The first topic in the study of dynamics is kinematics. Kinematics is the study of the geometry of motion without regard to the forces the cause that motion. For any system (which may consist of a particle, a rigid body, or a system of particles and/or rigid bodies) the objectives of kinematics are fourfold: to determine (1) a set of reference frames in which to observe the motion of a system; (2) a set of coordinate systems fixed in the chosen reference frames; (3) the angular velocity and angular acceleration of each reference frame (and/or rigid body) resolved in the chosen coordinate systems; and (4) the position, velocity, and acceleration of each particle in the system. In order to develop a comprehensive and systematic approach, the study of kinematics given in this Chapter is divided into two parts: (1) the study of kinematics of particles and (2) the study of kinematics of rigid bodies.

This Chapter is organized as follows. First, both a qualitative and precise definition of a reference frame is given. In particular, it is discussed that a reference frame provides a perspective from which to observe the motion of a system.

In Chapter 3 we discussed the important principles and methods used in the formulation, solution, and analysis of the motion of a single particle. In this chapter we extend the results of particle kinetics to systems consisting of two or more particles.

The first topic covered in this chapter is the center of mass of a system of particles. Using the definition of the center of mass, the linear momentum of a system of particles is defined. Then, using the definition of linear momentum, the velocity and acceleration of the center of mass of the system are defined.

The second topic covered in this chapter is the angular momentum of a system of particles. In particular, expressions for the angular momentum are derived relative to an arbitrary point, an inertially fixed point, and the center of mass of the system. Then, relationships between these three different forms of angular momentum are derived.

The third and fourth topics covered in this chapter are Newton's 2nd law and the rate of change of angular momentum for a system of particles. In particular, it is shown that the center of mass of the system satisfies Newton's 2nd law. Furthermore, the key results relating the rate of change of angular momentum for a system of particles to moment applied to the system are derived.

Until now we have been concerned with the kinetics of particles, i.e., the kinetics of objects that have nonzero finite mass but do not occupy any physical space. Furthermore, in Section 2.15 of Chapter 2 we studied the kinematics of motion of a rigid body. In this chapter we turn our attention to the kinetics of rigid bodies. To this end, the objectives of this chapter are threefold: (1) to describe quantitatively the forces and moments that act on a rigid body; (2) to determine the motion that results from the application of these forces and moments using postulated laws of physics; and (3) to analyze the motion.

The key difference between a particle and rigid body is that a particle can undergo only translational motion whereas a rigid body can undergo both translational and rotational motion. In general, for motion in ℝ3 it is necessary to specify three variables for the translational motion and to specify another three variables for the rotational motion of the rigid body.

Mechanics is the study of the effect that physical forces have on objects. Dynamics is the particular branch of mechanics that deals with the study of the effect that forces have on the motion of objects. Dynamics is itself divided into two branches called Newtonian dynamics and relativistic dynamics. Newtonian dynamics is the study of the motion of objects that travel with speeds significantly less than the speed of light while relativistic dynamics is the study of the motion of objects that travel with speeds at or near the speed of light. This division in the subject of dynamics arises because the physics associated with the motion of objects that travel with speeds much less than the speed of light can be modeled much more simply than the physics associated with the motion of objects that travel with speeds at or near the speed of light. Moreover, nonrelativistic dynamics deals primarily with the motion of objects on a macroscopic scale while relativistic dynamics deals with the study of the motion of objects on a microscopic or submicroscopic scale.

The subject of dynamics has been taught in engineering curricula for decades, traditionally as a second-semester course as part of a year-long sequence in engineering mechanics. This approach to teaching dynamics has led to a wide array of currently available engineering mechanics books, including Beer and Johnston (1997), Bedford and Fowler (2005), Hibbeler (2001), and Merriam and Kraige (1997). From my experience, the reasons these books are adopted for undergraduate courses in engineering mechanics are threefold. First, they include a wide variety of worked examples and have more than 1000 problems for the students to solve at the end of each chapter. The variety of problems provides instructors with the flexibility to assign different problems every semester for several years. Second, these books are generic enough that they can be used to teach undergraduates in virtually any branch of engineering. Third, they cover both statics and dynamics, thereby making it is possible for a student to purchase a single book for a year-long engineering mechanics course. Using these empirical measures, it is hard to dispute that these books cover a tremendous amount of material and enable an instructor to tailor the material to the needs of a particular course. Given the vast array of undergraduate dynamics books already available, an obvious question that arises is, why write yet another book on the subject of undergraduate engineering dynamics?

Introduction

In marked contrast to the military and political successes of the 1300–1683 era, defeats and territorial withdrawals characterized this long eighteenth century, 1683–1798. The political structure continued to evolve steadily, taking new forms in a process that should be seen as transformation but not decline. Central rule continued in a new and more disguised fashion as negotiation more frequently than command came to assure obedience. Important changes occurred in the Ottoman economy as well: the circulation of goods began to increase; levels of personal consumption probably rose; and the world economy came to play an ever-larger role in the everyday lives of Ottoman subjects.

The wars of contraction, c. 1683–1798

On the international stage, military defeats and territorial contraction marked the era, when the imperial Ottoman state was much less successful than before. At the outset, it seems worthwhile to make several general points.

First, at bottom, the Ottoman defeats are as difficult to explain as the victories of earlier centuries. Sometime during the early sixteenth century, as the wealth of the New World poured into Europe, the military balance shifted away from the Ottomans; they lost their edge in military technology and using similar and then inferior weapons and tactics, battled European enemies. Moreover, the earlier military imbalance between offensive and defensive warfare in favor of the aggressor had worked to the Ottomans' advantage, but now defenses became more sophisticated and vastly more expensive.

Introduction

Nationalism – a highly sensitive and difficult subject at the root of shifting understandings of identity – forms an important focus of attention in the present chapter. In its essence, nationalism speaks of one dominant nationality; for example, the Turkish republic is said to rest on a Turkish identity. Yet the Ottoman Empire for much of its history brought together multiple and different ethnic and religious groups. At times their interaction was co-operative and harmonious; but under the pressures of “modern nationalism” those ethnic and religious relations deteriorated into hostilities and worse, massacres, that remain a difficult subject in memory and national accounting. This issue is particularly acute in the interactions among, for example, modern-day Turks, Armenians, Greeks, and Kurds, as well as Palestinians and Israelis.

Inter-communal relations: an overview

The subject of historical intergroup relations in the Ottoman Empire looms large because of the many conflicts that currently plague the lands it once occupied. Recall, for example, the Palestinian–Israeli struggle, the Kurdish issue, the Armenian question, as well as the horrific events that have befallen Bosnia and Kossovo. All rage in lands once Ottoman. What then, is the connection between these struggles of today and the inter-communal experiences of the Ottoman past?

Let me begin with the assertion that there was nothing inevitable about these conflicts – all were historically conditioned, that is, produced by quite particular circumstances that evolved in a certain but not unavoidable manner.

The nationalist sentiments that have pervaded most nineteenth- and twentieth-century history writing seriously have obstructed our assessment and appreciation of the Ottoman legacy. The biases come from many sides. West and central Europeans rightly feared Ottoman imperial expansion until the late seventeenth century. Remarkably, these old fears have persisted into the present day and arguably have been transformed into cultural prejudices, for example, now being directed against the full membership of an Ottoman successor state, Turkey, into the European Union. Moreover, nationalist histories have dismissed the place of the multi-ethnic, multi-religious political formation in historical evolution. Furthermore, as a model of economic change in an emerging European dominated world economy, the Ottomans have had to bow to the manufacturing, exporting, highly productive Japanese success story. In the more than thirty countries that now exist in territories once occupied by the Ottoman Empire, the Ottoman past until recently has been largely ignored and/or considered in extremely negative terms. With some exceptions, this remains the situation today in the former Balkan provinces. Regarding a number of Arab states, by contrast, scholarly works on the Ottoman period recently have proliferated. In Israel, a comparatively strong Ottoman studies tradition dates back decades, often linked to Zionism and its justification. And finally, academic and public awareness of the Ottoman legacy in Turkey is growing and an active public debate over its meaning is taking place.

Introduction

In its essence, the Ottoman state was a dynastic one, administered by and for the Ottoman family, in cooperation and competition with other groups and institutions. In common with polities elsewhere in the world, the central dynastic Ottoman state employed a variety of strategies to assure its own perpetuation. It combined brutal coercion, the maintenance of justice, the co-option of potential dissidents, and constant negotiation with other sources of power. This chapter examines some of the obvious as well as the more subtle techniques of rule that it employed to domestically project its power over the centuries. Significantly, it explores the actual power of the central government in the provinces. It suggests that the older narratives stressing an extensive amount of administrative centralization are overstated.

The Ottoman dynasty: principles of succession

At the heart of Ottoman success lay the ability of the royal family to hold onto the summit of power for over six centuries, through numerous permutations and fundamental transformations of the state structure. Therefore, we first turn to modes of dynastic succession and how the Ottoman dynasty created, maintained, and enhanced its own legitimacy.

Globally, royal families have used principles of both female and male or exclusively male succession. In common with early modern and modern monarchical France (where the Salic law prevailed), but unlike the modern Russian and British states, the Ottoman family used the principle of male succession, considering only males as potential heirs to the throne.