Sa ) R INTRODUCTION and REVIEW of the SOURCES

xvi acknowledgements Among librarians, I am indebted most to Mehmet Manyas from Sabancı University for his eff orts to provide me with books and articles from other national and international libraries. Veronika Lapshina CHAPTER ONE and Yelena Strukova from the GPIB in Moscow have also been kindly helpful. Librarians of the Boğaziçi University were also very kind and INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE SOURCES helpful. Th e staff of the library of the Centre for Islamic Studies (ISAM) was also very helpful. Introduction Associazione Europiemonte in Turin fi nanced my participation in the congress on the 150th anniversary of the end of the Crimean War Th is book concerns the Ottoman involvement in the Crimean War of in Turin in November 2006. My friend Kemal Çetinelli has generously 1853–1856. While a huge literature in the European languages (includ- fi nanced all the costs of my research trip to Moscow in June 2006. My ing Russian) is available on this topic, there hardly exists any mod- friend Tarık Tayfun has also supported me in many ways during my ern, up-to-date, comparative, scholarly monograph based on original studies. research in Ottoman sources and focusing on the Ottoman state and While I thank all for their help, comments and criticism, I alone am society. Th e main concern of this study is to re-construct the narra- responsible for all possible mistakes and omissions. tive of the war as experienced by the Ottomans, setting the record straight by an up-to-date, comparative study of factual data from pri- mary sources. While doing so, I will also examine the political, eco- nomic, social and intellectual impact of the war on the Ottoman state and society. Language barriers, neglect and, indeed, total ignorance of the Ottoman archival material have hitherto prevented Western and Russian historians from paying suffi cient attention to the role of the Ottomans in the war.1 Th e present study aims to fi ll this gap in the historiography of this all-European, proto-world war of the long nineteenth century. While a good deal of the Western historiography focuses on the origins of the war and the role of diplomacy, the present study will rather concern itself with the conduct of the war itself and with its implications, results and impact upon the Ottoman state and society. Interestingly, the Ottoman and Turkish historians themselves have neglected this topic and their references have also come primarily from Western sources. Although recently there have been new studies and some dissertations written in Turkey, the general coverage of the Turkish historiography on the subject is not very impressive. Th e existing general histories of the nineteenth century give scanty place to the war and the few monographs on the topic confi ne themselves 1 Prof. David Goldfrank adds “parochialism” to the list of causes. See his article “Th e Ottoman Empire and the Origin of the Crimean War: Sources and Strategies”, in Th e Turks 4, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye, 2002, p. 233. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc-by-nc License. C. Badem - 9789004190962 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 02:53:02PM via free access 2 chapter one to making a summary of Western sources, whereas Ottoman archives are open and the subject is waiting for its researchers. Th e Crimean War is the only all-European war in the one hundred years between the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War. It is also the only war in the nineteenth century when the Ottomans defeated Russia. Of the ten wars between Russia and the Ottoman Empire from 1678 to 1917, only three ended with victory for the Ottomans. Th e Crimean War is also the only time when two European great powers, Britain and France fought against the Russians in alliance with the Ottomans. Th e Crimean War, indeed, proved to be of the utmost importance for the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century. It offi - cially introduced the Ottoman Empire into the European state system, the so-called Concert of Europe. Th e Crimean War is an exceptional example of Russian diplomatic isolation due to the personal miscalcu- lations of Nikolai I and to the successful alliance policies of the Porte. Ottoman statesmen, however, later discovered the practical value of being included in the European system or becoming allied with Euro- pean powers; when, in 1877, their hopes of British or French help against Russia did not materialize. Even the promulgation of the 1876 Constitution did not help the Ottoman Empire to gain European favour. Nevertheless, the doctrine of Turkey’s geopolitical strategic importance carried over into the twentieth century. One of the possible reasons of the relative oblivion concerning this war in Turkish historiography is that it was seen as creating too many problems even though the Ottoman Empire was on the winning side at the end of it. In fact, the Treaty of Paris neutralized the Black Sea for both Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Territorially the Ottoman Empire did not make any signifi cant gain, but it was exhausted eco- nomically and morally. Soon aft er the war, the idea that it was quite a useless and senseless confl ict gained popularity in both European and Ottoman public opinion. Public opinion was indeed important during the war: We can argue that the Crimean War was the fi rst war in world history where public opinion did matter. Th is was in part due to the wonderful eff ect of the electric telegraph, bringing news from the front almost daily. In 1877, when Russia again attacked the Otto- man Empire, the British government was again infl uenced by public opinion; on that occasion, however, Britain took Cyprus from the Ottoman Empire as a reward for its support without going into war. Th at Britain could gain its ends without going to war against Rus- sia also contributed to the common (especially British) notion that C. Badem - 9789004190962 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 02:53:02PM via free access 2 chapter one introduction and review of the sources 3 to making a summary of Western sources, whereas Ottoman archives the Crimean War was useless. Such a view is very misguided because are open and the subject is waiting for its researchers. it does not pay attention to the tensions between Russia and Europe Th e Crimean War is the only all-European war in the one hundred related to infl uence over the Ottoman Empire. Needless to say, these years between the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War. It is also tensions were based on very material interests and not on personal the only war in the nineteenth century when the Ottomans defeated matters or religious quarrels. Russia. Of the ten wars between Russia and the Ottoman Empire from From a wider perspective, the Crimean War divides the long nine- 1678 to 1917, only three ended with victory for the Ottomans. Th e teenth century (from 1789 to 1917) into two periods, terminating the Crimean War is also the only time when two European great pow- reign of peace in Europe aft er the Napoleonic wars. It starts the age of ers, Britain and France fought against the Russians in alliance with modern warfare and many military novelties. It gives us a prototype the Ottomans. Th e Crimean War, indeed, proved to be of the utmost or foretaste of the long trench wars of the First World War. Th ere importance for the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century. It offi - has been much debate about the naming of this confl ict, including cially introduced the Ottoman Empire into the European state system, the recent studies by Trevor Royle2 and Winfried Baumgart.3 Th ey the so-called Concert of Europe. Th e Crimean War is an exceptional have also pointed to the inadequacy of the term ‘Crimean’ to describe example of Russian diplomatic isolation due to the personal miscalcu- the war. I maintain that this war comes very close to the defi nition lations of Nikolai I and to the successful alliance policies of the Porte. of a “Proto-World War” or an All-out European War. Some Turk- Ottoman statesmen, however, later discovered the practical value of ish sources call it simply the ‘1853–1856 Turco-Russian War’, beyond being included in the European system or becoming allied with Euro- doubt as narrow as the term ‘Crimean’. Not surprisingly, there is very pean powers; when, in 1877, their hopes of British or French help little mention of the Baltic, White Sea and Pacifi c fronts of the war in against Russia did not materialize. Even the promulgation of the 1876 Turkish historiography. Constitution did not help the Ottoman Empire to gain European We can ask a very legitimate question: what is a World War or favour. Nevertheless, the doctrine of Turkey’s geopolitical strategic a European War? How can we defi ne it? Should we defi ne it by the importance carried over into the twentieth century. importance and number of belligerent states? Th at is, by whether all One of the possible reasons of the relative oblivion concerning this great powers take part in it? Alternatively, should we defi ne it by the war in Turkish historiography is that it was seen as creating too many extent and proximity to Europe of the war areas? Th e Crimean War problems even though the Ottoman Empire was on the winning side was fought on seven fronts and not just in the Crimea: in the lower at the end of it.

Load more