Lec 18 OLD EMPIRES VS.

NEW EMPIRES: THE STRUGGLE FOR SURVIVAL

Societies at Crossroads/Empires at Crossroads
■ The Ottoman Empire, Russia, Habsburgs, China, and Japan
– Common problems
■ Military weakness, vulnerability to foreign threats
■ Internal weakness due to economic problems, financial difficulties, and corruption
– Reform efforts
■ Attempts at political and educational reform and at industrialization
■ Turned to western models
– Different results of reforms
■ Ottoman empire, Russia, Habsburgs and China unsuccessful; societies on the verge of
collapse
■ Reform in Japan was more thorough; Japan emerged as an industrial power
■ For much of recorded history, most people have lived in empires. Until the twentieth century, empire was the
most prevalent and effective way of uniting a variety of peoples and extensive territories under single rule. It
was — until the very recent emergence of regional blocs and global organizations — the only way of
establishing and maintaining political order in the face of cultural, ethnic, social heterogeneity. This unity was
usually imposed by force. We can, therefore, view empire as the rule or control, direct or indirect, political or
economic, of one state, nation or people over similar groups.
■ The life span of empires usually had two distinct if frequently overlapping phases: an initial, relatively brief
phase, characterized by military conquest and a subsequent, extended phase, where the main focus was on
stability, law and order (system maintenance). In general, creating empires was easier than maintaining them.
Military conquests, no matter how impressive, were efforts of short or sporadic duration. While they provided
impetus to empire-building, they never guaranteed the durability of an empire. It was the second, maintenance
phase that demanded long term, consistent, and multi-dimensional success. An empire’s longevity was
testimony to the consistent skill of its rulers in the difficult task of keeping a variety of peoples together.
■ As the modern age progressed, some societies adapted to modernization and dominant European values better
than others.
■ Japan and Europe modernize quickly
■ The Russian, Habsburg empires and China flounder through modernization
■ The Ottomans continue their slide into powerlessness. 
The Ottoman Empire in Decline
■ The nature of decline
– Military decline since the late seventeenth century
■ Ottoman forces behind European armies in strategy, tactics, weaponry, training
■ Janissary corps politically corrupt, undisciplined
■ Provincial governors gained power, private armies
– Extensive territorial losses in nineteenth century
■ Lost Caucasus and central Asia to Russia; western frontiers to Austria; Balkan provinces to
Greece and Serbia
■ Egypt gained autonomy after Napoleon’s failed campaign in 1798
– Egyptian general Muhammad Ali built a powerful, modern army
– Ali's army threatened Ottomans, made Egypt an autonomous province
– Economic difficulties began in seventeenth century
■ Less trade through empire as Europeans shifted to the Atlantic Ocean basin
■ Exported raw materials, imported European manufactured goods
■ Heavily depended on foreign loans, half of the revenues paid to loan interest
■ Foreigners began to administer the debts of the Ottoman state by 1882
– The capitulations: European domination of Ottoman economy
■ Extraterritoriality: Europeans exempt from Ottoman law within the empire
■ Could operate tax-free, levy their own duties in Ottoman ports
■ Deprived empire of desperately needed income
Reform and Reorganization
■ Reform and reorganization
– Attempt to reform military led to violent Janissary revolt (1807-1808)
– Reformer Sultan Mahmud II (1808-1839) became sultan after revolt
■ When Janissaries resisted, Mahmud had them killed; cleared the way for reforms
■ He built an European-style army, academies, schools, roads, and telegraph
– Legal and educational reforms of the Tanzimat (reorganization) era (1839-1876)
■ Ruling class sought sweeping restructuring to strengthen state
 ■ Broad legal reforms, modeled after Napoleon’s civic code
■ State reform of education (1846), free and compulsory primary education (1869)
■ Undermined authority of the ulema, enhanced the state authority
– Opposition to Tanzimat reforms
■ Religious conservatives critical of attack on Islamic law and tradition
■ Legal equality for minorities resented by some, even a few minority leaders
■ Young Ottomans wanted more reform: freedom, autonomy, decentralization
■ High-level bureaucrats wanted more power, checks on the sultan’s power
■ The Young Turk era
– Cycles of reform and repression
■ 1876, coup staged by bureaucrats who demanded a constitutional government
■ New sultan Abdülhamid II (1876-1909) proved an autocrat: suspended constitution, dissolved
parliament, and punished liberals
■ Reformed army and administration: became source of the new opposition
– The Young Turks, after 1889, an active body of opposition
■ Called for universal suffrage, equality, freedom, secularization, women’s rights
■ Forced Abdülhamid to restore constitution, dethroned him (1909)
■ Nationalistic: favored Turkish dominance within empire, led to Arab resistance
■ The empire survived only because of distrust among European powers
■ (le petit journal figure- Declaration of Independence of Bulgaria from the Ottoman Empire:
The End of the Eastern Question)
The Russian Empire under Pressure
■ Military defeat and social reform
– The Crimean War (1853-1856)
■ Nineteenth-century Russia expanded from Manchuria, across Asia to Baltic Sea
■ Sought access to Mediterranean Sea, moved on Balkans controlled by Ottomans
■ European coalition supported Ottomans against Russia in Crimea
■ Crushing defeat forced tsars to take radical steps to modernize army, industry
– Emancipation of serfs in 1861 by Alexander II
■ Serfdom supported landed nobility, an obstacle to economic development
■ Serfs gained right to land, but no political rights; had to pay a redemption tax
■ Emancipation did not increase agricultural production
– Political and legal reforms followed
■ 1864, creation of zemstvos, local assemblies with representatives from all classes
■ A weak system: nobles dominated, tsar held veto power
■ Legal reform more successful: juries, independent judges, professional attorneys
■ Industrialization
– The Witte system: developed by Sergei Witte, minister of finance, 1892-1903
■ Railway construction stimulated other industries; trans-Siberian railway
■ Remodeled the state bank, protected infant industries, secured foreign loans
■ Top-down industrialization effective; steel, coal, and oil industries grew
– Industrial discontent intensified
■ Rapid industrialization fell hardest on working classes
■ Government outlawed unions, strikes; workers increasingly radical
■ Business class supported autocracy, not reform
■ Repression and revolution
– Cycles of protest and repression
■ Peasants landless, no political power, frustrated by lack of meaningful reform
■ Antigovernment protest and revolutionary activity increased in 1870s
■ Intelligentsia advocated socialism and anarchism, recruited in countryside
■ Repression by tsarist authorities: secret police, censorship
■ Russification: sparked ethnic nationalism, attacks on Jews tolerated
– Terrorism emerges as a tool of opposition
■ Alexander II, the reforming tsar, assassinated by a bomb in 1881
■ Nicholas II (1894-1917), more oppressive, conservative ruler
– Russo-Japanese War, 1904-05: Russian expansion to east leads to conflict with Japan
– Revolution of 1905: triggered by costly Russian defeat by Japan
■ Bloody Sunday massacre: unarmed workers shot down by government troops
■ Peasants seized landlords’ property; workers formed soviets
 ■ Tsar forced to accept elected legislature, the Duma; did not end conflict
The Romanov and Habsburg Empires: Some Common Features
■ Imperial Heritage – both Austrian and Russian territorial conglomerates were originally peripheries of other
empires. They tried to trace their genealogies back to Rome, they laid claims to lands by arguing that they
once belonged to empires to which they claimed to be the legitimate successors, they envisaged themselves as
universal monarchies, and they steered clear of narrow, ethnic identification. Finally, they saw their mission in
classical terms: to attain predominance over numerous peoples and vast territories and, in the process, to bring
order and security to these lands.
■ Continental location – both empires consisted of contiguous land masses, They did not extend their rule
overseas like the English, French or Spanish. Because they tended to subjugate their immediate neighbors,
cultural differences, or more accurately difference in levels of development were, generally, not as great
among Habsburgs or Romanovs and their subjects as they were in the case of the colonial metropolises and
their colonies.
■ The turbulent frontier – For both Austria and Russia securing their frontiers was a constant and pressing
problem. Indeed, the attempt to secure their frontiers was one of the major reasons for their expansion. For
centuries, the Habsburgs had to confront the Ottoman threat. And as they slowly pushed the Ottomans back,
the Habsburgs acquired the “liberated” lands of Hungary, Transylvania and Croatia. Only because Vienna
gained these east European lands by right of conquest was it able to impose absolute rule upon them. From the
very outset, Moscow had to struggle for its very survival with the nomads of the steppe. And initially its the
greatest expenses were the maintenance of defense systems against incursions by the Tatars. It was the need to
capture of Tatar base of operation in the Crimea that finally brought Russia to the shores of the Black Sea and
involved it in an extended conflict with the Ottoman empire. A similar threat to the frontier led to Russian
expansion into parts of Siberia, Central Asia and the Caucasus where the Kirghiz and Kalmuks nomads and
Caucasian tribesmen posed a constant threat. Thus, for both Austria and Russia, imperial expansion was, to a
large extent, a function of establishing secure borders.
■ Defenders of Christianity – By pushing back the Tatars and Ottomans, both empires also prevented Islam
from establishing a foothold in eastern Europe and the Balkans. In fact, in both cases the defense of
Christianity was a major theme in their growth. The Habsburgs especially emphasized their role as the
antemurale of Christianity and did their best to strengthen Catholicism in newly acquired lands. Moscow also
stressed its role as defender of Orthodoxy. Religion and empire-building have often been closely related. But
there was a crucial difference in the Austrian and Russian approach to religion when compared to that of the
west European colonial empires. The latter functioned as propagators of Christianity, supporting missionaries
who attempted to convert the colonial peoples. The two east European empire, however, were defenders of
Christianity. Missionary activity was not an important feature of their expansion. And Russia, for the most
part, showed considerable tolerance in the treatment of its Muslim subjects.
■ Struggle with Democracy and Nationalism – Their struggle against the two western ideologies was
important: democracy and nationalism. Throughout the 19th century and until their collapse, the two empires
attempts to contain the social and political impact of these ideologies was the central feature of their history.
Indeed, they were the first empires to confront — and to succumb — to movements awakened by these
political-ideological forces. This is yet another way in which the two empires were similar to each other and
different from other European states: for them democracy and nationalism were mortal threats while for the
west European nation-states (if not their colonial empires) they were a sources of strength.
■ Initiators of the Modernization – In the eastern part of Europe there is a deeply-ingrained tradition of
initiating and introducing change and modernization from above. While there is a variety of reasons for this
tendency, certainly both empires, by the very nature of their centralized decision-making process, did much to
maintain it.
The Romanov and Habsburg Empires: Some Differences
■ The Political/Ideological Context – For a large part of their collective career, the Habsburgs were imperial
rulers more in theory than in practice. For almost five centuries they presided over the Holy Roman Empire.
The Russian empire emerged from a Slavic/Orthodox/ Byzantine/Mongol environment. It was, obviously,
much further removed from European institutions and values than the domains of the Habsburgs.
■ The Physical and social Environment – There were vast differences as to the types of areas into which the
two empires expanded. The Habsburgs operated in a relatively developed setting. Many of their lands were in
the heart of Europe and even those in eastern Europe were not a “different world.” Their subjects were almost
all Christians. When compared to the Russian empire, Habsburg territories were not vast because the
Habsburgs were always surrounded by powerful neighbors. Russia, in contrast, had almost unlimited room for
expansion, especially in the East and southeast where a power vacuum existed.
■ Methods of Expansion – As is well known, The Habsburg acquired many of their land not by conquest by by
judicious marriages or political arrangements. In the Russian case, conquest was the primary means of
expansion. And in cases where Russia the acquisition of new lands such as in Ukraine, Livonia, Georgia
 sooner or later it felt it could ignore the commitments it made to respect local rights and privileges. Therefore,
the tsars had fewer problems in claiming unlimited authority.
■ Rationales for Expansion – The Habsburgs generally used four types of arguments to justify their claims for
territory and authority, especially in eastern Europe. One was based on legality, that is, they claimed that
lands belonged to them as part of a matrimonial agreement. The second type of argument was a moral one
and it emphasized their role as defenders of Christianity against the Ottoman onslaught (Hungary) or of
Catholicism against Protestantism (Bohemia). Political pragmatism characterized the third type of argument,
namely that lands freed from Turks were Vienna’s by right of conquest (Hungary). And the fourth type of
argument rested on Habsburg promises to provide more effective and just government than that which
previously existed in a given land (Poland). Much more characteristic of Russian claims to hegemony were
arguments of a messianic nature. Even inheritance claims had strong element of mission, of moral duty to
restore what had existed before. However, the intermingling of hegemonic tendencies and moral obligation
was most striking in the so-called “Third Rome theory” which emerged in 1400s and argued that Muscovy, as
the bastion of Orthodox holiness, was the true and final successor to the Roman and Byzantine empires.
■ System Maintenance – Given the legal, traditional and practical limits on their authority, the Habsburgs were
often forced to compromise with their subjects. The rulers of Russia, in contrast, were extremely loath to
compromise on their autocratic prerogatives. Unlike the Habsburgs and their policies of Germanization, when
the Russian imperial government introduced Russification in the latter part of the 19 th century, it actually
believed that non-Russian could be turned into Russians.
■ Responses the challenges of modernity – There is an inherent contraction between empire and modernity,
especially in political and ideological terms. Democracy, civil rights, national sovereignty are obviously
incompatible with unlimited rule of emperors. Therefore, that imperial rule would be sorely tested in the
modern period was unavoidable. The essential question was how imperial rulers would respond to these
challenges. It appears that the Habsburg empire was more successful in adapting to modernity. It was closer to
the West, the source of modernization. Modern ideas and techniques seeped in more gradually and evenly.
Modernization in the Russian empire was more rapid, extreme and contradictory. Modernization also created
a much more contradictory situation in Russia than it did in Austria-Hungary. While society modernized, the
political system remained militantly traditionalist.
The Chinese Empire under Siege
■ The Opium War and the unequal treaties: Opium trade a serious threat to Qing dynasty by nineteenth century
– Chinese cohong system restricted foreign merchants to one port city
– China had much to offer, but little demand for European products
– East India Company cultivated opium to exchange for Chinese goods
– About forty thousand chests of opium shipped to China yearly by 1838
■ The Opium War (1839-1842)
– Commissioner Lin Zexu directed to stop opium trade
– British refused; Lin confiscated and destroyed twenty thousand chests of opium
– British retaliated, easily crushed Chinese forces, destroyed Grand Canal
■ Unequal treaties forced trade concessions from Qing dynasty
– Treaty of Nanjing, 1842: Britain gained right to opium trade, most-favored-nation status, Hong Kong,
open trade ports, exemptions from Chinese laws
– Similar unequal treaties made to other western countries and Japan
– By 1900, China lost control of economy, ninety ports to foreign powers
■ The Taiping rebellion
– Internal turmoil in China in the later nineteenth century
■ Population grew by 50 percent; land and food more slowly; poverty strained resources
■ Other problems: official corruption, drug addiction
■ Four major rebellions in 1850s and 1860s; the most dangerous was the Taiping
– The Taiping (Great Peace) program proposed by Hong Xiuquan
■ Called for end of Qing dynasty; resented Manchu rule
■ Radical social change: no private property, footbinding, concubinage
■ Popular in southeast China; seized Nanjing (1853), moved on Beijing
– Taiping defeat by combined Qing and foreign troops
■ Gentry sided with government; regional armies had European weapons
■ Taipings defeated in 1864; the war claimed twenty to thirty million lives
■ Reform frustrated
– The Self-Strengthening Movement (1860-1895)
■ Sought to blend Chinese cultural traditions with European industrial technology
■ Built shipyards, railroads, weapon industries, steel foundries, academies
■ Not enough industry to make a significant change
 ■ Powerful empress dowager Cixi opposed changes
– Spheres of influence eroded Chinese power
■ Foreign powers seized Chinese tribute states of Vietnam, Burma, Korea, Taiwan
■ 1898, they carved China into spheres of economic influence, each a different province
– The hundred-days reforms (1898)
■ Two Confucian scholars advised radical changes in imperial system
■ Young emperor Guangxu inspired to launch wide-range reforms
■ Movement crushed by Cixi and supporters; emperor imprisoned; reformers killed
– The Boxer rebellion (the Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists), 1899-1900
■ Local militia attacked foreigners, Chinese Christians
■ Crushed by European and Japanese troops
■ Collapse of Qing dynasty in 1912
The Transformation of Japan
■ From Tokugawa to Meiji
– Crisis and reform in early nineteenth century
■ Crisis: crop failure, high taxes, rising rice prices all led to protests and rebellions
■ Tokugawa bakufu tried conservative reforms, met with resistance
– Foreign pressure for Japan to reverse long-standing closed door policy
■ 1844 requests by British, French, and United States for the right of entry rebuffed
■ 1853, U.S. Commodore Perry sailed U.S. fleet to Tokyo Bay, demanded entry
■ Japan forced to accept unequal treaties with United States and other western countries
– The end of Tokugawa rule followed these humiliations
■ Widespread opposition to shogun rule, especially in provinces
■ Dissidents rallied around emperor in Kyoto
– The Meiji restoration, 1868
■ After brief civil war, Tokugawa armies defeated by dissident militia
■ The boy emperor Mutsuhito, or Meiji, regained authority
■ End of almost seven centuries of military rule in Japan
■ Meiji reforms
– Meiji government welcomed foreign expertise
■ Fukuzawa Yukichi studied western constitutions and education
■ Ito Hirobumi helped build Japanese constitutional government
– Abolition of the feudal order essential to new government
■ Daimyo and samurai lost status and privileges
■ Districts reorganized to break up old feudal domains
■ New conscript army ended power of samurai; rebelled in 1877 but lost
– Revamping tax system
■ Converted grain taxes to a fixed money tax: more reliable income for state
■ Assessed taxes on potential productivity of arable land
– Constitutional government, the emperor’s “gift” to the people in 1889
■ Emperor remained supreme, limited the rights of the people
■ Less than 5 percent of adult males could vote
■ Legislature, the Diet, was an opportunity for debate and dissent
– Remodeling the economy and infrastructure
■ Transportation: railroads, telegraph, steamships
■ Education: universal primary and secondary; competitive universities
■ Industry: privately owned, government controlled arms industry
■ Zaibatsu: powerful financial cliques
– Costs of economic development borne by Japanese people
■ Land tax cost peasants 40 percent to 50 percent of crop yield, provided 90 percent of state
revenue
■ Peasant uprisings crushed; little done to alleviate suffering
■ Labor movement also crushed; Meiji law treated unions and strikes as criminal
– Japan became an industrial power in a single generation
■ Ended unequal treaties in 1899
■ Defeated China in 1895 and Russia in 1904