Центр и Элиты Периферий в Габсбургской, Российской и Османской Империях (1700–1918 гг.)
Authors: Каппелер Андреас 
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Andreas Kappeler’s article addresses the problem of comparative studies of the relations between the elites of the metropole and the periphery in the Habsburg, Russian, and Ottoman Empires. Kappeler tackles four distinct blocs of problems: the ruling elites of the center, the center’s relationship with the peripheral elites, the attitude to the spiritual elites, and the role of the economic diasporic elites. Kappeler distinguishes between the pre-modern ( Vormoderne ) and modern periods in the history of empires, treating each bloc in its historical specificity.

According to Kappeler, in the first, pre-modern period (1700–1842), the elites of the Habsburg and Russian empire consisted of hereditary landowning nobility with diverse national and geographical origins. This nobility was supplemented with newcomers who achieved noble status through service. In the Ottoman Empire, the elites were shaped by the devshirme practice, which recruited Christian boys from its European territories into the empire’s military and bureaucratic apparatus. This elite lacked regional basis and was entirely dependent on the Sultan. Only the ulema , the group of Islamic scholars, had some independence from the power of the monarch. In the course of the eighteenth century the decline of the devshirme system led to diversification of the Ottoman ruling elite, with Islam and written Ottoman Turkish providing a degree of cultural homogeneity.

Addressing the problem of the relationship between the center and the peripheral elites in the pre-modern period, Kappeler suggests that in the early stages imperial centers deported and annihilated peripheral elites of the conquered territories (e.g., Hungary, Transylvania, Novgorod). As to the cooptation and incorporation that was usually practiced in later stages, Kappeler lists the following strategies of incorporation: indirect domination; guarantees of estate and regional rights and cooperation; political and administrative control with preservation of the local domination by native elites; and preservation of the elites distinct from the imperial elite and yet retaining a distance from the masses of the native population. During the pre-modern period, in all three empires the imperial governments pursued policies of cooperation with confessional leaders despite the presence of a dominant imperial confession. Similarly, all three empires utilized the services of economic diasporas, such as the Greek, Armenian, and Jewish.

As the processes of modernization transformed, in unique ways, each of the three empires, the relationships between the center and the peripheral elites acquired specific dynamics in each particular case. In the Ottoman Empire the gradual integration of the core provinces of the empire was paralleled by the growth of separatism on the periphery. In the Habsburg Empire the Kingdom of Hungary was the central problem, as the granted Magyar noble and bureaucratic domination increasingly alienated other nationalities in the Empire. In the Russian Empire, the imperial government resorted to policies of relative homogenization and partially returned to cooperation with regional elites only after the Revolution of 1905.

In conclusion, the author suggests that the three contitnental empires were based on a large degree of cooperation between the center and the peripheral elites. This cooperation turned the Habsburg and the Russian empires into stable states. Without reminiscing about empires, which deprived their subjects of freedoms and rights, the author questions the determinist master-narrative of “decline and dissolution” of empires.