Between pleasure and death: Animals in Ottoman Empire

Throughout human history, animals have been the closest living beings to humans. The role and significance of animals in human life have varied throughout history and have fluctuated between compassion and cruelty, depending on the balance between human needs and desires for entertainment.

Often serving to fulfill various human needs, animals have been employed in a wide range of areas, from sustenance and clothing to production and transportation, depending on their species and breed.

Beyond their routine interactions with humans, scenarios, where animals were cruelly killed and used for entertainment and pleasure, became a part of the peculiar understanding of entertainment that developed with human progress.

These creatures, whose lives depended on human mercy, were not treated the same in every period and society due to varying perceptions of animals from one civilization to another.

How religion, culture, societal norms influenced attitudes toward animals

The formation of different attitudes toward animals in different geographies and civilizations was influenced by the concept of sanctity and compassion created by religion, as well as societal norms, the varying moral understandings of different civilizations, and, of course, the values that the civilization in question attributed to animals.

For instance, while Western civilizations adopted a more ruthless attitude toward animals, Eastern civilizations placed compassion and mercy at the center of their approach to animals. When the term “animal” is mentioned, domestic animals such as cats, dogs, and birds are often the first to come to mind.

This is not solely due to the altruistic nature of the human-animal bond formed with these creatures but also due to the proximity of their relationship with humans compared to other animals. From this perspective, domestic animals like cats have made significant contributions to humans throughout history, disproportionate to their size.

Historical role of cats: Revered in East, misunderstood in West

In Eastern societies such as Egypt, cats were revered and integrated into the fabric of society, often occupying a prominent place among sacred and clean animals, their influence spreading throughout the entire Eastern world.

During the Middle Ages, when rats played a crucial role in carrying and spreading the pathogens of the plague, cats effectively controlled these rodents, thereby mitigating the devastating impact of the plague on human populations. The significance attributed to cats in Eastern cultures and their established place within society contributed to a lower incidence of the plague in these regions compared to Europe.

In contrast, European cultures viewed cats as servants of the devil, believing they harbored evil spirits. As a result, cats were subjected to various forms of torture and extermination. The church’s declaration that cats carried demonic spirits led to widespread persecution, with cats being drowned, burned en masse, and subjected to other cruelties.

Horrific accounts from the 14th to 16th centuries describe cats being rounded up by church orders, burned, skinned, crucified, or thrown from high towers.

This widespread killing of cats resulted in an unchecked proliferation of rats in Europe, accelerating the spread of the plague. However, the severity of the plague eventually led to a halt in cat massacres, as cats were recognized as the primary predators of plague-carrying rats.

Despite the decimation of cat populations and the subsequent rat infestation, those who defied church prohibitions and kept cats in their homes were able to protect themselves from the plague and its associated diseases.

Cats in Ottoman society: A unique bond shaped by compassion and Islamic teachings

The Ottoman Empire, along with other Eastern societies, exhibited a profound respect and affection for animals, particularly cats. Islamic teachings, which view animals, especially cats, with great kindness, played a pivotal role in shaping this attitude.

Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) declaration of cats as clean animals and members of the household significantly influenced Muslim perspectives on these creatures. In stark contrast, Western societies held a negative view of cats, subjecting them to horrific treatment, as evidenced by witch hunts and accusations of demonic associations.

Travelogues describing the Ottoman Turks’ treatment of cats highlight the stark differences in attitudes between Eastern and Western cultures. For instance, the French traveler Du Loir, who visited Istanbul during the reign of Murad IV, found the Turks’ affection for cats, considered “ungrateful” in his own culture, to be absurd. The Turks’ practice of purchasing liver from special shops solely to feed cats was seen as peculiar to Du Loir. Such accounts clearly delineate the differing perspectives between Europe and the Ottoman Empire.

The profound significance of cats in Ottoman society is beautifully captured in Meali’s elegy for his deceased cat. His mournful poem, which likens the loss of his cat to that of a close friend, even highlights the cat’s skill in catching mice, exemplifying the practical benefits of human-cat relationships. However, more importantly, the fact that a creature perceived as “ungrateful” in European society was revered enough to inspire poetry in the Ottoman Empire underscores the stark contrast between Eastern and Western attitudes toward animals.

In the Ottoman Empire, the bond between humans and cats extended beyond mere pest control. Some cats were specially trained as acrobats to entertain people, especially children. For example, during the lavish circumcision ceremony of Prince Mehmet, son of Murad III, an acrobatic cat performed for over 80 days. The cat’s ability to balance on a tightrope and perform intricate dances captivated both the prince and the audience.

Guardians of Istanbul: Unique role of street dogs in Ottoman life

While cats enjoyed a privileged status in Ottoman society, dogs occupied a more ambiguous position. Due to Islamic beliefs that considered dogs unclean, they were not commonly kept as household pets.

However, they were ubiquitous in the streets and were often seen as guardians of neighborhoods. Each dog typically claimed a specific territory and would defend it from intruders, providing a sense of security to the residents. In return, people would leave food and water for these dogs.

Luigi Bassano, an Italian traveler during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, observed the daily life of Istanbulites and noted their practice of placing marble bowls at their doorsteps. These bowls were filled with either meat for the dogs or ice and snow for them to drink.

Just as the dogs claimed their territories, people also claimed the dogs themselves. For example, Tournefort reported that Turks, out of a sense of compassion, would bandage the wounds of injured dogs, place straw beneath them for comfort, and even build wooden shelters for them. Lubenau, describing a scene he witnessed in Galata, expressed his astonishment when he saw an Ottoman citizen dismount from his horse to place dry grass beneath a pregnant dog lying on the street.

Foreign cruelty toward Ottoman animals, reactions of locals

Foreigners who came to the Ottoman Empire for trade, travel, or settlement often replicated the attitudes and cruelty toward animals that were prevalent in their home countries. This phenomenon, frequently documented in the travelogues of visitors to various Ottoman centers, including Istanbul, often provoked strong reactions from the local population.

For example, the renowned traveler Lubenau recounts an incident where he and his companions fed cooked meat to stray dogs in Istanbul, ostensibly out of a desire to be kind. However, he candidly admits that their true intention was to instigate fights among the dogs for their amusement.

This revelation underscores the underlying cruelty of their actions. Lubenau further describes how local Turks, particularly the Acemioglanlari (young recruits training to become Janissaries), reacted vehemently to such behavior. On one occasion, he was assaulted by a group of Acemioglanli after he kicked a dog, narrowly escaping with his life.

The accounts of Robert Walsh, an Irish clergyman who visited Istanbul during the reign of Mahmud II, offer striking evidence of the deep-rooted affection for animals in the Ottoman Empire. According to Walsh, when a purebred English dog belonging to the British embassy produced an excessive number of puppies, one of the embassy’s maids filled a basket with half of the litter and gave them to the Janissary guarding the embassy gate.

Mistaking the puppies as a gift, the Janissary was initially overjoyed, but his mood soured when the maid instructed him to drown them. Threatened by the Janissary, the maid relented, allowing him to do as he pleased with the puppies. The Janissary subsequently raised the puppies for a time before releasing them into the streets to join the other stray dogs.

A French female writer who visited Istanbul in 1845 observed the Turks’ protective attitude toward dogs, noting that these creatures, without collars, names, or owners, roamed freely through bazaars, markets, and shopfronts, making them virtually untouchable. Another foreign visitor, Charles White, corroborated these observations, remarking that while Christians often treated dogs poorly, the Turks would do no more than shoo them away.

How outbreaks of plague, other diseases led to culling of street dogs in Ottoman society

While Ottoman society generally exhibited a compassionate attitude toward all animals, including dogs, there were instances where these animals suffered mistreatment due to various reasons.

For example, during outbreaks of diseases like the plague, street dogs were often culled. Believing that dogs carried germs, killing them was seen as a primary measure to prevent the spread of the epidemic.

Domenico Hierosolimitano, the Jewish physician of Sultan Murad III, who provided striking accounts of this issue, reported that whenever plagues broke out in cities, including Istanbul and provincial towns, street dogs were the first to be killed.

He even claimed that during such times, every shop owner was obligated to display a dead dog in front of their shop, and those who failed to comply were fined by the muhtesip aga (a trade inspector).

Du Loir also corroborated these statements. Although he, like Domenico, reported that the Turks built shelters for dogs, fed them, and showed compassion, he also mentioned that dogs suffered, particularly during epidemics, when the Turks killed them on sight. Similarly, Tournefort, who was in Istanbul in the early 18th century, stated that during epidemics, some people killed every dog they encountered.

Bizarre public prank of dyeing dogs red during time of Nasuh Pasha

One of the most intriguing incidents involving the treatment of dogs occurred during the reign of Sultan Ahmed I and the grand vizierate of Nasuh Pasha. After the conclusion of the war with Persia, a large Persian embassy was expected to arrive in Istanbul. To impress the visiting dignitaries, Grand Vizier Nasuh Pasha ordered that all houses and mansions along the route of the embassy’s procession be painted red.

Amused by this peculiar order, the people of Istanbul decided to play a prank on the vizier. They gathered all the dogs in the city and dyed them red. As the painted dogs paraded through the streets, people would burst into laughter. When Nasuh Pasha heard about this, he ordered the immediate capture and execution of all the dogs. Although public opposition prevented the mass killing, he managed to round up many dogs and exile them to sparsely populated areas like Uskudar and Kadikoy.

Motivations behind dog exiles to Uskudar, Kadikoy under Ottoman law enforcement

The vizier’s motivation was the damage caused by dogs attacking bears used by Romani bear-baiters. Citing complaints from butchers, he ordered the removal of all dogs from Istanbul. Law enforcement officials, acting on the vizier’s orders, rounded up the dogs, tied them together with ropes, and transported them by boat from Sirkeci to Uskudar and Kadikoy.

However, due to public outcry against this inhumane treatment, Nasuh Pasha was unable to completely rid Istanbul of dogs. Lubenau also mentioned similar incidents of dogs being exiled to Asia by boat when their population in Istanbul grew. During his stay in Istanbul between 1587 and 1589, he witnessed such exiles and reported that the dogs, abandoned in the forests, became feral and attacked people.

Beginning in the 19th century, as the Ottoman Empire underwent a process of modernization, it was significantly influenced, often negatively, by the Western understanding of morality and civilization. This is particularly evident in the changing attitudes toward animals.

Sultan Mahmud II’s efforts to eradicate street dogs, use of poisoned sausages

The most concrete examples of the growing discomfort toward dogs can be seen during the reign of Mahmud II. Some sources claim that at the beginning of his reign, he ordered stray dogs to be banished to small rocky islets near Buyukada, and that the public was not at all pleased with the sultan’s decision.

Robert Walsh, an eyewitness who first visited Istanbul in 1821, was immediately struck by the abundance of dogs. When he returned to the city in 1828, he noticed their sudden disappearance. The reason soon became apparent: the sultan, who had declared war on the Janissaries, had also declared war on dogs.

According to Walsh, poisoned sausages were sold in the markets and distributed in specific neighborhoods. As a result, dead dogs became a common sight on the streets. Initially, the corpses were left to rot, and later, stones were tied to their legs and they were thrown into the sea. However, other eyewitnesses reported that the public was deeply disturbed by this state policy. Eventually, public outcry prevented the same treatment from being meted out to puppies.

However, notes from visitors to Istanbul indicate that such eradication projects did not diminish but rather increased in subsequent years. Indeed, during the reign of Sultan Abdulmecid, the son of Mahmud II, some foreign experts employed by the state recommended that Istanbul’s stray dogs be collected and transported to Tavsan Island to be slaughtered, with their tallow used in industry. For some reason, Abdulmecid approved this plan, but it was never fully implemented.

Observations of dog suffering in Istanbul by Mark Twain, other visitors

Mark Twain, in his observations during his 1867 visit to Istanbul, noted the deplorable condition of the city’s canine population, describing them as weak and often incapacitated by illness. While he acknowledged the absence of systematic killing, he highlighted the prevalent cruelty inflicted upon these animals, such as kicking and stoning.

Evgenia Mars, visiting Istanbul during the reign of Abdulhamid II, corroborated Twain’s account, detailing the wretched state of dogs in the filthy streets of Galata. Todor Yankov further attested to the suffering of these animals, describing instances of dogs being injured by carriages, scalded with boiling water, or maimed in fights.

Despite these accounts of mistreatment, it is important to note that the Turks had historically shown compassion toward dogs, providing them with shelter and sustenance. While modernization and Western influences gradually transformed the attitudes of the elite, the common people largely retained their traditional empathy toward animals, including dogs.

Mystical creatures of Ottoman Istanbul: Snakes, weasels, rats, other fauna

Ottoman Istanbul, deeply intertwined with nature, provided a home to a diverse array of animals. This included snakes, weasels, rats, scorpions, various pests, and bats. Foreign travelers, in particular, frequently mentioned house snakes in their accounts of Istanbul. These creatures, mostly non-venomous, were commonly found in gardens of houses and mansions along the Bosphorus.

The widespread use of wood in construction, due to its affordability, and the prevalence of home gardens attracted these animals. Snakes, in particular, would nest in holes within houses and were often heard hissing at night. Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, the Habsburg ambassador, described the Elci Han in Cemberlitas, which he called “Noah’s Ark,” as being filled with snakes, scorpions, and weasels. He even recounted an instance where, upon reaching for his hat on his bedside table one morning, he found a large snake coiled around it.

Role of weasels in Istanbul homes, their conflict with other species

Istanbul’s fauna was not limited to snakes. Weasels were also prevalent and, while generally considered innocuous, caused significant household damage by gnawing on clothing and other possessions. Their presence was often observed in groups, as they moved freely between rooms. Some foreign visitors interpreted the coexistence of humans and such creatures as a divine punishment for the Turks, who shared their dwellings with snakes, weasels, rats, scorpions and mice.

Busbecq described instances of interspecies conflict, noting that weasels would sometimes engage in territorial disputes with snakes, even relocating their nests to protect their young. In one particularly striking anecdote, Busbecq recounted a weasel carrying its young across the dining room of the Elci Han and depositing it near its mother by the door.

Ottoman sultan’s palace: Haven for exotic wildlife

Accounts of the Ottoman sultan’s palace often highlight the presence of exotic and wild animals within its grounds. Angiolello, a long-term resident of Mehmed the Conqueror’s palace, described how these animals were released at the sultan’s request.

The French traveler Philippe Du Fresne observed the unconventional spectacle of bears, lions, and other wild animals roaming the streets of Istanbul unchained, causing alarm among foreigners.

Wratislaw, a member of an Austrian embassy, noted the diversity of wild fauna in Istanbul, including wildcats, tigers, bears, lions, and leopards. He expressed amazement at the Turks’ apparent ability to domesticate such creatures, which were often seen chained and led through the streets, displaying the docility of domestic dogs.

Pierre Belon echoed this sentiment, remarking on the Turks’ uncanny ability to tame even wildcats, which were commonly walked in public spaces.

Symbolic importance of exotic animals like giraffes in Ottoman power displays

The English traveler John Sanderson, visiting Istanbul in the 1590s, corroborated the accounts of others regarding the presence of exotic wildlife in the Ottoman capital. His observations included lions, leopards, spotted wild cats, deer, and elephants. The possession of such exotic animals served as a conspicuous display of power and prestige for the Ottoman elite.

Giraffes, in particular, were highly prized possessions, symbolizing the wealth and influence of their owners. A giraffe presented to Sultan Mahmud II in 1823 by Muhammad Ali Pasha, the viceroy of Egypt, became an instant sensation among the people of Istanbul.

The Irish clergyman Robert Walsh described the public’s fascination with the animal, noting how people lined the streets of Galata, offering the giraffe sweets as it was led through the city. The giraffe, in turn, seemed to enjoy the attention, consuming the treats with relish.

Sacred birds of Istanbul: Reverence for storks, vultures

The narratives of travelers provide striking insights into the Turks’ affection for birds. Wratislaw noted that they considered storks sacred, refraining from killing them and viewing those who did so with disdain. Busbecq, providing further details about storks, wrote that the Turks held these birds in high regard due to the belief that they kept the city clean.

Hans Dernschwam observed that vultures were one of the most common bird species in Istanbul throughout the year. He even suggested that the Turks fed these birds, particularly after someone’s death, as an offering to the deceased person’s soul to gain divine favor.

Stephan Gerlach recorded in his diaries that the Turks did not condemn those who trapped birds with birdlime, believing that such individuals were acting as intermediaries for those who wished to do good deeds. He also wrote that the Turks considered storks, pigeons, and doves to be sacred animals and would even purchase and release birds of prey.

Busbecq provided further corroboration of these accounts in his “Turkish Letters.” He described how Turks would buy birds from the bird markets in Istanbul and then release them into the countryside. There was a widespread belief among the Turks that the birds, once freed and perched on a tree branch, would pray to God on behalf of those who had set them free.

Humorous yet revealing tale of bird cruelty, Ottoman justice

Busbecq highlighted the Turks’ strong aversion to those who mistreated birds with an anecdote: A Venetian jeweler living in Istanbul, who was fond of birdkeeping, once caught a cuckoo-sized bird. The bird had a small beak but a very large throat.

The jeweler, being a prankster, tied the bird to the entrance of his house with its wings spread and a piece of wood placed in its mouth to keep it open.

When the Turks passing by saw the bird, they initially thought it was dead but upon realizing it was alive, they felt sorry for the animal and said that it was a crime to treat an animal in such a way. When the jeweler refused to listen, they dragged him out of his house and took him to the judge.

The judge sentenced the man to be beaten, but before the punishment could be carried out, a legal official from the Venetian embassy intervened, claiming jurisdiction over the jeweler as he was a Venetian subject. Busbecq, who recounted this incident, found the jeweler’s plight amusing and noted how frightened the jeweler was by the experience.

Covert bird hunting by foreigners in Ottoman Istanbul

While travelers frequently remarked on the Turks’ affection for birds, Lubenau recounted a contrasting tale of covert bird hunting. Despite their apparent distaste for the sport, he and his companions would secretly engage in this activity. They described a method involving cutting up the intestines of sheep and tossing the pieces into the air.

As gulls descended to snatch the bait, the men would shoot them with blunt-tipped arrows and bows, often injuring the birds’ wings or legs. Their primary concern, however, was not the harm inflicted on the animals but the risk of being caught by the Turks, who would undoubtedly condemn such cruelty. To conceal their actions, Lubenau explained that they would bury the injured birds in pits dug in stables.

Compassion for birds rooted in spiritual beliefs and cultural practices

Many travelers attributed the Turks’ compassion for birds to their belief in the animals’ ability to witness and report their good deeds in the afterlife. This compassion extended to all animals. For instance, great care was taken to ensure that a chicken was killed quickly and painlessly.

Thevenot highlighted this Turkish sensitivity, contrasting it with French methods of slaughtering poultry. He remarked that if the Turks were to witness the French methods, they would undoubtedly be appalled. Thevenot found the Turks’ affection for animals, including chickens, cats, and dogs, to be excessive and even “ridiculous,” yet he acknowledged that their compassion was boundless.

Travelers not only mentioned the Turks’ compassion for birds but also for marine creatures. They noted that the Turks would not tolerate foreigners suggesting that dolphins be hunted for their oil to be used in lamps. Travelers also mentioned that the Turks would scatter crumbs into the sea to feed the fish, indicating a general fondness for seafood.

Animal spectacles in Ottoman Istanbul: Street entertainment with trained animals

The streets of Istanbul during the Ottoman period were often filled with the sounds and sights of animal performances designed to entertain the populace. Stephan Gerlach, for instance, described how, in 1577, the area near the Bayezid Mosque was a popular gathering place for dog and monkey trainers.

These animals, subjected to rigorous training, would perform acrobatic feats to amuse the crowds. Bears, however, were perhaps the most common victims of such entertainment. Often forced to stand on two legs and perform crude imitations of human movements, these animals would gaze at the spectators with a look of melancholy and weariness.

Unlike the fixed locations of monkey trainers, nomadic Roma people in Balat would wander the streets with their bears, accompanying their performances with tambourine music. Monkeys, meanwhile, were trained to climb poles, perform somersaults, eat treats, and even smoke pipes.

Encouraging animal fights as gruesome entertainment

Animal entertainment in Ottoman society was not limited to individual performances. People would often incite animals to fight one another for amusement. Common pairings included camels and roosters, as well as buffalo, rams, and geese. Among the most gruesome spectacles were lion fights. These large cats were confined to arenas and encouraged to fight to the death, much to the delight of the crowd.

Sometimes, to end a particularly brutal contest, a piece of millet bread would be attached to a long pole and waved in front of one of the lions. D’Ohsson, in his writings, confirmed the existence of such deadly animal combats, mentioning fights between dogs, bears, tigers, and lions.

Animal fights as entertainment for Ottoman elites and foreign guests

Sometimes, Ottoman pashas would entertain their guests after a banquet by organizing animal fights. For instance, Guzelce Ali Pasha arranged a bloody hunting spectacle for a Habsburg embassy after a feast, where a bull was chased by dogs until it died. According to another account, Murad III sought to alleviate his boredom by watching a fight between two bears and a large English dog in the outer courtyard of the palace.

However, another witness claimed that the two bears, which were domesticated, were initially brought together to play but were provoked into fighting. Sultan Abdulaziz was reputed to enjoy cockfights. It was even said that he would become so engrossed that he would have the losing cock killed and reward the winner with a Mecidiye medal. However, these stories were likely fabricated by those who sought to discredit the sultan by portraying him as mentally unstable.

Animals in Ottoman wedding celebrations

Animal exploitation was a prevalent feature of lavish Ottoman ceremonies, particularly the circumcision celebrations of princes. Between the mid-15th century and 1857, over 80 such palace festivities, often involving public participation, were held. These events, which could last for weeks, were marked by extravagant displays, including the use of animals.

For instance, during the circumcision ceremony of the children of Ahmet III, thousands of ducks, geese, turkeys, chickens, and pigeons were brought from Tekirdag and Bursa. Bear trainers would entertain the crowds with their animals, performing tricks and even wrestling with the bears. Monkey trainers would follow, showcasing their primates’ acrobatic abilities.

Fireworks and animal cruelty at Ottoman festivities

During the festivities organized by Mehmet IV for his sons in Edirne, bears, donkeys, and dogs were strapped with fireworks, which were then set on fire. The terrified animals would rush into the crowd, causing chaos and commotion. The practice of using animals for entertainment in such bizarre ways was not unique to the Ottoman sultans; it was a tradition inherited from the Romans.

For instance, the Romans would surprise and entertain guests by hiding live animals inside roasted carcasses. This peculiar custom was adopted by both Byzantine and Ottoman celebrations. During the circumcision ceremony of Mehmet III in 1582, animals were used both symbolically and literally. According to a miniature painting, cooks had placed live rabbits, foxes, and birds inside roasted oxen to showcase their skills and amuse the crowd.

Hunting in Ottoman Empire: Pastime of suffering, excess

For some Ottoman sultans, hunting was an addiction. While meat from these hunts was not a dietary staple, hunting served as a form of entertainment, training, and symbolic display. Some Ottoman sultans would embark on grand hunting expeditions with elaborate processions. In 1537, Suleiman the Magnificent launched a massive hunt in the animal-rich region of Elbasan.

According to the historian Pecevi, such a hunt had never been seen before. While the sultan and princes enjoyed themselves, the hunted animals suffered immensely. Despite Suleiman’s order to release the remaining animals, numerous sources indicate that the hunted creatures endured significant stress and pain throughout the chase.

These hunting expeditions, often involving thousands of people, required meticulous planning. The types of animals to be hunted and the hunting grounds were determined by the imperial council. The costs associated with these hunts were substantial, including the care and feeding of hunting dogs and specially bred birds.

Some sultans kept as many as 8,000 dogs, adorned with gold and jewel-encrusted collars. The loss of hunting animals during these expeditions added to the overall expense. In addition to the numerous animals killed, human casualties were not uncommon. Yildirim Bayezid II, known for his immense hunting kennels, was said to value his hunting animals more than his servants.

According to some accounts, his excessive passion for hunting led to the deaths of his servants. Similarly, Mehmet IV reportedly forced residents of 15 districts to participate in a hunt in Catalca, resulting in the deaths of 30 people.

Animal furs, exotic creatures as symbols of Ottoman wealth, power

In the 16th century, wealthy Ottoman subjects could purchase a variety of animal furs, including those of sable, squirrel, marten, lynx, fox, tiger, and even panther, in addition to precious stones and silk products in the bazaars. The most prized of all furs was that of the black fox, reserved exclusively for the sultan.

Although sultans occasionally gifted these furs to their grand viziers, the vizier could only wear such fur on special occasions. No other person in the empire was permitted to wear this fur, especially openly. For instance, Suleiman the Magnificent wore black fox fur during the winter. Due to the rarity of this type of fox, there was a strict rule mandating that any captured black fox be presented to the sultan.

According to Luigi Bassano, during the reign of Mustafa III, only those who had faced a public duel and members of the dynasty were allowed to wear lynx and marmot fur, as these were forbidden to others. Although there is some uncertainty regarding the veracity of this claim, it is said that some sultans and pashas consumed hyena meat, believing it to have aphrodisiac properties.

Regardless of the truth of this claim, it is clear that the sultans viewed themselves as the undisputed rulers of the world and sought to possess the most exotic animals within their empire.

Contrasting animal treatment between Ottoman elites, common people

As these examples illustrate, animals were used for human pleasure and necessity in the Ottoman Empire, often meeting a cruel end. While the Western view of animals as mere commodities was perhaps more pronounced, it is undeniable that similar attitudes existed in the East.

However, the relationship between the ruling elite and animals differed significantly from that of the common people. For the elite, animals served as powerful symbols of their authority. They represented the ruler’s unseen, intangible power. This does not mean that the elite were always cruel to animals.

For instance, the Ihtisab Kanunname, a law code promulgated during the reign of Bayezid II, included regulations prohibiting the overloading of animals, declaring Friday and Sunday as rest days for pack animals, and imposing penalties on those who violated these rules. This demonstrates that the state recognized the need to protect animals.