Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Abdülhamid II - Policies, Armenian issue and Tanzimat??

  1. #1
    Treize's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gelderland
    Posts
    16,093

    Default Abdülhamid II - Policies, Armenian issue and Tanzimat??

    Most of us will know this man as "the Red Sultan" who was engaged in killing Armenians and being some despot.

    Well, what is certain is that this man was ruler of an empire in a very severe state of decline. Bankrupt, full of discontented subject and with external powers hungry for land to annex.

    He came to power after his brother was "removed" for being insane. Now the two sultans before the removed one (Abdülmecid and Abdülaziz) tried to create a more modern society through social reforms known as "Tanzimat".
    Now these aimed at preventing the further decline and break-up of the empire but it was not enough to prevent the general discontent from spreading. So the empire lost many holdings to revolts and foreign invasions during this period up until WW1.
    Now Abdülhamid II was also the last Ottoman Emperor with real powers, the ones that followed him were mere figureheads for the Young Turk government that took power in 1908 (another result of the discontent).

    Seeing this failure he tried to keep atleast the muslims loyal by (re)introducing some form of pan-islamism as the prime source of social cohesion.

    My first question would be if he actively reversed the Tanzimat reforms (and the rights it had given)? I think not, but I would like to hear if I might be wrong.

    Secondly he is infamous for killing many Armenians in the late 19th century. Now as far as I understand it the Armenians became discontent for a number of reasons. While some of them were urban and in general very succesful people, most Armenians lived in villages in the east. These were regulary attacked by Kurdish tribesmen and Circassians (refugees from the Caucasus, the Russians had drove most of them from their homeland and killed many of them). The Ottoman state did not seem to do much to prevent this from happening. They also wanted more influence on local administration and be treated equally as witnesses in courts. The Ottoman government was reluctant to give in to these demands. Emboldened by Russian support and new Enlightenment stuff from Europe this led to some insurgencies and severe crackdowns by the state, without much regard for civilian lives. The Ottoman state being bankrupt had to resort to using Kurdish tribesmen to police the east and these tribes acted pretty much in a lawless manner. This was ofcourse followed by indiscrimate killings and more insurgent activity. This was soon followed by the so-called Hamidian massacres.

    Now my second question would be why he refused to implement reforms or atleast try to pacify Kurdish tribes instead of using the same problematic tribes to cause even more trouble for the Armenians in a legalised way. Also what had been the purpose of all this? I am certain he was not really the kind of man who wanted the Christians gone so much like his modernist successors but rather wanted to pacify them by any means neccessary without having to give them dangerous (leading to potential seperatism) autonomy in places were non-Armenians were a clear majority?

    All in all what I want to know if he took a radical new line in politics from his Tanzimat predecessors and if his hand was basically forced or if he could have taken a more constructive approach towards the Eastern Question.
    Last edited by Treize; September 22, 2014 at 10:42 AM. Reason: Typos
    Miss me yet?

  2. #2
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Abdülhamid II - Policies, Armenian issue and Tanzimat??

    If Armenians converted to Islam the problem might actually get solved.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  3. #3

    Default Re: Abdülhamid II - Policies, Armenian issue and Tanzimat??

    Ottomans should had to take example of Spanish.
    In tribute to concerned friends:
    - You know nothing Jon Snow.





    Samples from the Turkish Cuisine by white-wolf

  4. #4
    Treize's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gelderland
    Posts
    16,093

    Default Re: Abdülhamid II - Policies, Armenian issue and Tanzimat??

    So much typos, will correct when I get home.

    Spanish?
    Miss me yet?

  5. #5

    Default Re: Abdülhamid II - Policies, Armenian issue and Tanzimat??

    yep. look to Iberia and south america.
    In tribute to concerned friends:
    - You know nothing Jon Snow.





    Samples from the Turkish Cuisine by white-wolf

  6. #6
    Treize's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gelderland
    Posts
    16,093

    Default Re: Abdülhamid II - Policies, Armenian issue and Tanzimat??

    Ethnic cleansing? Well that happened after Abdülhamid. Worked out quite well, but that's not the topic here.
    Miss me yet?

  7. #7

    Default Re: Abdülhamid II - Policies, Armenian issue and Tanzimat??

    It was not etnic cleansing, what Spanish did.
    In tribute to concerned friends:
    - You know nothing Jon Snow.





    Samples from the Turkish Cuisine by white-wolf

  8. #8
    Treize's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gelderland
    Posts
    16,093

    Default Re: Abdülhamid II - Policies, Armenian issue and Tanzimat??

    Quote Originally Posted by white-wolf View Post
    It was not etnic cleansing, what Spanish did.
    Forced conversion?

    I actually do not think these tensions were caused by religion so much. Abby Hamid might have been a Caliph but he was a chillax Sufi, not some crazy Wahhabi like those modern day impostors (his grandfather got their ass killed).

    It seems like mismanagement of the millet system and the failure to protect villagers from roving Kurdish bandits to led some nationalist movement.
    Miss me yet?

  9. #9
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Abdülhamid II - Policies, Armenian issue and Tanzimat??

    Quote Originally Posted by Treize View Post
    I actually do not think these tensions were caused by religion so much. Abby Hamid might have been a Caliph but he was a chillax Sufi, not some crazy Wahhabi like those modern day impostors (his grandfather got their ass killed).
    There is no question that Quran did define Christian and Muslim are different, regardless you are Sufi or not. Ottoman's policy was quite similar as Hapsburg Austria - religion identity played the first role, while ethnic identity second; hence why in Austria Catholics were treated rather equal as Catholic German, regardless you were a Slav or not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  10. #10
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: Abdülhamid II - Policies, Armenian issue and Tanzimat??

    wrote literally an essay, got deleted

    I'll try to summarize;

    My first question would be if he actively reversed the Tanzimat reforms (and the rights it had given)? I think not, but I would like to hear if I might be wrong.
    Tanzimat was a process that took decades. It was not merely giving rights to people. It was a complete socio-economic transformation with completly new ideas being introduced. Even the way people interacted on the street changed. It was not something one could reverse over-night. And once the new social-forces were unleashed, it was out of control of the empire-bureaucracy. What had to be done was state's adaptation to the new society, which was really slow but was happening. By the time of WWI, Ottoman Empire entered the war as a modern state equal to western powers(despite its weaknesses). It was not exactly an empire of the previous millennium anymore. The costs of this change were multiplied of course in a multi-ethnic and religious empire.
    Modern state formation requires subjects to become citizens(so it is a two-way effort, it was easier in the west because demand was coming mostly from the people and they were monolithic societies. It took centuries of struggle to establish these "modern" values for west, Ottomans had to do it in a mere century, to a population which did not have this demand in majority). There is simply too much to it.
    So reversing tanzimat was not really possible once it took its momentum of change. An economy that shifts from feudal(or imperial style, not exactly feudal) to capitalist one.

    Also, I view Tanzimat in completely positive light. It is what introduced westernization to this geography. Funny enough, the places Ottoman bureaucracy reached strongly, established much more solid states(western Turkey, egypt in its own autonomy had its own control, Balkans). Places Ottoman bureaucracy had trouble reaching(Levant-Iraq, East of Turkey) are still unstable regions with weak political control and are still tribal.
    The problem was the introduction of many many modern ideas in their radical forms to a very diverse empire. Since the costs were more(and -relative- revenues were declining due to economic conditions; AND THIS BIT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, I am lazy to get into it now), the change was too slow for people who were more "enlightened", people who were in minority. So there also needed to be a balance between conservative minds + costs to implement speedy change while the more "enlightened" ones were demanding faster change. Many Turks and minorities couldn't wait for this. For many Turks were now "enlightened" bureaucrats/officers and many minorities were enlightened "capitalists-proleteriat" of the capitalist society whereas most Muslims were still peasants of the previous age. Ottomans were literally living multiple-economic epochs at the same time. Within the same empire, by just moving from region to region, you could get the feeling you were travelling in time.

    These social dynamics were necessary but were also INDEPENDENT of the state's control once unleashed...there was simply so much. Tanzimat was not something that could be reversed.



    Now my second question would be why he refused to implement reforms or atleast try to pacify Kurdish tribes instead of using the same problematic tribes to cause even more trouble for the Armenians in a legalised way. Also what had been the purpose of all this? I am certain he was not really the kind of man who wanted the Christians gone so much like his modernist successors but rather wanted to pacify them by any means neccessary without having to give them dangerous (leading to potential seperatism) autonomy in places were non-Armenians were a clear majority?
    The eastern regions, since the first days Ottoman conquered there had been a special case. They were never fully integrated, were always source turmoil and their allegiances changed between Safavids and Ottomans.
    The infrastructure was different, the geography was different...and most importantly PEOPLE were different(not just ethno-religiously). What I am saying is that, those regions were integrated as "client" mini-rulers, tribal leaders that ruled over thousands of families. These could be Kurdish, Turkmen, and they could also be Alevis which leaned more towards Iran. The socio-economic situation there was significantly different from typical farmers of the western bits of the empire. There were a lot of nomads and dynasties in this region. Ottoman control over the area was weaker and relations with these clients were crucial, because the tribal leader had more power over the population there than the sultan in Constantinople.

    Mind you, this had come all the way to modern Turkey. Even today, Turkish state, a midst the Kurdish independence issue, controls the area through tribal leaders and their paramilitaries. Since the time of Atatürk the region was tried to be indoctrinated, brain-washed, change their "feudal" life style, attacked and even massacred. The area had always been special.
    You can easily see this in the 19th century for when most of the core of empire(western anatolia and balkans) were going through social transformation, these areas were insisting in their old life-styles. There had been MANY incidents when nomads and forces of Ottomans fought each other. Ottomans were always trying to force-settle nomads(for modernization) for proper taxation and increased cultivation(we even have a lot of folk songs written by these nomads about their heroism against the state).
    For example, when the land-reforms were being introduced(1856) and "old land regime" was being abolished, Ottoman bureaucrats were registering lands in the names of small land-holders/peasants and some big land-owners. In the eastern region, people would register themselves in the name of their tribal leader for there was no rule of law of Ottomans there. Local laws were what mattered. This is still the source of inequality between east-west Turkey for there a lot more (feudalistic)landowners in the east...

    Long story-short, just like Levant-Iraq and Egypt, Ottoman central government had weak control over this area. So Abdülhamid, a midst all those serious issues going on and biiiiiiig militaristic-expansionist western powers openly declaring their interests over empire's lands, took radical measures to keep empire together. Pacifying Kurds would simply be waaay to costly and time-consuming. Abdülhamid did not have both of those. So he used one subject against the other to make good use of both. Stop Armenian radical demands for transformation and make the Kurds more integrated; all of these, to gain more time for the state to build its control while the whole society transformed. Pretty Machiavellian situation...I don't think he necessarily hated Armenians nor I think he was a much of an Islamist. By this time, Ottoman sultans were as liberal and western as it gets. It was more a matter of politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    There is no question that Quran did define Christian and Muslim are different, regardless you are Sufi or not. Ottoman's policy was quite similar as Hapsburg Austria - religion identity played the first role, while ethnic identity second; hence why in Austria Catholics were treated rather equal as Catholic German, regardless you were a Slav or not.
    In an absolute monarchy, you really have to understand the motivations of one man. So unless you have read Abdülhamid's biography and have access to his ideas this is not very credible. Whether his choices were political or whether they were a representation of his own mind. Though he is a hero of conservatives today.
    Last edited by dogukan; September 23, 2014 at 06:42 AM.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  11. #11
    Treize's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gelderland
    Posts
    16,093

    Default Re: Abdülhamid II - Policies, Armenian issue and Tanzimat??

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    wrote literally an essay, got deleted
    This happens to the best of us...

    Tanzimat was a process that took decades. It was not merely giving rights to people. It was a complete socio-economic transformation with completly new ideas being introduced. Even the way people interacted on the street changed. It was not something one could reverse over-night. And once the new social-forces were unleashed, it was out of control of the empire-bureaucracy. What had to be done was state's adaptation to the new society, which was really slow but was happening. By the time of WWI, Ottoman Empire entered the war as a modern state equal to western powers(despite its weaknesses). It was not exactly an empire of the previous millennium anymore. The costs of this change were multiplied of course in a multi-ethnic and religious empire.
    What I asked was if he actively pulled back legislation (apart from the constitution) at the expense of the rights of non-muslims. This does not seem to be the case, even though he is know for stepping away from "Ottomanism" towards "pan-Islamism".

    Modern state formation requires subjects to become citizens(so it is a two-way effort, it was easier in the west because demand was coming mostly from the people and they were monolithic societies. It took centuries of struggle to establish these "modern" values for west, Ottomans had to do it in a mere century, to a population which did not have this demand in majority). There is simply too much to it.
    So reversing tanzimat was not really possible once it took its momentum of change. An economy that shifts from feudal(or imperial style, not exactly feudal) to capitalist one.
    Yes. I mean during the Hamidian times we know the economy was basically ran by non-muslims and foreigners. I think when the Greeks took over Thessaly many rich Greeks fled to Konstantiniyye because this offered better economic prospects.

    Also, I view Tanzimat in completely positive light. It is what introduced westernization to this geography. Funny enough, the places Ottoman bureaucracy reached strongly, established much more solid states(western Turkey, egypt in its own autonomy had its own control, Balkans). Places Ottoman bureaucracy had trouble reaching(Levant-Iraq, East of Turkey) are still unstable regions with weak political control and are still tribal.
    It is true the government was weak there.

    The problem was the introduction of many many modern ideas in their radical forms to a very diverse empire. Since the costs were more(and -relative- revenues were declining due to economic conditions; AND THIS BIT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, I am lazy to get into it now), the change was too slow for people who were more "enlightened", people who were in minority. So there also needed to be a balance between conservative minds + costs to implement speedy change while the more "enlightened" ones were demanding faster change. Many Turks and minorities couldn't wait for this. For many Turks were now "enlightened" bureaucrats/officers and many minorities were enlightened "capitalists-proleteriat" of the capitalist society whereas most Muslims were still peasants of the previous age. Ottomans were literally living multiple-economic epochs at the same time. Within the same empire, by just moving from region to region, you could get the feeling you were travelling in time.
    Well the intellectual ruling class was actually very small I think. The minorities had ofcourse been influenced alot by the Enlightenment stuff. This is what caused all the Balkan revolts.

    These social dynamics were necessary but were also INDEPENDENT of the state's control once unleashed...there was simply so much. Tanzimat was not something that could be reversed.
    The eastern regions, since the first days Ottoman conquered there had been a special case. They were never fully integrated, were always source turmoil and their allegiances changed between Safavids and Ottomans.
    The infrastructure was different, the geography was different...and most importantly PEOPLE were different(not just ethno-religiously). What I am saying is that, those regions were integrated as "client" mini-rulers, tribal leaders that ruled over thousands of families. These could be Kurdish, Turkmen, and they could also be Alevis which leaned more towards Iran. The socio-economic situation there was significantly different from typical farmers of the western bits of the empire. There were a lot of nomads and dynasties in this region. Ottoman control over the area was weaker and relations with these clients were crucial, because the tribal leader had more power over the population there than the sultan in Constantinople.

    Mind you, this had come all the way to modern Turkey. Even today, Turkish state, a midst the Kurdish independence issue, controls the area through tribal leaders and their paramilitaries. Since the time of Atatürk the region was tried to be indoctrinated, brain-washed, change their "feudal" life style, attacked and even massacred. The area had always been special.

    You can easily see this in the 19th century for when most of the core of empire(western anatolia and balkans) were going through social transformation, these areas were insisting in their old life-styles. There had been MANY incidents when nomads and forces of Ottomans fought each other. Ottomans were always trying to force-settle nomads(for modernization) for proper taxation and increased cultivation(we even have a lot of folk songs written by these nomads about their heroism against the state).
    For example, when the land-reforms were being introduced(1856) and "old land regime" was being abolished, Ottoman bureaucrats were registering lands in the names of small land-holders/peasants and some big land-owners. In the eastern region, people would register themselves in the name of their tribal leader for there was no rule of law of Ottomans there. Local laws were what mattered. This is still the source of inequality between east-west Turkey for there a lot more (feudalistic)landowners in the east...
    Well this is true. If you read about the founders of the republic and their impressions of the east it is easy to see. They tought they could develop this region by breaking down the tribal structures and impose Turkish high-culture on these people including the Turkish language especially. is this reform the same one that stripped Palestinians of land, allowing a small group of people to buy it from the state and sell it to Jewish settlers, by the way?

    Long story-short, just like Levant-Iraq and Egypt, Ottoman central government had weak control over this area. So Abdülhamid, a midst all those serious issues going on and biiiiiiig militaristic-expansionist western powers openly declaring their interests over empire's lands, took radical measures to keep empire together. Pacifying Kurds would simply be waaay to costly and time-consuming. Abdülhamid did not have both of those. So he used one subject against the other to make good use of both. Stop Armenian radical demands for transformation and make the Kurds more integrated; all of these, to gain more time for the state to build its control while the whole society transformed. Pretty Machiavellian situation...I don't think he necessarily hated Armenians nor I think he was a much of an Islamist. By this time, Ottoman sultans were as liberal and western as it gets. It was more a matter of politics.
    This seems true, even though the initial demands were not very radical, more about safety I think.
    Miss me yet?

  12. #12
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Abdülhamid II - Policies, Armenian issue and Tanzimat??

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    In an absolute monarchy, you really have to understand the motivations of one man. So unless you have read Abdülhamid's biography and have access to his ideas this is not very credible. Whether his choices were political or whether they were a representation of his own mind. Though he is a hero of conservatives today.
    The motivation of one man is often forced by the mass; how he really felt was not important as long as he enforced what majority of population wanted. Hence why Istanbul could not, regardless what Abdülhamid thought, alienated Muslim population (worse still, many of them were not Turks) by supporting a minority group, hence why Ottoman was always Muslim-first.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  13. #13
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: Abdülhamid II - Policies, Armenian issue and Tanzimat??

    Quote Originally Posted by Treize View Post
    What I asked was if he actively pulled back legislation (apart from the constitution) at the expense of the rights of non-muslims. This does not seem to be the case, even though he is know for stepping away from "Ottomanism" towards "pan-Islamism".
    He was trying to build absolute power but he did not have it. He had to act politically. So I do not know exactly what his intentions were, but I know that he could not simply take things back. He needed serious excuses for everything, such as shutting down the young parliament due Russo-Turkish war...etc. The empire was at a stage where people's representation had reached new levels. And a stable relationship with the bigger powers was essential.
    The situation of minorities were being monitored by foreigners which had immense power. Thats why using proxy groups like Hamidians worked better than direct state-action. The state is not directly responsible.


    Well the intellectual ruling class was actually very small I think. The minorities had ofcourse been influenced alot by the Enlightenment stuff. This is what caused all the Balkan revolts.
    The bureaucracy and military which was made up of mostly Turkish Muslims were not that small. At least they became a significant middle-class along with their families. Union and Progress party was not a small force to deal with for the sultan, the group which later took over the empire with their ideas of "enlightenment" and caused a massacare of minorities with their new vision of an enlightened nation state. A group which was earlier supported by many Armenians and minority revolutionaries. Its so tragic.


    Well this is true. If you read about the founders of the republic and their impressions of the east it is easy to see. They tought they could develop this region by breaking down the tribal structures and impose Turkish high-culture on these people including the Turkish language especially. is this reform the same one that stripped Palestinians of land, allowing a small group of people to buy it from the state and sell it to Jewish settlers, by the way?
    No, its nothing like that.
    Interesting thing about Ottoman Empire was that, despite its relative backwardness, it did not have violent class conflicts like in Europe where a certain class would dominate the power at the expense of interests of others. Ottomans were always about keeping a balance, not really favoring one group over the others(bureaucrats, landowners, merchants, peasants). Throughout the whole Ottoman period, a peasant had quiet good representation(though they were royally screwed at the time when central authority lost power and local landowners-bureaucrats gained control; hence the massive revolts of 16th century).
    In this case too, at a time when in Europe peasants were being forced out of their homes in favor of bourgeoisie or aristocrat-origin landowners through enclosures, Ottomans were giving the lands to peasants as "private property", the land they had used for centuries. So it was a scenario where the land was being given to peasant who was already working on that land under the previous system. Only now, the land was not Sultan's property but peasant's property, so he had judicial right to it. There were of course enclosures and big-landowners as well. The thing is, these land relations were easy to implement in Balkans and West Anatolia. Things got more confusing in the East; weaker bureaucracy reach, strong tribal leaders, different forms of production and geography...etc

    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    The motivation of one man is often forced by the mass; how he really felt was not important as long as he enforced what majority of population wanted. Hence why Istanbul could not, regardless what Abdülhamid thought, alienated Muslim population (worse still, many of them were not Turks) by supporting a minority group, hence why Ottoman was always Muslim-first.
    Thats what I meant
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  14. #14

    Default Re: Abdülhamid II - Policies, Armenian issue and Tanzimat??

    The reason why the tribal leaders weren't suppressed in Kurdistan and why the Christians (Armenians, Slavs or Greeks) have not been converted by force Spanish-style has to do a lot with the Ottoman (and Islamic) approach to empire-building.

    Islam forbids the force-conversion of the followers of the Abrahamic religions (Christians and Jews). As an aside, threats of forced conversion is one of the many un-Islamic things ISIL does. That approach has the advantage of limiting the disruption of the economy of the conquered territories.

    Actually even the Spaniards understood that after force-converting or expelling their Jews and Muslims, so what happened in South America was largely the conquistador's abuse, often against the explicit orders of the Spanish king.

    Not because the Spanish king was adverse to the spreading of the "true faith" or because he held human rights in high regard, but because he wanted a high and steady income flowing from South America. Having to kill the natives who resisted the force conversions ran contrary to his priorities.

    The only issue was the conquistadors themselves were in for the 80% of the wealth robbed from the natives (20% had to be given to the king). Not killing and robbing the natives meant they would have 80% from about zero once the area had been conquered and the resistance had stopped, while the king could easily neglect those 20% from the spoils of war since he would anyway collect taxes for the rest of his life.

    The Ottoman sultans saw wisdom in Islam's approach to empire-building and since they had managed to build a very solid bureaucracy (using Persian and Byzantine know-how), they had the tools in place to take advantage of any newly conquered area as soon as it was pacified. Which in case the Ottomans didn't touch the religion, would mean once the local armies were defeated.

    Occasionally the locals willingly converted en-masse (Albania, Bosnia), but the Ottomans didn't mind if that wasn't happening, as long as taxes kept flowing in.

    As for letting the tribal structures intact, it also had to do with the same pragmatic approach of wanting minimal unrest in the conquered areas. If campaigning in the area was difficult and if less disruptive tribal leaders were in control of those territories, the Ottomans preferred to let things be.

    They did similar things in another part of the world, in Romania. The two medieval Romanian states of Wallachia and Moldova weren't the most friendly vassals of the Ottomans. However since both states had been able to defeat all the major Ottoman campaigns launched against them, the Ottomans settled for the situation in which those two countries kept their internal administration as long as they kept paying tribute and didn't openly engage in anti-Ottoman activities.

    The Wallachians and the Moldavians were several levels above the Kurds in terms of political autonomy. They were even above the Egyptians, since for instance they were never considered as a viable option for putting down the Greek Independence movement. Nor have the Tanzimat reforms crossed the Danube into Wallachia or Moldova even though according to the international law of the time those were considered Ottoman provinces by the European Powers.

    If the Ottomans could live with such arrangements in Wallachia and Moldova they certainly could do so in the case of the Kurds, all in the name of pragmatism.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  15. #15
    Treize's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gelderland
    Posts
    16,093

    Default Re: Abdülhamid II - Policies, Armenian issue and Tanzimat??

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    He was trying to build absolute power but he did not have it. He had to act politically. So I do not know exactly what his intentions were, but I know that he could not simply take things back. He needed serious excuses for everything, such as shutting down the young parliament due Russo-Turkish war...etc. The empire was at a stage where people's representation had reached new levels. And a stable relationship with the bigger powers was essential.
    The situation of minorities were being monitored by foreigners which had immense power. Thats why using proxy groups like Hamidians worked better than direct state-action. The state is not directly responsible.
    Hamidiyans were openly on the payroll of the state. Also massacres in for example Diyarbekir 1895 must have been state sanctioned. Would be difficult otherwise, atleast the local governors were in on it.

    The bureaucracy and military which was made up of mostly Turkish Muslims were not that small.
    The only significant thing the muslims had was the power over the bureaucracy and the military. They had relatively very little economic power. The Ottoman society was rather unique in the sense that every group of people seems to fullfill a certain role in society. Greeks were probably the most well-off. They owned many shops and dominated trade. The Armenians supposedly were famed craftsmen (Ottoman army had to use Armenian farriers for example) while Jews were like doctors and such.
    Vast mayority of muslims were small self-sufficient farmers as far as I know. But this muslim upperclass developed the ideology that was picked up on by the Young Turks and carried on my the CUP and their direct offspring the CHP.

    At least they became a significant middle-class along with their families. Union and Progress party was not a small force to deal with for the sultan, the group which later took over the empire with their ideas of "enlightenment" and caused a massacare of minorities with their new vision of an enlightened nation state. A group which was earlier supported by many Armenians and minority revolutionaries. Its so tragic.
    Because of the events in the Balkans in the 19th century, the losses of 1912 and the provisions for Armenian autonomy and possible seperatism triggered a panick reaction within the Turkish upperclass. (Turkish society never seems to have healed from this panick-attack.) This is what led to the later tragic events and the whole Jacobin obsession of the Turkish elite ever since. Atleast that's my contention.



    No, its nothing like that.
    Interesting thing about Ottoman Empire was that, despite its relative backwardness, it did not have violent class conflicts like in Europe where a certain class would dominate the power at the expense of interests of others. Ottomans were always about keeping a balance, not really favoring one group over the others(bureaucrats, landowners, merchants, peasants). Throughout the whole Ottoman period, a peasant had quiet good representation(though they were royally screwed at the time when central authority lost power and local landowners-bureaucrats gained control; hence the massive revolts of 16th century).
    In this case too, at a time when in Europe peasants were being forced out of their homes in favor of bourgeoisie or aristocrat-origin landowners through enclosures, Ottomans were giving the lands to peasants as "private property", the land they had used for centuries. So it was a scenario where the land was being given to peasant who was already working on that land under the previous system. Only now, the land was not Sultan's property but peasant's property, so he had judicial right to it. There were of course enclosures and big-landowners as well. The thing is, these land relations were easy to implement in Balkans and West Anatolia. Things got more confusing in the East; weaker bureaucracy reach, strong tribal leaders, different forms of production and geography...etc
    That was the view of those people who revolted against the Ottomans and created the Republic, not the view of Abdülhamid. (Although to be fair he did open a school for sons of prominent Kurds and Arabs were they were taught the high-culture and language.)
    Miss me yet?

  16. #16
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Abdülhamid II - Policies, Armenian issue and Tanzimat??

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    If the Ottomans could live with such arrangements in Wallachia and Moldova they certainly could do so in the case of the Kurds, all in the name of pragmatism.
    Afterall Kurds are Muslims, just like Arabs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  17. #17

    Default Re: Abdülhamid II - Policies, Armenian issue and Tanzimat??

    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    Afterall Kurds are Muslims, just like Arabs.
    Yes, but such line of reasoning can only only go so far: since other Muslims (Turks and most of the Arabs) were under the tight control of the bureaucratic Ottoman state, why weren't the Kurds, the Bedouins, the Egyptians and several others?!

    The only reason why the Ottomans didn't always press on with implementing their full administrative structures after conquering a territory was their preference for minimal disruption. That's why those Muslims got to keep their tribal structures (Kurds, Bedouins) or their own bureaucracies (Egypt). Full implementation of the Ottoman administration would have meant a much longer war. A long war the Ottomans wanted to avoid for several reasons:

    1) They didn't operate in an international vacuum. Troops they lost or got tied up in such places were troops they could not use against Persia or the European powers;

    2) The cost of the war might have been higher than the revenue they expected to collect from that territory. Top notch armies (like the Ottomans had at the height of their power) were expensive back then just like they are expensive now.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •