Mert

Could the barter economy be a lie? I am very curious about your thoughts as well; let’s dive in. We’ve always been told that before money was invented, people bartered: you’d give a chicken to get an axe, and when that became too difficult, they invented money. In his book Debt, David Graeber argues anthropologically that this isn't how it happened—claiming that a "barter society" has never actually existed (anthropologist Caroline Humphrey also notes there is no evidence of a pure barter economy). According to Graeber, the origin of money isn't trade, but war and debt.

Graeber suggests that money was actually invented to measure debt. Take Sumer, for example: let’s say you’re a farmer and you take a bag of wheat from me, but you don't have anything of value to give back at that moment. A debt is formed between us. How do we measure this debt? This is where money enters the picture not as physical currency, but as an abstract unit. You say the wheat is worth 10 units of silver. You don't actually hand over silver; instead, a debt of 10 units is recorded. There is no physical coin, but money exists as a unit of measurement, and debt exists as a relationship. Graeber explains that money was born out of the need for bookkeeping.

According to Graeber, as long as people knew each other (in small villages, towns, or tribes), this bookkeeping (debt) system worked perfectly. No one was tossing gold coins at each other. But what happened when people who didn’t know or trust each other met? For instance, if an outsider came to buy goods, you wouldn’t say, "I’ll put it on your tab, pay me later." You’d demand something of immediate value. This is where uncoined precious metals pieces of gold and silver came into play.

In short: first came debt (trust and promises between people), then accounting units were invented to measure that debt. Finally, physical money (coinage) was invented to manage this debt with strangers and armies.

So why is the world full of metal coins? Graeber’s answer is blunt: War. A king had to feed thousands of soldiers. He couldn’t just tell peasants to give the soldiers free food. Instead, he minted metal coins with his own stamp, gave them to the soldiers, and told the peasants: "At the end of the year, you must pay your taxes with these metal coins." To earn those coins, the peasants were forced to sell food to the soldiers. In essence, markets were systems established by states to make feeding their armies easier.

The most interesting part is that in these ancient societies (Sumer, Babylon, etc.), when debts became unsustainable, kings would declare a "Jubilee" and cancel all debts. Today, we say the economy would collapse if credit debts were erased; back then, they erased debts specifically so the system wouldn’t collapse.

Furthermore, debt used to be a sign of friendship and mutual bond. Once the armed state got involved, debt became a "sacred duty" that had to be paid, which eventually led to slavery. In the past, people who couldn't pay their debts sold themselves or their children into slavery. Today, we sell 30–40 years of our lives to an employer to pay off credit cards and student loans. What’s the difference? It used to be called slavery; now it’s called a "career." Today, we become indebted just to enter the system.

If you have debt, you aren't truly free. Throughout history, slavery has always been justified through debt. For example: "I didn't kill you in war, so you owe me your life; you will pay this debt by working for me forever." This is the ancestor of the modern logic: "I give you a wage, therefore your time belongs to me."

(I know this text is a bit more disorganized than my previous articles; I’ve wanted to write about this for a long time and had this draft sitting for over a month. I hope you enjoyed it.)

Source;

“Hello my friends,

Today, I want to pull you away from our usual historical journeys and invite you into a subject we currently breathe—and sometimes suffocate in: the ideological dead-ends of the modern world. We won't be speaking from the palaces of the Ottomans today, but from the glass partitions of plazas and the never-ending "math" of the kitchen table.”

~The Utopia That Missed Human Nature: Why Did Communism Collapse?

Explaining the historical failure of communism solely through economic data is a shallow approach. At the root of this collapse lies a massive anthropological error. The system assumed humans were a tabula rasa (blank slate) and inherently flawless altruists. Yet, the harsh truth whispered by Bias of Priene centuries ago remains valid: "Most men are bad."

Historical practice showed that structures setting out with the promise of abolishing property inevitably turned into "Party Juntas" and dictatorships that ground down freedom of expression. By ignoring the human instinct to "possess" and "differentiate," this utopia ultimately left behind collective poverty and an intellectual wasteland (reminiscent of Tarkovsky’s exiles).

~Capitalism’s "Success" Carrot and the Illusion of Class Mobility in Turkey

The fall of communism was not the ultimate victory of capitalism; it was merely the exit of one of its rivals from the stage. Today, capitalism itself is "fraying at the seams." What keeps the system alive is not prosperity, but a brilliantly engineered "illusion of success."

In Turkey specifically, this illusion takes on a tragic dimension. On one hand, we see youth taking photos in front of plazas with a coffee that costs a third of the daily minimum wage; on the other, they work overtime just to pay the installments on the latest smartphone. This is a "lottery logic." The system tells you: "Look, if they got rich, so can you." In reality, the masses aren't moving up a class; they are being condemned to consume more exactly where they stand. In Turkey, "climbing the ladder" is no longer a success story—it is merely the struggle to transition into a more debt-ridden, "higher-tier" segment of society.

~Global Absurdity: Buying Europe’s Trash

The most concrete and perhaps painful example of how out of control the system has become is Turkey importing "waste" from Europe under the guise of "recycling." While "civilized" European states give lectures on environmentalism in their own lands, they sell their trash to our country for money to erase their own carbon footprints. Meanwhile, we mortgage our future by burning or burying these wastes. While you think you’re saving the world with a paper straw at home, ships docking at our ports are dumping the system’s massive filth into the heart of our country. This is the "green" mask of capitalism.

~From Ownership to Dispossession: Modern Slavery

Classical liberalism viewed the right to property as a fortress protecting the individual against the state. However, modern finance-capital has demolished this fortress. Today, while property is concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority, everyone else is being "dispossessed."

Twenty years ago, a civil servant could buy a house with their retirement bonus; today, even 40-year mortgage debts aren't enough to get through the front door. Those chic offices entered after 15 years of grueling education are actually producing "modern slaves" who own nothing and are alienated from their own labor.

~The White-Collar Illusion and the AI Threat

To my white-collar friends wandering plaza corridors with fancy titles like "Assistant Manager" or "Senior Specialist": this system actually harbors a massive, hidden unemployment. Spending the day shuttling between Excel spreadsheets is not true production; it is a synthetic busyness created by the system.

Very soon, ChatGPT and similar AI models will steamroll through these "file-checking" professions. In the future, the tangible, imperfect, but real labor of a stonemason or a carpenter will become far more valuable than a manager who merely "sets meetings."

~The Way Out: A Human "Sharing"

So, how do we breathe amidst these giant gears? Salvation lies not in grand ideological packages, but in realizing that life is a one-time opportunity.

• The Dignity of Ordinariness: No one is "that special," and most of us will be forgotten. This is not a defeat; it is a profound liberation. Instead of chasing grand success stories, wiping a sufferer's tear, giving a small scholarship to a student, or getting lost in the unique detail of a sunrise... This is true wealth.

• Solidarity Against Ambition: Against the poison of "eliminate your rival, earn more" imposed by the system, we must call back that ancient culture of sharing—of being concerned with one another’s troubles.

Conclusion

Neither the oppressive utopia of communism nor the savage competition of capitalism can feed our souls. Salvation lies in recognizing this system that dispossesses and enslaves us through our ambitions, and living this unique life with human dignity—not for someone else’s profit margins.

What about you? Are you ready to enrich a holding company until you're 60, only to mourn the "unlived life" in retirement? Or is it time to wake up from the fairy tales the system has sold you?

last song listened to: rhiannon, but the reverb

favorite color: red, pink.

currently watching: I don't really watch TV all that much but i am watching a survival show called extracted which is ridiculous. and i'm doing some old anime rewatches!

currently reading: i've been so busy i haven't had a chance to read lately, but the last book i seriously picked up was, 'death comes to the archbishop'. i also was reading a biography on thomas cromwell and stephen gardiner some time ago. i need to pick both of those back up.

current obsession: tudor history of course, but also medieval/medieval fantasy.

currently working on: whew, i finished a 100k+ novel a while back, a tudor novel, and i've been editing and proofreading it. i'm also working on a series of short stories--one of them being inspired off of the hunch back of notre dame and the VVITCH. also drawing some original characters for a high fantasy novel im writing-or drafting.

last google search: byzantium fashion, specifically for women. and medieval headc overings.

tagging: @freakshaped @elizabethboleyn @arthurmorganist @venuscrows @devonaoski @austin--friars @no1-angel and anyone else who might need to do this as well

Last song I listened to: Şimarik by Tarkan

(I've recently started listening to some pop Turkish songs lol)

Favorite color: Red & Blue

(and ahh, honestly all lol? It really depends on my mood!)

Currently watching: I haven't been able to watch any series and/or movies lately haha!

(I'm on a break of sorts from like 2 weeks or so)

Currently reading: I'm mostly reading academic stuff— course related or otherwise but I've been meaning to pick up Sherlock Holmes and literature (in my native language) and honestly, so many other things— after I'll duly complete my coursework and hopefully pass with flying colours by God's grace!

Current obsession: Ottoman History, hehe!

Currently working on: Completing my professional course

Last Google search: Year-wise arrangement of the volumes of Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall’s “Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches” (History of the Ottoman Empire)

(there are other course/career-related stuff, but I don't wish to impose that on anyone else haha! 😭)

(Also, I didn't know finally Wiki could actually be helpful for once, when it comes to Ottoman History lol, otherwise it can be quite the cesspool of misinformation and disinformation...)

~Introduction: A Leadership Born on the Frontier (Between Myth and Reality)

Anatolia at the end of the 13th century might look like "chaos" through a modern lens, but it was, in fact, a classic power vacuum. The Seljuk State had devolved into a mere "tax office" for the Ilkhanids, and authority had evaporated from the center to the periphery. At this juncture, romantic and teleological narratives (those that reconstruct the past by knowing the future outcome) like "the noble march of the Kayı tribe" usually take center stage. Let us, however, take a more cold-blooded look.

Osman Bey did not enter the world with a grand agenda to build a massive empire. He was a pragmatic actor trying to survive in a "frontier" zone, squeezed between Byzantine and Mongol pressures. As Halil İnalcık emphasized, the birth of the Ottoman state was not a "miracle" or divine destiny; it was the consolidation of demographic mobility (populations fleeing the Mongols), the ideology of gaza (holy war), and geographical luck (the Byzantine frontier) through the right leadership. Osman Bey was a "crisis manager" who was in the right place at the right time and, most importantly, formed the right alliances.

~ "Primus Inter Pares": The Institutionalization of Charisma

The key to understanding Osman Bey’s early leadership is the concept of "Primus Inter Pares" (First Among Equals). We are not dealing with an "Absolute Monarch" whose commands are followed with total subservience. On the contrary, there are "partners" like Konur Alp, Turgut Alp, or the converted Byzantine nobleman Köse Mihal perhaps the best example of the era's pragmatism each leading their own tribes or ghazi groups.

Legitimacy of Leadership: In this period, "bloodline" alone was not yet sufficient credit. Leadership relied on charismatic authority in the Weberian sense. That is, Osman remained the leader as long as he could promise "booty" and a "future" to his comrades. The fair distribution of spoils was not just an ethical rule but an economic necessity to keep the coalition intact.

Horizontal Mobility and Loyalty: The early Ottoman military structure was not a formal army but a "comitatus" (fellowship) organization. This structure was flexible, meritocratic, and free from bureaucratic sluggishness. This "raider" (akıncı) spirit was their greatest advantage before transitioning into a centralized state.

So, my friends, the Ottoman Empire didn't become a "Global Power" overnight. The ability of a marcher lord to stand out among his equals and manage "institutionalization" is the product of a bit of luck, plenty of pragmatism, and serious political intelligence. Otherwise, there were much more powerful lords than Osman Bey at the time, but history chose to write about this "first among equals," not them. So what do you think about this?

Sources:

Halil İnalcık – The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age (1300–1600): This is the primary source for the emphasis on the "Battle of Bapheus" and "institutionalization." In this work, İnalcık provides the historical justification for prioritizing the year 1302 over the traditional 1299 date.

Halil İnalcık – Devlet-i Aliyye (Vol. 1): This masterpiece provides the most comprehensive portrait of Osman Bey as a "crisis manager”

Heath W. Lowry – The Nature of the Early Ottoman State: This work examines the role of "Köse Mihal" and the processes of conversion (ihtida), highlighting the pragmatic dimensions of the gaza ideology

Cemal Kafadar – Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State: This provides an anthropological depth to the "frontier theory" and the concept of "Primus Inter Pares" (First Among Equals)

Yes, this is what I said a year ago.

I'm not entirely sure of this now, though, because when Peirce talked about the relationship between Mahidevran and Hatice, she considered Hatice to be Ibrahim's wife... but she was not. This is what she said:

In 1534 the grand vezir wrote to Mustafa acknowledging receipt of a letter the prince had sent regarding affairs in the Aegean and informing him of his father's victories in the Baghdad campaign. In the letter Ibrahim refers to himself as Mustafa's "sincere friend" and expresses presses the wish to see him soon, to "take profit from and be gladdened by [his] noble and blessed grace." Mahidevran, writing a note asking after the well-being of Hadije, makes long reference to the two families' "sisterhood and brotherhood, and the truly sincere kind friendship and tender compassion" that the princess and her husband have shown.'" — Leslie P. Peirce. The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire

So, this is the problem: did Mahidevran write to Ibrahim? In this case, then, she was talking about his wife Muhsine. Did Mahidevran write to Hatice specifically? Then she was talking about Hatice and his second husband.

Çağatay M. Uluçay had erroneously assumed the identity of İbrahim's wife as Hatiçe Sultan (who upon further extensive research, I have deduced didn't even exist, just as a Fatma binti Sultan Selim I didn't exist either).

Hi! This was actually Sofu Fatma Sultan's letter to her father, Sultan Bayezid II (she had gotten misidentified in this letter featured in “Harem'den Mektuplar”)— the homosexual Mustafa Paşa in question was her second known husband— we know that Fatma Sultan binti Sultan Bayezid II was firstly married to Güzelce Hasan Paşa (for instance, check out Zehra Kandal's 2021 study titled, “II. Bayezid’in Ailesi ve Gülruh Hatun”). Anyways, I got to know about Mustafa Paşa actually having been the second husband of Fatma Sultan binti Sultan Bayezid II, with the aid of the amazing @darkblureer-sara!

The study by Mustafa Çağatay Uluçay titled, “II. Bayezit’in Kızı Fatma Sultan’ın Kocası Çapkın mıydı” demonstrated how Fatma Sultan was the most unfortunate of Sultan Bayezid II’s daughters. Uluçay had described Mustafa Paşa, the son of the Grand Vizier Davud Paşa as a debauched and immoral man—loud, lewd, and infamous for his inappropriate relations with young boys and men.

When her husband was appointed governor of Antalya, Fatma Sultan too moved there with him. However, over the course of time, his conduct exacerbated to the point that she could no longer tolerate the public scandal.

She ultimately wrote this aforementioned letter to her father, Sultan Bayezid II, revealing the shameful conduct she had been forced to endure for years, an excerpt of which delineates how desperate she was to leave her disgraceful husband and come back to her father:

“My sultan, dear father, let me wear cloth of coarse wool instead of the cloth of rudeness, let me eat barley bread, just let me live in your shadow!”

Furthermore, Eda Öner's study, “Maktûl Kara Ahmed Paşa'nın Siyasi ve Idari Kariyeri” also illustrated with contemporary Ottoman court records that the Fatma Sultan married to him wasn't a daughter of Sultan Selim I, but the daughter of a certain Mustafa Bey (hence, this Fatma Sultan was a grand-daughter of Sultan Bayezid II via one of his daughters who had her with a certain Mustafa Bey):

“Indeed, it is known that Kara Ahmed Ağa married Fatma Sultan. However, the widely held belief in the literature that Fatma Sultan was the daughter of Selim I and the sister of Sultan Suleiman is incorrect. For in two Sharia court records written after Kara Ahmed Ağa's execution, which show that he freed four of his slaves during his lifetime, his wife is referred to as 'Fatma Sultan bt. Mustafa Bey'. Based on this, it can be understood that Fatma Sultan's father was not a member of the dynasty, but she belonged to the dynasty through her mother.” —Pg 16 (translated from Turkish)

An Istanbul şeriye sicilleri (Legal registers) document, dating after the execution of Kara Ahmed Paşa (which happened on September 29, 1555, two days after his deposition from Grand Vizieriate as per Court Chronicler Koca Nişanci Celalzade Mustafa Çelebi) mentioned that "Fatma Sultan bint Mustafa Bey" filed a petition to manumit several of the deceased Paşa’s servants, identifying herself explicitly as his wife.

Besides, Hüseyin Ağa bin Abdurrahman (the brother of the late Grand Vizier Ahmed Paşa) and Fatma Sultan bint Mustafa Bey (the wife of the late Grand Vizier Ahmed Pasha) — are identified in one of the two court documents as the legal heirs and authorized administrators of the estate and properties of the deceased Grand Vizier Ahmed Pasha. — Numarali Sicil (H. 964-965 / M. 1557-1558)

Essentially, there's no credible historical basis for the existence of any Fatma Sultan binti Sultan Selim I.

Even prior to coming across this study (which was again recommended to me by @darkblureer-sara), I had my doubts because contemporary European accounts never mentioned Kara Ahmed Paşa as Brother-in-law, even when they clearly mentioned Lütfi Paşa and earlier Ferhad Paşa and Çoban Mustafa Paşa (see: Venetian ambassador, Pietro Bragadin's June 1526 report) as Brothers-in-lae as well! Additionally, even Safavid accounts don't mention Kara Ahmed Paşa or Makbul-Maktul İbrahim Paşa as Brothers-in-law either (which @mehrab-k kindly brought to my attention!)

Also, Sultan Selim I appears to have married only one daughter, Şahzâde Sultan (first of the two daughters born of Ayşe Hafsa) to the erstwhile Bostancibaşi, then Admiral Iskender Paşa off in 1509. She's consistently referred in some Archival orders and correspondence between Sultan Bayezid II and Sultan Selim I simply as “Hanım Sultan” (which means: “Madam Princess”— very standard manner of referring to an Ottoman Princess, and in fact, Mihrümah Sultan would be referred to by others and even sign herself off as “Hanım Sultan” too!)

We of course know that Gevherhan wasn't Sultan Selim I's daughter either. Sofu Fatma Sultan's son, Mehmed hadn't married any daughter of Yavuz Sultan Selim in 1509 as had been believed in popular historiography. The July 2025 academic dissertation titled, “İlme ve Eğlenceye düşkün bir Şehzâde'nin Hayati: II. Bayezid'in oğlu Alemşah” by Hamit Şafakcı meticulously proved via archival documents/registers that the aforementioned marriage was contracted with Hanzade Sultan binti Şehzâde Alemşah.

Also, while I've been researching more about it, evidently Selim held off marrying the rest of his two other daughters who survived to adulthood owing to still somewhat volatility of politics and well, the “betrayal” by his Damad Iskender Paşa, Şehzâde's husband who was executed by him in 1515 consequently.

[These two other daughters besides Şahzâde Sultan who made it to adulthood were Beyhan Sultan (the second of Ayşe Hafsa's daughters besides Şahzâde Sultan) and Şahihuban Sultan (born of an unknown concubine).]

This was the case until 1517 when Selim I remarried his daughter, Şahzâde Sultan to Çoban Mustafa Paşa (note that Şehzâde's first husband Iskender Paşa had been executed in 1515) and most probably, Beyhan Sultan (she had been unmarried as of the September-October 1513 register which I'd discussed and elaborated about here last month) must've been firstly married off at this time too, but I'm yet to find out to whom (I've found yet another overlooked report that mentioned that Selim had decided all of a sudden to marry off his daughters circa 1517— I'll state these reports properly some other time as I can't locate them presently).

Beyhan Sultan would be married off—for the second time (most probably) by her brother in February, 1522 to Ferhad Paşa (and well, he would execute him on November 1, 1524 in Edirne owing to treason and him drawing a weapon in the Divan in front of Süleyman!)

Şahihuban Sultan appears to have been born much later (c. 1505?), and it seems her marriage to Lütfi Paşa was her first marriage effected by her half-brother, Süleyman by March 10, 1523 (22 Rabi-ul-ahir, 929)— possibly she was married simultaneous to Süleyman's full-sister, Beyhan Sultan.

Conclusion: Anyways, from my extensive research thus far on Yavuz Sultan Selim's family from both Ottoman and European primary sources, I've concluded that only 3 of Yavuz Sultan Selim's daughters had survived to adulthood: Şahzâde Sultan, Beyhan Sultan and Şahihuban Sultan.

The first two were born of Vâlide Sultan Ayşe Hafsa Hatun— yes, actually Ayşe Hafsa never received the title of “Sultan” as is popularly believed, about which I've talked here— and the latter was born of an unknown concubine who was alive as of November 1556. Selim also had at least one other daughter, Kamer or Kamerşah. who died in childhood in 1503.

''[Turhan Sultan] has fame and glory, she respects the public. She became more of a friend to Prince Suleiman than a stepmother. She is greatly respected by the Padishah. Those who wanted to block her were unable to do so. She interferes in the administration with her advice and talents, and joins the monarchy as a partner. She is always with her servants. ” [Source: Barozzi-Berchet, Turchia, volume II, page 135]

In addition, in 1667, Turhan Sultan sent letters to the Emperor Leopold I of Austria and Empress Margarita Theresa in order to resolve the problems between the Ottoman Empire and Austria. We learn from the Austrian historian Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall that Turhan Sultan corresponded with Emperor Leopold I and Empress Margarita Theresa. He writes in volume 6 of his history series 'Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches'.

Turhan not only annihilated the enduring status quo of Kösem Sultan (who had to battle the miscellaneous crises and volatility in the first half of the XVII century while having to encounter three Sultan's who actively undermined her power— not to mention Osman II and Mustafa I or rather, Halime Sultan— I've so much admiration for historical Kösem!) and who was an elderly politician with skin in the game, someone who was a little over 60 years old when Turhan was 26ish. Turhan Sultan had established herself as the undisputed mistress till around late 1670s* especially post-1656 when she installed Koprülü Mehmed Paşa.

She was undoubtedly, inconspicuously calling the shots politically while maintaining the dignity and aloofness of the Vâlide Sultan. That was brilliant because in case there was another rebellion or dissatisfaction, you can eliminate the figure head, the Paşa and his ostensible party, Turhan unlike Kösem and Safiye wouldn't be blamed.

Turhan was astutely calculated and polished with reference to her public image, excellent at deploying propaganda, which is very evident at her 180° restructuring the narrative of the Yeni Vâlide Eminönü Mosque Complex which was initially commenced by Safiye circa 1597 when it was widely called an "atrocity".

*Because Gülnuş had started somewhat subduing Turhan Sultan to a noticeable extent (but cautiously without explicitly offending her) from around the late 1670s (of, course that was no where near the extent vis-a-vis Turhan to Kösem):

“At first glance, she [Gülnüş] seems to be completely adverse to any affair but in reality with her arts, deceptions and flatteries with which she bends the Gran Signore’s will, she has a large share in deliberations and graces. From this stems the most pungent jealousy of the Queen Mother, now 60 years old, who, having governed the empire with despotic power during her son's minority, bitterly resents seeing the other being preferred in esteem and confidence.” — Giovanni Morosini di Alvise (1680)

His successor, Pietro Civano, in 1682 furthermore reiterated: 

“With great pride, she shows respect, deference and devotion to the Queen Mother (her mother-in-law), and pretends to be averse to any [political] affair; simultaneously she employs all manners of arts, intellect and flatteries, not only to have a share in deliberations but to keep herself alone in command with the Sovereign.”

"Between her [Turhan] and the King's bride, that is the Queen, there are fierce jealousies because both aspire to dominate the easy mind of the sultan; these two queens unite their intentions in the longed-for downgrading of the first Visir; and even though the mother has always had her son's respect, for the past two years the queen consort's arts have prevailed..."

Thus, it should be noted that as a general rule regardless of one's title, the power of a person in any place would depend on the influence they possessed over the person on the throne. Just because someone was Vâlide Sultan doesn't mean they would de-facto overpower the Haseki Sultan and that is what happened for instance, in the latter years of Turhan Sultan as Vâlide Sultan.

Illustrations from the Ottoman Ralamb Costume Book, acquired in Constantinople in 1657 by Claes Rålamb;

Greek woman 

Turkish women

Armenian and Persian woman