Empires (Comparisons) Flashcards
What is the general historiographical consensus about empire?
That empire is not just about the subordination of one social formation by another, it is about governance and dominance
What techniques are there a general historiographical consensus that empire is about and should be considered?
Administrative techniques and expansive techniques
What do Burbank and Cooper contrast empires with?
Nation states
According to Burbank and Cooper, how are empires different to nation states?
They are all about distinction, hierarchy, difference and “otherness” - the politics of difference
What are the three key stages we need to consider when it comes to empire?
How they expand
How they are stabilised
How they decline
What are the three things key to consider when think about systems of power?
Military
Economy
Elites
What are the four things key to considering cultures of power?
Symbolic display
Knowledge
Belief
Discourse
What are the three things key to considering disparities of power?
Hierarchies
Resistance
Resources
What did informal imperialism rely on, suggesting empires are not just about territorial or political dominance?
Links created by trade, investment and diplomacy
What does empires being extractive mean for their motivations?
They are motivated by extracting resources from the colonies
What could empire and imperial expansion be the by-product of?
Rivalry between nations
What is the historical significance of the concepts and tropes of empire?
They are largely Western and were used by and created by imperial powers to aid expansion and maintenance of empire and compete with each other
What is the historical significance of the fact most empires have been built upon or modelled upon predecessors or previous empires?
There are likely many common characteristics and this explains things about nature of imperialism
What historical value is derived from comparing the Ottoman Empire with the British/French?
It allows us to move away from the western-centred explanations for imperial decline prevalent in colonial historiography and avoids othering of Eastern empires
Why is it historically relevant to study the Ottoman Empire in the late 18th, 19th and 20th centuries in its decline?
Because it allows us to consider expansion, maintenance, and decline
Why is it historically relevant to consider the French Empire in the Middle East in the 19th and 20th century?
Because similar geographical area, and also empires build off each other, and rivalry with British
Why were the military defeats of the Ottoman Empire in the late 18th and 19th century historically relevant?
This led to the Tanzimat reforms
What led to the imperial collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the 20th century? (4)
The Young Turks Revolution, the alliance with Germany, European involvement and Tanzimat reforms
What did the Ottoman rulers reject in their short term policy?
They rejected the idea of developing territory and investing in it for gain at some time in the future
What did the Ottoman short term policy mean for imperial subjects?
Land and peoples were exploited to the point of exhaustion and then more or less abandoned in favour of new ground
What did the Ottoman short term policy mean for the Empire?
That it relied on continuous expansion for stability, and that if it did not grow, it was likely to collapse
What began the Ottomans’ succession of military defeats in the late 18th and early 19th centuries?
The defeat at the Battle of Lepanto (1751) where they lost almost their entire navy
What was the comprehensive process of reform and modernisation initiated by the Ottomans known as?
The Tanzimat
What did Tanzimat do to the Ottoman state over the course of the 19th century?
It became increasingly powerful and rationalised, exercising a greater degree of influence over its population than in any previous era