What Influenced the Success of Reforms in the XIII. Century?

Towards the end of the eighteenth century, the Ottoman Empire was on the verge of a significant change. Besides the weakening of the military and increasing territorial losses, the Ottoman Empire was also in danger due to its cosmopolitan structure. With the effects of the French revolution, the demands of the people, whose feelings of nationalism were surging, increased for autonomy or independence. Internal chaos and external chaos were on the rise. Therefore, in order to regain the dominance of the sixteenth century and strengthen the state some reform movements were undertaken. Marc David Baer in his work The Ottomans and Stanford J. Shaw in his work Between Old and New have touched on the process of reforms of this period. Shaw conveys his ideas about these reform movements by emphasizing just Selim III and trying to detect what is the reason for the failure of Sultan Selim. He claims that besides the fiscal and political troubles of the reaya during Selim’s period, Selim’s weak personality was a primary factor to deviate from the aim of reforms. After a while, political inability increased since each person in different positions misused the goodwill of Selim for their benefit. Therefore, the reforms could not be succeeded in renewing the state. Shaw also mentions about Selim that becoming disinterested in reforms and falling for the pleasures of his palace caused the Ottoman Empire to accomplish little. On the other hand, Baer inspects this period until the reign of Sultan Abdülaziz from Selim III. He tried to make a comparison between the Sultans of the Ottoman Empire in the process of reforms. According to Baer, the elites of the Ottoman Empire should set a balance that strengthened their traditions by adapting the innovations of Europe to avoid collapse. This could be successful with reforms. They inevitably faced some reactions to these reform movements and at this point, Baer claims that these reactions are a reason for the inability to break away from religion. Because Selim's reforms were not welcomed and his abdication was due to the obstacles placed by Sheikhulislam with the support of the Janissaries. Baer also examines the period of Mahmud II and explains the reasons for Mahmud's success in reforms. In this paper, I will examine the success of the reforms in the Ottoman Empire in terms of religion and personality traits. The most prominent thing that has attracted my attention in these readings is the different approaches of different historians to the reforms of the Ottoman Empire. For example, Shaw sees Selim's failures in reforms as a weak personality, while Baer attributes this to the religious concerns of the Ottoman Empire. I think at some point they are both right, Selim's well-intentioned approaches may have been effective in abusing this intention of the reformers. However, it cannot be ignored that Selim opened the first permanent Ottoman embassies, gave French military training to the army, and was inspired by scientific developments in Europe. That is why I think it is unacceptable that the Janissaries dethroned Selim using religion to escape their own impending end. Nevertheless, the use of religion in general in state affairs did not surprise me very much. I think this is the best way to govern the people in a state that mainly covers the Islamic religion, even though it includes various religions. In addition, at the beginning of the book, Selim's following in the footsteps of young Osman made me think and worried because it was a very risky task to challenge such an important and long-existing community as the Janissaries. And it is remarkable, as I thought, that they were both slaughtered in the same way and had similar fates. At this point, we may need to look at the massacre of the Janissaries mentioned by Baer and referred to as Mahmut's Vakai-i Hayriye from a positive point of view. This decision explains why Mahmud was more successful in reforms. I think the other reason for the difference in the success of the reforms is personality traits. As Shaw said, Selim's soft personality was an obstacle to the success of the reforms. For example, the fact that he closed himself in his palace after defeats and showed no interest in reforms did not seem to me to be a behavior that the sultan should exhibit. This leads to an already unsafe environment feeling even more unsafe. Unlike Selim, Mahmut did not even avoid things that could be considered wrong with the understanding that every path to success is possible. Such as the massacre of Janissaries by making them rebel with a plan, and listening to the public through espionage in areas open to society, especially in coffee houses. Such actions, in my opinion, are an indication that Mahmud is definite and very determined on this path. As a final example, I would like to give an incident quoted by Baer. We understand that during the time of Selim, sheikhulislam had enough authority to interfere with the sultan. However, Mahmut, when sheikhulislam did not think the same as him, could oppose him and even dismiss sheikhulislam. Here, as a result, we can say that the influence of religion on governance has decreased a little, and I think it has changed with these personality traits and determination on this path. I am not sure how true it is that religion has separated from the state over time, but I believe that the success of the reforms has benefited from this.