Crises of Identity (1):

Changing Nature of the State: Tanzimat Reforms and the Defeat of the Janissaries

Increased bureaucracy: - 2,000 c.1800- 35,000 1908- Reflected growing control by state of public works, health, education - linked to changes in economy (pts 4 & 5)

Changing Nature of State

- also linked to attempt to reduce power of ‘private’ influence (ulema, new elite, janissaries)- Shift to recruiting those with European knowledge, training, languages- led to series of conflicts and reforms

Changing Nature of State

Selim III:- 1821 set up Translation Bureau - Ottomans trained in Foreign Languages - reduced dependence on dragomans:Greek, Armenian families, multi-lingual, traditionally translated for court- Translators exercised power (politics, commerce)

Changing Nature of State

- Translation Bureau starting point for ambitious ‘civil servants’

- French acquired special prominence (among European languages)

- synonymous with ‘modernization’- Muslim, non-Muslim students accepted: all

part of ‘new elite’

Changing Nature of State

1829-1835: Ottomans let down by armies

- ‘new diplomacy’ seen as answer- 1834 apparatus set up for establishment permanent embassies abroad- all major cities Europe, Russia, Persia (even America)

Changing Nature of State

Balance between interests in West (Europe) and East (Persia, Central Asia) shifted:- European languages (especially French) took priority over Persian- sought-after posts in Europe- Foreign Ministry most desirable posting- three Grand Viziers from critical ‘TanzimatReform’ (below) began careers here

Changing Nature of State

Mahmud II (1808-39) began reforms: - ministries with set duties, regular salaries- legislative bodies - registers of population- centrally-controlled army- Istanbul-based postal system

Changing Nature of State

Difficulty implementing:- too few men- too little training- too many ‘older’ bureaucrats with vested interests- too much resentment of Europe

Reforms successfully implemented usually led by young men with European education

Changing Nature of State

Mahmud building up special army, artillery corpsamong Janissaries- Selim III attempted major overhaul, virtually establishing new army trained by Europeans, fighting like Europeans – successful in Battle Acre against French 1799- seen as threat by janissaries

Defeat of the Janissaries

1807 janissaries revolted:- Selim III forced to back down- deposed- Mahmud tread more carefully- policy successful- June 4 1826 new army formed from best of janissaries - Again, janissaries revolted (some say incited to)

Defeat of the Janissaries

19th C Images: Janissaries

Street mobs loyal to sultan forced janissaries in Istanbul back to barracks- surrounded, attacked by Mahmud's artillery- set fire to barracks- Janissaries inside killed

Defeat of the Janissaries

Repeated throughout Provinces: - Mahmud had loyal troops carefully distributed, expecting revolt- All those associated with janissaries (dervishes, clerics, guild members) killed or banished- Fall of Janissaries beginning of radical reform of Empire

[see “Destruction of the Janissaries”, in ‘Additional Readings’]

Defeat of the Janissaries

Sultan Abdul Mejid (1839-61):- November 3 1839 gathered notables of Empire - foreign minister read statement known as the "noble rescript" or the ‘Rose Chamber Decree’ (where it was read)- February 18, 1856, another statement issued --the "imperial rescript“

Tanzimat Reforms

- Both issued under pressure:- internal, responding to conditions arising from 18th problems- also to appease European Governments[

[see ‘Tanzimat Decree, 1839 – Additional Readings]

Tanzimat Reforms

Tanzimat:- a "palace revolution" that strengthened the bureaucrats in power- attempt to incorporate ideas about individual liberty and equality, within framework of autocratic government- contained ‘germ’ of constitutional monarchy

Tanzimat Reforms (cont.)

Rescript 1856:- specifically dealt with equalizing Muslims and non-Muslims - reforms to taxation, military conscription, education - extended rights and privileges of Muslims to non-Muslims

Tanzimat Reforms (cont.)

Debate:- what was real impetus for, consequences of Tanzimat Reforms?- to what degree internal responses to internal problems?- to what degree externally ‘forced’ by (and for) Europe?

[see “Tanzimat (1) & (2) ”, in Additional Readings]

Tanzimat Reforms (cont.)

Reforms provoked criticism:- changes as un-Islamic- undercut traditional social relations - alternately: did not go far enough - wanted greater popular participation in government- led to emergence ‘Young Ottomans’ (1860s) calling for reforms including constitution

Tanzimat Reforms (cont.)

Tanzimat both reflected and influenced:- changing role millets in empire - growing role of Muslims in military- impact on relations between Muslims, non-Muslims- tensions between ethnicity, religion, ideas of ‘nationalism’

The Issues of ‘nationalism’

Identity Crises (2):

Ideas of Nationalism?Cases of Russia, Greece, Serbia-Bulgaria

1820s:- Armenians scattered Caucuses, Eastern Anatolia- territories disputed Russia, Persia, Ottomans

1828:- Russia defeated Persia, annexed Erivan- heart of today’s Armenia created - Turkish Muslims expelled

Russia, Armenia, the Caucuses

Tsarist regime:- established peace- fostered commerce, industry- generated urban growth- invested in railroads- region prospered - Turkish expulsion left 1000s with nothing

Russia, Armenia, the Caucuses

Russian ‘imperialism’ left legacy:- hatred between Turks, Armenians in region- Armenians well represented in Ottoman cities (merchants, financiers)-1863 Constitution recognizing special rights -1894-6 violence leading to massacres “unparalleled in ferocity and scope” [Quataert][see Williams, “Hijra and Forced Migration…”, Add. Rdgs]

Russia, Armenia and the Caucuses

Armenians (18th C.)

Treaty of Berlin (1878):- assigned Kars, Adahan, Batumi region to Russia- another influx Turkish Muslims- intensifying ethnic tensions peoples of Caucuses region, refugees and local communities

Russia, Armenia and the Caucuses

Nationalist ideals stronger European regions:- ‘Turks’ (remnants Ottoman ‘imperialism’) resented, feared- First Balkan rising in Greece, 1821- among Greeks, many educated, wealthy –benefiting from position in Ottoman empire - no desire to lose what they had- Greek Orthodox clergy had power, wealth

Greek Independence

Religion (not language, residence), distinguished wealthy Orthodox Greeks from Muslim Ottomans: - some Anatolian Greeks did not speak Greek -"Greece" not a definable place: - half of 4 million Greeks in modern mainland Greece- 2 million scattered towns along coast Anatolia, Black Sea, Mediterranean.

Greek Independence

GreeksOrthodox Patriarch,Women,Musician (18th C.)

Why? Who were instigators of Rebellion?- if majority would have been content to remain

in empire why battles for independence?- many doing well, especially in commerce, shipping - but they were also people with strong ties to Europe, aware of ideas, possibilities- influenced by French Revolution - ideas of more political voice

Greek Independence

Leaders:- members ‘secret society’ founded Odessa 1814- son Greek fur trader living in Moscow, also lived in Paris- merchant Odessa belonged to anti-Turkish society- merchant Ionian Islands, links to National Guard (created by British during occupation)

Greek Independence

Occupation, links to ‘outside world’ -- typical of those who organized rebellion in exile:

153 merchants, shippers60 notables36 soldiers24 priests23 minor officials22 teachers/students30 ‘professionals’

Greek Independence

Russian ‘ties’ among leaders -- Little ‘nationalism’:

- planned uprising Romania failed- locals ignored Turks (supposed target) - attacked local notables (including Greeks with property)

Greek Independence

Class divisions among Istanbul Greeks undermined uprising: - Orthodox Patriarch hanged- new church leader, notables condemned revolt

Only ‘success’ in south: - local leaders joined in fear- Turkish towns destroyed, Turks massacred- Turks retaliated with bloodbath

Greek Independence

[ George Finlay, contemporary account]

“In the meantime the Christian population had attacked and murdered the Mussulman population in every part of

the peninsula. The towers and country homes of the Mussulmans were burned down, and their property was

destroyed, in order to render the return of those who had escaped into the fortresses hopeless. From the 26th of

March until Easter Sunday, which fell, in the year 1821, on the 22nd of April, it is supposed that fifteen thousand [Muslims] souls perished in cold blood and that about

three thousand farmhouses or Turkish dwellings were laid waste."

Greek Independence

[from McCarthy, The Ottoman Turks, pp. 327-9]

Greek Independence

Greek Independence

‘Independence struggle’ continued:

- stalemate in south until 1825- Armed peasants’ interests clashed with those of wealthy assembly members- those in shipping, commerce - civil war 1823

Greek Independence

Threatened interests ‘Great Powers’:

- conflicting concerns:-potential for more influence if movement

successfulbut

- feared what it would mean for Ottoman stability, geo-political concerns

Greek Independence

In Europe:- Greek revolt aroused sympathy among public- Britain backed insurrection 1823, Ottoman weakness clear- Greece was viewed as ‘cradle of western civilization’- romantically portrayed as Christians casting off rule of decaying Muslim Empire also found favour amongst the western European public.

Greek Independence

Lord Byron:- spent time in Albania, Greece- organized funds, supplies (including provision several ships)- died from fever in Greece, 1824- Byron's death did added to European sympathy for Greek cause- eventually led Western powers to intervene directly.

Greek Independence

The mountains look on Marathon --And Marathon looks on the sea;And musing there an hour alone,I dream'd that Greece might yet be freeFor, standing on the Persians' grave,I could not deem myself a slave....Must we but weep o'er days more blest?Must we but blush? -- Our fathers bled.Earth! render back from out thy breastA remnant of our Spartan dead!Of the three hundred grant but three,To make a new Thermopylae.

[Byron]

Greek Independence

Massacre at Chios [Delacroix]

Liberty Leading the People [Delacroix]

1825:- Turkey engaged Mehmet Ali (Egypt)- modern navy, army invaded successfully

1827;- Great Powers sent fleet to defeat Mehmet Ali,- mediated peace, destroyed Egypt’s navy

1828-30:- Russia invaded Turkey- Istanbul threatened, Turkey submitted

Greek Independence

1828:- small state (800,000) created- ruled by former minister 1831:

- assassinated by local aristocracy

Greek Independence

1832:-”London Protocol” created small ‘independent’Greek kingdom - ruled by German prince- acceptable to all three Powers- Greece the first to successfully withdraw from Ottoman Empire

Greek Independence

Images of the War(Ottomans, above;Greeks, right &next slide)

Greek Independence

Ruled as monarchy until 1844 when conservative constitution put in place:- Conservative elite/oligarchy increased power- intermediary of Sultan no longer present- Turkish property gradually redistributed to Greek peasants- most had some land by 1870

Greek Independence

Dissatisfaction with government:- army coups 1843 (forcing constitution)- 1862-4 (became integral part Greek politics)- Many Greeks remained part of Ottoman empire

Greek Independence

Serbians revolt 1804, 1816:-1829 granted autonomy “tributary principality”- Russia continued to support Serbian, Montenegran demands for independence- expulsion Muslims continued- Serbia, Montenegro sought absorption Ottoman province Bosnia-Hersegovina- territory 50% Muslim (rest Serbian Orthodox, Croatian Catholic)

Serbian-Bulgarian Independence

Serbian-Bulgarian Independence

1875:- Serbs in Bosnia rebelled- rebellion bloody, put down by Ottoman army

1876:- Bulgarian nationalists rebelled- 1000 Turkish peasants killed first days of rebellion

Serbian-Bulgarian Independence

- Army occupied territory- local Turks, Circasians,Tatars armed to help put down rebellion- 3,000-12,000 Christians killed before rebellion over

Serbian-Bulgarian Independence

1877-78, Russians intervened: - local Bulgarian revolutionaries, peasants sought revenge, land- ‘agents’ (Cossacks, army officers) sent in to provoke uprisings

Serbian-Bulgarian Independence

[from McCarthy]:

“In a typical Turkish village, Cossacks would disarm the villagers, then surround the village and shoot all but a few who tried to escape. Hemmed in, the Turks were attacked by Bulgarians, who murdered the inhabitants... The scenes recorded by European diplomats equal any pictures of inhumanity and horror in history.... “

Serbian-Bulgarian Independence

Congress of Berlin (1878):- acknowledged Russian victories- ‘Great Powers’ dictated terms- Bulgaria --‘autonomous and tributary principality’ within Ottoman territory: Christian government

Serbian-Bulgarian Independence

Bosnia-Herzogovina: - occupied, administered by Austria-Hungary- Kosovo remained under Ottoman rule- details ‘joint administration’ negotiated

Serbia:- granted independence- detailed stipulations freedom of religion, access to rights

Serbian-Bulgarian Independence

Treaty of Berlin:- addresses issues of religion, ‘equality’[see Articles XXV (Serbia), XLIV (Romania), LXII (“The Sublime Porte”) in “Treaty of Berlin”, Additional Readings]

- many Muslims refugees who returned to homes in what became Russian territories or ‘independent’ states like Bulgaria were murdered or enslaved

Serbian-Bulgarian Independence

[Quataert] “states preceded nations” in age of nationalism:- religious struggles underlying ‘ethnic’ and ‘nationalist’ struggles (eg. Greece)- foreign powers – Russia but also Britain, France, Germany, Italy -- played roles- undermine simplistic view ‘Nationalism’tearing apart empire, importing ‘nationalist’ ideas

Nations or States?

Crises of Identity (3):

Characterizing the Economy:

Main Debates:- extent to which Ottoman economy still ‘autonomous’- extent to which social/economic change generated primarily by internal developments- extent to which Nicholas II correct to refer to Ottoman Empire as ‘Sick Man of Europe’in economic, social terms

Characterizing the Economy

World-wide trade expansion/competition: - from 1750 affected Ottoman exports- earlier trade in re-exporting Asian silks, Anatolian wools- 19th c. increasing percentage raw materials (cereals, tobacco, wool/cotton yarn, hides)- importing commodities from European colonies (sugar, coffee, dyestuffs), Europe (manufactured goods)- slowly replacing domestic consumption

External Factors & Economy

Debate over terms of trade: - when did they turn against Ottomans?- when did Ottomans cease to benefit from international trade?

But:- clearly, Ottomans more vulnerable in 19th

to changes in ‘world’ production/demand and prices- known today as ‘dependency’

External Factors & Economy

That said, must remember:- Ottoman markets less important (relatively) to Europe in 1900 than they had been in 1600

But:- did not mean decline in their size or in their real (financial) importance - Ottomans remained among most important trading partners of Britain, France, Germany

External Factors & Economy

Capitulations:- global context shaping nature, fortunes of merchant class- use of/access to capitulations increasing- 18th c. Europeans brought goods, sought local partnerships with non-Muslims, which facilitated berats (certificates of tax exemptions)- feeding into ‘economic colony’ impression

External Factors & Economy

- 19th c. saw lower taxes, costs benefited domestic merchants- Ottoman ‘proteges’ began replacing Europeans- Istanbul (1900):

- 1000 registered merchants - 3% British, French, German- Ottoman Muslims controlled interior,

‘feeder’ trades

External Factors & Economy

But:- European 3% controlled over half Ottoman foreign trade- raises question as to how we should ‘measure’ European involvement

- Quataert argues: “we have exaggerated the role of Europeans in this economy”

Have We?

External Factors & Economy

Argument:- domestic economy healthy- internal production/consumption more important than international commerce- changes due more to loss of territories, changing demographic structure, combined impact on production, consumption- standard of living improved for most Ottomans

Characterizing the Economy

Caravan transport: - once basis of Ottoman overland commercial economy- expensive: animal costs, risks over long term, small loads- generally seen as no longer competitive, part of overall ‘decline’

Transport Revolution

Caravan transport: - need to remember ‘ballast’ factor -- enabled some routes to be profitable- also intersection with local economies: local, regional caravan trade flourished to facilitate newly developing areas, towns

Transport Revolution

Painting, Turkish ‘carriage’ (1800s?)

Water Travel: - overall reduced costs- opened up new possibilities (as it had for Europe)

Still had problems: - oared’ galleys (Mediterranean) high labourdemand/low cargo capacity- sailing ships encountered wind, currents- piracy

Transport Revolution

Steamship ‘revolution’: - appeared in Middle East 1820s - speed, predictable schedule- increased cargo space

But:- still needed river transport for ‘feeder lines’, distribution- needed larger, deeper ports- so sailing ships operated alongside steamships until end of century

Transport Revolution

Suez Canel 1869:- built to facilitate steamship travel - major impact on international trade - Led to European presence in Egypt- altered commercial routes to/within Ottoman Empire

Transport Revolution

Signatories to the Suez Canal Agreement (canal built 1869)

Railroad:- most significant development- cheap (one rail car carried load of 125 camels)- fast- facilitated passenger travel among provinces

But…

Transport Revolution

Expensive:- infrastructure: cost of laying track led to use of forced/slave labour (eg. refugees, see below)- had to be recovered in shipping rates - initial gains slow to come

Transport Revolution

Expensive:- required large amounts capital- available only from foreigners- development brought returns to foreign lenders/companies- lines ran between major cities, directly to coastal ports- serviced international interests, needs

Transport Revolution

Impact?- 1875: 731 miles of track (should not exaggerate mid-19th c. impact in this respect)- by 1911: 4000 miles laid, intensifying impact- feeder lines rare low-density regions, so rail development accentuated regional inequities

But….

Transport Revolution

- needed service towns: some same as for caravans, others new – overall growth- new animal transport fed railheads- influenced growing of crops to feed new towns, animal transport- shaped (new) patterns domestic migration- in some regions, more competition for caravan traffic than shipping

Transport Revolution

Impact?- although major influence, for most part positive, on 19th century domestic development- Railroads continued to be controlled by foreign capital and foreign interests/priorities- loans for railroad building major contributor to 19th c debt to Europe

Transport Revolution

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

Economic, transport developments favouredurbanization:- workers attracted to work on port construction, buildings, railroads, bridges…- usually migrant bachelors needing ‘services’- led to urban underclass: porters, tailors, laundrymen, food preparers, prostitutes

Urbanization

View of Istanbul, 1870s

Painting: Istanbul Street, late 1800s

Photograph:Ottoman City(possiblyIstanbul), turn20th Century.

[compare withPrevious painting]

Ottoman Cemetery, just outside city walls

A ‘City Scene’: sheep grazing around water cistern

Painting,IstanbulStreet Porter,(early 18th C.)

Painting:Dockhands,Istanbul (late 1800s)

Agriculture: - long-term centrality to economy, social structure- 19th c. taxation agricultural produce 40% total taxes - agricultural products growing importance to exports (cereals, fruits, animal products --milk, wool, hair)- contributing to export taxes

Agricultural Sector

Remained small-scale in but changed in 19th c.:- Exchanges with nomads (previously important: products, transport services, fertilizer) declined- Commercialization with cities, railroads (food,

transport contributions, seasonal labour) grew- Consumerism increasingly important - More land cultivated, more sharecropping, new

migrations

Agricultural Sector

Larger estates in some regions:- incorporated more lands, sharecroppers- encouraged internal migration- wage labour began to appear- some increases in productivity: irrigation systems, new tools, crop specialization- main ‘input’ remained labour: in spite of wage labour, slavery/forced labour prevalent

Agricultural Sector

• Difficult to research, in spite of importance:

- Key evidence in tahirs (tax registers); use complicated by farming-out of taxation- land records indicating changing size of plots, animals used to cultivate- Also waqf documents (eg: showing increase in number of rural mosques in 19th c.)

Agricultural Sector

Historians changing emphasis of analysis:- from-- ‘top-down’ control (encouraged by dependency on tahirs) - to -- peasant/household agency- using inheritance inventories, qadi registers - tracking accumulation by non-peasants, dispossessions of peasants - sizable documentation in 18th-19th c.

Agricultural Sector

Debate ongoing: - when did rural economy became ‘monatarized’?- was it beneficial or not?- Can we generalize about combined ‘impact’ of

changes – across regions, gender, classes?

Agricultural Sector

Debate ongoing: - what about classes of ‘serfs’ and slaves ?- absorbed into general population from 16th C

onwards- married endogenously, forming ‘class’ of their

own- taxed more than other peasants

Agricultural Sector

But:- Ottomans differed from “second serfdom” in Eastern Europe (tied to commercialization cereals) - fewer plots in hands of non-peasants- many dealing directly in grain commerce with Istanbul to late 18th c. - directly linked to domestic market (only indirectly to world market)- underlines importance rural political/social gains relative to commercial economy

Agricultural Sector

Manufacturing -- urban and rural: - growth due to increased labour input not improved technology (exception Egypt)- increased demand for labour brought women, children more into production process - Mechanized production replacing hand-crafting (exceptions ‘Persian carpets’, spinning silk yarn)[see “Silk and Wool” in Resources]

Manufacturing Sector

Role of Guilds:- Janissaries had been well represented- ‘mafia-like’ controllers in cities (eg. Istanbul)- master craftsmen directing/working in guilds- had defended ‘popular’ interests against mechanization, imports being pushed by merchants, businessmen

Manufacturing Sector

- much manufacturing moved to countryside- accessed cheap labour (eg. women, children, former slaves/serfs) - all religions- key change from male, urban, guild-based manufacturing to female/child (slave?), unorganized rural/urban labour

Manufacturing Sector

Issues of Labour:- tie together politics, urbanization, transport revolution, manufacturing, social structure- transformation serfs, slaves to ‘new’ exploited class, especially in rural areas- drawing in of women, children- use of refugees (created by 19th c. wars)

Labour and Economy

Muslim refugees from ‘lost’ territories fled to Ottoman cities by the 1000s:- 1770-84, over 200,000 from Crimea - 1814-21, more than 100,000 from Russia to Istanbul (then into the Balkans)- 1878, 25,000 Circassians went to Syria and 20,000 to Aleppo- joined ‘underclass’ of poor, homeless, sick

Labour and Economy

- central government unable to provide facilities, care, jobs for influx- provinces, cities few resources to draw on (waqfs, for example, unalterable)- government attempted to ‘direct’ refugees into labour brigades (railroad, road construction; set up ‘work camps’)- one-fifth Caucasian refugees died of malnutrition in process

Labour and Economy

[see also articles by McDougall, Lewis on ‘Slavery’ in ‘Resources’ – suggesting increased use non-free labour, albeit with changes from earlier times, in 19th c.]

Labour and Economy

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: misreading of 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, 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

Crimean War: legacies

- introduced German Imperialism into Middle East- Ensured future co-operation between Germany, Ottoman Empire

[see “Ottoman Empire: 19th C” on Resources Page]

Crimean War: legacies

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

“while international commerce was more visiblein the 19th century, it was not more important

than domestic exchange in terms of volume and value”.

Concluding Questions:

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

How should we ‘measure’ international impact on 19th c. economy of Ottoman Empire?

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

Concluding Questions: