Cherif Youssef Chokeir

HIST 2204-02
UID: 900140712
Professor Mouannes Hojairi
21st Dec 2017
Reflection paper

The Ottoman Empire (1299-1924) was one of the major Empires in the course of History.

Extending over three continents (Europe, Asia and Africa), the Ottoman dynasty was one of the

longest ruling dynasties in the Middle-East. After a period of expansion that was marked by its

superiority in technology as well as strategy, the Ottoman Empire fell in a phase of stagnation in

which it was surpassed by other European powers like Britain and France. Then it faced slow

downfall until it was finally defeated by the Entente powers during World War I. The dissolution

of the Ottoman Empire had marked the Middle-East greatly and shaped the region. It is therefore

important to try to understand the reasons behind its downfall to be able to understand in what

direction was the History of the Arab World being shaped. While it is possible to mention

multitude of reasons: less technological advancements than other European countries, increase of

financial debts; this paper tries to focus on one major theme related to the downfall of the

Ottoman Empire: the rise of nationalism in the Arab World.

To begin with, one of the major advantages that characterized the Ottoman rule was its

flexibility. As they ruled a wide variety of people with different religions, cultures, languages

and background, they followed a flexible way of ruling. In that, they often sent walis but in many

regions used the Elite of the country in consideration to be able to control the country. Thereof,

they followed different ruling methods in different countries. Although this was an advantage as

it helped to maintain their rule for centuries, it turned to be a disadvantage when it came time to
modernize the Empire. The Sultans were so in use of the methods applied by their governors or

associates in the ruled countries they did not think of much change. When the alarm was set by

their successive defeats of late 18th centuries against Russia mainly, great changes had already

occurred in other European countries. The Philosophers of the Enlightment had spread ideas of

liberty, equality, abolition of privileges etc. This was concurrent with the major technological

advance that occurred in these countries. The first real ruler who initiated reform in late 18th

century was Sultan Selim III. However, his major achievements were mainly in developing the

military. Convinced that the Empire is in great danger, he wanted to improve military by

introducing new techniques, gaining experience from European advisors. He was, however,

determined to keep the old system of the Empire. The struggle between forces of continuity and

change ended by his assassination mainly due to cooperation between ulama’ and Janissaries.

Not too far from Constantinople, Egypt was subjected to another form of change. The

French expedition of 1798-1801 had a huge impact on the country: it showed the wide gap

between European countries and the Ottoman welayat. Impressed by European forces and

determined to create his own ruling dynasty, Muhammad Ali initiated a vast program of reform

in the country. Developing the economy by arranging the agriculture and industrial sections, he

was mainly determined to obtain a major army by which he could attain his ambitious goals.

Therefore, as part of the needed reform, he started sending Egyptian students to European

countries, mainly France. Similar reforms were initiated by the Sultan Mahmud II in

Constantinople. The students that were sent to these countries, were intended to provide the

State, either in the case of Muhammed Ali or Mahmud II, of highly educated elite learned on the

European model, who could then be the base of the ruling bureaucracy through which reform is

to be performed. Although these students were sent for specific learning purposes (pedagogy, for
example, or military strategies), it was impossible to prevent them from contacting European

cultures and gaining knowledge about the ideas circulating there. Unfortunately to the powers of

continuity (ulama) and Sultans who wanted to maintain the Empire, it is specifically at this

period that was the rise of nationalism in Europe and emergence of the concept of Nation-State.

The images of the bloody revolutions of 1848 and the emergence of states like Italy and

Germany in late 1800’s all had impact on the mind of the young elite that was being prepared for

initiating the reform. By the time reform was obvious and needed, it was impossible to speak of

maintaining the old system. The official policy of the Ottoman Empire, however, was to

conserve its traditions while doing reforms that would help its conservation. The Sultans started

to promulgate laws and institutions that make them in closer contact with other European

countries: ambassadors, creation of newspapers which would help to spread ideas, official

parliamentary representation etc. All these reforms, as they appeared to the exterior as will to

reform, the interior was faced with the challenge of accepting these changes and still keeping

good will of the Empire. The dilemma of reform while still controlling the different nationalities

within the Empire started to appear obvious by the end of the 19th century.

National insurrection against the Ottoman authorities were mainly in Europe where the

contrast between “Enlighted Europe” and “Europe sick man” was getting large. Greeks in 1828,

then other Balkan countries in 1880’s gained their independence or autonomy due to pressure

from inside (insurrection), and mainly from outside (great powers intervention for their strategic

purposes like Russia in Serbia). It is however important to mention that during that period,

although Arab nationalism was beginning to taking its shape under people like Al Kawakbi,

Rashid Reda, etc, the main thought for many of the philosophers was more in terms of a united

Arab entity, possibly attached also to other Islamic countries. The necessity of separation from
Ottoman Empire was not the main announced targets for many of these. Others requested for

more representation of the people and their participation in ruling their affairs under the Sultan’s

authority. The main goals of Arab nationalism during that period were solidarity, liberty, equality

and development. While the Ottoman Sultan of the period: Abd-El Hamid II was enthusiastic of

an Islamic community, the major countries of the Empire were taken under European control

(Egypt 1882, Tunisia 1881, Libya 1911).

The Coup on the Sultan Abd-El Hamid II in 1908 marked a dramatic change in the

situation. The Jeune Turc (Community of Union and Progress) that organized the coup and

succeeded in the elections and forming the government, declared a new era of liberty and

development. The dilemma was getting larger as these young “Ottomans” were faced with

contradictions of applying the European reforms and maintaining the Empire. They called for

(Huryat-Musawat-Akhwat) like the French slogan (liberté, égalité, fraternité). The problem was

how to identify fraternity? Who had the right to liberty? As the years passed, it became obvious

they were calling for Turkish liberty and Equality, not Ottoman’s. They kept the Caliphate

however, as their strategy was to keep ruling all these people. Their strategy, however, finally led

to the entrance in WWI with Germany against the Entente, facing their classical enemies. The

decision taken by Enver Pasha, one of the ruling triumvirs would engage the Empire in its last

major war. Although the Empire faced Entente powers in several different fronts (Iraq, Egypt,

Anatolia, Dardanelles), the Ottoman army performed well overall and could maintain its position

until the final defeat of Germany that marked the end of the War. The Insurrection led by Sharif

Hussein supported by the British is to be considered as a major event of controversy in this

discussion. Although Sharif Hussein called for Arab Unity and fighting the Turks, the so-called

Revolution, considered as a national insurrection by some historians, is to be declared as an

adventure based on tribal and personal benefits for others. The Sharif seemed to be determined to

declare independence, but did not even have full commitments of the British over the countries

he requested. Due to their policy of double-dealing, the British in Hussein-MacMahon’ letters

promised of a United Arab national kingdom. At the same time Sykes-Picot agreement were set

with French giving them Syria and the Balfour Declaration was determined to settle Jews in

Palestine. Although some might argue that Ottomans fall due to rise of Arab nationalism, it is

important to note that many Ottoman soldiers in the army were Arabs and fought till death.

The fall of the Ottoman Empire and the distribution of its countries on the Entente

powers through the Mandate system marked the emergence of a new order in the Middle-East.

Reformation of boundaries, creation of new states marked a long century of dilemma for Arab

nationalism. While the forces that defeated the Ottomans wanted to create a United Arab

kingdom in Syria, they faced many challenges by the French and also internally. States like

Egypt and Turkey emerged easily as they had a pre-defined identity. However, Syria, Iraq and

Jordan had major challenges. The challenges faced by the Urban elites of 1930’s were huge. The

struggle between identity and modernity caused the dilemma to be apparent. It was not so simple

to place institutions in countries that contained different ethnic groups onto which it was now

important to define relationship. It is possible to say that although the Urban elites of 1930’s had

made achievements in many domains, the creation of Israel, the difficult placement of the State

did not give them the ability to withstand the rise of rural-based military regimes (Nasser in

Egypt, Assad in Syria and Saddam in Iraq). These regimes, even if they marked a new era of

social reform and call for Arab unity could not also provide full achievement of their goals

although some of them were still present recently. The rise of Islamism in recent years mark the

dilemma still existing of cultural identity and the difficulty to shape the future of the region.