Western Education in Ottoman Turkey

Introduction

The Ottoman Empire, by virtue of its geographical and cultural position, was situated within a vast basin of civilizations. Following the early Islamic period, it absorbed influences from the Seljuks, Byzantines, and other civilizations, ultimately synthesizing its own unique cultural and educational model. The Nizamiyya madrasas, established during the Seljuk era under the influence of Nizam al-Mulk as a counter to Fatimid institutions, appear to have significantly shaped the Ottoman madrasa system (Özaydın, 2012).

In the earliest days of Islam, educational institutions such as the Prophet’s Mosque and the Suffa served as foundational spaces for learning and intellectual development. Over time, mosques and masjids functioned as centers of knowledge dissemination. With Nizam al-Mulk’s reforms, education became more systematized, and this structure endured for centuries. Individual initiatives also played a role—one notable example being the House of Wisdom (Bayt al-Hikma), established by Abbasid Caliph al-Ma'mun (Bozkurt, 2003).

The first Ottoman madrasa was founded in İznik in 1331. Subsequently, madrasas were established in every newly conquered region, gradually evolving into a more structured system (İpşirli, 2003). The Fatih and Süleymaniye madrasas represent the pinnacle of this architectural and educational tradition. However, in the Empire’s later period, particularly as territorial losses mounted, systemic decline became evident. Much like the human body, deterioration in one area of the state inevitably affected others. It is important to note that the Ottoman Empire remained largely self-sufficient until its final decades. Yet, its proximity to Europe and the intensifying competition with industrialized European powers foreshadowed a period of crisis. The destruction of the Ottoman fleet at Navarino marked a turning point, signaling the shift from concerns about imperial unity to fears of fragmentation.

Despite its self-sufficiency, the Ottoman Empire faced a formidable adversary in industrialized, capitalist Europe. The Ottoman economy, rooted in agriculture and protectionism, aimed to provide affordable and quality goods to its populace. However, this system faltered in the face of global capitalism. Many scholars have noted the Empire’s lag in technology and education, though exceptions exist. For instance, the late Ottoman period witnessed significant achievements in music, indicating that decline was not uniform across all domains.

The initial response to decline was military reform. The first notable work in this regard was al-Kafi’s treatise, Usūl al-Ḥikam fī Niẓām al-ʿĀlam, which highlighted the dire state of the Ottoman military (Ölmez, 2017). This sparked a wave of reform proposals, culminating in military modernization efforts under Osman II, Selim III, and Mahmud II. These reforms eventually extended to the educational sphere.

Western Education in Ottoman Turkey: A Review of Roderic Davison’s Analysis

Davison argues that by the 16th century, the madrasa system had lost its vitality, producing few scholars or intellectuals beyond isolated cases (Davison, 2011, p. 667). As a result, Western education began to permeate the Empire. According to Davison, “By the end of the 18th century, Western education began to trickle in, and by the early 20th century, it had developed into a flood. The entire Ottoman Empire was affected, with Egypt and the Balkans experiencing the deepest impact.”

Davison identifies six primary channels through which Western education entered the Ottoman realm:

1. Intellectuals such as Ahmet Vefik Pasha, Ali Pasha, Münif Pasha, and Ziya Gökalp, who actively engaged with Western thought.
2. Foreign missionary schools.
3. State-sponsored secular schools at all levels.
4. Students sent abroad for education.
5. The competitive influence of non-Muslim schools on Muslim communities.
6. Specialized higher education institutions established by the Ottoman state (Ölmez, 2017).

The first group—Western-oriented intellectuals—played a pivotal role in shaping educational reform. Their familiarity with European systems enabled them to advocate for selective adoption of Western models. These figures not only initiated institutional reforms but also influenced public opinion through their writings and ideas.

The second group comprised missionary schools. Davison notes that prior to World War I, the Empire hosted 500 French Catholic schools, 675 American schools, and 178 British schools (Davison, 2011, p. 669). However, he cautions that the sheer number of schools did not necessarily reflect high Turkish enrollment. In fact, Turkish students largely avoided these institutions for an extended period (Davison, 2011, p. 670).

The third and fourth channels involved state-sponsored schools and students studying abroad, respectively. The fifth channel refers to the indirect influence of non-Muslim schools, which spurred Muslim communities to improve their own educational standards. The sixth and most impactful channel, according to Davison, was the establishment of specialized higher education institutions (Davison, 2011, p. 673). These schools produced a new elite and contributed to the emergence of the “mektepli-medreseli” divide, particularly evident in the military as the “mektepli-alaylı” distinction.

In a speech delivered at a mosque in 1845, Sultan Abdülmecid emphasized the need to combat ignorance. Following this declaration, concrete steps were taken, including the establishment of the Ministry of Education and the dispatch of Kemal Efendi to Europe to study educational systems. These efforts bore fruit over time, with notable changes in primary education emerging by 1870. The 1869 education law further accelerated Westernization by introducing a hierarchical structure to the educational system (Davison, 2011, pp. 675–677).

Conclusion

Davison’s analysis of Western education in Ottoman Turkey is structured around six foundational pillars. He not only outlines the mechanisms of educational transformation but also addresses the challenges encountered during this process. Covering the period from the late 18th century to World War I, the article offers a concise yet insightful overview of a complex historical trajectory.

Given the breadth of the topic and the limited scope of the article (approximately 15 pages), Davison’s treatment remains general. Nonetheless, the language is accessible, and the translation by Mehmet Seyitdanoğlu is commendable for its clarity and fidelity. The work maintains historical coherence and provides a valuable entry point into the study of educational reform in the late Ottoman period.

References

Davison, R. (2011). Osmanlı Türkiye’sinde Batılı eğitim. In H. İnalcık & M. Seyitdanoğlu (Eds.), Tanzimat: Değişim sürecinde Osmanlı İmparatorluğu (pp. 667–677). Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları.

İpşirli, M. (2003). Medrese (Osmanlı dönemi). In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 28, pp. 327–333).

Ölmez, A. (2017). Alaylılar ve mektepliler. İz Yayıncılık.

Özaydın, A. (2012). Nizamiye medreseleri. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 33, p. 188).

Bozkurt, N. (2003). Medrese. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 28, p. 324).

Translated by copilot

Ozan Dur

Türkiye Based Middle East Researcher