By 1914, the Ottomans had been the dominant force in the Middle East for many centuries; at their 16th Century peak threatening even to conquer mainland Europe. However, by 1914, the Empire was in decline, suffering from rebellions within and the threats of rival powers. On the cusp of World War One, was the end of Turkish rule in the region inevitable? And which factor was most significant in explaining the difficulties faced?
Dearest Students. Please use the comments board to support or oppose the title statement, as briefly developed in the paragraph above. Back yourself up with evidence (there's plenty to be found in your reading homework from last week) and offer opinions of your own, particularly if they oppose the stated views of your classmates!
Please note that the statement cunningly allows you to argue two separate contentions - that Ottoman decline was irreversible, and that it was due to internal tensions. I expect you to deal primarily with the latter - the matter of causation (although I'd be impressed if you attempted to challenge the former!). Best of luck - I hope you're excited as I am at the prospect... BY FRIDAY MORNING PLEASE!!
Hi, my name is Antonio and my height is 1,79. But i signed in as Nick Harris' mum.
ReplyDeleteThe are two main reasons as to why the Ottoman empire declined are; increased Western/European influence and internal divisions.
European powers began expanding their commercial and political influence in the Ottoman Empire by the 16th Century. In order to maintain good relations with the Christians, the Ottomans encouraged more trade between them which meant that the West could introduce its ideals to members of the Empire. As the West's status as a great economic power increased, their influence grew exponentially, reflected in the decreasing presence of Jews in the Empire and an increase in Christians. Countries like France used the protection of Roman Catholics based in the Empire as an excuse in order to grant them legal immunity, allowing them to act in their interests, even if it conflicted with Ottoman rule. Treaties such as that of Karlowitz in 1699 hosted rapid economic growth in the West at the expense of Ottoman land, driving the Ottomans into stagnation. Even Russia, under treaties such as that of Kuchuk Kanarji of 1774, edged over the Ottomans, gaining control over the Crimea and the Black Sea.
On par with Western influence, internal division drew the Empire near to its end. The Ottoman Empire began separating because of a growing feeling of nationalism of the countries that composed the Empire. European nations provoked and encouraged such feelings that would eventually lead to the breaking up of the empire. The British acquisition of the Suez canal reflected the weaknesses of the Ottomans in the face of Western powers and under the Congress of Berlin, the Brits managed to obtain Cyprus. Not only that, under this congress, countries such as Serbia and Romania were granted independence. This coupled with the loss of territories to Austria after the Russo-Turkish war equated to rapidly decreasing influence by the Ottomans.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePART 2
ReplyDeleteBy the war's end, the empire was torn apart until all that remained was the territory of modern-day Turkey. In the end, the Ottoman Empire fell because of a combination of internal degeneration and external pressures. The government declined with the degeneration of the Sultanate. The economy faltered when new trade routes bypassed Ottoman territory and when the Ottomans failed to industrialize. And the empire crumbled when war and rebellion overwhelmed it during World War I.
PART 3
ReplyDeletenevertheless, even though internal factors played a prominent role in the empire's decline, i still strongly believe that the nature of empires are the causes to their own downfall. empires whom have been given a place in history books all have popular and respected names of leaders attached to them; Julius Ceasar for Rome, Hannibal for Carthage, Cyrus the great for the Achaemenid empire and Suleiman the Magnificent for the ottoman empire. All theses empires have been, to an extent, formed under a autocratic form of government, in which the ruler, has control over all aquired territories. only king David's empire can be described as been the closest to being a democratic empire. fear, in general, plays an immense part in keeping the citizens under control. army's may be able to gain land and towns, but the culture of the people and the people themselves cannot be changed. the characteristic of areas being taken over by a empire's army cannot be altered. therefore applying the same laws on the basics that everyone under the control of the specific empire are the same is simply idiotic and will led to disorder.However, the ottoman empire has been known for being one of the most flexible and tolerant empire, in terms or religion, culture and it's citizens. for example, Jews were allowed to preach in their holy sites; so where Christians and Muslims. the empire accepted, to an extent, all kind of people, and respected in most cases a citizen's right of religious expression.however, they were specific taxes on non-Muslim people, as well as other anti-semitic regulations, which, at the time, would have been seen as normal. nevertheless, the nature of empires, and indeed the ottoman empire, eventually led to their decline. i believe this is caused by the fact that you cannot keep different people, of different religion, culture and belief under the same control and law code.
PART 4
ReplyDeletePeriods of high civilization are found to last from one to two thousand years, and are broken into three periods: growth, achievement and decay.The one evident fact is that national decadence is at least accompanied by an individual's loss of energy. The energy dies away, the arts become sterile, policy becomes timid, and the outposts are abandoned. And it is this decay which creates the vacuum into which another and more virile civilization is drawn. this is why i strongly think that empire will always have a start and end date. While empires can be submerged by history, ideas cannot be so easily killed. Neither can the idea of empire itself be demolished ;there's always going to be someone, in whatever century, on whatever world, thinking to themselves, and acting on his own belief of what is an empire. the ottoman empire however was never great enough, though close, to be spared from the fate of empires.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history." George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Paul, try not to use too much help...http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/cot/t1w26ottomandecline.htm
ReplyDeleteThere are two main, overriding reasons why the Ottoman Empire declined; the western worlds trade routes did not enter ottoman territory and therefore affected the ottoman economy heavily. Secondly the Ottoman Empire imploded because the Sultanate institution failed to find a "competent" successor to the empire.
Because for 600 or so years the Ottoman empire had always had a competent and well educated leader who could handle political affairs there had never been a problem, but as soon as the empire gained an inadequate leader Selim II who did not take government affairs seriously. Many of the countries in the Ottoman Empire were getting restless because of the ineffective system of ruling that they started operating autonomously. This and a combination of other factors put pressure on the central government in which many political parties were fighting for power and by 1808 large parts of North Africa were on the verge of independence, many countries in Europe were also pushing for independence as well. This was down to the collapse of the sultanate institution.
In addition, the failure of the Ottoman Empire to industrialize as Europe meant they fell behind in productivity and efficiency. This was partly due to the fact that Europe's trade routes no longer ran though out the empire. In addition, the failure of the Ottoman Empire to industrialize as Europe did mean they fell behind in productivity and efficiency. This was partly due to the fact that Europe's trade routes no longer ran though out the empire. This caused the Ottoman economy to effectively collapse and brought the empire to a standstill. A second knock on effect of not industrializing was that there was powerful armies were out dated and could no longer compete with the land hungry countries like Russia. By the end of the First World War the Ottoman empire was in ruins having been savagely attacked by Russia and other Allied countries.
In short because of the lack of a competent Sultan the empire became disorganised and almost implode due to political disagreements and also due to countries pushing for autonomy. Lastly, they also failed to industrialize which had a huge impact on their economy in the long term and modernisation which meant they fell behind Europe.
Both of your reasons have flaws in them bryn, but that why you're at school! experience is the name you give to our ( in this case, your ) mistakes.
ReplyDeletefirst of all is it wrong to state that western trade routes didn't enter the ottoman empire. they did, and did so for hundreds of year.the empire spanned 3 continents, controlled southeastern Europe, western Asia and north Africa; a total of 29 provinces. thus assuming that European trade routes didn't go pass the ottoman empire ( which included a good chunk of europe ) is wrong. the ottoman empire, which lasted 1299 to 1922, must have had trade routes and partners all over it's regions if it was to survive for an incredible 623 years. what happened what that due to the american and russian awakening, there was competition for who could deliver goods most efficiently. also the use of sea transport grew rapidly in the 18th and 19th century, which led to them having an advantage over land trade routes. the ones running through the empire were no longer as important for Europe, and hence yielded less income. furthermore, it is not that trades routes were not use, but it was the fact that new growing powers all over the globe led to an increase in demand in new part of the world, which in turn increased the sea's trade spam of control.
secondly, it is wrong to suggest that for 600 years the ottoman empire had a well educated and competent leader. if you think so, it means that you think the empire started to fall in 1899. The sultans since Süleyman ( 1556 that is, not 1899) had often been less apt to their role.
Although there were several external factors that caused the decline of the Ottoman Empire, such as the military and trade advances in Europe, internal factors were equally detrimental.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Bryn that ineffective leadership played a large role in the decline. However I argue the majority of the damage was done much earlier in the 16th century.
As the empire had held such a great position of power for so long I believe the Sultans got complacent and quite possibly felt invincible, leading them to let in European power which later proved to be disastrous. The privileges of allowing several European countries to trade within the empire in the 16th century for example, ultimately paved the way for the reclamation of trade routes by the 1890’s. (As argued by others the loss of vital trade routes assisted the decline.)
Similarly the Ottomans also “came to rely on leading Arab clans to carry out local governmental functions.” Predictably, owing to Arab involvement in affairs, the ‘Turkicisation’ program imposed by the empire sparked Arab nationalist resentment, and although not the singular reason for the Arab revolt, this played a dominant role in the rebellions.
Therefore it can be argued that the sultan’s complacency and resulting mismanagement at times of power ultimately lead to the decline of the empire. Once European powers had planted their influence in the empire and Arab nationalists were discontent the culmination of both internal and external threats made the decline inevitable.
you could also read inevitable as irriversible.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with several others that the decline of the empire was as a result of internal tensions that could not be quelled by the weak and indecisive leadership provided by the sultanate system.
ReplyDeleteIt is entirely possible to draw parralels to another empire that we all know well that was floundering at this time; the Russian empire, with that bastion of strength, Nicholas II, at its helm.(sarcasm) We can see clearly from both these empires that having wide reaching borders with multiple nationalities contained within them is not condusive to harmony at the fringes or the centre of the empire. This disquiet that inevitably surfaces under such conditions is only worsened by the lack of a strong, organised leadership system at its centre.
This could only lead to internal rebellion such as the Young Turk movement who clamoured for a constitution, as they were tired of living under the yoke of the sultanate. The leadership of the empire was ill equipped to deal with these murmurs of discontent, which could only mean they would grow louder in the years to come.
Overall then, it seems that there were two main causes of the deline of the empire by 1914: the lack of strong leadership at the heart of the empire, and the internal tensions, both central and at the fringes of the empire, that stemmed from this lack of effective control over the people of contained within the Ottoman borders.
As to whether the decline was irreversible, from my perspective of the most important causes of the decline, I would have to argue that only the granting of a constitution being drawn up, to allow the creation of a competent elected body that could effectively lead the empire, would possibly have reversed the decline.
(I'm sorry for any inaccuracies in my argument, i missed the double last week and the notes that we got with it and so am not fully aware of the history of the ottoman empire and don't have much evidence.)
Though there are other factors which contributed to the irreversible decline of the Ottoman Empire, like, international influence, the development of technology and religious differences, I must agree with my peers and I support the assertion above, that The Ottoman Empire declined largely on account of internal tensions.
ReplyDeleteThe Ottoman Empire experienced several economic and political issues between the 1600s and the 1800s as well as national uprisings. The degeneration of the, once strong, Sultanate, led to a vast decline. The Sultans became incompetent and lazy, where they were reluctant to train their future successors with regards to the government and internal and external affairs, thus they did not have experience in running an empire. This is suggested when the sultans offered privileges to several European states permitting their agents to trade within the empire. Though at first, this was not a threat to the Ottoman authority, by the 18th Century, Western Europe had become extremely powerful. Their military technology and economy had developed and strengthened, while the Ottomans were still backwards. Thus the Ottomans had stagnated and lost power and control over their empire, particularly with North Africa and Greece leaning towards independence in 1826.
The Ottoman Empire also experienced economic downfall as they failed to adapt to the changes in the world around them. The Ottoman Empire had served as a gateway to the East from the West, especially for Britain and France, for a long time, seeing as it was between Europe and Asia. This meant that profits from the trade routes formed a large part of the economy. However, as European countries began to modernise and develop new trade routes avoiding the Ottoman Empire, their economy went into decline, as the profits stopped coming in.
Whilst Europe was industrialising during the 18th century, The Ottomans failed to keep up, where this caused them to fall behind in productivity and efficiency. Thus their products were uncompetitive, where the economy was still in a detrimental situation. The economic decline also weakened the Empire.
Moreover, The Ottoman Empire was at war with different European nations, specifically land – hungry Russia, during the Crimean War, which ultimately, weakened the empire. In addition, the Empire had to deal with the Balkan Crisis between 1912 and 1913, which was at the same time when The Ottoman Empire wanted to take Libya from Italy.
To conclude, the decline of the Ottoman Empire was inevitable, and the Empire fell into decline due to a combination of internal tensions and international pressure mainly. The final blow to the Empire was when World War I overwhelmed the weakening Empire.