Crisis and Reform in the Ottoman Empire

For most of the long 19th century, the sultans of the Ottoman Empire sought to reform the institutions of their extensive and diverse realm in order to stave off the growing threat of European and Russian pressures. The sultans had known since 1683, when a coalition of European armies forced the Turks to give up their second siege of Vienna and then pushed them south toward the Balkans, that Ottoman military strength had declined from its peak at the time of Suleiman. Additional defeats at the hands of European and Russian forces during the 18th century indicated that the “gunpowder gap” between the Turks and their longtime adversaries to the north and west was widening.

For the Ottoman leaders, the ominous trend in military affairs was confirmed in the most shocking way by the French invasion and occupation of Egypt in 1798. Although essentially self-governing under the Mamluk dynasty, Egypt had been a part of the Ottoman Empire for three centuries. The ease with which Napoleon Bonaparte and his soldiers took charge in Egypt—even though the British forced them to leave a few years later—registered as a genuine disaster to the Ottomans. As French policy in Egypt unfolded in the summer of 1798, it became clear to at least some of the Ottomans, that the “great divergence” between the West and the Islamic Middle East was not limited to military matters but that it also included political, economic, and cultural factors.

The response of the sultans and their advisers to the French invasion was in many ways enlightened, if ultimately inadequate. Selim III (reigned 1789-1807) tried to introduce changes in the military and in the system of imperial administration, but could not overcome resistance by powerful vested interests, especially the now-corrupt Janissary corps. His nephew and successor, Mahmud II (reigned 1808-1839) accelerated the reform effort and was able to abolish the Janissaries, establish a small number of secular schools, and reduce the role of Muslim judges (qadis) in the judicial system.

Under the leadership of Mahmud’s two sons, Abdul Mejid (reigned 1839-1861) and Abdul Aziz (reigned 1861-1876), the movement for reform, now known as Tanzimat (“reorganization”), became more sweeping. The Ottomans expanded the number of secular schools, issued modern law codes, and sponsored the construction of factories, railways, and steamships. When Sultan Abdul Hamid II (reigned 1876-1909) agreed to a constitution providing for a parliament, the reform movement seemed to be entering a new stage, one that might include the establishment of liberal political institutions.

But Abdul Hamid II dismissed the parliament soon after it convened, having become fearful that the process of reform was going too far. He then set aside the new constitution, allied himself with the conservative ulama (Islamic scholars), and governed autocratically during the remaining years of his reign. Although reform did not end entirely, the era of the Tanzimat movement was now over. One of the most significant efforts at reform undertaken by a non-Western elite in the 19th century had fallen short of its goal of full modernization.

In the first document I would like you to read (you can read them all by clicking here), the Ottoman Egyptian historian Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti expresses his admiration for the research institute, known as the Institute of Egypt, the French established in Cairo in 1798. Jabarti’s reaction to the French is important because he was one of the most learned scholars of his time in the Middle East. The second and third documents illustrate basic ideas of the Tanzimat movement as expressed in two key imperial rescripts (decrees) issued by Sultan Abdul Mejid. How do these documents clarify the challenges facing the Ottoman reformers?

After you have finished reading the documents, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What impressed Jabarti about the French scholars and scientists in Cairo? What do his reactions suggest about the relationship of Middle Eastern scholars to European developments such as the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment? What does the establishment of the Institute of Egypt suggest about the relationship between the French Revolution and the Enlightenment, and about the impact of the French Revolution on the Middle East? According to the two Ottoman decrees, what problems were most worrisome to the Turkish authorities—political, economic, or religious? What remedies did the sultans propose? Based on your reading of the decrees, which groups in the Ottoman Empire would have been most receptive to the reforms? What groups would have been hostile to them? What implications did the Tanzimat movement have for the role of Islam in the Ottoman lands? Is there a conflict between the teachings of Islam and the desire to be modern? How did the Ottoman attempts at reform compare with similar efforts in Russia in Season 3? What circumstances made the Ottoman situation distinctive? Your thoughts…