A History of the Coldstream Guards, from 1815 to 1895Ross, J. (John)
History
A History of the Coldstream Guards, from 1815 to 1895
Ross, J. (John)
Great Britain -- History -- Victoria, 1837-1901; Great Britain. Army. Coldstream Guards
As a consequence of the exaggerated dread inspired by the great Northern
Power, the Turks were not allowed to act in their own defence in 1853;
they were obstructed by severe diplomatic pressure, and harassed by
vexatious interference. At last, after the _fiasco_ at Vienna, they
could no longer be restrained by their timid friends, and, in spite of
them, they at length declared war, in the autumn of 1853. Now, when the
Emperor Nicholas ordered an advance into the Ottoman Empire (viz. the
Danubian Principalities), in July, and when the Porte, dissuaded from
using force to repel the invasion, was obliged to allow her enemy
quietly to consolidate himself therein, Russia, to appease Europe, made
an announcement that she intended only to seize a material guarantee,
and would engage in no further offensive operations. She would only meet
any assault directed against her. England and France had sent their
ships to a port near the Dardanelles (September 11th), and, as soon as
the Sultan commenced hostilities, they ordered them up to
Constantinople, to protect Turkey from Russian aggression (October
22nd). Conscious of the dangers surrounding the small Turkish squadron
in the Black Sea, very urgent requests were made, that the friendly
fleets should pass through the Bosphorus, to prevent its falling into
the power of the enemy. But these applications were all peremptorily
refused.[186] To make the matter very much worse, and, indeed, to render
the whole course of action unintelligible, _the Turkish fleet itself_,
by the strong representations of the Sultan’s Western advisers, was also
kept back idly in the Bosphorus, and was prevented from sailing to the
support of the exposed squadron![187] Hence the disaster at Sinope
became inevitable. When this state of affairs was realized in
England,—when it was seen that our diplomatic skill was again at fault,
that the assurances of Russia were not to be relied upon, and that our
naval demonstrations were held in contempt,—then the natural
consequences followed, and the British people, their Government
notwithstanding, determined that the disturber of the peace of Europe
should be punished.
-----
Footnote 186:
“Our last information from St. Petersburg, still represents Russia as
desirous to treat, and as determined, above all, to assume the
offensive in no quarter. This confidence explained why our fleets did
not move” (_M. Drouyn de Lhuys to Count Walewski_, Paris, Dec. 15,
1853).
Footnote 187:
See _Correspondence respecting the Rights and Privileges of the Latin
and Greek Churches in Turkey_ , part ii., pp. 248-258. Writing from
Therapia, November 5, 1853, to Lord Clarendon, Lord Stratford de
Redcliffe, the British Ambassador at Constantinople, says, “I have
succeeded in dissuading the Porte from sending a detachment of
line-of-battle ships and sailing frigates into the Black Sea at this
moment” (_ibid._, p. 250).
-----
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account