• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11
  12. 12
    12
  13. 13
    13
  14. 14
    14
  15. 15
    15
  16. 16
    16
  17. 17
    17
  18. 18
    18

How far did the reforms during the period 1826-39 contribute to the eventual fall of the Ottoman Empire?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How far did the reforms during the period 1826-39 contribute to the eventual fall of the Ottoman Empire? The Ottoman Empire (1299-1924), founded as a medieval dynasty, collapsed and re-emerged as a modern constitutional state in less than seven centuries. The crucial question is why? What caused so momentous a transformation? There is much historical debate as to the causes for, and underlying factors in the empire's collapse. I've focused my study on the reforms passed during the period 1826-39, for I would consider these central in understanding the nature of the empire's transformation. The years between 1826 and 1839 were a key turning point in the empire's history and relations with foreign powers. In this period, crucial wars were fought, reforms ratified and institutions dismantled. Sultan Abdulmecid declared in 1839, '[my empire] will prove [...] that it is worthy of a prominent place in the concert of civilised nations'. As Suraiya Farooqhi et al, in their detailed study of the latter centuries of the empire's history put it, 'such events are important for they physically acknowledged, reaffirmed, and maintained the new centralizing/westernizing course of the Ottoman state.'i Historians, whose studies are based foremost on European sources e.g. Lord Kinross and Feroz Ahmadii, tend to see the reforms as progressive, and attribute the empire's collapse to a failure to industrialise. On the other hand, other historians, e.g. E.Eldemiii and Professor Maksudoglu, as well as Stanford J. Shawiv, all of whom rely more heavily on Ottoman sources, see the reforms as far more degenerate. Maksudoglu suggests Osmanli [Ottoman] sources 'have been neglected and ignored'.v Shaw argues that 'Ottoman history has been discussed... but always from the European perspective, through the light of European prejudice, and largely on the basis of European sources'.vi It is due to a neglect of Ottoman sources that many historians have misinterpreted the causes of the empire's collapse; there exists an unnatural bias towards the conventional European justification. ...read more.

Middle

The War of Independence exposed the weaknesses of the Sultan's reforms. As Mansel agrees, 'the Sultan's reforms did not help the Ottoman Empire in its' struggle against the Greek revolt'.xxxii The War of Greek Independence began 25 March 1821 and is certainly one of the central elements in bringing about the case for reform. The War of Greek Independence, though initially taking the form of a Greek cultural renaissance, was in fact an attempt by the Greeks to actively destabilize the Ottoman Empire; as Glenny suggests: 'the Greek rebellions of 1821 were not spontaneous reactions to deteriorating social and economic circumstances'.xxxiii By June 1827, after six years of war, the Ottoman's under the leadership of the commander Reshid Pasha, succeeded in subjugating continental Greece, this ought to have signalled the end of the war, instead occupation of mainland Greece prompted British, French, and Russian intervention; the Russians, in particular, put immense pressure on the Ottomans. Maksudoglu, strengthening the line of argument, argues that the Russians were guilty of inciting the Greeks to revolt'.xxxiv The Austrians under Metternich favoured the suppression of the rebellious Greeks. The British, encouraged by the ambassador Sir Stratford Canning, fought the Ottoman government. According to Mansel, in an effort to persuade the Ottoman government to recognise Greece, European ambassadors, who felt physically threatened in Constantinople, left for the island of Poros between December 1827 and June 1829.xxxv On 20 October 1827, the Ottoman fleet was completely obliterated at the Battle of Navarino. The support of British, French and Russian navies for the Greeks insurgents violated the 1827 Treaty of London in which the three great powers had committed themselves to securing an armistice between the Greeks and the Ottomans, 'without taking part in the hostilities between contending parities'.xxxvi The British, as suggested by Glenny, were 'egged on by the philhellenic sentiments of Sir Stratford Canning'.xxxvii Kinross agrees: 'the great powers, the rival expansionist empires of Austria-Hungary and Russia, intrigued from behind their adjoining frontiers, marking out spheres of influence, stirring ...read more.

Conclusion

and Dress in the Later Ottoman Empire' p213-230 - Donald Quartaert, editor - 'Consumption Studies and the History of the Ottoman Empire xxiv Suraiya Farooqhi, Bruce McGowan, Donald Quartaert and Serket Pamuk - An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire - Volume II - 1600 - 1914 - Cambridge University Press (1994) xxv Phillip Mansel, Constantinople - City of the World's Desire - 1453-1924, John Murray (Publishers), (1995), p258 xxvi Ibid, p250 26 Feroz Ahmad, The Making of Modern Turkey, Routledge (1993), p24 xxviii Ibid p258 xxix Ibid p254 xxx Lord Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire, Morrow Quill Paperbacks, New York, (1977), p.440 xxxi Mehmet Maksudoglu, Osmanli History 1289-1922, International Islamic University, Malaysia (1999), p210 xxxii Phillip Mansel, Constantinople - City of the World's Desire - 1453-1924, John Murray (Publishers), (1995), p247 xxxiii Misha Glenny, The Balkans - 1804-1999 - Nationalism, War and the Great Powers, (Granata Books), London (1999) p26 xxxiv Mehmet Maksudoglu, Osmanli History 1289-1922, International Islamic University, Malaysia (1999), p208 xxxv Phillip Mansel, Constantinople - City of the World's Desire - 1453-1924, John Murray (Publishers), (1995), p248 xxxvi The Treaty of London (1827), quoted in, Misha Glenny, The Balkans - 1804-1999 - Nationalism, War and the Great Powers, (Granata Books), London (1999) p34 xxxvii Ibid xxxviii Lord Kinross, Ataturk - A biography of Mustafa Kemal, father of modern Turkey, William Morrow and Company, New York, (1978), p8 xxxix Lord Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire, Morrow Quill Paperbacks, New York, (1977), p467 xl Marshal Marmont, quoted in Phillip Mansel, Constantinople - City of the World's Desire - 1453-1924, John Murray (Publishers), (1995), p259 xli Count Helmuth von Moltke, quoted in, Jason Goodwin, Lords of the Horizons - A History of the Ottoman Empire, Chatto & Windus, London, (1998), p302 xlii Lord Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire, Morrow Quill Paperbacks, New York, (1977), p467 xliii Ibid p468 xliv Phillip E. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Using these four passages and your own knowledge, assess the view that Napoleons Empire ...

    5 star(s)

    To start interpretation A has the view that Nationalism was purposely allowed to flourish within the Empire, ?there was no attempt to destroy the soul of conquered provinces.? Subjects of the Empire didn?t have to adopt a French regime. Coupled with the general hate of any occupying force in a

  2. 'In the context of the period 1715-1815 to what extent were economic factors the ...

    and played a major role in the American War of Independence. Aside from the ideas of liberty and democracy that this brought into France, fighting such a war so far away from home cost France 1066 million livres2, and though Britain were defeated, their military force and empire lived on.

  1. "Kaiser Wilhelm II used to the full his authority as Kaiser of the German ...

    Despite Wilhelm's strong personal connection with the military, and their strong influence over him, the policies introduced received mixed responses. Significantly, in 1893, Caprivi introduced the Army Bill, which reduced conscription from three to just two years. This left the military leaders annoyed and frustrated; although whether or not this

  2. HOW DID WORLD WAR ONE CONTRIBUTE TO THE TRANSFORMATION OF IRISH POLITICS 1914-1918?

    cultural and political unrest, in light of the Curragh Mutiny, the army's unionist sympathy's and issues surrounding gun running on both sides appeared to favour Unionists. The war impacted further on Irish politics, with the failure of the War Office initially, to accommodate Redmond's Irish Volunteers with the establishment of

  1. In the process of consolidating his position, Napoleons reforms, had by 1808, destroyed the ...

    With this, Napoleon had established a dictatorship, and one that he claimed the French public were in favour of; this violated the principles of the Revolution which openly claimed to fully oppose such tyranny. Nonetheless, whilst establishing the Constitution of 1802, Napoleon had also held a plebiscite.

  2. To what extent were economic considerations the main motive for Portuguese exploration and empire ...

    the newly conquered colonises of Africa, Portuguese explores captured them and sent them back to Portugal as slaves to work on the land. Also slaves became very valuable and could be sold for a very good price. Also Portugal was a small county and needed more land to farm and

  1. The Holocaust was the result of Hitlers long held grand design to pursue a ...

    In other words, just because Hitler wanted the Jews dead and it happened, does not mean Hitler alone made it happen. To support this, Structuralists point to the fact that although, in Mein Kampf, Hitler repeatedly states his inexorable hatred of the Jewish people, no-where does he proclaim his intention

  2. The Impact of Stalins Leadership in the USSR, 1924 1941. Extensive notes

    However, instead of being enthusiastic, workers became increasingly disillusioned with the bid to become a Socialist country. Workers boycotted factory committee elections and trade unions, and unemployed workers protested ï many arrests. However, the authorities would not admit that they were to blame, as that would be saying Stalin was wrong.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work