scholarly journals Return of the Ashes

2021 ◽  
pp. 211-227
Author(s):  
Ozan Ozavci
Keyword(s):  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
Great Power ◽  
Privileged Position ◽  
The Sublime ◽  
Eastern Question

The so-called second Eastern Crisis of 1839–41 came to an end with an intervention in Ottoman Syria on the part of the Quadruple Alliance (Austria, Britain, Prussia, and Russia) and the Ottoman Empire. Yet the intervention saw a fierce opposition from France and Mehmed Ali Pașa of Egypt, under whose control Syria was at the time. This chapter explains why and how Russia gave up her privileged position in Istanbul and agreed upon the 1840 intervention, and why France objected to the idea of Great Power intervention in the Ottoman world. It concludes by highlighting the intricate policies adopted by the Quadruple Alliance and the Sublime Porte to corner the French and Mehmed Ali. The latter two were indeed diplomatically persuaded in the end and even came to review their discourses over the ‘Eastern Question’.

scholarly journals Reporting from the city: Vignettes from Constantinople in the Dispatches of Lord Strangford during the Eastern Crisis of the 1820s

Chronos ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 35 ◽  
pp. 93-111
Author(s):  
Theophilus C Prousis
Keyword(s):  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
Great Power ◽  
Power Politics ◽  
Eastern Question ◽  
Explosive Force ◽  
Great Power Politics ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The City ◽  
Shed Light

The tangled web of the Eastern Question became the single most explosive force in European great power politics during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and Constantinople became the epicenter of this contentious dispute in Ottoman-European relations. Eyewitness commentaries by diplomats, travelers, residents, and others who visited this fabled city conveyed images and episodes about various topics, including European interactions with the Ottoman Empire, European designs on contested lands, and Ottoman politics and policy. These scenes and stories not only shed light on the geopolitical heart of the Eastern Question but also reinforce the centrality of this volatile issue in the relationship between the Ottoman Empire and Europe.

Byzantine Traditions of the Sublime Porte: the Title qayṣar-i Rūm in the Ottoman Political Thought

Istoriya ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (5 (103)) ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Dmitry Korobeynikov
Keyword(s):  
Sixteenth Century ◽  
Political Culture ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
The State ◽  
Great Power ◽  
The Sublime

The article is focused on the problem of the title qayṣar-i Rūm, “Caesar of Rome”, which was a traditional title of the Byzantine emperors in Arabic and Persian sources. It is believed that the title was accepted by Mehmed II Fatih after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. It seems that the Ottoman chancery began to use the title only during the reign of Suleyman the Magnificent. The first evidence thereof was the famous inscription of Suleyman in the fortress of Bender (Bendery, in Moldavia/Moldova) in 1538—1539. The Ottomans recognized themselves as a new Rome only after they went into conflict with a great power in Persia, the state of the Aq-Qoyunlu and the Safawi Empire at the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century. They did so, however, in the categories of their Persianate political culture, and the title qayṣar-i Rūm was believed to have been an equivalent of the title padishah.

scholarly journals THE PROBLEM OF ANNUAL PAYMENTS TO THE CRIMEAN KHANATE DURING THE RUSSIAN-TURKISH NEGOTIATIONS IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE 18TH CENTURY

2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 183-191
Author(s):  
Tatiana A. Bazarova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
Peace Agreements ◽  
The Sublime ◽  
Key Issues

Тhe paper considers diplomatic struggle around fixing in the Russian-Turkish agreements the refusal of annual payments to the Crimean Khan. This problem was one of the key issues in Russia’s relations with the Ottoman Empire and the Crimean Khanate during the Petrine era. The participation of Crimean diplomacy in the discussion of the problem at the Russian-Turkish peace talks remains poorly studied in Russian historiography. The Treaty of Constantinople (1700) secured the abolition of annual payments to the Crimean Khanate. However, the failure of the Prut campaign and non-fulfilment of Russian-Turkish peace agreements obligations by the tsar led to the renewal of the demand for annual payments. In 1711 and 1712, during negotiations with Russian ambassadors, the Ottomans did not insist on including to the peace treaty a clause on payments to the Crimean Khan and were content with oral promises. A difficult diplomatic struggle on the “Crimean dacha” unfolded at the peace talks in 1713, when Kaplan I Giray joined the active discussion of the problem. The clause on Crimean payments (without declaring direct obligations) was included in the text of the Adrianople (1713) and Constantinople (1720) treaties. By supporting the “khan’s claims” at the Russian-Turkish peace talks, the Sublime Porte demonstrated the readiness to protect the interests of its vassal. Peter I regarded the return of the clause about the “Crimean dacha” as a blow to Russia’s international prestige.

scholarly journals RUSSIAN-TURKISH WAR 1877-1878 IN IRANIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE XIX CENTURY AND MODERN IRANIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-61
Author(s):  
MOHAMMAD SALMASIZADEH ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Mediterranean Sea ◽  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
Black Sea ◽  
World Trade ◽  
The Black Sea ◽  
Historical Event ◽  
Territorial Expansion ◽  
Eastern Question ◽  
The Mediterranean ◽  
Xix Century

The conflict between the Russian and Turkish in 1877-1878, though formed on the pretext of Russia's support for Christian nations under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, was actually part of the great scheme that European governments had begun to break up the Ottoman Empire and resolve the Eastern Question. The goals of these powers for world domination, that would sometimes results in wars among themselves, were mainly focused on expanding the territorial realm and winning economic gains. These goals were followed under the disguise of gaining freedom for Christians and securing independence for non-Turkish nations. The scientific and technological impairment of the Ottoman Empire compared to the European countries, accompanied by internal rivalries and frequent overthrow of the rulers, were some of the main weaknesses of the Ottoman state causing their demise. In the meantime, Russia was in pursue of its policy of territorial expansion and seeking access to warm waters. Russia's main objective was to obtain access to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. Having control over the Straits of Bosporus and Dardanelles that were under the rule of the Ottoman Empire would have connected Russia to the center of world trade in the Mediterranean and would have freed Russia from its land blockages and frozen ports. The causality, the start, and the ramifications of these wars have been reflected in the Iranian historiography of that era. Mohammad Hassan Khan Etemad al-Saltanah, a great historian of the Nasereddin Shah Qajar Age (1848-1898), using the reports of Iranian officials in Russia and the Ottoman Empire, and two books of Montazame Nasseri and Merat al-Boldan that were translations of selected articles from the French and Ottoman newspapers have recorded this important historical event. The reasons for Iranian attention to this historical event forms part of the modern and global historiography of Iran, in which attention to the developments in the Ottoman Empire plays an important role in Iran's acquaintance with modern civilization.

Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Charlie Laderman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Great Power ◽  
World Power ◽  
The Us ◽  
Eastern Question

This introductory chapter outlines why the American response to the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians offers such critical insights into the US rise to world power, its evolving relationship with Britain, and the development of ideas on humanitarian intervention and global order at the turn of the twentieth century. It introduces the Armenian question, setting it within the larger Eastern question, and explains why the Ottoman Empire became a target for outside intervention by the European great powers in the nineteenth century. It explains why the United States, which had traditionally avoided political entanglement in the Near East even while its missionaries established an exceptional role there, began to take a greater interest in the region as its emergence as a great power coincided with the first large-scale Armenian massacres.

Russia and the Eastern Question

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Bitis
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
The Caucasus ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
Eastern Question ◽  
Book Covers ◽  
Russian Military ◽  
The Military ◽  
European Diplomacy

This book covers one of the most important and persistent problems in nineteenth-century European diplomacy, the Eastern Question. The Eastern Question was essentially shorthand for comprehending the international consequences caused by the gradual and apparently terminal decline of the Ottoman Empire in Europe. This volume examines the military and diplomatic policies of Russia as it struggled with the Ottoman Empire for influence in the Balkans and the Caucasus. The book is based on extensive use of Russian archive sources and it makes a contribution to our understanding of issues such as the development of Russian military thought, the origins and conduct of the 1828–1829 Russo-Turkish War, the origins and conduct of the 1826–1828 Russo-Persian War and the Treaty of Adrianople. The book also considers issues such as the Russian army's use of Balkan irregulars, the reform of the Danubian Principalities (1829 –1834), the ideas of the ‘Russian Party’ and Russian public opinion toward the Eastern Question.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document