Lawrence of Arabia

I'm really glad I was able to do my final wiki on T.E. Lawrence. I had some background on him from past courses (Yes, I watched the whole movie. Man was it long!) But I find him to be a very interesting person. His life in marked in mystique. How impressive is it that a British man could transplant himself in the Middle East and be accepted as if he were a native? He seemed to have a great respect for Arab culture, unlike a great deal of Westerners at the time, who thought the Arabs were "backwards" in many ways. I would be interested to hear what Lawrence would have to say today (if he were alive) about our situation in the Middle East. If he were an advisor to Tony Blair in 2003, I would bet that he could have persuaded the brits to stay our of the mess, and without the support of the Brits, it is possible the US would never have gone to war. Lawrence seemed to have a clear view of Arab culture which impresses me immensely.

A bit of frustration

More than halfway through the semester, I find myself a bit frustrated. This frustration comes from my inability to see Ottoman history from multiple perspectives. Despite the unique approach offered in class, I find myself reverting to the old teachings of Western textbooks. Specifically, the notion that the Ottomans were the so-called "sick man of Europe". I usually consider myself to be a very open-minded student of history, always seeking to explore alternate approaches. I also have a great deal of respect for the Ottomans. My studies have led me to believe that had the Ottomans captured Vienna, they would have gone on to take the rest of Europe. So I don't think it is a lack of respect for the Ottomans that leads me to question their abilities during the late part of their existence. I truly believe the Ottomans were enlightened, but I am convinced that the reforms of the 19th Century were defensive mechanisms, not forward-looking. I only question this because it seems so many in our class agree with this idea. I suppose the best thing i can do it consult more readings related to the subject. If anyone has a book that can show me a side of the Ottoman empire not usually covered in high school classrooms, please direct me to it. I would be extremely interested in understanding both sides of the argument.

Topkapi Madness

After working on the Topkapi Wiki, all I can say is WOW! It sounds like quite a place to visit. It really is a fitting symbol of the high point of the Ottoman civilization. I would certainly like to visit the palace at some point in my life. I would be particularly interested to see the Harem as well as the Divan. It seems that the Harem is a real "must see", but I would be interested to see the Divan and the history that comes along with that room. I would guess some of the more critical talks between the sultan and his advisers went on there. The Topkapi tour guide book by Claire Karaz provides a solid overview of the palace. I'm not sure if the Tower of Justice is open to the public (Dr. Metcalf, do you know?), but if it is, I would have to see the view from up there. I would feel like a sultan being able to look out onto the great city of Istanbul. The things we discuss in class just further my desire to visit Turkey. I see Turkey high on my list of places to visit.

Hatt-I Humayun

The Hatt-I Humayun (1856) acted as an Ottoman “Bill of Rights”. From reading the passage, I believe it promised three major rights: 1. Freedom to education, 2. Freedom of religion, 3. Rights to a fair trial. While these rights are relatively basic, it is important that the Sultan proclaimed them and ordered their enforcement, across lines of religion and race.

The Hatt-I Humayun seems to have reformed the millet system in that it abolished the tax on religious institutions, and replaced it with a tax on the individual. Religious institutions therefore had more funds to build places of worship, etc.

To me the most important line of the Hatt-I Humayun is “ Every distinction or designation tending to make any class whatever of the subjects of my empire inferior to another class, on account of their religion, language, or race, shall be ever effaced from the administrative protocol.” Essentially, the Sultan wanted to take religion and race completely out of the picture. While we have argued that the Ottomans were a religiously tolerant empire, this edict truly took religion out of the picture.

Economically this took away the advantage of Muslims within the empire. “The taxes are to be levied under the same denomination from all the subjects of my empire without the distinction of class or of religion.” This game non-Muslims a real chance to flourish within the empire now.

I would be interested to know how much the principles of “Life, Liberty, and Fraternity” affected the philosophy of the Sultan. Although the French Revolution was more than a thousand miles away, I can’t help but see some similarities between the principles of the Revolution and the Tanzimat Reforms.

Gulhannnnnnnnne

After reading the Gulhane Proclamation (1839), I feel that I better understand the intentions of the Tanzimat Reforms. After the rise in the dominance (and corruption) of the Janissaries and the decline in the enforcement of established laws, the Ottoman Empire was stuck in a period of overall decline. As the proclamation stated, “An empire in fact loses all its stability as soon as it ceases to observe its laws.” The proclamation attempted to modernize the empire both socially and militarily in order to compete with the European powers.

The three principles of the proclamation were all very qualified. I believe the most important to be the third, “An equally regular system for the levy of troops and the duration of their service.” This is probably a response to the strife caused by the excessive power of the Janissaries who were eventually abolished in the 1820s. A strong, but faithful, military is necessary for the livelihood of any nation.

The rest of the decree was equally pertinent. “The innocent heirs of a criminal shall not be deprived of their legal rights.” When reading this line I thought of Enlightenment philosopher Cesare Beccaria, whose writings dealt primarily with crime and punishment. Beccaria took a more liberal approach to the dealings of law, saying that accusations of crimes carried a very heavy “price tag” on the accused and their family. It was an enlightened thinking to believe that “the son will not be punished for the sins of the father.” The Ottomans took a big step in attempting to adopt these more enlightened mindsets.

Even within the Ottoman bureaucracy, the Sultan wanted a shift back towards positions based on merit rather than social status. The influx of unqualified citizens into the bureaucracy led to the weakening of the government, but the Sultan seemed to believe it was not too late to save these institutions with the help of highly qualified individuals.

Overall, the policies of this edict were favorable to the non-Muslims in the empire. This includes those of the Balkan region. “These imperial concessions shall extend to all our subjects, of whatever religion or sect they may be; they shall enjoy them without exceptions.” The ideas expressed in the document prove to me that the Ottomans were not “the sick man of Europe” with regards to their philosophical thinking, but rather the strength of their government had declined to the point where it may have been too late to make effective, meaningful changes.

That's my take on the Gulhane Proclamation. Sorry if it reads like an essay but I'm thought it encompassed a good bit. Any thoughts?

Tanzimat-mania

On this wonderful snowday, I figured I would try to get a bit of work done. I decided to start with the two documents Dr. Metcalf put online for us (mainly, because they were short and really not that intimidating). Despite their brevity, they contained a wealth of information, and conclusions just waiting to be drawn. I went into each document seperately on the forum so I will stick to general observations.

I think that the attempts at reform were brilliant. After the rise and fall of the Janissaries, the Sultan clearly realized that changes had to be made within the empire. The shift was unique in many ways, but in others a change towards the ways of the greater European powers. While religion in the Ottoman Empire was always quite free, the reforms really took religion out of the picture completely. This was a great move, considering the rising Balkan identity of the time.

While the Ottoman bureaucracy began as a genius institution, it slowly faded because it was overrun with unqualified individuals. A return to a strict meritocracy was beneficial for these institutions. At the height of the Devshirme, positions were awarded based strictly on the ability of each child. The best and brightest could rise to the position of Grand Vizier, while less qualified children took positions that the were able to fullfil. Once these systems began awarding positions based on connections rather than merit they started to crumble.

I don't like to switch regions, but I couldn't help but think of the bureaucracy in ancient China. I am refering particularly to the Sui, Tang, and Song periods. When the bureaucracy was based on recommendations of the nobility, many unqualified individuals came to power. This had negative effects on government. Under the Sui, Tang and Song dynasties, the emperors used a civil service exam (as we have today in America) to test the merit of each individual. More qualified individuals held office, and this helped bring about better government.

2906 divided by 2

If the title went over your head, just do the math. When speaking of the great feats of the Ottoman Empire, it is truly necessary to talk about the 1453 capture of Constantinople. The man behind this expansion is the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II. I find Mehmet to be an interesting figure in Ottoman history. He did not have the prototypical childhood of a Sultan. According to Crowley, odds are that his mother was a not a Turk or a Muslim, but a Western slave of the Christian faith. Even more interesting is that Mehmet was Murad's third son(his two half-brothers were much older), making his odds of ascension to the throne even more slim.

From the time Mehmet came to power, it appears to me that he had his eyes set on winning the Byzantine stronghold of Constantinople. Strategic decisions, such as placing forts along the Dardanelles, ensured his ability to mount a formidable attack.

Despite the overpowering force of the Ottoman army, I was astonished to hear how long the city walls of Constantinople were able to withstand the assault brought about by the Ottomans. To me, this is a prime example of the importance of fortifying your city. As we have seen throughout history, if a city or state is unable to fend off external forces, they are destined to fall.

Not to get too far off topic, but this brings to mind the current situation we face in America with the high influx of illegal immigrants on our Southern border. Obviously, the situations are quite different, but the underlying theme is that there is a strong necessity to keep borders secure from outside forces.

I believe that the Ottoman's successes in Constantinople propelled them into a new era. Having captured this Western power made them a respected nation on the world stage.

Suleyman Le Magnifique

I would like to start by saying that it is absolutely incredible to think that in addition to Suleyman, such influential leaders as Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire, Phillip II of Spain, Elizabeth I of England, Ivan IV of Russia, and Akbar the Great of the Mughal Empire all reigned at the same time. Suleyman seems to be the quintessential Ottoman sultan. Within the Ottoman empire he was known as "Kanuni", or the lawgiver. He was a righteous man with his heart set on fixing the problems associated with his father's (Selim I) reign.

I have always been fascinated with historical "what-ifs". One of those giant "what-ifs" is "What if the Ottomans were not stopped at Vienna?" The Ottomans laid siege to Vienna twice (1529 and 1683). Both times they were fought off by the Habsburg forces. Had the Ottomans not been stopped in Vienna, isn't it possible that they would have overtaken all of Europe? No one knows the answer definitively, but if such a thing had happened, the world we live in today would be much different. We may have seen Islam become the dominant Western religion, and we would have seen the continual growth of the Ottoman Empire, rather than the slow decline. As I said earlier, it is somewhat pointless to debate these "what-ifs", but they remain interesting to consider.

Excellent Soldiers

It is very impressive the the Ottoman could take a group of people (Slavic youth) with essentially no allegiance to them and create such a disciplined, powerful army (The Janissary Corps). From what I gather, the Janissaries were masterful tacticians. There was obvious attention to detail in that they would plan attacks nearly a year in advance. A deeply considered plan accompanied by strength in numbers is the best way to guarantee victory in battle.

I found the idea of a Kazan (the large copper cooking pot) to be very intriguing. I cannot imagine a cooking tool being the most treasured possession of a U.S. Army division, but for some reason this was a symbol of great pride within the Janissary Corps. After a bit of thinking this idea seems brilliant. What better way to rally troops and maintain order than to make sure everyone recognizes who feed them. There are only a few things humans truly need for survival, one of them being food. The infantrymen within each Orta surely recognized the supremacy of their Corbasi and followed him accordingly.

In Faroqhi's "Subjects of the Sultan", a particular line on page 24 struck me as fascinating. The Ottomans were famous for their religious tolerance of non-Muslims. Despite this the testimony of a Muslim "carried much more weight in a court of law than that of a non-Muslim." I don't fault them for this line of thinking. At the time they surely thought that this was fair and just. In today's enlightened courts of law, we realize that the truth is the most important thing in a trial, regardless of a witness' religion or culture.

To wear of not to wear?

Yes, It is a lame title, but its 1:07 in the morning and I'm pretty tired. I wanted to get this post up before I go to bed though so here it is!!!

When discussing the Ottoman Empire, it is necessary to have at minimum a basic knowledge of Islam. As a “refresher”, we were given a brief overview from Dr. Metcalf. I was comfortable with most of the information in the presentation, but the discussion stemming from the topic of Muslim women and headdresses sparked my interest.

This is a hot subject in America as well as abroad. In recent history, the French government banned the wearing of the Hijab in their public schools, stirring outrage among the local Muslim community. This issue is quite difficult to talk about, because it can be analyzed in both a religious and a cultural sense.

I think when discussing the topic, it is important to realize that there is a big difference between a more restricting headdress, such as a burqa or a niqab, and the more traditional hijab. To me the burqa and niqab are symbols of societies where women are treated as inferior subjects to their male counterparts. In countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, women who are found in public without the proper headdress can be beaten as punishment. There doesn’t seem to be any room for a woman’s personal choice in that matter.

My interest led me to do a little research, and I came upon an interesting article about a 25-year old Egyptian journalist who chose to start wearing a hijab. This is common in Egypt, as most women still wear the hijab in public, but in Western societies, it is a relatively rare occasion to see a woman wearing a hijab. Ultimately, she found the experiences of daily life with a hijab to be quite liberating.

This is where the cultural differences are most important. I believe that her experiences in the West would be quite different from her experiences in the Middle East. Since the 9/11 attacks, there seems to be a certain degree of “Islamophobia” in the United States. Women who may have been inclined to wear the hijab prior to 9/11 are now forced to consider the negative impacts that it may have on their everyday routines.

Ultimately, the choice to wear a hijab is not for us to decide, it is a woman’s choice. Whether she wears the hijab to show her devotion to Islam or simply as a religious statement is her prerogative.

Welcome!

I just want to welcome everyone to my blog. I hope you enjoy what you find here, and feel free to leave some comments or critiques.
-Ezra