Map Close  
Person info Close  
Information Close  
Source reference Close  
  Svenska
 
Index

Armenia

The Urartu Civilisation

Victory for Independence

Artashisian Dynasty on the Armenian Throne

Armenia caught between Rome and the Arsacids

The Acceptance of Christianity

Defending Christianity

Armenia Under the Bagratouni Dynasty

Cilicia - the New Armenia

Armenia Under Turanian Rule

The Renaissance or the Resurrection of Armenia

The Eastern Question

Russia in the Caucasus

The Armenian Question

Battle on Two Fronts

Tsarist Russia Against the Armenians

The Revolution of the Young Turks and the Armenian People on the Eve of World War I

The First World War

The Resurrection of Armenia

Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918

- Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918

Eastern Armenia

Western Armenia

"The Fateful Years" (1914-1917)

"Hopes and Emotions" (March-October, 1917)

The Bolshevik Revolution and Armenia

Transcaucasia Adrift (November, 1917

Dilemmas (March-April, 1918)

War and Independence (April-May, 1918)

The Republics of Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia

The Suppliants (June-October, 1918)

In conclusion

Soviet Armenia

The Second Independent Republic of Armenia

Epilogue

Previous page Page 218 Next page Smaller font Larger font Print friednly version  
The State of the Ottoman Empire

The Eastern Question arose as the Ottoman Empire continued to disintegrate, alongside the rapid and wide-reaching progress of the western world during the 18th and the 19th centuries. According to Taliran: "the Turks lost their relative strength as all others made progress and moved forward whilst the Turks took not one step forward." 37

The reasons for decay ranged from the lack of competence for organization and leadership on the side of the Turks in their rule of other peoples, to the inherent problem of co-existence itself, with the Greek, Bulgarian, Armenian and Arab populations outweighing the the Turanian people in the same region.

The Ottoman Empire was based on religious faith and the lack of political and social balance between the ‘rightful', in other words, Muslims, and the heathens. The Turks, in their desire to master the other races, followed a policy of oppression of the conquered peoples.

This oppression was not commonplace amongst the Turkish population in general, the majority of whom were peasants in Anatolia, but existed amongst the upper class consisting of military men and government officials, most of whom originated from "turkified" easterners. 38

Christian people living under the Turkish oppression were almost comparable to slaves, with their most primitive rights of life and property constantly threatened by local Muslim lords in the empire. Although Christians had a form of independence regarding internal questions, they were subjected to total oppression in their relations with the government and the Muslim population of the empire.

Despite being the most active and able-bodied constituent of the empire, the Greeks and the Bulgarians in the European provinces and the Armenians and the Greeks in the Asian provinces, Christians constantly found themselves subjects of harassment and insults, and were not entitled to even the most basic rights and securities. 39

Should quarrels and differences occurr between Christians and Muslims, the judge was always a Muslim who judged according to the laws in the Koran and in the name of the caliph. A Christian's testimony against a Muslim was never valid: Muslims were always right and the heathens always guilty. 40

The Christian population of the Ottoman Empire were forced also to endure the attacks of armed Muslim bands, consisting of Turks, Albanians, Cherkeses and Kurds, in the lack of any protection from the Sublime Port against these groups. Initially, the sultan had wielded much more authority over his subjects, and the Christians were more or less beneficiaries of his protection. By the 18th century, however, the sultan's rule was not as before; indeed he was no longer a power factor within the empire. The weaknesses within the Ottoman Empire were so intrinsic during the 18th century that local feudal lords could collect taxes, plunder, rob and do exactly as they pleased with the people under their power without fear of reprobation. According to Burnof, the Ottoman administration rule was based on the personal greed of some, and the corruption and the injustice of others. All laws and fundaments of the government could be summarized in the single word "violence". 41

The shameless oppression and enduring appetite for power and money finally created a prevailing situation of chaos. The English historian Creasy writes: "One must refrain from describing and depicting the power of these local self-ruling lords, who constantly were at war with one other, and sometimes also against the central government, self-rulers who not only committed the most blatant injustices, but also had created a chaos-like situation." 42