform and conduct of Ottoman diplomacy in the reign of Selim III, 17891807, Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 83, 1963, p. 295-315.
Nicolson, H., The Evolution of Diplomatic Method (London: Constable, 1954).
Queller, D. E., The Development of Ambassadorial Relazioni, in Renaissance Venice,
Ed: Hale, J. R. (London : Faber and Faber, 1973), p. 174-196.
Unat, F. R., Osmanl Sefirleri ve Sefaretnameleri (Ottoman Ambassadors and Their
Sefaretnames), ed. Bekir Stk Baykal (Ankara: TTK, 1968)

Wright, M. (ed.), Theory and Practice of the Balance of Power, 1486-1914 (London
: Dent ; Totowa, N.J. : Rowman and Littlefield, 1975).
Yurdusev, N., The Ottoman Attitude toward Diplomacy, in Ottoman Diplomacy
conventional or unconventional?, Ed: Nuri Yurdusev (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillans Global
Academic Publishing, 2004), p. 5-35.

18