Originally a nomadic people, the Ottomans borrowed political and administrative models from their predecessors in the Middle East and Central Asia, including Persian, Turkish, and Byzantine influences. They viewed themselves as ghazis—warriors for Islam—and the sultan’s absolute authority was considered a sign of God’s approval.

By the 16th century, the Ottoman state was transitioning from a patrimonial state, where all power flowed directly from the ruler, to a complex bureaucratic state, with a hierarchy of authority and specialized functions. Under Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566), the sultan was still the absolute ruler, but as the empire faced new challenges and expansion slowed, power became more shared and regulated. Succession, which had once relied on fratricide and competition among heirs, gradually shifted to seniority, isolating potential heirs from day-to-day governance and military experience.

Much of the empire’s daily administration was handled by the Grand Vizier, the chief minister, who oversaw the Divan (council of ministers). The Divan represented the three main groups of the ruling class:

• Men of the sword (military leaders)

• Ulema (religious scholars)

• Bureaucrats (government officials)

Each member managed a distinct branch: politics and the military, the judiciary, and the empire’s finances. Even the Grand Vizier needed consent from colleagues for major decisions, creating checks and balances that prevented any single official—including the sultan—from monopolizing power. The ulema held authority over religious law and education, while provincial governors (beyliks) and tax farmers exercised significant local autonomy, though still tied to the central administration. Over time, as the bureaucracy expanded to manage taxes and administration, it became a stabilizing force. Even as sultans and viziers rose and fell, the administrative system endured.

Local governance also relied on the millet system, which historian Kemal Karpat described as “an answer to the efforts of the Ottoman administration to take into account the organization and culture of the various religious-ethnic groups it ruled.” Non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis) were organized into millets, each with legal and administrative authority over its own community. For example, a patriarch oversaw the Eastern Orthodox Christians, while a Chief Rabbi managed Jewish affairs. Millets could raise taxes, resolve legal disputes, and manage internal affairs with minimal interference from Ottoman authorities, so long as they remained loyal to the sultan, paid the jizya tax, and followed dhimmi regulations. Millets could also enjoy privileges as wealthy merchants or local administrators, helping implement Ottoman policies. In this way, the system offered a substantial degree of political, religious, and legal freedom while incorporating diverse groups into the empire’s administrative, economic, and political structure. As historian Christine Vogel noted, “the decisive factor was not religious affiliation, but social status.” For the Ottomans, what mattered above all else was loyalty.