studying the ottomans - university of alberta 2012/lecture/nov … · also important because it...

Section 2:

Ottomans in the Modern World (19th and 20th Centuries)

Nov. 3-5

Studying the Ottomans:

Quataert:

- Intersection of demographic changes and economic sectors

- Context of growing Asian and European competition

Characterizing the Economy

Debate exists over general ‘health’ of economy

Quataert argues that:

- the domestic economy remained healthy- internal production, consumption more important than international commerce - standards of living improved in Ottoman territories

Characterizing the Economy

18th century:- one of general population decline: war, lost

territories

19th century:- overall population stable in number (25-32 million)

but areas of density changed radically

Demographic Issues

1850s:

- Balkans comprised half if total population: - twice that of Anatolia (Anatolia three times Iraq, Syria)- five times larger than Arabian Peninsula

1906 :- only small territory left, yet still more than one-quarter population

Demographic Issues

Households:- not the extended form typical of rural areas in pre-

modern times

- No significant difference between composition Christian, Jewish and Muslim households

- polygamy affected small percentage of Muslim households (eg Nablus – 16%, Istanbul – 2%)

Demographic Issues

- Lower classes more likely to divorce (reflecting property concerns of upper classes)

- 19th century saw delays in marriage of all classes

Demographic Issues

Disease:- plague of central concern

- major impact on population (e.g. Egypt lost 1/6 population in 1785)

- cities more susceptible, impact highest

- e.g. Aleppo: situated on caravan routes, saw eight major outbreaks 18th c., four between 1802-27

Demographic Issues (cont)

Famine:- combination natural causes (e.g. extended drought)

- man-made problems (e.g. lack of infrastructure to distribute food)

- 19th century investment in transport (below) reduced famine

- ‘refugees’ (camps, work forces) suffered starvation

Demographic Issues (cont)

War -- affected population size:

- directly (deaths, illnesses from combat ultimately leading to death)

- indirectly (women, children – malnutrition and related diseases)

Demographic Issues (cont.)

Urbanization affected population distribution:

- coastal cities growing (reflecting trade)

- interior towns, cities (except those strategically located on rail lines) stagnated or declined


Quataert:

- draws attention to danger of statistics obscuring change:

- over time- between region/s- in ethnic/age/gender composition


Growing cities:- part of demographic change

- also economic shifts, social/cultural evolution

- workers attracted to work on port construction, buildings, railroads,

- need for local transport: demand for porters, drivers, ‘urban’ animal care

Urbanization

- usually single men, intending to return to countryside and families

- also Muslim refugees (see below)

- need for services: prepared food, laundry, tailoring, accommodation, ‘pleasure’…

- led to emergence of ‘urban underclass’ to provide services

Urbanization

View of Istanbul, 1870s

Painting:

IstanbulStreet Porter,(18th C.)

Painting:

Dockhands,Istanbul (late 1800s)

Muslim Refugees Flooded into Cities by the 1000s:

– Late 18th c. (following treaty 1770 with Russia), over 200,000 fled from Crimea (to various cities)

– 19th C: 100,000 from Russia to Istanbul (later moved into the Balkans, only to flee again a few years later with Balkan War of Independence,

1912)

Urbanization

– 1878: 25,000 Circassians went to Syria

– same year, 20,000 went to Aleppo

– Government directed 1000s to railroad construction:

- one-fifth of all Caucasian refugees died of malnutrition in while working on project

Urbanization

Health issues became more prominent :

[See ‘The Case of Cholera in Iran’ , Additional Readings]

Article interesting for descriptions 19th c. cities in Iran but…- also relevant for Ottoman cities, especially Istanbul

Urbanization

Also important because it observes connections between:- physical conditions (means by which water accessed in city) and…

- Islamic belief systems about water (as a purifying element), and practices (washing the dead, traveling for the pilgrimage)

- Iranian not as large as Ottoman cities: these concerns even more central in places like Istanbul, Izmir …

Urbanization

Painting: Istanbul Street, late 1800s

Photograph:Ottoman City(possiblyIstanbul), turn20th Century.

[compare withPrevious painting]

A ‘City Scene’: sheep grazing around water cistern

Ottoman Cemetery, just outside city walls

Looking at Iran:

- evidence suggests continued role herders, cultivators and ‘traditional economy’ remained more central (hence smaller, fewer cities)

Ottomans, by contrast:

- role of nomads (once central to culture ,economy): declining

Changing Character of Society

Anatolia (central-east), Arabia, Syria, Iraq and North Africa:- 18th century: still largely nomadic

- 19th century: changing dramatically

State played crucial role: - policies of sedentarization (taxation, political control)

- refugees settled as ‘buffers’ – isolating nomadic groups from potential unified political activities/resistance

Changing Character of Society

[Quataert]

Overland transport (caravan) expensive: - animal costs

- (credit) risk over long term

- low-quantity loads

Transport Revolution

But Quataert overlooks:

- ‘Ballast’ factor and…

- intersection with local economies

- enabled some routes to remain profitable (even asothers declined)


Main argument:

- water travel reduced costs and opened up new possibilities

(e.g. as European ‘voyages of discovery’ had been in large part about circumventing expensive overland route to East)


Painting, Turkish ‘carriage’ (1800s?):also note black African ‘servant’ in forefront

Water transport: also had problems

- ‘oared’ galleys (Mediterranean):- high labour demand for low cargo

- sailing ships:- dependent on winds, currents- vulnerable to piracy


Steamship ‘revolution’: - advantages (speed, predictable schedule, increased cargo space) – expensive

-appeared in Middle East c.1820s but sailing ships operated alongside until end of century

Suez Canel (1869):-built [French, British] to facilitate steamship travel - major impact on international trade, European presence in Egypt, overall role of steamship in economy

Transport Revolution (cont.)

Signatories to the Suez Canal Agreement

Railroad most significant development:- cheap (one rail car = load of 125 camels)- fast

But had drawbacks:- expensive infrastructure:

- cost of laying track led to use of forced (arguably slave) labour (Muslim Refugees)- had to be recovered in shipping rates -- initial profits not as quick in coming as anticipated


Required large amounts of capital:- no available domestic investment

- needed foreigners: key factor in 19th century debt

Moreover:- Foreign capital supported development that would bring returns to foreign lenders/companies

- did not necessarily benefit local or regional economy


- rail lines ran between major cities, then from cities directly to coastal ports

- ‘feeder lines’ rare especially in low density regions (consequently, rail development tended to accentuate regional differences):

- 1875: 731 miles of track- 1911: more than 4,000 miles laid

Affected passenger travel as well as commerce


[Quataert]

Railroads (not ships) true competitor of caravans:

- drew on some of same service towns

- generated new centers (available to caravans but also potentially ‘competition’)

- supported new animal transport networks to feed railheads


- Influenced growing of crops (to feed new towns)

- affected patterns of domestic (local/regional) migration


‘Counter argument’ to Quataert:

- yes, railroads were a major influence on 19th century domestic development in ways not fully recognized in literature… BUT

- because they were controlled by foreign capital and foreign interests/priorities, the ‘impact’ on the domestic economy was significant


Loading a ‘siege battery’ on Train (n.d.)

Quataert:

- controversial in stating that:

‘… international commerce was more visible in the 19th century, it was not more important than domestic exchange in terms of volume and value…’

Key Questions

Questions:

- Are purely economic considerations (like volume and value) more significant than political considerations (like control of debt, investment)?

- How should we, as historians, ‘measure’international impact on 19th c. economy?

Key Questions

Quataert argues:

- while Ottoman markets less important relative to Europe in 1900 than they had been in 1600 …

- does not mean either a decline in the size of the Ottoman markets or a decline in their real importance

- Ottomans remain among most important trading partners of Britain, France, Germany

Key Questions

Suggests other factors key in (re)shaping Ottoman commercial economy:

- loss of territories had major impact on both production and consumption patterns within empire itself

- [my additional point]: so too did domestic migration shifting patterns (Clay- Additional Readings)

Key Questions

Quataert acknowledges impact of world-wide trade expansion post 1750: affected Ottoman exports

- Earlier trade based on -re-export Asian silks [rooted in trans-continental/caravan trade with Asia]

- export Anatolian wools [based on sheep herding]

Global Impact(s)

19th century saw increasing Exports of:- unprocessed (raw) materials:

- cereals, tobacco, wool, cotton yarn, hides

And growing imports of:- commodities from European colonies:

-sugar, coffee, dyestuffs, manufactured goods

… Which were replacing their own production, their own small-scale industrial production (e.g. cloth, rug/carpets)

Global Impact(s)

Debate over question of terms of trade: - when exactly they turned against Ottomans

- when exactly did Ottomans cease to benefit from international trade?

[Quataert]:- more ‘dependency’ on that trade, therefore more vulnerable in 19th century to changes in ‘world’ production/demand

Global Impact(s)

Difficulty in measuring impact because of lack of data concerning domestic exchange:

Quataert nevertheless argues that domestic economy was healthier than generally assumed

Global Impact(s) (cont.)

Domestic Impact?– 18th c. : Europeans merchants positioned to increase

importation manufactured goods

– sought local partnerships with non-Muslims

– facilitated access to berats (certificates of tax exemptions)

Global Impact(s)

– by 19th c: lower taxes, costs benefited domestic [but non Muslim] merchants for first time

– shaped nature, fortunes of merchant class: access to capitulations increasingly exploited

19th c.: Ottoman ‘protégés’ replacing Europeans

Global Impact(s)

Istanbul (1900):

- 1000 registered merchants: 3% British, French or German (although they controlled over half Ottoman foreign trade)

- Muslims controlled interior, ‘feeder’ trades

(therefore): Quataert argues we have exaggerated the role of Europeans in this economy

[see continued discussion of this point, below]


ISTANBUL

Cloth Boutique

Turkish, Armenian‘retailers’ (street merchants)

Could one/should one counter-argue that:- it was the origin and control of the goods and capital that defined ‘the essential economic role’ [European]--

- not the individual merchants involved?’

Key Question:is ‘political economy ‘more than’ simple economy…?


Agriculture:- Quataert emphasizes long-term centrality of agriculture to empire’s economy and social structure

- continues (role) in 19th century: taxation on agricultural produce comprising 40% total taxes

- Also notes: agricultural products of growing importance to exports -cereals, fruits, animal products (milk, wool, hair)

- therefore large contributor to export taxes

Economic Sectors

Agriculture remained small-scale, local but underwent significant changes in 19th c.:

– Exchange with nomads declined

– Commercialization of cities, railroads meant food,transport contributions, seasonal labour grew

– Consumerism (demanding access to imported goods) increasingly important to rural communities

Economic Sectors (cont.)

More land cultivated:- more sharecropping, new migrations- also forced labour [former slaves, refugees]- wage labour began to appear

Increases in productivity:- irrigation systems- new tools- crop specialization


[Quataert]:tahirs (tax registers):

- key source evidence- use complicated by ‘farming out’ of taxation

Classes of ‘serfs’, slaves:- Ortakci kulam (Istanbul, Edirne)- married endogenously- taxed more than other peasants- absorbed into general population from 16th c.


waqf documents:- show increase in number of rural mosques in 19th c.

Discusses debate: - when did rural economy became ‘monatarized’?- was this beneficial or not?


Draws attention to changing emphasis in work of historians:from…- ‘top-down’ control (e.g. Inalcik; reflects dependency on tahirs)

to…- emphasis on peasant/household agency


- using ciftliks (land records)- e.g. a reference to ‘pair of oxen’ suggests small plots

- inheritance inventories, qadi registers (usually involving transactions)

- able to track accumulation by non-peasants- corollary: dispossessions of peasants - sizable documentation in 18th-19th c.


Recent research suggests Ottoman history differs from assumptions regarding second serfdom in Eastern Europe:

-(tying regeneration serfdom to growth of commercialization cereals)

- fewer ciftliks in hands of non-peasants

- many dealing in grain commerce with Istanbul to late 18th c.

– developments not linked to world market at all


Manufacturing: – growth due to increased labour input not improved

technology (exception, Egypt)

- increased demand for labour brought women and children directly into production

-Mechanized production replaced hand-crafting –(exceptions ‘Persian carpets’, spinning silk yarn)

[see “Silk and Wool” in Resources]


Guilds: Quataert disputes argument that guilds simply represented the state

- Janissaries well represented in guilds

- ‘mafia-like’ controllers in cities like Istanbul

- Master craftsmen directing/working in guilds


– Frequently fought to defend ‘popular’ interests against mechanization, imports

– Destruction in 1820s vulnerable moment for economy:

- need to reduce prices in face of more cheaply produced foreign goods- perhaps ‘economic exigency’ was part of decision to destroy the Janissaries


Following decline of guilds:- manufacture moved to countryside - accessed cheap labour: women, children (of all religions)

Quataert underscores key change:- from male, urban, guild-based production to…- female/child, unorganized rural (and urban) labour


PALESTINE

Arab Settlement c. 1911

Weaving ReedMats, c. 1894

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~dhershkowitz/pic47a-m.jpg

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~dhershkowitz/pic115b-m.jpg

Is Quataert correct that “we have exaggerated the role of Europeans in this economy”?

- on one hand, ‘mixed’ evidence (above) suggests that perhaps we have

- on other, need to look more closely at nature of evidence:

- major evidence of European ‘role’ is with respect to investment in transport (rail, road, water) and urban growth (public utilities)

Europe and the Economy

- all examples of ‘influence through debt’

- perhaps most important aspect of Ottoman’s indebted position vis-à-vis Europe derives not from Economy per se but from military/political relations

Labour and Economy

War with Russia:

- Russia wanted territories in Eastern Europe

- now was time to strike ‘Sick Man of Europe’ (Nicholas I)

- drew on treaty guaranteeing right to protect Christian orthodox citizens to oppose France’s foothold in Arab provinces

- suggested dividing up territories, assuming Britain’s neutrality – serioiusly misread situation!

Crimean War 1854-56

Crimean War 1854-56

• Dislike of Russian regime in Britain, concern to protect route to India drew Britain into war

• France entered to ensure recent gains not lost

War had little to do with Ottomans but cost empire politically

financially

Treaty of Paris, 1856:

- European powers assumed responsibility for protecting Ottoman Empire

- declared anything endangering integrity as “a question of European interest”

Crimean War 1854-56

Ottomans borrowed heavily from Britain, France for weapons, war supplies:- deeply in debt

- loans with discount rates as high as 55%, interest of 12 % attractive to Sultanate

- profitable for Europeans

- borrowing continued: when Abdulhamid II took power (1877-1909) empire virtually bankrupt.

Crimean War 1854-56

- 1877 Ottomans at war with Russia: defeated

- Russia imposed indemnity of $100,000,000

- by 1881, Ottoman empire in “receivership”

- British, French, Dutch, German, Austrian and Italian creditors set up Council of Administration of the Ottoman Public Debt

- took control of certain revenues to insure repayment

Crimean War: legacies

Europe continued to lend money:- constructing roads, railroads- installing city lights, water, public works

Germany interested 1890s:- Wilhelm II selling armaments to Ottomans- also building railroads into Anatolia- 1898, Kaiser paid second visit to Istanbul, then on to Damascus and Jerusalem

“Expansion to the east" inaugurated: Berlin to Baghdad railway (financed by Deutsche Bank)


- introduced German Imperialism into Middle East

- Ensured future co-operation between Germany, Ottoman Empire


Quataert’s controversial statement about role of Europeans based on his assertion that:

“while international commerce was more visible in the 19th

century, it was not more important than domestic exchange in terms of volume and value”.

But…in Post-Crimean War era: ‘debt’ situation may have been more significant to the economy than ‘commerce’.

Concluding Questions:

Leaves us with Questions:

Are purely economic considerations (like volume and value) more significant than political considerations (like control of debt, investment)?

Should we ‘measure’ international impact on 19th c. Ottoman Economy through commerce? or through debt?

How significant are these issues to ‘crises of Ottoman Identity’in the 19th c.?

Concluding Questions:

studying the ottomans - university of alberta 2012/lecture/nov … · also important because it...

Documents