sign in sign up
<<
Home , Crimean War, Eastern Question, Triple Entente

A. L. Macfe. The , 1774-1923. and New York: Longman, 1996. vii + 141 pp. $11.50, paper, ISBN 978-0-582-29195-9.

Reviewed by Theophilus C. Prousis

Published on HABSBURG (December, 1996)

A. L. Macfe's concise survey of the complex tinued viability, a question of no small importance Eastern Question ably fulflls the objectives of in view of the Empire's strategic position astride Longman's Seminar Studies in History, a series of the , , and eastern Mediter‐ brief introductory works on major themes in ranean. Dated conventionally from tsarist expan‐ British, European, and world history. The author's sion toward the in the reign of Cather‐ expertise is in British and Middle Eastern history. ine the Great (1762-1796) to the demise of the Ot‐ He has published extensively on the Straits Ques‐ toman Empire in 1923, the Eastern Question re‐ tion, diplomacy in the late Ottoman volved around four intersecting issues: the de‐ period, and the formation of modern un‐ cline of the once-mighty , precipi‐ der Ataturk. The work under review lucidly ex‐ tated by military defeat and breakdown of admin‐ plains the intricate diplomacy of the Eastern istrative and fnancial institutions; the ultimate Question from the late eighteenth to the early failure of Ottoman modernizing reform to rejuve‐ twentieth centuries, and the primary sources in nate the "sick man of ," as the Ottoman the documents section illustrate perspectives and Empire came to be known in the nineteenth cen‐ issues addressed in the text. Students and scholars tury; the rise of among Ottoman sub‐ will fnd Macfe's succinct study a welcome intro‐ jects, especially Balkan Orthodox Christians, Arab duction to the more detailed and elaborate work Christians and Muslims, , and Turks; of Matthew S. Anderson, The Eastern Question, and the rivalries of the Great Powers (Britain, 1774-1923 (London, 1966), long considered a clas‐ , , Austria-Hungary, Germany, ) sic in the feld of European and Near Eastern for commercial, diplomatic, political, and strategic . leverage in the Ottoman Near East. The Eastern Question is the term used in Macfe's chronological approach examines diplomatic and historical writing for the question Great Power involvement in the Near East from of the Ottoman Empire's political status and con‐ the Russo-Turkish War of 1768-1774 to the Treaty H-Net Reviews of Lausanne in 1923. Twelve short chapters treat agreements and promises made by Britain, such Eastern episodes as tsarist expansion in the France, Russia, and Italy regarding the partition Black Sea area, 's invasion of , the of Ottoman-ruled lands represented a departure Greek War of Independence, Mehmet Ali and the from traditional policy. In virtually every Eastern Egyptian Question, the , the Eastern crisis until 1914, the Great Powers worked indi‐ Crisis of 1875-1878, the Bosnian Annexation of vidually or collectively to maintain the indepen‐ 1908, the of 1912-1913, the Great dence and integrity of the sultan's domains. De‐ War, and the Peace Settlement of 1918-1923. The spite frequent partition proposals put forth by documents section includes clauses of landmark diplomatic ofcials, the Great Powers generally treaties, such as Kutchuk-Kainardji (1774) be‐ adopted a defensive and conservative stance tween Russia and Ottoman Turkey; decrees by predicated on the goal of preserving a fragile bal‐ government ministries and committees on Great ance of power that included the "sick man of Eu‐ Power reactions to Eastern crises; and reports by rope." diplomatic and consular ofcials on the status of Nevertheless, the Great Powers took actions the Ottoman Empire. either individually or collectively that under‐ The strengths of Macfe's study are several. mined the status quo, exacerbated Ottoman de‐ The author clearly demonstrates that the Eastern cline, and made the balance of power more pre‐ Question actually embraced "many eastern ques‐ carious. British, French, and Russian naval action tions," most prominently the various territorial against the Ottoman feet at Navarino in 1827 arenas of Great Power competition. Imperial Rus‐ helped seal the victory of Greek independence. A sia and Austria-Hungary clashed in the Balkans; series of wars between Russia and Ottoman Tur‐ Britain and France were rivals in North Africa, key (1768-1774, 1787-1792, 1806-1812, 1828-1829, Egypt, and the Levant; Britain sought to maintain 1853-1856, 1877-1878) advanced Russia's trade unchallenged mastery over Mediterranean routes and strategic position in the Balkans and Con‐ to India; and Britain and Germany competed in stantinople. Britain's occupation of and Ottoman Mesopotamia with the building of the Egypt, Austria-Hungary's annexation of Bosnia- Berlin-Baghdad Railroad. All the Great Powers, Herzegovina, Italy's seizure of Tripolitania--such but especially Russia and Britain, struggled for in‐ were some of the blows struck by the Great Pow‐ fuence in and the strategic water‐ ers against the Ottoman Empire. So perhaps ways of the Bosphorus and (the I agreements by the on Straits). the fate of the Ottoman Empire did not represent On the whole, the author is even-handed and a dramatic departure from the tradition of Great balanced in his treatment of Great Power strate‐ Power interference and territorial claims. gies and reactions. A good example is his judi‐ My few points of criticism are minor and do cious handling of the Franco-Russian quarrel over not detract from what is an exceptionally fne and the Holy Places in Jerusalem, a major dispute important work. For clarity and organization I which provoked the Crimean War, the only occa‐ would begin an exploration of the Eastern Ques‐ sion when an Eastern Question issue triggered a tion by specifying the various interests and aims European-wide confict. Macfe sorts out the tan‐ of the Great Powers. These objectives eventually gled web of contradictory agreements by the emerge in the author's discussion of particular Triple Entente in the First World War, when the crises, but they need to be detailed or at least Ottoman Empire fought with Germany and Aus‐ identifed early in the text. For instance, it is not tria-Hungary. We are reminded that conficting until chapter 9 ("The First World War, 1914-1918")

2 H-Net Reviews that we fnd mention of Russia's "historic mission" Chapters 10 and 12, on the Peace Settlement and "age-old dream" to secure possession of Con‐ of 1918-1923 and the aftermath of the Eastern stantinople, "the source and inspiration of their Question, might have benefted from David [Russia's] Orthodox faith and culture."[1] Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of Any scholar who assumes the challenge of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Mod‐ crafting a succinct introduction to the Eastern ern Middle East (New York, 1989). Seeds of con‐ Question in eighty pages can hardly be expected temporary confict in , Iraq, , to master all the available primary and secondary and Turkey were planted when Britain and sources, and A. L. Macfe is to be commended for France re-confgured the post-Ottoman Middle his adept handling of works on British policy and East by creating new states, drawing new borders, strategy. His treatment of tsarist policy, however, and importing western political concepts. Cultural is not as sure or as nuanced as his sections on and political of this sort often disre‐ Britain or France. This observation is reinforced garded long-standing ethnic, religious, tribal, and by a glance at the author's bibliography, which linguistic frontiers in the Middle East. Ethnic and omits several recent as well as older studies of religious antagonisms in Turkey, Iraq, Bosnia, and tsarist activity in the Balkans and Near East.[2] Ot‐ Cyprus today comprise one of the bitter legacies toman decline sparked Balkan unrest and revolt, of Great Power diplomacy in the Eastern Ques‐ which threatened to embroil the Great Powers in tion. Macfe might have clarifed why and how Eastern confict, none more so than Russia in Europe's complicated relationship with the Ot‐ view of its geographical proximity and religious toman Empire serves as a bridge and a frame‐ ties to the Eastern Orthodox lands of the Near work for understanding unresolved questions East. Such crises as the Greek War of Indepen‐ and disputes which make up the Eastern Question dence and the Bosnian and Bulgarian revolts in‐ in its current phase. variably confronted the Russian government with Scholars and students of Eastern Question the dilemma of intervention or neutrality. Safe‐ history need to re-examine the subject in several guarding Orthodox Christians provided an oppor‐ ways. Traditional interpretations such as Macfe's tunity to advance imperial state interests, yet the focus almost exclusively on Great Power diploma‐ pursuit of strictly Russian national goals risked cy and geopolitical strategy and pay insufcient Great Power hostility, balance of power disrup‐ attention to trade, culture, education, religion, tion, and squandered resources in costly war and and philanthropy. These, too, were key facets of sacrifce. Eastern disturbances thus found Russia the Eastern Question for all the Great Powers. delicately poised between preserving the "sick Study of the Ottoman-European nexus requires a man of Europe," cooperating with other Great wide angle of vision encompassing not just diplo‐ Powers, and restructuring the Balkans into a Rus‐ matic correspondence, partition proposals, and sian protectorate. Tension between preservation state treaties, but also the various endeavors orga‐ of the status quo and intervention on behalf of fel‐ nized by educational, religious, and philanthropic low Orthodox Christians was particularly promi‐ societies on behalf of Balkan, Arab, and Armenian nent in the reigns of Alexander I and Nicholas I, a Christians of the Ottoman Empire.[3] Macfe period when Metternichean legitimacy jostled touches on the Catholic-Orthodox dispute as back‐ with defense of Orthodoxy and with rectifying drop to the Crimean War, but more systematic Russo-Ottoman treaties violated by Ottoman treatment of trade, religion, and other aspects of reprisals against Balkan insurgents. Great Power interaction throughout the period

3 H-Net Reviews covered in his survey would ofer perspective on Hungary's Magyar co-leadership, which sought to the history of the Eastern Question. avert war in the 1908 .[5] For example, a shared Eastern Orthodox faith Domestic politics may help explain why Great and Byzantine culture shaped Russia's percep‐ Power reactions and approaches to Eastern dis‐ tions of the Eastern Question and infuenced putes often refected divided opinion in policy- tsarist policy in any number of ways from Cather‐ making circles. Macfe accurately points out rival ine II to Nicholas II. Although protection and de‐ moderate and forward voices in the British gov‐ fense of the sultan's Orthodox Christian subjects ernment during the Bosnian and Bulgarian re‐ never took precedence over such tangible aims as volts of the 1870s, and this type of divided counsel security of the southern frontier, expansion along in the Foreign Ministries of France, Russia, Aus‐ the northern and eastern shores of the Black Sea, tria-Hungary, and Germany deserves a larger political leverage in the Balkans, trade in the east‐ place in Eastern Question scholarship. Debate be‐ ern Mediterranean, and control of Constantinople tween "hawks" and "moderates" in formulating and the Straits, Russia's religious ties to Balkan Great Power policy reinforces our sense of the Orthodox subjects imparted a sense of mission to Eastern Question's complexity and importance for tsarist strategy in the Near East. Along similar European policy-makers. lines, probably the most signifcant legacy of Russian and British rivalry in the Near East Napoleon's invasion of Egypt in 1798 was the extended to the Muslim khanates of Central , "opening of the Levant" to Western trade, secular where Russia and Britain struggled for commer‐ ideas, and modernizing reform, the very basis of cial, political, and strategic advantage in the Great Mehmet Ali's transformation of Egypt, which in Game. Tsarist and British reactions to particular turn helped provoke the Egyptian Question of the crises in the Eastern Question might be re-exam‐ 1830s and 1840s. ined in light of their imperial moves and counter- The impact of domestic politics in shaping moves in . Gains or setbacks in the Great Power responses to disputes and rivalries in Near East invariably infuenced strategy in Cen‐ the Ottoman Empire constitutes another dimen‐ tral Asia, and vise versa, as evinced in Russia's re‐ sion of Eastern Question history that needs fur‐ newed Central Asian thrust after the Crimean de‐ ther investigation. Macfe alludes to Western phil‐ bacle and in Britain's victory in the Second hellenic zeal for the cause of Greek independence Afghan War on the heels of Russia's triumph in in the early 1820s, but does not explore the ques‐ the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878.[6] Relating tion of how or to what extent enlightened public Great Power competition in the Near East to the opinion might have infuenced ofcial policy to‐ Anglo-Russian "tournament of shadows" in the ward the Greek revolt. Russia also had an active and Turkestan not only compounds the philhellenic movement, manifested in relief aid intricacy of Eastern Question history, but places campaigns for Balkan Orthodox victims of Ot‐ the subject in a wider geopolitical context where toman reprisals and in poems dedicated to Greek instructive parallels can enrich our study of both freedom by Pushkin and other .[4] In virtu‐ the Near East and . ally every Eastern crisis powerful domestic fac‐ A fnal way to re-examine the Eastern Ques‐ tors either restrained or incited Great Power in‐ tion is to tap the valuable and extensive resources volvement, such as Russia's vocal and infuential now available for scholars working in the ar‐ pan-Slav movement, which urged tsarist action on chives, manuscript collections, and libraries of the behalf of Balkan Slavs in the 1870s, and Austria- former USSR. Moscow's Archive of the Foreign Policy of Russia (AVPR), to which Western histori‐

4 H-Net Reviews ans have only recently been granted unrestricted [3]. On aspects of Imperial Russia's cultural access, is unsurpassed for its rich holdings on diplomacy in the Near East, see Stephen K. tsarist diplomatic, political, commercial, and reli‐ Batalden and Michael D. Palma, "Orthodox Pil‐ gious ventures in the Near East. St. Petersburg's grimage and Russian Landholding in Jerusalem: Russian State Historical Archive (RGIA), the The British Colonial Record," in Stephen K. largest single repository of state records from Batalden, ed., Seeking God: The Recovery of Reli‐ 1801 to 1917, houses additional material that gious Identity in Orthodox Russia, , and sharpens our picture of the variety of Russia's ac‐ (Dekalb, Il.: Northern Illinois University tivities in the Ottoman East.[7] Eastern Question Press, 1993), pp. 251-263; Theofanis G. Stavrou sources in Russian archival and manuscript col‐ and Peter R. Weisensel, Russian Travelers to the lections may not dramatically alter our under‐ Christian East from the Twelfth to the Twentieth standing of tsarist policy, but new details will in‐ Century (Columbus, Oh.: Slavica Publishers, 1986); variably deepen our knowledge and open new Derek Hopwood, The Russian Presence in lines of scholarly inquiry on trade, religion, diplo‐ and Palestine, 1843-1914: Church and Politics in macy, and other facets of Great Power involve‐ the Near East (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969); ment in the Eastern Question. Theofanis G. Stavrou, Russian Interests in Pales‐ Notes tine: A Study of Religious and Educational Enter‐ prise (Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, [1]. A. L. Macfe, The Eastern Question, 1963). 1774-1923 (London and New York: Longman, 1996), p. 58. [4]. Theophilus C. Prousis, Russian Society and the Greek Revolution (Dekalb, Il.: Northern [2]. David Goldfrank, The Origins of the Illinois University Press, 1994). Crimean War (London and New York: Longman, 1994), which utilizes newly released archival doc‐ [5]. Jelena Milojkovic-Djuric, Panslavism and uments from Moscow's Archive of the Foreign Pol‐ National Identity in Russia and in the Balkans icy of Russia; Hugh Ragsdale, ed., Imperial Rus‐ 1830-1880: Images of the Self and Others (Boul‐ sian Foreign Policy (Washington D.C.: Woodrow der: East European Monographs; New York: Dis‐ Wilson Press; Cambridge and New York: Cam‐ tributed by Columbia University Press, 1994); bridge University Press, 1993); Barbara Jelavich, David MacKenzie, The and Russian Panslav‐ Russia's Balkan Entanglements, 1806-1914 (Cam‐ ism, 1875-1878 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University bridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1967); Michael Petrovich, The Emergence of Press, 1991); Andrew Rossos, Russia and the Russian Panslavism, 1856-1870 (New York: Co‐ Balkans: Inter-Balkan Rivalries and Russian For‐ lumbia University Press, 1956). F. Roy Bridge, eign Policy, 1908-1914 (Toronto and Bufalo: Uni‐ From Sadowa to Sarajevo: The Foreign Policy of versity of Toronto Press, 1981); Norman Saul, Rus‐ Austria-Hungary, 1866-1914 (London and Boston: sia and the Mediterranean, 1797-1807 (Chicago: Routledge and K. Paul, 1972); Barbara Jelavich, University of Chicago Press, 1970); Alan Fisher, The Habsburg Empire in European Afairs, The Russian Annexation of the , 1772-1783 1814-1918 (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969). (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); [6]. Peter Hopkirk, The Great Game: The Charles Jelavich, Tsarist Russia and Balkan Na‐ Struggle for Empire in Central Asia (New York: tionalism: Russian Infuence in the Internal Af‐ Kodansha International, 1992). fairs of and , 1879-1886 (Berkeley: [7]. Theophilus C. Prousis, "AVPR and the Or‐ University of California Press, 1958). thodox East," Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 12 (1996), forthcoming; Prousis, "RGIA Resources on

5 H-Net Reviews the Eastern Question: The Dashkov Fond," Jahrbucher fur Geschichte Osteuropas (1997), forthcoming. Copyright (c) 1996 by H-Net, all rights re‐ served. This work may be copied for non-proft educational use if proper credit is given to the re‐ viewer and to HABSBURG. For other permission, please contact and .

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/habsburg

Citation: Theophilus C. Prousis. Review of Macfe, A. L. The Eastern Question, 1774-1923. HABSBURG, H- Net Reviews. December, 1996.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=712

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.

6