Self Strengthening Movement Case Study

Words: 512
Pages: 3

Chrystal Badour
Montana Robbins
3rd hour

What issues was each set of reforms meant to address? Both the Tanzimat reforms and the self strengthening movement of China were meant to address many things. The Tanzimat reforms sought to centralize and rationalize ottoman rule and capture more tax revenues for the military defense of the empire. The self strengthening movement of China attempted to adapt western institutions and military innovations to Chinese needs.

What reforms were actually a part of policies? The abolition so slavery was one of the Tanzimat reforms that succeeded in; like many other. Also the first Railroads abided with succession. The self strengthening movement of China was not part of the policies because the self strengthening movement didn't succeed because the whole dynasty itself failed. Also nothing from the movement was successful, making it a failure.

How was each reform successful in accomplishing their designed tasks? The
…show more content…
The Tanzimat reforms and China's self strengthening movement didn't have a lot in common. They were limited modernizations carried out from above with moderate success. The Tanzimat reforms and China's self strengthening movement had kind of the same goal. The self strengthening movement wanted to modernize China and the Tanzimat reforms wanted to modernize the Ottoman Empire.

What differences between the reforms? The Tanzimat is very different from self strengthening because the Tanzimat reforms were a success, the self strengthening movement did not succeed. The Chinese believed that the Chinese were better then the "Barbarians" so they brought in westerners to train them in the new technologies. The ottoman statesman realized that the old religious military institutions of the empire were outdated in the modern world. Therefore the biggest factored difference between the reforms was that the Tanzimat succeeded and the self strengtheing movement did