Download Illustration in Late Ottoman Hanioglu

01_Hanioglu_Prelims_p00i-pxviii.indd xvi
lm
Da
at
en
(V
ia
ice
)
Province
of Rumeli
Trablusgarb(Tripoli)
22
23 Girid
Hanya
(Canea)
Bingazi
Province
of Mora
Tr ablus Garb-Bingazi
(Tripolitania and Cyrenaica)
Autonomous Karamanli Principality
of Tr ablus Garb-Bingazi
Tunis
Ionaian I.
(Venice)
Province
of
Silistire
Sinop
1
7
11
Erzurum
10
Bitlis
9
Kars
8
A
E
B C
Iskenderun
13
Rakka
Iskenderiye
(Alexandria)
Province
of
Misir
(E gypt)
Kahire(Cairo)
20
Kudüs(Jerusalem)
Russian annexation 1867)
Medine (Medina)
bu
t
Basra
KUWAIT
18
ro
l o NA JD
f lo
ca
l ru
ler
s
17
Bagdad
Kerbelâ
(Kirkuk)
15 Kerkük
Semi-Autonomous
Ku rdish
Principalities
QATA R
BAHRAIN
I R A N
Tehran
Russian annexation 1857)
MUSCAT
C Principality of Imeretia (to Russia 1810)
D Principality of Abkhazia (to Russia 1810)
E Principality of Svanetia (independent 1810, Russian protection 1833,
Erbil
Van
Ottoman Protectorates
A Principality of Guria (to Russia 1811)
B Principality of Mingrelia (Russian protection 1806,
Un
de
rc
on
t
14
Musul
(Famagusta)
Trablus 16
Sayda
Sam
¸ (Damascus)
Akkâ(Acre) 19
21
Sivas
12
Ki bris
Magosa
¸
Lefkose
(Nicosia)
6
D
Mar‘as¸ Diyar-i Mardin
Bekir
4
5
3
Amasya
Tra R
bz ize
on
Samsun
R USSIA
Konya
Adana
2
Kastamoni
Ankara
Bursa
Istanbul
Izmir(Smyrna)
Silistire
Eflâk
(Wallachia)
Autonomous
principalities
¸
Iskodra
Autonomous Republic
Karadag (Scutari)
Vassal to the
(M ontenegro)
Ottoman Empire
Selânik
(Salonica)
Dubrovnik (Ragusa)
Saraybosna
(Sarajevo)
Province
of Bosna
AUSTRIA
Vienna
an a)
gd v i
Bo olda
M
(
fC
eo
nc
id
de
i
ov
Pr
8/23/2007 7:33:27 PM
01_Hanioglu_Prelims_p00i-pxviii.indd xvii
8/23/2007 7:33:28 PM
1. Province of Anadolu (Anatolia)
2. Province of Karaman
3. Province of Sivas
4. Province of Mar‘as¸
5. Province of Adana
6. Province of Tr abzon
7. Province of Erzurum
8. Province of Kars
9. Province of Çildir
10. Province of Van
11. Province of Diyar-i Bekir
12. Province of Haleb (Aleppo)
Autonomous Principality
of Cezayir (Algeria)
al-Madiya(Medea)
al-Cezayir(Algiers)
Massawa
Province
of
Cidde
Sawakin
Mocha
Aden
San‘a’
YEMEN
‘ASIR
Sabya
Mekke (Mecca)
Cidde(Jeddah)
Figure 1. The Ottoman Empire ca. 1795.
13. Province of Rakka
14. Province of Musul (Mosul)
15. Province of Sehr-i
Zo r
¸
16. Province of Tr ablus (Tripoli in Syria)
17. Province of Bagdad (Baghdad)
18. Province of Basra
19. Province of Sayda
20. Province of Sam
(Damascus)
¸
21. Independent Sandjak ofKi bris (C yprus)
22. Province of Cezair-i Bahr-i Sefîd
23. Province of Girid (C rete)
Autonomous
Principality
of Tunus
(Tunis)
Tunis
Red
Sea
by
t
he
Ot
to
m
an
E
ADEN
HA
AM
DR
A
WT
Rub‘ al-Khali
m
ed
cla
i
re
m
pi
Indian
Ocean
OMAN
MUSCAT
10
Chapter One
Figure 2. A map showing “Ottoman Africa” including the “Principality (Emaret)
of Tunis” and the “Region (Hıtta) of Algeria,” from the Memâlik-i Osmaniye Ceb
Atlası: Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmaniye’nin Ahvâl-i Coğrafiye ve İstatistikiyesi, ed.
Tüccarzâde İbrahim Hilmi and Binbaşı Subhi (Istanbul: Kütübhane-i
İslâm ve Askerî, 1323 [1905]), p. 64 (map section).
independent province. Ahmed Bey and his successors went so far as to assume the title “commander of the faithful,” a label hitherto restricted to the
Ottoman Sultan as Caliph. The local economy thrived on piracy in the
Eastern Mediterranean. But state-sponsored piracy and the regular holding
of hostages for ransom inevitably led to trouble with foreign governments.
In 1798, for instance, the governor demanded 100,000 French francs from
the Swedish government, in addition to a yearly payment of 8,000 French
francs, in return for safe passage for Swedish vessels. The Swedes’ refusal
prompted an all-out attack on their shipping, and only Napoleon’s personal intervention secured the release of hundreds of hostages at a reduced
9
In 1801, a spate of
rate of 80,000 French francs on top of the annual fee.
attacks provoked the U.S. government to launch its first naval expedition
to the Mediterranean. This conflict, known as the Tripolitan War, ended
with a peace treaty signed on June 4, 1805. American terms were harsh and
9
Mehmed Nuri and Mahmud Naci, Trablusgarb(Istanbul: Tercüman-ı Hakikat Matbaası,
1330 [1912]), pp. 140–44.
03_Hanioglu_Ch01_p006-p041.indd 10
8/23/2007 8:15:57 PM
14
Chapter One
Figure 3. An Ottoman sketch dated January 23, 1818, depicting how the Shaqrā’ fortress fell to
the Ottoman-Egyptian expeditionary force during the campaign against the Wahhābīs. BOA,
HH. 19533 (1818).
basic tenets of Ottoman foreign policy, tenaciously upheld until the end of
the empire.23
In much of the rest of the empire, we find a pattern of strong governors
compelling the central government to grant them various degrees of autonomy. In Baghdad, successive governors appointed an ever-growing
number of slaves (Mamluks) imported in this case from Georgia, to important positions in government. The able Süleyman Pasha, appointed by the
central government in 1749 to stem the rising tide of disorder, did so with
the help of a massive influx of slaves. Ömer Bey, who eventually succeeded
him as governor, further institutionalized the Mamluk role in Baghdad,
which came to resemble the Mamluk position in Egypt, particularly in
terms of the extent of autonomy from the Ottoman center and the strong
local impulse toward modernization. A later governor, also named Süleyman Pasha, employed one John Raymond, a British military adviser from
India, to reform the local military organization.24 Like Mehmed Ali in
23
Mehmed Nâbi and Rumbeyoğlu Fahreddin,Maskat Mes’elesi(Istanbul: Matbaa-i Âmire,
1334 [1917]), pp. 5–6.
24
Tarih-i Cevdet, 7, p. 289.
03_Hanioglu_Ch01_p006-p041.indd 14
8/23/2007 8:15:57 PM
Responses to Challenge of Modernity
43
Figure 4. A painting (ca. 1791) depicting Sultan Selim III (r) and his Grand Vizier
Koca Yusuf Pasha (l) (d. 1800). Resimli Kitab, 1/6 (March 1909), p. 526.
more competent than the cleverest European,” it was argued, similar re2
The admiraforms could be carried out with ease in the Ottoman context.
tion for the new Russian army evident throughout the memoranda also
attests to the paramount importance contemporaries attributed to the reform
of the military.3
Military Reforms
The unavoidable consequence of defeat, military reform had been a priority of the Ottoman state since the early eighteenth century. Awareness of
the need to borrow European knowledge was just as old. As an Ottoman
officer admitted to his Austrian counterpart in a fictitious dialogue written
circa 1718, “although I have spent my life on the battlefield, the Christian
2
Mehmed Emin Behic, Sevânih el-Levâyih, Topkapı Palace Library (hereafter TPL), H.
370, f. 65.
3
Ahmed Âsım, Âsım Tarihi , 1 ([Istanbul]: Ceride-i Havâdis Matbaası, [1867]), p. 266.
In 1854, during the later Tanzimat era, a bureaucrat in the Sublime Porte’s Translation
Bureau—the most important link between the Ottoman administration and the West—composed aHistory of the Reign of Peter the Great. See İlber Ortaylı,İmparatorluğun En Uzun
Yüzyılı (Istanbul: Hil Yayın, 1987), p. 202.
04_Hanioglu_Ch02_p042-p054.indd 43
8/23/2007 8:17:07 PM
64
ree
Figure 5. Sultan Mahmut II in traditional garb before the destruction of the
Janissaries in 1826.Tanzimat I (Istanbul: Maarif Vekâleti, 1940), pp. 16–17.
however, contain thousands of books in European languages as well as numerous translations,41 demonstrating the generational gap in the response
to Westernization.
41
See infra, footnotes 252–55.
05_Hanioglu_Ch03_p055-p071.indd 64
8/23/2007 8:18:12 PM
e Dawn of the Age of Reform
65
Figure 6. Sultan Mahmut II in his new uniform after the destruction of the
Janissaries. Tanzimat I (Istanbul: Maarif Vekâleti, 1940), pp. 16–17.
The Challenge of Mehmed Ali
Mehmed Ali of Egypt presented imperial rule with a domestic challenge of
unprecedented magnitude. He not only resisted imperial encroachment
with success; he nearly conquered the empire itself. Egypt under the rule of
Mehmed Ali produced the most powerful army in the Near East; his efficient
bureaucracy outmatched its imperial counterpart; and his negotiations with
05_Hanioglu_Ch03_p055-p071.indd 65
8/23/2007 8:18:13 PM
68
ree
Vienna
Autonomous regions
within the Empire
RUSSIA
Jassy
Chisinau
Bender
Bacau
AUSTRIA
MOLDAVIA
Akkerman
Târgoviste
¸
A
DAUSTR
LM IA
AT N
IA
Sarajevo
(Saraybosna)
Ragusa
(Dubrovnik)
WALLACHIA
Belgrade
SERBIA
Vidin
Craiova
Bucharest
Silistra
(Silistire)
Black Sea
MONTENEGRO
Cetinje
Skopje
(Üsküb)
Scutari
(Iskodra)
¸
Edirne
(Adrianople)
Istanbul
Salonica
Bursa
DS
GREECE
AN
Athens
ISL
Zakynthos
EEK
Lefkeda
Ithaki
Kefallonia
GR
Kerkyra
Paxi
British Ionian Islands
(To Greece 1862–64)
Kythira
Mediterranean Sea
Smyrna
(Izmir)
Samos
(Sisam)
Rhodes
Crete
Figure 7. Ottoman provinces and autonomous principalities in Europe in 1833.
premodern Europe, European governments in the modern age had generally
considered Ottoman rule over its Christian subjects an internal affair of the
Ottoman state. When, for instance, Russia had supported the Serbian rebels
during the Russo-Ottoman War of 1807–12, European policy makers and
public opinion refrained from making a moral issue of the “Serbian Question.”
Russian demands for protective rights over the Orthodox subjects of the
05_Hanioglu_Ch03_p055-p071.indd 68
8/23/2007 8:18:14 PM
e Tanzimat Era
97
Figure 8. The record of Governor Mehmed Haydar Pasha ibn Abdullah’s estate
(1849) marshaling his books includingİtalya ve Katerina ve Diğer Nizâma Dâir
Risâle (A Treatise on Italy and Catherine and Other Regimes, at the end of the
third row of titles) and other possessions. İstanbul Müftülük Arşivi ŞS. no.
1642, p. 121a.
06_Hanioglu_Ch04_p072-p108.indd 97
8/23/2007 8:19:22 PM
e Tanzimat Era
101
Figure 9. An Ottoman cartoon depicting a conversation between a traditional and a
modern lady.
A related, and crucially important, cultural development of the Tanzimat era was the wide audience given to European materialist ideas in Ottoman intellectual circles. Foreign visitors were often stunned by the extent
to which works of nineteenth-century French materialism, such as
d’Holbach’s Système de la Nature
, held sway over the Ottoman educated
class. One observed that every graduate of the new imperial schools seemed
109
The rise
to emerge “a materialist, and generally a libertine and a rogue.”
of an educated class reared on popular materialist ideas created the conditions for an explosion of Ottoman materialist activity in the last two decades
of the nineteenth century, which in turn would to exert a profound influence over both the intellectual progenitors of the Young Turk Revolution
and the founders of modern Turkey.
109
See MacFarlane, Turkey and Its Destiny, 2, p. 271.
06_Hanioglu_Ch04_p072-p108.indd 101
8/23/2007 8:19:23 PM