Perceptions of Empire: Transition or Decline?

Perceptions of Empire: Transition or Decline?

Decline of Empire? The issues Argument: 17 th -18 th 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

Military Fortunes: defeat and decline 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

Military Fortunes: defeat and decline Capture of Azov, 1699 (Peter the Great on horseback)

British Painting Battle of Azov 1696

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

Military Fortunes: defeat and decline 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)

Military Fortunes: defeat and decline Historians perceptions of importance: - marks the beginning of the end of the Ottoman Empire (Armajani & Ricks) - was a fateful opening to the 18 th century (Bernard Lewis) that saw humiliating series of defeats

Military Fortunes: defeat and decline - 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?

Military Fortunes: defeat and decline 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.

Military Fortunes: defeat and decline 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

Defeat and Decline (cont.) - 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

Defeat and Decline (cont.) - 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 Mehmed Pasha. Clause 7 of this treaty reads as follows: The Sublime Porte promises permanent protection of the Christian religion and its churches. [above r.]

1798: Defeats and Decline (cont.) - 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: the whole story? 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 19 th century - considerable Russian territory regained in early 18 th 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

Defeats and Decline: the whole story? Late 18 th 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

Defeats and Decline: the whole story? - European officers brought to Istanbul to train modern army in rapid-fire artillery units - Grand Admiral also sought to modernize navy

Defeats and Decline: the whole story? Questions then become: - to what extent should decline (as opposed to transformation or evolution ) be determined with respect to military and territorial changes?

Defeats and Decline: the whole story? - to what extent should modernizing of military forces, consolidation of territory be considered a counter influence to physical/political shrinkage of boundaries?

Weakness or Transformation? - 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?

Economy and Decline? 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

Economy and Decline? - 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] Economy and Decline?

Economy and Decline? 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]

Economy and Decline? 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

Economy and Decline? (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.

Economy and Decline? 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)

Economy and Decline? Education in Europe: - growing with European capitalism - Britain: 17 th -18 th 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 industrustrial development

Economy and Decline? 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

Europe and Decline? 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 Safavids simply 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. [Glenn E Perry The Middle East: fourteen Islamic centuries, 113]

Issues cited: Europe and Decline? - basic conservatism Ottoman Muslim society (especially relative to Europe s vitality ) - lack of receptivity to innovation - nadir of creativity (18 th 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

Transformation NOT Decline One might argue: Sultan Selim III stood not at mid-point of declining slope of empire but rather midpoint 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.