Abdul Hamid II a success or failure?

He's a controversial figure indeed. I would like to know what users here think of this Sultan whether he was good or not as accounts on him vary greatly.

Originally posted by aslanlar There was also the Ottoman constitution of 1876 (although it only lasted for 15 months).

@Mughaal. I had read the h20 thing from Peter Balakians "The Burning Tigris" and the source presented is Robert Kaplan, The Nothing That Is: A Natural History of Zero (Oxford University Press, 2000), 190. Knowing Balakian though, it may be dubious. Does anyone know on the certainty of that? Also, despite a grosly inflated figure for the hamidian massacres, the death of tens of thousands of armenians has to be called a massacre, even if it did start with armenian movements, the extent of Abdul Hamid's 'purges' (which is how i look at it) was too severe.

 

@Byzantine Emporer. Hmm, i guess you're right, but maybe more reform may have been implimented after San Stefano/Berlin.

 

@kafkas. At what moment are you talking about with Muslim antagonism against Armenians? I would think there was hardly any resentment most Armenians untill 1890 at atleast 85 when the revolutionary parties popped up. The Ottomans were enemies of Russia for the past century, not Russia + Armenians. Can you back up this claim?
Also, where did you find out he was Armenian? That's very interesting.

@Mods. I understand with the nature of this topic, there will be some discussions to the 'start' of the Armenian "Genocide" and i am well-aware that this is a blacklisted topic. Hopefully, the involvement of the 94-96 era can remain strictly within the boundaries and this can remain an on-topic discussion without being closed. Thank you.

From what I have heard the reason he suspended the constitution was because of the fear the Young Turks power.

This is an article I stumbled across some weeks ago about Abdul Hamid
http://www.thewhitepath.com/archives/2005/12/what_would_the_caliph_do.php

Al Jassas. To what extent did Abdul HamidII save the empire? It seems highly unlikely that Britain or France would allow Russia to conquer Istanbul. Even with the large gains of Russia, the effort was simply seen as a failure. What are your views of the Sultans imput into the war?

He may have been successful in maintaining the empire, but it came at the cost of antagonizing an increasingly antagonized subject peoples. His rule was brutal and despotic, his idealism was pan-Islamic at a time of increased nationalism. Overall, I say he was one of the figures responsible for build up of tension. Had he been more compromising perhaps he would not have fallen victim to the revolutions later on. Yea, he was successful in prolonging the death of an empire that was far too far gone, at the expense of those within it.

Edited by Bulldog - 08-May-2008 at 18:39

Ok, well not so much religious fanatic but devoted to the cause of Islam i guess. Yes i know the basic jist of San Stefano, but not really how AbdulHamid used it for his gains. So you are saying he was a pollitically able character?

Originally posted by aslanlar @kafkas. At what moment are you talking about with Muslim antagonism against Armenians? I would think there was hardly any resentment most Armenians untill 1890 at atleast 85 when the revolutionary parties popped up. The Ottomans were enemies of Russia for the past century, not Russia + Armenians. Can you back up this claim? Also, where did you find out he was Armenian? That's very interesting.

Abdul Hamid II had an Armenian mother, it's not a secret.  Other than his characteristic physical features, the ethnic origins of Sultans are all very well documented by both Ottoman and Western sources.

It's not true that there wasn't any resentment against Armenians until 1890, there actually was a lot. Maybe western, balkan, and middle eastern Muslims didn't care, but for Muslims living in the Caucasus it was an absolute nightmare. You should read on "muhajirism" which refers to the mass exodus of millions of Circassian, Abkhaz, Ossetian, Ingush, Chechen, Lezgin, Karapapak, Karachay, Chvneburni, Laz, Ubykh, Adjarian, and Tatar people from the Caucasus to the Ottoman Empire. And that's just the Caucasus, I'm not even mentioning the Crimea. Armenians being Orthodox were very pro-Russian and participated with Russians in these policies, so the anti-Armenian sentiment on the eastern Anatolian front which took in a lot of these refugees was really high. Entire ethnic groups were not only deported but killed off in their native lands. The Ubykh language and people for example as a result of these policies are extinct. So I don't think AHII could have controlled a lot of the fighting there unless he was ready to have a lot of his own troops killed in the cross-fire, like I said that region at the time was hell. Most Western sources aren't concerned with people getting killed unless it's their own kind, so there's much more info on this topic in Turkic and Caucasian languages.


Edited by kafkas - 08-May-2008 at 20:24

@Seko. While i have previously wanted a discussion of the armenian "genocide", this topic is strictly concerned with Abdul Hamid II and the hamidian massacres are a part of his reign. The Adana massacres or the period of "genocide" shall not need to be discussed. I even specifically noted that turning this thread into a debate of the armenian "genocide was not my intention and i don't appreciate you insinuating that i will. Nevertheless, there is no problem in continuing the discussion here. However, with this new subforum, would the creation of an Armenian "Genocide" thread be possible as that would be interesting too?