Abstract

Although his period of reign, 1808-1839 (31 years), was very long, Mahmud II was one of the most ignored Sultans of the nineteenth century. His diplomatic abilities in particular are never taken into account when scholars examine the fevered diplomatic developments between 1831 and 1840; called ‘The Eastern Question’ by western historians. One of the main reasons for this ignorance is prejudice and preconceived ideas in the western scholar’s mind. According to the general attitude of these historians, Mahmud and his statesmen were passive actors in the process, and did almost nothing apart from watch the diplomatic developments in their territories unfold. Such a view, infused as it is with ‘Orientalist’, represents the attitudes of the European statesmen of the time and in the absence of the view from the Turkish side of the hill, has tended to hold the field. Furthermore, it could be revealed that the cause of this biased point of view is repudiation of the Eastern World with views based only on their own western sources. These issues continue to be discussed under the umbrella of Orientalism, a concept originated by Edward Said. However, this has been conducted as a cultural history centred debate and therefore it seems that it might be useful to provide diplomatic examples in order to make some contribution to the Orientalism debate. In this context, although this article is not a theoretical study, it will attempt to convey the essence of the diplomatic struggle story of Mahmud and his diplomats in the years of 1834 and 1835.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call