The Franco-Ottoman Capitulations of 1604 refer to Sultan Ahmed I as "Sultan and Emperor of the Turks", was it normal for official correspondence to refer to the Ottoman Sovereigns as rulers of an ethnic group instead of an Empire?

by Blackfire853

Here is the capitulation in question, in French obviously.

In a broader sense I'm interested in what people actually called states in the past, only a few days ago I learned the Mamluk Sultanate is a contemporary label in the same vein as the Byzantine Empire, and was simply known as the Realm of the Turks during it's existence.

Chamboz

I don't know what was most common in European usage, but the Ottoman text at the top of the document reads:

Fransa pâdişâhı ile Âl-ı 'Osmân pâdişâhı mâ-beyninde mu'takad olan 'ahd-nâmedür ki zikr olunur.

"Here referenced is the agreement signed between the Emperor of France and the Emperor of the House of Osman"

So, the Turkish text as it appears here does not refer to the Turkish ethnicity. I've never seen the Ottomans in the early modern period identify their state with Turks or Turkishness in any capacity. They used a wide variety of titles and terms, but the two most common were some variation on Devlet-i 'Alîye-i 'Osmânîye (The Sublime Ottoman State) and Memâlik-i Mahrûsa (The Protected Realms), the former term referring to the state apparatus of the Ottoman Empire and the latter referring to the physical territory under its control. The closest the Ottomans came to referring to themselves as the rulers of ethnic groups is the titular phrase declaring them the rulers of Rûm, 'Arab, and 'Acem, meaning the former Byzantine lands, the Arab lands, and Iran, respectively. In general, however, the Ottoman ruling elite was inclusive and based on loyalty to the religion and dynasty rather than an ethnicity, so these are the elements emphasized in the state's ideological rhetoric.