DOCSLIB.ORG

Imperialism 1800‐ 1914: Africa, Ottomans Imperialism 1800‐1914: Ottomans

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Imperialism 1800‐ 1914: Africa, Ottomans Imperialism 1800‐1914: Ottomans Slave Trade, Rise of New Imperialism and the ‘Scramble for Africa’ Imperialism 1800‐ 1914: Africa, Ottomans Imperialism 1800‐1914: Ottomans c. 1800 Ottoman Empire Ottoman Empire 16th C.: integral part European trade networks ‐Europeans represented at Ottoman court: ‘Suleiman the Magnificent’ widely respected ‐ developed slave‐army ‘Janissaries’: feared throughout Europe ‐ end of century: Ottomans controlled most North Africa, Balkans, Eastern Europe, parts southern Russia, Iraq, ‘Holy Lands’, Persian Gulf, Black Sea, Red Sea and Mediterranean Sea Ottoman Empire: Age of Imperialism C. 1800: considerable territory lost in Europe, Russia Ottoman Empire: Long 18th Century: 1683 – 1798 ‐Characterized by military defeats, territorial withdrawals ‐political structure transformed: ‘central rule’ more negotiated authority taking into account regional changes ‐ Important shifts in the Ottoman economy: world economy played ever‐larger role in everyday lives of Ottoman people (as distinct from ‘elite’) Ottoman Empire Beginning of “Eastern Question” : ‐Following two decades of war with Russia: Treaty of Karlowitz 1799, lost most European territories of Empire; Crimea ‘supposedly’ autonomous ‐ Treaty fundamentally changed political relations between Europe and Ottomans in favour of Europe Ottoman Empire 1699‐1774: wars with Russia ‐ Russia seeking direct access to Mediterranean through Black Sea, Bosphorus Straits and Dardanelles Ottoman Empire Beginning of “Eastern Question” : ‐what would large regions of disputed control mean for Europe? ‐ what would clearly ‘weakened’ Ottoman empire mean for geo‐political strategies – especially for containment of Russia? Ottoman Empire: Moment of ‘crisis’ for Ottomans: ‐ generated debates about government ‐ political transformations: decentralization, building up strength of provincial administrations ‐created new bureaucracy with civil servants and military loyal to Sultan ‐ Attempted to reduce powers of invested elites: clergy and janissaries Ottoman Empire: 1774:Treaty of Kucuk Kaynarca ‐ final “humiliating blow” ‐ Russia won monopoly of north shore Black Sea access it had long sought ‐ Plus: passage through Dardanelles (therefore Allowed through Straits of Bosphorous) ‐ full independence Crimea Khanate left it unprotected: allowed for Russian annexation 1784 Ottoman Empire: Independent 1774; Annexed by Russia 1784 for reasons of ‘defense’ Ottoman Empire: 1798: Napoleon invaded Ottoman Egypt ‐ ‘conquest’ short‐lived: Sultan sent (Albanian commander) Mohammed Ali with soldiers ‐ Napoleon returned to France to seize power ‐ provided Mohammed Ali with opportunity to create semi‐autonomous province [see Textbook, pp. 771‐3 especially ‘Muhammad Ali’, 772] Napoleon ‘pardoning’ those who rose up against him, Cairo (1798) Napoleon in Cairo (1798 – painting) Mohammed Ali Pasha (c.1840 – portrait) ‘Launching’ modern navy (below) Ottoman Empire: Sultan Selim III (1789‐1807): ‐ Had little choice but to recognize superiority of European military ‐ ‘New World’ European wealth had been invested in standing armies, new technology, extended training Ottoman Empire: Sultan Selim III (1789‐1807): ‐ supported program to re‐organize military and administration ‐ European officers brought to Istanbul to train modern army in rapid‐fire artillery units ‐ Grand Admiral also charged with modernizing navy [reminder: wealth in trade ocean based –defense was with ships not land‐forces] Ottoman Empire: Restructured Administration: ‐ recognized importance of language: learning French new priority for young Ottomans ‐ established permanent diplomatic representatives in European capitals: ‘windows’ for importation of European ideas – all ideas philosophical, political…. Ottoman Empire: Economic Problems: ‐ some criticized investment in modernizing army: especially ‘traditional’ military, social elite ‐ some blamed ‘Europe’: Ottomans behind in economic (as well as) military development therefore, needed better relations with West Ottoman Empire: External view (1785): “…. 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. Ottoman Empire: . 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.” [from Comte de Volney, French, first‐hand observer 1782‐85, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine] Ottoman Empire: French ambassador in Constantinople expressed the same conclusion in 1788: ‐ referred to Ottoman Empire as "one of the richest colonies of France". Ottoman Empire: Mahmud II (1808‐39) built on earlier reforms: ‐ ministries with set duties, salaries ‐ “Translation Bureau” 1821: European languages (especially French) taught ‐ attention to translating foreign materials, documents: ‘starting point’ for ambitious young civil servants Ottoman Empire: ‐ build up special army, artillery corps among janissaries loyal and owing him for their positions ‐1826 New Army formed from ‘best of Janissaries’ ‐the rest of the Janissaries revolted Ottoman Empire: ‐ loyal troops carefully distributed around country: all those associated with Janissaries killed or banished Fall of the Janissaries beginning of radical reform of Empire Ottoman Empire: Sultan Abdul Mejid (1839‐61): Tanzimat Reforms ‐responding BOTH to internal, external pressures ‐ "palace revolution“: strengthening bureaucrats ‐incorporating ideas about individual liberty , equality ‐contained ‘germ’ of constitutional monarchy Ottoman Empire: Reforms were controversial: ‐ they went too far: “un‐Islamic”, undercutting traditional social relations ‐ they did not go far enough: western‐educated elite, new civil service wanted greater popular participation in government [at least for their class] Ottoman Empire: Reforms were controversial: ‐ some saw them as attempt to gain European support against Mohammed Ali Pasha [Egypt] ‐Support was given: arguable that it was related to Tanzimat Reforms –more likely self interest [see ‘Tanzimat Decree, Add’l Rdgs.] Ottoman Empire: Difficult to implement Reforms: ‐ too few trained men ‐ ‘older’ administrators protecting own vested interests ‐result : where reforms were successfully implemented usually led by young men with European education Ottoman Empire: ‘Young Ottomans’ 1865: ‐ secret ‘Patriotic Alliance’ (Young Ottoman Society): influenced by European ideals of liberalism and democracy ‐ wanted ‘Ottoman Nation’: constitution, democracy BUT also, Islamic Ottoman Empire: “The Young Ottomans were perhaps the first ideologists of Islam in modern times who tried to take the ‘ best of the West’ and graft it onto Islam.” Ottoman Empire: ‘Young Ottomans’: brought Abdul Hamid II to power 1876 ‐ critical moment : ‘Eyes of Europe’ in Istanbul to discuss future of Balkans ‐ used opportunity to push through first Ottoman Constitution ‐ Sultan gave appearance as western, modern: first opportunity (1878) ‐‐ rescinded all reforms Ottoman Empire: Young Ottomans divided: ‐ “stay or go”‐‐ into exile ‐ exile was Europe and Egypt ‐ writings influenced next generation of resistors: ‘Young Turks’ [see Textbook, p.773] Real change awaited their Revolution in 1908. Ottoman Empire: External Pressures: interacting with internal reforms ‐ nationalist influences: ‘Greek Rebellion’ (1820s) ‐ more complicated than generally represented but reflective of nature of politics Ottoman Empire: The Crimean War: 1853‐6 ‐ Russia arguing that Ottoman Empire no longer capable of fulfilling its role in ‘Europe’ as member of ‘balance of power’: launched War in Crimean assuming European support ‐ wrong: Britain, France not willing to let Russia gain control over route to India, and Middle East more generally Ottoman Empire: Ottoman Empire: Treaty of Paris, 1856: ‐ European powers assumed responsibility for protecting Ottoman Empire ‐ declared anything endangering integrity as “a question of European interest” Ottoman Empire: Ottoman Empire: Ottomans borrowed heavily from Britain, France for weapons, war supplies: ‐ deeply in debt: loans with attractive discount, interest : profitable for Europeans ‐ borrowing continued as modernization continued Abdulhamid II took power (1877‐1909): empire virtually bankrupt. Ottoman Empire: 1877 Ottomans again at war with Russia: defeated Treaty of Berlin 1878 [see in Resources] ‐ Russia imposed indemnity of 437,500 Ottoman Lira ( approximately 5.5 million French Francs or 397,700 English pounds at the time) Ottoman Empire: 1881: empire in “receivership” ‐ British, French, Dutch, German, Austrian, Italian creditors set up Council of Administration of the Ottoman Public Debt ‐ took control of specific revenues to insure repayment ‐ Ottomans fell into arrears on indemnity payments: gave more ‘leverage’ to Russians Ottoman Empire: Ottoman Economy: key points ‐ empire deeply in debt as consequence of Crimean War and ‘borrowing’ to cover military costs ‐ by 1880s: government budget controlled in all key sectors by Europe (only ‘domestic’ expenses handled by Ottomans) ‐ situation similar to Egypt: Arabi uprising 1882 [see Textbook pp. 775,6] But: modernization of economy must continue Ottoman Empire: Europe continued to lend money: ‐ to construct roads, railroads ‐ to deepen, enlarge ports (to deal with steamships) ‐ to install city lights, water,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Nizam-I Cedid Army Under Sultan Selim Iii 1789-1807
    THE NIZAM-I CEDID ARMY UNDER SULTAN SELIM III 1789-1807 by Stanford ]. Shaw Cambridge (Mass.) The term Niiam-i-Cedid, or "New Order", is generally applied to the entire spectrum of administrative, financial, and military reforms intro­ duced into the Ottoman Empire in the almost two decades of rule of Sultan Selim III 1. The term is sometimes used synonymously with the reign itself. Yet in fact, it was applied by the Sultan and his contempo­ raries only to one part of his reforms, the new army created entirely outside of and independent from the older corps, and it was only because of the spectacular nature of this particular reform that its name later was applied also to the efforts which this Sultan made to reform the older institutions as well. But it is in the limited, contemporary, sense of the term that it is used here. The Nizam-i Cedid army was, as we will see, largely a failure in its own time. Yet it represented an important step forward in the evolution of Ottoman reform. Until it was created, even the most "modern" and "liberal" of Ottoman statesmen conceived of reform as no more than an effort to restore the purity of old institutions and practices, and to make them operate in the manner which had brought greatness to the Empire in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Even the most perceptive of eighteenth century Ottoman "reformers" did not really understand how much Europe had changed since the time of Suleiman the Magnificent and that no matter how great the Ottoman ways had been two centuries before, even at their best, they could be no match for the modern insti­ tutions of state and war which had been evolved in the West.
    [Show full text]
  • Sultan Mahmud II's Reforms in the Light of Central European Documents
    Fall of Ancient Régime at Saint Domingue | Ivo Budil wbhr 01|2011 and preferred to demonstrate the new effi ciency of French royal army in Spain. The French interest in Saint Domingue died away.193 The population of the independent island in 1824 divided into three political entities (the Kingdom of Henry Christophe I., the Southern Republic under Alexandre Pétion, and the Old Spanish District) was esti- Sultan Mahmud II’s Reforms in the Light mated to be around 935,000 individuals.194 This mass was composed of blacks (819,000), mulattoes (105,000), Indians (1,500) and whites (500).195 The of Central European Documents strikingly small number of whites was a result of the enforcement of the law of the new independent Haiti which declared that “no white man, whatever MIROSLAV ŠEDIVÝ be his nationality, shall be permitted to land on the Haitian territory, with the title of master or proprietor; nor shall he be able, in future, to acquire there, either real estate or the rights of a Haitian”.196 The end of French hegemony at Saint Domingue and the emer- In their research on Ottoman history in the fi rst half of the 19th century, gence of independent black state were enabled by defi ciencies of administra- historians and orientalists exploited the archives in London and Paris or, tion of the colony affl icted by traditionally rivalry between the noblesse particularly the Russians and Soviets, those in Russia not only relating to the d´épée and the noblesse de robe. In 1789, the representatives of Saint Do- diplomatic relations between the Sublime Porte and European countries but mingue were trying to be integrated into National Assembly, without reali- also for the mostly internal aff airs of the sultan’s empire.
    [Show full text]
  • An Ottoman Global Moment
    AN OTTOMAN GLOBAL MOMENT: WAR OF SECOND COALITION IN THE LEVANT A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy In History By Kahraman Sakul, M.A Washington, DC November, 18, 2009 Copyright 2009 by Kahraman Sakul All Rights Reserved ii AN OTTOMAN GLOBAL MOMENT: WAR OF SECOND COALITION IN THE LEVANT Kahraman Sakul, M.A. Dissertation Advisor: Gabor Agoston, Ph.D. ABSTRACT This dissertation aims to place the Ottoman Empire within its proper context in the Napoleonic Age and calls for a recognition of the crucial role of the Sublime Porte in the War of Second Coalition (1798-1802). The Ottoman-Russian joint naval expedition (1798-1800) to the Ionian Islands under the French occupation provides the framework for an examination of the Ottoman willingness to join the European system of alliance in the Napoleonic age which brought the victory against France in the Levant in the War of Second Coalition (1798-1802). Collections of the Ottoman Archives and Topkapı Palace Archives in Istanbul as well as various chronicles and treatises in Turkish supply most of the primary sources for this dissertation. Appendices, charts and maps are provided to make the findings on the expedition, finance and logistics more readable. The body of the dissertation is divided into nine chapters discussing in order the global setting and domestic situation prior to the forming of the second coalition, the Adriatic expedition, its financial and logistical aspects with the ensuing socio-economic problems in the Morea, the Sublime Porte’s relations with its protectorate – The Republic of Seven United Islands, and finally the post-war diplomacy.
    [Show full text]
  • Diplomacy Might Be As Old As Politics Which Is As Old As State and People and As Long As the Debate of “We” and “Them” Existed, the Concept Is Likely to Prolong
    UNDERSTANDING THE REFORM PROCESS OF THE OTTOMAN DIPLOMACY: A CASE OF MODERNIZATION? A THESIS SUBMITTED TO GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY CEM ERÜLKER IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF EUROPEAN STUDIES DECEMBER 2015 Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences Prof. Dr. Meliha Altunışık Director I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science Asst. Prof. Dr Galip Yalman Head of Department This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science/ Asst. Prof. Dr Sevilay Kahraman Supervisor Examining Committee Members Yrd. Doç. Dr. Mustafa S. Palabıyık (TOBB ETU/IR) Doç. Dr. Sevilay Kahraman (METU/IR) Doç. Dr. Galip Yalman (METU/ADM) I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Name, Last name : Cem Erülker Signature : iii ABSTRACT UNDERSTANDING THE REFORM PROCESS OF THE OTTOMAN DIPLOMACY : A CASE OF MODERNIZATION? Erülker, Cem MS., Department of European Studies Supervisor Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sevilay Kahraman December 2015, 97 pages The reasons that forced the Ottoman Empire to change its conventional method of diplomacy starting from late 18th century will be examined in this Thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Rebellion, Janissaries and Religion in Sultanic Legitimisation in the Ottoman Empire
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Istanbul Bilgi University Library Open Access “THE FURIOUS DOGS OF HELL”: REBELLION, JANISSARIES AND RELIGION IN SULTANIC LEGITIMISATION IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE UMUT DENİZ KIRCA 107671006 İSTANBUL BİLGİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ TARİH YÜKSEK LİSANS PROGRAMI PROF. DR. SURAIYA FAROQHI 2010 “The Furious Dogs of Hell”: Rebellion, Janissaries and Religion in Sultanic Legitimisation in the Ottoman Empire Umut Deniz Kırca 107671006 Prof. Dr. Suraiya Faroqhi Yard. Doç Dr. M. Erdem Kabadayı Yard. Doç Dr. Meltem Toksöz Tezin Onaylandığı Tarih : 20.09.2010 Toplam Sayfa Sayısı: 139 Anahtar Kelimeler (Türkçe) Anahtar Kelimeler (İngilizce) 1) İsyan 1) Rebellion 2) Meşruiyet 2) Legitimisation 3) Yeniçeriler 3) The Janissaries 4) Din 4) Religion 5) Güç Mücadelesi 5) Power Struggle Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü’nde Tarih Yüksek Lisans derecesi için Umut Deniz Kırca tarafından Mayıs 2010’da teslim edilen tezin özeti. Başlık: “Cehennemin Azgın Köpekleri”: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda İsyan, Yeniçeriler, Din ve Meşruiyet Bu çalışma, on sekizinci yüzyıldan ocağın kaldırılmasına kadar uzanan sürede patlak veren yeniçeri isyanlarının teknik aşamalarını irdelemektedir. Ayrıca, isyancılarla saray arasındaki meşruiyet mücadelesi, çalışmamızın bir diğer konu başlığıdır. Başkentte patlak veren dört büyük isyan bir arada değerlendirilerek, Osmanlı isyanlarının karakteristik özelliklerine ve isyanlarda izlenilen meşruiyet pratiklerine ışık tutulması hedeflenmiştir. Çalışmamızda kullandığımız metot dâhilinde, 1703, 1730, 1807 ve 1826 isyanlarını konu alan yazma eserler karşılaştırılmış, müelliflerin, eserlerini oluşturdukları süreçteki niyetleri ve getirmiş oldukları yorumlara odaklanılmıştır. Argümanların devamlılığını gözlemlemek için, 1703 ve 1730 isyanları ile 1807 ve 1826 isyanları iki ayrı grupta incelenmiştir. 1703 ve 1730 isyanlarının ortak noktası, isyancıların kendi çıkarları doğrultusunda padişaha yakın olan ve rakiplerini bu sayede eleyen politik kişilikleri hedef almalarıdır.
    [Show full text]
  • II Mahmud and His Statesmen's Diplomatic Manoeuvres to Solve
    Araştırma Makalesi https://doi.org/10.46868/atdd.76 Original Article II Mahmud and His Statesmen’s Diplomatic Manoeuvres to Solve Mehmet Ali Pasha Crisis Serkan Demirbaş ORCID: 0000-0002-0118-4169 Abstract Although his period of reign, 1808-1839 (31 years), was very long, Mahmud II was one of the most ignored Sultans of the nineteenth century. His diplomatic abilities in particular are never taken into account when scholars examine the fevered diplomatic developments between 1831 and 1840; called ‘The Eastern Question’ by western historians. One of the main reasons for this ignorance is prejudice and preconceived ideas in the western scholar’s mind. According to the general attitude of these historians, Mahmud and his statesmen were passive actors in the process, and did almost nothing apart from watch the diplomatic developments in their territories unfold. Such a view, infused as it is with ‘Orientalist’, represents the attitudes of the European statesmen of the time and in the absence of the view from the Turkish side of the hill, has tended to hold the field. Furthermore, it could be revealed that the cause of this biased point of view is repudiation of the Eastern World with views based only on their own western sources. These issues continue to be discussed under the umbrella of Orientalism, a concept originated by Edward Said. However, this has been conducted as a cultural history centred debate and therefore it seems that it might be useful to provide diplomatic examples in order to make some contribution to the Orientalism debate. In this context, although this article is not a theoretical study, it will attempt to convey the essence of the diplomatic struggle story of Mahmud and his diplomats in the years of 1834 and 1835.
    [Show full text]
  • THE MODERNIZATION of the OTTOMAN NAVY DURING the REIGN of SULTAN ABDÜLAZİZ (1861-1876) By
    THE MODERNIZATION OF THE OTTOMAN NAVY DURING THE REIGN OF SULTAN ABDÜLAZİZ (1861-1876) by DİLARA DAL A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies Department of Classics, Ancient History and Archaeology College of Arts and Law The University of Birmingham April, 2015 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT The main focus of this study is to examine the modernization of the Ottoman navy during the reign of Sultan Abdülaziz, exploring naval administration, education, and technology. Giving a summary of the transformation of shipbuilding technologies and bureaucratic institutions of the Ottoman naval forces between 1808 and 1861, it analyses the structure of the Ottoman navy, its level of development in comparison to previous periods of time, and the condition of the vessels making up the naval fleet from 1861 to 1876. It also intends to evaluate the character of existing administrative structures at the outset of Abdülaziz’s reign in 1861 and the nature of subsequent changes, including structural reorganization of the Imperial Naval Arsenal, the Ministry of Marine, and the Naval Academy, as well as advancements in military training and seafaring; all within the context of the impact of these changes on the military, political, and economic condition of the Empire during the reign of Sultan Abdülaziz.
    [Show full text]
  • Mighty Guests of the Throne Note on Transliteration
    Sultan Ahmed III’s calligraphy of the Basmala: “In the Name of God, the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate” The Ottoman Sultans Mighty Guests of the Throne Note on Transliteration In this work, words in Ottoman Turkish, including the Turkish names of people and their written works, as well as place-names within the boundaries of present-day Turkey, have been transcribed according to official Turkish orthography. Accordingly, c is read as j, ç is ch, and ş is sh. The ğ is silent, but it lengthens the preceding vowel. I is pronounced like the “o” in “atom,” and ö is the same as the German letter in Köln or the French “eu” as in “peu.” Finally, ü is the same as the German letter in Düsseldorf or the French “u” in “lune.” The anglicized forms, however, are used for some well-known Turkish words, such as Turcoman, Seljuk, vizier, sheikh, and pasha as well as place-names, such as Anatolia, Gallipoli, and Rumelia. The Ottoman Sultans Mighty Guests of the Throne SALİH GÜLEN Translated by EMRAH ŞAHİN Copyright © 2010 by Blue Dome Press Originally published in Turkish as Tahtın Kudretli Misafirleri: Osmanlı Padişahları 13 12 11 10 1 2 3 4 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing from the Publisher. Published by Blue Dome Press 535 Fifth Avenue, 6th Fl New York, NY, 10017 www.bluedomepress.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Available ISBN 978-1-935295-04-4 Front cover: An 1867 painting of the Ottoman sultans from Osman Gazi to Sultan Abdülaziz by Stanislaw Chlebowski Front flap: Rosewater flask, encrusted with precious stones Title page: Ottoman Coat of Arms Back flap: Sultan Mehmed IV’s edict on the land grants that were deeded to the mosque erected by the Mother Sultan in Bahçekapı, Istanbul (Bottom: 16th century Ottoman parade helmet, encrusted with gems).
    [Show full text]
  • Legitimizing the Ottoman Sultanate: a Framework for Historical Analysis
    LEGITIMIZING THE OTTOMAN SULTANATE: A FRAMEWORK FOR HISTORICAL ANALYSIS Hakan T. K Harvard University Why Ruled by Them? “Why and how,” asks Norbert Elias, introducing his study on the 18th-century French court, “does the right to exercise broad powers, to make decisions about the lives of millions of people, come to reside for years in the hands of one person, and why do those same people persist in their willingness to abide by the decisions made on their behalf?” Given that it is possible to get rid of monarchs by assassination and, in extreme cases, by a change of dynasty, he goes on to wonder why it never occurred to anyone that it might be possible to abandon the existing form of government, namely the monarchy, entirely.1 The answers to Elias’s questions, which pertain to an era when the state’s absolutism was at its peak, can only be found by exposing the relationship between the ruling authority and its subjects. How the subjects came to accept this situation, and why they continued to accede to its existence, are, in essence, the basic questions to be addressed here with respect to the Ottoman state. One could argue that until the 19th century political consciousness had not yet gone through the necessary secularization process in many parts of the world. This is certainly true, but regarding the Ottoman population there is something else to ponder. The Ottoman state was ruled for Most of the ideas I express here are to be found in the introduction to my doc- toral dissertation (Bamberg, 1997) in considering Ottoman state ceremonies in the 19th century.
    [Show full text]
  • Facts About Daniel
    REVELATION, Chapter 9 Chapter 9:1 – 12; The Fifth Trumpet: Locust torture for five months Chapter 9:13 – 21; The Sixth Trumpet: 200 million horsemen kill a third of mankind SIMILARITIES of the Fifth and Sixth Trumpets: 1. A large number of creatures; locust and horsemen. 2. Both locusts and horsemen have specialized tails. 3. Both are linked to time periods; five month and an hour, day, month, & year. 4. Both emerge from specific locations; the bottomless pit and the River Euphrates DIFFERENCES of the Fifth and Sixth Trumpets: 1. The tails, times, and places are different. 2. The horse locusts are only allowed to torture, while the horsemen are allowed to kill. 3. The sixth Trumpet horsemen have “three plagues,” the fire, the smoke, and the sulphur. THE THREE WOES A fallen star: Satan, and the Islamic leaders who served his purposes. A bottomless pit: Arabia viewed as a vast, mostly uninhabitable wasteland, a place of death. Flying horse like locusts: Islamic armies in their early, Arabic phase of conquest. Wearing turbans, long hair, spreading their poison like scorpions. A swarm of locust The spread of Islam A.D. 750: all of Northern Africa, Arabia, North and East of the Euphrates River to India, including Southern Spain. This is exactly the Northern range of the Desert Locust. Grass and green trees: People of God whom the Moslems allowed to go on living. People of God sealed on their foreheads: Sincere Christians whom the Moslems allow to go on living. Five months’ torture: Approximately 150 years, probably the years between the beginning (674) and the end (823) of the early series of Islamic attacks on Constantinople.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia on Ottoman Foreign Policy at the Time of Selim Iii (1789-1807)
    POLITICS AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES THE ROLE OF THE PRINCIPALITIES OF WALLACHIA AND MOLDAVIA ON OTTOMAN FOREIGN POLICY AT THE TIME OF SELIM III (1789-1807) Mehmet Alaaddin YALÇINKAYA Karadeniz Technical University in Trabzon (Turkey) e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia had an important place in the relations of the Ottoman Empire with the Central and Eastern European States. From the second half of the 17th century, Greek families (Phanariot) from the Phanar area of Istanbul gained important function in the Ottoman foreign policy and diplomacy. The most important of these functions were the interpretation for the central administration and the Ottoman navy. Subsequently, they also carried out other interpreting services such as embassy translations. Instead of traditional Boyars, the Princes/Hospodars (Voivodes) of Wallachia and Moldavia were appointed by the Sultan from among these Greek families from 1711 onwards. The reign of these Greek families in Wallachia and Moldavia lasted about 110 years until the Greek Revolt of Mora in 1821. As source of information about Russia, Poland, Austria and Prussia, these princes played a key role for the Ottoman foreign policy. In this context, this paper will examine the role of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia on Ottoman foreign policy within the context of Europeanisation of Ottoman Diplomatic channels in the era of Selim III (1789-1807). Keywords: Wallachia, Moldavia, Ottoman Foreign Policy, Selim III, the Phanariot. Rezumat: Rolul Principatelor Țara Românească și Moldova în politica externă otomană din timpul lui Selim al III-lea (1789-1807). Principatele Țării Românești și ale Moldovei au avut un loc important în relațiile dintre Imperiul Otoman și statele din Europa Centrală și de Est.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ottoman Empire, 1700–1922, Second Edition
    This page intentionally left blank The Ottoman Empire, 1700–1922 The Ottoman Empire was one of the most important non-Western states to survive from medieval to modern times, and played a vital role in European and global history. It continues to affect the peoples of the Middle East, the Balkans, and Central and Western Europe to the present day. This new survey examines the major trends during the latter years of the empire; it pays attention to gender issues and to hotly de- bated topics such as the treatment of minorities. In this second edition, Donald Quataert has updated his lively and authoritative text, revised the bibliographies, and included brief bibliographies of major works on the Byzantine Empire and the post–Ottoman Middle East. This ac- cessible narrative is supported by maps, illustrations, and genealogical and chronological tables, which will be of help to students and non- specialists alike. It will appeal to anyone interested in the history of the Middle East. DONALD QUATAERT is Professor of History at Binghamton University, State University of New York. He has published many books on Middle East and Ottoman history, including An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914 (1994). NEW APPROACHES TO EUROPEAN HISTORY Series editors WILLIAM BEIK Emory University T . C . W . BLANNING Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge New Approaches to European History is an important textbook series, which provides concise but authoritative surveys of major themes and problems in European history since the Renaissance. Written at a level and length accessible to advanced school students and undergraduates, each book in the series addresses topics or themes that students of Eu- ropean history encounter daily: the series will embrace both some of the more “traditional” subjects of study, and those cultural and social issues to which increasing numbers of school and college courses are devoted.
    [Show full text]