Sample Paper on The Collapse of The Ottoman Empire

Overview

The disintegration of the Ottoman Empire began in the 17^th century and successive events led to its final collapse in the 20^th century[1]. The fall of the empire was attributed to lack of a sufficient government and military to quell the internal and external revolts that occurred during that period. The government had been poorly structured due to corruption and the Sultans that ruled were neither trained on leadership nor advised appropriately on how to achieve public goodwill. They therefore ruled as they deemed fit ensuring they met their selfish needs while neglecting that of the public. The people were not happy with such a rule and tended to revolt demanding for better treatment and leadership. However, the government chose not to listen to them but rather quelled such revolts by utilizing the military instead of negotiations. The Ottoman Empire was therefore a militant state and the people took arms and openly engaged the government forces in a bid to end its tyranny.

The British, who were expanding their territories, took advantage of the political unrest and funded the internal revolts specifically the Islamic revolt. They collaborated with the French and together they attacked Ottoman Empire. Napoleon III attacked specific areas in the empire; the Greek revolted, Syria was invaded, and the unification of Islam took its toll on the nation. All these feuds weakened the Ottoman government and military. The empire had borrowed too much money to fund the war, which it was unable to pay. The empire was bankrupt, militarily weak and hated by its citizens. Its leaders escaped to Germany leaving behind an unstable government that was taken over by the British.

Three factors played a significant role in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The three factors are:

1. The British urge to expand its territory.
2. Authoritarian leadership in the Ottoman Empire.
3. Decline of the economic status in the Ottoman Empire.

 

1. The British urge to expand its territory.

The British wanted to expand their territory and the lands of Ottoman Empire provided it with the strategic advantage needed to continue with this venture. The British army had already conquered Palestine, Mesopotamia, and Syria and was progressively moving towards Turkey. They did not want to attack the empire directly and they therefore sought to take advantage of the internal feuds taking place within the empire. They funded Sharif Hussein bin Ali, a governor, who had asked them to assist him revolt against the Ottoman government. He wanted to do this to increase his power over the region. The British provided weapons and money to Sharif to ensure he had a proper military entity that could battle the organized Ottoman army. The British promised him that if he was successful, he would be given his kingdom that would cover Syria, Iraq, and the wider Arabian Peninsula[2]. The letters of engagement during the process came to be known as the McMahon –Hussein Correspondence. They used this laid-back approach until they could find a proper reason to attack the empire.

During the First World War, the Ottoman Empire decided to enter the war on the side of the Germans. The allied forces declared war on the empire and plotted secretly on how they could share the empire among themselves. They made a mischief deal that was known as the Sykes-Picot agreement. The agreement divided Ottoman’s Middle Eastern empire into two with the north going to the France and the south going to the British. The British were very interested in the deal since they were looking for a mechanism to create a defense to the east of the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal was very significant to the British since it provided an economic and military short cut to other locations of the empire. The southern area would provide an excellent avenue for the building of a land bridge between the eastern Mediterranean to the petroleum fields of Iraq. The Royal Navy had designated this spot to be a source of energy for oil-fired ships.

Sharif Hussein led Bedouin warriors in an armed campaign against the Ottomans. They were indeed successful by capturing individual cities in the Hejaz with specified technical support from the British. The support took the form of soldiers, money, advisors, and weapons[3]. The British designed a flag of the Arab revolt, which was utilized during the rebellion. As the First World War continued through 1917 to 1918, the British captured Jerusalem and Baghdad but also assisted the Arab rebels in capturing Aqaba and Amman[4]. However, the Arab revolution was not supported by a majority of the people but was a movement of minority tribesmen who were determined to gain more power in the region.

The other reason the British wanted to occupy the empire was to ensure that they could deliver a favor to Zionists who had been exiled for over 2,000 years from Israel. The prime minister at the time, Arthur Balfour, believed that the Israelites had a right to return to their promised kingdom. He had a belief that the Jews had a considerable influence on the activities that took place in the world and could woe American and Russian support. In 1917, the Balfour Declaration was drafted and it stated that Palestine would be reserved as a natural home for the Jewish people[5]. The problem with the agreement was that it did not mention the role of Arabs in Palestine who at that time made up a considerable amount of the population in the area. The declaration was bound to give rise to endless trouble mainly because the Arabs lay claim to the lands and felt that the British had conspired with the Jews to hijack them.

The British urge to expand its territory had led to it creating three different treaties that were in conflict with each other. The Arabs insisted they get their kingdoms as promised and for them to divide the lands among themselves. The French also expected their fair share of the Ottoman Empire while Zionists expected to have Palestine as had been promised by Balfour. When the war ended in 1918, the empire had been destroyed, and their lands were now fully under British control. In a bid to solve the conflict created by the three agreements, the League of Nations divided up the conquered Ottoman lands into British and French mandates. These borders were drawn without any consultations thereby no considerations made on ethnic, religious, and geographic factors. Sharif Hussein’s sons were allowed to control these mandates under British protection while the Zionists were allowed to settle in Palestine, which greatly angered the Arabs living there. Though the British played a major role in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, they created a political mess that led to disunity in the Middle East region.

1. Authoritarian leadership in the Ottoman Empire.

The leadership of the Ottoman Empire became authoritative to citizens, and it purely functioned on friendship and interpersonal basis. The sultans lacked prerequisite training and experience to rule over the empire effectively. In the leadership system, bribery, nepotism, and favoritism existed in the offices[6]. Corruption spread to all provinces of the empire where officials would engage in the purchase of offices and then use their positions of power to charge higher taxes on the populace. The judicial system was also not spared from the corruption where often justice was for sale to the highest bidder. People living in the empire were terribly disgusted by the authority that the Sultan and nobles had over them essentially due to sharia law[7]. They felt that these officials greatly misused their offices to enrich themselves and maltreat their subjects.

Administration in the Ottoman Empire became less centralized as time progressed. The central control to the authority was lost and instead it was replaced by corrupt religious leaders. They took it upon themselves to discourage creativity and to deny the populace critical information. Even if the Sultans wanted to modernize and have reforms in the empire, they were greatly opposed by the military and religious elite[8]. This is because these individuals never wanted to lose their traditional powers and rule over the Muslim affiliated populace. An example of a religious outfit that was extremely powerful and influential in the administration was the Ulema. This group could ensure that the sultan was ejected from power by issuing out a decree known as Fetva. If any Sultan tried to bring relevant changes into the empire, he would be threatened with the Fetva thus have no possible recourse other than to abandon such reforms.

Another problem that led to weak and unstable leadership in Ottoman Empire was the constant change in Sultan advisers and the method utilized in choosing them. The Grand Vizier was the chief adviser to the Sultan and was considered the second most powerful individual in the empire. However, when the Sultan felt there was a threat to his authority due to the Fetva or a coup, he would sacrifice his advisor. It was a common thing to have sultans regularly change their chief advisors especially during turbulent times thereby having unstable governments[9]. Furthermore, the empire in an attempt to ensure only the sons of the Sultan inherited power from their father, they would jail the brothers and uncle of the Sultan to ensure they did not attempt to seize power. They were locked away in establishments known as the kafes where their movement was curtailed, and they were not expected to have reasonable contact with the rest of the world. However, if at all the Sultan died without a son to take over, the brother or uncle could be sought out to become the next Sultan of the empire. The kafes did not provide a good ground for proper training and often the sultans would have poor leadership qualities.

The sultans were never trained on the importance of the populace, and their life experiences never ensured that they mingled with them to recognize their needs. They ended up becoming less sensitive to the opinions the public harbored especially those sultans that originated from kafes. In order to enforce their power, the sultans heavily relied on military backing. They had a royal outfit of the army that was known as the Janissaries[10]. The outfit was created by a tax charged to Christians in Ottoman where in every five years five Christians’ sons were to be handed to the sultan to be trained in the army and ultimately serve him. However, with time, the Janissaries gained much power and through corruption and theft, they became strong enough to influence change and leadership within the empire. The army turned into a disorganized political outfit that had been reduced to the point of being desperate thugs who could not defend the empire but rather kept it under siege[11]. The populace was greatly displeased with the political stature in place and felt that there needed to be credible changes that could modernize the government.

Revolutionary sentiments thus arose in the empire especially with those that had significant experience with the western world. They felt that considerable development had not taken place in their leadership as compared to other countries that had a more people-centered approach to leadership. A group known as the ‘Young Turks’ emerged that comprised of intellectuals and students who wanted to get rid of the monarchy[12]. Like-minded individuals in Bulgaria and Macedonia joined them, and together they formed the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP)[13]. They were able to convince Sultan Abd-ul-Hamid to adopt a constitution and create a parliament. [14]

The oppressions taking place at Ottoman Empire also called for intervention from the European powers as a means for humanitarian interventions. The Armenian people living in the empire had continuously suffered from discrimination and persecution from the leaders in the empire. During the First World War, most Armenians sneaked across borders to join the Russian armies in fighting Ottoman forces. This angered the Ottoman authorities, and they forcibly deported the Armenians to a non-strategic position in the empire. It was during the deportations that large-scale massacres took place. In addition, torture, starvations, rape, and forced conversions to Islam were carried out. France and Britain were greatly angered by such actions and felt the need to intervene primarily because the Armenians had fought on the side of the Allies. The authoritarian leadership at Ottoman had been too brutal on its populace and humanitarian intervention from Western powers demanded that any regime that did not recognize a right to life of its citizens deserved to be eradicated. Authoritarian leadership at Ottoman significantly contributed to its collapse and ultimate demise.

1. Decline of the economic status in the Ottoman Empire.

The failure of the economic structure at Ottoman played a tremendous impact on its collapse. There was a rise in unemployment and the people were deeply aggrieved since they felt that their resources in terms of taxes paid to the empire were not put into proper use. After the First World War, there was an overwhelming craving for modernity and industrialization in Europe. This led to the building and upgrading of critical infrastructure for instance the historic construction of Hejaz railway. This was an essential infrastructure in the region but the people felt it had a crippling effect since it increased their standards of living[15]. Though some level of economic development took place due to more infrastructure, the people were not happy since it was more expensive to live in the empire. People felt that the regime in place was working against them and started opposing it.

Ottoman economy was planned in that the empire depended on public investments through the institution of the vakifs. Modern taxation methodology was not utilized in the empire thus sufficient revenues could not be raised to support the operations of the empire effectively. In addition, trade routes were changed . Thus the empire lost a primary source of income that had sustained its economy for a substantial amount of time. The economy performed dismally as compared to other nations in Europe who had industrialized rapidly and were engaging actively in trade to boost their economies. The downward trend of the economy signified the end of the Ottoman Empire.

The fall of economic status in Ottoman Empire triggered its collapse. In the late 19^th century, there was a need to entrench Europeanization across all states in the continent. This meant the capitalistic economic foundation of the empire was to be abolished and be replaced by an initiative that could promote socio-economic development[16]. There was a Muharren decree that led to the formation of a public debt administration unit in the Empire[17]. The decree established economic relations between the regime and other European states. It essentially gave the empire an opportunity to take loans from Europe. This is because it had sound fiscal policies and was in a position to pay the loans it would be awarded. The leaders of the empire abused this privilege and utilized the loans for military activities rather than industrial development.

The Muharren decree led to a financial meltdown in the structures at Ottoman. The bureaucratic and military expenditure was funded through taxes that were charged on the populace. The finances had been enough to sustain the economy, and the empire had never sought out foreign debt. However, due to revolts such as Crimean war and state’s financial needs, Ottoman needed more cash for operations, and it could not raise this through domestic borrowings and taxes. It, therefore, sort out the first loan in 1854 and after that the empire took more loans in order to quell revolts and finance their military. The empire could not be able to meet its payments and was therefore subjected to foreign financial control[18]. For instance, Iran had lost two wars against the British and Russians and craved for modernization. What it needed was better economic growth and the empowerment of its local industries. However, since foreign financial control was applicable, the British brought in their goods and flooded the Iranian market with them. Iranian goods were expensive as compared to those of the British and could not compete effectively. Furthermore, trade tariffs had been imposed on Iranian merchants and were not in a place to interfere with the economic trend as it were[19]. Such trends led to the weakening of Ottoman’s empire and subsequent collapse.

 

Conclusion

As established, the Ottoman Empire collapsed because of three factors. The first is that the British wanted to expand its territory and mischievously supported the Arab revolts and utilized the First World War to conquer the empire. The second is leadership in the empire had been too authoritative and had led to revolutions by the ‘young Turks’ and a reaction by European powers due to abuse of human rights. The third reason is that the economy as it was could not support the empire since it was already bankrupt. The three played an enormous impact in the eventual collapse of the e

Bibliography

Abdulhamid, Sultan. “Biography Of Sultan Abdul Hameed The Second And The Fall Of The Islamic Khilafa.” 1914.

Ágoston, Gábor, and Bruce, Masters. Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. New York: Facts on File, 2009.

Emrence, Cem. Remapping the Ottoman Middle East: modernity, imperial bureaucracy, and the Islamic state. London: I.B. Tauris, 2012.

Eton, Sir William. A Survey of the Turkish Empire. London, 1799.

Fromkin, David. A Peace to End all Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. New York: Henry Holt and Co. 2010.

Grandits, Hannes. Conflicting Loyalties in the Balkans: the Great Powers, the Ottoman Empire and Nation-building. London: Tauris, 2010.

Hanioğlu, M. Şükrü. A Brief History of the late Ottoman Empire. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2008.

Howden-Smith, Arthur D. ” An Attack on the Bashi-Bazouks.” Macedonia, 1907.

Mirza, Rocky. The Rise and fall of the American Empire: A Re-Interpretation of History, Economics and Philosophy : 1492-2006. Victoria, B.C.: Trafford, 2007.

Özyüksel, Murat. The Hejaz Railway and the Ottoman Empire: Modernity, Industrialization and Ottoman Decline. London: I.B.Tauris, 2014.

Quataert, Donald. The Ottoman Empire: 1850 – 1922. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005.

Reid, James. Crisis of the Ottoman Empire: Prelude to Collapse, 1839 – 1878. Stuttgart: Steine, 2000.

Rodogno, Davide. Against Massacre Humanitarian Interventions in the Ottoman Empire, 1815-1914: The emergence of a European concept and International Practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012.

Shakibi, Zhand. Revolutions and the Collapse of Monarchy: Human Agency and the Making of Revolution in France, Russia and Iran. London: Tauris.

Somel, Akşin, and Selçuk, Somel. The A to Z of the Ottoman Empire. Lanham: Scarecrow Press.

Turks, Young. “Proclamation for the Ottoman Empire, 1908.” In Civilization since Waterloo, by Rondo Cameron, 40-42. Paris, 1912.

 

[1] Mirza, Rocky. The Rise and fall of the American Empire: A Re-Interpretation of History, Economics and Philosophy: 1492-2006. (Victoria, B.C.: Trafford, 2007).

[2] Fromkin, David. A Peace to End all Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. (New York: Henry Holt and Co. 2010).

[3] Hanioğlu, M. Şükrü. A Brief History of the late Ottoman Empire. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2008).

[4] Howden-Smith, Arthur D. “An Attack on the Bashi-Bazouks.”(Macedonia, 1907).

[5] Hanioğlu, M. Şükrü. A Brief History of the late Ottoman Empire. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2008).

[6] Quataert, Donald. The Ottoman Empire: 1700 – 1922. (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005).

[7] Somel, Akşin, and Selçuk, Somel. The A to Z of the Ottoman Empire. (Lanham: Scarecrow Press).

[8] Rodogno, Davide. Against Massacre Humanitarian Interventions in the Ottoman Empire, 1815-1914: The emergence of a European concept and International Practice. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012).

[9] Fromkin, David. A Peace to End all Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. (New York: Henry Holt and Co. 2010).

[10] Eton, Sir William. A Survey of the Turkish Empire. (London, 1799).

[11] Reid, James. Crisis of the Ottoman Empire: Prelude to Collapse, 1839 – 1878. (Stuttgart: Steine, 2000).

[12] Emrence, Cem. Remapping the Ottoman Middle East: modernity, imperial bureaucracy, and the Islamic state. (London: I.B. Tauris, 2012).

[13] Turks, Young. “Proclamation for the Ottoman Empire, 1908.” In Civilization since Waterloo, by Rondo Cameron, 40-42. (Paris, 1912).

[14] Abdulhamid, Sultan. “Biography of Sultan Abdul Hameed The Second and the Fall of The Islamic Khilafa.” (1914).

[15]  Özyüksel, Murat. The Hejaz Railway and the Ottoman Empire: Modernity, Industrialization and Ottoman Decline. (London: I.B.Tauris, 2014).

[16] Grandits, Hannes. Conflicting Loyalties in the Balkans: the Great Powers, the Ottoman Empire and Nation-building. (London: Tauris, 2010).

[17] Ágoston, Gábor, and Bruce, Masters. Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. New York: Facts on File, 2009.

[18] Ágoston, Gábor, and Bruce, Masters. Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. (New York: Facts on File, 2009).

[19] Shakibi, Zhand. Revolutions and the Collapse of Monarchy: Human Agency and the Making of Revolution in France, Russia and Iran. London: Tauris.