You are on page 1of 16

The Emergence of the

Modern Middle East*























*A course ministered by Professor Asher Susser of the University of Tel Aviv, Israel in
partnership with www.coursera.org, with some new elements added by Deijenane
Santos.




Week 01. Class 1.1.

The Middle East in the Modern Era



What is the Middle East?


Al-Shark al Awsat (Arabic); Ortadgu (Turkish); Khavar-
e Miyanech (Persian); Hazmizrach Ha Tichon (Hebrew).



Alfred Thayer Mahan, an American naval historian,
created the term Middle East in 1902. Arab and non-Arab peoples have been
calling the region like that since then.



The term "Middle East" was coined in 1902 by American naval officer Alfred T.
Mahan, who was regarded as an expert in sea power and world affairs. Writing
for London's National Review, Mahan used the new term in calling for the
British to strengthen their naval power in the Persian Gulf. As scholar Roderic
Davison explains, Mahans Middle East "was an indeterminate area guarding a
part of the sea route from Suez to Singapore." The new coinage played off the
terms "Near East" and "Far East," already in use. Source:
http://www.unc.edu/mideast/where/mahan-1902.shtml




Where is the Middle East?




Owl and Mouse 2008: www.yourchildlearns.com


All the Arab countries from Morocco in the West to the countries in
the Gulf. Non-Arab countries: Turkey, Iran and Israel.

Time defined in the region according to the
Gregorian/Western Calendar.


Space The Middle East has been
defined by outsiders, which reminds us of the enormous influence
of foreigners, mainly Europeans in the region.




State Structure:

Europe nation-state X Middle East state-nation


In the Middle East, imperial powers set with local rulers and created states
where there was none before. So, one cannot define Middle East nations as
nation-states, but rather state-nations, once an artificial state was created
before there was any nation in it. Quite the opposite situation when it comes
to European nations. Its reasonable to say that The Middle East borders were
the work of outsiders therefore they are a foreign patch work, which didnt
take into account the local cultural and geographical realities and peoples.

To prove the arbitrary
manner in which the Middle East states were created, rumor has it that the
British State Secretary for Colonies in 1921, Winston Churchill, who later
would become Prime Minister, once said that he created Transjordan, the

current Kingdom of Jordan, with the stroke of pen, one Sunday afternoon in
Cairo. This story is known as Churchills hiccup, once it tells that the reason
why Jordans borders are so erratic, forming a zigzag where it finds Saudi
Arabia border was because before creating the frontiers of the region,
Churchill had exaggerated in the use of alcohol.
(Jacobs, Frank. Winstons Hiccup: Borderlines, New York Times, 2012.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/)

Countries artificially created (state first, nation later)

Jordan (1921)
Syria (1946)
Palestine
Lebanon (1943)
Iraq (1919)

The XIX Century
During the XIX century the Middle East went through some very important
periods of reforms based on the impact of western ideas in the region. One of
these ideas was nationalism, which until this moment, didnt have the same
appeal as it had to the European peoples, once the Middle East peoples
normally identified themselves on the base of religion, being this aspect the
first source of denomination for them.
Until the late 19
th
century and early 20
th
, the Ottoman
Empire had ruled the Middle East for 400 years without much questioning,
with only some movements of contestation in time, but nothing that could
have any impact on the legitimacy of the empire.

Tanzimat (reorganization)-1839-1876
Modernizing and centralizing
From theocracy to secularization
Identities began to emerge in a European style (language, territory, culture).
Islamic Reform It took place during the late part of the XIX century. It was
a synthesis between Western science and Philosophy with Arab religion
(Islamic thinkers tried to unite the West and the East.

1967 Islamic Revival (radical)
State Interest Arabism (nationalism in Western style + Islam).


Week 01. Class 1.2
What is the Modern Era?

Where do we start?
Why do we start where we start?


Modern Era 1798 (Napoleons invasion of Egypt)

With his invasion it started a long period of rapid and radical change.

The problems with the definition of Modern Era beginnings after
Napoleons invasion of Egypt:


It brings a hidden assumption that the Modern Era in the Middle
East was created only and solely through European supremacy
and influence on an area, stagnated, in decline etc.
There is a historical debate about the starting point for the Modern
Era.
According to Benedetto Croce History is always written from the
present perspective, therefore, it is always a contemporary thing. He
says that since the present is always changing, so is History, once it
is written in current times.
The idea of seeing Napoleons invasion of Egypt as the sole impetus
for the modernization and change of the Middle East has been
challenged lately.


The Thesis of Decline

The 16
th
century was the peak of the Empire in the time of sultan
Suleiman, the Magnificent (1494-1566). Since mid-16
th
century, the
Ottoman Empire was in a 350-year linear decline (half of the
empires existence was in this decline).
The Middle East was a stagnant society
It was resurrected only by Western Enlightenment and vitality,
which brought about the modernization of the Middle East.

Contradictions of the Thesis of the Decline

Well after the XVII century, vibrant cities, with centers of government
and courts of law, centers of learning arts and crafts existed in the
Ottoman Empire. There was also trade between the Ottomans and
the West, therefore the empire was not a stagnant, rotten entity.
Although it is true that the empire didnt expand After the Battle of
Vienna in 1683 there was no expansion and the empire kept having
constant territorial retreat, but this was a relative retreat, not a
linear decline, as assumed by the Thesis of the Decline.

If we compare the greatness of the time of sultan Suleiman, the
Magnificent, it is clear that the empire went on decline, but from this,
it not wise to assume that the Ottomans started a total failure.
The Defeat of Vienna: territorial contraction.
On one hand the Ottoman Empire was the sick man of Europe
The term sick man of Europe
started to be applied to the Ottoman Empire from mid-19
th
century
as a way of describing the political weakness of the entity compared
to the power once displayed by it in old times.


The Ottoman Empire enjoyed continued legitimacy, even when
rebellions brought down the ruling sultan, the empire remained
intact until the rise of nationalism in late XIX century.
Until late 1800s, the empire and its legal system were not
questioned. The legal system was seen as fair and reasonable.
European style was introduced in the educational and legal systems
and it had an impact in the collective identity of the peoples living
under the Ottomans.

Difficulties faced by the Ottoman Empire in the 19
th
century

Territorial losses as exemplified by the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt.
Nationalist uprisings in the Balkans (Christians, Serbs, Greeks,
Bulgarians)
Western advance and advantage (science, technology, power
projection).

Arab speaking provinces still dominated by the Ottomans.
From Yemen to Libya: frequent rebellions against ottomans since the
end of the XVI century, a sign of weakness, but the empire survived
these rebellions showing its resilience.
The XVII century was a period of growing decentralization of the
empire with the empowerment of local potentates and social classes.
Was change initiated only by Westerners?
Did Napoleon initiate it?
Did Napoleon interrupt it?
Have changes been already occurring in the Middle East before
Napoleon?
There is no theory, but its possible to reach a balanced conclusion.

The Napoleonic phase was a key to a new period of rapid change, but one that
added a quantum leap forward to an ongoing process. Dror Zevi
1
.

Colonial interaction with its negatives created an unprecedented change in
the Politics, Economy and most importantly in the sphere of ideas, the erosion
of tradition, ideas are more dangerous than occupation.










__________________________________
1
Back to Napoleon? Thoughts on the Beginning of the Modern Era in the Middle East
Dror Ze'evi. This article resurrects an old and well-known problem of periodization:
locating the beginning of the modern period in the Middle East. In the past quarter of
a century or so it has been the focus of a debate that, though seldom articulated or
presented as such, stands at the core of studies of the modern era. Two basic
approaches have been offered. One, often described as Orientalist, has suggested that
the modern period in the Arab Middle East was ushered in by Napoleons invasion in
1798. Those who adopt this approach find a clear correlation between the invasion,
emblematic of 'the impact of the West', and the beginnings of modernization and
progress in a stagnant Middle East. The other, revisionist stance raises serious doubts

about this correlation and suggests other timetables according to which modernity
had its roots in the region itself or in continued interaction with the West before the
arrival of the French revolutionary army. The article suggests a third option which
takes into account new approaches to history that view modernity itself as a set of
historical phenomena created mainly by and through the colonial encounter. Source:
http://www.tau.ac.il/

Week 01. Class 1.3.


The Middle East in the XIX century: the structure of society

Groups: components of society individuals.
Michael Yapp: different groups
Groups based on birth, family, extended family, tribe, religious division
Religion: people in the Middle East define themselves, first and
foremost, by their religious association
Muslim (majority); Orthodox Christians; Jews, Coptic. (In the European
part of the empire the Christian majority was 2 to 1).
Compact Minorities (located in a particular territory): Maronite
Christians in Mount Lebanon, Alawis in North Western Syria, and also
partially in Lebanon (communal identity)
Orthodox Christians (who were not a compact minority) had much
enthusiasm to support Arab nationalism difference in political affiliation
when it comes to minorities.
The Ottomans govern these minorities through their own institutions-
Millet System the subjects of the Ottoman Empire were organized
into well-defined categories on the basis of their religion, each forming a
separate Millet. Allowed to rule themselves according to their own legal
systems. Minorities, autonomous peoples, not all subjects in the
Ottoman Empire were under the same legal authority. Non-Muslims
subjects used pay taxes (jizyah/cizyec-per capta) that Muslims didnt
pay. But, according to historical records, only 1/3 of the citizens
actually paid the tax.
Every community had their legal and educational systems
The community of Muslim had an internal division (sunni-shii)
This division goes back to the 07
th
century and its not about religious
dogma but politics.
It was about who was to become the Caliph after the prophet
Ali (who was the son-in-law of the prophet and supposed to be the 4
th

caliph) faction = Shi at Ali
The Alawis and the Druze are breakaways Shii sects, which emerged in
the 10
th
and 11
th
centuries.
Official Establishment Islam Represented by Sheikh al- Islam (chief
religious authority in the Ottoman Empire).
Popular Islam Sufi orders to which large portions of the Muslim
population belonged.

Social Hierarchy Government (military and bureaucracy); religious
establishment (judges, interpreters of the laws); those outside the
government (merchants, peasants, tribesmen, townsmen, guildsmen,
notables these ones from the provincial parts of the empire serving as
a bridge between the rulers and the ruled)
In the XIX century, Middle East society tax collectors did undergo
major transformation (land owner-town-village this one as a center of
government education and commerce X ignorant peasants part and
parcel of revolutionary politics in the Middle East in the XX century.
The government was more centralized and thus more powerful.
Landowners grew even stronger and tensions between them and the
peasantry grew even greater.
A new educational system (European) was introduced and the impact of
European influence engendered a new group of educated secular people
(a new class) and this group weakened the status of the religious
establishment, though association with religious communities, tribe
and family remained the core organizing principle of society.
The issue of ideas led to the even increased importance of the religious
minorities.

Week 01. Class 1.3.2

The Middle East in the 19
th
century- the Economy

Population the estimation for 19
th
century Middle East total
population was around two million people.
Iran 6 million
Ottoman territories 24 million
Egypt 3.5 million (increased 25 times)
At this time the Middle East was underpopulated.


Beginning of the 19
th
century
Reasons:
European Powers

Wars European Powers; Persians X Ottomans
Famine (Egypt and Iraq were dependents on the flow of the
rivers Nile, Eufrates and Tigris, respectively, then when
there was a low fall of rain they were in serious trouble.)
Disease (1/6 of the Egyptian population died in 1785
because of a plague. Over 300,000 people died in Istanbul
because of the plague in 1812)
Birth Control (mainly abortion)


Demographic Revolution in the 19
th
century

Introduction of Western Medicine
Public Health measures
Better communications and transportation
Increased security
Loss of provinces in Europe= less Christians
From 1912 to 1923,1
st
quarter of the 20
th
century,
there was a demographic disaster 20% of the
Anatolian population died and 10% emigrated (the
were the main land mass of Turkey). These people
died and run away from war and other inflictions.
During the XIX century and the emergence of the
nationalist idea, there was a trend that can be
called the territorialization of identity, under the
impact of European ideas, these religious minorities
sought a territorial identity in the form of a state =
clashes the Armenians
In the wake of WWI, the overpopulated Middle East
already had a problem of lack of food that persists
until this day
Economic terms Britain and France were the
leading commercial powers in the XIX Middle East.

At the end of the XIX century, most of the Middle
East commerce was with Europe and Middle East
export of raw materials and food items went to
Europe.
As a result of their industrial revolution, Europeans
exported to the Middle East finished goods.
Egypt and the Ottoman Empire in huge debt with
European countries and banks, this situation
slower in Iran, much farther away from Europe, far
less in direct contact with Europe.

Week 01. Class 1.3.3

The Middle East in the 19
th
century- the Politics

Michael Yapp- government was diverse and minimum it didnt
recognize the existence of group and not individuals (?). Muslims
followed the Sharia and Christians and Jews followed their laws.
Tribesman had their own modes of settling disputes, foreigners were
gifted some privileges known as the Capitulations rights and
privileges conferred by the Ottoman Empire to merchants.
Taxation was minimal, law and education was not supplied by the
Central Government, but by the various communities (to outside
observers this gave the impression of a decentralized and even
ineffective government in decline).
Albert Hourani- These were actually adaptations in the style of
governance, according to changing circumstances and they were and
remained quite effective. The locus of power shifted from sultan to the
highest echelons of the bureaucracy in the office of the Grand Vizier
(chief minister of the Ottoman Empire).
Provinces were often controlled by local potentates, as was the case
in Egypt and in other parts of the empire. In the Arab cities of the
empire, there were notable families, some Arab, some Turkish that
assumed positions of wealth and power, but because of the importance

of religion, these families sent their children to receive religious
education and to become functionaries in the religious and religious
and legal establishments and gained control of religious endowments,
awqaf (Arabic) which were sources of great wealth and political control.
Boys (not girls) were sent to traditional schools, the Qutb and the
Madrasas where they learned the Quran and religious jurisprudence as
well as math sans astronomy.

Week 01. Class 1.4

The Changing Balance of Power with Europe

Up until the middle of the 18
th
the Ottomans felt equal to
Europe, and before this period, even superior to it.
In the last quarter of the 18
th
century, a dramatic change
took place: the gap in technology, in science, in the military
and in the economy was shifting in favor of the Europeans.
Medicine advances- increased European population.
Modern shipbuilding economic expansion.
Critical Turning Point: the Russian-Ottoman war of 1768-
1774 (the loss of Crimea in 1783), this Russian victory
brought the Russians to the bank of the Black Sea and
from this period on it was no longer an enclosed Ottoman
lake. The victory brought the Russians ever close to the
straits of Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, which lead to the
Mediterranean.
The loss of Crimea didnt only mean the loss of complete
control of the Black Sea, it also meant the first serious loss
of control of Muslim subjects, the symbolic loss of Turkish
control of Muslim peoples. The Ottoman Empire was
supposed to take care of Islam and the Muslims.
The XIX century was the European century

The belief of Islam superiority was challenged after the loss
of Crimea and had to be revised.
Because of that, in the end of the 18
th
century, sultan Selim
III began the first serious efforts at modernizing the
Ottoman Army, before Napoleons arrival in Egypt. The
reforms were done in 1790s.
These reforms began in the military (the vanguard of
Western modernizing reform. Military offices became the
most westernized of the Middle Eastern societies.
Foreign Languages = Foreign Ideas
Napoleons invasion of Egypt, in the summer of 1798 was
the greatest intrusion in Ottoman lands. It showed the
power of Europe.
In the XIX century, people of the Middle East were exposed
to an explosion of European energy there was a
population growth of 50%, from 1800-1850, Britains
population grew from 16 to 27 million people and London
was the largest city on earth with some 2.5 million people.
Between 1815-1850, Britains exports to the countries of
the Eastern Mediterranean increased by 800%
Europes need for raw material meant olive oil from Tunisia,
silk from Lebanon and cotton from Egypt
European merchants were backed by their home countries
Russians supported orthodox Christians: Serbs and
Greeks, French: Catholics and at a later stage Britain tried
to play this minority game by supporting the Jews and the
Zionist idea in Palestine
Europeans were regularly supporting nationalist ideas of
Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire, with
Christians being the first ones to be affected by Western
ideas: they had a great openness to the Christian West.

You might also like