The Turkish Empire, Its Growth and DecayEversley, G. Shaw-Lefevre (George Shaw-Lefevre), Baron
History
The Turkish Empire, Its Growth and Decay
Eversley, G. Shaw-Lefevre (George Shaw-Lefevre), Baron
Turkey -- History
The signing of the treaty of the Pruth was vehemently opposed by the
King of Sweden, who was in the Ottoman camp, and by the Khan of the
Crimea. They doubtless had good reasons of their own for wishing the
war with Russia to be prolonged. It was due to their intrigues at
Constantinople that violent opposition was roused to the ratification
of the treaty. Baltadji found on his return that, instead of being
received with acclamation for having recovered Azoff and other
territory, of which the Porte had been deprived a few years previously,
he was dismissed from his office with disgrace. The Kiaya Osman and the
Reis Effendi Omer, who were believed to be largely responsible for the
treaty, were put to death by order of the Sultan.
The Porte refused to ratify the treaty, and preparations were made
for a renewal of the war with Russia. But wiser counsels ultimately
prevailed, largely through the advice of the British Ambassador, Sir R.
Sutton; and two years later, after long negotiation, another treaty was
concluded with the Czar, which embodied all the terms of that effected
by Baltadji which had been so much objected to.
Many historians have found fault with Baltadji for having neglected
the opportunity of destroying or capturing the Russian army and the
Czar Peter himself, and for having allowed them to escape by concluding
the treaty. It has been suggested that he was bribed by the Empress
Catherine. It is, however, inconceivable that one in the high position
of Grand Vizier, where there were such immense opportunities for
enrichment, could have sold himself and his country for so small a
price. It is more probable that the presents of the Empress were made
to the subordinate of the Grand Vizier for the purpose of opening
negotiations with him. It is also more reasonable to conclude that
Baltadji was convinced that no better terms could be obtained by a
prolongation of the war. The destruction of the Russian army or its
capture, together with the Czar, would have roused the Russian people
to a great effort to avenge such a disaster. It is significant that the
Sultan, while putting to death the Kiaya and Reis Effendi, spared the
life of Baltadji, who was mainly responsible, and simply dismissed him
from the office of Grand Vizier. This seems to indicate that the Sultan
had given authority in advance to Baltadji, as stated in the treaty, to
agree to terms such as were actually obtained. It seems to be unlikely
that Sultan Achmet desired to extend his Empire beyond the territory
of Azoff into the heart of Russia. What better terms, then, could have
been obtained by prolonging the war?
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