Japan and the Pacific, and a Japanese View of the Eastern QuestionInagaki, Manjiro
History
Japan and the Pacific, and a Japanese View of the Eastern Question
Inagaki, Manjiro
Eastern question (Balkan); Europe -- History -- 1871-1918; Japan -- Politics and government
Lord Byron died,[51] and Shelley wrote for the Greek cause. Lord
Cochrane and Sir Richard Church fought, while the German poet, Müller,
and the Swiss Eynard, warmly upheld the cause of the oppressed Greeks.
Notwithstanding this help, the Greeks were far from fortunate, and the
Sultan, with the help of the Egyptians, captured Athens. But their brave
defence of Missolonghi aroused the sympathies of the European Powers.
_Nicholas I._ (1825–1855).
On the death of Alexander I. the Holy Alliance vanished (1825), and
Nicholas I. ascended the throne (1825–1855). Now the Greeks appealed to
England for help, and Canning[52] saw that it was the best policy for
England to assist Greece in order to control the ambitious plans of
Russia. Accordingly he sent the Duke of Wellington as the English
representative, and a protocol was signed at St. Petersburg by which
Greece was to remain tributary to the Sultan, but to be independent as
regards commercial relations. This protocol developed into the Treaty of
London, between England, France, and Russia, by which the three Powers
bound themselves to act as mediators in the Eastern question. The
mediation of the Powers was rejected by the Porte, but accepted by the
Greeks. The result was that the Turko-Egyptian fleet was totally
destroyed at the Battle of Navarino by the allies, and the Sultan
retreated from the Morea. Canning’s death in 1827 gave England an
opportunity of retiring from active participation in the alliance,
especially as she regarded the Battle of Navarino as an “untoward
event,” so Russia and Turkey were left alone in conflict.
This, in my opinion, was a half-hearted policy on the part of England,
although the Cabinet at that time could do no other, because their
tenets would not allow them to help a revolutionary people against a
country governed by a legitimate sovereignty.
Now had the long-wished-for opportunity arrived for Russia to carry into
effect on Turkey her long-cherished designs. Diebitch, a Russian
general, crossed the Balkans, and soon captured Adrianople; while
Paskevitch took Kars and Erzeroom in Asia.
These successes resulted in the Treaty of Adrianople (1829), between
Russia and Turkey. By the treaty[53] Russia gave back almost all her
conquests to Turkey, only retaining the ports of Anapa and Poti, on the
eastern coast of the Black Sea, and the Protectorate powers of the Czar
over the Danubian Principalities were confirmed and extended. In return
Turkey acquiesced in all the provisions of the London Conference.
This made Greece practically an independent state.
Nicholas pursued the policy of Alexander I. with regard to the Asiatic
boundaries, and successfully carried on a war with Persia from 1826 to
1828 which was terminated by the Treaty of Turkmantchai (1828), Russia
receiving the provinces of Erivan and Nakhitcheven. This was the period
of the expansion of Russia, and the first appearance of Russia as a real
rival of Great Britain.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account