What do you think?
Rate this book
A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire
At the turn of the nineteenth century, the Ottoman Empire straddled three continents and encompassed extraordinary ethnic and cultural diversity among the estimated thirty million people living within its borders. It was perhaps the most cosmopolitan state in the world--and possibly the most volatile. A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire now gives scholars and general readers a concise history of the late empire between 1789 and 1918, turbulent years marked by incredible social change. Moving past standard treatments of the subject, M. Sükrü Hanioglu emphasizes broad historical trends and processes more than single events. He examines the imperial struggle to centralize amid powerful opposition from local rulers, nationalist and other groups, and foreign powers. He looks closely at the socioeconomic changes this struggle wrought and addresses the Ottoman response to the challenges of modernity. Hanioglu shows how this history is not only essential to comprehending modern Turkey, but is integral to the histories of Europe and the world. He brings Ottoman society marvelously to life in all its facets--cultural, diplomatic, intellectual, literary, military, and political--and he mines imperial archives and other documents from the period to describe it as it actually was, not as it has been portrayed in postimperial nationalist narratives. A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire is a must-read for anyone seeking to understand the legacy left in this empire's ruins--a legacy the world still grapples with today.
253 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 25, 2008
24 people are currently reading
603 people want to read
About the author
M. Şükrü Hanioğlu
12 books23 followersHe received his B.A. in Political Science and Economics and his Ph.D. in Political Science from Istanbul University. During his graduate years he taught late Ottoman diplomatic and political history as an instructor in the Political Science Department. He wrote his Ph.D. thesis on the political activities and thought of one of the founders of the Committee of Union and Progress, Dr. Abdullah Cevdet.
In 1981 he decided to work on the history of the Committee of Union and Progress during the period from 1889 to 1908, i.e. from its foundation to the Young Turk Revolution. Since the CUP was an underground organization, it was essential to use the organization's own papers to write its history. For this purpose he visited Albania in 1982. After examining the CUP papers there, he published the first volume of this project in 1986. The second volume appeared in 1992, to be followed by a third and final volume. Besides the original CUP documents, he has used other archival sources, including those found in the Turkish, German, Austrian, French, Swiss, Italian, Greek, and British archives.
From 1981 to the present, he has taught courses on late Ottoman political and diplomatic history, late Ottoman history, and Turkish political life, at Istanbul and Bosphorus Universities and the Turkish Naval Academy. He has also taught and conducted seminars at Columbia University, the University of Wisconsin, the University of Michigan, and the University of Chicago. At Princeton he has taught NES 433 (The Near East and the Eastern Question since 1815,) NES 439 (Nationalist Movements from Bosnia to Central Asia: 19th and 20th Centuries,) NES 543, 544 (Ottoman Diplomatics: Paleography and Diplomatic Documents,) and NES 572 (Problems in Late Ottoman & Modern Republican History.)
He supervised fourteen Ph.D. dissertations at Istanbul University, all of them on Ottoman intellectual and diplomatic history. A few examples are: "The Journal Mecmua-i Funun and Its Role in the Ottoman Enlightenment," "Cemaleddin Efgani and His Impact on Turkish Intellectuals," and "Huseyin Kazim and Turkish Nationalism."
At Princeton he has supervised six Ph.D dissertations on Ottoman-Turkish History.
In 1981 he decided to work on the history of the Committee of Union and Progress during the period from 1889 to 1908, i.e. from its foundation to the Young Turk Revolution. Since the CUP was an underground organization, it was essential to use the organization's own papers to write its history. For this purpose he visited Albania in 1982. After examining the CUP papers there, he published the first volume of this project in 1986. The second volume appeared in 1992, to be followed by a third and final volume. Besides the original CUP documents, he has used other archival sources, including those found in the Turkish, German, Austrian, French, Swiss, Italian, Greek, and British archives.
From 1981 to the present, he has taught courses on late Ottoman political and diplomatic history, late Ottoman history, and Turkish political life, at Istanbul and Bosphorus Universities and the Turkish Naval Academy. He has also taught and conducted seminars at Columbia University, the University of Wisconsin, the University of Michigan, and the University of Chicago. At Princeton he has taught NES 433 (The Near East and the Eastern Question since 1815,) NES 439 (Nationalist Movements from Bosnia to Central Asia: 19th and 20th Centuries,) NES 543, 544 (Ottoman Diplomatics: Paleography and Diplomatic Documents,) and NES 572 (Problems in Late Ottoman & Modern Republican History.)
He supervised fourteen Ph.D. dissertations at Istanbul University, all of them on Ottoman intellectual and diplomatic history. A few examples are: "The Journal Mecmua-i Funun and Its Role in the Ottoman Enlightenment," "Cemaleddin Efgani and His Impact on Turkish Intellectuals," and "Huseyin Kazim and Turkish Nationalism."
At Princeton he has supervised six Ph.D dissertations on Ottoman-Turkish History.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
September 30, 2015
M. Şükrü Hanioğlu’s A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire is intended as a broad introductory text for its eponymous topic, but one that provides more than a mere recapitulation of the most recent secondary literature. Taking a critical approach and, at times, utilizing primary sources to present illustrative examples of his assertions, the author argues that late Ottoman history was not part of a teleological process and was more than a simple struggle between competing ideologies. He frames his work around four themes – “the persistent imperial ambition to centralize, the shifting socioeconomic context, the key challenge of forging an Ottoman response to modernity, and the need to integrate Ottoman history into world history” – and while it is difficult at times to see exactly how they guide his chronicle, overall they aid in building a narrative that goes beyond the superficial approach of works with a similar target audience.
Following a brief introduction, Hanioğlu begins with a chapter that contextualizes his topic by providing a summary of the situation in the Ottoman Empire immediately prior to the reign of Selim III. His next chapter engages “initial Ottoman responses to the challenge of modernity”, which begin in the military following a series of territorial losses. The failure of economic reform, which did not address “the deficiency of Ottoman production”, meant that transformations within the army were impossible, which in turn led to the empire’s inability to centralize and improve provincial administration. The beginnings of nationalism, meanwhile, detracted even further from these efforts, with the 1804 Serbian revolt becoming the first internal affair that was supported by outside powers. Mahmud II, who came to power in 1808, found more success with reform and centralization, but also empowered a Western-oriented bureaucracy that quickly rose to become a major political player.
The culmination of Mahmud II’s efforts was the Edict of Gülhane, announced in 1839, which, as the author argues, was designed to demonstrate to the west the Ottoman Empire’s commitment to westernizing its domestic policies. As such, the focus of his chapter on the Tanzimat reforms is not on their internal impact, but on international relations and foreign affairs. This is unexpected and somewhat jarring, as it privileges a high political approach to the topic that seems out of place with the rest of the work to this point. He does not ignore social developments completely, but this is the section where it becomes evident how eclectically they factor into his narrative. In summarizing the failures of the Tanzimat era, Hanioğlu argues that the reforms were not absorbed deeply enough into society to allow what was traditional to wither away, and that reformers were not sufficiently prepared to confront nationalist opposition.
The book next details the reign of Abdulhamid II, who drew power away from the bureaucracy and re-centralized it on the palace. The author’s argument is that, during this period, the sultan ruled in an authoritarian fashion under the veil of Islamic justice, yet still confronted the challenges of modernity by building up the bureaucracy, even if he simultaneously buttressed it with traditional structures and manipulated them to his advantage. Opposition coalesced around a group known as the Young Turks, who Hanioğlu portrays as conservative, since they wanted to restore, not destroy, the empire and promulgated one-party rule under a constitutional monarch. He proceeds to detail their time in power from 1908 through the end of World War I, which, despite covering the shortest period, ends up being the longest chapter in his book. The support of the army and the power of the printing press allowed them to eliminate all contesting sources of power, but their inability to secure the protection of another major European nation led to an alliance with Germany, which proved ultimately to be their downfall. This made it inevitable that they would become embroiled in World War I, despite their attempts to stay out of the conflict, which ended any chance that their protectionist “National Economics” program might have revived the economy, or that the relative intellectual freedom of the era might have produced ideologies that could have saved the empire. Overall, Hanioğlu’s asserts that there was more continuity than discontinuity between the reigns of Abdulhamid II and the Young Turks, and that it was only the composition of the ruling elite that changed.
The author’s framing themes are addressed explicitly only in the introduction and conclusion, which makes them feel disconnected from the rest of the work. He argues that there was not a struggle between modernizers at the center and reactionaries on the periphery, as has been suggested traditionally, but that these forces appeared in different places depending on circumstances. Furthermore, it was natural that modernity in the Ottoman Empire took a Western and imitative form at first, since the Ottomans entered this historical phase late, but eventually a distinctively Ottoman form did emerge. Europeans, for their part, were more focused on maintaining the status quo within the empire than on transforming it into an imitation of the west, and thus the author discards the concept of imposed westernization. He completes his narrative by rejecting the thesis of imperial decline, noting instead that the empire’s absolute achievements were impressive and that, relative to the circumstances and in consideration of where it began, they were “truly remarkable”. Overall, however, A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire’s last minute attempt at engaging a revisionist perspective is insufficient to elevate the narrative above what it is at its core: a history of the late Ottoman Empire as a function of its relationship to the rest and an ill-defined, yet clearly Eurocentric, conceptualization of “modernity”. Nonetheless, the book’s critical approach, along with its use of primary-source examples and its accessibility to non-specialists, makes it an excellent text for those seeking a broad and intelligible introduction to this critically important, yet often forgotten, global empire.
Following a brief introduction, Hanioğlu begins with a chapter that contextualizes his topic by providing a summary of the situation in the Ottoman Empire immediately prior to the reign of Selim III. His next chapter engages “initial Ottoman responses to the challenge of modernity”, which begin in the military following a series of territorial losses. The failure of economic reform, which did not address “the deficiency of Ottoman production”, meant that transformations within the army were impossible, which in turn led to the empire’s inability to centralize and improve provincial administration. The beginnings of nationalism, meanwhile, detracted even further from these efforts, with the 1804 Serbian revolt becoming the first internal affair that was supported by outside powers. Mahmud II, who came to power in 1808, found more success with reform and centralization, but also empowered a Western-oriented bureaucracy that quickly rose to become a major political player.
The culmination of Mahmud II’s efforts was the Edict of Gülhane, announced in 1839, which, as the author argues, was designed to demonstrate to the west the Ottoman Empire’s commitment to westernizing its domestic policies. As such, the focus of his chapter on the Tanzimat reforms is not on their internal impact, but on international relations and foreign affairs. This is unexpected and somewhat jarring, as it privileges a high political approach to the topic that seems out of place with the rest of the work to this point. He does not ignore social developments completely, but this is the section where it becomes evident how eclectically they factor into his narrative. In summarizing the failures of the Tanzimat era, Hanioğlu argues that the reforms were not absorbed deeply enough into society to allow what was traditional to wither away, and that reformers were not sufficiently prepared to confront nationalist opposition.
The book next details the reign of Abdulhamid II, who drew power away from the bureaucracy and re-centralized it on the palace. The author’s argument is that, during this period, the sultan ruled in an authoritarian fashion under the veil of Islamic justice, yet still confronted the challenges of modernity by building up the bureaucracy, even if he simultaneously buttressed it with traditional structures and manipulated them to his advantage. Opposition coalesced around a group known as the Young Turks, who Hanioğlu portrays as conservative, since they wanted to restore, not destroy, the empire and promulgated one-party rule under a constitutional monarch. He proceeds to detail their time in power from 1908 through the end of World War I, which, despite covering the shortest period, ends up being the longest chapter in his book. The support of the army and the power of the printing press allowed them to eliminate all contesting sources of power, but their inability to secure the protection of another major European nation led to an alliance with Germany, which proved ultimately to be their downfall. This made it inevitable that they would become embroiled in World War I, despite their attempts to stay out of the conflict, which ended any chance that their protectionist “National Economics” program might have revived the economy, or that the relative intellectual freedom of the era might have produced ideologies that could have saved the empire. Overall, Hanioğlu’s asserts that there was more continuity than discontinuity between the reigns of Abdulhamid II and the Young Turks, and that it was only the composition of the ruling elite that changed.
The author’s framing themes are addressed explicitly only in the introduction and conclusion, which makes them feel disconnected from the rest of the work. He argues that there was not a struggle between modernizers at the center and reactionaries on the periphery, as has been suggested traditionally, but that these forces appeared in different places depending on circumstances. Furthermore, it was natural that modernity in the Ottoman Empire took a Western and imitative form at first, since the Ottomans entered this historical phase late, but eventually a distinctively Ottoman form did emerge. Europeans, for their part, were more focused on maintaining the status quo within the empire than on transforming it into an imitation of the west, and thus the author discards the concept of imposed westernization. He completes his narrative by rejecting the thesis of imperial decline, noting instead that the empire’s absolute achievements were impressive and that, relative to the circumstances and in consideration of where it began, they were “truly remarkable”. Overall, however, A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire’s last minute attempt at engaging a revisionist perspective is insufficient to elevate the narrative above what it is at its core: a history of the late Ottoman Empire as a function of its relationship to the rest and an ill-defined, yet clearly Eurocentric, conceptualization of “modernity”. Nonetheless, the book’s critical approach, along with its use of primary-source examples and its accessibility to non-specialists, makes it an excellent text for those seeking a broad and intelligible introduction to this critically important, yet often forgotten, global empire.
October 22, 2011
Great history of the Ottoman Empire with the biggest focus on the 19th century up until the bitter end. Some bits are tough to get through (i.e. some of the economic history can be a little dull) but for the most part it reads almost like a novel. Not my favorite book about the region, but Hanioğlu is very knowledgeable and presents his view in a pretty unbiased manner, which can be tough to do when dealing with what is this politically/socially volatile part of the world. Best parts revolve around the Tanzimat and life under the CUP...I especially enjoy his sense of irony when discussing failure surrounding the constitutional eras. If you're a middle east buff, it's a good read.
November 23, 2023
Gambaran menyeluruh daripada segenap aspek oleh penulis tentang apa yang berlaku ketika detik-detik akhir kejatuhan Uthmaniyah, sesuai untuk peminat sejarah.
October 1, 2017
This was a wonderful piece of work by the author ..
As per the title of the book, it is a "Brief" history of the "Late" Ottoman empire .. where the late Ottoman empire represents the period starting around the year 1789 and ending 1922/1924 ..
The author managed just that , covering this exceptional period in Ottoman history .. the longest century in Ottoman history .. in a comprehensive and unbiased manner, and with a different approach ..
The author analysis of the period events was based on context rather than the usual ideological approach in explaining the collapse of the empire along with the serious reform efforts more than a century prior to the final collapse ..
The book is full of interesting details and statistics along with valuable and thoughtful author analysis and opinions in each stage of the book regarding efforts covering reforming Sultans, Tanzimat statesmen and Young Turks revolutionaries ... The interpretation of each of Ottomanism as a means of saving the empire .. efforts that may have not saved the empire, but did have it's direct impact on the forming of the modern twentieth century Middle East and the Balkans with all the complicated heritage and unfortunate current struggles..
A high recommendation for readers interested in the subject especially if from a more different perspective ..
As per the title of the book, it is a "Brief" history of the "Late" Ottoman empire .. where the late Ottoman empire represents the period starting around the year 1789 and ending 1922/1924 ..
The author managed just that , covering this exceptional period in Ottoman history .. the longest century in Ottoman history .. in a comprehensive and unbiased manner, and with a different approach ..
The author analysis of the period events was based on context rather than the usual ideological approach in explaining the collapse of the empire along with the serious reform efforts more than a century prior to the final collapse ..
The book is full of interesting details and statistics along with valuable and thoughtful author analysis and opinions in each stage of the book regarding efforts covering reforming Sultans, Tanzimat statesmen and Young Turks revolutionaries ... The interpretation of each of Ottomanism as a means of saving the empire .. efforts that may have not saved the empire, but did have it's direct impact on the forming of the modern twentieth century Middle East and the Balkans with all the complicated heritage and unfortunate current struggles..
A high recommendation for readers interested in the subject especially if from a more different perspective ..
August 17, 2018
Things Fall Apart; The Centre Cannot Hold
An astonishingly well written informative book. Hanioglu gives us an inside view of the tensions between the centralized power of the Sultanate and that of the periphery. Superficially there was one law and one template for governance howeve large distances, poor lines of communication, local politics and customs lead to vast differences in implementation. In most cases, after the local warlords had taken their cut, taxation remittances flowed from the periphery to the centre - the exception being the region of Mecca where tribute flowed the other way in order to maintain the support of the Sherifians and confer legitimacy on the Sultan as Calif as he was not a descendant of Mohammed.
Militarily from the late 1700s on Turkey had done poorly in its military engagements with Russia and turned towards Europe both for allies and for guidance in modernizing its armed forces. These changes are resented by the Janissaries and Sultan Selim III is slain in a coup in 1807. Selim's cousin Mahmud II is installed as his replacement and he manages a conservative rule for the next 3 decades. In this period there is also an interesting description of British ambassador Stratford Canning from 1810 to 1858, known as "the little Sultan", who was said to have wielded more influence than most Grand Viziers and foreign ministers.
In Egypt Mehmed Ali (an Albanian) amasses a large army and suppresses a Wahabist revolt in Arabia (1811-18) and the Greek rebellion (1824-27) and establishes a powerbase, nominally subservient to the empire. In 1832 he pushes further east into Palestine and Mahmud resorts to an alliance both with Russia to restore the status quo in return a promise to close the Bosphorus to Russia's adversaries in the event of war. Mahmud was not entirely successful as the net result was that Ali controlled the Egypt, the Sudan, Crete, Syria and Jeddah in Arabia. (pp66). In 1939 the Porte turns to an alliance with Britain and Austria to push Ali back in return for reduced taxation (capitulations). Its an intriguing turning point and my complaint here is that the coverage is too brief.
In order to reflect changing interests among the various classes Hanioglu takes the interesting approach of looking at the titles of personal libraries and notes a shift from mostly religious texts in the 19th century to secular and foreign books by the early 20th. He also examines the statement of personal effects in people's wills - thus tracking which objects different segments of society thought important enough to accumulate and pass on to others.
After the Crimean War the Tanzimat reformation, in part forced on the Ottomans by the European Powers, in part driven by the sentiment of the times towards modernization, moved the empire towards equal rights for minorities, resulting in gradual attempts to establish civil courts, land reform and the abolition the jizya tax against non-Muslim minorities. The image of the empire was shifting from a collection of religious and ethnic millets under the protection (per the "Pact of Umar") of a Muslim majority to that of an Ottoman citizen. The reforms were not easily accepted, even by Christians who in Greece mourned that "the state has made us equal with the Jews. We were satisfied with Muslim superiority." (pp76). Yet the modernization impulse seems to have taken hold, both in changes of styles of dress, uniform and in popular taste where the phrase "alla Franca" indicating progressiveness was touted over "alla Turca" which symbolized being old fashioned.
The Young Turk revolution of 1908 (Ch 5 & 6), possibly inspired by the Iranian revolution of 1905/06, was based largely of Muslims from Salonica allied with key elements of the military reduced the Sultanate to a figurehead. While the elections of 1908 were considered to be fair, Hanioglu compares its rule and subsequent elections to be the equivalent of a one party "people's republic" similar to that of Mexico's Pardido Revolucionaro Institucional. (pp161) However in the West the empire's influence continued to fade. European immigration, trade, imperialism and administration reduced the connection to Istanbul to one in name only and revolution in Greece and the Balkans chipped away at much of the rest.
The final chapter examines the reasons for the Empire's involvement in WW I. Initially neutral Turkey might have remained so or allied itself with either side. The reasons it did not are largely viewed as a reaction to debt, a wish to free itself from the capitulations and a desire to prevent the dissolution of its remaining territories.
As excellent as Hanioglu's account is there are 3 areas could be improved on. When discussing the various power estates of the Ottoman Empire he mentions the Porte, the army and the ulemas (religious class) but leaves out the role of the various guilds (ref: Bernard Lewis) that controlled the economic reigns and in many cases impeded progress. A second problem is that the coverage of the massacres of the Armenians in the late 19th century and the Armenian genocide itself (not to mention the ethnic cleansing of other Christian groups) is treated as a blip rather than as massive rendering of an age old social contract. Even though I can understand the potential reasons, I was disappointed. Lastly the author could have supplied some additional maps, particularly in in the earlier section of the book to show the changes in divisions of the provinces and also with regard to conquests of Mehmed Ali.
In spite of these problems IMHO a rating of 5 is an understatement. I'd consider this essential reading for the history of the 19th century, the breakup of the empire and the formation of of the modern middle east. It does help to have some previous background as the amount of detail is a bit overwhelming, however if you are interested in a particular set of years each chapter stands well as a separate unit. Highly, highly, highly recommended!
An astonishingly well written informative book. Hanioglu gives us an inside view of the tensions between the centralized power of the Sultanate and that of the periphery. Superficially there was one law and one template for governance howeve large distances, poor lines of communication, local politics and customs lead to vast differences in implementation. In most cases, after the local warlords had taken their cut, taxation remittances flowed from the periphery to the centre - the exception being the region of Mecca where tribute flowed the other way in order to maintain the support of the Sherifians and confer legitimacy on the Sultan as Calif as he was not a descendant of Mohammed.
Militarily from the late 1700s on Turkey had done poorly in its military engagements with Russia and turned towards Europe both for allies and for guidance in modernizing its armed forces. These changes are resented by the Janissaries and Sultan Selim III is slain in a coup in 1807. Selim's cousin Mahmud II is installed as his replacement and he manages a conservative rule for the next 3 decades. In this period there is also an interesting description of British ambassador Stratford Canning from 1810 to 1858, known as "the little Sultan", who was said to have wielded more influence than most Grand Viziers and foreign ministers.
In Egypt Mehmed Ali (an Albanian) amasses a large army and suppresses a Wahabist revolt in Arabia (1811-18) and the Greek rebellion (1824-27) and establishes a powerbase, nominally subservient to the empire. In 1832 he pushes further east into Palestine and Mahmud resorts to an alliance both with Russia to restore the status quo in return a promise to close the Bosphorus to Russia's adversaries in the event of war. Mahmud was not entirely successful as the net result was that Ali controlled the Egypt, the Sudan, Crete, Syria and Jeddah in Arabia. (pp66). In 1939 the Porte turns to an alliance with Britain and Austria to push Ali back in return for reduced taxation (capitulations). Its an intriguing turning point and my complaint here is that the coverage is too brief.
In order to reflect changing interests among the various classes Hanioglu takes the interesting approach of looking at the titles of personal libraries and notes a shift from mostly religious texts in the 19th century to secular and foreign books by the early 20th. He also examines the statement of personal effects in people's wills - thus tracking which objects different segments of society thought important enough to accumulate and pass on to others.
After the Crimean War the Tanzimat reformation, in part forced on the Ottomans by the European Powers, in part driven by the sentiment of the times towards modernization, moved the empire towards equal rights for minorities, resulting in gradual attempts to establish civil courts, land reform and the abolition the jizya tax against non-Muslim minorities. The image of the empire was shifting from a collection of religious and ethnic millets under the protection (per the "Pact of Umar") of a Muslim majority to that of an Ottoman citizen. The reforms were not easily accepted, even by Christians who in Greece mourned that "the state has made us equal with the Jews. We were satisfied with Muslim superiority." (pp76). Yet the modernization impulse seems to have taken hold, both in changes of styles of dress, uniform and in popular taste where the phrase "alla Franca" indicating progressiveness was touted over "alla Turca" which symbolized being old fashioned.
The Young Turk revolution of 1908 (Ch 5 & 6), possibly inspired by the Iranian revolution of 1905/06, was based largely of Muslims from Salonica allied with key elements of the military reduced the Sultanate to a figurehead. While the elections of 1908 were considered to be fair, Hanioglu compares its rule and subsequent elections to be the equivalent of a one party "people's republic" similar to that of Mexico's Pardido Revolucionaro Institucional. (pp161) However in the West the empire's influence continued to fade. European immigration, trade, imperialism and administration reduced the connection to Istanbul to one in name only and revolution in Greece and the Balkans chipped away at much of the rest.
The final chapter examines the reasons for the Empire's involvement in WW I. Initially neutral Turkey might have remained so or allied itself with either side. The reasons it did not are largely viewed as a reaction to debt, a wish to free itself from the capitulations and a desire to prevent the dissolution of its remaining territories.
As excellent as Hanioglu's account is there are 3 areas could be improved on. When discussing the various power estates of the Ottoman Empire he mentions the Porte, the army and the ulemas (religious class) but leaves out the role of the various guilds (ref: Bernard Lewis) that controlled the economic reigns and in many cases impeded progress. A second problem is that the coverage of the massacres of the Armenians in the late 19th century and the Armenian genocide itself (not to mention the ethnic cleansing of other Christian groups) is treated as a blip rather than as massive rendering of an age old social contract. Even though I can understand the potential reasons, I was disappointed. Lastly the author could have supplied some additional maps, particularly in in the earlier section of the book to show the changes in divisions of the provinces and also with regard to conquests of Mehmed Ali.
In spite of these problems IMHO a rating of 5 is an understatement. I'd consider this essential reading for the history of the 19th century, the breakup of the empire and the formation of of the modern middle east. It does help to have some previous background as the amount of detail is a bit overwhelming, however if you are interested in a particular set of years each chapter stands well as a separate unit. Highly, highly, highly recommended!
October 18, 2024
Concise and comprehensive simultaneously, Hanioğlu's book works both as an introduction to and an overview of the decline of the Ottoman Empire.
November 17, 2013
This was a required reading for a course in Ottoman history. It was a good read overall, had a good narrative and flowed well. However, it was a bit short on some important issues/people like the Greek rebellion and Mehmed Ali to name a few and Hanioglu tended to make some sweeping generalizations, which can be problematic. Overall though I did learn a lot, it was well organized, and had a good narrative that really brought out the tumultus history of the late Ottoman empire.
March 12, 2025
To begin, it is important to mention that this book is, indeed, a brief history of the Ottoman Empire — and it does this quite well. Covering a long period, from about the 1760s to 1922, the book addresses internal and external transformations, tough foreign policy decisions, Janissary revolts, coups, and the slow decline of a multi-ethnic polity that served, for centuries, as the Other to Europe.
Hanioğlu presents—and touches on—four key themes: 1) the persistent imperial ambition to centralize; 2) the shifting socioeconomic context; 3) the challenge of fostering an Ottoman interpretation of modernity; and 4) the need to integrate Ottoman history into world history.
Each of these themes is carefully woven together into chapters that cover long periods and a plethora of actors, ranging from the micro (individuals such as Enver Pasha) to the macro (nation-states such as France, Russia, and Britain). I personally greatly enjoyed the way he approaches and introduces the Ottoman interpretation of modernity. As he puts it himself, Ottoman statesmen faced a "breathtaking challenge," in ways that, although a parallel can be drawn, differ shockingly from Imperial Japan—not only in size but in the dichotomy between center and periphery and the multi-ethnic tensions it faced over the centuries.
The book also focuses strongly on political and diplomatic history. The author is frank about this approach, and I believe it suits it well. I personally enjoyed how Hanioğlu breaks the barrier between the inside and the outside of the Empire. Although this is no surprise since R.B.J. Walker's Inside/Outside, it is still enjoyable when authors embrace this interplay between domestic and international actors with ease and attention. He makes it clear that the Tanzimat cannot be understood as a movement if one does not understand that it came from a deeply rooted perspective in the Ottoman ruling classes that 'modernization,' military and otherwise, was an existential imperative.
In conclusion, Hanioğlu's book is a great contribution to the study of the late Ottoman Empire. The focus on political and diplomatic history is clear, frank, and extremely well-structured. I could understand that some may find it lacking in social and cultural aspects — even with fascinating excerpts such as the lists of valuables of the deceased and the comparative analyses of these belongings in different periods of the Empire — but the portrayal of the challenges that the Empire faced during its final years was phenomenal.
In the times that we live in, I think Hanioğlu's emphasis on history not being railroaded or predetermined in any way is valuable. It is a good reminder that history is shaped by the present — nothing is inevitable.
Hanioğlu presents—and touches on—four key themes: 1) the persistent imperial ambition to centralize; 2) the shifting socioeconomic context; 3) the challenge of fostering an Ottoman interpretation of modernity; and 4) the need to integrate Ottoman history into world history.
Each of these themes is carefully woven together into chapters that cover long periods and a plethora of actors, ranging from the micro (individuals such as Enver Pasha) to the macro (nation-states such as France, Russia, and Britain). I personally greatly enjoyed the way he approaches and introduces the Ottoman interpretation of modernity. As he puts it himself, Ottoman statesmen faced a "breathtaking challenge," in ways that, although a parallel can be drawn, differ shockingly from Imperial Japan—not only in size but in the dichotomy between center and periphery and the multi-ethnic tensions it faced over the centuries.
The book also focuses strongly on political and diplomatic history. The author is frank about this approach, and I believe it suits it well. I personally enjoyed how Hanioğlu breaks the barrier between the inside and the outside of the Empire. Although this is no surprise since R.B.J. Walker's Inside/Outside, it is still enjoyable when authors embrace this interplay between domestic and international actors with ease and attention. He makes it clear that the Tanzimat cannot be understood as a movement if one does not understand that it came from a deeply rooted perspective in the Ottoman ruling classes that 'modernization,' military and otherwise, was an existential imperative.
In conclusion, Hanioğlu's book is a great contribution to the study of the late Ottoman Empire. The focus on political and diplomatic history is clear, frank, and extremely well-structured. I could understand that some may find it lacking in social and cultural aspects — even with fascinating excerpts such as the lists of valuables of the deceased and the comparative analyses of these belongings in different periods of the Empire — but the portrayal of the challenges that the Empire faced during its final years was phenomenal.
In the times that we live in, I think Hanioğlu's emphasis on history not being railroaded or predetermined in any way is valuable. It is a good reminder that history is shaped by the present — nothing is inevitable.
July 23, 2018
The book doesn’t claim to be comprehensive yet it is an admirable effort that covers the history of the vast Ottoman Empire from 1798 to 1918. It achieves what it aims to be. If you want a solid introduction to the late Ottoman period, this is the best you can find.
However, I have several problems with it:
First, I understand that the author had to be selective to make it brief. But he had paid very uneven attention to different topics. More than two pages are given to a list of the worldly possessions of some Ottoman subjects to show that the population, even the middle classes, led a humble life - in other words, Ottoman society was poor. But a single sentence or paragraph would suffice to give the same information. After all, this is a brief history. Moreover, there is poem quoted that takes a whole page to show that Ottoman intellectuals were very impressed by Western ideas and even wrote poems about it. Again, four-five lines would be enough to give the same idea.
On the other hand, the author dedicates a single paragraph to the events of 1915 which were devastating to the Armenian population of the empire.
Despite the fact that the reign of Abdulhamid II was long (between 1876 and 1908) and his rule transformed the empire radically in certain respects, the author bestows relatively little space to the events of his reign. Armenian revolts of the 1890s are noted only briefly. Abdulhamid’s Hamidiye Corps aren’t mentioned at all.
The work suffers from being pro-Turkish and compromises objectivity. The events of 1915, which Armenians believe is genocide, are named as deportation. Not even a forced mass deportation but just deportation as if Armenians were illegal immigrants, not people living in their own country. I wanted to read a work that was as objective as possible, not a defense of Ottoman officials.
During the 19th and most of the 20th centuries, the Ottomans were shown in bad light. The Orientalist bias against the Ottoman state is ubiquitous in the works of the period (both academic and other). In the last few decades, historians have started to pay more attention to the Ottoman side of the story, and have developed a better picture of the time. However, I observe that this time they are stressing more the similarities between Ottomans and the European histories and downplaying the differences.
Hanioglu believes that the Ottomans were European. “There was no getting around the fact that the Ottoman Empire was European,” he writes in the conclusion. Well, he has a point. It covered most of southwestern Europe. But at the same time, it covered a larger part of Asia, so it could also be called Asian. The author’s overemphasis reflects his desire to see his country as part of Europe. There is nothing wrong with that, Georgia wants to be Europe too. Even today’s Armenia, although completely in Asia, would prefer to be European. In the last three centuries (mostly Western) Europe had shaped the entire world. It would help Turkish and Armenian nationalist sentiments to feel better if they believe that somewhat they are part of that past.
The book also suffers from the theoretical explain-it-all tendency of its author. Hanioglu stresses a lot the “struggle between center and periphery” in the Ottomans. This center-periphery distinction fails to frame anything meaningful in the sense that just simple down-to-earth words would do the exact same job: the capital was very weak and as a result, other regions didn’t always listen to its orders and even successfully challenged it. The same thing happened to many weakened empires in many parts of the world and scholars didn’t need that mysterious and rigid “center-periphery” dichotomy as a theoretical tool to express what was happening.
However, I have several problems with it:
First, I understand that the author had to be selective to make it brief. But he had paid very uneven attention to different topics. More than two pages are given to a list of the worldly possessions of some Ottoman subjects to show that the population, even the middle classes, led a humble life - in other words, Ottoman society was poor. But a single sentence or paragraph would suffice to give the same information. After all, this is a brief history. Moreover, there is poem quoted that takes a whole page to show that Ottoman intellectuals were very impressed by Western ideas and even wrote poems about it. Again, four-five lines would be enough to give the same idea.
On the other hand, the author dedicates a single paragraph to the events of 1915 which were devastating to the Armenian population of the empire.
Despite the fact that the reign of Abdulhamid II was long (between 1876 and 1908) and his rule transformed the empire radically in certain respects, the author bestows relatively little space to the events of his reign. Armenian revolts of the 1890s are noted only briefly. Abdulhamid’s Hamidiye Corps aren’t mentioned at all.
The work suffers from being pro-Turkish and compromises objectivity. The events of 1915, which Armenians believe is genocide, are named as deportation. Not even a forced mass deportation but just deportation as if Armenians were illegal immigrants, not people living in their own country. I wanted to read a work that was as objective as possible, not a defense of Ottoman officials.
During the 19th and most of the 20th centuries, the Ottomans were shown in bad light. The Orientalist bias against the Ottoman state is ubiquitous in the works of the period (both academic and other). In the last few decades, historians have started to pay more attention to the Ottoman side of the story, and have developed a better picture of the time. However, I observe that this time they are stressing more the similarities between Ottomans and the European histories and downplaying the differences.
Hanioglu believes that the Ottomans were European. “There was no getting around the fact that the Ottoman Empire was European,” he writes in the conclusion. Well, he has a point. It covered most of southwestern Europe. But at the same time, it covered a larger part of Asia, so it could also be called Asian. The author’s overemphasis reflects his desire to see his country as part of Europe. There is nothing wrong with that, Georgia wants to be Europe too. Even today’s Armenia, although completely in Asia, would prefer to be European. In the last three centuries (mostly Western) Europe had shaped the entire world. It would help Turkish and Armenian nationalist sentiments to feel better if they believe that somewhat they are part of that past.
The book also suffers from the theoretical explain-it-all tendency of its author. Hanioglu stresses a lot the “struggle between center and periphery” in the Ottomans. This center-periphery distinction fails to frame anything meaningful in the sense that just simple down-to-earth words would do the exact same job: the capital was very weak and as a result, other regions didn’t always listen to its orders and even successfully challenged it. The same thing happened to many weakened empires in many parts of the world and scholars didn’t need that mysterious and rigid “center-periphery” dichotomy as a theoretical tool to express what was happening.
March 12, 2025
Compellingly argues that the Tanzimat, the Hamidian era, and second constitutional era were characterized by greater continuity than rupture. Logic of statecraft in a declining and increasingly penetrated, decentralized empire outweighed ideological proclivities
Read
September 28, 2015None of the other synthetic histories of the late Ottoman Empire are as brief or succinctly worded as this one.
March 26, 2024
Aku baca edisi terjemahan buku ini yang berjudul Detik-Detik Akhir Kerajaan Utsmaniah yang diterbitkan oleh IBDE.
Sebagai peminat 'sisi-sisi gelap' dan sejarah Tanzimat Uthmaniah, buku ini bagi satu kepuasan diri membacanya. Pengetahuan bagaimana Tanzimat (Pembaharuan) yang dilakukan, siapa yang terlibat dan perjalanan ia bermula dan berakhir sedikit sebanyak bertambah.
Tanzimat telah melahirkan 2 kumpulan utama yang memberi kesan kepada dasar Uthmaniah terhadap pembaharuan dan kemodenan, iaitu:
1) Kumpulan yang inginkan kemodenan tapi menjadikan Islam sebagai teras dan panduan Uthmaniah.
2) Kumpulan yang sepenuhnya memeluk kemodenan termasuk perkara baik dan buruk yang mereka lihat di Eropah.
Pelbagai cabaran telah dihadapi oleh Uthmaniah untuk menjadi sebuah kerajaan dan empayar yang kuat lewat abad ke-18 sehingga 20. Pelbagai pembaharuan cuba dilakukan akan tetapi beban yang ditanggung mereka telah membantutkan usaha selain menghadapi masalah lain seperti ancaman kerajaan luar, ancaman dalaman yang berakar dari faham 'Nasionalisme' hingga mencetuskan siri Perang Kemerdekaan dan sebagainya.
Apakah tiada tindak balas ulama terhadap faham dari Barat yang masuk ke Uthmaniah? aku fikir ada dan tidaklah terhad dan sebatas al-Afghani, al-Kawakibi, Khairuddin al-Tunisi dan sebagainya. Mungkin kita boleh cuba cari penulisan lain, yang menceritakan secara umum tindak balas intelektual Islam jika ada agar kita lebih adil dalam melihat dan menghakimi zaman ini.
Bagi pembaca dan mabuk romantis dengan cerita Sultan Abdul Hamid II, buku ini sesuai untuk dibaca bagi mengubati 'mabuk' itu. Bacalah ia dengan dada yang lapang.
Sebagai peminat 'sisi-sisi gelap' dan sejarah Tanzimat Uthmaniah, buku ini bagi satu kepuasan diri membacanya. Pengetahuan bagaimana Tanzimat (Pembaharuan) yang dilakukan, siapa yang terlibat dan perjalanan ia bermula dan berakhir sedikit sebanyak bertambah.
Tanzimat telah melahirkan 2 kumpulan utama yang memberi kesan kepada dasar Uthmaniah terhadap pembaharuan dan kemodenan, iaitu:
1) Kumpulan yang inginkan kemodenan tapi menjadikan Islam sebagai teras dan panduan Uthmaniah.
2) Kumpulan yang sepenuhnya memeluk kemodenan termasuk perkara baik dan buruk yang mereka lihat di Eropah.
Pelbagai cabaran telah dihadapi oleh Uthmaniah untuk menjadi sebuah kerajaan dan empayar yang kuat lewat abad ke-18 sehingga 20. Pelbagai pembaharuan cuba dilakukan akan tetapi beban yang ditanggung mereka telah membantutkan usaha selain menghadapi masalah lain seperti ancaman kerajaan luar, ancaman dalaman yang berakar dari faham 'Nasionalisme' hingga mencetuskan siri Perang Kemerdekaan dan sebagainya.
Apakah tiada tindak balas ulama terhadap faham dari Barat yang masuk ke Uthmaniah? aku fikir ada dan tidaklah terhad dan sebatas al-Afghani, al-Kawakibi, Khairuddin al-Tunisi dan sebagainya. Mungkin kita boleh cuba cari penulisan lain, yang menceritakan secara umum tindak balas intelektual Islam jika ada agar kita lebih adil dalam melihat dan menghakimi zaman ini.
Bagi pembaca dan mabuk romantis dengan cerita Sultan Abdul Hamid II, buku ini sesuai untuk dibaca bagi mengubati 'mabuk' itu. Bacalah ia dengan dada yang lapang.
September 4, 2020
Very happy to finally finish this textbook for what I’m now realizing was probably my favourite history class (or at least among my favourites for sure). It’s really made me realize there is a lot more to learn, especially related modern Turkish history. One of my main takeaways is that those of us from the Balkans really need to learn to care more about Ottoman history, and stop treating it as a black hole in our own histories or that it’s somehow shameful to learn about. Related to this is my realization, through reading this book, that the Balkans/Rumelia was key to Ottoman history. Absolutely key. It was not an add-on or anything like that, and it was absolutely crucial to the success of the entire empire. As a final note, then, I would argue that this notion goes both ways (they were critical to our histories just as we were to theirs).
There are some points I think the author could have elaborated, for sure. I was also just not too impressed about how he did not say much of anything related to what would end up being the Armenian Genocide. I know it’s controversial in Turkish historiography, but to me it seems strange he didn’t mention it (especially since by contrast my professor dedicated most of the last class to discussion about it).
Anyway, I’m really tempted to reread my final essay for that class (which was also my final essay of undergrad). I wonder if finishing the textbook on time would’ve changed what I’d written (but I don’t really think so).
There are some points I think the author could have elaborated, for sure. I was also just not too impressed about how he did not say much of anything related to what would end up being the Armenian Genocide. I know it’s controversial in Turkish historiography, but to me it seems strange he didn’t mention it (especially since by contrast my professor dedicated most of the last class to discussion about it).
Anyway, I’m really tempted to reread my final essay for that class (which was also my final essay of undergrad). I wonder if finishing the textbook on time would’ve changed what I’d written (but I don’t really think so).
April 5, 2024
Well written political history
A huge improvement over the Orientalist account I read 30 years ago, Hanioglu nonetheless relies heavily on the reader having a clear understanding of Ottoman institutions before s/he even opens the book. Had I not visited the region and read novels and travel accounts set in the region, I am not sure I could have maintained my motivation to finish the book, which is very heavily focused on politics in Istanbul. The claim that he fails to adequately deal with the expulsion of Armenians is unfair. His focus is on the structural reasons underlying the Ottoman Empire's failure to survive, not the fate of its many minority groups. He does discuss the structural reasons. why the Armenians fared worse than others. I don't think we can expect a scholar dependent on access to archives in Turkey to use the word genocide. He is very critical of the CUP. This is no whitewash.
A huge improvement over the Orientalist account I read 30 years ago, Hanioglu nonetheless relies heavily on the reader having a clear understanding of Ottoman institutions before s/he even opens the book. Had I not visited the region and read novels and travel accounts set in the region, I am not sure I could have maintained my motivation to finish the book, which is very heavily focused on politics in Istanbul. The claim that he fails to adequately deal with the expulsion of Armenians is unfair. His focus is on the structural reasons underlying the Ottoman Empire's failure to survive, not the fate of its many minority groups. He does discuss the structural reasons. why the Armenians fared worse than others. I don't think we can expect a scholar dependent on access to archives in Turkey to use the word genocide. He is very critical of the CUP. This is no whitewash.
June 3, 2020
For those keen to have a readable summary of the history of the last two hundred years of the Ottoman Empire, this should probably not be your first choice. It is deeply researched including dense citing of census and other records and broad in its scope but a little dull. It is clearly been written by an academic for a primarily academic audience and its structure allows dives into culture, economics, politics, foreign policy etc. However, as it cycles through such topics for each significant period of 18th and 19th centuries, it become a slow slog through too many listed facts. Am not sure if written first in English or Turkish, but the language is also prone to be pompous too often. The Ottoman Empire is probably the most under-explored of all the great empires and deserves a readable modern history for the every man reader.
March 8, 2019
There are a few things the book explains very well like the centralization efforts of the Ottoman States, but there are also a lot of things that are overlooked.
One particular think I really disliked was how no agency is given to the Ottoman administration. They are treated as utilitarian robots.
One particular think I really disliked was how no agency is given to the Ottoman administration. They are treated as utilitarian robots.
April 22, 2025
Un testo fondamentale per chi deve scrivere articoli o paper accademici sull’Impero Ottomano (della fine). Ricco di dettagli e analisi approfondite, è ideale per un approccio rigoroso e specialistico. Se invece si cerca una lettura introduttiva o divulgativa, è preferibile orientarsi su altro.
June 1, 2020
Largely the view from Istanbul with a focus on governance and administration. Good overview of the period with a useful bibliography (most references in Turkish)
February 23, 2022
Probably the most readable introduction to the topic. A great way to get into the topic
May 17, 2022
A bit of a slow read but it did a good job of filling in a large blank spot in my knowledge of late 18th, 19th and early 20th century history.
February 7, 2024
I tried multiple times to pick this book up over the years. But eventually felt it was a history meant for people really interesting in this topic and ended up being dry for me.
April 16, 2024
History is a continuum
January 10, 2025
Learned a lot of new words, particularly those to do with the Islamic world. Added depth to my understanding of an empire glossed over in my history studies as the "Sick Old Man of Europe".
Nice to read a history book cover to cover rather than 'gutting' it for the purposes of a summative essay.
Quotes:
-> 'it was not the internal dynamics of the empire but the new international order brought about by the Great War that sounded the death knell of the "Sick Old Man of Europe"'
-> Reform: 'Once cosmetic alteration had failed to yield substantial results, a more radical response became inescapable'
-> Rose Chamber Edict and the Tanzimat Era (1839-76): shift towards greater secularisation
-> 'Local resistance to the centre's determined attempts to penetrate the periphery accentuated the fragmentation of identity throughout the empire'
-> Suez Canal opened in 1869: 'greatly enhanced the strategic importance of the Red Sea Coast'
-> 'tensions and contradictions' [love that phrase.]
-> "Many impossibilities have become possibilities"; "The foundations of old knowledge have collapsed"
-> 1912 elections: "The Elections with the Stick"
-> 'a subservient sultan, empowered to act on [the CUP's] behalf, could be of great use in maintaining the facade of a constitutional monarchy'
-> The CUP, aware of 'the symbolic power of the notion of the people', sought to project 'the appearance of popular sovereignty'
-> WWI: 'at one point, the British had 880,300 men fighting the Ottomans, or 24% of the British armed forces'
-> 'The final institutional remnant of empire, the Caliphate, was abolished in 1924'
-> 'effective taxation was not commensurate with the rule of local notables'
-> 'The contradiction between strategic aims and moral rhetoric reflected the familiar tension between the demands of realpolitik and the pressure of public opinion'
-> 'the Ottoman state was in the middle of a predatory struggle for power on three continents': 'too rich (in strategic and economic terms) and too weak (in military terms) for its predators to leave it in peace'
-> 'the Ottomans ultimately failed to address the contradictions of a polyethnic empire in the age of nationalism'
Nice to read a history book cover to cover rather than 'gutting' it for the purposes of a summative essay.
Quotes:
-> 'it was not the internal dynamics of the empire but the new international order brought about by the Great War that sounded the death knell of the "Sick Old Man of Europe"'
-> Reform: 'Once cosmetic alteration had failed to yield substantial results, a more radical response became inescapable'
-> Rose Chamber Edict and the Tanzimat Era (1839-76): shift towards greater secularisation
-> 'Local resistance to the centre's determined attempts to penetrate the periphery accentuated the fragmentation of identity throughout the empire'
-> Suez Canal opened in 1869: 'greatly enhanced the strategic importance of the Red Sea Coast'
-> 'tensions and contradictions' [love that phrase.]
-> "Many impossibilities have become possibilities"; "The foundations of old knowledge have collapsed"
-> 1912 elections: "The Elections with the Stick"
-> 'a subservient sultan, empowered to act on [the CUP's] behalf, could be of great use in maintaining the facade of a constitutional monarchy'
-> The CUP, aware of 'the symbolic power of the notion of the people', sought to project 'the appearance of popular sovereignty'
-> WWI: 'at one point, the British had 880,300 men fighting the Ottomans, or 24% of the British armed forces'
-> 'The final institutional remnant of empire, the Caliphate, was abolished in 1924'
-> 'effective taxation was not commensurate with the rule of local notables'
-> 'The contradiction between strategic aims and moral rhetoric reflected the familiar tension between the demands of realpolitik and the pressure of public opinion'
-> 'the Ottoman state was in the middle of a predatory struggle for power on three continents': 'too rich (in strategic and economic terms) and too weak (in military terms) for its predators to leave it in peace'
-> 'the Ottomans ultimately failed to address the contradictions of a polyethnic empire in the age of nationalism'
September 1, 2012
Useful complement to Quataert's book.
Read
February 11, 2013great
Want to read
October 17, 2017i wan tto read it
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews