Recent from talks
Contribute something
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Eastern question
View on WikipediaIn diplomatic history, the Eastern question was the issue of the political and economic instability in the Ottoman Empire from the late 18th to early 20th centuries and the subsequent strategic competition and political considerations of the European great powers in light of this. Characterized as the "sick man of Europe", the relative weakening of the empire's military strength in the second half of the nineteenth century threatened to undermine the fragile balance of power system largely shaped by the Concert of Europe. The Eastern question encompassed myriad interrelated elements: Ottoman military defeats, Ottoman institutional insolvency, the ongoing Ottoman political and economic modernization programme, the rise of ethno-religious nationalism in its provinces, and Great Power rivalries.[1] In an attempt to triangulate between these various concerns, the historian Leslie Rogne Schumacher has proposed the following definition of the Eastern Question:
The "Eastern Question" refers to the events and the complex set of dynamics related to Europe's experience of and stake in the decline in political, military and economic power and regional significance of the Ottoman Empire from the latter half of the eighteenth century to the formation of modern Turkey in 1923.[2]
The period in which the Eastern Question was internationally prominent is also open to interpretation. While there is no specific date on which the Eastern question began, the Russo-Turkish War of 1828–1829 brought the issue to the attention of the European powers, Russia and Britain in particular. As the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was believed to be imminent, the European powers engaged in a power struggle to safeguard their military, strategic and commercial interests in the Ottoman domains. Imperial Russia stood to benefit from the decline of the Ottoman Empire; on the other hand, Austria-Hungary and United Kingdom deemed the preservation of the Empire to be in their best interests. The Eastern question was put to rest after the First World War, one of the outcomes of which was the collapse and division of the Ottoman holdings.
Background
[edit]
The Eastern question emerged as the power of the Ottoman Empire began to decline during the 18th century. The Ottomans were at the height of their power in 1683, when they lost the Battle of Vienna to the combined forces of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and Austria, under the command of John III Sobieski. Peace was made much later, in 1699, with the Treaty of Karlowitz, which forced the Ottoman Empire to cede many of its Central European possessions, including those portions of Hungary which it had occupied. Its westward expansion arrested, the Ottoman Empire never again posed a serious threat to Austria, which became the dominant power in its region of Europe. The Eastern question did not truly develop until the Russo-Turkish wars of the 18th century.
According to Karl Marx's writings around the Crimean War, the main factor of the Eastern question was Russian imperialism towards Turkey—with Turkey being a barrier that would protect the rest of Europe, and thus Britain's interests laid with the Ottoman Empire during the Crimean War.[3]
Napoleonic era
[edit]
The Napoleonic era (1799–1815) brought some relief to the faltering Ottoman Empire. It distracted Russia from further advances. Napoleon invaded Egypt but his army was trapped there when the British decisively defeated the French fleet at Aboukir Bay. A peace interlude in 1803 allowed the army to return to France.[4]
To secure his own domination and to render the rest of Europe virtually powerless, Napoleon established an alliance with Russia by concluding the Treaty of Tilsit in 1807. Russia pledged to provide aid to Napoleon in his war against Britain; in turn, the Emperor of Russia would receive the Ottoman territories of Moldavia and Wallachia. If the Sultan refused to surrender these territories, France and Russia were to attack the Empire, and the Ottoman domains in Europe were to be partitioned between the two allies.[5]
The Napoleonic scheme threatened not only the Sultan, but also Britain, Austria and Prussia, which were almost powerless in the face of such a potent alliance. The alliance naturally proved accommodating to the Austrians, who hoped that a joint Franco-Russian attack, which would probably have utterly devastated the Ottoman Empire, could be prevented by diplomacy; but if diplomatic measures failed, the Austrian minister Klemens von Metternich decided that he would support the partition of the Ottoman Empire—a solution disadvantageous to Austria, but not as dangerous as a complete Russian takeover of Southeastern Europe.
An attack on the Empire, however, did not come to pass, and the alliance concluded at Tilsit was dissolved by the French invasion of Russia in 1812. Following Napoleon's defeat by the Great Powers in 1815, representatives of the victors met at the Congress of Vienna, but failed to take any action relating to the territorial integrity of the decaying Ottoman Empire. This omission, together with the exclusion of the Sultan from the Holy Alliance, was interpreted by many as supportive of the position that the Eastern question was a Russian domestic issue that did not concern any other European nations.[6]
Serbian Revolution
[edit]
The Serbian Revolution or Revolutionary Serbia refers to the national and social revolution of the Serbian people between 1804 and 1815, during which Serbia managed to fully emancipate itself from the Ottoman Empire and exist as a sovereign European nation-state, and a latter period (1815–1833), marked by intense negotiations between Belgrade and the Ottoman Empire. The term was invented by a famous German historian, Leopold von Ranke, in his book Die Serbische Revolution, published in 1829.[7] These events marked the foundation of modern Serbia.[8] While the first phase of the revolution (1804–1815) was in fact a war of independence, the second phase (1815–1833) resulted in official recognition of a suzerain Serbian state by the Porte (the Ottoman government), thus bringing the revolution to its end.[9]
The revolution took place by stages: the First Serbian Uprising (1804–1813), led by Karađorđe Petrović; Hadži-Prodan's rebellion (1814); the Second Serbian Uprising (1815) under Miloš Obrenović; and official recognition of the Serbian state (1815–1833) by the Porte.
The Proclamation (1809) by Karađorđe in the capital Belgrade represented the peak of the revolution. It called for unity of the Serbian nation, emphasizing the importance of freedom of religion, Serbian history and formal, written rules of law, all of which it claimed the Ottoman Empire had failed to provide. It also called on Serbs to stop paying the jizya tax to the Porte.
The ultimate result of the uprisings was Serbia's suzerainty from the Ottoman Empire. The Principality of Serbia was established, governed by its own parliament, government, constitution and its own royal dynasty. Social element of the revolution was achieved through introduction of the bourgeois society values in Serbia, which is why it was considered the world's easternmost bourgeois revolt, which culminated with the abolition of feudalism in 1806.[10] The establishment of the first constitution in the Balkans in 1835 (later abolished) and the founding in 1808 of its first university, Belgrade's Great Academy, added to the achievements of the young Serb state.[11] By 1833, Serbia was officially recognized as a tributary to the Ottoman Empire and as such, acknowledged as a hereditary monarchy. Full independence of the Principality was internationally recognized during the second half of the 19th century.[12]
Greek War of Independence
[edit]
The Eastern question once again became a major European issue when the Greeks declared independence from the Sultan in 1821. It was at about this time that the phrase "Eastern question" was coined. Ever since the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, there had been rumours that the Emperor of Russia sought to invade the Ottoman Empire, and the Greek Revolt seemed to make an invasion even more likely. The British foreign minister, Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh, as well as the Austrian foreign minister, Metternich, counselled the Emperor of Russia, Alexander I, not to enter the war. Instead, they pleaded that he maintain the Concert of Europe (the spirit of broad collaboration in Europe which had persisted since Napoleon's defeat). A desire for peaceful co-operation was also held by Alexander I, who had founded the Holy Alliance. Rather than immediately putting the Eastern question to rest by aiding the Greeks and attacking the Ottomans, Alexander wavered, ultimately failing to take any decisive action.
Alexander's death in 1825 brought Nicholas I to the Imperial Throne of Russia. Deciding that he would no longer tolerate negotiations and conferences, he chose to intervene in Greece. Britain also soon became involved, with its intervention motivated in part by the desire to prevent the young Greek state from becoming a wholly Russian vassal. The spirit of romanticism that then dominated Western European cultural life also made support for Greek independence politically viable. France too aligned itself with the Greeks, but Austria (still worried about Russian expansion) did not. Outraged by the interference of the Great Powers, the Ottoman Sultan, Mahmud II, denounced Russia as an enemy of Islam, prompting Russia to declare war in 1828. An alarmed Austria sought to form an anti-Russian coalition, but its attempts were in vain.
As the war continued into 1829, Russia gained a firm advantage over the Ottoman Empire. By prolonging hostilities further, however, Russia would have invited Austria to enter the war against her and would have resulted in considerable suspicion in Britain. Therefore, for the Russians to continue with the war in hopes of destroying the Ottoman Empire would have been inexpedient. At this stage, the King of France, Charles X, proposed the partition of the Ottoman Empire among Austria, Russia and others, but his scheme was presented too belatedly to produce a result.
Thus, Russia was able to secure neither a decisive defeat nor a partition of the Ottoman Empire. It chose, however, to adopt the policy of degrading the Ottoman Empire to a mere dependency. In 1829, the Emperor of Russia concluded the Treaty of Adrianople with the Sultan; his empire was granted additional territory along the Black Sea, Russian commercial vessels were granted access to the Dardanelles, and the commercial rights of Russians in the Ottoman Empire were enhanced. The Greek War of Independence was terminated shortly thereafter, as Greece was granted independence by the Treaty of Constantinople in 1832.
Muhammad Ali of Egypt
[edit]
Just as the Greek Revolt was coming to an end, the Egyptian–Ottoman War (1831–1833) broke out in the Ottoman Empire between the Sultan and his nominal viceroy in Egypt, Muhammad Ali. The modern and well trained Egyptians looked as though they could conquer the empire. The Tsar of Russia, in keeping with his policy of reducing the Ottoman Sultan to a petty vassal, offered to form an alliance with the Sultan. In 1833, the two rulers negotiated the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, in which Russia secured complete dominance over the Ottomans. The Russians pledged to protect the Empire from external attacks; in turn, the Sultan pledged to close the Dardanelles to warships whenever Russia was at war. This provision of the Treaty raised a problem known as the "Straits question". The agreement provided for the closure for all warships, but many European statesmen mistakenly believed that the clause allowed Russian vessels. Britain and France were angered by the misinterpreted clause; they also sought to contain Russian expansionism. The two kingdoms, however, differed on how to achieve their objective; the British wished to uphold the Sultan, but the French preferred to make Muhammad Ali (whom they saw as more competent) the ruler of the entire Ottoman Empire. Russian intervention led the Sultan to negotiate a peace with Muhammad Ali in 1833, but war broke out once again in 1839.[13]
Sultan Mahmud II died the same year, leaving the Ottoman Empire to his son Abdulmejid I in a critical state: the Ottoman army had been significantly defeated by the forces of Muhammad Ali. Another disaster followed when the entire Turkish fleet was seized by the Egyptian forces. Great Britain and Russia now intervened to prevent the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, but France still continued to support Muhammad Ali. In 1840, however, the Great Powers agreed to compromise; Muhammad Ali agreed to make a nominal act of submission to the Sultan, but was granted hereditary control of Egypt.
The only unresolved issue of the period was the Straits question. In 1841, Russia consented to the abrogation of the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi by accepting the London Straits Convention. The Great Powers — Russia, Britain, France, Austria and Prussia — agreed to the re-establishment of the "ancient rule" of the Ottoman Empire, which provided that the Turkish straits would be closed to all warships whatsoever, with the exception of the Sultan's allies during wartime. With the Straits Convention, the Russian Emperor Nicholas I abandoned the idea of reducing the Sultan to a state of dependence, and returned to the plan of partitioning Ottoman territories in Europe.
Thus, after the resolution of the Egyptian struggle which had begun in 1831, the weak Ottoman Empire was no longer wholly dependent on Russia but was dependent on the Great Powers for protection. Attempts at internal reform failed to end the decline of the Empire. By the 1840s, the Ottoman Empire had become the "sick man of Europe", and its eventual dissolution appeared inevitable.
Revolutions of 1848
[edit]After the Great Powers reached a compromise to end the revolt of Mehmet Ali, the Eastern question lay dormant for about a decade until revived by the Revolutions of 1848. Although Russia could have seized the opportunity to attack the Ottoman Empire—France and Austria were at the time occupied by their own insurrections—it chose not to. Instead, Emperor Nicholas committed his troops to the defence of Austria, hoping to establish goodwill to allow him to seize Ottoman possessions in Europe later.[citation needed]
After the Austrian Revolution was suppressed, an Austro-Russian war against the Ottoman Empire seemed imminent. The Emperors of both Austria and Russia demanded that the Sultan return Austrian rebels who had sought asylum in the Empire, but he refused. The indignant monarchs withdrew their ambassadors to the Sublime Porte, threatening armed conflict. Almost immediately, however, Britain and France sent their fleets to protect the Ottoman Empire. The two Emperors, deeming military hostilities futile, withdrew their demands for the surrender of the fugitives. The short crisis created a closer relationship between Britain and France, which led to a joint war against Russia in the Crimean War of 1853–56.[14]
Crimean War
[edit]A new conflict began during the 1850s with a religious dispute. Under treaties negotiated during the 18th century, France was the guardian of Roman Catholics in the Ottoman Empire, while Russia was the protector of Orthodox Christians. For several years, however, Catholic and Orthodox monks had disputed possession of the Church of the Nativity and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Palestine. During the early 1850s, the two sides made demands which the Sultan could not possibly satisfy simultaneously. In 1853, the Sultan adjudicated in favour of the French, despite the vehement protestations of the local Orthodox monks.[15]

Emperor Nicholas of Russia dispatched Prince Menshikov on a special mission to the Porte. By previous treaties, the Sultan was committed "to protect the Christian religion and its Churches", but Menshikov tried to negotiate a new treaty, under which Russia would be allowed to interfere whenever it deemed the Sultan's protection inadequate. At the same time, however, the British government sent Lord Stratford, who learnt of Menshikov's demands upon arriving. Through skillful diplomacy, Lord Stratford convinced the Sultan to reject the treaty, which compromised the independence of the Ottomans. Shortly after he learned of the failure of Menshikov's diplomacy, Nicholas marched into Moldavia and Wallachia (Ottoman principalities in which Russia was acknowledged as a special guardian of the Orthodox Church), with the pretext that the Sultan failed to resolve the issue of the Holy Places. Nicholas believed that the European powers would not object strongly to the annexation of a few neighbouring Ottoman provinces, especially given Russian involvement in suppressing the Revolutions of 1848.
Britain, seeking to maintain the security of the Ottoman Empire, sent a fleet to the Dardanelles, where it was joined by another fleet sent by France. Yet the European powers hoped for a diplomatic compromise. The representatives of the four neutral Great Powers—Britain, France, Austria and Prussia—met in Vienna, where they drafted a note which they hoped would be acceptable to both the Russians and the Ottomans. The note was approved by Nicolas but rejected by Sultan Abd-ul-Mejid I, who felt that the document's poor phrasing left it open to many interpretations. Britain, France and Austria were united in proposing amendments to mollify the Sultan, but their suggestions were ignored in the Court of Saint Petersburg. Britain and France set aside the idea of continuing negotiations, but Austria and Prussia held hope for diplomacy despite the rejection of the proposed amendments. The Sultan proceeded to war, his armies attacking the Russian army near the Danube. Nicholas responded by despatching warships, which destroyed the entire Ottoman fleet at Sinop on 30 November 1853, allowing Russia to land and supply its forces on the Ottoman shores fairly easily. The destruction of the Ottoman fleet and the threat of Russian expansion alarmed both Britain and France, who stepped forth in defence of the Ottoman Empire. In 1854, after Russia ignored an Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw from the Danubian Principalities, Britain and France declared war.
France takes Algeria from Turkey, and almost every year England annexes another Indian principality: none of this disturbs the balance of power; but when Russia occupies Moldavia and Wallachia, albeit only temporarily, that disturbs the balance of power. France occupies Rome and stays there several years during peacetime: that is nothing; but Russia only thinks of occupying Constantinople, and the peace of Europe is threatened. The English declare war on the Chinese, who have, it seems, offended them: no one has the right to intervene; but Russia is obliged to ask Europe for permission if it quarrels with its neighbor. England threatens Greece to support the false claims of a miserable Jew and burns its fleet: that is a lawful action; but Russia demands a treaty to protect millions of Christians, and that is deemed to strengthen its position in the East at the expense of the balance of power. We can expect nothing from the West but blind hatred and malice... (comment in the margin by Nicholas I: ‘This is the whole point’).
— Mikhail Pogodin's memorandum to Nicholas I[16]
Among those who supported the Franco-English point of view was Karl Marx, in his articles for the New York Tribune circa 1853. Karl Marx saw the Crimean War as a conflict between the democratic ideals of the west that started with "great movement of 1789" against "Russia and Absolutism". Marx saw the Ottoman Empire as a buffer against a pattern of expansionism by the Tsar.[3]
Emperor Nicholas I presumed that Austria, in return for the support rendered during the Revolutions of 1848, would side with him, or at the very least remain neutral. However, Austria felt threatened by the Russian troops in the nearby Danubian Principalities. When Britain and France demanded the withdrawal of Russian forces from the Principalities, Austria supported them; and, though it did not immediately declare war on Russia, it refused to guarantee its neutrality. When, in the summer of 1854, Austria made another demand for the withdrawal of troops, Russia (fearing that Austria would enter the war) complied.

Though the original grounds for war were lost when Russia withdrew her troops from the Danubian Principalities, Britain and France continued hostilities. Determined to address the Eastern question by ending the Russian threat to the Ottoman Empire, the allies posed several conditions for a ceasefire, including that Russia should give up its protectorate over the Danubian Principalities; that Russia should abandon any right to interfere in Ottoman affairs on the behalf of Orthodox Christians; that the Straits Convention of 1841 was to be revised; and finally, all nations were to be granted access to the river Danube. As the Emperor refused to comply with these "Four Points", the Crimean War proceeded.
Peace negotiations began in 1856 under the Emperor Nicholas I's successor, Alexander II. Under the ensuing Treaty of Paris, the "Four Points" plan proposed earlier was largely adhered to; most notably, Russia's special privileges relating to the Danubian Principalities were transferred to the Great Powers as a group. In addition, warships of all nations were perpetually excluded from the Black Sea, once the home to a Russian fleet (which had been destroyed during the war). The Emperor of Russia and the Sultan agreed not to establish any naval or military arsenal on that sea coast. The Black Sea clauses came at a tremendous disadvantage to Russia, for it greatly diminished the naval threat it posed to the Ottomans. Moreover, all the Great Powers pledged to respect the independence and territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire.
The Treaty of Paris stood until 1871, when France was crushed in the Franco-Prussian War. While Prussia and several other German states united into a powerful German Empire, Napoleon III was deposed in the formation of the French Third Republic. Napoleon had opposed Russia over the Eastern question in order to gain the support of Britain. But the new French Republic did not oppose Russian interference in the Ottoman Empire because that did not significantly threaten French interests. Encouraged by the decision of France, and supported by the German minister Otto von Bismarck, Russia denounced the Black Sea clauses of the treaty agreed to in 1856. As Britain alone could not enforce the clauses, Russia once again established a fleet in the Black Sea.
Great Eastern Crisis (1875–78)
[edit]In 1875 the territory of Herzegovina rebelled against the Ottoman Sultan in the Province of Bosnia; soon after, Bulgaria rebelled as well. The Great Powers believed they should intervene to prevent a bloody war in the Balkans. The first to act were the members of the League of the Three Emperors (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia), whose common attitude toward the Eastern Question was embodied in the Andrassy Note of 30 December 1875 (named for the Hungarian diplomat Julius, Count Andrassy). The note, seeking to avoid a widespread conflagration in Southeastern Europe, urged the Sultan to institute various reforms, including granting religious liberty to Christians. A joint commission of Christians and Muslims was to be established to ensure the enactment of appropriate reforms. With the approval of Britain and France, the note was submitted to the Sultan, and he agreed on 31 January 1876. But the Herzegovinian leaders rejected the proposal, pointing out that the Sultan had already failed in his promises of reforms.
Representatives of the Three Emperors met again in Berlin, where they approved the Berlin Memorandum (May 1876). To convince the Herzegovinians, the memorandum suggested that international representatives be allowed to oversee the institution of reforms in the rebelling provinces. But before the memorandum could be approved by the Porte, the Ottoman Empire was convulsed by internal strife, which led to the deposition of Sultan Abdul-Aziz (30 May 1876). The new Sultan, Murad V, was himself deposed three months later due to his mental instability, and Sultan Abdul Hamid II came to power (31 August 1876). In the meantime, the hardships of the Ottomans had increased; their treasury was empty, and they faced insurrections not only in Herzegovina and Bulgaria, but also in Serbia and Montenegro. Still, the Ottoman Empire managed to crush the insurgents in August 1876. The result inconvenienced Russia, which had planned to take possession of various Ottoman territories in Southeastern Europe in the course of the conflict.
After the uprisings were largely suppressed, however, rumours of Ottoman atrocities against the rebellious population shocked European sensibilities.[17] Russia now intended to enter the conflict on the side of the rebels. Delegates of the Great Powers (who now numbered six due to the rise of Italy) assembled at the Constantinople Conference (23 December 1876 to 20 January 1877) to make another attempt for peace. However, the Sultan refused the December 1876 proposals to allow international representatives to oversee the reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 1877 the Great Powers again made proposals to the Ottoman Empire, which the Porte rejected (18 January 1877).

Russia declared war against the Ottoman Empire on 24 April 1877. The Russian chancellor Prince Gorchakov had effectively secured Austrian neutrality with the Reichstadt Agreement of July 1876, under which Ottoman territories captured in the course of the war would be partitioned between the Russian and Austria-Hungarian Empires, with the latter obtaining Bosnia and Herzegovina. Britain, though acutely aware of the Russian threat to its colonies in India, did not involve itself in the conflict. However, when Russia threatened to conquer Constantinople, British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli urged Austria and Germany to ally with him against this war-aim. Russia negotiated peace through the Treaty of San Stefano (3 March 1878), which stipulated independence to Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro, autonomy to Bulgaria, reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina; the ceding Dobruja and parts of Armenia and a large indemnity to Russia. This would give Russia great influence in Southeastern Europe, as it could dominate the newly independent states. To reduce these advantages to Russia, the Great Powers (especially Britain), insisted on a thorough revision of the Treaty of San Stefano.
At the Congress of Berlin, the Treaty of Berlin of 13 July 1878 adjusted the boundaries of the new states in the Ottoman Empire's favour. Bulgaria was divided into two states (Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia), as it was feared[by whom?] that a single state would be susceptible to Russian domination. Ottoman cessions to Russia were largely sustained. Bosnia and Herzegovina, though still nominally within the Ottoman Empire, were transferred to Austrian control. A secret agreement between Britain and the Ottoman Empire transferred the Ottoman island of Cyprus to Britain. These final two procedures were predominantly negotiated by Disraeli, whom Otto von Bismarck famously described as "The old Jew, that is the man", after his level-headed Palmerstonian approach to the Eastern question.[18]
Germany and the Ottoman Empire
[edit]Germany drew away from Russia and became closer to Austria-Hungary, with whom it concluded the Dual Alliance in 1879. Germany also closely allied with the Ottoman Empire. The German government took over the re-organisation of the Ottoman military and financial system; in return, it received several commercial concessions, including permission to build the Baghdad Railway, which secured for them access to several important economic markets and opened the potential for German entry into the Persian Gulf area, then controlled by Britain. German interest was driven not only by commercial interests, but also by a burgeoning rivalry with Britain and France. Meanwhile, Britain agreed to the Entente Cordiale with France in 1904, thereby resolving differences between the two countries over international affairs. Britain also reconciled with Russia in 1907 with the Anglo-Russian Entente.[19]
For the German historian Leopold von Ranke Christianity was morally most superior and could not be improved upon. When Ranke wrote Zur orientalischen Frage. Gutachten at the behest of the kaiser he framed the Eastern Question as primarily religious in nature; the civil rights of Christians against Muslims in the Ottoman Empire could only be secured by the intervention of the Christian European nations.[20] He was considered a leading authority in the field of Orientalism in his time.[21]
Young Turk Revolution
[edit]In April 1908, the Committee of Union and Progress (more commonly called the Young Turks), a political party opposed to the despotic rule of Sultan Abdul Hamid II, led a rebellion against the Sultan. The pro-reform Young Turks deposed the Sultan by July 1909, replacing him with the ineffective Mehmed V. This began the Second Constitutional Era of the Ottoman Empire.
In the following years, various constitutional and political reforms were instituted, but the decay of the Ottoman Empire continued.
Bosnian Crisis
[edit]As the Young Turks took charge of the government in the Ottoman Empire, the Austrians feared they might regain control of Bosnia and Herzegovina – which was under the de facto rule of Austria-Hungary under the Treaty of Berlin, but the provinces officially remained possessions of the Ottoman Empire. The Austrian foreign minister Graf Lexa von Aehrenthal resolved to annex the territory, which was both economically and strategically important. Russia was contacted by Aehrenthal. Izvolsky agreed that Russia would not object to the annexation. In return, Austria would not object to opening the Bosphorus and Dardanelles Straits to Russian warships, an advantage that had been denied to Russia since 1841. On October 7, 1908, Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Serbians were outraged. However, Germany was allied with Austria, leaving Serbia helpless against two great powers. Although the conflict was resolved without any immediate warfare, the result embittered relations between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. Russia's resentment at having been deceived and humiliated contributed to the outbreak of World War I.
Timeline
[edit]- 1683–99 – Great Turkish War and Polish–Ottoman War (1683–1699); the Holy League decisively defeated the Ottomans, bringing an end to its expansionism.
- 1684–99 – Morean War.
- 1686–1700 - Russo-Turkish War.
- 1699 – Treaty of Karlowitz; the Ottomans ceded much of Hungary, Croatia, Slavonia and the Principality of Transylvania to the Habsburgs. Poland–Lithuania gained Podolia, and Venice gained Morea and inner Dalmatia.
- 1700 - Treaty of Constantinople (peace treaty of the Russo-Turkish War of 1686-1700); the Ottomans ceded Azov, the Taganrog fortress, Pavlovsk and Mius to Russia.
- 1710–11 – Pruth River Campaign.
- 1711 – Treaty of the Pruth (peace treaty of the Russo-Turkish War of 1710-11); the Russians had to return the Azov Fortress to the Ottomans, Taganrog and several Russian fortresses were to be demolished.
- 1713 – Treaty of Adrianople.
- 1714–18 – Ottoman–Venetian War.
- 1716–18 – Austro–Turkish War.
- 1718 – Treaty of Passarowitz with Austria and Venice; major Turkish losses.
- 1730–35 – Ottoman–Iranian War. Turks lose much of Caucasus.
- 1735–39 – Austro-Russian–Turkish War; stalemate.
- 1739 - Treaty of Belgrade; the Habsburgs lost Wallachia Minor (Oltenia), central Serbia with Belgrade, and the Bosnian section of Posavina.
- 1739 – Treaty of Niš (peace treaty of the Russo-Turkish War of 1735-39); the Russians were allowed to build a port at Azov, though without fortifications and without the right to have a fleet in the Black Sea.
- 1763–1864 – Russo-Circassian War; Russian annexation of Circassia, resulting in the Circassian genocide.
- 1768–74 – Russo-Turkish War; Russia gains control of southern Ukraine, Crimea, and the upper northwestern part of the North Caucasus.
- 1774 – Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca (peace treaty of the Russo-Turkish War of 1768-74); Russia gained the right to construct a Greek Orthodox Church in Istanbul, claiming itself to be the protector of the Greek Orthodox in the Ottoman Empire.
- 1780–92 – Greek Plan; the Russian empress Catherine the Great proposed a solution to the Eastern question: the partition of the Ottoman Empire between the Russian and Habsburg Empires followed by the restoration of the Eastern Roman Empire centered in Constantinople.
- 1783 – Annexation of the Crimean Khanate by the Russian Empire.
- 1787–92 – Russo-Turkish War.
- 1788–91 – Austro-Turkish War; Turkish loss.
- 1789–99 – French Revolution. Ottoman Empire is generally neutral.
- 1791 – Treaty of Sistova. Peace treaty of the Austro–Turkish War (1787–1791). Ottoman-Habsburg wars ended.
- 1792 – Treaty of Jassy (peace treaty of the Russo-Turkish War of 1787-92).
- 1795 – Treaty of Algiers. The US government pays tax to the Ottoman Empire for safe trade in the Mediterranean.
- 1796 – Persian expedition; Catherine II directed the army to Transcaucasia under the command of General Zubov. Baku falls.
- 1798–1802 – Napoleon invasion of Egypt and Syria.
- 1801–05 – First Barbary War.
- 1804–13 – First Serbian Uprising.
- 1804–13 – Russo-Persian War.
- 1806–12 – Russo-Turkish War.
- 1807–09 – Anglo-Turkish War.
- 1809 – Treaty of the Dardanelles (peace treaty of the Anglo-Turkish War of 1807-09).
- 1812 – Treaty of Bucharest (peace treaty of the Russo-Turkish War of 1807-12).
- 1813 – Treaty of Gulistan (peace treaty of the Russo-Persian War of 1804); Iran gives up Dagestan, eastern Georgia, northern Armenia and the majority of Azerbaijan to Russia.
- 1815–17 – Second Serbian Uprising.
- 1815 – Second Barbary War.
- 1817–64 – Caucasian War; North Caucasus annexed by Russia.
- 1821 – Wallachian uprising, suppressed by the Ottomans.
- 1821–29 – Greek War of Independence; Greek victory.
- 1821 – Constantinople massacre against the Greek community by the Ottomans.
- 1822 – Chios massacre.
- 1823–25 – Greek civil wars.
- 1824 – Destruction of Psara.
- 1826 – Protocol of St. Petersburg; Britain and Russia agreed to impose mediation on the Greek War of Independence, granting the Greeks a limited independence and willing to use force if their offer was rejected.
- 1826–28 – Ottoman–Egyptian invasion of Mani.
- 1826–28 – Russo-Persian War.
- 1827 – Treaty of London; the Great Powers agreed to create an independent Greece but tributary to the Ottomans, with the Sultan as its supreme ruler. The Ottomans rejected the treaty, resulting in the Allied military intervention.
- 1827 – Battle of Navarino; Britain, France, and Russia decisively defeated the combined Ottoman–Egyptian fleet.
- 1828 – Treaty of Turkmenchay.
- 1828–29 – Russo-Turkish War.
- 1828–33 – Morea expedition; the French Army intervenes in the Peloponnese.
- 1829 – Treaty of Adrianople; Greece gains autonomy.
- 1830 – London Protocol; the Great Powers recognized Greece as a fully sovereign and independent state, separate from the Ottoman Empire.
- 1830 – Invasion of Algiers; the Kingdom of France, ruled by Charles X, invaded and conquered the Regency of Algiers.
- 1831 – Muhammad Ali of Syria, invasion of Anatolia, First Egyptian-Turkish War (~ 1833). Bosnian uprising.
- 1832 – London Conference; the Great Powers established the Kingdom of Greece under a Bavarian prince.
- 1832 – Treaty of Constantinople; the Great Powers defined the border between Greece and the Ottoman Empire.
- 1833 – Convention of Kütahya (English version) (peace treaty of the First Egyptian-Turkish War).
- 1833 - Treaty of Hünkâr İskelesi (Unkiar Skelessi). An alliance between the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire is created, as well as a guarantee that the Ottomans would close the Dardanelles to any foreign warships if the Russians requested such action.
- 1838 – Treaty of Balta Liman; British soil commercial treaty (English version) entered into.
- 1839–41 – Edict of Gülhane, Tanzimat starts, Second Egyptian-Turkish War (~ 1841) (English version).
- 1840 – London Convention (peace treaty of the Second Egyptian-Turkish War); Oriental Crisis of 1840.
- 1841 – London Straits Convention (English version). The Treaty of Hünkâr İskelesi is discarded and the passage of the Russian fleet from Bosphorus and Dardanelles is prohibited.
- 1846 in Baku – Oil well drilling machine was made. There were hand-dug oil well before that.
- 1849 – Convention of Balta Liman.
- 1852–62 – Herzegovina uprising.
- 1852–53 – Montenegrin–Ottoman War.
- 1853–56 – Crimean War.
- 1854 – Epirus Revolt and the Macedonian rebellion.
- 1856 – Treaty of Paris (peace treaty of the Crimean War).
- 1856 – Ottoman Reform Edict of 1856
- 1860 – Civil conflict in Mount Lebanon and Damascus.
- 1861–62 – Montenegrin–Ottoman War.
- 1863–78 – Circassian genocide; up to 3,500,000 Circassians[22] were either killed by the Russians or forcibly expelled to the Ottoman Empire.
- 1866–69 – Cretan revolt.
- 1867 – Alfred Nobel invents dynamite.
- 1870 – Bulgarian Exarchate.
- 1872 – Russia sold overseas oil well drilling rights in Baku to investors.
- 1875–78 – Great Eastern Crisis; the outbreak of several uprisings and wars in the Ottoman Empire that resulted in the intervention of the Great Powers:
- The Serbian Herzegovina uprising (1875–1877).
- The Bulgarian Stara Zagora Uprising of 1875 and the April Uprising of 1876.
- The Salonika Incident of 1876.
- The Macedonian Razlovci uprising of 1876.
- 1876 Ottoman coup d'état; First Constitutional Era and First Ottoman constitution enacted.
- Nobel Brothers in Baku.
- Montenegrin–Ottoman War (1876–1878).[citation needed]
- Serbian–Ottoman Wars (1876–1878).
- 1876–77 – Constantinople Conference; the Great Powers agreed on a project for political reforms in Bosnia and in the Ottoman territories with a majority-Bulgarian population. The Ottoman Empire rejected the reforms, depriving it of Western support.
- 1877 – Budapest Convention of 1877
- 1877–78 – Russo-Turkish War; Romanian War of Independence, Liberation of Bulgaria, independence of Montenegro and Serbia.
- 1878 – Treaty of San Stefano (preliminary peace treaty of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78); an autonomous Principality of Bulgaria was created after almost 500 years of Ottoman rule, with enlarged borders that encompassed nearly all of Macedonia and Thrace and direct access to the Mediterranean, greatly benefiting Russia and alarming the Great Powers. These gains were never implemented, being reversed during Congress of Berlin in the same year.
- 1878 – Cyprus Convention, Congress of Berlin and Treaty of Berlin (final peace treaty of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78); the Great Powers recognized the independence of Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, and the Principality of Bulgaria had its borders greatly reduced, with the creation of the autonomous province of Eastern Rumelia and the return of Macedonia to the Ottomans. Austria-Hungary gained the right to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina, the British occupied Cyprus and Russia annexed Southern Bessarabia and the oblasts of Kars and Batum.
- 1878–79 – Kresna–Razlog uprising.
- 1879–82 – Urabi revolt against the khedive Tewfik Pasha and the British and French influence over Egypt.
- 1881 – French conquest of Tunisia.
- 1882 – Anglo-Egyptian War; establishment of the British military occupation of Egypt.
- 1885 – Bulgarian unification, Bulgarian Crisis (1885–1888) and Serbo-Bulgarian War.
- 1894–96 – Hamidian massacres of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.
- 1896 – Ottoman coup d'état attempt.
- 1897 – Greco-Turkish War. Treaty of Constantinople.
- 1899 – German Baghdad Railway won the right-of-way. United Kingdom that has been competing Second Boer War withdrew in war expenses increased.
- 1903 – Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising.
- 1904–05 – Russo-Japanese War.
- 1905 – Yıldız assassination attempt. Armenian Revolutionary Federation attempted to assassinate Abdulhamid II.

- 1908 – Young Turk Revolution
- 1908 – Bulgarian Declaration of Independence, Bosnia and Herzegovina annexation.
- 1909 – 31 March incident
- 1909 – Goudi coup
- 1911-12 - Italo-Turkish War, loss of Libya and the Dodecanese Islands.
- 1912 – Balkan League is formed by four Balkan countries. Ottoman coup d'état.
- 1912–13 – Balkan Wars.
- 1912–13 – London Conference, First Balkan War, Albanian Declaration of Independence and Ottoman coup d'état.
- 1913 – Treaty of London, Greek–Serbian Alliance and Second Balkan War.
- 1913 – Treaty of Bucharest, Treaty of Constantinople and Treaty of Athens; Turkey lost Crete and European territory except for Edirne and Istanbul.
- 1914–18 – World War I; alliance with Germany; Turkish loss.
- 1915–17 – Constantinople Agreement, Sykes–Picot Agreement, Sazonov–Paléologue Agreement and Agreement of Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne; The Allies defined their spheres of influence and control in an eventual partition of the Ottoman Empire.
- 1915–17 – Armenian genocide.
- 1918–23 – Occupation of Istanbul by British, French, Italian, and Greek forces, in accordance with the Armistice of Mudros.
- 1918–21 – Franco-Turkish War.
- 1919–22 – Greco-Turkish War and Turkish War of Independence.
- 1920 – Treaty of Sèvres (peace treaty following the end of WWI).
- 1920–22 – Operation Nemesis.
- 1920 – Turkish–Armenian War.
- 1921 – Cilicia Peace Treaty, Treaty of Moscow, Treaty of Kars and Treaty of Ankara.
- 1922 – Armistice of Mudanya and Abolition of the Ottoman sultanate.
- 1923 – Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, Treaty of Lausanne and Proclamation of the Republic of Turkey.
- 1924 – Abolition of the Caliphate.
See also
[edit]- Armenian question
- Decline and modernization of the Ottoman Empire
- Great Game
- Greek Plan
- History of Egypt under the British
- History of Egypt under the Muhammad Ali dynasty
- International relations (1648–1814)
- International relations (1814–1919)
- Polish question
- Russia and the Middle East
- Sick man of Europe
- Thracian question
References
[edit]- ^ Theophilus C. Prousis. Review of Macfie, A. L., The Eastern Question, 1774–1923. HABSBURG, H-Net Reviews. December, 1996. [1]
- ^ Leslie Rogne Schumacher, "The Eastern Question as a Europe Question: Viewing the Ascent of 'Europe' through the Lens of Ottoman Decline," Journal of European Studies 44, no. 1 (2014), 65.
- ^ a b "The Russian Menace to Europem and the Crimean War - by Marx and Engels 1853-5". www.marxists.org. Retrieved 2021-06-16.
- ^ Juan Cole, Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East (2008)
- ^ Michael S. Anderson, The Eastern Question, 1774–1923: A Study in International Relations (1966) ch 1
- ^ Walter Alison Phillips (1914). The confederation of Europe: a study of the European alliance, 1813–1823, as an experiment in the international organization of peace. Longmans, Green. pp. 234–50.
- ^ Leopold von Ranke, A History of Serbia and the Serbian Revolution (1847)
- ^ L. S. Stavrianos, The Balkans since 1453 (London: Hurst and Co., 2000), p. 248-250.
- ^ For an overview see Wayne S. Vucinich, "Marxian Interpretations of the First Serbian Revolution." Journal of Central European Affairs (1961) 21#1: 3–14.
- ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2017-10-10. Retrieved 2010-06-02.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ University of Belgrade[permanent dead link]
- ^ John K. Cox, The History of Serbia (2002) pp 39–62
- ^ Henry Dodwell, The Founder of Modern Egypt: A Study of Muhammad ‘Ali (Cambridge University Press, 1967)
- ^ A.J.P. Taylor, The Struggle for Mastery in Europe: 1848–1918 (1954) pp 33–35
- ^ Orlando Figes, Crimea: The Last Crusade (2010); also published as The Crimean War: A History (2010)
- ^ "The Long History of Russian Whataboutism". Slate. March 21, 2014.
- ^ See for example: Gladstone, William Ewart (1876). Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East (1 ed.). London: John Murray. Retrieved 30 September 2019.
- ^ Lejeune, Anthony (2002). The Concise Dictionary of Foreign Quotations. Taylor & Francis. p. 139. ISBN 978-1-57958-341-5. Retrieved 2010-01-03.
- ^ Sean McMeekin, The Berlin-Baghdad Express: The Ottoman Empire and Germany's Bid for World Power (2012) excerpt and text search
- ^ Hodkinson, James R.; Walker, John; Feichtinger, J0hannes (2013). Deploying Orientalism in Culture and History: From Germany to Central and Eastern Europe. Boydell & Brewer. p. 105. ISBN 9781571135759.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ Freitag, Ulrike (2006). "The Critique of Orientalism". In Bentley, Michael (ed.). Companion to Historiography. Routledge. ISBN 9781134970247.
- ^ Messenger, Evan (6 December 2023). "The Circassian Genocide: The Forgotten Tragedy of the First Modern Genocide". American University: Journal of International Service. Archived from the original on 23 February 2024.
Bibliography
[edit]- Anderson, M.S. The Eastern Question, 1774–1923: A Study in International Relations (1966)
- Bitis, Alexander. Russia and the Eastern Question: Army, Government and Society, 1815–1833 (2007)
- Bolsover, George H. "Nicholas I and the Partition of Turkey." Slavonic and East European Review (1948): 115-145 online.
- Bronza, Boro (2010). "The Habsburg Monarchy and the Projects for Division of the Ottoman Balkans, 1771-1788". Empires and Peninsulas: Southeastern Europe between Karlowitz and the Peace of Adrianople, 1699–1829. Berlin: LIT Verlag. pp. 51–62. ISBN 9783643106117.
- Bridge, F.R. From Sadowa to Sarajevo: The Foreign Policy of Austria-Hungary 1866–1914 (1972)
- Faroqhi, Suraiya N. The Cambridge History of Turkey (Volume 3, 2006) excerpt and text search
- Frary, Lucien J. and Mara Kozelsky, eds. Russian-Ottoman Borderlands: The Eastern Question Reconsidered (University of Wisconsin, 2014) [2]
- Gallagher, Tom. Outcast Europe: The Balkans, 1789-1989: From the Ottomans to Milosevic (2013).
- Gavrilis, George. "The Greek—Ottoman Boundary as Institution, Locality, and Process, 1832–1882." American Behavioral Scientist (2008) 51#10 pp: 1516–1537.
- Gingeras, Ryan. Fall of the Sultanate: The Great War and the End of the Ottoman Empire, 1908-1922 (Oxford UP, 2016).
- Hale, William. Turkish Foreign Policy, 1774–2000. (2000). 375 pp.
- Hall, Richard C. The Balkan Wars, 1912–1913: Prelude to the First World War (2000)
- Hayes, Paul. Modern British Foreign Policy: The Nineteenth Century 1814-80 (1975) pp. 233–69.
- Hupchick, Dennis P. The Balkans: from Constantinople to communism (2004)
- Kent, Marian, ed. The great powers and the end of the Ottoman Empire (Routledge, 2005)
- King, Charles. Black Sea: A History (2004), 276p. covers: 400 to 1999
- Langer, William. An Encyclopedia of World History (5th ed. 1973); highly detailed outline of events
- Langer, William. European Alliances and Alignments 1870–1890 (2nd ed. 1950); advanced history
- Langer, William. The Diplomacy of Imperialism 1890–1902 (2nd ed. 1950); advanced history
- Macfie, Alexander Lyon. The Eastern Question, 1774–1923 (New York: Longman, 1996)
- Marriott, J. A. R. The Eastern question; an historical study in European diplomacy (4th ed. 1940) online
- Matthew, H. C. G. Gladstone, 1809–1874 (1988); Gladstone, 1875–1898 (1995) excerpt & text search vol 1
- Mihneva, Rumjana. "The Muscovite Tsardom, the Ottoman Empire and the European Diplomacy (Mid-Sixteenth-End of Seventeenth Century). Part 1." Études balkaniques 3+ 4 (1998): 98-129.
- Millman, Richard (1979). Britain and the Eastern Question, 1875–78. Oxford University Press.
- Rathbone, Mark. "Gladstone, Disraeli and the Bulgarian Horrors." History Review 50 (2004): 3–7.
- Rich, Norman. Great Power Diplomacy: 1814–1914 (1991), comprehensive survey
- Šedivý, Miroslav. Metternich, the Great Powers and the Eastern Question (Plzeň: University of West Bohemia Press, 2013) major scholarly study 1032pp
- Šedivý, Miroslav. Crisis Among the Great Powers: The Concert of Europe and the Eastern Question (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016) excerpt.
- Seton-Watson, Hugh. The Russian Empire 1801–1917 (1967) excerpt and text search
- Seton-Watson, R. W. Disraeli, Gladstone, and the Eastern Question (1935)
- Schumacher, Leslie Rogne. "The Eastern Question as a Europe question: Viewing the ascent of ‘Europe’ through the lens of Ottoman decline." Journal of European Studies 44, no. 1 (2014): 64-80.
- Smith, M.S. The Eastern Question, 1774-1923 (1966)
- Stavrianos, L.S. The Balkans Since 1453 (1958), major scholarly history; online free to borrow
- Taylor, A.J.P. (1956). The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1848–1918. Oxford University Press.
Historiography
[edit]- Abazi, Enika, and Albert Doja. "The past in the present: time and narrative of Balkan wars in media industry and international politics." Third World Quarterly 38.4 (2017): 1012–1042. Deals with travel writing, media reporting, diplomatic records, policy-making, truth claims and expert accounts.
- Case, Holly. The Age of Questions (Princeton University Press, 2018) excerpt
- Schumacher, Leslie Rogne. "The Eastern Question as a Europe question: Viewing the ascent of ‘Europe’ through the lens of Ottoman decline." Journal of European Studies 44.1 (2014): 64-80. Long bibliography pp 77-80 [3]
- Tusan, Michelle. "Britain and the Middle East: New Historical Perspectives on the Eastern Question," History Compass (2010), 8#3 pp 212–222.
External links
[edit]- . New International Encyclopedia. 1905.
- Phillips, Walter Alison (1911). . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 8 (11th ed.). pp. 831–833.
Eastern question
View on GrokipediaDefinition and Origins
Coining of the Term and Conceptual Scope
The term "Eastern Question" emerged in European diplomatic circles during the early 19th century, specifically in the wake of the Serbian uprisings and amid the Greek War of Independence that began in 1821. It encapsulated the growing concerns over the Ottoman Empire's structural decline, which threatened to create a power vacuum in the Balkans and Near East, drawing in rival great powers with conflicting strategic interests. Russian ambitions for territorial expansion toward the Black Sea Straits and Constantinople clashed with British efforts to safeguard trade routes to India and prevent any single power from dominating the Mediterranean, while Austria feared the spread of revolutionary nationalism to its own multi-ethnic domains.[4][1] By the Congress of Verona in 1822, the phrase had entered formal discourse as European statesmen debated interventions in Ottoman affairs, marking a shift from viewing the Empire's woes as internal to recognizing them as a continental security dilemma. The conceptual scope extended beyond mere territorial disputes to include the fate of Christian subject populations under Ottoman rule, whose revolts—fueled by Enlightenment ideas and Orthodox solidarity with Russia—challenged the sultan's authority and raised questions of self-determination versus great-power equilibrium. This framework persisted through subsequent crises, framing the "Question" as a multifaceted problem of preventing unchecked Russian aggrandizement, averting mass refugee flows and ethnic strife, and negotiating reforms or partitions without igniting general war.[5] Historians trace the term's popularization to analyses of these events, with early scholarly works highlighting how Ottoman military defeats, such as in the Russo-Turkish War of 1768–1774, laid the groundwork by exposing imperial vulnerabilities that nationalist movements exploited. The scope thus inherently involved causal dynamics of imperial overextension, fiscal insolvency, and technological lag, which rendered the Porte unable to suppress Balkan revolts or modernize effectively without foreign concessions. European powers' interventions, often justified as humanitarian but driven by realpolitik, underscored the Question's role in testing the post-Napoleonic order's balance-of-power principles.[6][7]Long-Term Structural Weaknesses of the Ottoman Empire
The Ottoman Empire experienced institutional decay beginning in the late 16th century, characterized by unstable succession practices that fostered harem intrigues and fratricide, only partially mitigated by Sultan Ahmed I's introduction of the kafes system of confining potential heirs from 1603 onward, which nonetheless failed to establish merit-based leadership and perpetuated weak sultans vulnerable to elite manipulation.[8] This political fragility was compounded by a power structure reliant on the devshirme system, which elevated non-Turkish Christian converts to elite positions in the Janissaries and ulema, alienating the Turkish Muslim majority and enabling corps like the Janissaries to veto reforms, as seen in their deposition and murder of Sultan Osman II in 1622 for attempting military modernization.[8] By the 18th century, central authority eroded further as provincial notables (ayan) gained de facto autonomy through control of tax farming (iltizam), supplanting the centralized bureaucracy and fostering widespread corruption and nepotism across administrative levels.[9] Militarily, the empire's core infantry, the Janissaries—originally elite slave-soldiers recruited via devshirme from the 14th century—degenerated into a hereditary, undisciplined caste by the 17th century, prioritizing commercial activities and political interference over combat readiness, which stalled adoption of European drill, artillery, and infantry tactics despite defeats like the failed Vienna siege in 1683.[8] Resistance to innovation persisted, with Janissary revolts blocking Sultan Selim III's Nizam-i Cedid reforms in 1807, exacerbating losses to Russia in wars from 1768–1774 and 1787–1792, where Ottoman forces suffered over 100,000 casualties and ceded Crimea.[10] The cavalry-based timar system, which granted land revenues (timar fiefs) to sipahi holders in exchange for military service, collapsed after conquests halted post-1683, leading to revenue shortfalls, peasant flight, and the Celali revolts of the 1590s–1650s that devastated Anatolia's agriculture and depopulated regions.[8] [11] Economically, the shift from timar allocations to iltizam tax farming in the 17th century incentivized short-term extraction over sustainable investment, reducing state revenues by up to 30% in some provinces as contractors underbid and evaded oversight, while the empire's aversion to private property and commerce—rooted in Islamic legal norms and state monopolies—hindered capital accumulation and technological diffusion, such as the ban on printing presses until 1727.[8] [11] Capitulations, initially reciprocal trade pacts like the 1536 agreement with France, evolved into one-sided privileges by the 18th century, granting European merchants low 3–5% tariffs, extraterritoriality, and monopoly exemptions, which flooded Ottoman markets with cheap imports, deindustrialized guilds, and contributed to fiscal deficits amid rising military costs from permanent armies enlarged to over 200,000 men by mid-century.[10] [9] Inflation from New World silver inflows, doubling prices between 1580 and 1680, further strained budgets, forcing reliance on debased coinage and ad hoc borrowing that ballooned central treasury deficits to unsustainable levels by the 1780s under Selim III.[9] These interlocking weaknesses—rigid institutions unresponsive to fiscal-military demands—created a vicious cycle of provincial revolts, territorial losses, and dependency on European loans, priming the empire for the nationalist upheavals and great power interventions defining the Eastern Question from the late 18th century.[10]Early Triggers in the Napoleonic Aftermath
French Invasion of Egypt and Initial Disruptions
In July 1798, Napoleon Bonaparte led a French expeditionary force of approximately 35,000 soldiers and a supporting fleet to Egypt, aiming to disrupt British trade routes to India by establishing French control over the province, which was nominally under Ottoman suzerainty but effectively governed by Mamluk beys.[12] The campaign's strategic intent was to counter British maritime dominance in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean, reflecting France's broader rivalry with Britain during the French Revolutionary Wars.[13] French troops landed near Alexandria on 1 July 1798, quickly capturing the city after minimal resistance, and advanced inland.[14] On 21 July 1798, at the Battle of the Pyramids near Cairo, Napoleon's forces decisively defeated a Mamluk army estimated at 40,000–60,000 cavalry-heavy troops led by Murad Bey and Ibrahim Bey, resulting in heavy Mamluk losses and the subsequent occupation of Cairo on 23 July.[14] This victory temporarily dismantled Mamluk authority, but the French fleet's anchoring at Aboukir Bay proved catastrophic; on 1–3 August 1798, British Admiral Horatio Nelson's squadron of 14 ships of the line destroyed or captured 11 of 13 French warships in the Battle of the Nile, isolating the expeditionary army from reinforcements and supplies.[15] The naval defeat exposed French logistical vulnerabilities and emboldened Ottoman countermeasures, as the empire's nominal sovereignty over Egypt was directly challenged without the ability to project power independently.[16] The invasion prompted the Ottoman Empire to declare war on France in September 1798, forming an Anglo-Ottoman alliance supplemented by Russian support to reclaim Egypt, thereby drawing European great powers into Ottoman internal affairs for the first time on such a scale.[16] Ottoman forces, bolstered by British naval assistance, began amphibious preparations, landing an expeditionary army of about 18,000 troops under Grand Vizier Yusuf Pasha at Aboukir in July 1799, where Napoleon inflicted a defeat on 25 July but could not sustain prolonged resistance amid dwindling resources.[17] Napoleon's departure for France in August 1799 left General Jean-Baptiste Kléber in command, whose forces repelled an Anglo-Ottoman assault at Heliopolis on 20 March 1800 but suffered from internal discord and supply shortages.[12] These events generated initial disruptions by fracturing Mamluk-Ottoman administrative structures, fostering local rebellions against French occupation—such as uprisings in Cairo in October 1798—and eroding Ottoman prestige, as the empire relied on British mediation to negotiate the eventual French capitulation at Alexandria in September 1801 under the Treaty of Paris.[18] The campaign's fallout included a temporary power vacuum in Egypt, heightened sectarian tensions between Muslim locals and Christian Copts allied with the French, and the Ottoman Empire's demonstrable dependence on European alliances to regain provincial control, presaging recurring interventions that characterized the Eastern Question.[18] While the French withdrew without establishing lasting territorial gains, the episode underscored the Ottoman state's structural military weaknesses against modern European armies, inviting further great-power scrutiny of its disintegrating periphery.[13]Serbian Revolution and Autonomy Struggles
The Serbian Revolution commenced with the First Serbian Uprising on February 4, 1804, ignited by the Ottoman janissaries' massacre of prominent Serbian knezes (local elders) in the Belgrade Pashalik, amid chronic extortion, forced labor, and violence against Christian subjects by unruly Ottoman forces.[19] This revolt united haiduk (guerrilla) bands and peasants under Karađorđe (Đorđe Petrović), a former Austrian soldier, who organized a provisional government and repelled Ottoman counteroffensives, capturing Belgrade by late 1806 after victories like the Battle of Mišar on August 7, 1806, where Serb forces defeated a larger Ottoman army.[20] Russia provided diplomatic and military aid from 1807, aligning with Serbia against the Ottomans during the Russo-Turkish War (1806–1812), but the uprising faltered after Russia's 1812 Treaty of Bucharest with the Porte, which ignored Serbian gains, leaving rebels isolated as Napoleon's campaigns diverted European attention.[20] Ottoman forces retook Belgrade in October 1813, executing Karađorđe and suppressing the revolt, though guerrilla resistance persisted.[21] The Second Serbian Uprising erupted in April 1815, led by Miloš Obrenović, a pragmatic chieftain who emphasized negotiation over prolonged warfare, rallying some 30,000 fighters against renewed Ottoman reprisals under vizier Hurşid Pasha.[22] Obrenović's forces achieved key wins, including the Battle of Ljubić on May 28, 1815, and the capture of multiple fortresses, pressuring Ottoman commander Maraşlı Ali Pasha into talks by October 1815; however, full stabilization required further clashes until 1817.[23] In November 1817, Obrenović secured an unwritten accord recognizing Serbian self-administration in the pashalik, abolishing the janissary presence, and establishing hereditary rule under his family, marking de facto autonomy within the Ottoman Empire despite nominal suzerainty.[23] This arrangement, formalized by the Porte in 1830 and 1833 firmans, granted Serbia fiscal independence, internal security control, and limited foreign relations, though disputes over tribute and borders lingered.[22] These uprisings exploited Ottoman administrative decay and janissary indiscipline, exacerbated by the Napoleonic Wars' distraction of great powers, particularly Russia's pivot from Balkan support to anti-French coalitions.[20] Serbia's partial emancipation challenged the empire's European holdings, inspiring ethnic mobilizations in Greece and elsewhere while alerting Russia to opportunities for Orthodox influence, though Western powers like Austria and Britain prioritized Ottoman territorial integrity to avert Russian dominance.[24] The revolutions' success stemmed from local military adaptations—using terrain for ambushes and early firearms—against Ottoman reliance on irregulars, underscoring structural weaknesses that fueled the broader Eastern Question.[19]Greek War of Independence
The Greek War of Independence erupted in 1821 as a revolt by Greek Orthodox Christians against Ottoman imperial rule, fueled by rising ethnic nationalism, Enlightenment ideals of liberty, and resentment over centuries of administrative discrimination, heavy taxation, and cultural suppression. Secret societies such as the Filiki Eteria, founded in Odessa on September 14, 1814, coordinated clandestine preparations among diaspora communities and mainland fighters, drawing inspiration from the American and French revolutions while leveraging post-Napoleonic instability in Europe to challenge Ottoman authority.[25][26] The uprising commenced on March 25, 1821 (Julian calendar), when Bishop Germanos of Patras raised the revolutionary flag at the Monastery of Agia Lavra in the Peloponnese, igniting widespread rebellions across the Morea (Peloponnese), Central Greece, and islands like Hydra and Spetses. Alexandros Ypsilantis, a Filiki Eteria leader and former Russian officer, initiated parallel actions in March 1821 by crossing the Prut River into Moldavia with a small force, aiming to link with Serbian autonomists, but his defeat at Dragatsani on June 19, 1821, isolated northern efforts. In the south, Theodoros Kolokotronis, a seasoned klepht (irregular fighter) with experience from British service in the Ionian Islands, organized guerrilla warfare, culminating in the capture of Tripolitsa on September 23, 1821, where Ottoman forces and Albanian auxiliaries suffered heavy losses amid reprisal killings.[27][26][28] Ottoman Sultan Mahmud II responded with brutal countermeasures, including the execution of Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory V in Constantinople on April 22, 1821, and massacres such as the slaughter of up to 25,000 civilians on Chios in 1822 following a local revolt, which provoked outrage in Europe and bolstered philhellenic sentiment—public sympathy for Greek classical heritage that mobilized volunteers like Lord Byron, who arrived in 1824 and died of fever at Missolonghi on April 19 that year. Internal Greek divisions between islanders, mainlanders, and clans led to civil strife in 1823–1824, weakening defenses and allowing Ottoman recovery until Egyptian Viceroy Muhammad Ali, responding to Mahmud's call for aid, dispatched his son Ibrahim Pasha with 17,000 troops in 1825; Ibrahim reconquered much of the Morea by 1826, employing scorched-earth tactics that devastated the countryside.[29][30] European great powers, wary of Ottoman collapse tipping the balance toward Russian expansionism, intervened decisively after the July 6, 1827, Treaty of London, where Britain, France, and Russia demanded an armistice and mediation. On October 20, 1827, an allied squadron under British Admiral Edward Codrington engaged the Ottoman-Egyptian fleet in Navarino Bay, resulting in the destruction of over 50 enemy ships and approximately 4,000 Ottoman-Egyptian casualties against 181 allied dead and 487 wounded, an unintended but pivotal escalation that crippled Ottoman naval power without formal declaration of war. This victory, combined with Russia's declaration of war on the Ottomans in April 1828 and subsequent advances, pressured the Sublime Porte into the Treaty of Adrianople on September 14, 1829, granting Greek autonomy under Ottoman suzerainty.[30][31] Final independence materialized via the London Protocol of February 3, 1830, establishing Greece as a sovereign kingdom, formalized by the Treaty of Constantinople on July 7, 1832, which fixed borders from the Arta-Volos line and installed Bavarian Prince Otto as monarch under great power guarantee. The conflict exposed profound Ottoman military and administrative frailties, inviting European meddling to preserve regional stability and forestall exclusive Russian gains, thus marking an early fracture in the Eastern Question's balance-of-power dynamics. Total Greek losses, including combatants and civilians from battles, sieges, and reprisals, exceeded 100,000, while Ottoman and allied forces incurred comparable or higher tolls across irregular warfare and naval engagements.[32][33]Mid-19th Century Power Struggles
Muhammad Ali's Rebellion and the Egyptian Question
Muhammad Ali Pasha, an Albanian Ottoman officer, consolidated power in Egypt after the French withdrawal in 1801 and received formal appointment as wali from Sultan Selim III in 1805.[34] To eliminate rivals, he orchestrated the massacre of the Mamluks on March 1, 1811, luring approximately 500 leaders into the Cairo Citadel under pretext of reconciliation, where his forces ambushed and slaughtered them, with survivors hunted down in subsequent days.[35] This act, eliminating a key military caste that had dominated Egypt for centuries, enabled Muhammad Ali to centralize authority, monopolize land through agricultural reforms, and build a modern conscript army modeled on European lines, numbering over 30,000 by the 1820s.[36] Tasked by the Ottoman Porte with suppressing the Wahhabi revolt in Arabia, Muhammad Ali's forces under his son Tusun and later Ibrahim Pasha captured Mecca and Medina by 1813 and defeated the Wahhabis at Diriyah in 1818, restoring nominal Ottoman control but enhancing Egyptian influence.[37] In 1820, he launched the conquest of Sudan, securing Khartoum by 1821 through brutal campaigns that enslaved tens of thousands for military service, providing manpower for further ambitions. By 1824, Egyptian troops aided Ottoman suppression of the Greek revolt, suffering heavy losses at Missolonghi and Navarino, which fueled Muhammad Ali's resentment over unpaid subsidies and unfulfilled promises of territorial rewards.[38] In 1831, citing refusal of tribute from Acre's governor Abdullah Pasha, Muhammad Ali dispatched Ibrahim's army to invade Syria, capturing Acre after a six-month siege on May 27, 1832, followed by Haifa, Damascus on June 16, Aleppo, and Antioch.[39] Ottoman counteroffensives failed; at the Battle of Konya on December 21, 1832, Egyptian forces routed Grand Vizier Reşid Mehmed Pasha's army, advancing toward Istanbul and threatening the Ottoman heartland.[40] Russian intervention in February 1833 halted the Egyptians, leading to the Kütahya Convention on May 5, 1833, granting Muhammad Ali de facto control of Syria, Adana, Çukurova, Crete, and hereditary rule in Egypt without formal independence.[41] Sultan Mahmud II, weakened but determined, reformed his military and invaded Syria in 1839, only to suffer defeat at the Battle of Nezib on June 24, 1839, where Ottoman forces collapsed after Mahmud's death on July 1.[42] Muhammad Ali's control extended to nearly one-third of Ottoman territory, alarming European powers fearing empire disintegration and Russian dominance. Britain, prioritizing route to India, joined Austria, Prussia, and Russia in the July 15, 1840, Convention of London, offering Muhammad Ali hereditary pashalik over Egypt and Sudan in exchange for withdrawing from Syria, Crete, and Arabia, with army capped at 18,000.[43] Upon rejection, British naval forces under Admiral Napier destroyed the Egyptian fleet off Sidon on July 9, 1840, bombarded Beirut and Acre, and compelled Ibrahim's evacuation by late 1840.[44] The Alexandria Convention of October 27, 1840, formalized Muhammad Ali's acceptance, ratified by Ottoman firman on June 1, 1841, confirming hereditary rule in Egypt but as vassal with tribute obligations and no expansion rights.[45] This resolution preserved Ottoman nominal suzerainty while establishing Egypt's semi-autonomy, shifting the Eastern Question's focus to Egyptian stability amid great power rivalries, as Britain countered French sympathies for Muhammad Ali to safeguard strategic interests without precipitating full Ottoman collapse.[46] The crisis underscored structural Ottoman vulnerabilities and presaged later interventions, including British occupation in 1882.[47]Tanzimat Reforms and Internal Modernization Efforts
The Tanzimat era, spanning from 1839 to 1876, represented a concerted Ottoman effort to centralize administration, modernize institutions, and bolster state capacity amid mounting internal decay and external threats that underpinned the Eastern Question. Initiated under Sultan Abdülmecid I, the reforms built on preparatory measures by his predecessor Mahmud II, such as the 1826 abolition of the Janissary corps, but formalized with the proclamation of the Edict of Gülhane on November 3, 1839, drafted by Grand Vizier Mustafa Reşid Pasha. This edict promised security of life, honor, and property for all subjects; an end to tax farming (iltizam) through regular assessment and collection; and a structured conscription system for military service, aiming to replace irregular levies with a disciplined army while curbing corruption in provincial governance.[48][49] Subsequent measures expanded these foundations, including the 1856 Imperial Reform Edict (Hatt-ı Hümayun), which extended legal equality to non-Muslims by abolishing their special taxes like the jizya and permitting mixed courts, though implementation varied and often provoked backlash from Muslim elites fearing erosion of Islamic privileges. Administrative reforms centralized tax collection under salaried officials, established provincial councils with local representation, and introduced secular penal and commercial codes modeled partly on European systems, such as the French Code Napoléon. Military modernization involved European-style training, artillery upgrades, and a universal conscription law in 1843 that exempted non-Muslims initially but later included them amid equality rhetoric; by the 1850s, this yielded a reformed Nizam-ı Cedid army numbering around 150,000 regulars. Educational initiatives proliferated secular schools, including the 1845 establishment of the School of Civil Administration and medical academies, training over 1,000 students by 1860 to staff a burgeoning bureaucracy. Economic efforts included the 1858 Land Code to regulate tenure and boost productivity, alongside infrastructure like telegraphs (first line in 1855) and railways starting in the 1860s.[50][51] Despite these advances, the Tanzimat yielded partial successes overshadowed by systemic failures, as entrenched interests— including the ulema and provincial notables—resisted secular encroachments, leading to uneven enforcement and events like the 1859-1860 Lebanese civil strife. Financial strains from reform costs, war indemnities, and capitulatory trade privileges culminated in state bankruptcy by 1875, with public debt exceeding 200 million pounds sterling. While bureaucratic efficiency improved in Istanbul and conscription enhanced military cohesion during the Crimean War (1853-1856), the reforms failed to reverse territorial erosion or fully integrate diverse populations, exacerbating ethnic tensions that fueled Balkan unrest and European interventions in the Eastern Question; centralization alienated autonomist groups without delivering promised equality, as non-Muslim communities perceived tokenism amid persistent discrimination.[52][53]Crimean War and Balance-of-Power Interventions
The immediate triggers of the Crimean War stemmed from a dispute over custodianship of Christian holy sites in Palestine, where Russia sought expanded protections for Orthodox subjects under Ottoman rule, clashing with French advocacy for Catholic rights.[54] In 1852-1853, Tsar Nicholas I pressed Sultan Abdülmecid I for confirmation of Russian guardianship over Orthodox Christians, invoking the 1774 Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, but Ottoman rejection and French-backed concessions to Catholics escalated tensions.[54] On July 2, 1853, Russian forces occupied the Ottoman vassal principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, prompting Ottoman mobilization and a declaration of war on October 4, 1853.[55] The naval Battle of Sinop on November 30, 1853, saw the Russian Black Sea Fleet under Admiral Pavel Nakhimov annihilate an Ottoman squadron, killing over 3,000 Ottoman sailors and sinking 11 ships, which alarmed Britain and France as evidence of Russian intent to dominate the Black Sea and threaten Ottoman integrity.[54] Britain, fearing Russian advances toward India and disruption of Mediterranean trade routes, and France under Napoleon III, seeking prestige and to counterbalance Russia after supporting Ottoman reforms, deployed fleets to the Dardanelles in early 1854.[56] Anglo-French forces declared war on Russia on March 27-28, 1854, with the Kingdom of Sardinia joining in January 1855 to align with Western powers for unification goals.[54] Major campaigns focused on the Crimean Peninsula, where allied forces landed at Eupatoria on September 14, 1854, leading to the Battle of the Alma River on September 20, where 60,000 allies repelled 33,000 Russians but failed to press to Sevastopol immediately.[54] The subsequent 349-day Siege of Sevastopol, beginning October 17, 1854, involved trench warfare, naval blockades, and battles like Balaclava (October 25, famed for the Charge of the Light Brigade) and Inkerman (November 5), culminating in the city's fall on September 11, 1855, after Russian supply lines collapsed.[56] Total casualties exceeded 500,000, with disease claiming more lives than combat, exposing logistical failures across belligerents.[54] The Treaty of Paris, signed March 30, 1856, by Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Britain, France, Sardinia, Austria, and Prussia, ended the war by neutralizing the Black Sea—banning warships and fortresses for both Russia and the Ottomans—and returning territories to pre-war status, including Russian cession of southern Bessarabia to Moldavia.[57] Russia relinquished its exclusive protectorate over Ottoman Orthodox Christians, placing their rights under collective European guarantee, while affirming Ottoman territorial integrity to preserve the European balance of power against unilateral Russian expansion.[56] This intervention underscored the Concert of Europe's commitment to containing Russian influence in the Ottoman domains, temporarily stabilizing the Eastern Question but highlighting the empire's military dependence on Western allies.[58]The Great Eastern Crisis
Balkan Uprisings and Ethnic Tensions
In the Ottoman Balkans of the 1870s, ethnic tensions arose from the empire's multi-confessional structure, where Christian Slavic populations—primarily Orthodox Serbs, Bulgarians, and Greeks—faced systemic disadvantages under Muslim Turkish administration, including discriminatory taxation via the cizye poll tax and unequal land rights favoring Muslim aghas. These grievances, compounded by the millet system's preservation of religious hierarchies rather than ethnic equality, fueled demands for autonomy amid rising 19th-century nationalism, which emphasized linguistic and cultural unity over Ottoman loyalty. In Herzegovina, a province with over 80% Christian inhabitants, economic exploitation through tax farming and forced labor intensified resentments between Serb peasants and Muslim elites, setting the stage for revolt.[59][60] The Herzegovina Uprising began on July 19, 1875, in the Nevesinje region, when local Christian leaders rejected Ottoman tax demands and conscription, rapidly escalating into armed resistance against regular troops and bashi-bazouk irregulars. By August, the rebellion spread to Bosnia, where mixed populations of Orthodox Serbs (about 42%), Muslims (39%), and Catholic Croats (18%) saw inter-communal clashes, with rebels targeting Muslim properties while Ottoman forces retaliated indiscriminately. Serbia and Montenegro provided covert aid, reflecting irredentist ambitions to incorporate Slavic kin, while the uprising's persistence—lasting into 1877 in pockets—exposed Ottoman military weaknesses, with irregular forces often exacerbating ethnic hatreds through looting and reprisals. Casualty figures are disputed, but Ottoman reports claim around 5,000 rebels killed by late 1875, alongside civilian deaths on both sides amid reports of villages burned.[61][59] Inspired by Herzegovina's defiance, the Bulgarian April Uprising erupted on April 20, 1876 (Julian calendar; May 2 Gregorian), coordinated by the Bulgarian Revolutionary Central Committee in Bucharest, aiming to establish an autonomous state amid similar agrarian burdens and suppression of Bulgarian clergy and schools. Ottoman suppression involved regular army units alongside bashi-bazouks, leading to massacres in centers like Batak, where on May 14, 1876, approximately 3,000-5,000 Bulgarian villagers were killed after surrender, with bodies mutilated and wells poisoned. Overall estimates of Bulgarian deaths range from 12,000 (Ottoman figures) to 30,000 or more (European consular reports), though some analyses note underreported Muslim casualties from initial rebel attacks on Turkish quarters, highlighting mutual ethnic violence rather than one-sided barbarity. These events deepened cleavages, portraying Christian revolts as existential threats to Muslim dominance and galvanizing Pan-Slavic support from Russia, which viewed the uprisings as opportunities to dismantle Ottoman rule in Europe.[62][63]Russo-Turkish War and Atrocities
The Bulgarian April Uprising against Ottoman authority in 1876 elicited savage reprisals from Ottoman irregular forces, particularly bashi-bazouks, who razed villages and slaughtered civilians across the region.[62] British consular reports, including those from Vice-Consul E. Dupuis, documented the destruction of approximately 60 villages and an estimated 12,000 Bulgarian deaths in the initial wave, though contemporary accounts varied, with some eyewitnesses like journalist J.A. MacGahan describing scenes of systematic rape, mutilation, and mass executions in places like Batak, where up to 5,000 were killed in a single town.[62] [63] These massacres, termed the "Bulgarian Horrors," were not isolated but part of a broader Ottoman strategy to suppress Slavic unrest, involving both regular troops under lax command and autonomous militias drawn from Circassian refugees, whose actions blurred lines of accountability.[64] Outrage in Europe, amplified by MacGahan's dispatches for the London Daily News and William Gladstone's pamphlet Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East (selling 200,000 copies in weeks), pressured the Ottoman government but failed to yield reforms, as the Constantinople Conference of 1876-1877 collapsed without resolution.[65] Russia, invoking pan-Slavic sympathies and Orthodox solidarity, mobilized in response; Tsar Alexander II declared war on April 24, 1877 (Julian calendar), framing the conflict as a crusade against Ottoman "barbarism" while pursuing territorial gains in the Balkans and Caucasus.[66] The Russian advance began with a Danube crossing in June 1877, marked by victories at Shipka Pass but stalled by fierce Ottoman resistance at Plevna, where Osman Pasha's forces held out from July to December, inflicting heavy Russian losses before surrendering.[67] By January 1878, Russian troops had captured Adrianople, prompting an armistice on January 31 and the Treaty of San Stefano in March, which envisioned a large autonomous Bulgaria under Russian influence—terms later curtailed by European powers at the Congress of Berlin.[68] Atrocities persisted into the war itself, with Ottoman forces repeating patterns of civilian targeting in Bulgaria and Armenia to disrupt Russian supply lines and deter collaboration; reports detailed further bashi-bazouk raids, including the slaughter of thousands in the Rhodope Mountains.[69] Russian armies, alongside Bulgarian and Romanian auxiliaries, reciprocated with reprisals against Muslim populations, driven by vengeance for prior massacres and logistical imperatives; Cossack units burned villages, executed Ottoman officials implicated in 1876 killings, and facilitated the exodus of over 200,000-300,000 Muslims from Bulgaria, many perishing from exposure or violence en route to Anatolia.[70] While Ottoman irregulars bore primary responsibility for initiating escalatory brutality—exacerbated by the empire's reliance on poorly controlled levies amid administrative decay—Russian conduct reflected wartime realpolitik, prioritizing rapid conquest over restraint, though systematic genocide was absent on either side.[71] Total war dead exceeded 500,000, including civilians, underscoring how ethnic animosities, amplified by great-power rivalries, transformed local revolts into continental carnage.[66]Congress of Berlin and Territorial Realignments
The Congress of Berlin convened from June 13 to July 13, 1878, under the chairmanship of German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, to revise the expansive territorial provisions of the Treaty of San Stefano, which had concluded the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 in Russia's favor.[72] Representatives from Austria-Hungary, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Ottoman Empire, and Russia negotiated to curb Russian influence in the Balkans and restore a balance of power among European states, averting potential wider conflict.[72] The resulting Treaty of Berlin, signed on July 13, 1878, dismantled the large Bulgarian state outlined at San Stefano and redistributed Ottoman territories, prioritizing strategic interests over ethnic self-determination.[73] Key realignments granted formal independence to Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro, previously autonomous principalities under Ottoman suzerainty, while expanding their territories at the empire's expense.[74] Serbia acquired the Ottoman sanjaks of Niš, Prokuplje, Kuršumlija, Leskovac, and Vranje, increasing its area by approximately 11,500 square kilometers; Montenegro gained Nikšić, Podgorica, Kolashin, and portions of the Herzegovina sandžak, adding about 9,000 square kilometers; Romania received northern Dobruja from the San Stefano Bulgarian territory but was compelled to cede southern Bessarabia to Russia in exchange.[74] [75] These adjustments, while enhancing Balkan statehood, incorporated mixed ethnic populations and fueled irredentist claims.[72] Bulgaria's reconfiguration marked a significant contraction: the northern region north of the Balkan Mountains became the autonomous Principality of Bulgaria, tributary to the Ottoman sultan, with Sofia as capital and extending to the Danube; southern territories formed Eastern Rumelia as a separate autonomous Ottoman province under a Christian governor, while Macedonia reverted to direct Ottoman administration, denying Slavic nationalists a unified state.[73] Austria-Hungary secured the right to occupy and administer Bosnia and Herzegovina indefinitely, ostensibly to suppress unrest but effectively expanding Habsburg influence into Slavic lands without formal annexation, preserving nominal Ottoman sovereignty.[74] In the eastern theater, Russia retained Caucasian acquisitions including Kars, Ardahan, and Batumi, consolidating its Black Sea position.[75] The Ottoman Empire, weakened but preserved as a buffer, ceded administrative control of Cyprus to Britain via a secret convention, ostensibly for defense against Russian advances, in return for British diplomatic protection.[76] Greece received no immediate territorial concessions but a clause mandating Ottoman negotiations on border rectifications, which yielded Thessaly and parts of Epirus in 1881.[76] These provisions, documented in the treaty's articles, prioritized great-power equilibrium over local ethnic majorities, leaving Macedonian Slavs, Albanians, and others under Ottoman rule and incubating future Balkan instabilities.[73][72]| Entity | Principal Territorial Changes |
|---|---|
| Bulgaria | Divided into autonomous Principality (north of Balkans) and Eastern Rumelia (south); Macedonia restored to Ottoman control.[73] |
| Serbia | Independence; gained Niš, Vranje, and other districts (~11,500 km²).[74] |
| Montenegro | Independence; acquired Nikšić, Podgorica (~9,000 km²).[74] |
| Romania | Independence; gained northern Dobruja; lost southern Bessarabia to Russia.[74] [75] |
| Austria-Hungary | Occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.[74] |
| Russia | Retained Kars, Ardahan, Batumi; gained southern Bessarabia.[75] |
| Britain | Administrative control of Cyprus.[76] |
| Ottoman Empire | Retained Macedonia, Thrace core; lost Balkan principalities' independence and various districts.[73] |
