İSLAM ARAŞTIRMALARI Journal of Islamic Research البحوث االسالمية Yıl 3 Sayı 1 Mayıs 2010
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Avrupa İslam Üniversitesi İSLAM ARAŞTIRMALARI Journal of Islamic Research البحوث االسالمية Yıl 3 Sayı 1 Mayıs 2010 İSLAM ARAŞTIRMALARI The contribution of Egyptian troops in the middle of the 19th century to the Ottoman struggle in the Balkans. Assistant Professor Rahman ADEMİ Çankırı Karatekin University Introduction As has been already established, the 19th Century determined the fate of the Ottoman Empire. Universal values such as freedom and nationalism, which emerged after the French revolution, spread to Ottoman regions, home to a great many different ethnic groups. These movements can be traced quite clearly from 1815 and continued, with increasing impact, throughout the 19th century. However, it would not be strictly correct for us to regard anti-Ottoman movements as having been caused solely by the French Revolution. Non- Muslim communities learned more of their rights and freedoms as a result of the revolution, and they began not to regard with goodwill the cruelties they endured as a result of the degeneration and corruption of the Ottoman bureaucracy, which spread considerably in the 18th century and existed before then.1 A similar situation, albeit for different reasons and with different dimensions, existed in China, Russia, Germany and Italy, and 262 Yıl 3 Sayı 1 Mayıs 2010 İSLAM ARAŞTIRMALARI nationalist streams continued their activities in these countries too.2 The ıshlahat reforms undertaken as a result of pressure from Western states transformed into a process that favoured the non-Muslim community. This development greatly disturbed the war-weary Muslims, who felt the results and weight of all the state's problems were on their shoulders. The new arrangments – established a result of both the tanzimat and the ıshlahat edicts – only caused the state and Muslim community's problems to increase, while the wishes of the Christian minority continued to be met with increased regularity. Far from being demanded by the people, these reforms occured in accordance with the calculations of Western states. They were contrary to the wishes of the Ottoman administration and were of a “top down”, forced nature. The actual determining role here fell to the strong states of Europe and to Russia: the regional political and social forces in the Balkans have never been able to develop by themselves and have never attained a level where they could act alone.3 Russia made some important gains against the Ottoman Empire as a result of the 1774 treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji (Turkish: Kucuk Kaynarca). At the end of that same year, Russia opened a consulate in Izmir. It was closely followed in January 1775 by another in Thessaloniki.4 As a result of the above mentioned rights and privileges granted to minorities, the existing balance in Ottoman society was completely disrupted. The Muslims, having until then been the dominant populace, began to lose out economically and socially. In addition to this, the frequently restless minorities succeeded as a result of these new rights in turning their separatiest thoughts into armed movements. Efforts to improve aspects of the state that did not function and new problems and needs that emerged through time were not sufficient to solve the issues, and the communities in question, far from being pacified, were provoked by such external forces as European states and Russia to expand their separatist activities. On the large part, relations between European states and Russia were based on competitiveness, but when it came to the Ottoman Empire they were occasionally able to work in alliance. It was in this context that the European powers referred to the minorities wishing to break away from the Ottoman Empire as “freedom fighters”, a description which disturbed Sultan Mahmud II. According to him, peoples such as these had stood up against a legitimate administration and could only be described as rebels.5 Russia's long-standing effort and strategy of reaching warm waters in the south via the Straits would occasionally show itself in a more fervent form, depending of the situation. The invasion of Egypt in 1798 by the French general Napoleon Bonaparte put the Ottoman Empire in a difficult situation, as it was forced to enter into alliance with its historical enemies Russia and Yıl 3 Sayı 1 Mayıs 2010 263 İSLAM ARAŞTIRMALARI Britain in order to save Egypt. The Russian fleet used the opportunity to cross through the Straits to enter the Mediterranean for the first time and, with the intention of making a temporary situation permanent, it began to construct its foreign policy towards this aim. Thus, the “Question of the Straits” was born. Russia's activities, provoking first the Greeks and then the Bulgarians, must be seen as a part of this policy.6 This period of hardship accelerated the collapse of the Ottoman economy, just as the state was working to cater for the mounting political demands of non-Muslims living in the Balkans and other Ottoman lands in just about every area. By 1870, war had taken the Ottoman Empire to a level of debt that could not have been drawn in normal conditions, and the Porte was forced to turn to the Galata bankers.7 Of the 118 years between 1800 and 1918, 53 had been spent engaged in wars with different states. This is a disastrous situation for any state, regardless of its strength, and was one faced by the Ottman Empire.8 As they struggled to cope with such huge economic and military troubles, its rivals had entered into a grand period of economic development. Between 1870 and 1890, industrial production increased by 80% in Britain, 100% in France and 270% in Germany. In Russia, the number of factories over a mere five year period – 1886 to 1890 – increased from 2500 to 6000.9 Relations between Mehmet Ali Pasha and the Ottoman administration Despite having had no formal military education, Mehmet Ali Pasha's military achievements saw him advance rapidly, to the extent that his strength established him as a rival to the Ottoman Empire. While not being an administrator or an officer in the classical sense, the economic development of the Egypt vilayet under his watch could be described as extraordinary. His strength stemmed from his firm understanding of the economy, and the agriculture and trade systems. In a short time, Egypt's tax revenue increased from 13,000 kese (moneybags) to 35 thousand, and later to 400 thousand.10 He used much of these resources to strengthen Egypt's administrative and military structure.11 The port town of Alexandria in particular emerged as a highly developed town in terms of agriculture and trade, and contributed greatly to the income of the Egyptian province.12 By raising its army in the Western style, it was able to create a small but effective military force.13 But all of Egypt's income was under Mehmet Ali Pasha's control, and it is not really possible to say that the people benefited from the rising income.14 Egypt's richness was essentially gathered at the administrative level; the value of agricultural procurement per head in Egypt prior to the First World War was close to and below that of the Ottoman Empire.15 It can be seen that the level of welfare attained by Mehmet Ali Pasha could not be continued by his successors. What is more, the Egyptian 264 Yıl 3 Sayı 1 Mayıs 2010 İSLAM ARAŞTIRMALARI administrators following him delved into extravagance and debauchery, wasting the country's limited resources. In addition to his own talents, it is beyond doubt that an important factor in Mehmet Ali Pasha's assendance is the support of the Ottoman Empire's rivals, the European states. When the Ottoman-Egyptian conflict broke out, the Europeans followed a successful policy for their own interests by pledging all necesssary support to the Ottomans.16 When Britain and France's interests in Egypt are taken into account it is not possible to say thhat this “support” was particularly to the benefit of the Ottoman administration. It was a strong possibility that the Ottoman state would be damaged by the conflict, which would suit European interests. The offer of support also allowed Britain, France and Russia to take on the role of active mediation in Ottoman-Egyptian peace talks, which granted the opportunity to interfere in Ottoman internal affairs. The Ottoman administration was forced to seek outside help in order to protect its territory. The province of Egypt had the means to provide the Ottoman state with financial or military support in exchange for a number of concessions and interests. Mehmet Ali Pasha, governor of Egypt, was aware of the Ottoman administrative and military weaknesses, and wanted to use the opportunity to strengthen his own position. His rise to the governorship had already been disputed by the Ottoman administration: it was only permitted following his assistance in defeating the Vahabi rebel attempt to capture Medina. It is for this reason that the bilateral relationship between Mehmet Ali Pasha and the Ottoman administration was based not on reciprocal trust and contentedness, but on the fulfilment of mutual interests.17 It can be said that Mehmet Ali Pasha preserved Egypt's independence from the Ottoman Empire because of military power, while the administrators who followed him did so through monetary aid.18Therefore, Egypt was militarily at its most powerful during the time of Mehmet Ali Pasha. The military capacity of the province of Egypt and its contribution to the Ottoman Empire first became clear during the Greek rebellion in Rumelia in 1821. The revolt of Teledelenli Ali Pasha against the Ottoman administration19 encouraged the Greeks, already been provoked by the West and Russia, to take action.20 The Ottoman leadership attempted to suppress this first revolt in Crete21 but was unable to do so, even after long-lasting efforts.