Ottomans in the Modern World (19 -20 C.) 2012... · factor tearing the Ottoman Empire apart in the...

Section 2:

Overview: the 19th Century- debates, discourses, dichotomies

Oct. 24 - 26

Ottomans in the Modern World (19th-20th C.):

Quataert:- 19th C. transformations generated debate, stimulated new discourses within Empire

- also continue to generate parallel debates, discourses within historiography

- latter often expressed in terms of ‘dichotomies’ –oversimplifications of complexity Ottoman transformation

Overview: Ottomans in Modern World

Most Significant Transformations:

- boundaries of empire

- structure of state administration

- ‘nationalist struggles’ within empire

- larger ‘Islamic world’ external to empire

- economy (both ‘domestic’ and ‘foreign’)

Overview: Ottomans in Modern World

Reflected in: Ottoman discourse and debate

- discussions of ‘equality’, ‘identity’, ‘modernization’

- Tanzimat Reforms

- Intellectual movements (both internal and external)

Overview: Ottomans in Modern World

Reflected in: historian’s portrayals of empire as …

- ‘Sick Man of Europe’

- ‘Puppet’ of West

- ‘Colony’ of European Economy

Overview: Ottomans in Modern World

Key ‘discourse’ : formulated as dichotomies

- Modern (education, economy) vs. Traditional

- Young (modern) vs. Old (traditional)

- Christian vs. Muslim

- West (including Russia) vs. East

- Revolution vs. Reform

Overview: Ottomans in Modern World

Over Next Several Lectures:- will explore both the transformations themselves, and the ‘debates’ they generated

- will try to understand both how historians have seen these changes, and how Ottomans saw them at the time

- will argue that the societies that emerge in the post-WWI dismantling of Empire actually were born in process of 19th century Ottoman transformation

Overview: Ottomans in Modern World

Many “19th C.” changes had origins with Selim III (1789-1807)- recognized importance of understanding foreign languages (European principally, but also Eastern) led to establishment ‘Translation Bureau’ under Mustafa IV 1821

- directly connected to role of Greeks, Armenians as state’s main translators -- “dragomans” --at time of Greek War Independence (below)

Changing Nature of State

- also seen as response to control of ‘new elite’ over class who moved into administration

- Translation Bureau became ‘starting point’ for ambitious ‘civil servants’

- French acquired special prominence (among European languages): synonymous with ‘modernization’

Changing Nature of State

- Muslim, and non-Muslim students accepted: all part of creating yet another ‘new elite’ loyal to state

- reflected in growth of bureaucracy:- c.1800: 2,000 - 1908: 35,000

- needed for growing control by state of public works, health, education, changing economy

Changing Nature of State

Late 18th, early 19th C. Ottoman military defeats: attributed to failure of armies

- already recognized by Selim (‘New Order’ 1792-3):‘new diplomacy’ seen as answer(embassies abroad, diplomatic missions)

- 1834 apparatus set up for establishment permanent embassies abroad in all major cities of Europe, Russia, Persia (even America)

Changing Nature of State

In 19th C.: balance between interests in West (Europe) and East (Persia, Central Asia) shifted:

- European languages took priority over Persian

- most sought-after posts now in Europe

- Foreign Ministry became most desirable posting

- three Grand Viziers from critical ‘Tanzimat Reform’(below) began careers here

Changing Nature of State

Mahmud II (1808-39) built on earlier reforms: [many attribute all reforms to him; we are to a large extent following Abou-El-Haj here in recognizing precedents]

- ministries established with set duties, regular salaries

- legislative bodies established provincially

- population registers instituted

- centrally-controlled army achieved

Changing Nature of State

But Changes Difficult to Implement:- too few men

- too little training

- too many ‘older’ bureaucrats with vested interests

- too much resentment of Europe (among the ‘older’administrators)

Changing Nature of State

Significant:- ‘older’ administrators (part of pasha/vizier ‘elite’) publicly associated ‘changes’ with ‘Europe’ in order to generate resistance: were they really ‘European’ or was this simply an effective ‘discourse’ to protect their older (vested and invested) interests?

- result was: reforms successfully implemented usually led by young men with European education (further reinforcing association of ‘change’ with ‘Europe’ in eyes of others)

Changing Nature of State

Concern with lack of performance of military, increasing rebelliousness had led to earlier attempts to limit power of Janissaries

- Selim III had attempted major overhaul

- established ‘new army’: European trained, fought like Europeans

- was successful in Battle Acre against French 1799

Defeat of the Janissaries

- seen (correctly) as threat by Janissaries

- 1807: revolted, had Selim deposed, policies rescinded

- Mahmud II (successor): resolved to ‘deal with’ Janissaries but knew to tread more carefully

Defeat of the Janissaries

- strategy: build up special army, artillery corpsamong janissaries loyal and owing to him

- June 4 1826 New Army formed from ‘best of janissaries’

- again, (the rest of the) janissaries revolted

- some say they were actually incited to (by the Sultan’s men) but…

Defeat of the Janissaries

19th C Images: Janissaries

- street mobs loyal to sultan (some say ‘orchestrated’) forced janissaries in Istanbul back to their barracks

- they were then surrounded and attacked by Mahmud's artillery

- they set fire to barracks, killing janissaries trapped inside

Defeat of the Janissaries

Spread to and Repeated throughout Provinces:

- Mahmud had loyal troops carefully distributed – as if expecting revolt

- all those associated with janissaries (dervishes, clerics, guild members) killed or banished

- Fall of janissaries beginning of radical reform of Empire

[see “Destruction of the Janissaries”, in ‘Additional Readings’, two versions]

Defeat of the Janissaries

Sultan Abdul Mejid (1839-61): initiated the next most significant ‘reform’ of Empire

- November 3 1839, he gathered the Notables of Empire (pashas, viziers, ulema)

- foreign minister read statement known as the "noble rescript" or the “Rose Chamber Decree” (where it was read)

- February 18, 1856, another such statement was issued -- the “Imperial Rescript“

Tanzimat Reforms

These are known as the ‘Tanzimat Reforms’:- fair to say, both issued under some pressure: debate is ‘which’ pressure most influential?

- internal pressures, responding to conditions arising from 18th problems? (Abou-El-Haj)

- external pressures, responding to European Governments’ needs, demands (to facilitate their own interests)[see ‘Tanzimat Decree, 1839 – Additional Readings]

Tanzimat Reforms

Tanzimat:

- a "palace revolution" that strengthened the bureaucrats in power (or rising in power)?

- attempt to incorporate ideas about individual liberty and equality, within framework of autocratic government

- contained ‘germ’ of constitutional monarchy

Tanzimat Reforms (cont.)

Rescript 1856:

- specifically dealt with equalizing Muslims and non-Muslims (already begun with clothing law of 1829 that had removed previously existing restrictions/prescriptions of clothing depending on ethnicity, religion)

- reforms to taxation, military conscription, education

- extended rights,privileges and responsibilities of Muslims to non-Muslims

Tanzimat Reforms (cont.)

Debate:- what was real impetus for and consequences of Tanzimat Reforms?

- to what degree were they internal responses to internal problems (as Abou-El-Haj argues)?

- to what degree were they externally ‘forced’ by (and for) Europe (as most of the literature argues)?

[see “Tanzimat (1) & (2) ”, in Additional Readings]

Tanzimat Reforms (cont.)

Reforms provoked criticism within society:- changes were seen/presented:

- as “un-Islamic”- as “undercutting traditional social relations”

Echoes of earlier criticisms (Mustapha Ali, Kocu Bey) which romanticized both the notion of ‘traditional’ and of ‘Islam’- practice, interpretation of Islam evolving as integral part of state, ulema evolution 17th-18th C.- ‘social relations’ in major transformation

Tanzimat Reforms (cont.)

Reforms provoked criticism within society:- alternately: they did not go far enough

- new, western-educated elite, new civil service wanted greater popular participation in government [at least of their class]

- led to emergence ‘Young Ottomans’ (1860s) calling for ‘real’ reforms including a constitution

[more on Young Ottomans Nov. 14-16]

Tanzimat Reforms (cont.)

Tanzimat Reforms both Reflected and Influenced:

- changing role millets in empire

- growing/changing role of Muslims in military

- impact on relations between Muslims, non-Muslims

- tensions between ethnicity, religion, ideas of ‘nationalism’

Tanzimat and Issues of ‘nationalism’

The issues surrounding ‘Tanzimat’ come together in the discussion of “nationalism”, presented as ‘THE’ major factor tearing the Ottoman Empire apart in the 19th C.

- degree of Western influence (political, intellectual)

- desire of non-Muslims to acquire ‘rights’

- consequences of ‘rights’ in terms of ‘responsibilities’

- failure of ‘millet’ system

Tanzimat and Issues of ‘nationalism’

To Examine these arguments, interpretations, we need to look at major 19th c. ‘independence’ movements:

- Russia- Greece- Serbia-Bulgaria

Tanzimat and Issues of ‘nationalism’

1820s:- Armenians scattered Caucuses, Eastern Anatolia

- territories disputed Russia, Persia, Ottomans

1828:- Russia defeated Persia, annexed Erivan

- heart of today’s Armenia created

- Turkish Muslims expelled

Russia, Armenia, the Caucuses

Tsarist regime: established peace- fostered commerce, industry

- generated urban growth

- invested in railroads

- region prospered

Expulsion 1000’s Turks left their property, wealth in hands of (mostly) Russian Armenians

Russia, Armenia, the Caucuses

Russian ‘imperialism’ left legacy:- hatred between Turks, Armenians in region

- Armenians well represented in Ottoman cities (merchants, financiers)

-1863 Constitution recognized ‘special rights’

-1894-6 violence leading to massacres “unparalleled in ferocity and scope” [Quataert]

[see Williams, “Hijra and Forced Migration…”, Resources]

Russia, Armenia and the Caucuses

Armenians (18th C.)

Treaty of Berlin (1878):

- assigned Kars, Adahan, Batumi region to Russia

- another (forced influx) Turkish Muslims

- intensified ethnic tensions between peoples of Caucuses, refugees and local communities

Russia, Armenia and the Caucuses

Nationalist ideals stronger European regions:- ‘Turks’ (remnants Ottoman ‘imperialism’) resented, feared

- First Balkan rising in Greece, 1821

- among Greeks, many educated, wealthy – benefiting from position in Ottoman empire

- no desire to lose what they had

- Greek Orthodox clergy had power, wealth

Greek Independence

Religion (not language, residence), distinguished wealthy Orthodox Greeks from Muslim Ottomans:

- some Anatolian Greeks did not speak Greek

-"Greece" not a definable place: half of 4 million Greeks in modern mainland Greece

- 2 million scattered in towns along coast Anatolia, Black Sea, Mediterranean.

Greek Independence

GreeksOrthodox Patriarch,Women,Musician (18th C.)

Why? Who were instigators of Rebellion?- if majority would have been content to remain in empire why battles for independence?

- many doing well, especially in commerce, shipping

- also had strong ties to Europe, aware of ideas, possibilities being discussed there (eg. rights to political voice)

- influenced by French Revolution

Greek Independence

Leaders:

- members ‘secret society’ founded Odessa 1814

- son of Greek fur trader living in Moscow, also lived in Paris

- merchant from Odessa belonged to anti-Turkish society

- merchant Ionian Islands, links to National Guard (created by British during occupation)

Greek Independence

Occupation, links to ‘outside world’ -- typical of those who organized rebellion in exile:

153 merchants, shippers60 notables36 soldiers24 priests23 minor officials22 teachers/students30 ‘professionals’

Greek Independence

Russian ‘ties’ among leaders -- Little ‘nationalism’:

- planned uprising Romania failed

- locals ignored Turks (intended target)

- attacked local notables (including Greeks with property)

Greek Independence

Class divisions among Istanbul Greeks undermined uprising:- Orthodox Patriarch hanged- new church leader, notables condemned revolt

Only ‘success’ in south:- local leaders joined in fear

- Turkish towns destroyed, Turks massacred

- Turks retaliated with bloodbath

Greek Independence

[ George Finlay, contemporary account]

“In the meantime the Christian population had attacked and murdered the Mussulman population in every part of

the peninsula. The towers and country homes of the Mussulmans were burned down, and their property was

destroyed, in order to render the return of those who had escaped into the fortresses hopeless. From the 26th of

March until Easter Sunday, which fell, in the year 1821, on the 22nd of April, it is supposed that fifteen thousand [Muslims] souls perished in cold blood and that about

three thousand farmhouses or Turkish dwellings were laid waste."

Greek Independence

[from McCarthy, The Ottoman Turks, pp. 327-9]

Greek Independence

Greek Independence

‘Independence struggle’ continued:

- stalemate in south until 1825

- Armed peasants’ interests clashed with those of wealthy assembly members

- those in shipping, commerce

- 1823: Civil War (not ‘independence’ war)

Greek Independence

Unstable Situation Threatened interests of ‘Great Powers’:

- conflicting concerns:

-potential for more influence if movement successfulbut

- feared what it would mean for Ottoman stability, geo-political concerns

Greek Independence

In Western Europe:

- Greek revolt aroused sympathy among public

- Britain backed insurrection 1823, Ottomans weak

- Greece viewed as ‘cradle of Western Civilization’

- romantically portrayed as Christians casting off rule of decaying Muslim Empire

- found favour among the Western European public.

Greek Independence

Lord Byron:- spent time in Albania, Greece

- organized funds, supplies (including provision several ships)

- died from fever in Greece, 1824

- Byron's death added to European sympathy for Greek cause: widespread

- eventually contributed to Western powers intervening

Greek Independence

The mountains look on Marathon --And Marathon looks on the sea;And musing there an hour alone,I dream'd that Greece might yet be freeFor, standing on the Persians' grave,I could not deem myself a slave....Must we but weep o'er days more blest?Must we but blush? -- Our fathers bled.Earth! render back from out thy breastA remnant of our Spartan dead!Of the three hundred grant but three,To make a new Thermopylae.

[Byron]

Greek Independence

Massacre at Chios [Delacroix]

Liberty Leading the People [Delacroix]

1825:- Turkey engaged Mehmet Ali (Egypt)- modern navy, army invaded successfully

1827;- Great Powers sent fleet to defeat Mehmet Ali,- mediated peace, destroyed Egypt’s navy

1828-30:- Russia invaded Turkey- Istanbul threatened, Turkey submitted

Greek Independence

1828:- small state (800,000) created- ruled by former minister

1831:- assassinated by local aristocracy

Greek Independence

1832:-”London Protocol” created small ‘independent’ Greek kingdom

- ruled by German prince- acceptable to all three Powers

Greece the first ‘province’ to withdraw successfully from Ottoman Empire

Greek Independence

Images of the War(Ottomans, above;Greeks, right &next slide)

Greek Independence

Ruled as monarchy until 1844 when conservative constitution put in place:

- Conservative elite/oligarchy increased power

- intermediary of Sultan no longer present

- Turkish property gradually redistributed to Greek peasants

- most had some land by 1870

Greek Independence

Dissatisfaction with government:

- army coups 1843 (forcing constitution)

- 1862-4 (became integral part Greek politics)

- Many Greeks remained part of Ottoman empire

Greek Independence

Serbians revolt 1804, 1816:-1829 granted autonomy “tributary principality”

- Russia continued to support Serbian, Montenegrandemands for independence

- expulsions of Muslims continued

- Serbia, Montenegro sought to absorb Ottoman province Bosnia-Herzegovina

- territory 50% Muslim (rest Orthodox, Catholic)

Serbian-Bulgarian Independence

Serbian-Bulgarian Independence

1875:- Serbs in Bosnia rebelled- rebellion bloody, put down by Ottoman army

1876:- Bulgarian nationalists rebelled- 1000 Turkish peasants killed first days of rebellion

Serbian-Bulgarian Independence

- Army occupied territory

- local Turks, Circasans,Tatars armed to help put down rebellion

- 3,000-12,000 Christians killed before rebellion over

Serbian-Bulgarian Independence

1877-78: Russians intervened

- local Bulgarian revolutionaries, peasants sought revenge and land

- ‘agents’ (Cossacks, army officers) sent in to provoke uprisings

Serbian-Bulgarian Independence

[from McCarthy]:

“In a typical Turkish village, Cossacks would disarm the villagers, then surround the village and shoot all but a few who tried to escape. Hemmed in, the Turks were attacked by Bulgarians, who murdered the inhabitants... The scenes recorded by European diplomats equal any pictures of inhumanity and horror in history.... “

Serbian-Bulgarian Independence

Congress of Berlin (1878):

- acknowledged Russian victories

- ‘Great Powers’ dictated terms

- Bulgaria --‘autonomous and tributary principality’ within Ottoman territory with Christian government

Serbian-Bulgarian Independence

Bosnia-Herzogovina:- occupied, administered by Austria-Hungary- Kosovo remained under Ottoman rule- details for ‘joint administration’ negotiated

Serbia:- granted independence- detailed stipulations freedom of religion, access to rights

Serbian-Bulgarian Independence

Treaty of Berlin:

- addresses issues of religion, ‘equality’[see Articles XXV (Serbia), XLIV (Romania), LXII (“The Sublime Porte”) in “Treaty of Berlin”, Additional Readings]

- many Muslims refugees who returned to homes in what became Russian territories or ‘independent’ states like Bulgaria were murdered or enslaved

Serbian-Bulgarian Independence

Quataert:“states preceded nations” in age of nationalism:

- religious struggles underlying ‘ethnic’ and ‘nationalist’struggles (eg. Greece)

- foreign powers – Russia but also Britain, France, Germany, Italy -- played roles

- undermines simplistic view that ‘imported Nationalism’was tearing apart empire,

Nations or States?