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 Ottoman Empire was an essential part of the balance of power
in Europe. Its preservation had been for many years an object to
the whole of Europe. While he acquitted the British admiral of all
blame, he pointed out that, under the treaty of London, one of the
stipulations was that the operation was not to lead to hostilities.
When, therefore, the operation under the treaty did lead to
hostilities, it certainly was an untoward event.
It is difficult, however, to conceive how the Duke, who had negotiated
the treaty with the Czar of Russia, could have supposed that, in the
event of the Sultan not agreeing to the terms of mediation, the use of
force against him could be avoided.
However that might have been, the destruction of the Ottoman fleet at
Navarino was of momentous importance. It cut off the communication
between Ibrahim Pasha and Egypt. It restored to Greece command of the
sea in the archipelago. It assured the supremacy of the Russian fleet
in the Black Sea. This last was of enormous value to the Russians in
the war which soon broke out with Turkey. It facilitated the capture
of Varna, and enabled the Russian army to advance across the Balkans
and to threaten Constantinople.
Ibrahim Pasha, finding his position in the Morea untenable, entered
into a convention with the British admiral under which he was permitted
to withdraw the Egyptian army from Greece and embark it for Alexandria
without molestation from the allied fleet. There remained in the Morea
only the Turkish troops. They held most of the fortresses there. Later,
a French army, under General Maison, was, by agreement with the allies,
sent to the Morea. It soon cleared the whole country of the Turkish
troops.
Meanwhile, the Sultan at Constantinople, in spite of the destruction
of his fleet at Navarino, still maintained an obstinate refusal to
accede to the terms of the treaty of London. The ambassadors of England
and France thereupon left the city. Differences then began to arise
between the three allied Powers. The Emperor of Russia proposed to
employ coercive measures against Turkey, and for this purpose to occupy
Moldavia and Wallachia. England and France rejected the proposal.
They wished to preserve the Ottoman Empire as well as to secure the
independence of Greece. But the Greek question was only one of the
complaints of Russia against Turkey. It had also grave reasons to
complain that the treaty of Bucharest and the later treaty of Akermann
of 1826, confirming and extending it, were disregarded by the Porte,
which still occupied Moldavia, Wallachia, and Serbia by its armies.
The Sultan, in a manifesto to his own people, had publicly announced
that he had entered into the treaty of Akermann with the full intention
of not being bound by its terms, and that he regarded Russia as his
hereditary foe.
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