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.