Differences between Imperia Russia and the Ottoman Empire in the 1800s?

Shaheen · Sep 11, 2012

Throughout the 1800s we see a rise of Russian power in Eastern Europe (intervention by Russian troops in 1848 Austrian revolution, conquest of eastern Poland and of course the victory in the Russo-Turkish wars), in contrast the Ottoman Empire was now famously known as the "Sick Man of Europe" suffering immense losses in the Balkans.

However the socio-economic structure of both the Empires seems the same. Both were predominantly agricultural societies with little industrialization. Both were absolute Monarchies with some limited reforms in the 1800s. Both had numerous ethnic minorities who were increasingly becoming more nationalistic. Why was it then that the power of Imperial Russia grew whilst the Ottomans decreased when both were "backward" empires?

M.S. Islam · Sep 11, 2012

The Ottoman economy crumbled under the loan (and its interest payments) from European banks, it amounted in 1875 at £200,000,000, with annual interest and amortization payments of £12,000,000, more than half the national revenue.

The Ottoman public debt was a term which dated back to 4 August 1854,[1] when the Ottoman Empire first entered into loan contracts with its European creditors shortly after the beginning of the Crimean War.[2] The Empire entered into subsequent loans, partly to finance railway construction and partly to finance deficits between revenues and the lavish expenditure of the Imperial court. Some financial commentators have noted that the terms of these loans were exceptionally favourable to the French and British banks which facilitated them, whereas others have noted that the terms reflected the imperial administration's willingness to constantly refinance its debts.[3]
The Empire defaulted on its loan repayments in 1875. In 1881, as part of the Decree of Muharrem which reduced the overall public debt, the Ottoman Public Debt Administration was established. This made the European creditors bondholders, and assigned rights to collect various tax and customs revenues of the Empire to the Administration.

Size

Ottoman Empire

In 1875 the nominal public debt was £200,000,000, with annual interest and amortization payments of £12,000,000, more than half the national revenue.

In December 1881, the debt was reduced from £191,000,000 to £106,000,000 with the government's concessions to the OPDA.

Source: Ottoman public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lucius Vorenus · Sep 11, 2012

You've forgotten one important fact I'm afraid; Russia was 'responsible' for the fall of Napoleon, and therefore, during the first half of the century enjoyed relative support of the West, while at the same time Ottoman Empire was on the verge of falling apart with active rebellions in Serbia, Bosnia, Greece and Egypt. I think that not only debt, but also conservative dogma made Ottoman Empire so weak.

M.S. Islam · Sep 11, 2012

Lucius Vorenus said:
You've forgotten one important fact I'm afraid; Russia was 'responsible' for the fall of Napoleon, and therefore, during the first half of the century enjoyed relative support of the West, while at the same time Ottoman Empire was on the verge of falling apart with active rebellions in Serbia, Bosnia, Greece and Egypt. I think that not only debt, but also conservative dogma made Ottoman Empire so weak.

Rebellion occurs when the center becomes weak. The center inevitably becomes weak when economy crumbles. The Ottoman economy was being crippled by the actions of the Galata banks for sometime. The foreign loans were to counteract those Galata banks' loans, who themselves were drawing from those same European banks, ironically.

So, IMO, it was European banks who were ultimately responsible for the collapse of the Ottoman empire.

Lucius Vorenus · Sep 11, 2012

M.S. Islam said:
Rebellion occurs when the center becomes weak. The center inevitably becomes weak when economy crumbles. The Ottoman economy was being crippled by the actions of the Galata banks for sometime. The foreign loans were to counteract those Galata banks' loans, who themselves were drawing from those same European banks, ironically.

So, IMO, it was European banks who were ultimately responsible for the collapse of the Ottoman empire.

I disagree again. Ottoman Empire was weak much before XIX century. During the Candian war with Venice, it showed all weaknesses, also during the second siege of Vienna. Inability to make structural reforms(like supression of yanissaries and spahy system) and very rigid dogma, which couldn't support and assimilate other religions and nations(primarily in Balkans) are the main reasons of Ottoman weaknesses. So, blaming banks for everything is not quite OK. If there was enough controlled, state policy based on planned assimilation af ALL religions in state interest( I mean politically), the economy itself would be much more efficient.

In my oppinion, rigid, pro-islamic dogma which separated Muslims from all other religions is the main reason of decline of Ottoman Empire. If there was unique, political, strong propaganda, based on state interest(not on religion and separation) that would make all citizens of Empire equal, Ottoman Empire would last much longer!

Shaheen · Sep 11, 2012

M.S. Islam said:
The Ottoman economy crumbled under the loan (and its interest payments) from European banks, it amounted in 1875 at £200,000,000, with annual interest and amortization payments of £12,000,000, more than half the national revenue.

That is a staggering figure especially in the 1800s. So Russia was financially more stable? Maybe this could have been fixed if the Ottomans exploited their territories as badly as the Russians did in e.g. Ukraine. Ukrainian grain made up a significant portion of Russian exports as i remember from my history class, but the people suffered immensely from Russian rule.

Lucius Vorenus said:
In my oppinion, rigid, pro-islamic dogma which separated Muslims from all other religions is the main reason of decline of Ottoman Empire. If there was unique, political, strong propaganda, based on state interest(not on religion and separation) that would make all citizens of Empire equal, Ottoman Empire would last much longer!

But then again the Tsars were the champions of Orthodoxy. They saw themselves as the successors to the Byzantines and a major reason for their interference in the Balkans was the religious links. However they ruled over a significant Muslim population (Tatarstan, Crimea, Caucases etc.), over whom they were able to maintain their rule.

Lucius Vorenus · Sep 11, 2012

Shaheen said:
That is a staggering figure especially in the 1800s. So Russia was financially more stable? Maybe this could have been fixed if the Ottomans exploited their territories as badly as the Russians did in e.g. Ukraine. Ukrainian grain made up a significant portion of Russian exports as i remember from my history class, but the people suffered immensely from Russian rule.

But then again the Tsars were the champions of Orthodoxy. They saw themselves as the successors to the Byzantines and a major reason for their interference in the Balkans was the religious links. However they ruled over a significant Muslim population (Tatarstan, Crimea, Caucases etc.), over whom they were able to maintain their rule.

Yes, that is indeed correct, but population of Russia was not even nearly mixed as it was in Ottoman Empire. However, Russian court had significant number of experts from various western countries, so there was much more western(modern) influence in Russia than in Ottoman Empire. Also, Russia was an Empire with better organized army, so they could fight against rebelled muslims(for instance on Kavkaz). Also what is important to take into account is that in XIX century Russia, church and state were divided, so church magnates couldn't affect on the state affairs so much like it was a case in Ottoman Empire. My point is that in Ottoman Empire there was never clear state policy that would unify mixed population to fight for the same goals. Muslims were always citizens of the first class, and that was in my opinion main reason for declination of Ottomans. Maybe in Russia that was the same case, but there was enough flexibility in ruling to fight relatively successfull wars on the south and at the same time to preserve the country from big rebellion movements.

Salve!

Gnaeus · Sep 11, 2012

Shaheen said:
Both were absolute Monarchies...

Not after 1909. Sorry for the nitpicking.

Belloc · Sep 11, 2012

One was a major power, and for time the predominant power on Europe. The other was the "sick man of Europe".

Shaheen · Sep 12, 2012

Lucius Vorenus said:
Yes, that is indeed correct, but population of Russia was not even nearly mixed as it was in Ottoman Empire. However, Russian court had significant number of experts from various western countries, so there was much more western(modern) influence in Russia than in Ottoman Empire. Also, Russia was an Empire with better organized army, so they could fight against rebelled muslims(for instance on Kavkaz). Also what is important to take into account is that in XIX century Russia, church and state were divided, so church magnates couldn't affect on the state affairs so much like it was a case in Ottoman Empire. My point is that in Ottoman Empire there was never clear state policy that would unify mixed population to fight for the same goals. Muslims were always citizens of the first class, and that was in my opinion main reason for declination of Ottomans. Maybe in Russia that was the same case, but there was enough flexibility in ruling to fight relatively successfull wars on the south and at the same time to preserve the country from big rebellion movements.

Salve!

I will agree that the Russian military was better organized though the Nizam e Jedid reforms of the Ottomans also created a standing organized army along Western lines. Still the Russians had the edge in this i agree.
Regarding religious policies I dont think I would agree unless you can show otherwise. For example several of the Muslim noble families of Tatarstan and of other Turkic descent (Yasupovs e.g.) converted to Christianity in order to become accepted into Russian high society. Can you name any Muslims in positions of power in Tsarist Russia (generals, ministers etc.)? There definitely does seem to be a bias in Russian policy towards Orthodox Christianity.

Gnaeus said:
Not after 1909. Sorry for the nitpicking.

I was referring to the 1800s as the thread title shows

Darth Roach · Sep 12, 2012

Belloc said:
One was a major power, and for time the predominant power on Europe. The other was the "sick man of Europe".

And the thread is about why it was so.

Belloc · Sep 12, 2012

Darth Roach said:
And the thread is about why it was so.

Several reasons I suppose. I would think the Ottomans' defeat at the hands of the Russians in the 18th century set the stage rather well. Russia since Peter the Great was determined to be a major power on par with the West, and that meant having access to both the Baltic and the Black Sea. By contrast it seems Ottoman power was declining since their defeat at Vienna.

Lucius Vorenus · Sep 12, 2012

Shaheen said:
I will agree that the Russian military was better organized though the Nizam e Jedid reforms of the Ottomans also created a standing organized army along Western lines. Still the Russians had the edge in this i agree.
Regarding religious policies I dont think I would agree unless you can show otherwise. For example several of the Muslim noble families of Tatarstan and of other Turkic descent (Yasupovs e.g.) converted to Christianity in order to become accepted into Russian high society. Can you name any Muslims in positions of power in Tsarist Russia (generals, ministers etc.)? There definitely does seem to be a bias in Russian policy towards Orthodox Christianity.

Well, I agree with that, orthodox Christianity was always priviledged religion in Russian Empire, but they showed much more tolerance toward western ideas than Ottomans. Also I'm talking about unified territories, inhabited by muslim population, so Russians always knew where to intensify their military presence. There was little mixing between muslims and orthodox, and Russians cunningly used divide et impera politics to divide muslim leaders in their southern provinces. There was no muslim leaders on important positions, but that could not endanger the whole state, since Russians mostly sucessfully suppressed all rebellion of muslims in their state, while in Ottoman Empire even muslim leaders rebelled against central government(like Ali in Egypt or Hussein in Bosnia).
However,in Russia, muslims always lived on compact regions, on the edge of the Empire(mostly in southern part) and even if there was muslim cities deeper, they were minority. Also, muslims had no support in their fights for independence, so they fought their wars alone, while in Ottoman Empire(even in Anadolia) there was always mix of population, and Ottoman islamic rulers simply couldn't unify all population in terms of unique, general and universal state policy, that would made all citizens to work for the state and not for their independence.

Shaheen · Sep 13, 2012

Yes that makes sense. Muslim populations in Russia are in specific areas whilst in the Ottoman Empire the Christian population were spread all around, even uptill a hundred years ago Thrace and Anatolia had a significant Greek-Armenian population. Stability back home meant the Russians could focus more abroad. So the reasons thus far:

. Ottomans in deep financial crises.
. Russian army better equipped and organized (along Prussian lines i believe).
. Less instability back home due to the core areas of the Russian Empire being Slavic and Orthodox. Ottoman Empire was much more diverse even at its heart in Anatolia.

Lucius Vorenus · Sep 14, 2012

That's it Shaheen

Search

Search

Differences between Imperia Russia and the Ottoman Empire in the 1800s?

Shaheen

M.S. Islam

Lucius Vorenus

M.S. Islam

Lucius Vorenus

Shaheen

Lucius Vorenus

Gnaeus

Belloc

Shaheen

Darth Roach

Belloc

Lucius Vorenus

Shaheen

Lucius Vorenus

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions