DOCSLIB.ORG

Greece and the Ottoman-Russian War of 1877-1878

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Greece and the Ottoman-Russian War of 1877-1878 1 GREECE AND THE OTTOMAN-RUSSIAN WAR OF 1877-1878 Nicholas C. J. Pappas Sam Houston State University A draft paper presented at the conference on the Ottoman-Russian War of 1877- 1878. Sponsored by Meiji University and Middle East Technical University Held in Ankara Turkey, 13-14 December 2005 Greek participation in the Ottoman-Russian War of 1877-1878 was characterized chiefly by vacillation. King George and his successive governments had not been eager to involve Greece in a war over predominantly Slavic issues. However, with the outbreak of the war, a significant portion of the Greek press and public began to insist that Greece take advantage of the war in order to gain irridenta. The prospect of Slavic gains, especially in Macedonia and Thrace, prompted the Greek government to cooperate with Greek nationalist organizations to begin sending irregular bands into Epirus, Thessaly, and Macedonia. In addition, an uprising on Crete broke out in expectation of Greek involvement in the war. Montenegro, Romania and Serbia rejoined the conflict by December 1878, shortly after the fall of Plevna. Greece, however, delayed in mobilizing its troops until January 1878 and did not start moving its forces across the border into Thessaly until 1 February 1878. By that time the war was over. The reasons for Greece’s delay and ultimate tardiness in entering the Ottoman-Russian War of 1877-1878 will be the theme of this study. One of the most unusual episodes of the Ottoman-Russian War of 1877-1878 was the unsuccessful attempt by Greece to play a role in the conflict and thus gain favourable territorial concessions from the Ottoman Empire and the Great Powers. Indeed, through much of the Eastern Crisis, Greece could not decide in its policies between remaining neutral or taking part in the war on the side of Russia.1 This indecisiveness and procrastination can be understood by looking at Greece’s relations with Russia, the peculiar nature of politics and the military in the Greek Kingdom, the complex position of the Greek communities in the Ottoman Empire, and Greece’s relations to Russia and the other powers. Let us first look at the condition of Greco-Russian relations during the Eastern Crisis of 1875-1878, especially in comparison to Russian-Bulgarian relations. Greece and Russia had important cultural, religious, economic, political and military links going back to before the attainment of Greek independence. However, the years following the foundation of an independent Greek state witnessed a gradual weakening of Greco- Russian ties. In the nineteenth century, as Greek relations with western Europe broadened and as the real or perceived threat of Russian Pan-Slavism grew, the Greeks increasingly turned away from Russia in pursuit of their national goals. Greek aspirations often conflicted with Russian imperial policy in the Near East. Russia, in turn, sought other surrogates besides Greece among the other emergent Balkan states, such as Bulgaria and Serbia at different times. Nevertheless, ties between Russia and Greece remained intimate albeit complex and contradictory. Russia and Greece, for example, were coreligionist states, both adhering to the Eastern Orthodox communion. Yet Greek and Russian ecclesiastical interests often were at odds with one another in the Balkans and the 1 The most thorough study of Greece’s role in the Eastern Crisis is Evangelos Kofos’ Greece and the Eastern Crisis, 1875-1878 (Thessalonike, 1975). A copy of this important work was graciously made for me by the staff of the Institute for Balkan Studies and was used extensively in the preparation of this paper 2 Near East. Greece and Russia also had dynastic links with the marriage of George I, King of Greece from 1863 and 1913, to Grand Duchess Olga, niece of Tsar Alexander II. The close relations of the two ruling houses did not prevent friction between the Russian Empire and the Greek Kingdom.2 Russian-Greek relations began to change in the period 1856-1878, especially with the growth of Russian-Bulgarian ties. Russian policy towards Bulgaria during this period was very different from that toward Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, or Greece, in that Russia was not dealing with an autonomous or independent state, but rather with a people who were still directly under Ottoman rule. One of the most striking changes in Russian foreign policy toward the Balkans in the era between the Crimean War and the Eastern Crisis of 1875-1878 was in its attitude toward the Bulgarians and their nascent national movement. This change was to affect relations with not only the Ottoman Empire, but with the other Balkan peoples, notably the Greeks and the Serbs. By the time of the Ottoman-Russian War of 1877-1878, Russian foreign policy, as represented by Nikolai Ignatiev, had tilted in favour of the Bulgarian national movement over that of the Romanians, Serbs and the Greeks. Russian authorities were much more apprised as to the growth of Bulgarian nationalism than the representatives of the other Great Powers in the Ottoman Empire, and as such had both the wherewithal and inclination to harness this national movement. The Bulgarians participated in earlier Russian-Ottoman Wars, and the resultant political, social, economic and cultural ties from participation and subsequent immigration to Russia, made them the same type of surrogates that the Russians had in the Serbs and Greeks earlier in the century. The Bulgarians, unlike the Greeks, Romanians and Serbs, did not have their own autonomous or independent state open to the influence of other powers, such as the British, the French and the Austrians. Russia's policy toward Bulgaria and the Bulgarians in the years 1856 to 1875 was guided by its earlier contacts with the Bulgarian National Movement, as well as by other factors. Among these factors was Russia's loss in the Crimean War and the need to undo the most onerous aspects of the treaty of Paris, notably the demilitarization of the Black Sea, the loss of Southern Bessarabia, and the loss of an exclusive Russian Protectorate over the Danubian Principalities and Serbia. This factor did not directly affect or was affected by Bulgarian affairs, only insofar that an increase of Russian influence over one of the major Christian groups in the Balkans, hitherto unrecognized and located along Russia's traditional invasion route to the straits, could enhance Russia's position vis-à-vis other European powers involved in the region, notably Austria, Britain and France. Russia would eventually successfully repudiate the provisions of the treaty of Paris by taking advantage of the changes in the European balance of power brought about by the Wars of German Unification. This policy to bring about revision of the setbacks of the Crimean War was brought about by prudent engagement in European affairs as advocated and followed by A. M. Gorchakov and the Chancellery of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3 The Asiatic department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, located in Moscow, was more involved in the development of relations with the Balkans than the chancellery and Foreign Minister Gorchakov. The most important individual involved in the development of Russian relations with the Bulgarians was N. P. Ignatiev, who served as minister, later ambassador to the Porte between 1864 and 1877. 4 Ignatiev already had a brilliant cursus 2 The process and other elements of Greek foreign policy are found in E. Driault and M. Lhéritier, Histoire diplomatique de la Grèce de 1821 a nos jours, 3 vols. (Paris, 1925); and Stylianos Laskaris, Diplomatikē historia tēs Hellados, 1821-1914 (Athens, 1947). 3 On Gorchakov and Russian Foreign Policy, see: S. Bushuev, A. M. Gorchakov (Moscow, 1942); J. Klaczko, The Two Chancellors: Prince Gortchakoff and Prince Bismarck (New York, 1876); C. Roux, Alexandre II, Napoleon II et Gorchakoff (Paris, 1913); and S. Semanov, A. M. Gorchakov, russkii diplomat XIX veka (Moscow, 1962). 4 On Ignatiev, see: F. Fadner, Seventy Years of Pan-Slavism in Russia: Karamzin to Danilevskii, 1800-1870 (Washington, D.C., 1962); G. Hünigen, Nikolai Pavlovic Ignat’ev und die russische Balkanpolitik, 1875-1878 (Göttingen, 1968); N. P. Ignatiev, “Zapiski Grafa N. P. Ignatieva, 1864-1874,” Izvestiia Ministerstva Inostrannykh Del, bks. 1-4 (1914-1915): 93-135; D. MacKenzie, “Ignatiev, Nikolai Pavlovic,” the Modern 3 publicus within the Asiatic Department of the Foreign Ministry before assuming his post in Istanbul. At the age of 32, he had already led two successful embassies to the Central Asian khanates of Bukhara and Khiva, and to Peking, where he negotiated the Russian acquisition of the Pacific Maritime provinces. Ignatiev had also served as the director of the Asiatic Department (which covered policy for Asia, the Balkans, and the Near East) from 1861 to 1864 and developed a great deal of influence in the department, which he used to further his policies during his years at his post in Istanbul. As the Russian representative to the Ottoman Empire, Ignatiev used his mastery of diplomatic relations with an activist and aggressive personal style to become the foremost foreign diplomat in the Ottoman capital and the restorer of Russian prestige in the Near East. His position as ambassador to the Porte and his connections to the Asiatic department and court circles made him infinitely more influential than the Russian consuls in Belgrade, Bucharest, or Jassy, or the Russian minister in Athens. He even challenged Gorchakov in influence over policy in the Near East. 5 Like Gorchakov and the those in the Chancellery, Ignatiev saw revision of the Treaty of Paris as one of the main goals of Russian foreign policy in the Near East. He also envisioned Russian domination of the Straits and Istanbul as an important long-term goal, achievable either by diplomacy or conquest.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vladimir Paounovsky
    THE B ULGARIAN POLICY TTHE BB ULGARIAN PP OLICY ON THE BB ALKAN CCOUNTRIESAND NN ATIONAL MM INORITIES,, 1878-19121878-1912 Vladimir Paounovsky 1.IN THE NAME OF THE NATIONAL IDEAL The period in the history of the Balkan nations known as the “Eastern Crisis of 1875-1879” determined the international political development in the region during the period between the end of 19th century and the end of World War I (1918). That period was both a time of the consolidation of and opposition to Balkan nationalism with the aim of realizing, to a greater or lesser degree, separate national doctrines and ideals. Forced to maneuver in the labyrinth of contradictory interests of the Great Powers on the Balkan Peninsula, the battles among the Balkan countries for superiority of one over the others, led them either to Pyrrhic victories or defeats. This was particularly evident during the 1912-1913 Balkan Wars (The Balkan War and The Interallied War) and World War I, which was ignited by a spark from the Balkans. The San Stefano Peace Treaty of 3 March, 1878 put an end to the Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878). According to the treaty, an independent Bulgarian state was to be founded within the ethnographic borders defined during the Istanbul Conference of December 1876; that is, within the framework of the Bulgarian Exarchate. According to the treaty the only loss for Bulgaria was the ceding of North Dobroujda to Romania as compensa- tion for the return of Bessarabia to Russia. The Congress of Berlin (June 1878), however, re-consid- ered the Peace Treaty and replaced it with a new one in which San Stefano Bulgaria was parceled out; its greater part was put under Ottoman control again while Serbia was given the regions around Pirot and Vranya as a compensation for the occupation of Novi Pazar sancak (administrative district) by Austro-Hun- - 331 - VLADIMIR P AOUNOVSKY gary.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shaping of Bulgarian and Serbian National Identities, 1800S-1900S
    The Shaping of Bulgarian and Serbian National Identities, 1800s-1900s February 2003 Katrin Bozeva-Abazi Department of History McGill University, Montreal A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 1 Contents 1. Abstract/Resume 3 2. Note on Transliteration and Spelling of Names 6 3. Acknowledgments 7 4. Introduction 8 How "popular" nationalism was created 5. Chapter One 33 Peasants and intellectuals, 1830-1914 6. Chapter Two 78 The invention of the modern Balkan state: Serbia and Bulgaria, 1830-1914 7. Chapter Three 126 The Church and national indoctrination 8. Chapter Four 171 The national army 8. Chapter Five 219 Education and national indoctrination 9. Conclusions 264 10. Bibliography 273 Abstract The nation-state is now the dominant form of sovereign statehood, however, a century and a half ago the political map of Europe comprised only a handful of sovereign states, very few of them nations in the modern sense. Balkan historiography often tends to minimize the complexity of nation-building, either by referring to the national community as to a monolithic and homogenous unit, or simply by neglecting different social groups whose consciousness varied depending on region, gender and generation. Further, Bulgarian and Serbian historiography pay far more attention to the problem of "how" and "why" certain events have happened than to the emergence of national consciousness of the Balkan peoples as a complex and durable process of mental evolution. This dissertation on the concept of nationality in which most Bulgarians and Serbs were educated and socialized examines how the modern idea of nationhood was disseminated among the ordinary people and it presents the complicated process of national indoctrination carried out by various state institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Blood Ties: Religion, Violence, and the Politics of Nationhood in Ottoman Macedonia, 1878
    BLOOD TIES BLOOD TIES Religion, Violence, and the Politics of Nationhood in Ottoman Macedonia, 1878–1908 I˙pek Yosmaog˘lu Cornell University Press Ithaca & London Copyright © 2014 by Cornell University All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or parts thereof, must not be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Cornell University Press, Sage House, 512 East State Street, Ithaca, New York 14850. First published 2014 by Cornell University Press First printing, Cornell Paperbacks, 2014 Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Yosmaog˘lu, I˙pek, author. Blood ties : religion, violence,. and the politics of nationhood in Ottoman Macedonia, 1878–1908 / Ipek K. Yosmaog˘lu. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8014-5226-0 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-8014-7924-3 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Macedonia—History—1878–1912. 2. Nationalism—Macedonia—History. 3. Macedonian question. 4. Macedonia—Ethnic relations. 5. Ethnic conflict— Macedonia—History. 6. Political violence—Macedonia—History. I. Title. DR2215.Y67 2013 949.76′01—dc23 2013021661 Cornell University Press strives to use environmentally responsible suppliers and materials to the fullest extent possible in the publishing of its books. Such materials include vegetable-based, low-VOC inks and acid-free papers that are recycled, totally chlorine-free, or partly composed of nonwood fibers. For further information, visit our website at www.cornellpress.cornell.edu. Cloth printing 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Paperback printing 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 To Josh Contents Acknowledgments ix Note on Transliteration xiii Introduction 1 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Dilemmas and Orientations of Greek Policy in Macedonia
    DILEMMAS AND ORIENTATIONS OF GREEK POLICY IN MACEDONIA: 1878-1886 by Evangelos Kofos The period between 1878 and 1886, covers the critical years from the Congress of Berlin to the annexation of Eastern Rumelia by Bulgaria, when Greek policy on the Macedonian Question was undergoing a general reappraisal. Balkan historiography tends to view this policy in terms of its adverse effects on the national movements of the other Balkan nationalities; it is understandable1. Now, with the aid of hitherto untapped archival material—mostly from the Archives of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs (AYE) this paper will attempt to examine how Greek policy was formulated, what its aims were and how it was carried out. Prior to the 70’s, the Greeks viewed Macedonia as one of the Ottoman regions which would form part of an enlarged Greek state. The realization of this aspiration was rather a remote one as other regions, closer to the Greek Kingdom—such as Thessaly, Epirus, and of course Crete—had first priority. To support their claim, the Greeks argued on a number of points. Historically, they sought to trace the region’s hellenic ties all the way back to antiquity and Alexander the Great. Ethnologically, they identified the nationality of the inhabitants on the basis of their Church affiliation; and this meant the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Politically, they felt they could move into a vacuum, once the Empire collapsed. Serbia was a small and far away state, while Bulgaria did not even exist an the political map of the Balkans. With such reasoning in the 40’s, 50’s, and even the 60’s, the Greeks of Athens were betraying an ignorance of basic facts about the situation in Macedonia, and the Balkans as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Vernacular Religion in Diaspora: a Case Study of the Macedono-Bulgarian Group in Toronto
    Vernacular Religion in Diaspora: a Case Study of the Macedono-Bulgarian Group in Toronto By Mariana Dobreva-Mastagar A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Trinity College and the Theological Department of the Toronto School of Theology In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael's College © Copyright by Mariana Dobreva-Mastagar 2016 Vernacular Religion in Diaspora: a case Study of the Macedono-Bulgarian group in Toronto PhD 2016 Mariana Dobreva-Mastagar University of St.Michael’s College Abstract This study explores how the Macedono-Bulgarian and Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox churches in Toronto have attuned themselves to the immigrant community—specifically to post-1990 immigrants who, while unchurched and predominantly secular, have revived diaspora churches. This paradox raises questions about the ways that religious institutions operate in diaspora, distinct from their operations in the country of origin. This study proposes and develops the concept “institutional vernacularization” as an analytical category that facilitates assessment of how a religious institution relates to communal factors. I propose this as an alternative to secularization, which inadequately captures the diaspora dynamics. While continuing to adhere to their creeds and confessional symbols, diaspora churches shifted focus to communal agency and produced new collective and “popular” values. The community is not only a passive recipient of the spiritual gifts but is also a partner, who suggests new forms of interaction. In this sense, the diaspora church is engaged in vernacular discourse. The notion of institutional vernacularization is tested against the empirical results of field work in four Greater Toronto Area churches.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise of Bulgarian Nationalism and Russia's Influence Upon It
    University of Louisville ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository Electronic Theses and Dissertations 5-2014 The rise of Bulgarian nationalism and Russia's influence upon it. Lin Wenshuang University of Louisville Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/etd Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons Recommended Citation Wenshuang, Lin, "The rise of Bulgarian nationalism and Russia's influence upon it." (2014). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1548. https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/1548 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE RISE OF BULGARIAN NATIONALISM AND RUSSIA‘S INFLUENCE UPON IT by Lin Wenshuang B. A., Beijing Foreign Studies University, China, 1997 M. A., Beijing Foreign Studies University, China, 2002 A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Louisville in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Humanities University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky May 2014 Copyright © 2014 by Lin Wenshuang All Rights Reserved THE RISE OF BULGARIAN NATIONALISM AND RUSSIA‘S INFLUENCE UPON IT by Lin Wenshuang B. A., Beijing Foreign Studies University, China, 1997 M. A., Beijing Foreign Studies University, China, 2002 A Dissertation Approved on April 1, 2014 By the following Dissertation Committee __________________________________ Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • The Splitting of the Orthodox Millet As a Secularizing Process the Clerical-Lay Assembly of the Bulgarian Exarchate (Istanbul 1871)
    243 D EMETRIOS S TAMATOPOULOS / T HESSALONIKI The Splitting of the Orthodox Millet as a Secularizing Process The Clerical-Lay Assembly of the Bulgarian Exarchate (Istanbul 1871) In the fall of 1858 the first session of the Millet-i Provisional Council was convened at Fener, in the headquarters of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul; this has become known as the “Ethnosynelefsi” (“National Assembly”)1, i.e. an assembly of clerical and lay representatives of the Orthodox millet (= religious community in the Ottoman Empire) resulting from the articles of a famous imperial decree, that of the Hatt-i Hümayûn of 1856.2 The Assembly’s proceedings went on for two years, and led to the creation of a “constitutional” text, the General Regulations, which for the We should be cautious about calling the assembly of the millet’s representatives in 1858–1860 a “National Assembly” or “National” Provisional Council. The Ottoman text refers to a “commission” (komisyon), which undertook the task of formulating the Gen- eral Regulations. The term “national” became established in Greek texts of the late 19th century, when the developments described in this article as the “splitting of the millet” were re-interpreted as the “rise of the nation”, i.e., the Greek nation, within the framework of the Ottoman Empire. However, this is an anachronism and a projection of national stereotypes onto a more complex reality. For this reason, for the Assembly of 1858–1860, we will employ the term Millet-i Assembly, viz., Assembly of the Orthodox millet (al- though the great majority of representatives were Greek Orthodox, particularly after the withdrawal of two of the four Bulgarian representatives), or Patriarchate’s Assembly, in order to distinguish it from the Assembly of the Bulgarian Exarchate.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Russian Policy in the Balkans, 1878-1914
    1 Russian Policy in the Balkans, 1878-1914 At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the Balkans were the most turbulent region in Europe. On the one hand were the Balkan peoples with their aims of creating their own national states with the broadest borders possible, and on the other, the ambitions of the Great Powers to gain spheres of influence in the European territories of the Ottoman Empire. This led to a continually strained and unstable situation. 1.1 Between the Two Wars: 1856-1877 The Crimean War proved to be the turning point in the relations between Russia and the Near East. After this first serious defeat of the Russian army in a war with the Ottoman Empire, Christians of the Near East and the Balkans looked more and more towards Europe. The image of Russia as the liberator of the Orthodox inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire faded and the authority of the Russian tsar was to a great extent lost. Russian diplomacy after 1856 focused totally on the restoration of Russia’s former authority. Of great significance in this process were the activities of Count N. P. Ignatiev, the ambassa- dor to Constantinople from 1864 to 1877.11 His idea of creating ‘Greater Bulgaria’, a large south-Slavonic state in the Balkans, as a base for Russian interests and further penetra- tion towards the Straits, received the support of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and coincided with the intentions of Tsar Alexander II. In 1870, the Russian government declared that it would no longer comply with the restrictions of the Paris Treaty of 1856.
    [Show full text]
  • MACEDONIA What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years?
    MACEDONIA What went wrong in the last 200 years? A collection of articles By Risto Stefov MACEDONIA What went wrong in the last 200 years? A collection of articles Published by: Risto Stefov Publications [email protected] Toronto, Canada All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without written consent from the author, except for the inclusion of brief and documented quotations in a review. Copyright 2003 by Risto Stefov e-book edition ********** February 2003 ********** 2 Index Part I - 1800 - 1878 ........................................................................4 Part II - 1878 - 1903.....................................................................27 Part III - Before 1903 ...................................................................48 Part IV - The 1903 Ilinden Aftermath..........................................71 Part V - 1908 - 1913.....................................................................96 Part VI - 1912- 1939 ..................................................................115 Part VII - 1939- 1949 - WWII & the Greek Civil War..............135 Part VIII - The Plight of the Macedonian Refugee Children.....161 Part IX - Conclusion ..................................................................181 3 Part I - 1800 - 1878 Even before Alexander’s time Macedonia was a single nation. With time she grew and shrunk but always remained a single nation until her partition in 1912-13. Today however, while new nations spring up and flourish, Macedonia is still partitioned and fighting for her identity. Why? What went wrong and who is responsible? If the Balkan roots lie in antiquity then the first stem that created the modern Balkan countries sprang up in the 19th century. The 19th century is the most important period in modern Balkan history and will be the subject of this and subsequent articles.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnic Cleansing and Massacres of the Ottoman
    The Nation-Building Process in the Balkans: Ethnic Cleansing and Massacres of the Ottoman Muslim and Turkish Population (1912-1913) Le processus de construction de la nation dans les Balkans: nettoyage ethnique et massacre des musulmans ottomans et turcs (1912-1913) Conference organized by the Collège Belgique (Académie Royale de Belgique) and the University of Utah Mars-March 24-25, 2016 Bruxelles-Brussels (Belgique-Belgium) A. Argumentaire en français : Le processus de construction de la nation dans les Balkans : nettoyage ethnique et massacre des musulmans ottomans et turcs (1912-1913) Dans le contexte de la désintégration de l’Empire Ottoman et de l’émergence du nouveau système étatique balkanique, la guerre a joué un rôle dans les processus de construction des nations et des états. Le système étatique balkanique a été créé pour résoudre la question d’Orient, et les états concernés ont fini par devenir des états-nations homogènes suite à une série de guerres qui atteignirent leur apogée lors de ce que l’on a appelé les guerres balkaniques (1912-1913). Ce fut la première guerre totale dans les Balkans, si l’on considère que les frontières entre le front de bataille et le front intérieur ont été supprimées au moyen d’une attaque systématique de certains groupes identitaires. On peut d’ailleurs considérer que, pour l’état ottoman, la première guerre mondiale a commencé en 1912 car le ton était donné et le schéma établi pour la première guerre mondiale. Qui plus est, les pères fondateurs de l’actuelle république de Turquie sont tous originaires des Balkans.
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Issues in the Recent History of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
    Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe Volume 34 Issue 5 Article 3 11-2014 Moral Issues in the Recent History of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church Ivelina Nikolova Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/ree Part of the Christianity Commons, and the Eastern European Studies Commons Recommended Citation Nikolova, Ivelina (2014) "Moral Issues in the Recent History of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church," Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe: Vol. 34 : Iss. 5 , Article 3. Available at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/ree/vol34/iss5/3 This Article, Exploration, or Report is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ George Fox University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MORAL ISSUES IN THE RECENT HISTORY OF THE BULGARIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH By Ivelina Nikolova Dr. Ivelina Nikolova received her bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees in natural theology at the Bulgarian Orthodox Theological School at the University of Sofia “Sv. Kliment Ohridski”. Her field is ethics and natural theology. She is currently teaching Christian Ethic and Christian Apologetic in Plovdiv. Abstract: Over the past centuries Bulgarian people experienced severe religious and ethnic threats due to which they have developed defense mechanisms and a strong sense of sympathy for persecuted ethnic and social groups. In recent history, this reflex was manifested most clearly in the behavior of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in defense of the Bulgarian Jews. At the same time two other events, however, reveal its controversial image that caused it a severe damage.
    [Show full text]
  • Religion and the Secular State in Bulgaria
    PETER PETKOFF Religion and the Secular State in Bulgaria The present report explores the current legal framework which has an impact on the relationship between law and religion with reference to constitutional provisions, secondary legislation, and case law. Where relevant I also refer to earlier legislation which defined the current legal framework and landmark jurisprudence. Because the focus is on laws relating to religion and relevant adjudication my, report has explored to a limited extent the question of hate speech and religious defamation because, while there are reported incidents, there do not appear to be pending or decided cases in this area. The overall analysis suggests that the 2002 legislation affecting religion made drastic changes and yet did not change the way journalists, judges and magistrates think about religion. The cases emerging in the light of DA2002 suggest that more is needed to educate and change the culture in the way religion is viewed. Bulgaria is predominantly an Eastern Orthodox country with a significant Roman Catholic minority and a significant Muslim population consisting of Ethnic Turks, Pomaks, and Muslim Roma1 In addition, there are a number of fluctuating Protestant communities and new religious movements, some of which were founded in the nineteenth century by missionaries in the Ottoman Empire while others were founded after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The predominant Orthodox population is measured by the reference to the respondents‟ statement about their religious background and is not linked to adherence to religious practices. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church is an autocephalous Patriarchate in communion with the family of the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
    [Show full text]