Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
reply to each post with 100 words as if you are me and reply hello (person name)
reply to each post with 100 words as if you are me and reply hello (person name)
no generic replies. Each reply should have seprate references
post 1
Toni Hatcher posted Jun 18, 2024 9:42 AM
Professor and Classmates,
Economic challenges play roles in many countries. Every empire, state power and citizen go through their own economic pitfalls. The industrial revolution and wars played pivotal roles in the way economies prospered or failed. The continuous shift in European powers and colonial land put pressure on non-western societies to adapt their economies in hopes to remain viable in the always changing global economy.
The reforms of the 19th century were influenced both externally and internally. Social unrest among citizens and laborers caused concern within the government. The reforms were implemented in hopes of preventing revolts. As new ideas further emerged, and Nationalism took form, political, social and economic changes began to be inspired. Nationalism became a driving force behind many reform movements, influencing political and social transformations across various regions.1 Outside the country, colonialism and imperialism was still dominating the world. It pushed many countries to modernize themselves, becoming a part of the industrial revolution trends, whether it be politically or economically.
Mixed signals of success of the reforms can be seen in some aspects. The Tanzimat Reforms of the Ottoman Empire, were created to modernize the army, administration and legal system, but not everyone saw that as something that was helping their country, but did lay the groundwork for further modernization. In the end, The Tanzimat reforms, despite their shortcomings, represented a significant effort by the Ottoman leadership to bring about modernization and centralization.2
With the ideas of reforms came challenges. For the Ottoman Empire implementing the new ideas seemed impossible. Change is always resisted even if it is beneficial in the long run. The empire’s diverse and multi-ethnic composition complicated reform efforts, as different groups had varying interests and levels of resistance. Economic resources hindered the ability to keep reforms afloat, especially as many needed investments. Furthermore, European powers had conflicting interests, sometimes supporting reforms to weaken the empire and other times opposing them to maintain a balance of power. There was no true balance. The Tanzimat reforms were an attempt to modernize the Ottoman Empire and fend off external pressures, but the deep-seated internal divisions and lack of cohesive support made sustained progress difficult.3
Toni
1 John Breuilly. Nationalism and the State, (Manchester, England: Manchester University Press, 1993).
2 Erik J. Zurcher. Turkey: A Modern History, (London, United Kingdom: I.B. Tauris, 2017).
3 Stanford J. Shaw. History of Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1977).
Post 2
Timothy Harshfield posted Jun 18, 2024 6:02 PM
Throughout the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire grappled with the economic challenges discussed in previous weeks forums which fostered attempts to reform elements of the Ottoman government. The most notable of these reforms were the “New Order” military reforms of Sultan Selim III in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and the major reforms of the Tanzimat reforms of the following generation.
The decline of the Ottoman Empire was in full force by the turn of the 19th century. The traditional economic system remained heavily reliant on agriculture and inefficient taxation, and was drastically outpaced by the growing industrial economies of Europe. In the years after the Napoleonic era, Ottoman lands became an important market for a variety of European manufacturers, which resulted in drastic trade deficits.[1] Economic pressure was not the only aggression faced from Europe either, since the turn of the century was marked by Napoleon’s advances, and this was quickly followed by war with Russia. Internally, the need to put down internal dissent and uprisings were also significant motivators for reform. Greek and Serbian nationalist movements were inspired by the American and French Revolutions of the late 18th century and sought similar individual rights and freedoms.[2] This was the status of the Ottoman Empire at the ascension of Selim III.
The main reform effort of Selim III at the end of the 18th and early 19th century was the “New Order” (Nizam-i Cedid) military reforms which sought to restructure the army along the tactics and training methods of Europe. This new force proved an immediate success in their first action, in the victory against Napoleon Bonaparte at Acre in Syria in 1799.[3] Despite this early success, the power of the janissaries was clearly threatened and rather than accept their own status as obsolete the janissaries revolted and forced Selim III to abdicate.[4] Selim III’s military reforms were abandoned immediately in favor of a return to an army similar to that of Suleiman I three centuries before. The janissaries proved themselves to be more focused on their own power than the security of the empire.
Internal dissent only continued to grow from this point. In addition to the janissary revolts, 1821 brought the nationalism movements to a new peak with the Greek War of Independence. The British, French, Habsburgs, Russians, and even the Ottomans had previously armed and trained Greek forces for use as irregular soldiers in their army, and in 1821 these trained men joined the rebellion against the sultan.[5] By the 1830’s, with growing concerns over Russian advancements into Ottoman territory, the sultan agreed to a peace treaty “which gave autonomy to Serbia and Greece,” but the immediate result was growing independence movements by Bulgarians, Macedonians, and others.[6]
The Tanzimat, or “re-ordering” marked a much more deliberate attempt at reforms throughout all elements of the Ottoman government, rather than simply within the military, during the final years of the Greek War of Independence and later. In 1837, Sultan Mahmud II established the ministries of the interior, foreign ministry, and justice, and although these new branches proved to be short-lived the “set an important precedent for the future.”[7] In 1839, Mahmud II was succeeded by Sultan Abdulmecid who continued down the same path with the Gulhane Edict, “a public pronouncement that the old ways had failed to fit the empire for the modern age.”[8] A key element of the reforms was the “promise of equality for all before the law,” but this would prove nearly impossible to enforce considering Islam itself codifies significant inequalities along lines religious, gender, and social class.[9] The Tanzimat was far from a failure, but was unable to fully achieve its lofty goals. Imperfections in the tax reforms resulted in an inability to equally apply all reforms across the vast empire. Additionally, conservative elements within the empire constantly applied pressure for a return to more traditional views. Finally, European powers continued their efforts to speak on behalf of Ottoman citizens of different religions: Russians on behalf of Orthodox Christians, the French on behalf of the Ottoman Catholics, and even the British on behalf of Ottoman Jews.[10]
The “New Order” military reforms were a step in the right direction, but the janissary revolt and the premature end of Selim III’s reign negated the positive effects. A generation later, the Tanzimatreforms, while ambitious, did not fully achieve their goals and the Ottoman Empire ultimately proved to be beyond saving. The attempts at reform highlighted the difficult balance between innovation and tradition in a transitionary period of world history. For the Ottoman Empire, the conservative elements focused on tradition proved too strong to overcome.
– Tim
[1] Edward C. Clark, “The Ottoman Industrial Revolution,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 5, no. 1 (1974): 65-76, https://www.jstor.org/stable/162344, 65.
[2] Marc David Baer, The Ottomans: Khans, Caesars, and Caliphs (New York: Basic Books, 2021), 329.
[3] Caroline Finkel, Osman’s Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1923 (New York, New York: Basic Books, 2007), 393.
[4] Finkel, Osman’s Dream, 423-4.
[5] Baer, The Ottomans, 336.
[6] Baer, The Ottomans, 342.
[7] Finkel, Osman’s Dream, 441.
[8] Finkel, Osman’s Dream, 447.
[9] Finkel, Osman’s Dream, 450.
[10] Finkel, Osman’s Dream, 451.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.