This thesis is about debates over the nature of Ottoman society, particularly in its classical Age of the 14th-16th centuries. The idea that it was not feudal has constituted the ruling paradigm in Turkish historiography since the late 1930s. From the second half of the 1960s onwards, that proposition has come to be shared by theorists of the "Asiatic mode of production". This verdict involve, arguing from a model of (European) feudalism that had its heyday in the 19th century, but still continues to exercise some influence over western historians' minds. The study of Turkish historiography therefore opens up to the study of the development of medieval history in general, with both dimensions axed on the question of our notions of feudalism and feudal society. In chapter I, the basic features of the Ottoman timar system, which lies at the heart of the controversy, are presented, followed by a summary of the literature that favours the feudalism view. Chapters II and III deal with the rise and subsequent crisis of 20th century Turkish nationalist historiography, concentrating on the works and ideas of Fuat Koprulu, Omer Lutfi Barkan and Halil 1nalclk. AMP theory is dealt with in Chapter IV. Chapter V reviews the recent developments in western medieval history that, it is argued, have rendered the notion of feudalism utilised by the proponents of the Ottoman non-feudalism thesis obsolete. The thesis concludes with a sketch of the specificities of Ottoman feudalism in comparative perspective.