Factors Which Led to the Downfall of the Ottoman Empire - Essay Example

What where the political, social, and economic factors which led to the downfall of the Ottoman Empire? The downfall of the Ottoman Empire according to Alan Palmer in his book “The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire” was the result of experiencing almost a century of failure and internal struggles brought about by a failing system. The Ottoman Empire took “an unconscionable time dying” (Palmer, 1994), unaware of the impending collapse due to its failing economic structure. For instance, the changes that took place in the structure of the Ottoman Empire between the 17th and mid 19th century according to Hershlag (1980) were believed to be products of a dislocated and exploited economy caused by incompatible production and trade patterns, contradicting foreign capital and economic interests, wars and monarchs extravagant spending, ineffective, corrupt and fraudulent administration (p.5). This economic exploitation is what Sevket Pamuk in his book “A Monetary History of Ottoman Empire”, described as “Ottoman interventionism”, a practice of intervening regularly in the economy to ensure dominance of traditional order. For instance, the purpose of application and enforcement of narh (price ceilings) was believed to ensure orderly provisioning of the urban economy, the palace, army, and maintain the traditional balance between the peasants and the upper class (Pamuk, 2000). Moreover, the economic organization of the Ottoman Empire is contradictory to the then European market where economic activity is coordinated and success is achieved through a competitive process and mildly restricted movement of capital and labour. In Ottoman, the division of labour, the purpose and methods of production were structured by the state under a redistributive patrimonial system stimulated and appropriated by the elite (Islamoglu-Inan, 2004). Another reason provided for the decline was the timing of the Ottoman reforms. The Ottoman reform era according to Agoston & Masters (2009) was occurring during the Industrial Revolution thus the Empire needs to foster capital accumulation as dictated by Western economic approach. Unfortunately, since its economic structure is incompatible with those of the West, the preceding period of capital liquidation left the Empire poorly prepared to cope with the new economic demands which was later followed by the collapsed of traditional Ottoman economic policy (p.195). However, these arguments particularly the “decline paradigm” concerning the Ottoman Empire history is somewhat viewed as mainly inspired by the modernization theories of the early post-Second World War. These include ideas brought about by the works of Bernard Lewis, “Some Reflections of the Decline of the Ottoman Empire” in 1958 and Cippolla’s “The Economic Decline of Empires” in 1970 (Faroqhi, 2006). The validity of this idea is also being questioned by different historians arguing the relevance of political changed in the 18th century in explaining the downfall of the Ottoman Empire (ibid, 166). For instance, although the repeated uprising of the Ottoman central army in Istanbul from 1589 and 1603 were triggered by economic grievances such as pay and benefits, these grievances were closely related with political changes during this period. According to Tezcan (2010), understanding the political structures of the early Ottoman period is essential since it involves the intimate connection between economic and political power that produced the institution of lordship as the basic feudal unit (p.82). In his work “A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire”, Honioglu (2009) points out the insignificant progress of the Ottoman reform movement to create a new political identity that would address the traditional division among them. In particular, it failed to penetrate and protect the hearts and minds of its people against the rising concept of nationalism. On the other hand, the economic policies of the Ottoman Empire is seen here transpiring and implemented in the midst of political turmoil, territorial loss, social upheaval, and political pressures from foreign powers (p.209). The “sick man of Europe”, the unappealing nickname of the once feared and respected powerful Ottoman Empire, was given for a reason. This “sickness” according to McCannon (2010) started way back before the 1700 when the Empire was weakened by the its European enemies while its territories in North Africa were gradually gaining autonomy and then being taken by British, French, and Italian Empires. It was only due to some reform efforts that kept the Empire alive during the 1800s up to early 1900s until it was destroyed by World War I and transformed into a modern Turkish state (p.258). Examples provided by McCannon (2010) include the Empire’s heavy losses in 1683 when it tried to capture Vienna and lost several territory including Hungary and Transylvania. Moreover, the treaties of Karlowitz in 1699 and Passarowitz in 1718 including its occasional conflicts with Austria, periodic wars against Peter the Great, and Catherine the Great in 1700s greatly diminished its presence in Europe. The idea of decline is also supported by O’Brien (2002) but argues that despite Ottoman Empire’s territorial losses it has remained the biggest political entity in Europe and Western Asia as evidenced by its continuous control over Serbia and recovery of Morea in 1718 (p.178). For Patrick Karl O’Brien, it is the increasing internal unrest and the threat of the major European states with weaponry and military capacity far more advance than the Empire that gradually disintegrate their hold over Europe at that time. Moreover, its expensive remilitarization aimed to recover their losses and political and economic reforms that were funded precariously despite reduced revenues from its diminishing territories (O’Brien, 2002). Although it was never a threat to central Europe after 1683, the Ottoman Empire stayed in occupation of southeast Europe for another 200 years and persisted even longer in Asia and African provinces. In fact, before World War I, the Empire still ruled most parts of modern-day Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. More importantly, before it disappeared in 1922, the Ottoman Empire existed even without the European provinces that for centuries had been its primary strength (Quataert, 2005). From 1300 to 1600, the world saw the rise of Ottoman autocratic centralist government and command economy but the period of transformation came only in the 17th century when Koprulus attempted to restore the traditional autocratic centralist system and failed. The radical change occur in the 18th century with the rise of local powers and dynasties as the central government started to implement economic liberal policies and changed its attitude towards Europe. At this point, the Ottoman became increasingly dependent on Western powers for survival as it ends up politically and economically dependent on the West in 19th century (Inalcik et al, 1997). Although it seems true that there was an evident economic decline throughout the centuries, it is also clear that there were political decisions made that changed the functions of the Ottoman Empire. Moreover, a closer look at the transformation suggest that the Empire was actually in transition from an empire to nation state in order to cope with modernization but did not work. The pattern of transition from an imperial regime to a nation state that originates from Western Europe is never universal but actually performed differently in the Ottoman Empire. According to Davis & Go (2009), the Ottoman did not follow the Western European Model but instead politically mobilized using a complex mix of national and transnational ideologies manoeuvred by political elites experimenting between national and transnational ideologies. They went as far as uniting large numbers of diverse communities against rising nationalist ideologies that played a major role in the collapse of the Empire (p.135). Moreover, militarism in the Ottoman Empire went as far as driving social and economic development because they were used to force subjects to cooperate or display social authority of the imperial ruling class (Faroqhi, 2006). There is no doubt on the cultural diversity of the Ottoman society thus it is also possible that group in the Ottoman society to some extent will feel disaffection over how their leaders and military deal with them. For instance, many movements and revolts existed in the Ottoman Empire during the 19th century and they were participated by no less than the less privileged members of the Ottoman society and those that were considered members of the ambient society (Reid, 2000). For instance, the Jewish society was allowed to foster its individuality, and maintain its own religion and language but although they were not necessarily considered hostile to the Empire, they were perceived as aliens with low moral standards (Faroqhi, 2006). However, the multilingual and multinational society within the Ottoman Empire does not necessarily lead to anarchy as according to Barni & Extra (2008), the Empire has pluralistic policies towards minorities such as the Arabs, Armenians, Greeks, Jewish, and others that allowed them to live together for a thousand years in the Empire’s territory (p.246). When conflict arise, the Ottoman state elites have their way of diverting grievances away from them by attributing political unrest to local notables. For instance, when the first Serbian uprising broke out in 1804, the Empire saw it as local discontent caused by provincial corruption. Consequently, the Empire backed the Serbian peasantry against the local Muslim, which they viewed as illegitimate claimant power (Hoerder et al, 2003). Similarly, the Greek Revolution of 1821-29 was again blamed on local leader Ali Pasha of Yanina rather than directly fighting the rebellious Greeks in the South (ibid, 72). How the Ottoman Empire handle social diversity is a good example of religious and ethnic cohabitation as evidenced by four centuries of rule without serious violence. The Ottoman formula for organizing diverse communities seems to work and this according to Kuru & Stepan (2012) is the Ottoman Empire’s policy of “toleration”, a persecution-free society for non-Muslim that does not force sameness (p.14). The problem however is not with the diverse communities but to the peasantry, which according to Toprak (1981) is the “most exploited group of people in Ottoman society”. The peasantry during that time were socially and politically isolated from the mainstream of Ottoman culture. The term “Turk” is actually a symbol of ignorant and uncivilized peasants who in Ottoman society were actually living in isolation and the least available group to fight a nationalist war (p.61). Consequently, at the end of World War I, the peasantry who had largely remained intact and unaffected by the social and cultural changes which the Empire was experiencing, refused to cooperate with nationalist forces fighting occupational forces (ibid, p.61). The 19th and early 20th modernization of the Ottoman Empire and the spread of nationalism among its subjects coupled by radical changes in its institutions and society gave rise to the democratic Republic of Turkey and downfall of the Empire (Shaw & Shaw, 1977). The failing economic structure brought about by exploitation and incompatible economic policy, corruption, and fraudulent administration contributed to the decline. However, it was the Empire’s political practice of economic intervention that is actually responsible for the downfall particularly those that were meant to ensure dominance of Ottoman’s elites and maintenance of traditional order. Another is the timing of the reform, incompatible purpose and methods of production, and inability to cope with new economic demands. Although there were oppositions to the paradigm of decline, there were indeed repeated failures that greatly contributed to the downfall of the Empire. These include the intimate connection between economic and political power, traditional division among subjects, territorial losses, social discontent, and inability to compete with European powers. The Ottoman Empire prevented the collapse throughout centuries by implementing reforms and retaining some territories outside Europe. However, as it becomes more independent with Western powers for survival since the 18th century, it also end up politically and economically dependent consequential to its failed transformation from an empire into a nation state. Militarism played an important role in outcome of social and economic development and responsible for disaffection, social movements, and revolts. Although the Empire had a pluralist policy towards minorities, it failed to address the rising dissatisfaction of the peasantry resulting to social divide and loss of nationalist motivation. In summary, the decline and downfall of the Ottoman Empire is the result of numerous social, political, and economic problems brought about by both external and internal challenges. Works Cited List: Agoston, Gabor & Masters, Bruce Alan. Encyclopaedia of the Ottoman Empire. United States: Infobase Publishing. 2009. Print Barni, Monica & Extra, Guus. Mapping Linguistic Diversity in Multicultural Contexts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 2008. Print Davis, Diane & Go, Julian. Political Power and Social Theory: Volume 20. United States: Emerald Group Publishing. 2009. Print Faroqhi, Suraiya. The Cambridge History of Turkey, Volume 3. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Print Faroqhi, Suraiya, McGowan, Bruce, Quartaert, Donald & Pamuk, Sevket. An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire: Volume 2. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 1997. Print Hanioglu, Sukru. A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 2008. Print Hershlag, Zvi. Introduction to the Modern Economic History of the Middle East. United States: BRILL Archive. 1980. Print Hoerder, Dirk, Harzig, Christiane & Schubert, Adrian. The Historical Practice of Diversity: Transcultural Interaction from the Early Modern Mediterranean to the Postcolonial World. Berlin: Berghahn Books. 2003. Print Islamogu-Inan, Huri. The Ottoman Empire and the World-Economy. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 2004. Print Kuru, Ahmet & Stepan Alfred. Democracy, Islam, and Secularism in Turkey. United States: Columbia University Press. 2012. Print McCannon, John. Barron’s AP World History. United States: Barron’s Educational Series. 2010. Print O’Brien, Patrick. Concise Atlas of World History. New York: Oxford University Press. 2002. Print Palmer, Alan. The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire. United States: University of Michigan Press. 1994. Print Pamuk, Sevket. A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 2000. Print Quataert, Donald. The Ottoman Empire: 1700-1922. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 2005. Print Reid, James. Crisis of the Ottoman Empire: Prelude to Collapse 1839-1878. Berlin: Franza Steiner Verlag Publishing, 2000. Print Shaw, Stanford & Shaw, Ezel. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Volume 2. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 1977. Print Tezcan, Baki. The Second Ottoman Empire: Political and Social Transformation in the Early Modern World. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 2010. Print Toprak, Binnaz. Islam and Political Development in Turkey. United States: BRILL Publishing. 1981. Print. Read More