Halloween Costume ideas 2015
MPS
12/01/2011 - 01/01/2012

TWILIGHT OF MAJESTY: AL-ASHRAF QANSUH AL-GHAWRI
SULTAN OF THE FALLEN MAMLUK DYNASTY

By:

Mohammad Fazril Bin Mohd Saleh
International Islamic University Malaysia


INTRODUCTION

Phillip K. Hitti in 1937 typified the opinion of scholars of Arabs contemporary with him about the legacy of the Mamluk:

Mamluk Egypt began its history under proud and triumphant rulers who had cleared Syria of the last vestiges of Frankish dominion and had successfully stood between the Mongols and world power. By the end of the period, however, with its military oligarchy, factions among the dominant caste, debased coinage, high taxation, insecurity of life and property, occasional plague and famine and frequent revolts, both Egypt and its dependency Syria were all but ruined.[1]

Based on Hitti’s statement above, I suggest that he tried to draw the cause of the fallen of Mamluk’s dominion during the end reign of their period especially in Egypt and Levant.

One of the most significant figures during this era was Al-Ashraf Qansuh Al-Ghawri (1501-1516 BC) who was the second last ruler of the dynasty prior to Tuman Bey II. Starting from the era prior to his elevation to the autocracy, a skeletal-brief outline of the life and reign of Al-Ashraf Qansuh Al-Ghawri will be presented throughout this paper. This paper consists of five sub-topics excluding the Introduction: Historical Background: Emergence of Mamluk’s Superiority which an effort of reconstructing briefly the major events happened in Mamluk’s chronicles; Qansuh Al-Ghawri: Twilight of Majesty is the skeletal introductory to Qansuh al-Ghawry that outlined the life of the sultan and what has been done by him during his reign; Ottoman-Safavid Dispute: Intrusion of Mamluk’s Territory tries to give a brief picture of the battle of Chaldiran 1514 between the Ottoman Empire and Safawi Empire of Persia which forced the Mamluk to take certain considerations reluctantly; and finally before the conclusion, the end of Al-Ghawry’s reign indicated by his lose at Marj Dabiq as explained in Lose At Marj Dabiq: The Fall of Mamluk Sultanate.
           

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: EMERGENCE OF MAMLUK’S SUPERIORITY


Mamluk Egypt began its history under proud and triumphant rulers who had cleared Syria of the last vestiges of Frankish dominion and had successfully stood between the Mongols and world power.  Undeniably, Mamluk was a very able, strong, talented group of troops as the has been acknowledged famously beat back the Mongols at the Battle of Ain Jalut (1260 AD) and fought the Crusaders effectively driving them out from the Levant by 1291 AD and officially in 1302 AD ending the era of the Crusades. From the 8th to the 16th century, Mamluks formed the core of most Muslim armies.[2]

According to The Columbia Encyclopaedia Sixth Edition (2008), Mamluk or Mameluke, which literary means slave in Arabic, is a warrior caste dominant in Egypt and influential in the Middle East for over 700 years. Islamic rulers created this warrior caste by collecting non-Muslim slave boys and training them as cavalry soldiers especially loyal to their owner and each other. They converted to Islam in the course of their training.[3]

In the very beginning, Mamluk was a slave who been trained intensively to be a very able soldier. According to Thomas F. Madden, predominantly, most of these Mamluks were Kipchaks.[4] Kipchaks were a Turkic tribal confederation that originating in the Kimek Khanate that conquered large parts of the Eurasian steppe during the Turkic expansion of the 11th to 12th centuries together with the Cumans.[5] Usually historians divided Mamluk history into two periods based on different dynastic lines: the Bahri Mamluks (1250–1382) of Kipchaks Turkic origin from southern Russia, named after the location of their barracks on the Nile (al-bahr, literally "the sea," a name given to this great river), and the Burji Mamluks (1382–1517) of Caucasian Circassian origin, who were quartered in the citadel (al-burj, literally "the tower"). After receiving instruction in Arabic, the fundamentals of Islam, and the art of warfare, slaves in the royal barracks were manumitted and given responsibilities in the Mamluk hierarchy.[6]

Unlike the Mamluk, local non-mamluk warriors were often more loyal to their tribal sheikhs, their families, or nobles than to the sultan or caliph. If a commander conspired against the ruler, it was often not possible to deal with the conspiracy without causing unrest among the nobility. The mamluk slave-troops were strangers of the lowest possible status who could not conspire against the ruler and who could easily be punished if they caused trouble, making them a great military asset. Nonetheless, the untie nature of the Mamluk was also the factor why they were daring to topple down their master in certain conditions. Under Saladin and the Ayyubids of Egypt, the power of the mamluks increased until they claimed the sultanate in 1250, ruling as the Mamluk Sultanate.

The Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt was established in 1250 AD, after the death of al-Muazzam Turanshah, the descendant of Sultan al-Salih Ayyub, which signified the end of Ayyubid Dynasty. From the first significant figure ruled, Izz al-Din Aybak (r. 1250-1257 AD), the Mamluk Sultanate has became great political importance and was long-lived, lasting from the 9th  to the 19th century AD. It lasted under the reign of Tuman Bey II in 1517 after being defeated by the Ottoman forces in the battle of Ridaniya.[7] Culturally, the Mamluk period is known mainly for its achievements in historical writing and in architecture and for an abortive attempt at socio-religious reform. Mamluk historians were prolific chroniclers, biographers, and encyclopaedists; As builders of religious edifices; mosques, schools, monasteries and, above all, tomb, the Mamluks endowed Cairo with some of its most impressive monuments, many of which are still standing; the Mamluk tomb-mosques can be recognized by stone domes whose massiveness is offset by geometrical carvings.[8]


QANSUH AL-GHAWRI: TWILIGHT OF MAJESTY

Al-Ashraf Qansuh al-Ghawri was among the most significant figures in the history of Egypt’s Mamluk. He was the second last sultan, ruled from 1501 to 1516 BC. He was the one who fought Ottoman Empire in the battle of Marj Dabiq in 1516 BC. He died in the battle field. In 1501, he became sultan in the age of over 60 years. He was a strong man and a shrewed ruler. According to Michael Winter, Al-Ghawri’s reign brought stability to Mamluk’s politics after five tumultuous years and four weak sultans, following the stable period of Qaytbay.[9] Meanwhile, Dean Richardson put Al-Ghawri as:

Sixty years old when he became the penultimate Mamluke sultan in 1500, Qansuh al-Ghuri remained vigorous into his seventies, playing polo, writing poetry and discoursing with sufis – not forgetting the traditional pursuits like building, intrigue and arbitrary justice.”[10]


Inevitably, Al-Ghawri was often compared with Al-Ashraf Qaytbay and was found wanting. Ibn Ilyas, who was the most prolific chronicler during that period described; where Qaytbay was considered “majestic, serene, and dignified, correct in decorum, invariably respected, projecting an aura of majesty”, al-Ghawri is described by Ibn Ilyas as an unjust, stingy and greedy despot.[11] However, Michael Winter backing up al-Ghawri:

He was a bon vivant, cultured and talented, but according to Ibn Ilyas, who certainly represents the public opinion of Cairo, “each year of his reign weighed down on the people like thousand years and his defects outweighed his positive traits.” Yet, it must be remembered that al-Ghawri had to face formidable domestic difficulties and foreign threat. He combined caution with originality and imagination and tried to save the empire.[12]

            Before his enthronement, this obscure officer only in passing as a provincial governor who crushed local insurgents and repelled invaders from outside. Al-Ghawri, who took his title from the Ghawr Barracks of Cairo where he was trained, was designated an amir of ten in 1484 BC upon his completion of service in the Ottoman campaign on that year.[13] As Circassian slave, he had served Sultan Al-Ashraf Sayf al-Din Qaytbay; was over forty before he was raised to independence as Emir of ten; and then, rapidly promoted to command of Tarsus, Aleppo and Malatia, he became Emir of a thousand, Chamberlain of the Court, and chief Vizier. During the feuds that erupted the interregnum following Qaytbay’s death, al-Ghawri emerged from the group of contenders for the imperial office.[14] At first he declined the throne; but being pressed by the Emirs, who swore faithful service, he at last consented.[15]

          According to almost all scholars of Mamluk history, Qansuh al-Ghawri exhibited little regard for hallowed traditions, military or religious. Carl. F. Petry illustrates situation during the reign of Qansuh Al-Ghawry: “Burden by irremedial bankruptcy and endemic sedition, he initiated the first steps toward innovation since the architects of the Mamluk system founded the regime during thirteen century”.[16]

Nevertheless, al-Ghawri has tried his best to maintain the stability of his government and administration. He was the innovator, but the ‘reviled’ one.[17] Might be, the condition and situation at his particular period enforces him to act and took some considerations in certain manner, made some people reviled him. The sultanic throne was ascended by Al-Asyraf Tuman Bay after the defeat of him by Ottoman Sultan Selim I at the Battle of Marj Dabiq in 1516 CE.


OTTOMAN-SAFAVID DISPUTE: INTRUSION OF MAMLUK’S TERRITORY


This was the incident which gave the route to the fallen of Mamluk Sultanate. Battle of Chaldiran was the first full battle between the armies of the Ottoman and Safavid Empires occurred in 1514 at Chaldiran, in northwestern Persia. The conflict was caused by a number of factors, including Ottoman persecution of its Qizilbash population in Asia Minor, and expansionist goals of both empires into the others' territory. The Ottoman army, en route to battle the Safavids, arrived at the Plains of Chaldiran in August, 1514. The Safavids attacked the next day, and the ensuing battle had significant consequences for both empires.[18]

The most immediately noticeable factor in the battle was the absolute superiority of the Ottoman army over the Safavids. With many more years - centuries, in fact - of military experience behind them, the Ottomans' 100,000 troops swiftly defeated the Safavids' 40,000. The battle also showcased the effectiveness of new forms of weaponry. The Ottomans, the first Islamic empire to employ artillery in warfare, brought Janissaries armed with muskets, as well as 200 cannons, 100 mortars, and other field artillery to Chaldiran. The Persians, meanwhile, who had no modern weaponry, used the old tactics of cavalry archers. They were soundly defeated. Shah Ismail withdrew his troops after suffering heavy casualties, and the Ottoman Sultan, Selim I, did not pursue him. Selim then marched into Tabriz, the Safavid capital, although his near-mutinous army, who wanted to return home, kept him from staying and taking any more Persian territory.[19]

For The Applied History Research Group of University of Calgary, the outcome at Chaldiran had many consequences. Perhaps most significantly, it established the border between the two empires, which remains the border between Turkey and Iran today. With the establishment of that border, Tabriz became a frontier city, uncomfortably close to the Ottoman enemy. That consideration would be a major factor in the decision to move the Safavid capital to Qazwin, in the mid-16th century and finally to Isfahan, in central Persia, in 1598. Domestically, Ismail's image in the eyes of his followers was also severely damaged by the Safavid defeat at Chaldiran. The Qizilbash believed deeply in the shah's divinity, and they had trouble reconciling the defeat with their previous view of the shah as invincible. Ismail weathered this crisis, however. A more serious loss of faith in the shah would likely have caused the collapse of the empire, which did not happen. Ismail's father and grandfather had both been killed in battle, and he invoked that fact in persuading his people that he was still a capable and divine leader, despite the defeat at Chaldiran. Personally, however, Ismail was devastated by this, his first defeat, and went into virtual mourning. He never again led his troops into battle personally.[20]

By far the most significant factor in the battle was the Ottoman use of artillery. Without it, military historians have asserted that the battle could have gone either way. The Ottomans had used firepower in warfare since they were introduced to the weapons from Europe in the early 15th century. The Persians had used artillery in small battles with local foes, but had never done so on a large scale by the time of Chaldiran in 1514. Still, the Safavids could have matched the Ottoman firepower had they chosen to do so. They opted against it, however, because they believed that the new weaponry was cowardly, and they had faith in the effectiveness of their cavalry. The Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt held similar views, and they were also defeated by Ottoman firepower three years after Chaldiran.[21]


LOSE AT MARJ DABIQ: THE FALL OF MAMLUK SULTANATE

Throughout the 15th century, Mamluk Syria continued to decline, while a new power was growing to the north, that of the Ottoman Turkish sultanate in Asia Minor. Having occupied Constantinople and the Balkans, it began to look southward. The Ottoman Sultan Selim I had just vanquished the Persians at the Battle of Chaldiran in 1514. He then redeployed against the Mamluk, who ruled in Syria and Egypt, in order to complete the Ottoman conquest of the Middle East. The war transformed the Ottoman Empire from a realm at the margin of Islamic lands, mainly located in Anatolia and the Balkans, to a huge Empire encompassing the traditional lands of Islam, including the historical cities of Mecca, Cairo, Damascus and Aleppo. It continued to be ruled however from Constantinople.[22]

The relationship between the Ottomans and the Mamluks had long been adversarial: both states vied for control of the spice trade, and the Ottomans aspired to eventually taking control of the Holy Cities of Islam. An earlier conflict, the Ottoman-Mamluk War (1485-1491) had led to a stalemate. The war consisted of several battles. The Mamluk army was rather traditional, mainly consisting in cavalry using bows and arrows, whereas the Ottoman army, and especially the Janissaries, was quite modern, using arquebus. The Mamluks remained proud in their tradition and tended to disregard the usage of firearms.[23] However, according to Prof. Ataullah Bogdan Kopanski, the Mamluks were upholding the notion that it is forbidden using fire against Muslims, but it is permissible to use fire for the infidels. This might be true as mamluks at that time have had the capability using their special muskets.[24]

In 1516 Sultan Selim I defeated the Mamluks in the Battle of Marj Dabiq and occupied the whole of Syria. The Ottomans first captured the city of Diyarbekir in southeastern Anatolia. The Battle of Marj Dabiq (24 August 1516) was decisive, in which Sultan Qansuh al-Ghawri was killed. Syria fell under the rule of the Ottomans with this single battle. Although parts of Syria enjoyed some local autonomy, the area as a whole remained for 400 years an integral section of the Ottoman Empire. It was divided into provinces, each under a governor.[25]

The collapse of the sultanate fully happened under the reign of the successor of Qansuh al-Ghawri, Tuman Bey II in 1517 after being defeated by the Ottoman forces in the battle of Ridaniya. Ottoman Empire conquered the whole Egypt and Levant until 1798. The conquest of the Mamluk Empire would also open up the territories of Africa to the Ottomans. During the 16th century, Ottoman power would expand further west of Cairo, along the coasts of Northern Africa. The corsair Hayreddin Barbarossa established a base in Algeria, and later accomplished the Conquest of Tunis in 1534. Cairo would remain in Ottoman hands until the 1798 French conquest of Egypt, when Napoleon I claimed to eliminate the Mamluks.[26]


CONCLUSION

            Undeniably, the twilight of majesty: Sultan Al-Asyraf Qansuh Al-Ghawri was a significant figure in the history of Mamluk. He brought the legacy of the Mamluks, even though he was accused to make some inappropriate changes during his reign which drove their empire to decline.

Nonetheless, as been mentioned before in this paper, “al-Ghawri has tried his best to maintain the stability of his government and administration. He was the innovator, but the ‘reviled’ one.[27] Might be, the condition and situation at his particular period enforces him to act and took some considerations in certain manner, made some people reviled him.”

His defeat in the Battle of Marj Dabiq 1516 was the indicator for the fallen of Mamluk empire which has lasted for about 10 centuries. However, the legacy, bravery and spirit of the Mamluks remained and inherited by Muslims throughout the ages.



CITED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Madden, Thomas F. (2005),     Crusades the Illustrated History. 1st ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.


Petry,  Carl F. (1994),         Protectors or Praetorians? The Last Mamluk Sultans amd Egypt’s Waning As A Great Power, New York: State University

__________ . (1998),          The Cambridge History of Egypt Vol. 1, Great Brittain: Cambridge University Press.


Richardson,  Dan (2003).      Rough Guide to Egypt, UK: Rough Guide.


Yalman, Suzan (2000).        "The Art of the Mamluk Period (1250–1517)". In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art




“Al-Ashraf Qansuh Al-Ghawry”, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=461252208

 “Battle of Chāldirān.” (2011). In Encyclopedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/104688/Battle-of-Chaldiran

 “Battle of Chaldiran”, The Islamic World to 1600,  The University of Calgary (1998), The Applied History Research Group, http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/empires/safavid/chaldiran.html

“Cairo” by Andre Raymond p.189 (http:// books.google.com/books?id=tdLALt9AbQQC& pg=PA189)

Firearms: a global history to 1700 by Kenneth Warren Chase (http://books.google.com/ books?id=esnWJkYRCJ4C& pg=PA104)

“Mamluk”, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. (16 December 2011)

"Mamluk", The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2008. Encyclopedia.com. (December 18, 2011). http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Mamluk.html

"Mamlūk." Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2011. Web. 19 Dec. 2011. .

“Syria” (2011). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/578856/Syria




[1] Carl F. Petry (1994), Protectors or Praetorians? The Last Mamluk Sultans amd Egypt’s Waning As A Great Power, New York: State University, p. 1.
[2] “Mamluk”, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. (16 December 2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=465552350
[3] "Mamluk", The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2008. Encyclopedia.com. (December 18, 2011). http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Mamluk.html
[4]Madden, Thomas F. Crusades the Illustrated History. 1st ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan P, 2005. 159
[5]http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=UgwFDQjo754C&pg=PA171&dq=kipchaks+turkic&hl=tr&ei=AHZeTPzBHsq6jAfmls3xAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
[6] Yalman, Suzan. "The Art of the Mamluk Period (1250–1517)". In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/maml/hd_maml.htm (October 2001)
[7] Ibid.
[8] "Mamlūk." Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2011. Web. 19 Dec. 2011. .
[9] Carl F. Petry (1998), The Cambridge History of Egypt Vol. 1, Great Brittain: Cambridge University Press, p. 494.
[10] Dan Richardson (2003), Rough Guide to Egypt, UK: Rough Guide, p. 149.
[11] Carl F. Petry (1998), p. 494.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Carl F. Petry (1994), p. 20.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Al-Ashraf Qansuh Al-Ghawry, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=461252208
[16] Ibid., p. 284.
[17] Ibid., p. 20.
[18] “Battle of Chāldirān.” (2011). In Encyclopedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/104688/Battle-of-Chaldiran
[19] Ibid.
[20] “Battle of Chaldiran”, The Islamic World to 1600,  The University of Calgary (1998), The Applied History Research Group, http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/empires/safavid/chaldiran.html
[21] Ibid.
[22] The Cambridge history of Egypt by M. W. Daly, Carl F. Petry p.498ff (http://books.google.com/ books?id=i0KYzOISv_4C& pg=PA498)
[23] Firearms: a global history to 1700 by Kenneth Warren Chase p.104 (http://books.google.com/ books?id=esnWJkYRCJ4C& pg=PA104)
[24] Prof. Kopanski several times raising this weirdness of mamluks in his lecture. Perhaps, the conflicts happened between Muslim great empire during that time cannot be seen simplistically. Rather, it was complex and complicated.
[25] “Syria” (2011). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/578856/Syria
[26] “Cairo” by Andre Raymond p.189 (http:// books.google.com/books?id=tdLALt9AbQQC& pg=PA189)
[27] Ibid., p. 20.






The Young Turks Period, 1908-1918: A Review

Stanford J. Shaw, Ezel Kural Shaw (2005), “4: Young Turk Period, 1908-1918”, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Vol. 2: Reform, Revolution and Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey, 1808-1975, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 273-334.

Reviewed by:  Mohammad Fazril Bin Mohd Saleh, International Islamic University Malaysia


INTRODUCTION

This era, almost more than any other, has attracted scholars of modern Ottoman history, and it has been studied in such detail that it is difficult to believe that it was too short.”[1]   
       -Stanford J. Shaw, Ezal Kural Shaw

The Young Turks, as been defined by the author, consisting of different groups of liberals under different names, protested against the reign of Sultan Abdulhamit II, the 34th sultan of the Ottoman Empire. They emerged inside and outside the empire and gradually formed a loose coalition which commonly known as the Young Turks. It was the results of their actions that a ‘new, modern, westernized ruling bureaucracy replaced the old Ruling Class, extended its power throughout the empire, and created a highly complex system of government that ruled with an autocracy unmatched in traditional times.’ Besides, in this chapter, Stanford J. Shaw, Professor of History in University of California, along with his wife, Ezel Kural Shaw, associate researcher of the same university, tried to illustrate chronologically the situations happened at that time in the Ottoman Empire which led to major changes in the world political climate, especially in the Muslim world. Yet, their analysis is analytically great with vivid details and deep explanations.

From the period of the Young Turks revolution in July 1908 until the counterrevolution of 13th April 1909 which led to the deposition of Sultan Abdulhamit II in 27th April 1909; to the reign of Committee of Union and Progressive (CUP) until the darkest days of wars including World War I; to the armistice of Mondros Oct 1918 which signified Ottoman’s total surrender until the occupation of the heartland of the empire, Istanbul, formally by the Allied force led by British Admiral Caltrope: all of these events have been covered by the authors with chronological order, illuminated description of the characters, and inter-related between motives and actions that lead to particular incident to be happened. As a conclusion, in this particular chapter, the authors covered the entire major events happened prelude to Young Turks Revolution 1908 until the Allied occupation 1918 in a chronological, analytical, and understandable manner.

PROFILE OF THE MAIN AUTHOR
            Stanford J. Shaw (1930-2006) was an American historian, Professor of Turkish and Judeo-Turkish History at the University of California in Los Angeles.[2] He was born in Minnesota, on 5th May 1930 and died on 16th December 2006 at the age of 76. He received his B.A. at Stanford University in 1951, majoring in British History with a minor in Near Eastern history. He then accomplished his M.A in 1955 studied Middle Eastern history at Princeton University. Afterward, he went to study under Bernard Lewis and Paul Wittek at the SOAS University of London and also at Oxford University.[3] He also had opportunity to study with Shafiq Ghorbal and Adolph Grohmann (University of Cairo), Shaikh Sayyid (Al-Azhar University), Professors Omer Lutfi Barkan, Halil Sahillioglu, and Zeki Velidi Togan (Unversity of Istanbul), also doing research in the Ottoman archives of Egypt at the Citadel in Cairo and Ottoman archive of Istanbul for his Princeton Ph.D which he received its degree in 1958 with dissertation concerning Ottoman rule in Egypt.[4] Shaw’s final post was at Bilkent University as professor of Ottoman and Turkish history from 1999 to 2006. According to a historian, Shelomo Alfassa, “the awards and recognition Professor Shaw received worldwide are too numerous to mention and range from honorary degrees from Harvard University to honorary membership in multiple organizations.”[5] Among his major works on Turkey are “Between Old and New: The Ottoman Empire under Sultan Selim III. 1789-1807” (1971), “History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 2 volumes published by Cambridge University Press (1976–1977) written and a five volume “From Empire to Republic: The Turkish War of National Liberation 1918-1923: a documentary Study” (2000).[6]



SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER

In the context of the ruined political collision between the Young Turks and the Sultan, as they rejected the basic premise of reformation made by Abdulhamit II that true modernization could only be imposed by an elite class from the top. For the Young Turks, physical reforms, even though successful in certain extent, ‘were liable to failure and collapse unless they were accompanied by fundamental political and social reforms. Thus, socio-political reformation was a crucial need for the empire at that particular time, indeed it was inevitable. Reconstruction of administration and political approach, restoration of society, and brilliant ruthless strategy have been made by the leaders of Young Turks during their reign between the ranges of period from the year 1908 to1918.
           
The Young Turk Revolution of 1908 came from the group of the 3rd Army of Macedonia. Many young officers of the corps garrisoned at Salonika, forming the Ottoman Liberty Society in 1906. This secret revolutionary group merged with the CUP in Paris the following year, bringing to the Young Turk ideologists the command of the 3rd Army force that were responsible for advocating the rebels. The rebellion rapidly spread throughout the empire. Unable to rely on government troops, Abdulhamit announced on July 23 the restoration of the 1876 constitution and recalled parliament. The imperial decree has been done in 1st and 3rd August 1908, amending article 113 of the 1876 Constitution which force the Sultan to give up most of his power. The Grand Vezir Kamil Pasha started the reorganization of administration, with full cooperation of the Sultan. The Constitutional Monarchy era of Abdulhamit was indicated by the restoration of Parliament in 17th December 1908, after the general election which witnessed the CUP as the majority in the parliament. They won 287 of 288 deputy seats in election.

The new regime seemed to be unsuccessful as ‘the Parliament simply helped focus attention on the divisions and rivalries that had been momentarily extinguished’. The members of parliament divided into three major fractions: whether to follow CUP or the sultan or to develop an independent policy. The conservative movement who were not happy with the new order started to protest, led by Grand Vezir Kamil Pasha. Meanwhile the modernists responded to it by securing the Assembly vote of no confidence against Kamil Pasha, leading him to resign in favour of CUP man, Huseyin Hilmi who replaced him. The conservatives and Islamicists eventually protested against the replacement of Kamil Pasha. The Society of Islamic Unity, formed by Hafiz Dervis Vehdati led the protest. They intended to replace constitution with syariat and used Islam to rescued and modernize the empire. On 3rd April 1909, the campaign against secularism echoed in Aya Sofya Mosque during the celebration of Prophet Muhammad’s birthday. Led by the Society of Islamic Unity, student of religion, joined by the 1st army of Istanbul and supported by the Liberal Union Group marched to the Parliament building and surrounding it during the night of 12/13 April 1909. The minister of war refused to order the army to disperse the rebels. Grand Vizier Huseyin Hilmi presented his entire’s cabinet resignation to the Sultan and it was accepted as well as all demands of the rebels were also being accepted by the Sultan. Sultan restored his influence by appointing his own men as minister. Ahmet tevfik Pasha was appointed the new Grand Vezir.

Then, CUP eventually restoring order. Under the leadership of the 3rd army commander, Mahmut Sevket Pasa assisted by his chief of staff, Mustafa Kemal tried to rally its supporters around the empire. Operation Army was organized and launched. On 24th April, the Operation Army occupied the capital. Mahmut Sevket declared martial law and offending those found responsible for the counterrevolution of 13th April 1909. The reign of autocratic control of army began, in the name of constitution and democracy. On 27 April, parliament met again as the National Public assembly and deposition of Sultan Abdulhamit was made on the ground of complicity of the counterrevolution and the deaths that resulted. Unlike before that most of the members of CUP in the empire were armies, CUP started to emerge as a civilian political party and propagated its mass-appeal programs. Many new law and regulation promulgated especially in administration and socio-economical aspects. Several articles in the Constitution also been amended. The emergence of several new political parties provides the CUP with opposition.

However, the new regime failed to recover the worse relations among the races in the empire, yet it continued to grow worse. The revolt of Armenian, Greek and Albanian were among the major scene of terrorism occurred inside the empire. In late 1911, the Tripolitanian War happened between Ottoman and Italy as Italy starting the war in September 1911 and declared annexation of Ottoman Tripoli and Bengazi on 4th November 1911. The disastrous war with Italy split CUP members. Grand Vezir Ibrahim Hakki Pasha resigned and the Liberal Union Party won the parliamentary by-election and conquered the Ottoman administration until the coup led by Enver Bey in his famous ‘Raid on the Sublime Porte’ during the First Balkan War. The coup done to avoid government from gave away the sacred city of Edirne to get peace as in the period of two month during the war; Ottoman lost almost all of its territory in Europe. Eventually CUP managed to recapture Edirne and they re-enter the office of Ottoman. Even, during the very crucial time of the sadistic warfare between 1913 until 1918, modernization still becomes the main agenda. Thanks to intellectuals such as Ziya Gokalp and Dr. Abdullah Cevdet who have laid the philosophical body for the notion of reformation which finally able to become a kind of force. For instance, Ziya Gokalp intensively constructing the philosophical outlook of Turkish Nationalism, promoting the idea of freedom and liberty, and promulgating the notion of secularism in the area of education and administration.

            The Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers to form the Triple Alliance with the signing of the August 1914 Turco-German Alliance. Turkey formally entered World War I on 28 October 1914 with the bombing of Russian Black Sea ports. The Allied Powers, declared war on the Ottoman Empire on 4th November. Two major factors led to Ottoman involvement on the side of the Central Powers: German pressure and the opportunism of Turkish minister of war Enver Pasha. In Northern front, Ottoman Armenia was against the Ottoman force by supporting Russia. Thus, in May 1915, Armenian population within Anatolia and North Syria were evacuated in order to get them away from sabotaging Ottoman campaign against the Allied. Nevertheless, Armenians felt that the deaths were the result of Ottoman’s planned policy of genocide against the Armenian. Among the most successive of Ottoman warfare campaign was the victory of Gallipoli War. Iraq, Egypt, Syria and Hijaz (Arab revolt 1916) were among the places which witnessed the involvement of the Ottoman. In Iraq, they managed to form a very able troop known as Yilderim Army and gave huge impact to their domination of warfare. In September 1918, Enver’s army gained victory in the competition in Caucasus. However, British started to attack Istanbul and conquered it. Armistice of Mondros was signed in 27th October 1918, signifying total surrender of the Ottoman Empire. Turks remained divided with groups quarrel among them. However, each of them trying their best to ensure that the empire will gain its independent soon and save the Turks from their oppressors.



CRITIQUE

            As I started reading this chapter, I found it is hard to understand it without knowing the background or prelude to the reign of the Young Turks. Therefore, I decided to read chapter three in order to ensure that I gain vivid picture on what happened before and during the period 1908-1918 with accordance to the author’s view and approach of constructing the historical facts. From the beginning, the authors try to design the importance of the ‘Young Turks Revolution 1908’ as the dividing line between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ Turkey which forming a new political climate of the empire. Unlike certain modern-Turkish sources which strongly emphasize on Mustafa Kemal Pasha as the key for the reformation, the authors illustrate the importance of several significant figures in Young Turks era; Sait Halim Pasha, Talat Pasha, and Enver Pasha whose involvement much more significant rather than Mustafa Kemal Pasha.[7]

The authors describe the Young Turks era as the period which polarized extensively the paradoxical dichotomy ideas between groups which appeared throughout the empire during 19th century: Ottomanism vs. nationalism; liberalism vs. conservatism, Islamism vs. Turkism; democracy vs. autocracy; centralization vs. decentralization.  As been stated in the early lines of the chapter, authors intended to explain deeply their studies on this particular chapter as the period (1908-1918), almost more than any other, manages to attract scholars of modern Ottoman history to conduct detail studies on it.[8] Furthermore, the authors objectively illustrate and interpret the situation happened during the period using relatively simple language. There are also interconnected relation between actions and human motives which driving the man’s conduct and action. For instance, while Enver Pasha without consulting the cabinet and the members of parliament for the empire’s decision to ally with German as well as Central Power and directly involved in World War 1, he justifying the alliance by citing Germany's early victories in the War. Being on the winning side would provide the opportunity to forge a swift victory over neighbouring enemies and avoid the imminent disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.[9] It shows that there was motive beneath every action taken by someone and the reader will follow the chronological flow in their reading without stop a while in order to wonder why that particular event happened so and so.

Perhaps, among the most controversial part in this chapter is about the Armenian Genocide. Shaw, along with his previous teacher of Harvard, Prof. Dr. Bernard Lewis were among the historians who oppose and deny the idea of Armenian Genocide by the Ottoman empire in 1915. Shaw put the controversial claim that the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire had revolted in 1915 against the government and were thus removed from the war zone along the Russian border to avoid any sabotage from them against Ottoman warfare campaign. While majority of historians hold that the deportations was actually an act of systematic and planned genocide, Shaw claims that Ottoman authorities did their utmost to protect the deportees and call the Armenians "the victimizers rather than the victims, the privileged rather than the oppressed, and the fabricators of unfounded tales of massacre."[10] He claimed for no apology of his works and insisted with his writings. He argued: “For too long the Ottomans have been studied without the use of any of their sources, resulting in serious distortion and error. No history of France would be considered methodologically sound and balanced if it were written on the basis of English and Italian observations. At the same time, however, we have made use of a mass of relevant non-Ottoman materials, as is evident in the Bibliography.”[11]

Shaw, as described by UCLA’s G.E. von Grunebaum Centre for Near Eastern Studies, ‘the most prolific Ottoman historians in the United States’, seems to be relatively objective in his writing as he preferred to used the Ottoman sources for a history of the Ottoman Empire. According to The Guardian, he pioneered the use of Ottoman archives in Istanbul while writing numerous books and articles on Ottoman and Turkish History and society.[12] Nevertheless, he faced a lot of criticism, negative reviews, yet accusation of plagiarism with no strong basis. However, he was clearly quoted Richard G. Hovannisian in this chapter, in order to support his argument denying the notion of Armenian genocide. Unfortunately, Hovannisian claimed that Shaw has misinterpreted his work as he accepts Armenian genocide as a fact.[13] In fact, Hovannisian major works are about the topic of Armenian like The Armenian Holocaust, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Armenian Heritage Press (1980) and Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide. Detroit: Wayne State University Press (1998). Eventually, he accused Shaw of misquoting his own works and deliberately ignoring the massive body of evidence supporting the factuality of the genocide. [14]

In conclusion, despite of all the controversies that he faced, Shaw still insisted with his decision and refused to engage with any historical revisionism. Nevertheless, he was very good in describing an event and has proven that his works are among the authoritative in Ottoman modern history in particular.




BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aykut Kansu (1997), The Revolution of 1908 in Turkey, Leiden: Brill.

Bernard Lewis (1968), The Emergence of Modern Turkey, 2nd Edition, Britain: Royal Institute of International Affair.

Fadhlullah Jamil (2000), Islam di Asia Barat Moden: Sejarah Penjajahan dan Pergolakan, KL: Thinker’s Library

Stanford J. Shaw, Ezel Kural Shaw (2005), History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Vol. 2: Reform, Revolution and Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey, 1808-1975, New York: Cambridge University Press




[1] Stanford J. Shaw, Ezel Kural Shaw (2005), “4: Young Turk Period, 1908-1918”, History of The Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Vol. 2: Reform, Revolution and Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey, 1808-1975,  New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 273
[2] “Stanford J. Shaw”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_J._Shaw
[3] “Obituary: Professor Standford J. Shaw, A Personal Appreciation” by Shelomo Alfassa, http://alfassa.com/shaw.html
[4] “Profile of Prof. Stanford J. Shaw” in www.bilkent.edu.tr/~shaw/profile.html
[5]  “Obituary: Professor Standford J. Shaw, A Personal Appreciation” by Shelomo Alfassa, http://alfassa.com/shaw.html
[6] “Stanford J. Shaw”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_J._Shaw
[7] Aykut Kansu (1997), The Revolution of 1908 in Turkey, Leiden: Brill, p. 11
[8] Ibid.
[9] Stanford J. Shaw, Ezel Kural Shaw (2005), pp. 310
[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_J._Shaw#cite_note-Balakian-1
[11] Stanford J. Shaw, Ezel Kural Shaw (2005), p. x
[12] http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/data/author/stanford-j-shaw
[13] Stanford J. Shaw, Ezel Kural Shaw (2005), p. 367
[14] Look also http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/papazian/remembrance.html





9hb Disember 2011
12.00 tengah hari
Perpustakaan UIAM,
Gombak, Selangor

MKRdezign

{facebook#YOUR_SOCIAL_PROFILE_URL} {twitter#YOUR_SOCIAL_PROFILE_URL} {google-plus#YOUR_SOCIAL_PROFILE_URL} {pinterest#YOUR_SOCIAL_PROFILE_URL} {youtube#YOUR_SOCIAL_PROFILE_URL} {instagram#YOUR_SOCIAL_PROFILE_URL}

Borang Maklumat Hubungan

Nama

E-mel *

Mesej *

Copyright � 2011 peminggirkota. Dikuasakan oleh Blogger.
Javascript DisablePlease Enable Javascript To See All Widget