INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, th e quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns wh«ch may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) o r section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This m a y have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages t o insura You complete continuity. 2. When a n image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good im age of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed die photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left h a n d corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until com plete. 4. The m a jo rity of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, how ever, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints o f "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the O rd e r Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5.p l e a s e NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 75-3065 FITZGIBBON, Edward Michael, Jr., 1943- ALEXANDER I AND THE NEAR EAST: THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE IN RUSSIA'S FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1801-1807. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1974 History, modern Xerox University Microfiims,Ann Arbor, Michigan 4 © 1974 EDWARD MICHAEL FITZGIBBON, JR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. ALEXANDER I AND THE NEAR EAST: THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE IN RUSSIA'S FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1801-1807 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Edward Michael Fitzgibbon, Jr., B.A., M.A. The Ohio State University 1974 Reading Committee: Approved by Charles Morley Sydney N. Fisher Myron W. Hedlin Adviser Department of History ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my adviser, Professor Charles Morley, for his advice and assistance both in the prepara­ tion of my dissertation and throughout my graduate career. Both Professor Morley and the other members of my Reading Committee have graciously sacrificed their free time in order to read my dissertation and for this I am very grate­ ful. I must also extend a special word of thanks to my wife, Diane, who spent many hours doing an excellent job of proofreading my dissertation. I would like to dedicate this dissertation to Diane and to my mother and father. April 19, 1943 . Born - Jersey City, New Jersey 1965 ................ B.A., Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey 1965-1967 ......... Teaching Assistant, Department of History, The Ohio State Univer­ sity, Columbus, Ohio 1967 ................ M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1967-1968 ......... Teaching Associate, Department of History, The Ohio State Univer­ sity, Columbus, Ohio 1968-1969 ......... National Defense Foreign Language Fellow, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1969 ................ Instructor, Department of History Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 1970-1571 ......... Captain, United States Army 1972-1973 ......... National Defense Foreign Language Fellow, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1973 ................ Teaching Associate, International Studies Department, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: History of Russia and the Soviet Union. Professor Charles Morley History of the Modern Middle East. Professor Sydney N. Fisher History of Nineteenth Century Europe Professor Carole Rogel Geography of the Soviet Union. Professor George Derako TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKN0ÏVLEDGI4ENTS.............................................Ü VITA ....................................................... iii Chapter I. RUSSIA AND THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY ........................... 1 II. THE FORMATION OF ALEXANDER'S NEAR EASTERN POLICY ................................ 37 III. RUSSIA, THE NEAR EAST AND THE THIRD COALITION ...................... 96 IV. THE DECLINE OF RUSSIAN INFLUENCE IN CONSTANTINOPLE ........................... .152 V. THE FAILURE OF ALEXANDER'S NEAR EASTERN POLICY ................................ 196 VI. TILSIT AND THE NEAR E A S T ....................... 245 VII. CONCLUSION ....................................... 283 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................. 290 CHAPTER I RUSSIA AiqO THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY The eighteenth century was a period of dynamic expan­ sion for the Russian Empire. During this century Russia's rulers attempted to stabilize the empire's frontiers in order to assure the country's military and economic security. In the South, Russian foreign policy goals were to obtain more defensible borders, to eliminate the threat of raids by the Crimean Tartars and to acquire a commercial outlet on the Black Sea.^ In order to attain these objectives Russia had to overcome the strong and persistent opposition of the Ottoman Empire. Obviously it is impossible in one brief chapter to present a detailed account of the complex history of Russian-Ottoman relations in the course of the eighteenth century. However, a few indications of the general trends of Russian foreign policy toward the Ottoman Empire are see Cyril E. Black, "The Pattern of Russian Objectives," Russian Foreign Policy: Essays in Historical Perspective, ëd. IV O J. Lederer (New Haven, Conn., 1962), Part I, Chap. I, pp. 3-38. 2 necessary in order to understand Russia's later policies and to show the changing power relationship between the two em­ pires. The period between the accession of Peter I and the death of Paul I marked an important transitional period in Russian-Ottoman relations. At the time Peter assumed sole control of the Russian throne, Europe acknowledged the Otto­ man Empire as a great power. Although in retrospect histo­ rians have shown that the causes for the decline of the Turkish empire were present before the beginning of the eighteenth century, these problems were not necessarily recognized by contemporary European statesmen. To many it appeared that while Ottoman expansion into Europe had been checked, there was no assurance that this was a permanent setback for the Turks. The European powers saw little to indicate any substantial decline in Ottoman power. Even the wars of Peter I against the Ottoman Empire seemed to sub­ stantiate the fact that the Turks were still a strong power. Despite impressive gains made in the South during Peter’s first Turkish war, his second war with the Ottoman Empire led to a complete Russian defeat and to the surrender of most of the previous gains. Peter's policy toward the Ottoman Empire exhibited the opportunism and improvisation that characterized much of his activity.. It is difficult to discern clear and consistent objectives in Peter's Ottoman policy. Many of his plans 3 were hastily formulated in response to particular situations. Peter's principal objective in his first Turkish war appar­ ently was to obtain a more secure frontier in the South.^ This was in keeping with previous Russian policy aimed at eliminating the threat of raids by the Crimean Tartars. The war opened in 1695 with an attempt by the Russians to secure the city of Azov. The first attempt failed but the follow­ ing year a second attack and siege, made more effective by the use of a fleet, led to the capture of Azov. Peter pro­ ceeded to expand his fleet and build a naval station at Taganrog on the Sea of Azov. He intended eventually to break out of the Sea of Azov and obtain a foothold on the Black Sea. Peter believed that the alliance he had concluded with Austria against the Ottoman Empire would result in a resounding victory. However, the Austrians, faced by ap­ proaching danger in the West, abandoned Peter and signed an advantageous peace treaty with the Turks at Karlowitz. Rus­ sia secured only a two year truce. Peter was bitterly dis­ appointed but continued to negotiate with the Turks. Peter finally concluded peace with the signing of the Treaty of Constantinople in July 1700. The Russians had made high de­ mands in the course of the negotiations. Their terms ^Vasili Klyuchevsky, Peter the Great, trans. Liliana Archibald (New York, 1958), p. 58. 4 included the demand for access to the Black Sea as well as guarantees of religious freedom and freedom from excessive taxation for the Balkan Christians. Although Peter was un­ able to obtain these demands, he did make significant ter­ ritorial gains. Russia obtained Ottoman recognition of the conquest of Azov and Taganrog and also secured the right to send a permanent diplomatic representative to Constanti­ nople. ^ Russia had concluded peace with the Turks in 1700 partly because of the tsar's necessity to free himself for action in the North against Sweden. Following the defeat of Charles XII at Poltava, the Swedish monarch fled to the Ottoman Empire. Late in 1710, with French support, Charles successfully incited the Turks to war against Russia. Peter reluctantly embarked on this new war. Peter's second Turk­ ish war is noteworthy for the new policies which the tsar adopted. In terms of long range significance one of the most important policies was Peter's call to the Balkan Christians to rise up against their Moslem overlords.