perceptions of empire: transition or decline?

Perceptions of Empire:Transition or Decline?

Argument: 17th-18th centuries marked ‘decline’ of Ottoman Empire relative to ‘apex’ of Suleiman the Magnificent’s rule.- frontiers of empire shrank (military issues)- economy weakened relative to Europe- Islamic power ‘ebbed’ vis-à-vis Christianity-power of the sultan declined

Decline of Empire? The issues…

Decline said to:- begin with failed siege of Vienna (1683) - end with Napolean’s invasion Egypt (1798)

[see Interactive Map, ‘Resources’: 1683, 1710, 1815]

Military Fortunes: defeat and decline

Russian-Ottoman War 1686–1700:- known as the ‘Great Turkish War - began when Russia joined anti-Turkish coalition of Austria, Poland, Venice - Russian army organized Crimean campaigns 1687, 1689 and Azov campaigns 1695, 1696- Crimea returned to Russian control- Treaty of Constantinople signed 1700



Capture of Azov, 1699 (Peter the Great – on horseback)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Azov.jpg

British Painting Battle of Azov 1696

- Azov fortress, trading centre - important for opening up southern routes (military, commercial) to Russia- passed back and forth between Russia, Ottomans during 18th C.[1711, 1736, 1739]- became definitively Russian in 1774


1699 Treaty of Karlowitz:- gave up Hungary,Romania, Croatia, Transylvania, Aegean Islands, Southern Ukraine - presented by Hussein Koprulu to Ottoman people (defended by Naimi – see lecture Mar. 5)


Historians’ perceptions of importance:

- “marks the beginning of the end of the Ottoman Empire” (Armajani & Ricks)-“was a fateful opening to the 18th century”(Bernard Lewis) that saw humiliating series of defeats


- Was ‘the beginning of the “Eastern Question”: how was Europe now to adjust its relations with the Ottomans?

- Who was to take control of these lands from which they had been expelled?


“European diplomats knew that henceforth the Turks would not threaten the integrity of Europe. The Ottomans, on the other hand, slowly realized that their domain was at the mercy of the countries of Europe. …”


1723-36:- contested lands Persian-Ottoman border - ended with collapse of Safavid state 1746

1768-74:- continued conflicts Russia- Ottoman fleet destroyed in Agean Sea- Treaty of Kucuk Kaynarca 1774 “humiliating blow”


- Russia gained two major Crimea ports and one giving direct access to Black sea- also passage through the Dardenelles- Ottomans lost Crimean Khanate (important military support)- Crimea independent in principle but soon annexed by Russia (1783)

…Defeat and Decline (cont.)

Had non-military clauses as well:- Russia gained right to build Orthodox

Church, Istanbul - And to protect Eastern Orthodox Christians in

empire- Ottoman Sultan recognized as ‘Caliph’ of

Muslims in Russia, including Crimea where there were many


- first time powers Ottoman sultan recognized outside of empire, ratified by Europeans signing treaty- Treaty “played vital role in shaping subsequent internal and external affairs” [Quataert]


"Here [above l.] at 10-21 July 1774 was signed the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca between the representative of Catherine the Great, Count Peter Rumyantsev and the representative of Sultan Abdul Hamid I, the Grand Vizier Musul Zade MehmedPasha. Clause 7 of this treaty reads as follows: The Sublime Porte promises permanent protection of the Christian religion and its churches.“ [above r.]

1798:- Napoleon invaded, conquered much of Egypt - attempt to take Palestine unsuccessful- Many stories of attempts to ‘become’sultan, including one that he converted to Islam!

… Defeats and Decline (cont.)

- Short-lived control, returned to France 1799)- looted treasures for French museums - loosened ties of Mamluk rulers with Ottomans- Egypt remained formally part of empire until British victory 1882 - in reality, largely autonomous

… Defeats and Decline (cont.)

Not all historians interpret these events as ‘decline’ [Quataert]:

- not all military ‘defeats’ were permanent- Belgrade taken back by Ottomans several times until the early 19th century- considerable Russian territory regained in early 18th century

… Defeats and Decline:the whole story?

- 1711 forces of Czar Peter the Great were defeated- Port on Black Sea recovered - Russian ships forced out of waterways


Late 18th century, under Selim III:- recognition given to superiority European military- ‘New World’ European wealth invested in standing armies, new technology, extended training- Selim supported program re-organization military and administration


- European officers brought to Istanbul to train modern army in rapid-fire artillery units- Grand Admiral also sought to modernize navy


Questions then become:- to what extent should ‘decline’ (as opposed to ‘transformation’ or ‘evolution’) be determined with respect to military and territorial changes?


- to what extent should modernizing of military forces, consolidation of territory be considered a ‘counter’ influence to physical/political shrinkage of boundaries?


- to what extent can we see transformation of janissaries into self-reproducing, economically independent class, speaking as ‘popular’ voice yet retaining ‘elite’ position -- as strength?

Weakness or Transformation?

- to what extent can we see nature of provinces’ reciprocal relationship with Sultan (as reflected in the malikane, for example) as transforming that relationship rather than defying or destroying it – in other words, rather than ‘weakening’ the state?

Weakness or Transformation?

No one argument regarding relation economic situation to ‘debate’:- some argue Ottoman state too centralist- interfering in economy- extracting too much for army expenses - exercising too much ‘political’ control from Istantbul [reference ‘firemans’ looked at last week]

Economy and Decline?

- some argue Ottoman problems derived from European economy:

- fell behind Europe in not becoming sufficiently centralist, mercantilist

- Quataert argues that the Global Economy affected Ottomans more than any state policy

- In fact these two points related


- development of banking systems critical to European mercantilism, nascent capitalism- modern banks non-existent in Ottoman lands- commercial ‘loans’ limited, interest not permitted under Islamic law


“A clever Ottoman businessman might make much money, but he did not recycle it into the businesses of others especially not into new methods of manufacturing. The limited capitalism of the Ottoman Empire was extremely conservative.”

[McCarthy]


Debates:- was this about ‘being Ottoman’ or being ‘Muslim’? [issue of interest for example]- was this really a problem, let alone ‘the’problem? [see articles on ‘Waqf’ in Additional Readings and Resources]


Or was this about Europe?- European overseas expansion allowed for

development of ‘mercantilism’- Sell most goods abroad (especially to colonies),

restrict imports finished goods- Ottomans no opportunity to develop export

industry manufactured/processed goods- Becoming ‘colonial economy’ vis-à-vis Europe


(1785, from C.F Volney, first-hand observer:)“…. the commerce of the Turks with Europe and India, is

more detrimental than advantageous. For the articles exported being raw unwrought materials, the empire deprives itself of all the advantages to be derived from the labour of its own subjects. On the other hand, the commodities being imported from Europe and India, being articles of pure luxury, only serve to increase the dissipation of the rich and the servants of government, whilst, perhaps they aggravate the wretched condition of the people , and the class of cultivators.”


The French ambassador in Constantinople expressed the same conclusion in 1788:

- he referred to the Ottoman Empire as "one of the richest colonies of France".

[from L.S. Stavrianos, Global Rift, p,138,9)


Education in Europe:- growing with European capitalism- Britain: 17th-18th C. schools appeared; 50% males literate 1800- 1800 90% males Scotland, 65-70% France- Prussia, elementary school compulsory 1717- long history of university education, sciences (chemistry, physics) needed for industrustrialdevelopment


Education in Ottoman Empire:- doubtful 10% literacy among males - argued ‘no universities’: not true but true that subjects (religion, astronomy, sharia law) not especially helpful for keeping pace with European economies


In part about both economy and education:To whatever extent we determine that

relations with Europe (and/or the larger ‘global economy’) were central to defining this period, important to note that:‘Ottomans (both state and people) were largely ignorant of Europe, its People, its Economy and its Intellectual development’

Europe and Decline?

Some would argue ‘intellectual development’was largely reflective of religion:“One cannot understand the gradual decline of the Ottoman state after the late sixteenth-century and the subsequent rapid deterioration of the Safavidssimply in terms of incompetent individuals and misdirected institutions. …it basically reflected the ebbing fortune of Islamic civilization while Christian Europe's edge grew to indisputable predominance by the late eighteenth century.”

Europe and Decline?

[Glenn E Perry The Middle East: fourteen Islamic centuries, 113]

Issues cited:- basic conservatism Ottoman Muslim society (especially relative to Europe’s ‘vitality’)- lack of receptivity to innovation- ‘nadir’ of creativity (18th C.)- ‘Western Supremacy essentially immobilized Ottomans, whose internal dynamic had already begun to decline in terms of creativity’[Perry, 117,8]

Europe and Decline?

Ottomans did have little contact with Europe:- Court used select group Greek families as intermediaries/translators with Foreign Ambassadors- Few Ottomans traveled to Europe (permanent diplomatic relations established 1792-93)

Europe and Decline?

- While Europe had vast travel literature about Ottomans, Ottomans had nothing comparable

– Even elite knew little of Europe, assuming it to be inferior to Islamic world

– Gradually beginning to change (as reflected in writings of Kalib Chelebi, geographer)

Europe and Decline?

“[reality showed that]…the self image as a revitalized restored empire, fostered by almost three-quarters of a century of success was shattered. The ‘pharmacology of Islam’ as prescribed by Naima and practiced by the Ottoman ruling elite had brought only the illusion of restored health”

[Itzkowitz, Ottoman Empire, p.106]

Europe and Decline?

Sultan Selim III (1761-1808): - called for European training of army- established ‘New Order’ 1792-93: restructuring administration, military, diplomacy- recognized importance of language: learning French new priority for young Ottomans- established diplomatic representatives in European capitals – ‘windows’ for importation of European ideas

Europe and Decline?

One might argue:

Sultan Selim III stood not at mid-point of declining ‘slope’ of empire but rather mid-point between old traditional empire and new evolving entity that would retain concept of ‘empire’ for more than a century to come. And bring its people increasingly into the world economy.

Transformation NOT Decline

perceptions of empire: transition or decline?

Documents