Keywords: Hagia Sophia; Ayasofya; Greek Orthodox Church; Cultural heritage preservation; Heritage ethics; Soft-power diplomacy; Greek–Turkish relations; UNESCO World Heritage
Abstract
This is the first thesis to argue that restoring Hagia Sophia to the Greek Orthodox Church is geopolitically advantageous for Türkiye.
Introduction
Restoring Hagia Sophia to its original purpose as a Greek Orthodox church is geopolitically advantageous for Türkiye. Doing so aligns with Hagia Sophia’s foundational identity, and with the principles of heritage ethics. Additionally, it reflects best practices for the custodianship of a universally recognized heritage monument, and would improve diplomatic relations between Greece and Türkiye.
Hagia Sophia is among the most symbolically potent religious monuments in the world. Over the millennia it has undergone many transformations, none of which were voluntary. In 532 A.D. the Eastern Roman Emperor Justianian commissioned Hagia Sophia explicitly for use as a Greek Orthodox church. From its inception to its completion- when he famously declared, “Soloman, I have surpassed thee!”-Hagia Sophia was built by the Greek Orthodox community, for the Greek Orthodox community. The soft-power that Türkiye would gain by restoring Hagia Sophia to its foundational identity and purpose would constitute a significant geopolitical windfall.
In 1204 AD Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade assumed control of Hagia Sophia and repurposed it as a Roman Catholic church. In 1261, it was restored to a Greek Orthodox church. It remained so until 1453, when the Ottomans repurposed it as a Sunni mosque. In both cases, Hagia Sophia was diverted from its foundational purpose against the will of the Greek Orthodox community. In 1934 Kemal Mustafa Atatürk repurposed Hagia Sophia as a museum. It remained as such until 2020, when Recep Tayyib Erdogan repurposed it as a mosque-museum hybrid.
Considering Eastern Roman history, Ottoman administrative precedent, modern Turkish secularism, UNESCO obligations, and international norms regarding religious heritage sites, restoring Hagia Sophia to its original ecclesiastical function as a Greek Orthodox church would not undermine Türkiye’s sovereignty, but rather elevate its international reputation and position it as a global leader in religious heritage preservation. It would also reduce Greek-Turkish tensions, support minority rights on both sides of the Greek-Turkish border, and contribute to a broader narrative of a shared Eastern Roman-Ottoman civilization.
Hagia Sophia stands as a monument where civilizations converge. Its status is more than just architecture: it is the crown jewel of Greek Orthodoxy, and therefore belongs under Greek Orthodox administration. Repurposing Hagia Sophia from its original religious foundational identity and purpose is a blemish on the reputation of those who’ve done so. That blemish can only be removed by restoring it to its original ecclesiastical purposes. The argument for this is not framed in national, ethnic or religious pride. Rather, it is a heritage-based, diplomatic, and ethical proposal rooted in three core principles:
1) Historical authenticity and continuity: Hagia Sophia was built, consecrated, and functioned as the center of Greek Orthodox Christianity. Its foundational identity and explicit purpose is ecclesiastical.
2) Interfaith reconciliation: Returning Hagia Sophia to its original community would constitute a powerful gesture of sincere goodwill on behalf of Türkiye towards Greece.
3) International responsibility:As the steward of a UNESCO World Heritage Site, Türkiye would benefit culturally, diplomatically, and economically from restoring Hagia Sophia to a Greek Orthodox church.
Historical Foundations and Ecclesiastical Identity
Hagia Sophia is the spiritual center of Greek Orthodoxy. It was the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarch, and the site of imperial coronations, councils, and liturgical services. Its original function was never generic or secular. It was theological, liturgical, and doctrinal. The structure’s acoustics, mosaics, dome design and ritual layout were specifically designed and built by the Greek Orthodox community for use as a Greek Orthodox church.
The repurposing of Hagia Sophia as a Roman Catholic cathedral, a Sunni mosque and a museum, are all part of Hagia Sophia’s long history. However, they were not formative nor were they voluntary. The cathedral, mosque and museum periods reinterpreted it against the will of its creators.
Heritage Ethics
Modern heritage ethics prioritize authenticity, original function, and cultural continuity. Hagia Sophia’s original and most enduring intangible tradition is as a Greek Orthodox church. Liturgical use by its founding community would not endanger but enhance preservation, as seen in ancient functioning historical places of worship throughout the world.
Interfaith Reconciliation and Symbolic Diplomacy
Restoring Hagia Sophia would be a significant act of interfaith goodwill. Such a gesture would defuse deep-rooted animosities between Greece and Türkiye, and pave the way towards building a better future. Furthermore, restoring Hagia Sophia supports religious freedom and minority rights.
Benefits to Turkiye’s International Standing
Türkiye would gain immense cultural prestige by presenting itself as a protector of world heritage and religious freedom beyond nationalist frames. Restoring Hagia Sophia would reduce tensions in the Aegean, open new avenues for diplomacy, and strengthen Türkiye’s negotiating position within NATO, the EU and beyond. A restored Greek Orthodox Hagia Sophia-while welcoming visitors of all backgrounds-would generate new waves of global interest and religious tourism.
Conclusion
Restoring Hagia Sophia to the Greek Orthodox church does not undermine Turkish sovereignty, it exemplifies it. Arguments for repurposing Hagia Sophia as a mosque based on Turkish sovereignty state that because Hagia Sophia lies within Türkiye, it is their prerogative to do whatever they would like. According to that argument, Türkiye could demolish the building in its entirety. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should do it.
This historic opportunity that restoring Hagia Sophia to its original function as a Greek Orthodox church presents does not undermine Turkish sovereignty, it demonstrates true strength. Failing to restore Hagia Sophia to a Greek Orthodox church is a lost opportunity of enormous magnitude.
Acknowledging the reality that Hagia Sophia was built for the explicit purpose of serving the Greek Orthodox community as a Greek Orthodox church does not erase Ottoman history. Its Ottoman heritage remains historically documented and should be interpreted respectfully.
Although restoring Hagia Sophia to the Greek Orthodox Church seems politically impossible in the current political climate, it is the only lasting solution. It would be a transformative diplomatic achievement with long-term strategic benefits that Türkiye cannot ignore.
Hagia Sophia is not simply a monument, it is a civilizational symbol whose identity continues to shape Greek-Turkish relations and global Christian-Muslim dynamics. Restoring it to the Greek Orthodox Church would honor its original purpose, embody principles of heritage ethics, advance interfaith reconciliation, and elevate Türkiye’s international standing.
Such a move is not a concession on behalf of Türkiye, but it is an act of strength. It demonstrates that a modern nation can embrace its multi-layered past by stewarding this great world heritage monument with grace and vision. In doing so, Türkiye would be embracing the full breadth of its Eastern Roman, Ottoman and Republican heritage. It would transform Hagia Sophia from a site of contention into a beacon of peace.
References
Atun, A. T. A. (n.d.). Unresolved Cyprus issue.
Çevik, S., & Şekerci, Y. A. Ş. (2025). Where places of worship have no congregation: Heritage restoration in Turkey as public diplomacy. International Journal of Heritage Studies.
Ioannides, I. (2023, February). Exogenous factors underpinning the Cyprus problem: Shifting political and societal ramifications (CATS Working Paper No. 01). Centre for Applied Turkey Studies (CATS).
Kalkan, E. (2020). The longstanding dispute between Turkey and Greece: The Aegean issue. International Journal of Economic and Administrative Studies.
Ker-Lindsay, J. (2017). The Cyprus issue: What is next? Occasional Research Briefing No. 8. Centre for Historical Analysis and Conflict Research.
Sumer, Murat. “Circumnavigating the Aegean Question: Joint Development of the Aegean Sea by Greece and Türkiye.” Peace & Security – EuroMediterranean Journal of International Law and International Relations, 2023.
“Greece–Turkey Tensions in the Aegean: Achilles’ Shield.” Greek City Times, 3 Dec. 2025, greekcitytimes.com/2025/12/03/greece-turkey-tensions-aegean-achilles-shield-2025/.
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. “News 2156.” UNESCO, whc.unesco.org/en/news/2156. Accessed 23 Dec. 2025.
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. “News 2197.” UNESCO, whc.unesco.org/en/news/2197/. Accessed 23 Dec. 2025.
This is the first thesis to argue that the Greek nation-state can leverage Ottoman Rum heritage for geopolitical advantage.
Introduction
The architectural and political achievements of the Ottoman Empire were profoundly shaped by individuals of Rum (Greek) origin. Christodoulos (Atik Sinan) and Joseph (Koca Mi‘mâr Sinan Âğâ), the two most influential architects of the early and classical Ottoman periods, produced foundational monuments such as the Fatih Külliyesi, Süleymaniye Külliyesi, and Selimiye Külliyesi—structures that continue to define the architectural identity of the empire. Their accomplishments were matched by pioneering figures such as Michael the Beardless (Köse Mihal), the Byzantine governor-turned-ally of Osman I, and Gazi Evrenos Bey, whose military and administrative careers were central to the early Ottoman expansion. Together with the many Ottoman Rum who later served as statesmen, military commanders, dragomans, diplomats, and valide sultans, these figures represent a substantial yet underacknowledged component of the Ottoman legacy.
Although the prominence of these individuals is widely recognized in Ottoman studies, their Rum origins are generally absent from Greece’s historical narrative. This omission is not accidental. Modern Greek historiography has relied heavily on an ecclesiastical national framework that equates Greek identity with Orthodoxy and interprets the Ottoman past primarily through the lens of persecution, decline, or resistance. As a result, Rum contributors to Ottoman state formation, administration, and high culture are either marginalized or portrayed as traitors—despite the fact that medieval identities were fluid, pragmatic, and often based on local alliances rather than confessional or national distinctions.
This historiographical gap has contemporary consequences. By not acknowledging the Rum dimension of Ottoman civilization, Greece inadvertently surrenders cultural and diplomatic influence to Türkiye, which presents the Ottoman narrative almost exclusively through a Turkish-Muslim paradigm. Recognizing the Rum contribution to Ottoman history would not only correct a significant distortion but also expand Greece’s cultural reach across former Ottoman territories and open new avenues for constructive engagement with Türkiye.
This paper argues that modern Greece should reclaim its Ottoman Rum heritage because doing so corrects distortions created by the ecclesiastical national narrative, restores the overlooked contributions of Rum actors to Ottoman civilization, and strengthens Greece’s geopolitical position by enabling a more constructive and strategically beneficial relationship with Türkiye.
Although relevant literature exists, there is currently no scholarship within the Greek academic community that presents Ottoman Rum heritage in a positive or inclusive manner. Nor is there any scholarly argument suggesting that the Greek state should acknowledge this heritage and employ it as a tool of cultural diplomacy or geopolitical leverage.
By reassessing these figures and reintegrating their achievements into Greek historical memory, the study demonstrates that ownership of Ottoman Rum heritage is not merely a matter of cultural identity—it is a strategic asset capable of reshaping Greek–Turkish relations in the eastern Mediterranean.
Why Ecclesiastical Narratives Became Dominant
The influence of the Greek Orthodox Church on Greek-speaking communities over the past two millennia is profound, which helps explain why the ecclesiastical narrative remains dominant in modern Greek identity. From the spread of Christianity in first-century Judea to its adoption by Emperor Constantine, the fusion of religion and state in the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire positioned Orthodoxy at the center of Greek cultural and political life. In the Ottoman period, the state reinforced this role by granting the Orthodox Church significant authority over its predominantly Greek-speaking flock through the millet system. Conversion to Islam often resulted in excommunication, effectively severing individuals from both the Church and the Greek-speaking community. Over time, Orthodoxy became the primary marker distinguishing Greeks from Muslim Turks. However, as empires gave way to modern nation-states, this conflation of religious identity with ethnicity has become increasingly problematic.
Constantinople During The Ottoman Period
Christodolous, born in fifteenth-century Constantinople, played an essential role in shaping early Ottoman architecture. His design and construction of the Fatih Külliyesi were especially important because it was the first major architectural project commissioned by Sultan Mehmed II after the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. The complex was intended to mark the Ottoman era as the newest chapter in the city’s long and storied history. Christodoulos’ work successfully fulfilled this symbolic purpose (Celik, 15).
The Peak of Ottoman Achievement
Born around 1489 to Greek Orthodox parents in the Anatolian village of Agırnas, the future Koca Mi’mâr Sinân Âğâ was named Joseph. Though the precise reason why his parents chose the name Joseph is unknown, Joseph is the patron saint of builders and carpenters—an appropriate name for a person who would become the greatest architect of the Ottoman Empire (Stratton 11).
His career is widely regarded as the pinnacle of Ottoman architectural achievement. Historians agree that he is the most renowned architect in Ottoman history. His masterpiece, the Selimiye Külliyesi in Adrianople, is considered the finest expression of Ottoman architectural design (Goodwin 297). Scholars frequently draw parallels between Joseph’s influence on Ottoman architecture, represented by the Selimiye Külliyesi, and Michelangelo’s impact on the Renaissance through his work on St. Peter’s Basilica (Goodwin 191).
The Vision Behind the Selimiye Külliyesi
The story behind the Selimiye Külliyesi is also noteworthy. Sultan Selim II had a dream that the Prophet Muhammad reminded him of his vow to use the spoils from the conquest of Cyprus to build a grand mosque. When the Sultan instructed his grand vizier, Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, to begin preparations, the vizier claimed he had experienced the same dream. Inspired by this shared vision, the Sultan commissioned Joseph to design what would become his magnus opus (Goodwin 122).
Although Joseph designed many major monuments, including the Süleymaniye Külliyesi—where he chose to be buried—the Selimiye Külliyesi is widely regarded as the culmination of his architectural achievements and the greatest accomplishment in Ottoman architectural history (Celik, Goodwin 297).
Reinterpreting Hagia Sophia
A central goal of Ottoman architecture was to reinterpret the experience of Hagia Sophia. Built in the 6th century under Emperor Justinian I, Hagia Sophia featured an enormous dome supported by a system of pendentives designed by the Greek mathematicians Anthemius of Tralles and Isidore of Miletus. The dome’s apparent weightlessness, enhanced by rows of windows that allowed light to flood the interior, created an architectural effect that influenced later architects.
Ottoman architects sought to achieve similar structural elegance while developing their own innovative methods. They aimed to support large central domes in ways that were both visually harmonious and structurally sound (Goodwin 125).
Joseph excelled at this challenge. His use of semi-domes, windows, carefully placed columns, and innovative buttressing systems produced remarkable results. In the Selimiye Külliyesi, Joseph supported the central dome with an octagonal baldaquin, which is formed by eight massive polygonal piers—a structural solution that was groundbreaking for its time and comparable in innovation to Hagia Sophia’s pendentive system.
Infrastructure and Military Engineering
During his fifty years as Chief Architect, Joseph not only designed the empire’s most iconic monuments, but he also oversaw the architectural and infrastructural development of Constantinople, including elements such as aqueducts, bridges, and sewer systems (Goodwin 130).
Joseph’s accomplishments also extended into military engineering. As a member of the elite Janissary Corps, he distinguished himself through several important military campaigns and engineering projects. As a military engineer, he participated in the capture of Belgrade, the Battle of Mohács and the Siege of Vienna, where he studied existing fortifications and helped design defenses.
His significant engineering achievements in the military sphere included constructing complex infrastructure under demanding conditions, such as building a functional bridge across the Prut River in a remarkably short time. During the 1535 Ottoman campaign against the Safavids, he was tasked with constructing and arming a fleet of ferries at Lake Van to transport troops and artillery, a feat that earned him the rank of Haseki (Sergeant-at-Arms, equivalent to a Janissary Ağa) and caught the attention of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent. His battlefield experience in bridge-building, logistics, and fortification provided the practical, empirical knowledge he would later apply to his grand architectural masterpieces.
The Greek state should formally request that the Republic of Türkiye acknowledge the Ottoman Rum origins of Christodoulos and Joseph at all relevant monuments under its authority. Greece should also refer to them by their original Greek names and encourage Türkiye to do the same. This approach would extend Greek soft power across former Ottoman territories.
Michael the Beardless and the Formation of the Ottoman Alliance
The rise of the Ottoman Empire began in 13th-century Anatolia with Osman I, who at first was simply one leader among many competing groups. Everything changed when he formed an alliance with his close friend Michael the Beardless (Michael Cosses, Köse Mihal). Michael’s military skill and diplomatic experience as a former Byzantine governor helped transform Osman’s small community into a growing power (Kiprovska). Michael’s sword—the oldest surviving artifact of the Ottoman Empire—is now displayed in the Harbiye Military Museum.
Despite his significance, Michael’s legacy remains largely unknown in Greece because he is absent from the ecclesiastical narrative. Even among those familiar with him, he is often viewed negatively rather than recognized as a pivotal figure—virtually a co-founder of the Ottoman state. This perception stems from modern nationalism and identity politics that had no place in the medieval world. In the 12th and 13th centuries, the people we now call Greeks identified as Romans (Rum), not as “Greeks” or “Hellenes.”
Michael’s choice to align with Osman I was a rational response to the political realities of his time. As Byzantine authority weakened, local leaders had to forge alliances to protect their lands and communities. Thirteenth-century Anatolia was a fluid landscape without fixed borders, where survival depended on pragmatic cooperation. Michael’s friendship and mutual trust with Osman made their alliance both natural and beneficial, securing the stability and prosperity of his domain (Kiprovska).
The narrative of treason oversimplifies this complex context. Michael’s actions were strategic, not disloyal—practical decisions made in a volatile border region to safeguard his people. For Greece, embracing the legacy of Michael the Beardless and his alliance with Osman I would be a monumental act of historical reclamation.
The Greek state should formally request that the Harbiye Military Museum in Istanbul acknowledge the Ottoman Rum heritage of Michael the Beardless by including information about his Eastern Roman (Byzantine) origins alongside the display of his sword, the oldest Ottoman artifact. It should also encourage Türkiye to incorporate this information into its textbooks, while ensuring that Greek textbooks do the same. Greek publications should likewise refer to him by his Greek name.
Reclaiming a Shared Heritage
In Giannitsa, the Greek state has begun to acknowledge its Ottoman Rum heritage by positively presenting the legacy of Gazi Evrenos Bey—the 13th-century Byzantine governor of Bursa who became an Ottoman military commander—through the restoration of his related monuments and the promotion of these sites to the public.
Similarly to Michael the Beardless, Gazi Evrenos Bey is often labeled a traitor in the modern Greek national narrative, a view that oversimplifies his actions and ignores the historical realities of his time.
Evrenos, originally the Byzantine Governor of Bursa, converted to Islam and entered Ottoman service, where he went on to build a remarkable military career. Today, the Byzantine–Ottoman dynamic is often framed as a simple Greek–Turkish rivalry, but the reality was far more nuanced. Figures like Evrenos demonstrate that the Ottoman Empire was, in many ways, a Greek–Turkish partnership.
Maintaining Ottoman heritage sites—such as the Mausoleum of Gazi Evrenos Bey in Pella—offers the Greek state a constructive diplomatic tool. A further step would be openly acknowledging his Ottoman Rum heritage and presenting it as part of the site’s narrative. By adopting this approach across other Ottoman monuments in Greece, Athens can encourage reciprocal respect for Eastern Roman (Byzantine) sites in Türkiye. This strategy strengthens Greece’s position in pursuing mutual cultural restoration and could ultimately pave the way for gestures as significant as restoring Hagia Sophia to Greek Orthodox use.
Greek Language and Administration in the Ottoman Empire
Contrary to a common church teaching—that the Ottomans banned the Greek language and forced Greeks to speak it in secret—Greek was widely spoken in daily life by Ottoman Rum subjects and even used within the highest levels of society.
In fact, historical evidence shows the opposite of a ban. As Mirlan and Nurlan Namatov explain in Continuity: From the Eastern Roman Empire to the Ottoman Empire (2019), by the late 14th and early 15th centuries the Ottoman state had adopted so many Byzantine administrative practices that Greek became the main language of government. The situation progressed to such an extent that the Sultans themselves had to intervene to prevent the Turks from being culturally absorbed by the Greeks.
The Church Narrative vs. Historical Reality
Although the architectural accomplishments of Christodoulos and Joseph are widely recognized, their Rum origins are seldom acknowledged in Greece. This omission is unsurprising. While their Rum origins align with the cosmopolitan character of the Ottoman Empire—an empire composed of diverse ethnic, linguistic, and religious communities—their Rum identity complicates modern Greek national narratives.
A New Strategic Perspective
The significance of their heritage extends beyond architectural history and enters the realm of identity politics, where it appears threatening to the dominant church narrative that informs modern Greek historical memory. Yet by failing to acknowledge its Ottoman Rum heritage, Greece inadvertently concedes valuable cultural influence to Türkiye.
As we mark the bicentennial of modern Greece, the potential benefits of a Greco-Turkish partnership are increasingly evident. Understanding the Ottoman era only through the lens of suffering, oppression, or defeat does not strengthen Greece; instead, it fosters a psychology of defeatism.
Taking ownership of the cultural achievements of Ottoman Rum—and cultivating a relationship of mutual strategic benefit with Türkiye—would make Greece stronger. Recognizing the role of Rum individuals in shaping Ottoman civilization is a cultural and geopolitical advantage. By doing so, Greece could extend its soft power across the Islamic world and improve its relationship with Türkiye.
This rich heritage includes the extraordinary achievements of architectural geniuses like Christodoulos and Joseph. Yet they are rarely discussed because their identities do not conform to the church narrative that dominates modern Greek memory.
This narrative, which casts Greece as the heroic “gatekeeper of the West,” has ultimately limited Greek political development and has fueled unnecessary tensions with Türkiye. It can also instill guilt and shame in modern Greeks, portraying Greece as historically weak and fostering a mentality of victimhood. For these reasons, it is appropriate to critique the narrative itself—not the Turks—for weakening Greece’s sense of historical agency.
Furthermore, this narrative elevates medieval Eastern Roman (Byzantine) theocracy above modern Greek democracy. It stands in direct contrast to the secular, liberal vision of Lord Byron and the early advocates of Greek independence, who supported a modern state separate from ecclesiastical control.
The Ottoman period was neither a time of total failure nor an era of universal oppression for Ottoman Rum. Rum communities thrived culturally, economically, and intellectually. Christodoulos and Joseph exemplify this success. Greece should embrace this legacy and reclaim its rightful place within Ottoman history.
Unfortunately, some modern scholars echo the church narrative. Goodwin, for example, downplays Joseph’s Rum identity, arguing that his conversion to Islam nullified his Greekness. Like the church narrative, this view conflates religion with ethnicity, treating “Greek” as synonymous with Christian and “Turkish” as synonymous with Muslim.
Greece should reject this false dichotomy. Embracing Ottoman Rum heritage enriches Greek identity rather than diminishing it. Yet during the fervor of nineteenth-century nation-building, negative perceptions of the Ottoman past shaped Greek and Turkish national identities along rigid religious lines. This legacy continues to distort Greek historical memory today.
The church narrative may serve ecclesiastical interests, but it does not serve the interests of modern Greece. The Ottoman Empire itself was varied and complex—cosmopolitan in its urban centers, rural and localized in many provinces, and concerned primarily with taxation rather than cultural suppression. In many ways, the grievances of Ottoman-era Rum parallel those of American colonists in the eighteenth century.
There is clear precedent for such an approach. Türkiye actively promotes Byzantine heritage sites within its borders, just as Spain highlights its Andalusi past through the preservation of Islamic-era monuments. In the United States, states like Montana have incorporated Native American languages into official signage and government documents and display tribal flags alongside state and national flags in the state capitol.
Conclusion
The architectural and political achievements of the Ottoman Empire were profoundly shaped by individuals of Rum (Greek) origin. Christodoulos (Atik Sinan) and Joseph (Koca Mi‘mâr Sinan Âğâ) produced iconic monuments, while figures like Michael the Beardless and Gazi Evrenos Bey played central roles in diplomacy, statecraft, and military leadership.
Although widely recognized in Ottoman studies, their Rum origins are largely absent from Greek historical memory due to the dominance of an ecclesiastical national narrative. Reclaiming this heritage corrects historical distortions, integrates overlooked actors into Greek memory, and highlights the shared nature of the Greco-Turkish past.
By embracing Ottoman Rum heritage, Greece strengthens its cultural and geopolitical influence and reframes the Ottoman period not as a story of betrayal or oppression but as a multiethnic legacy in which Greeks played vital roles.
Ultimately, taking ownership of Ottoman Rum heritage affirms that Greek identity is enriched—not diminished—by this history, positioning Greece as both a steward of a complex past and an active participant in shaping the eastern Mediterranean’s cultural and strategic future.
Works Cited
Celik, Zeynep. The Remaking of Istanbul: Portrait of an Ottoman City in the Nineteenth Century. University of California Press, 1986.
Goodwin, Godfrey. A History of Ottoman Architecture. Thames and Hudson, 1971. Kuban, Doğan. Ottoman Architecture. Antique Collectors’ Club, 1988.
Stierlin, Henri. Turkey: From the Seljuks to the Ottomans. Taschen, 1988.
Stratton, Arthur. Sinan: Biography of One of the World’s Greatest Architects and a Portrait of the Golden Age of the Ottoman Empire. Macmillan, 1972.
Berber, ferhat. Perception of Ottoman Empire Sovereignty and Devshirme System in Greeks and Other Balkan Peoples.
Kiprovska, Mariya. “Byzantine Renegade and Holy Warrior: Reassessing the Character of Köse Mihal, a Hero of the Byzantino-Ottoman Borderland.” Defterology: Festschrift in Honor of Heath Lowry, Ed. Selim Kuru and Baki Tezcan (= Journal of Turkish Studies) , vol. 40, 2013, pp. 245–269.
Panagis Dionysios Malik Evangelatos 