Europe and the Middle East in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century - Assignment Example

1. Analyze the difficulties faced by the Middle Eastern empires in adapting to the intellectual, technological, economic, political, and social challenges presented by the West in the 18th and 19th centuries. Ans. The gradual weakening of the Ottoman Empire and rise of Europe as a dominating figure in terms of politics, socio-economic advancement, military power, and source of intellectual enlightenment clearly proved to be antithetical for the Middle East. While the Ottoman Empire dominated the Middle East and central Europe for consecutive three centuries, during the 17th and 18th century their continuous failure to retain hold over conquered lands, especially on Europe, proved to be antithesis to supremacy of the Ottoman Empire that was attained for three centuries of dominance: “From being conquerors in the Balkans and central Europe in the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the Ottomans suffered defeats and loss of territory in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries” (Rafeaq, 2005, p. 230). Clearly, such failure of the Ottoman Empire to retain power over conquered lands bears the evidence fall from their past glory is becoming evident and the same was also realized in their consequent futility to main integrity within the Middle Eastern region and the provincial powers that were searching for the right opportunity to enhance their power used the same for decentralization. While during the early centuries rulers of the Ottoman Empire were trying the change the traditional Middle Eastern society, shift in the balance of power during 18th and 19th century, emergence of Europe provided them with the impetus to adapt the same policies against the Empire: “At times, adaptation demanded decentralization. As we shall see, during the eighteenth century the power of local warlords was greater than the power of the central government to control them” (Gelvin, 2004, p. 34). However, such decentralization and rising to power were used by the provincial rulers not to encourage adaptation of the new elements that Europe came up with; rather they were more focused to reassert their traditional Islamic approaches. Additionally, internal conflict, complex social structure, and increasing corruption among agents of the government contributed considerably in prohibiting the Middle Eastern empires from adapting the technological, economic, social, political and intellectual aspects, propounded by Europe (Rafeaq, 2005). 2. Describe the various reactions of the people of the Middle East to Western incursion. Which approaches were successful, which failures, and why? Could the people of the Middle East have done anything different to protect themselves from western encroachment? Ans. The Western encroachment in the Middle East introduced a set of mixed reaction among different sections of the society during 18th and 19th century. It is widely accepted among educationalists and scholars that process of education can only said to be fulfilled only when the masses of a particular society have been introduced to intellectual enlightenment. In case of Middle East under the Ottoman Empire, despite several reforms were done in education and introducing new system, however, the consequent benefits or the importance of such reforms were never really conferred among common people. Thus, in case of accepting the benefits of Western incursion, in terms of intellectual and socio-cultural context, the response has varied between common people and upper class section of the society. However, in the business and military sector reflection of these reactions were mostly evident. The Ottoman emperors were not entirely conservative to provide opportunity to European powers for doing business in the Middle East. In the late 16th and early 17th century, several business ventures by Britain and France in the Middle East prove the truth behind such observation (Rafeaq, 2005, p. 237). While the “guild” was backbone of the Middle Eastern economy and society in the Middle East, the major powers of Western encroachment aimed at coming in close contact with the “guild”; aftermath, however, European imperialism exploited this connection for resulting in “economic and social instability” among Middle Eastern nations (Rafeaq, 2005, p. 237). However, the rulers were not entirely ignorant about the increasing Western encroachment and consequently they attempted to come up with various “developmentalist policies” to restrict scope of such attempts (Gelvin, 2004, p. 74-75). During 19th century, such “developmentalist policies also fostered the emergence of a new class of professional soldiers, intellectuals, and bureaucrats who were educated in Western techniques” (Gelvin, 2004, p. 75). Additionally, witnessing the military rejuvenation in France and Prussia during 19th century, the Middle Eastern rulers realized the importance of developing their own armies in the same way. Consequently, the European armies not only became “formidable foes but models to be emulated” (Gelvin, 2004, p. 74). However, irrespective of all these attempts, success of the Middle Eastern rulers against European encroachment created a mark, mainly due to reason that all such attempts excluded to include common people within the range of operations and consequently, failed to convey the importance of such changes. 3. Describe and analyze the great-power competition over Persia before 1907. After considering the Anglo-Russian Entente, evaluate its effectiveness in keeping stability in the area. Ans. History is replete with such incidents that every time a ruler or system of governance has stopped being empathetic to people and consequently failed to function according to their demands, revolution has occurred, providing a clear impression to the system of governance that beginning of an end has commenced. The Persian Revolution (1905-09) reasserts such observation and clearly has attempted to reflect the increasing social turmoil that started occurring due to failure of the system of governance, incompetency of the monarchy and power conflict among foreign forces that revolved around Persia, with an intention to receive an upper hand of the contemporary diplomatic issues related to Western encroachment in the Middle East (Stearns, 2001, p. 424). The strategic geographical location of Persia clearly was advantageous for the Western forces that were aiming to receive a stronger grip over the affairs of the Middle East. Additionally, the three major Western forces, namely, Britain, France and Germany were trying to gain their respective superiority over Persia, Russia, on the other hand, as an important Eastern power tried to gain hold over the nation both for imperialist and business purposes. Plight of the Persian people become even more worse, as the ruler (Shah) attempted to use the state income with an aim to increase army power and started depriving the common people (Gelvin, 2004). The Persian Revolution was a strong response from common people, protesting against such anarchical situation. While in the October of 1906, common people empowered the national assembly to introduce liberal constitution, decline of Britain and Russia to accept validity of the constitution and the Anglo-Russian Entente (1907), which has been identified by Gelvin as the conspiracy between Britain and Russia “to divide Persia into spheres of influence” (Gelvin, 2004, p. 86) led to further complications and finally resulted in establishment of martial law in Persia. 4. Identify and fully explain three to five major problems faced by the Ottoman Empire in the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries. Evaluate the reforms of such people as Mahmet Ali and the Young Turks. To what extent were they successful in solving or alleviating the problems of the Ottoman Empire? Ans. The inception of 19th century marked the gradual fall of the Ottoman Empire and also provided a clear message that fall of the empire is just a matter of time. While for earlier three centuries the Ottoman Empire dominated a major part of the Europe, Africa and Middle East, its consequent failure to retain occupation over these areas and rise of the decentralized forces suggested that integration as well as efficiency of the system of governance would undergo a gradual decline. Some of the most important problems that became conspicuous during 19th and 20th century are: first, internal rebellion and defeat in wars in the Central Europe, and Africa; second, failure of the Sultans to earn trust of their subjects during times of war; third, losing control over the Western encroachment in terms of capitalist and socio-cultural dominance, consequently facing a huge lose in case of earning revenue from the foreign business powers; forth, increasing rate of corruption and incompetency that crippled in among agents of the system of governance and finally, losing the competition against foreign capital power, and to remain in the competition heavy tax burden, imposed over common people, led to losing support for the ruling system (Gelvin, 2004; Quataert, 2005, p. 54-73). While it is primary duty of the rulers to introduce reforms keeping in mind essential need of the common people and society as a whole, the Ottoman rulers remained more concerned about introducing military reforms. In order to achieve complete autonomy over Egypt, Mehmet Ali introduced a drastic military reform which has been identified by Gelvin as a “striking example of defensive developmentalism” (Gelvin, 2004, p. 76). However, due to flaws within the system such developmental approach did not take any positive turn and was greatly criticized. Clearly, while such developmental attempts of the Ottoman rulers led the Empire towards fall, took over of the Young Turks and consequently developmental attempts were more praiseworthy. It was due to the mutiny of the Young Turks in Macedonia that tyranny of the ruler was abolished and constitution was restored (Gelvin, 2004, p. 130). The problems of the Ottoman Empire ran so deep that during the short tenure of ruling those cannot be entirely alleviated but with their honestly as well as sincerity to stand against tyranny of the rulers, they clearly provided some relief to common people from being victims to arbitrary actions, such as being tax burdened in the name of “defensive developmentalism”. 5. Did the people of the Middle East attempt to copy any Western influences throughout the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries? If so, which ones, why, and what impact, if any, did they have? Ans. Repeated failure of the Ottoman rulers, starting from 18th century, in the context of solving external and internal problems gradually led to developing mistrust among common people. During the 19th and early half of the 20th century, various rebellions and hostile attitude against the Empire clearly support the truth behind such observation. Despite the fact that common people were always deprived from receiving the benefits of Western intellectual enlightenment, however, initiative taken the Ottoman rulers to fight against Western encroachment and consequently educating a group of people according to Western culture, during 19th and early 20th century, created a group of intellectuals, who inspired common people to protest against tyranny of rulers. The Persian Revolution (1905-09) is a dazzling example in this context (Gelvin, 2004; Stearns, 2001). In case of Ottoman rulers the impact of Western influence remained restricted within the limited scope of “defensive developmentalism”; however, in case of common people, to some extent they copied the Western influences and lifestyle: “… the eighteenth century to the beginning of the twentieth century was a time in which social and economic life in the Middle East underwent an extraordinary transformation” (Gelvin, 2004, p. 123). Two groups of people were created, pure Westernizers and Islamic Modernists. While the earlier group of people “frequently blamed Islam for the so-called backwardness of the Middle East, the latter group of intellectuals tried to gain the intellectual positivism and indulged in “transformation of society, economics, and politics of the Middle East” (Gelvin, 2004, p. 128). References Gelvin, J.L. (2004). The Modern Middle East: A History. New York: Oxford University Press, USA. Quataert, D. (2005). The Ottoman Empire, 1700-1922. (2nd Ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rafeq, A. K. (2005). “The Different Balance of Power: Europe and the Middle East in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century”. A companion to the history of the Middle East. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Stearns, P.N. (2001). The Encyclopedia of world history: ancient, medieval, and modern, chronologically arranged. (6th Ed). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Read More