Disintegration of the Ottoman Empire

Every parasitic organism looks out for an occasion which would lower
the immune defenses of its host in order to begin to multiply, gain
strength and take over some part of the host. That is why these are
called opportunistic organisms. A good example are fungi. These
microbial cells cause yeast infections when their host takes
antibiotics to fight off bacterial infection. Antibiotics kill good
(yeast-fighting) alongside bad (infection-causing) bacteria. Same is
with parasitic groups: They are always on the look-out for the weak
moment of their government in order to spark separatist movements by
armed rebellions. In the 19th century, the Haik subjects of the
weakening Ottoman Empire proved to be one such opportunistic group that
rose in armed resistance against Ottoman central authority once the
Empire started to show unmistakable signs of a crippling disease; a
disease that lowered all internal and external defensive mechanisms. In
order to better understand the causes of this Haik infection,
therefore, it may be useful to step away from our main topic and
investigate, in some detail, the factors that led to the weakening and
the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.

With the Renaissance movement in 15th c., the Reformation of
the 16th c., and the Enlightenment of the 17th. c., the road was paved
for Rationalism and Positivism in European thought, which in turn,
ushered the Industrial Revolution in England in the 18th. c. The
advances in science and technology found many applications in the
military field in terms of better weaponry, arsenal, and battlefield
tactics and maneuvers. Bernard Shaw , in his classic "What Went Wrong:
The Clash between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East" suggests:

"With the advent of New Learning, the Europeans advanced by
leaps and bounds, leaving the scientific and technological and
eventually the cultural heritage of the Islamic world far behind them.
The Muslims for a long time remained unaware of this. The Renaissance,
the Reformation , the technological revolution passed virtually
unnoticed in the lands of Islam, where they were still inclined to
dismiss the denizens of the lands beyond the Western frontier as
benighted barbarians, much inferior even to the more sophisticated
Asian infidels to the east. Thes had useful skills and devices to
impart; the Europeans had neither. It was a judgment that had for long
been reasonably accurate. It was becoming dangerously out of date.

Usually the lessons of history are most perspicuously and
unequivocally taught on the battlefield, but there may be some delay
before the lesson is understood and applied. In Christendom the final
defeat of the Moores in Spain in 1492 and the liberation of Russia from
the Tartars were understandably seen as decisive victories. But in the
heartlands of Islam, these happenings on the remote frontiers of
civilization seemed less important and were in any case overshadowed in
Muslim eyes by such central and vastly more important victories as the
ignominious eviction of the Crusaders from the Levant in the 13th
century, the capture of Constantinople in 1453, and the triumphant
march of the Turkish forces through the Balkans toward the surviving
Christian imperial city of Vienna, in what seemed to be an irresistible
advance of Islam and defeat of Christendom.

The great battle of Mohacs in Hungary, in August 1526, gave the
Turks a decisive victory, and opened the way to the first siege of
Vienna in 1529. The failure to capture Vienna on that occasion was seen
on both sides as a delay, not a defeat, and opened a long struggle for
mastery in the heart of Europe".

However, the Ottomans, beginning with the death of Suleiman the
Magnificient in 1566, could not keep up with European revolutions in
thought and in technology. They began to lose against their foes in
Europe, where their territories began to shrink; and their economy was
affected as a result of these losses. The weakened State found itself
in a precipitous decline, which had its consequences in the
deterioration of the central administrative power. Local Lords and
Vassals abused this loss of central authority by exerting more and more
harsh treatment of their subject populations, which largely consisted
of Christians. Popular discontent constituted a fertile soil, on which
the European rivals of the Ottoman Empire would easily sow the seeds of
rebellion in order to divide the Empire from inside.

Capitulations

The capitulations that were granted to European powers by overly
confident Sultans of the glorious past were the perfect excuse for
rival Empires of later centuries to intervene in Ottoman internal
affairs, in economic as well as social spheres.

    • Mehmet II "The Conqueror":

    • Bayezid II

    • Selim I

    • Suleyman I "The Magnificient": In 1536, the Ottomans
      entered an agreement with the French that permitted them to trade
      throughout Ottoman lands. Total religious liberty was also given to the
      French. They were granted the right to maintain the guard the Holy
      Places, which created a French protectorate over the Catholics in the
      Ottoman Empire. With the death of Suleiman, the era of voluntary
      capitulations ended. As the 17th c. began, the Ottomans saw themselves
      further and further weakened by military losses, a crippling inflation
      and a major decline in administrative integrity. The era of forced
      capitulations had begun.

  1. Foreign Interventions into Ottoman Internal Affairs:
    The Great Powers interfered with the internal affairs of the Ottoman
    Empire on a regular basis. Their excuse has always been the
    "ill-treatment of the minorities" within the Empire. The external
    interference would act as the major factor influencing the Haik
    Revolution, next to in importance, perhaps, the spread east of the
    romantic ideals of the French Revolution in the late 18th c. and the
    German Nationalistic movement in the early 19th c. The reaction to
    Ottoman rule was fueled by the revolutionary ideas of the French
    Revolution and the nationalistic currents of the anti-Napoleonic
    movements, particularly in Germany.

    • Mustafa II and Karlowitz: Ottomans met major defeat on
      the European battlefield for the first time during the second siege of
      Vienna between July 17 and September 12, 1683. In the words of Bernard
      Lewis: "For most of the 17th century, …fill in…p 16-19 and to form alliances with European powers against other European powers".

    • Ascent of Principality of Muscowy to Imperial Russia:
      Ivan The Terrible (1533-1584) stands at the beginning of modern Russian
      history. The following is excerpted from A.J. Grant’s ‘A History of
      Europe: Part III – Modern Europe Including Great Britain’ (Longmans,
      Green and Co., NY, 1930). Ivan favored the middle and lower
      classes, opened his country to the commerce of Western Europe, and
      showed some interest in learning. Upon the extinction of his blood line
      in 163, a boy of 16, Michael Romanoff, was chosen and nearly all the
      rulers of Russia since that date have been descended from him. The
      great epoch in the history of Russia came when in 1689 Peter the Great
      mounted the throne, which he occupied until 1725. This ferocious tyrant
      was passionately interested in science and in industry, and anxious,
      above all things, to introduce the civilization of Europe into his own
      semi-barbarous land, despite a dogged resistance from the habits and
      traditions of the people supported by the Church. From early youth, he
      had been attracted by ships and sea-faring life. It was largely that he
      might know how to organize a fleet that he set out on his famous
      travels which took him to Holland, England, and France. On his return,
      he built a considerable navy, and sailing with it down the river Don,
      appeared before Azov and took that strong Turkish fortress (August 6,
      1696).
      The open sea was always in his thoughts, and he was shut
      out from the entirely. In the south, the Turkish power controlled the
      shores of the Black Sea; in the north access to the Baltic was barred
      by Poland and, above all, by Sweden. Peter invaded the Swede King
      Charles XII’s Baltic provinces while the latter was in Saxony; but was
      unable to hold them. Charles, in an act that preceded Napoleon and
      Hitler, determined to march on Moscow and capture it. But the
      resistance of the Russians grew fiercer as their own country was
      invaded and Charles abandoned the idea. Ivan later took from Sweden all
      the provinces lying round the Gulf of Findland, where he founded the
      city of St. Petersburg. In 1721, he was acclaimed as ‘Father of the
      Fatherland, Peter the Great, and Emperor of all Russians’.The most
      remarkable of Peter’s successors was Catherine II, the German wife of
      Peter III, who, in 1762, gained the throne by the deposition and murder
      of her husband.As part of their policies of becoming an Empire,
      Russians intervened with the Turco-Persian war of 1723-1727 by sending
      troops to the Caspian Sea and seizing the Khanate of Kuba, to the north
      of Baku. Some 40 years later, for the first time, they acquired the
      coveted right of interfering with internal affairs of the Ottoman
      Empire. The events in Poland lead to the Russo-Turkish war of 1768,
      which ended with heavy Ottoman territorial losses in the Balkans and in
      Transcaucasia (Kabartay on Elbrus). With the treaty of Kucuk Kaynarca,
      signed in 1774 between Sultan Mustafa III and Empress Catherine II (The
      Great), Russians obtained the right to intervene on behalf of the
      Orthodox Christian population of the Ottoman Empire. Also, the Crimean
      Tatars were made independent of the Ottoman Empire, thus giving Russia
      an outlet to the Black Sea.In 1787, Catherine the Great of Russia and
      Emperor Joseph II of Austria-Hungary met at Kherson in the Crimea, just
      north of Yalta, and devised a plan to partition the Ottoman Empire’s
      European territories of Wallachia, Moldavia; to establish an Orthodox
      Greek state, which would be called Dacia; and to create a
      Greek-Orthodox New Byzantium when Constantinople would fall.From 1796
      to 1828, a series of Russian victories over Persia, culminating with
      the treates of Goulistan (1813) and Turkmenchai (1828), granted the
      Russians vast territories in the Caucusus, including Baku, Karabag,
      Georgia, Erevan, Nachitchevan and, most importantly, Echmiadzin where
      the See of Orthodox Haik resided. Next to 1774, 1828 would thus be the
      second turning point in the enless and unscrupulous Russian
      exploitation of Haik subjects towards the fulfilment of their imperial
      ambitions in the centuries to come. Next, Tzar Nicholas I (1825-1855)
      created what would later become the Soviet Republic of Armenia, by
      uniting the khanates of Erivan and Nachitchevan and declaring himself
      King of Armenia, akin to his title in Europe, King of Poland. He would
      also coin the term "The Sick Man of Europe" when referring to the
      Ottoman Empire ( Sam Weems,
      Armenia:The Secret of a Terrorist Christian State"With the Crimean War,
      which raged from 1854 to 1856, Britain realized for the first time the
      severity of Russian expansionist threat. She interfered on behalf of
      the Ottoman Empire, thus forcing the Vienna Peace Treaty, in which the
      Russian protectorate over the Orthodox Christian subjects of the
      Ottoman Empire was lifted.

    • Greek War of Independence: Meanwhile in the west, the
      foundation of Greece as a nation independent of the Ottoman Empire in
      1826 set a precedent for similar nationalistic movements in the
      Balkans, precipitating the death and exile of millions of Muslim from
      the area into Anatolian soil. In his classic 1897 study The War of Greek Independence: 1821-1833, W. Allison Phillips writes the following: "Everywhere,
      indeed, the conduct of the insurrection was characterized by the same
      treachery and unbounded cruelty. It may perhaps be permissible to make
      allowances for the excesses of a wild people, whose passionate hatred,
      suppressed for centuries, had at least found a vent. But nothing can
      excuse the callous treachery which too often precceded deeds of blood;
      and since Europe passed a heavy judgment on the cruel reprisals of the
      Trk, historical justice does not allow us to hide the crimes by which
      they were instigated"
      . The Greek War would also cause the weakening
      of Ottoman forces in the East, from which the Russians benefited
      maximally by moving into Asia Minor, all the way to Erzourum, and
      forcing the Treaty of Edirne in 1839, in which the Caucuses fell
      entirely into Russian hands.

    • The Balkan Problem: In this section, we once again refer to the words of A.J. Grant in his History of Europe.
      The preponderance of Germany in Europe after 1871 was unquestioned, and
      Bismark used the prestige of the country to draw to his side the
      Emperors of Russia and Austria. This is what is called the League of
      the Three Emperors. Western Europe remained at peace, if not peaceful,
      and t seemed as though in the West, the State System had reached its
      permanent form. But the Balkan Peninsula was continually agitated by
      movements and alarms; and every great diplomatic change in Europe down
      to the war of 1914 has been closely related to some development in the
      Balkans. The decadence and disintegration of Turkey have gone on
      continuously; and nearly all round her circumference there has been a
      narrowing of her frontiers and the formation of new states. The two
      forces that have constantly undermined the power of Turkey are religion
      and nationality in close alliance. The majority of the population of
      the Turkish dominions in Europe are Christians of the Eastern or
      "orthodox" Church, and the Muslim yoke has pressed on them with
      irritating and oppressive force. They have all felt moreover that the
      Turks are aliens, and they have been accustomed to look to Russia for
      protection and sympathy. Greece had established itself in the south in
      complete independence as early as 1829. The mountain state of
      Montenegro in the west, after heroic combats, had won for itself
      practical independence, though the Turkish government had never
      recognized its independence. To the north of Danube, Roumania possessed
      self-government but remained nominally within the limits of the Ottoman
      Empire. South of the Danube, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia abd above
      all Bulgaria, were in continual unrest. The Turks were conscious of the
      weakness of their hold upon these peoples and looked to austere methods
      to keep them in subordination. There were many promises of reform, but
      they came to little or nothing. In 1875, the mutterings of rebellion
      developed into open defiance of the Turkish power in Bosnia and
      Herzegovina. The insurgents won some early successes, but then they
      were overwhelmed by the Turkish armies. At the same time the
      Bulgarians, who were on the eve of a similar movement of independence,
      were crushed by the Turks.It was recognized by diplomatists that the
      Balkan peninsula was the storm-center of Europe. Russia and Austria
      were interested as neighbor; Great Britain because of her commercial
      interests in the Mediterranean. There were conferences, proposals and
      counter-proposal at plenty. At last, in 1877, Russia sent an ultimatum,
      and as her demands were not accepted, war came at once. The other great
      powers stood aloof and looked on at the duel.In the war, both the
      Turkish troops and their commanders showed unexpected powers, and it
      seemed for a time as though the Russians might be driven back behind
      the Danube, but in the end, the numbers wealth and organization of
      Russia and the corruption of the Turkish government produced their
      inevitable results. The Russians, helped only by the Roumanians,
      penetrated in the neighborhoods of Constantinople and Turkey lay at
      their mercy. The treaty of San Stefano was forced upon the Turks, and,
      if it had been put into effect, Turkey would have ceased to be an
      important power in Europe. But here the European powers again
      intervened, Great Britain under Disraeli taking a leading part. The
      power of Germany and the influence of Bismarck were displayed by the
      choice of Berlin as the site of a European Congress, which led up,
      after much discussion, to the Treaty of Berlin. The deep humiliation of
      Turkey, implied in the Treaty of San Stefano, was avoided in the Berlin
      treaty, but her loss in territory and prestige was great. Romania,
      Montenegro and Serbia were declared sovereign and independent states.
      Bosnia and Herzegovina, while remaining nominally within the Turkish
      dominions, were placed under the administration of Austria. Instead of
      the greate state of Bulgaria, which had been planned by the treaty of
      San Stefano, a comparatively small State with that name was
      established, stretching only as far south as the Balkan mountains, but
      enjoying practical independence. To the south of the mountains, a state
      was created under the name of Roumelia, with large powers of
      self-government, but still under the suzerainty of the Sultan,. Great
      Britain claimed and obtained Cyprus as the reward of its services in
      defence of the Sultan. But there too, nomilal suzerainty of the Sultan
      was still maintained.

The "Armenian Problem"

According to Haik sources (page 1 2 3 , the concept of "Armenian Problem" was first coined as a word in Article 16 of the Treaty of San Stefano.

    • San Stefano: Article 16

    • Cyprus Convention: Article 2

    • Berlin Treatise: Article 61

    • Note Identique des Grandes Puissances: 1880

    • Note Collective et le Projet de Reformes: 24 May 1895

  1. The United States and the Missionary Movement: The
    United States chose not to exert a direct political or military
    interference with Ottoman affairs. Instead, they sent missionaries to
    divide the population and to conquer the castle from within. As always,
    the Ottomans were utterly unaware, initially, of the work of these
    people and of the consequences thereof. Their characteristic
    "laissez-faire" attitude would cost them very dearly, though. And, by
    the time they understood what was going on, it was already too late.
    The scholarly work by Cagri Erhan on the Ottoman official attitudes towards American missionaries is one of the most enlightening sources on the issue.

    • Goodell: Goodell, Goodell

    • Bliss: Bliss

    • Cyrus Hamlin: The life and achievements of one of the most illustrious characters among these Protestant American missionaries, Cyrus Hamlin is narrated by Malcolm P. Stevens and Marcia R. Stevens in the Saudi Aramco World 1984 article, ‘A College on the Bosporus’ , and illustrated by Michael Grimsdale. The greatest contribution of Dr. Hamlin to the Turkish cause is a letter,
      ‘A Dangerous Movement Among the Armenians’, which he wrote to the
      Congregationalist in 1894, and in which he exposes, with no uncertain
      words, the heinous plans of the Huntchakist guerrillas of inciting
      inter-communal massacres in the Eastern Vilayets of the Ottoman Empire,
      with the intention of founding an independent republic there (For ease
      of legibility of the letter, please click here).

 

Next: Haik Rebellion

Leave a Comment