The Success And Resilience Of The Ottoman Empire Essay

The Mughal, Qing and Ottoman dynasties all had taken rule over multi-ethnic agrarian Eurasian empires in the duration of the 17th and 18th century. All empires respectively faced enormous political, economic and social transformations which challenged and set hindrance to their rule in the 19th century. The Ottoman and Qing and Mughal empires had been 3 of probably the greatest empires to have ruled in history. Nevertheless, they'd many similarities in addition to differences. The empires went through difficult periods of time, but at some point, they additionally went through times of prosperity and growth. Though the Ottoman and Mughal Empire both didn't force conversions into Islam, the Ottoman's development relied on the bad military force of theirs, even though the

The Ottoman and Mughal empires were two of the greatest and most successful empires to ever form in history. However, they both had some similarities as well as differences. Both empires went through tough periods of time, but at some point they also went through times of growth and prosperity. Although the Ottoman and Mughal Empire both did not force conversions into Islam, the Ottoman’s development relied on their tough military force, while the decline of the Mughal Empire was caused by Aurangzeb’s policy of religious persecution and high taxes.

On the Political side, the Ottoman Turks were the best at keeping up control for a more extended time. It could get by to the point that advanced circumstances. The two different realms crumbled by the seventeenth century. The pioneer of the Ottoman Turks was known as the Sultan which was like a ruler. Islamic Law was connected to all Muslims. With respect to Safavid realm politically, the Shahs strolled around the boulevards in mask keeping in mind the end goal to discover the genuineness of the nationals. The high positions were given by justifying and regularly were nonnatives. In the Mughal Empire politically, Even,

The “glue” for the Ottoman Empire was ethnic and religious tolerance. Islam was also a benefit to the Empire because it was a common religion throughout the Empire, which united many people together.

q. This shows that Nationalism still plays a large role in keeping India together, regardless of their diverse religious identities. Secularism

At its outset, the Ottoman emirate was comparatively weak and of little consequence to its much larger and

Social classes were based on the religion. The Ottoman Empire was considered an Islamic empire because its founder was a Muslim. Unlike any other state or empire, classes were taken by religion. Muslim millets were the highest class society and were treated equally as the other millets but other religions had to pay more

In a time notorious for religious wars and acts of injustice, some empires chose to keep an open mind and benefited greatly. The Ottoman empire used other empires’ religious intolerance to their advantage. They had all religions, even their own, make a contribution to the empire. Muslims and people of conquered lands were forced to served in the military. On the other hand, Jews and Christians had to heavy taxes. By allowing Jews and Christians a safe place to practice their religion it made the empire desirable. With other empires forcing conversions, expelling, or even murdering paying tax was no problem. In exchange for paying these tax the

Socially, the Ottoman Turks were each millet, or a nation, inside the empire and had separate social customs in accordance with the religion of the millet. Muslim women had harsh restrictions as with Islamic law, but the non-Muslim women were subject to separate laws. Even Muslim women had more rights than in other Muslim nations. In the Safavid empire socially, they were a mixed society just like the Ottoman empire. The aristocrats had limited power and influence. They were also Turkic-speaking tribal groups. In the Mughal

Nationalism is defined as a nation’s, or ethnicities, desire to become an independent autonomous state. The Greek, Albanian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Macedonian nations’ nationalistic centrifugal force started the break up of the Empire in mid 19th century. All of the nations listed above became states by the time World War One began in 1914. This nationalistic movement happen under many Sultans, but it intensified under Abdülhamid II and finally under Murad V. It was Abdülhamid II who tried to curve the nationalistic movements, which were also sweeping through Europe, by introducing the Tanzimat Reforms of 1834 and 1856, at the request of European pressure.

The Ottomans did attempt to reform themselves on multiple occasions. The entire Tanzimat period from 1839-1876 was marked by extensive efforts to modernize and westernize the Ottoman government. Even before then, though, there were

Moreover, Ataturk had also improved the idea of laicism. Laicism, despite the fact that it separates state from religion; it also means that education, culture, and other living areas, being independent of religion. Thus, it means the freedom of thinking and expressing your thoughts without including religion. In the aspect of Ataturk, laicism had to come to Turkey, in order to bring peace between the citizens of this country. To conclude, Ataturk had brought laicism is his country, giving freedom to the

The main religion in the Ottoman Empire was Islam. Islam is a monotheistic religion that is based off of the revelations from the prophet Muhammad. The beliefs and symbols of this religion greatly influenced the designs used in their textiles.

Turkey is a particularly interesting country to study. The country dates back to the beginnings of civilization and has been imprinted on by many historical conflicts. In its long existence, it has been occupied by numerous empires, like the Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Empire, which aided in shaping the regions values and structure to what it is today. The crucial changing point for the country was when it received its independence, or sovereignty, from Russian, Italian, and French occupation. In 1923, led by Mustafa Kemal, the turkish people, through the nationalist movement, gained independence by not allowing the remnants of the Ottoman Empire after their defeat in World War I to let the Allies split up the Turkish-speaking lands. The influences that swept over the nation during the centuries of imperial rule or migration of different peoples from oppressive rule makes the country diverse in culture. The country has also seen a few of periods of military rule. Through these militarily-ruled periods, some of the country’s most fundamental political traditions were adopted, such as adopting a proportional representative system for elections or creating new constitutions. All these actions have shaped Turkey’s government and societal life in interesting ways. Turkey is a secular Republican Parliamentary Democracy, where religion is separated from the government and power is divided between the president, prime minister, and parliament.

It is on this legacy that Mustafa Kemal founded the Turkish Republic in 1923: a centralised secular nation-state. He built upon the secular institutions of the Tanzimat period and did away with the Islamic ones to foster modernisation (to which secularisation was seen as inseparable). From a process, secularisation turned into a project; one that would be implemented from above (Yilmaz, 2002:114). So secularism was adopted as one of the founding principles of the Turkish Republic. In this regard, it needs to be understood with reference to the other five, and particularly to statism, nationalism, and reformism. While Islam was held responsible for the collapse of the Ottoman empire, secularism would be key to modernising state and society and to “elevating the nation to the level of contemporary civilisation” (Shambayati and Kirdis, 2009:767). Reference to a civilising mission could hardly be made clearer. By making the state, but also society, secular, the Kemalist project also wants to create a new national identity. One that would not call upon ethnic or religious affiliation, but on a secular version of Turkishness. In a Weberian logic, it was assumed that by excluding Islam from the public sphere, its social significance would gradually erode (Fuat Keyman, 2007:219). Secularism therefore became the official ideology of the state and the identity of the state elite (Hakan Yavuz and Esposito, 2003:xxii).