The Making of the Balkan States

THE MAKING OF THE BALKAN STATES

..................

William Smith Murray

WALLACHIA PUBLISHERS

Thank you for reading. In the event that you appreciate this book, please consider sharing the good word(s) by leaving a review, or connect with the author.

This book is a work of nonfiction and is intended to be factually accurate.

All rights reserved. Aside from brief quotations for media coverage and reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced or distributed in any form without the author’s permission. Thank you for supporting authors and a diverse, creative culture by purchasing this book and complying with copyright laws.

Copyright © 2015 by William Smith Murray

Interior design by Pronoun

Distribution by Pronoun

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

Wallachia, Moldavia, Servia and Montenegro, Up to the Treaty of Paris—1856

THE WALLACHIANS AND THE MOLDAVIANS—UP TO THE GREEK INSURRECTION (1821)

THE SERVIANS—UP TO THE GREEK INSURRECTION 1821

WALLACHIA, MOLDAVIA, AND SERVIA, IN CONNECTION WITH THE GREEK INSURRECTION, 1821-29

SERVIA—FROM THE TREATY OF ADRIANOPLE TO THE TREATY OF PARIS—1829-1856

THE DANUBIAN PRINCIPALITIES FROM THE TREATY OF ADRIANOPLE TO THE CRIMEAN WAR 1829-1855

MONTENEGRO—UP TO THE CRIMEAN WAR—1853

THE CRIMEAN WAR AND SOME OF ITS IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES—1853-1856

CHAPTER II

The Balkan Provinces under the Protection of the European Concert—1856-1870

THE FORMATION OF ROUMANIA

CHANGES IN SERVIA

THE SITUATION IN MONTENEGRO—1856 TO 1870

THE BULGARIANS AND THEIR RE-AWAKENING

CHAPTER III

International Complications, and the Outcome in the Balkans—1870-1878

CHAPTER IV

Organization of Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia and the Movements Leading to their Union and Independence—1878-1909

CHAPTER V

Summary—Present Situation in the Balkan States

The Making of the Balkan States

By

William Smith Murray

The Making of the Balkan States

Published by Wallachia Publishers

New York City, NY

First published 1910

Copyright © Wallachia Publishers, 2015

All rights reserved

Except in the United States of America, this book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.

About Wallachia Publishers

Wallachia Publishers mission is to publish the world’s finest European history texts. More information on our recent publications and catalog can be found on our website.

Within the past hundred years Turkey has lost somewhat more than two-thirds of her European territory and population. Much the larger part of this loss has gone to make up the four constitutional monarchies that are commonly called the Balkan States.

This study aims to give a brief account of the peoples in these four groups so long under Ottoman rule, and to trace somewhat in detail the movements that have led to their independence. Parts of this field already covered by special treatises have been passed over here quite briefly. The works giving the fuller treatment have usually been cited.

Only incidental references are made in this sketch to the other three groups (in Greece, Bessarabia and Bosnia-Herzegovina) that have also been completely separated, more or less in the same connection, from Turkey. The chief effort here has been to show the actual working of the forces that have finally added Roumania, Bulgaria, Servia and Montenegro to the family of European nations.

I gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness to Professor William M. Sloane and Professor James T. Shotwell, who have aided me with most helpful advice and criticisms.

W. S. M.

New York City, April 18, 1910.

CHAPTER I

..................

WALLACHIA, MOLDAVIA, SERVIA AND MONTENEGRO, UP TO THE TREATY OF PARIS—1856

..................

THE INTERFERENCE OF NATIONS IN the internal affairs of other countries, although once a more common thing than it is to-day, has continued to play an important role in the creation of new states. This has happened despite the tendency of leading nations in recent times to take more and more account of the principle of non-intervention. Certain changes in ideas and conditions during the past century have, no doubt, had a most decided bearing in that connection. Keeping pace with increasingly rapid and suitable means of communication, the widening range of trade and travel has so spread out the interests of civilized countries that most nations have come to be scrupulously sensitive to the policies and practices of many others. Then too the aggressive and propagandist character of democracy and the efforts among those of the same race to achieve political unity have helped now and then to produce complications that have afforded more or less plausible excuses for intervention.

There has been, meanwhile, no lack of imperative calls for the readjustment of political relations established as a result of conquest. For various reasons, it would seem, these manifestations of discontent, especially in the Turkish empire, have been quite generally seized upon as pretexts for interference from without. It is in this connection that the suspected national ambitions of some of the European governments and the lingering faith in the balance-of-power principle have quite frequently carried so-called friendly interpositions over into destructive wars.

The anomalous conditions so long existing in Turkey have laid that country open in recent times to the application of what may be called exceptional principles of intervention. Nowhere else since the close of the French Revolution has intervention been so constant and in one sense so effective. Although the peace of Europe has often suffered by reason of the resulting complications, all this has been a most important factor in the creation of the four constitutional monarchies in the Balkans.

The Ottoman empire was built up by a series of conquests that made subjects of peoples who either could not or would not be one with the conquerors or with each other, hence patriotism there, in relation to the whole state, has been one-sided, to say the least. Religious differences and accompanying prejudices have ever been operative; while national and racial ambitions, together with the pressing need and the burning desire for a larger measure of liberty and security, have fostered there a spirit of jealousy, of discontent and of disunion. With these influences at work and with the increasing probability that a determined struggle would eventually receive the support of one or more of the great powers of Europe, the discontented nationalities under Turkish rule have succeeded for nearly a century in keeping up almost a constant strain on the forces that were calculated to hold the empire together. Yet this very clashing of interests, ambitions, and aspirations—to be seen as well in the consequent strivings of the interested powers—and the apprehension in Europe of grave and far reaching consequences likely to result from the impending conflict, have given a semblance of solidarity and a measure of perpetuity to what has come to be called the Concert of Europe.

THE WALLACHIANS AND THE MOLDAVIANS—UP TO THE GREEK INSURRECTION (1821)

..................

THE BEGINNING OF A CONTINUOUS control, under treaty rights, in the affairs of the Ottoman empire by one of the great powers of Europe, was in 1774. Six years previous, in connection with Russian interference in Poland, Turkey declared war against Russia. After several other nations became involved, this struggle resulted in the first partition of Poland, and in the acquirement by Russia of a protectorate over a part of the Ottoman subjects. In the treaty of peace (Kutschouc-Kainardji, 1774) the Porte agreed that a permanent Russian embassy might be established at Constinople, and that Russia should have the right of free navigation in Turkish waters; and, most important of all, the Sultan promised to protect constantly the Christian religion and its churches, and to keep religiously to a list of conditions under which Russia restored Wallachia and Moldavia to Turkey. Also, as the circumstances of these two principalities might require, the Russian ministers resident at Constantinople were to be permitted to intercede in their favor. This treaty which expressed the agreement of the two empires to annihilate and leave in an eternal oblivion all the treaties and conventions previously made between the two states (some reference to boundaries was excepted), marks the beginning of a Russian régime, so to speak, in Turkish affairs, which was only brought to an end when the armies and navies of England and France joined with those of Turkey against Russia, in 1853-6.

Wallachia and Moldavia already had a history of nearly five hundred years, and the two principalities had now (1774) been tributary to the Porte for more than three centuries. A few descendants of the Latin-speaking Roman colonists in that part of Europe are supposed to have survived from the third century, A. D., and about the end of the thirteenth century these were joined by other Roumans (more or less Latinized peoples of eastern Europe) and thus were formed the two Rouman principalities. The southern—Wallachia—took its name from that by which its people were known to their neighbors, and the northern—Moldavia—was called by the name of its principal river. During the fifteenth century, these principalities were brought under the supremacy of the Ottoman government, but by paying a yearly tribute they retained, for a long period, practical independence in internal affairs and were governed down to 1720 by native hospodars (governors) of their own choosing. Unlike the social conditions in other Balkan provinces, however, the old nobility in Moldavia and Wallachia managed to perpetuate itself, and all governmental affairs administered by the principalities were controlled for centuries by the aristocracy.

Although the Treaty of Kainardji professed that there would be cultivated between the two sovereigns—the Empress and the Sultan—, as well as between the two empires, a sincere union and a perpetual and inviolable friendship, with a careful accomplishment and maintenance of the Articles, yet within ten years Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula and some nearby territory, and the Porte promptly responded by undertaking another war against the Czarina. This struggle was brought to an end in 1792 by the treaty of Jassy, which ceded to Russia some sections of Turkish territory, and reaffirmed all the former stipulations respecting Wallachia and Moldavia, beginning with the treaty of Kainardji.

The principalities suffered for a century (1720-1820) from their relations with the Phanariot Greek governors, who were sent to them by the Porte. As each appointment added somewhat to the income of the Sultan, it became customary to change these hospodars frequently. But every such change added greatly to the burdens of the principalities; and, mindful of her treaty rights, Russia induced the Sultan to issue a Hatti-cheriff, in 1802, fixing the terms of office for these officials at seven years, and making the consent of the Russian minister necessary to their removal. This promise was made while the Tsar was posing as the friend of Turkey, by helping to drive the French army out of Egypt. Only three years later, however, the great victory at Austerlitz, and the treaty that followed, making France through her new possessions—the Illyrian provinces—a neighbor to the Ottoman empire, inclined the Sultan and his advisers to put themselves again under the guidance of the French.

In his efforts to remain neutral in the European conflict just ended, the Sultan had taken the precaution to make some warlike preparations along the lower Danube; and that led the Tsar to increase his influence over Ottoman subjects in that territory. Urged on now by the representations of the French minister, Sebastiani, and disregarding his agreement of four years previous, the Sultan permitted himself to be so deeply moved by the traitorous attitude of the governors of Wallachia and Moldavia in favoring Russian intrigue, that he removed these officials without the consent of Russia. The ambassadors of England and Russia then determined to force the Sultan to reinstate the governors, and he yielded, after a time; but, notwithstanding his submission, Russia moved her army into the principalities. England’s threatening attitude failed before the end of the year (1806) to prevent the Porte from declaring war against Russia. With a British fleet anchored a few miles from Constantinople (February, 1807), the Sultan’s government seemed inclined to yield to the English ambassador’s ultimatum, that Sebastiani be at once dismissed from the city; that the Porte renew the treaty of alliance with England and Russia; that the Bosphorus and Dardanelles be open to Russian ships of war; and that the Turkish navy be held by the English until the return of peace. Time was gained at Constantinople by delaying negotiations with England, and under the encouragement and direction of the French ambassador the defenses of the city were made ready to withstand an attack. Within two weeks the idea of an assault was abandoned by the British and their fleet sailed away; but they then made an unsuccessful attempt to invade Egypt, and as a result the Porte declared war against England (March) and formed an alliance with France.

The Russian forces being mostly engaged with the Prussians at this time against the French, made the outlook quite promising for the Turks. But the deposition of Sultan Selim (May, 1807) and the prospect, after the French won the battle of Friedland (June), that Napoleon and the Tsar Alexander would settle their differences served to bring about an entire change in the situation. The disorders in Turkey, culminating in the Sultan being set aside on the charge of combating the religious principles consecrated by the Koran, seemed to cause Napoleon to feel that the Osmanlis were hopelessly unstable, and that the fall of their empire was inevitable. He therefore all the more readily abandoned Turkey when he formed his alliance with the Tsar (July, 1807). The treaty of Tilsit, setting forth the terms of this alliance, stipulated that Russia should evacuate the Danubian principalities, but that the Turks were not to be allowed to enter that territory until a treaty of peace should be made between Russia and the Porte.

The Tsar and Napoleon secretly agreed, however, that the Porte must accept the mediation of France, and that a satisfactory result must be reached within three months after negotiations were commenced, else France and Russia would make common