THE EASTERN QUESTION 1815 – 1878

Questions
1. To what extent can the ottoman empire be described as “a sick man of Europe”
Approach

• Brief background of ottoman empire

• To a larger extent, the empire is described “a sick man of Europe”. By looking at
its weaknesses in the political, economic and social in the empire
• Look at the elements of strength with in this empire
• Stand point
• Conclusion
2. Why was Turkey referred to as a sick man of Europe and of what importance was it to the
neighbouring states.
• Brief background
• Reasons why Turkey was referred to as a sick man of Europe i.e. look at her
political, social, and economic problems.
• Look at how other countries interfered in the affairs of the ottoman empire like
Russia, Britain, France which intervened in the empire.
3. Why and how did the events in the Ottoman empire threaten European peace between
1815 – 1878
Brief background of ottoman empire
Give reasons for the occurrence of those events.
Show those events threatened the European peace between 1815-1878.
Conclusion
Between (14th and 17th the ottoman Turkish Asiatic Race had conquered areas around
Mediterranean Sea and other states of the Balkan peninsular and built a large empire
which came to be known as the ottoman empire with its capital at Constantinople.
The Turkish had managed to control the areas effectively up to about 1682. They had in
some cases managed to control areas up to Vienna in Austria though they were later
defeated and driven away by the Austrians.
During the period of their rule, the Turkish had proved to be a problem in Europe
especially due to their aggressiveness and expansionist policy and in their power, the
Turkish had conquered and incorporated most of the areas like in the North of African
coastline, Algeria, morocco, Libya, Turkey, Syria, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece,
parts of Modena, Yugoslavia, the islands of Cyprus, Hungary, Crimean, Albania, Asia
minor etc. these areas became the extensive ottoman empire. The main effects of these
conquests were that:
A number of races/ nationalities were brought under one rule i.e. under the ottoman rule
using force and hence this could become the source of trouble which started when they
began demanding for their independence and freedom.
A large empire needed effective control otherwise problems would arise.
The empire even controlled economically valuable areas of the black sea, Mediterranean
Sea, which were very important to other European powers like Britain and Russia
Its nature and composition made it appear like worm eaten house which could collapse if
one part of it is removed.
When this empire started declining in the (19th partly because of internal revolts,
ineffectiveness of the central government, poor administration by the sultan, external
pressure etc
It created the problem which came to be referred to as the “Eastern question”. Therefore,
referring to the problems of the ottoman empire.
At the height of its power, the Turkish had advanced up to Vienna and spread ever the
plains of Hungary, whereas there had been frequent talks to expel the Turkish from
Europe all together for more than 2 centuries.
This had not been done before the end of the 12th century, their power had been very high
but in 18th century and 19th century the ottoman started a systematic and steady journey of
decline as a sign of its decline, the outlying parts of its empire especially in Africa broke
away from the sultan of Turkey while in Europe one province after another revolted
against the Turks and was conquered by the neighbouring powers like Russia. The
decline of the ottoman empire had been explained by historians using different factors
which include; corruption of the Turks, poor policies of the government inefficient
government, weakness in the army, the poor economy and revolts in the empire plus the
excessive reaction of the government.
NB
All the problems mentioned above constituted what is referred to as the eastern question
and made Turkey to be called a sick man of Europe.
The Turkish rule over their subject races was oppressive though this was not uniform in
the whole empire.
For many years, the Turks had not interfered with the lives of their subjects provided they
paid them taxes and tribute money most of the officials employed in the collection of
taxes belonged to the subject races. Even this alone showed how weak the Turkish
administration was at that time. However, in times of crisis and disturbances especially
where the subjects revolted or disobeyed or rejected the policies from the central
government there would be outbreak of serious violence people would be tortured and
massacred and village would be burnt down due to such conditions and the way the
government reacted made the subject Nationalists to begin serious moves demanding for
their independence and by the 19th century such demands reached climax which opened
up revolts and attempts to overtake the sultan’s power in the Ottoman empire. The Serbs
were the first to rebel under their leader George in 1804, they had succeeded in driving
out the Turks but they were later suppressed with a lot of brutality and many of them
died.
Between 1814 – 1815, unrest or instabilities started in the area occupied by the Serbians.
It was due to this declining states of turkey and revolts of the subject races that called for
the attention of the great powers in reaction to such circumstances, the Turkish were
always violet and destructive. The punishment they imposed always offered excuse for
the interested European powers like Russia to intervene in the ottoman empire.
Between 1821 – 1832 the Greeks revolted and demanded their separate independence.
Between 1833 – 1841, there was the Syrian question which later involved Egypt against
Turkey.
Between 1854 – 1856, there was the Crimean war fought by the allied powers i.e. Britain,
France, Turkey and piedmont against Russia.
In 1878, there was the Bulgarian affair including Austria, Britain and Hungary against
Russia which led to the berlin congress of 1878.
Note:
All the above stated questions were to constitute the confusion which came to be known
as the “Eastern question” where the ottoman empire and Turkey remained in the state of
confusion. It must be noted that because of the different interests the other powers had in
the area this made Turks question to be an international issue.
The decline of the ottoman empire therefore can be regarded as one of the major events
that influenced international relations in Europe put to the first world war of 1914 and
today the area has remained an area of main concern to the great powers hence the 1991
gulf crisis.
The American invention of Iraq 2000, the 1990’s Bosnian crisis between the Croats,
Serbs and Moslems, 1999 – 2000 crisis in Kosovo.

A SUMMARY OF WHAT COMPRISES THE EASTERN QUESTION ARE;

The decline of the Turkish power
The spread of Nationalism in the ottoman empire.
The rivaling ambitions and policies of the great powers towards Turkey.
The powers in the European continent like Britain, Russia, Austria, and France had
varying attitudes towards the breaking of Turkey eg Russia wanted to see Turkey broken
down and thus the Russians wanted to extend their influence in the Mediterranean Sea.
Besides this many people in eastern Europe were similar in origin to the Russians (Slavs)
by Nationality and by religion they belonged to the orthodox church like the people of
Russia. Hence Russia felt she had the responsibility to lead her fellow orthodox
Christians and liberate them from the Turkish over lordship.
On the other hand, Britain differed from Russia and wanted to see turkey preserved.
Britain was of the view that Turkey was checking on the Russian expansion in Europe
and that the expansion of Russia would threaten Britain’s control and trade in the
Mediterranean Sea and the far east (India and china)
Likewise, Austria was opposed to the fall of Turkey that the breakdown of Turkey would
mean the spread of revolts to the rest of Europe which would spread like bush fire and
Austria would not escape the effects of those revolts as she was also made up of
numerous states or Nationalities and therefore this would lead to the breakdown of the
Austrian empire. therefore, under such background Austria wanted to see Turkey
preserved as a powerful state.
On the other hand, after 1816, France wanted to see her former glory regained i.e. before
1789, France had a bigger say in the affairs of the Balkans which she had left after the
outbreak of the 1789 revolts.
Therefore, it was upon that background that the French leaders were inclined towards the
declining powers of Turkey that is partly referred to as the Eastern Question.
 THE GREEK WAR OF INDEPENDENCE BETWEEN 1821 – 1832
Question
1. To what extent was the Greek struggle for independence purely religious
Approach

• Background of Greek war of independence.

• Discuss the extent to which religious factors caused the Greek war of
independence.
• Discuss other causes of the Greek war of independence.
• Stand point
• Conclusion
2. “The Greek war struggle for independence was political under the guise of religion”
discuss.
Approach

• Back ground of Greek struggle

• Discuss the extent to which political factors led to the Greek war of independence.
• Discuss other causes that were not political
• Stand point
• Conclusion
3. Why and how did the Greeks revolt against their Turkish masters between 1821 – 1832
• Background of the Greek war of independence.
• Causes of the Greek revolt (why part)
• Describe the Course of the Greek revolt (how)
• Conclusion
4. Discuss the effects of the Greek war of independence
• Back ground of the Greek war of independence.
• Effects of the Greek war of independence (positive and negative effects)
• Stand point
• Conclusion
The Greeks war of independence between 1821 – 1832 was part of the long period of
accumulated problems and attempt to attain national independence. The movement
however turned into a religious conflict and execution where as its generally accepted
that this movement or war was characterized by events like Greek orthodox Christians
and Muslim Turkish massacring each other. The main aim of the Greeks was to regain
their lost independence form the Turks where as its generally accepted that the Turkish
rule over their subject races was harsh and oppressive. This was not so much the case
with the Greeks. The Greeks were never mistreated for the great part of the period when
the Turks were their masters.
The Turkish had not interfered in the major institutions of the Greeks unlike other races.
The Greeks were free from the burden of compulsory military service as long as they
paid the tax from being exempted from such services and again paid tribute money as a
sign of royalty to their masters. The Greek Christian patriarch as a leader of the Greek
church experienced very little persecution together with the Greeks. Therefore, the
Greeks enjoyed appointments to the higher offices of the state.
The Greek peasants only learnt of serfs in Russia, Austrian empires or compared to the
French peasants, enjoyed monopoly in trade just like members of their merchant classes,
they also had their own education. There was free social life in the field of religion for
many years. In the year of normal effects, they were left to practice their Christian faith
with little interference. However occasionally and especially in the period of own slight
resistance. The Turks would exercise maximum violence, terrible torture and would
massacre most of the Greeks. Such atrocities though internal affairs were later made
known to the Christian nations of Europe in the 19th century and arousing concern for
them to rescue their fellow brothers as Christians.
The mission was strictly followed by the Russians
NB
Whereas the Turks treated the Greeks with some reservations and allowed them with
special privileges like giving them high Posta in offices and accorded great amount of
respect, the Greeks remained discontented because of the following;
Their discontents were not because of material aspects but came from the first, that the
Turks looked down upon the Greeks as inferior and branded them infidels because of
their Christian faith and nature of being subject race.
Whereas they accorded great amount of respect to the Greeks and despite the fact that
they were treated as a subject race by their Moslem masters taking them as inferior and
something which they hated, this made compromise between the two religions and the
people impossible.
The other special cases, the Greeks directed their discontents against the policies and
powers exercised by the local governor who worked on behalf of the central government.
The Turks hence remained conquering and kept the Greeks apart from any sensible unity.
The existence of separation made the Turks fail to absorb the Greeks into their
civilization, therefore when the Greeks revolt started in 1821, the Turks gained no
sympathy form any Greek citizen.
The distance between the Turks and Greeks on the other hand made the Greeks to unite
and direct al their bad intentions against their Turkish masters as one people. It was this
sense of unity among the Greeks that made the Greek movement of 1821 – 1832 be
described as a Nationalistic movement in search of freedom.
While the decline of the Turks control in large areas which constituted their empires
made conditions worse especially when governors ruling on behalf of the central
government almost became independent and the character of each governor determined
the degree of violence and torture that these people experienced. Due to this new trend
Greeks like any other Nationality started international campaign to resist the
administration of the Turks government. It was because of the mistreatment in the empire
that attracted the attention of the great powers of Europe.

CAUSES OF THE GREEK WAR OF INDEPENDENCE

The Greek revolt formed one of the prominent phases in the Eastern question. It was
characterized by forced of serious struggle by the conquered people in the 19th century
who struggled against the ottoman rulers to re-assert their sovereignty. Others who
struggled in the same period included the Serbs, Bulgarians and the Romanians. The
Greek war of independence was largely a Nationalist movement though it turned into a
religious conflict even it was characterized by Moslem Turks and Greek orthodox
Christians killing each other but the sole target of the Greeks seemed to have been the
need to gain their lost independence and the causes of the war included the following.
The rise of Nationalism in the 19th century.
It was significant in contributing to the Greek revolt. The people of Greece like the
people in other countries like Italy, Spain, had tested and learnt revolutionary
achievements like freedom, liberty and equality which were started and promoted by the
1789 revolution in France where by the French fought against class discrimination, miss
arrangement and dictatorship which were prevalent in the Ottoman empire. Therefore, the
Greeks could have revolted due to the examples set by the revolt of 1789 and its ideas.
Religious difference between the Turks and Greek orthodox Christians.
The struggle would have occurred as a result of religious differences between the Muslim
Turks and the Greek orthodox Christians. While the Greeks were old age Christians, it’s
important to note the Christianity and Islam have never been friendly. The Turks
considered the Greeks infidels because of their Christian faith and this became a root
cause of the struggle for the independence of the Greeks.
Discrimination and misrule of governors to the local people
The local governors were given responsibility e.g. collecting taxes, revenue but
unfortunately the responsibility was executed in the brutal manner.
The governors were arrogant and failed to associate with the Greeks, treating them like
conquered people.
This act consequently made the Turks incapable of fully incorporating with the Greeks
into their civilization. By 1821, this conflict led to serious revolts and the Turks gained
no sympathy from the Greeks who were determined to win their independence. This even
gave a revolt on a Nationalistic outlook.
Long-term external encouragement to the Greeks by European powers.
There was long term external encouragement to the Greeks exploited to stage a revolt
against the Turks like from the time of Tzar Peter the great of Russia, Emperor Catherine,
Russia had always encouraged the movements aiming at dismantling the Turkish empire
and exploit what Tzar Nicholas I described as a “sick man of Europe”.
Russia even claimed the guardianship of Greece that because they were Slavic race and
also orthodox Christians in faith. Russia continued to advise and encourage the Greeks
especially their leaders Capritorius and Prince Hpysilant.
By 1821, there was clear evidence that the empire had started falling apart that acted as
an example to the Greeks, like Sultan Pasha of Albania and Mohammed Ali of Egypt
who were originally ruling as agents started acting independent. In 1803- 1814, there had
been the Serbia armed revolt though it was defeated. If acted as a good example to the
Greeks. This provided the necessary encouragement to the Greeks and an opportunity to
rise against the Turkish.
The prosperity of the Greek merchants
The prosperity of the Greek merchants also played a leading role in the causation of the
Greek rising, though the Greeks had been oppressed in the political and religious fields
but they had been left with the opportunity to trade ie they monopolized commerce and
consequently became wealthy. Because of this, their merchants became so influential and
supported the nationalists in the struggle. In addition, the Greeks had skillful mariners
and greatly employed their knowledge and built powerful fleets which would put in
position to counter opposition from the Turks.
Greeks were more educated than their masters (Turks)
The education levels of the Greeks were high and even their capacity were higher than
that of the Turks their masters that’s why they were able to occupy secretarial, technical
and other high position in the government at Constantinople. There was therefore a
feeling of superiority exercised by the Greeks which meant that they had to display their
ability against an illiterate group of the Turks. This could have accounted for the Greek
war of independence.
The revival of the Greek culture
The 19th century was a period characterized by the revival of the Greek culture. This was
partly due to the fact that by this period, a good section of the Greeks had received
education and therefore they were able to read and remember their past events and
glories. The Greeks had at one time dominated the control of European education and
Olympic games. Their culture led at one time been influential and this led to the
formation of the secret movement like the association of friends formed in 1814. This
was charged with the task of spreading the Greek culture. As a result, there was increase
in sense of patriotism in the people hence nationalistic demands increased which made
the Greeks to struggle for their independence between 1821 – 1833.
The new written Greek language at the beginning of the 19th century, the Greeks had
developed a new common and written language that was between the ancient Greeks and
peasant Greeks which acted as a binding force between Greeks who had broken a liff
dialects in language be true. Through such difference in dialects in language was bound
to happen and in order to make any event meant for nationalism to develop had to review
their language. This common language acted as a back ground for cementing the desire
for independence.
The formation of the secret societies
The formation of the secret societies eg Phillike Heltaria association of friends which
even contributed to the revolutions of 1821 -1823 led by Hypisilant during the Turkish
rule secret societies involved to faster independence and the revolts and association was
known as Phillike Heltaria (association of friends). In 1820 the society was being led by
Hypisilant against the Turkish and their revolts were centered in Moldavia and Wallachia
which were also under oppression. Hypisilant claimed to be supported by Russia as he
had been an officer in Russian army but when the revolt collapsed due to misconduct
Hypisilant became arrogant and had behaved like a crowned king and some of his
followers carried out cruel revenge against the Moslems and above all the Greeks who
had carried out the revolt lacked strong followers.
Desire to get back their independence.
The Greeks rebelled in 1821 because they wanted to get back their lost independence
which had been denied to them ever since the creation of the ottoman empire, where by
Greece was also put under this empire.
Desire for economic reforms
The Greeks rebelled in 1821 – 1832 because they needed economic reforms. In the
ottoman empire, there was mismanagement of the economy, there was a problem of over
taxation, corruption, embezzlement of government funds, bribery, such economic
problems made the Greeks to rebel in 1821 -1832 to demand for a change and bring about
economic reforms.
Social mistreatment of the Greeks
There was also social mistreatment particularly on the Greeks like there was
imprisonment of Greeks without trial, persecution of the Greeks particularly the Greeks
orthodox christians, this caused discontents amongst the Greeks and led to a revolt in
1820’s – 1830’s
Military weakness of the Turkish army.
The Greek revolt took place because of military weakness of the Turkish army i.e. the
military machine of the ottoman had become weak and insufficient even to contain
internal rebellions e.g. Egypt had broken off from the ottoman empire partly because of
the military weakness of the Turks. Hence the military weakness of the Turks also
encouraged the Greeks to rebel since they were confident of success against the ottoman
empire.
Influence of the Greeks in exile.
There was also the influence of the Greeks in exile particularly in Great Britain and
France who played a bigger role in influencing and mobilizing support of Greeks all over
the world in order to over throw the Turks leadership in Greece.
Role of other European powers
The Greek revolt took place because of the role of other European powers who were
always involved in the affairs of the ottoman empire e.g. Austria had all along supported
the ottoman domination of the Greeks because she feared the rise of nationalism which
could begin in Greece and affect the Austrian empire.
Prussia was also opposed to the rise of nationalism in ottoman empire and at times
supported the ottoman mistreatment of her subjects. The role played by the foreigners in
the affairs of the ottoman empire partly caused this revolt amongst the Greeks.

METHODS USED BY THE GREEKS TO FIGHT FOR THEIR

INDEPENDENCE
The Greeks war of independence was a hard struggle, the Greeks in their attempt to put
off Turkish over lordship and gain their independence applied several methods as means
to get back their independence and such methods included the following;
The Greeks fanatic nationalists emerged and led their people in the long armed campaign
against the Turkish over tyranny, dictatorship, mismanagement etc. such leaders fought
with great zeal and fanatism to defend their people or the country. It was because of the
fanatic nationalists that the Greeks united and fought with discipline and the Greeks
gained on upper hand and over threw the Turks.
The revivals of the past Greek culturally glory was also applied as a method in uniting the
Greek struggles by the leaders of the struggle. This inspired and awakened a certain
desire for the Greeks to get their independence / freedom.
The great Greek poets like Byron was one of the intellectuals propagating this idea. The
revival of the past memories was hence a way of unifying and directing the Greeks to
fight and have a common struggle.
Another method used was that of developing a new language among the various Greek
groups. It was reported that in the 19th century the Greeks purified their written language
and the old class Greek was instilled among the people. This method was a means of
achieving national unity and it helped to break the various Greek dialects hence enabling
them to achieve total national unity to a common cause i.e. struggle for independence
against the Turks.
The leaders of the independence struggle also adopted and used revolutionary ideas form
western Europe, the nationalistic and liberal ideas to arouse or instigate and mobilize the
Greeks leaders in that they encountered little difficulties in rallying people’s support to
the common nationalists struggle which made it a real Greek war of independence.
On the basis of good ground laid by the fore going factors Hypisilant one of the leaders
of the Greek struggle founded a secret movement known as the association of friends (
Phillike Heltaria). In 1814, the association was intended to propagate the message geared
at arousing national pride among the Greeks and prepared them for action. By 1821, his
work was greatly accepted by the Greeks with over 2000 members all demanding for
sovereignty.

THE COURSE OF THE GREEK STRUGGLE

The first attack on the Turks over lordship in the Greeks struggle was led by Hypisilant in
march 1821. He mobilized with the help of band of officers in Moldavia where they
revolted against the Turks. The sole aim of the Greek leaders was to create disturbing
conditions in the Turkish empire which would give them advantage to organize the
Greeks independence struggle as the Turks government would be occupied else where in
suppressing the uprising. However, the Hypisilant expedition miserably failed for it had
been poorly organized with no effective organisation.
It reported that even the supporters of Phillike Heiltaria were not effectively committed to
the struggle.
After the defeat, Hypisilant was exiled to Austria where Metternich imprisoned him for 7
years as a reward of his bad behaviors. No sooner had the Hypisilant movement failed
than other movements get determined to struggle were organized by the Greeks in
MOREA.

THE REVOLTS IN MOREA AND TURKS CRUEL REVENGE

With the collapse of the Hypisilant, another movement broke out in Morea instigated by
one of the Greeks bishop.
Within only a week, about 50,000 Muslims had been killed by the Greeks peasants in
Morea. In response to this great Greek cruelty was showed by the Turkish government
where by even the patriarch head of the orthodox and two bishops were also hanged. The
Turkish government went on revenging on the community of the Island of Asia minor.
The Turkish response was more brutal and almost all the Greeks on those Islands were
killed.
The developments in Morea attracted the attention of the powers in Europe especially the
great powers which turned against Turkish authority. However, all the European
sympathizers were extended to the Greeks due to the fact that the majority of the
educated people in Europe had their education from Greece. Hence the support given to
the Greeks varied from one individual nationalist who were ready to support especially
those who get education from Greece e.g. people like Byron of Britain who volunteered
their service.
IBRAHIM PASHA’S BARBARITY AND THE RUSSIAN INTERVENTION
(SIGNING OF THE LONDON TREATY)
When the revolt broke out in Morea, the sultan of turkey requested Muhammad Ali of
Egypt to give him assistance against the revolters who were still on the sea as they had
mastered it. Muhammad Ali of Egypt dispatched his own son Ibrahim Pasha who carried
out Barbaric activities like burning houses, burning people Alive, persecuting Christians
and at that time or point the Greek population was threatened to be wiped out.
This made the powers of Europe to get involved in the Eastern question and the first
power to intervene was Russia which intervened with a view of protecting her fellow
orthodox Christians, the Greeks, Britain also came to prevent Russian expansion in the
area at the expense of the declining Turkey.
Finally, the powers included Russia, Britain and France gave support to the Greeks and
supported her independence.
Greece was to become self-governed but still under the Turks over lordship. The powers
agreed to force Turkey to sue for peace but on the other hand the powers of Austria and
Prussia objected the treaty of London and encouraged such disunity amongst the powers,
the sultan of Turkey objected the idea of giving Greece independence because it was a
step of breaking away or weakening Turkey which was also opposed by Austria.

THE BATTLE OF NOVARINO IN 1827

After the defeat of Turkey, the powers sent a navy force to force Ibrahim to accept the
terms of the treaty but the joint navy led to the staging of demonstrations with the view of
threatening Turkey to accept the peace treaty but on its way it met a joint Turkey Egypt
flect and exchanged fire at the battle of Novarino. The joint fleet of the Turks and
Egyptians was defeated by the allies and forced to abandon Morea. By 1828 a provisional
Greek government was setup. This show how the Greek powers of Europe were
concerned with events which were taking place in eastern Europe that are referred to as
the eastern question.
 THE RUSSIAN ADVANCE AND THE SIGNING OF THE TREATY OF
ADRIANOPLE 1828.
Despite the sultan’s defeat in Morea, he still did not accept the peace treaty and after a
short period, the sultan of turkey declared a holy war against all Christian powers and
Russia. For that matter not only condemning the stand of Britain which wanted to
preserve the Turks supremacy.
Russia advanced towards the Turkish empire and even threaten to overrun
Constantinople. So the whole state of affairs was conducted by the treaty of Adrianople
by which the sultan of turkey accepted peace terms. But still Turkey reluctantly refused
to grant self autonomy to the Greeks in the areas of Moldavia and Wallachia. In addition,
Russia gained some Turks territory in Asia minor, still that can show how the great
powers of Europe especially Russia got involved in the events in Eastern question.
However, when the Russian intervention was taking place, Britain did not intervene
directly.

THE GREEK INDEPENDENT KINGDOM

The granting of half independence to Greeks angered the great powers especially Britain
and Austria who thought that this would enable Russia to intervene into the affairs of
Turkey and in response to this, Britain objected to giving half independence to Greeks. In
1832, Greece was given full independence by the great powers never the less the
boundaries of Greece had been limited as Britain had signed and vowed to maintain
Turkey in this part of the world.
However, in the long run Britain bent so low and accepted the extension of boundaries of
Greece and this was a step for Turkey to crumble and therefore a threat to peace in
Europe.
It should be noted that Britain action in trying to prevent Russian’s extension in the area
shows the extent to which countries like Britain got involved in the Eastern question and
therefore the major threat to European peace and relation between countries.
Also the decisions of the powers to grant self-independence to Greece in order to check
the expanding Russia was also a credit. Therefore, in the final analysis, the European
question started with the Greek war of independence but it should be noted that Greece
which had been a vassal state of Turkey had broken away making the description of the
Russian Tzar that Turkey was a sick man of Europe, a reality.
 EFFECTS OR CONSEQUENCES OF THE GREEK WAR OF
INDEPENDENCE
The Greek war of independence resulted into severe loss of lives and property was also
destroyed. This disrupted or interfered with the economic activities.
Greece got her independence with the help of the European powers
The Greek war of independence marked the collapse of the congress system and it
strained relations among the European powers i.e. Britain and Russia came together to
oppose Austria and Prussia over the Greek question.
It resulted into the Syrian question because the sultan of Turkey made a false promise to
Muhammad Ali of Egypt which promoted Muhammad Ali to use force and conquered
Syria which started off or led to the outbreak of the Syrian question.
It resulted into the signing of the London treaty of 1827 which recognized the autonomy
of Greece though it was rejected by the ottoman empire.
It also resulted into the signing of the treaty of Unkiarskelles of 1833 which came as a
result of the Russian intervention in the ottoman empire when Russia came to protect the
Turkish empire against Egypt and as a consequence the treaty was signed which annoyed
Britain and strained relations between Britain and Russia.
The hostility between Britain and Russia over the Balkans increased leading to the
signing of the straits convention of 1841 and the Crimean war of 1854– 1856.
France lost support of the great powers because France supported Muhammad Ali of
Egypt during the Syrian question.
In France, King Louis Phillippe lost support for having supported the wrong side
contributing to his downfall later.
The Greek war of independence portrayed the double standards of Britain because
initially Britain was opposed to the Russian intervention in the Balkans and all along
Britain had been a friend to the ottoman empire but after 1821, Britain joined Russia to
support the Greeks to get their independence and get all along they had been protecting
the Ottoman Empire.
It exposed the hidden interests of the European powers towards the Balkans e.g. Russia
claimed the Guardianship of the orthodox Christians, there was also Britain’s protection
of her economic interests against Austria and Prussia that preferred non-intervention in
the affairs of the ottoman empire.
It led to the signing of the treaty of Adrianople of 1829 which concluded the Greek war
of independence.
Muhammad Ali of Egypt gained hereditary possession of Egypt when he was recognized
by the European powers as a hereditary ruler of Egypt.
It made Egypt to become weak militarily after being defeated by the European powers.

REASONS FOR THE SUCCESS OF THE GREEK WAR OF

INDEPENDENCE
Weakness of the Turkish army enabled the Greeks to organize a successful revolt because
it was unable to contain the internal problems in the ottoman empire which enabled the
Greeks to succeed.
The decline of the Turkish economy made her unable to finance an army
The continuous breakaway of the different parts that were making up the ottoman empire
made the Turkish empire weak and she was unable to contain the Greek revolts which led
to the success of the Greek revolts of Serbia, Albania and Egypt broke off, this meant
losing manpower and resources.
The employment of the Greeks in sensitive positions of administration in the Turkish
empire undermined the Turkish rule led to the success of the revolts the Greeks were
employed as commanders in the Turkish army in the areas of Wallachia and Moldavia
and the takeover of Wallachia and Moldavia led to the success of the Greeks.
The weak Turkish leadership which was corrupt and therefore the Greeks took advantage
of this to attain success.
The oppressive rule of the Turkish towards the Greeks united them and they were able to
succeed e.g. the massacre of 30,000 Greeks.
Turkey’s dependence on her vassal (tributary) states like Egypt for military assistance
e.g. it depended on Muhammad Ali which showed that she was weak and so could not
contain the Greek revolt which led to their success.
The Turkish poor diplomatic relations with other European states made turkey not to get
support from countries like Russia and Britain and such countries instead supported the
Greeks which led to the success of the Greek revolts.
Turkey’s harsh and brutal response to the Greek cause for example murder of the
patriarch the leader of the orthodox Christians in Greece and two bishops increased the
anger of the Greeks, they became determined which enabled them to achieve success.
The religious insensitivity of the sultan of Turkey’s government ie he continued
persecuting Christians, killing them, this united the Greek orthodox Christians, fought
with determination to achieve success
The increasing unpopularity of the sultan of Turkey’s regime which resulted into causing
numerous uprisings against the sultan at the same time eg the sultan of Jemina called Ali
pasha revolted against the sultan of Turkey.
The Serbians also revolted, all these revolts weakened the ottoman empire and enabled
the Greeks to succeed.
The role of the big middle class in Greece which gave leadership and finance to the
struggle led to the success of the Greek revolts.
The role played by Phillike Heltaria (association of friends) in mobilizing the masses led
to the success of the Greek revolutionaries.
The Greek revolt succeeded because of the able leadership of Hypisilant who mobilized
both internal and external support to the revolution.
The weakness of the congress system i.e. its members had become divided and some
even supported the Greek revolt of Russia and Britain this contributed to the success of
the revolt.
The success was influenced by the western revolutionary ideas of being equality and
fraternity which gave determination to Greeks to fight with determination and attain those
ideas of democracy.
The weakness of the Metternich system by the time of its outbreak and Metternich was
no longer intervening to suppress revolutions
The Greek revolt succeeded because of the support given by their fellow Greeks in exile
like Byron who mobilized resources for the revolters
The success of liberalism in Belgium in 1830, increased the zeal and determination,
inspiration of the Greeks to attain success.
The 1827 London treaty through which Russia and Britain supported the idea of Greece
to be independent enabled the Greeks to succeed.
The death of Castlereagh and the rise of lord canning who supported liberalism and
nonintervention in internal affairs of other countries working to the advantage of the
Greeks and they were able to attain success in their struggle.
The role of the able leaders and the orthodox church that mobilized all the Christians led
to massive support to the revolution hence leading to the success of the Greek war of
independence.
The rise of Tzar Nicholas I in 1825 who supported the Greeks to get independence led to
their success.
There was also the high spirt of Greek nationalism it the Greeks were determined to get
their independence which contributed to their success
The Greeks had superior military organisation and skills for example, they attacked the
Turkish forces on several fronts (different places) for example in Moldavia, Morea and
Wallachia which divided the Turkish forces and enabled the Greeks to succeed.
The success of the London treaties and the treaty of Adrianople of 1829, and through
these treaties, the European powers supported the Greeks to be independent.
The success of the battle of Novarino of 1827 and the destruction of the Turkish and
Egyptian fleets weakened the Turks further to the advantage of the Greeks and they were
able to attain their independence.

SYRIAN QUESTION 1833- 1842.

Various factors have been cited for the occurrence of the Syrian question below are some
of the factors.
The sultan of Turkey false promise to Muhammad Ali of Egypt, during the Greek war of
independence the sultan of Turkey made promise of giving the territories of Morea,
Syria, Damascus, Crete to Egypt because of the help Muhammad Ali of Egypt had given
to the sultan of Turkey against the rebels of Morea, but the sultan of Turkey made
Muhammad Ali of Egypt to send his son Ibrahim Pasha to attack Syria thus leading to the
Syrian question.
Russia’s ambitions into the Balkans also led to the Syrian question i.e. Russia wanted to
expand and acquire Constantinople and extend her control south wards, this made Russia
to quickly intervene in the conflicts on the side of Turkey which allowed other European
powers like Britain thus escalating the Syrian question.
The military and political weakness of the Turkish empire led to the Syrian question i.e.
ottoman had become militarily weak which made her to get military support from the
Egyptians to solve their problems with the Greeks. And later on when they failed to meet
the Egyptian demand this made Egypt to forcefully occupy Syria i.e. Egypt had no team
to attack the ottoman empire because turkey was militarily and politically weak.
The Syrian question broke out because of the need by Britain to prevent Russian
expansion south wards and she also wanted to revise the earlier treaties Russia had signed
with the Ottoman empire like the treaty of Unkiarskelles of 1833 that had given Russia a
lot of influence in the Balkans to the interests in the region. In the Syrian question
escalated because of the British intension with the views of preventing Russian expansion
south wards.
The support of European powers to the sultan of turkey especially the support she got
from Russia made the sultan of turkey to refuse the earlier promises that he had made to
Muhammad Ali of Egypt thus prompting Muhammad Ali to use force and occupy Syria
which sparked off the Syrian question.
The growing military and political strength of Muhammad Ali of Egypt as seen from his
support to be given to the Turkish. Muhammad Ali of Egypt hoped to use his military and
political growth and create a bigger empire under his control and after testing the
weakness of the ottoman empire he decided to use force and occupied Syria thus leading
to the Syrian question.
The Syrian question broke out because of the French desire to attain international glory or
respect i.e. King Louis Phillippe of France had promised military support to Egyptians
and wanted to increase his influence around the Mediterranean Sea for the purpose of
controlling trade in the middle east under the Balkans. the French support to Egypt made
Ali of Egypt to get involved and occupy Syria thus sparking off the Syrian question.
The Syrian question broke out because of the jealousies and suspicion among the great
powers of Europe e.g. Britain got involved in the crisis because of the fear of increased
Russian influence in the Balkans which meant losing their trade in the region. Russia
wanted to prevent another upcoming Muslim country in the Balkans ie Egypt, yet France
was fearing the Russian and British influence in the region which would lead to their loss
of control of their trade in the Mediterranean region.
One of the immediate cause of the outbreak of the Syrian crisis was Egypt’s invasion of
Syria which created stand off and conflicts with Turkey which made turkey to seek
support from Russia and later the British involvement to monitor Russia’s presence in the
region thus making the Syrian question become an international crisis.
Britain’s desire to safe guard her economic interests through the prevention of the
Turkish empire. Britain supported the policy of preserving the Turkish empire in order to
maintain her economic continuity in the region especially against expanding Russia
imperialism hence this made Britain to get involved in the crisis in the middle east that
came to be called the Syrian question.
The signing of the treaty of unkiarskelles of 1833 between Russia and Turkey through
which Turkey gave a lot of influence to Russians to control water bodies like the black
sea and Dardanelles which meant that Britain would lose control of the trade in the area.
The treaty of unkiarskelles prompted the British intervention in the crisis to overturn the
treaty in order to overturn the Russian gains. Thus escalating the Syrian crisis.
The straits convention of 1841 which was sponsored by the British government with the
views to revise the unfair treaty of unkiarskelles that had given Russia due to influence in
the Balkans also extended the Syrian question.
The independence that the sultan of Turkey wanted to preserve and strengthen the
Turkish empire which made him to resist the Egyptian occupation of Syria thus sparking
off the Syrian question.
It broke out because of Austria’s desire to preserve the old order of Europe i.e. maintain
the integrity of the ottoman empire and prevent the spread of nationalism from the
ottoman empire into the Austrian empire. This made Austria support Turkey against
Egypt i.e. Austria supported the sultan of Turkey’s refusal to hand over the territories that
had been promised to Egyptians and this prompted Egypt to use force thus sparking off
the Syrian question.

EFFECTS OF THE SYRIAN QUESTION

It led to the outbreak of the Crimean war that was fought between 1854 – 1856 ie the
Syrian question left Russia annoyed because she had been made to lose her gains she had
got form Turkey through the treaty of unkiarskelles which was replaced by the straits
convention of 1841 leading to enmity between Russia against Britain and France.
The Syrian question made Russia to be diplomatically out maneuvered by the British
foreign secretary lord Palmerstone i.e. out of the Syrian question Britain was victorious
against the Russians
Muhammad Ali was defeated and his influence was confined to Egypt though
Muhammad Ali became the heredity ruler of Egypt.
The Syrian question made Louis Phillippe’s regime to become unpopular in France i.e.
early King Louis Phillippe had promised support to Britain against Turkey and many
French glory seekers saw this as a great chance to improve on the Swiss canal which
would enable France dominate trade in the area. To the surprise of the French people,
Egyptians were defeated without foreign support which disappointed glory seekers and
thus made King Louis Phillippe to become unpopular.
 It led to the revision of the treaty of unkiarskelles of 1833 which had favored Russian
expansion in the Balkans.
The Egyptian leader i.e. Muhammad Ali was forced to denounce his claims on Syria
which had threatened European peace.
It led to the signing of the London treaty of 1840 and the straits convention of 1841
which cancelled out the earlier achievements made by the Russia and to end the quick
Russian imperialism or expansionism.
It made Britain to gain diplomatic victory and she was able to gain international
reputation by cancelling out the Russian achievement of unkiarskelles of 1833.
It strained the relationship between France and Russia because France had supported
Turkey leading to the enmity between the two countries which contributed to the
Crimean war of 1854 – 1856.
It led to peace for a period of about 10 years. The crisis was settled diplomatically by the
European powers
It weakened Egypt politically and militarily after being defeated by combined forces of
Russia, Britain and Turkey.
It also led to the death of many people and destruction of property on both sides.

THE CRIMEAN WAR OF 1854 – 1856

1. On whom would you put the blame for the outbreak of the Crimean war of 1854 –
1856
Approach

• Background of Crimean war

• Identify the countries involved in the war and identify the country that is heavily
blamed i.e. Russia and other countries then conclude
2. “Almost nothing had been settled”. To what extent is this a fitting verdict on the Crimean
war of 1854 – 1856 and the treaty of Paris of 1856.
Approach

• Background of the war- then the aims why the powers went to war (causes)
• Prove if the countries that fought in the war got what they wanted
• Show what countries never achieved
• Stand point
 • Conclusion
3. Discuss the causes and consequences of the Crimean war of 1854 – 1856
Approach

• Background of the Crimean war, identify the countries involved

• Causes and consequences, then conclude.
4. “The Crimean war was fought on neither clear principles nor objectives” discuss.
Approach

• Background of the Crimean war

• Give reasons why particular countries got to fight the war and state the genuine reasons
why they were involved
• Give the un genuine reasons for the countries involvement in the war
• Stand point
• Conclude
5. Why did Britain, France and Russia participate in the Crimean war
Approach

• Reasons why the particular countries participated in the war

• Conclude
6. It was a fumbling war, probably unnecessary, largely futile and yet rich in un expected
consequences. To what extent is this a fair description of the Crimean war of 1854 –
1856.
• Background of the Crimean war
• Causes of the Crimean war. – give genuine causes of the Crimean war given by
countries involved.
• Discuss the unfair causes of the war.
• Discuss the bitter effects of the war.
• A stand point
• Conclude
The Crimean war was in the Crimean Peninsula between 1854 – 1856. It was fought
between Russia on one side against Britain, France, Turkey. This war was later joined by
piedmont an Italian state that fought on the side of the other powers. The Crimean war
was part on the long standing Eastern question that involved the declining of affairs of
the ottoman empire and the imperialistic clashes of European powers like France, Russia
etc.
CAUSES OF THE CRIMEAN WAR
Russia’s imperialism or Russia’s ambitions or intensions against the ottoman empire. The
underlying cause of the Crimean war was the longstanding policy towards the Turkish
empire and the distract of the other powers had towards the Russian policy it should be
noted, that ever since the time of Tzar Catherine between 1792 – 1796, the relationship
between the ottoman empire and Russia had continued to decline. In the 19th century, this
increased especially when the weakness of the ottoman empire became a public secret
e.g. in 1833, Tzar Nicholas had appealed to Metternich to partition the property of
Turkey and in 1844, Tzar Nicholas visited London to try and arrange the partition of
Turkey. This partition was based on the long standing Russian claim that this empire had
become so sick and therefore that “no amount of doctoring could do the patient any
good”.
Britain rejected the proposal and Russia moved her forces towards Crimean. Britain
argued that Russia exaggerated the sickness of Turkey just as a design for her
individualists’ interests. It was out of this attitude that the British parliamentarianism john
Russel declared that if we don’t stop the Russians at Danube, we shall find it very
difficult to stop them at Indus (black sea). Therefore, the growing strength of Russia and
her expansionist policy towards Turkey made the Crimean war inevitable because the
other powers could not sit back to see Russia dominating the ottoman empire or the
Balkan region.
The question of the custody of the holy places in Palestine also contributed to the
outbreak of the Crimean war. This conflict of the custody of the holy places was between
the orthodox Greek monks supported by Russia and the Latin Catholics supported by
France. These places included Bethlehem and Jerusalem. Soon the conflict developed
into a 1st class international crisis on account of the jealousy of the great powers in
1940’s, the Catholics were recognized by the sultan of Turkey as the custodians of the
shrines, however after that period up to 1840’s when France had settled internal
problems; before 1840, France was pre occupied with several internal problems at home
and revolutions which made her neglect her duties of guarding the holy places and
therefore the Christian orthodox assumed that responsibility and after 1840’s when
France settled her internal problems and started reclaiming the Guardianship of the holy
places by that time occupied by the orthodox supported by Russia. This led to a conflict
between Russia on the side of the orthodox and France on the side of the Catholics which
increased misunderstanding between the 2 countries that contributed to the outbreak of
the Crimean war.
A special dispute between the Catholics and the Greek clergy centered around the control
of the key to the church or mosque or Bethlehem. For decades the orthodox and Catholics
had been using the church but while the Greek orthodox had the key to the great door,
afterwards, the Catholics demanded the key to the great door and also claimed the guard
ship of the holy places.
Tzar Nicholas I of Russia and Napoleon III of France saw this religious dispute as an
opportunity to further their ambitions. Napoleon III of France saw this as a chance of
securing glory and consolidate himself in powers since he would get the support of the
French Catholics who wanted to see the Catholics controlling the key to the church of
Bethlehem. Thus the failure of the great powers like France and Russia to reconcile
resulted into a full scale conflict which later led to the outbreak of the Crimean war.
Personal misunderstanding between Napoleon III of France and Tzar Nicholas I of
Russia. Napoleon III disliked Tzar Nicholas because Tzar Nicholas despised the
revolutionary origin of the 2nd French empire. In addition, Napoleon III had a grudge with
Tzar Nicholas because the Russians had defeated his uncle Napoleon I in the Moscow
campaign of 1812. Therefore, Napoleon III wanted to avenge the Moscow campaign of
1812 and defeat the Russians. In addition, Napoleon III was annoyed because Tzar
Nicholas I refused to address him as “my brother” but only referred to him as a friend
which was contrary to the customary system in Europe. Napoleon III also hoped that a
war with orthodox Russia would please the French Catholics and make them support
Napoleon III government. Such conflicts and misunderstandings rendered the war
inevitable and what awaited was simply a spark which happened when the Russians
attacked Turkey.
The repudiation or nullifying of the straits convention of 1841. Britain supported by other
powers made Turkey to close the black sea in times of peace, this had been done and
supported by Britain in order to stop the entry of the Russian warships in the area.
However, Russia repudiated or violated the treaty by occupying WALLACHIA AND
MOLDAVIA
The other poor considered this as a sign of aggression and going against international
treaties which prompted quick reaction between France and Britain which led to the
outbreak of the Crimean war.
The weakness of the Turkish empire.
The ottoman empire continued to decline despite the wishes of the European countries
like Britain to maintain the integrity and independence of turkey, many states that were
forming the ottoman empire were continuously demanding for their independence and
this thus gave an excuse to the other neighbouring and interested powers like Russia who
wanted to get a share ie part of the ottoman empire. Thus declining and weakening of the
ottoman empire which encouraged countries like Russia to interfere in the internal
problems of the ottoman empire which was opposed by other powers like France and
Britain and such opposition to Russia led to the outbreak of the Crimean war.
The discriminative attitude of the sultan of Turkey against the Christians and other
conquered subjects. Ever since the ottoman empire was created, the rulers of this empire
intensified their policy of mistreating the Christians and their subjects attracted the
attention of the other European countries like Russia who decided to interfere into the
affairs of the ottoman empire which was opposed by the other European powers like
France and Britain and contributed to the outbreak of the 1854 – 1856 Crimean war.
The Russian economic interest in the Mediterranean Sea and black sea. The ottoman
empire had controlled strategic water bodies like the Mediterranean Sea that were very
important to other European countries in terms of trade and during the times of war.
Therefore, the Russians all along wanted to control these waterbodies at the expense of
the ottoman empire and other interested European powers like Britain. However, the
British government peacefully used these waterbodies in terms of trade and commerce.
Thus when Russia wanted to break up the ottoman empire and control these waterbodies,
Russia was opposed by Britain and France which contributed to the outbreak of the
Crimean war of 1854 – 1856.
Russia’s desire to protect the Slavs and their Serb brothers. The ottoman empire had
continued to dominate, oppress the Serbs and the Slavs who were under their control.
Majority of the people in Russia were Slavs and therefore Russia felt that it was her
responsibility to protect the suffering Serbs and Slavs in the ottoman empire which was
interpreted by the ottoman rulers as interference in the internal affairs of their empire.
Russia also adopted the policy of supporting the Slavs in the ottoman empire to rebel
against the Turkish rulers and supported them to get their independence. The Russian
policy of supporting and protecting the Slavs in the ottoman empire was opposed by
Turkey with the support of the other European countries like Britain and France. This
resulted into a conflict among those powers and led to the outbreak of the Crimean war of
1854 – 1856.
Britain desire to protect her commercial interest in the Balkans. Ever since the industrial
revolution, Britain had enjoyed the monopoly of controlling commerce and trade by
selling finished goods and getting raw materials from other countries. However, with the
decline of the ottoman empire, Russia scrambled to take up these areas of economic
interest that had been monopolized by Britain. Thus leading to conflicts between the
British government and Russians that led to the outbreak of the Crimean war of 1854 –
1856.
The downfall of the congress as an international body that was put in place to solve
European problems without resorting to war. Around 1830’s, the work of the congress
system had greatly declined and thus from then onwards, there was no international body
to meditate among the conflicting European powers and that’s why counties fought
among themselves between 1854 – 1856.
Fear, suspicion, national ambitions and rivalry between European powers contributed to
the outbreak of the Crimean war, France for example did not enter the Crimean war
solely because of the holy places’ question but because of the enmity between Napoleon
III and Tzar Nicholas I of Russia. Britain participated in the war because of the fear that
Russia would challenge their traditional position in European politics as well as their
dominant position in the Balkans. In addition, the Crimean war can be seen as a result of
differences, suspicion, natural ambitions that led to rivalry among the powers and
contributed to the outbreak of the Crimean war.
The Russian occupation of Wallachia and Moldavia and her insistence to occupy these
areas despite the Turkish ultimatum which offered Russia a great opportunity to pull out,
but Russia stubbornly refused and continued staying in the area. The occupation of these
2 areas by Russia made Turkey’s position so dangerous and came in Britain’s support to
Turkey through ambassador to Constantinople, i.e. Stratifordreddciff who assured the
ottoman rulers that Britain was on their side, therefore giving Turkey confidence to
declare war against Russia.
Turkey’s desire to protect her independence
The war broke out because Turkey wanted to protect her independence and the integrity
of her territory after being encroached upon several times by the Russia e.g in 1820 –
1830, there was the Greek war of independence. in 1853, Russia occupied Wallachia and
Moldavia which territories belonged to Turkey; therefore, Turkey was more justified to
fight the Crimean war of 1854 – 1856 in order to protect her independence and integrity.
Russia on her part fought the Crimean war because she felt confident of victory in the
Crimean war because of the following reason.
Russia had tested Turkey’s strength in the wars they had fought previously, Russia was
also confident because at one time;
Russia had been free from almost all Revolutions
 Russia was a great empire and had less internal problems that would have weakened their
army. Therefore, the confidence of Russia made her provoke the ottoman empire and
other European powers which led to the outbreak of the Crimean war.
Russian’s destruction of the Turkish fleet at Sinope. Russia on seeing that the joint fleet
of France, Britain and Turkey could soon attack her on the black sea, decided to strike
fast by sinking the Turkish fleet at Sinope in the black sea. Britain and France regarded
this act as an unnecessary act and wholesale murder by the Russians and as a result of
war fever on the other countries run high. Britain and France therefore sent warships to
the black sea and demanded that Russia should withdraw from Wallachia and Moldavia
and recall their warships to their bases at Sebastopol. Russia refused to do so and the
other powers declared war on Russia which started off the Crimean war.
The Crimean war also attracted small Piedmont an Italian state that had nothing directly
to benefit from the affairs of the ottoman empire particularly the relationship between
Turkey and her Christian subjects. Piedmont participated in the Crimean war in order to
get the recognition and sympathy of other European powers to give assistance in her
struggle to unify the Italian states.
In addition to that, piedmont participated in the war in order to give her army enough
knowledge and experience and it was in the Crimean war that Cavour was able to correct
the past mistakes and he was able to attain succeed in the struggle to unify the Italian
states.
By march 1856, war was over and Russia had been defeated and the treaty called the
Paris peace treaty of 1856 was signed which laid the foundation for the future of Europe.

THE PARIS PEACE TREATY OF MARCH 1856

1. Assess the impact of the Paris peace treaty of 1856 on Europe
• Why it was signed
• Changes brought on Europe ie positively and negatively
• Stand point
• conclusion
In march 1856, Tsar Nicholas I of Russia died and his successor Alexander II who ruled
between 1856 – 1885 was more liberal and peaceful, Alexander II was also determined to
compromise with the western powers. At the end of the war, the European powers
convened in Paris and such powers included France, Britain, Turkey, Piedmont and the
defeated power of Russia in order to find permanent solutions to the problems in the
Balkans and they agreed on the following terms.
The black sea was neutralized and no worships of either Russia or Turkey were permitted
on it.
Navigation on Danube was opened to all nations on equal terms and that that
international body was put under international control ie under France’s supervision.
All territories that Russia had conquered were restored and Russia was even forced to
leave Bessarabia which was given to Moldavia.
Moldavia and Wallachia were to be self-governing but recognizing the sovereignty of
Turkey.
All the European powers gave up their right to interfere in the affairs of the ottoman
empire.
Turkey was admitted to the concert of Europe and the sultan of Turkey promised to give
true equality to both Christians and Muslims.
By the peace treaty of Paris, changes were made in the international movement on
waterbodies whereby the black sea was to be free for all the merchant vessels of all
nations and Danube was to become an international water body.

SIGNIFICANCES OF THE PARIS PEACE TREATY OF 1856

The treaty brought fresh lease of life to the ottoman empire ie the independence of the
ottoman empire was confirmed and no European power had the right to temper with the
sultan of Turkey and he was left to put his house in order. Therefore, the ottoman empire
remained a solid empire.
The Christian subjects in the ottoman empire were left at the mercy of the sultan of
Turkey and continued facing the mistreatment under the sultan’s rule.
The treaty of Paris postponed the trouble in the Balkan region which was bound to break
up again and disrupt peace in the region because no changes were made in Turkey and
thus the relationship between Turkey her Neighbours and her subjects continued to run
from bad to worse.
Turkey was admitted to the concert of Europe and she was accepted by the European
powers as a vital component to the European balance of power.
However, the terms of the treaty were not respected i.e. the neutralization of the black sea
was short-lived and Russia took the earliest opportunity to break the agreement by using
her warships in the black sea with the encouragement of Bismarck who wanted the
Russian neutrality and support when he was unifying the German states.
The Franco- Prussian war of 1870 – 1871 gave Russia an opportunity to repudiate or
nullify this part of the treaty after conniving with the Germans. In addition, France and
Britain sent their warships through the DARDENELLES and yet a few years back, they
had agreed not to take such a policy as it would threaten European peace.
The treaty was a great blow to Russia, the Russian expansionist designs received a
setback, though war did not completely weaken her military. Tsar Alexander II who came
after the death of Nicholas I of Russia concentrated on internal reforms in Russia and did
not undertake risky external or foreign ventures. This partly explains why Alexander II
was referred to as the “Tsar the liberator”.
France gained glory as she hoped because Russia was defeated and thus France was able
to revenge the humiliations of the Moscow campaign of the 1812.
France identified herself as a super power in Europe by chairing the Paris peace
conference, thus the terms of the Paris peace treaty Favored France.
The Paris peace treaty assisted piedmont to negotiate the terms of Italian unification
where got a chance of sitting at the same round table where the great powers of Europe
were implementing diplomacy and at that time Austria was unpopular because she did
not participate in the war and Cavour was able to get the support of France and Britain in
the struggle of Italian unification.

EFFECTS OF THE CRIMEAN WAR OF 1854 – 1856 (CONSEQUENCES)

Austria became unpopular because she did not join the other powers against Russia and
immediately Russia withdrew form Wallachia and Moldavia, Austria occupied those
areas. This made Austria to become isolated internally and that’s why she was easily
defeated by Prussia in the Austria –Prussia war of 1866 without being assisted by other
powers.
The Crimean war resulted into the signing of the Paris peace treaty of march 1856 which
propagated the idea of settling disputes through diplomacy which even led to the
formation of future diplomatic organizations like the league of nations and U.N.O
The Crimean war made France to be assigned the responsibility of controlling the waters
of the black sea though this was violated by Russia after the France Prussian war.
It resulted into great improvement in the medical knowledge and necessity to improve
military hospitals after seeing thousands of soldiers doing without medical attention. This
even made other European government to send more money in the health Centre’s of the
soldiers.
It led to the formation of the Red cross an idea that was brought about by the
humanitarians after seeing many soldiers suffering at the battle field and had no
assistance and therefore they started the idea of forming the Red cross as a neutral
organisation to assist the victims of the 2 conflicting sides.
It contributed to the Indian mutiny of 1857 because most of the troops used by the British
in the Crimean war were from India. Many of them died and the few who survived went
back with revolutionary skills and later they organized against the British rule
With the conclusion of the war and the promises made by the sultan of Turkey in the
Paris peace treaty led to wide spread of demands for reforms in the ottoman empire
which increased the destabilization in the ottoman empire.
Russia’s weight in the political affairs of Europe was greatly reduced since she was
defeated by the European powers.
The participation of piedmont on the side of the allies made her to gather sympathy and
Cavour who was a prime minister of Piedmont raised the question of the unification of
Italy during the Paris peace treaty of 1856 and through his tactful diplomacy, he
succeeded in winning the moral support of Napoleon III and Britain in the coming
struggle against Austria.
It led to the death of many people, collectively, the major powers involved in this war lost
about half a million people which was a total larger than any loss ever incurred in any
European war between 1814 – 1914. The Russians lost 300,000 men, the French nearly
lost 100,000 and the British around 60,000 men, although the numbers may appear to be
small by the 20th century standards, it showed how this unnecessary war was destructive.
some people died directly during the fighting while about 2/3 died of diseases. The
medical services during the war were poor which contributed to the death of people.
The independence of Turkey was confirmed as it was laid down in the Paris peace treaty
that no power had the right to interfere with the sultan of Turkey and his Christian
subjects. Turkey was brought to the ranks of the great powers and accepted her as a vital
component of the European balance of power, however, these measures had temporally
effects given the situation of the decaying strength of the Turkish empire. The empire
could not totally prevent the growth of nationalism which was strong by then. The strong
Christian states continued to rebel and the empire continued to crumble.
The Crimean war like the Paris peace treaty allowed free navigation on river Danube
following the principles that were laid down which were to promote international trade,
cooperation and peace however in the years that followed, each nation developed a policy
of individualism in order to shelter their home industries which later resulted into
economic rivalry.
There was also territorial settlement which involved concession from both Turkey and
Russia. Russia gave her parts of the provinces of Bessarabia which was annexed to
Moldavia. The principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia were enlarged and given some
form of self-government, but they continued to acknowledge the over lordship of Turkey.
Serbia was to enjoy similar self-government and they showed how the ottoman empire
continued to decline, thus giving excuses to her neighbors to interfere in the internal
affairs of the ottoman empire.
The sultan of Turkey promised fair treatment to the Christian orthodox on equal
principles like the Muslims.
Russia also was made to stop her claims of protecting the orthodox Christians,
unfortunately this was an arrangement on mere papers which was again violated by
Russia. E.g. when Russia supported the movement of the young Turks against the
ottoman empire.
In conclusion, the Crimean war like the treaty of Paris was concluded un concussively
this is extended when Turkey continued with her problems or sickness. The allies only
used Turkey to get what they wanted. The war was unplanned and fought without clear
principles and objectives.

THE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE OUTBREAK OF

THE CRIMEAN WAR OF 1854 – 1856
To what extent was Napoleon III of France responsible for the outbreak of Crimean war
of 1854 – 1856.
To what extent was Russia responsible for the outbreak of the Crimean war.
The distribution of responsibility for the outbreak of the Crimean war among the powers
like Russia, Britain, France and Turkey can be based on partitioning the responsibility to
the involved countries basin on their interests that each country had in partitioning the
ottoman empire. Therefore, the distribution of responsibility should be based on both the
immediate and long term causes, the country which contributed most of the immediate
and long term causes is put in the first position as regards, the responsibility of the war
and then others are brought next.
Russia was greatly responsible for the outbreak of the Crimean war and the following
reasons can be used to explain why it’s put in the 1st place.
Russia is blamed because she created underlying tension that finally resulted into the war.
Ever since the period of Tsar Catherine, extending to the period of Tsar Nicholas I,
Russia wanted to bring an abrupt stop to the existence of the ottoman empire and to gain
a strong hold of the areas of Constantinople and possibly to have access to the black sea,
Mediterranean Sea and other vital parts of the Balkans which Turkey controlled by then.
Russia can also be accused of having interfered in the local question in the ottoman
empire concerning the sultan and his subjects, e.g. Russia interfered during the Greek war
of independence, Serbian revolution and also intervened in the Wallachia and Moldavia
affair. Therefore, Russia’s encouragement and support to the oppressed people in the
ottoman empire failed to recognize their little strength and thus remained disobedient to
the central administration of Turkey. However, with Russia’s support, they increased
their demands for independence and hence escalating or worsening the situation such
Russian support made her appear guilty for causing the Crimean war because she wanted
to break up the ottoman empire
Russia can also be blamed for causing the Crimean war because of her claims to be the
rightful guardian of the holy places of Bethlehem and Jerusalem which responsibility was
not given to her. It was a merely assumed responsibility which made Russia conflict with
the French who were the rightful guardians of the holy places and hence the war.
Russia can also be blamed because of her claims to be the guardians of all Christians in
the ottoman empire, a responsibility that was not allocated to her by all the European
powers, thus caused the resentment / hatred particularly from Austria and France hence
causing the Crimean war of 1854 -56.
Russia can also be blamed for causing the war because of her actions and practices which
were disrespectful to the emperor Napoleon III eg Tsar Nicholas I of Russia refused to
address Napoleon III as a fellow emperor and a brother and instead referred to him as a
friend. This led to conflicts between Napoleon III and Tsar Nicholas I of Russia which
contributed to the Crimean war of 1854 -56.
Russia’s nick naming Turkey, “the sick man of Europe”, by doing so, Russia violated the
international law and failed to respect the independence of Turkey. This made other
powers to feel concerned and more involved in the Turkish question in order to prevent
Russia in advance. it should be noted that as early as 1843, Russia had sought support of
Metternich concerning the sick man of Europe and despite the negative attitude of the
great powers of Europe, Russia never stopped her interests.
Russia’s actions of occupying Wallachia and Moldavia provinces. Therefore, she violated
the territorial integrity of the ottoman empire. This made Turkey and other European
powers to become more inpatient and decided to wage war against Russia to contain her
aggression and hence the war.
Russia ignored the Turkish ultimatum to vacate or to withdraw from the areas of
Wallachia and Moldavia but instead Russia sunk the Turkish fleet at SINOPE which
became the immediate factor that made the powers declaration of war on Russia.

BRITAIN’S RESPONSIBILITY (2ND POSITION)

The 2nd country that is put next in causing the Crimean war is Great Britain which can be
accused as regards responsibility for the war because of her continued support and
encouragement of Turkey, she did this through her ambassador RED CLIFF
STRATFORD. Possibly, without Britain’s support and encouragement to Turkey, the
sultan would have modified relations with the Russians and Russia could not have risked
to fight a war against her (ottoman empire) e.g. the ottoman empire had signed several
treaties with Russia like a treaty of UNKIAR SKELLES of 1833 that had given Russia a
dominant position in the ottoman empire but with Britain’s encouragement and support,
the ottoman empire violated these treaties which annoyed Russia causing conflicts which
led to the war.
Britain was also blamed because a great power, she would have mediated between the
conflicting sides i.e. Turkey and Russia and possibly the war would have been avoided
but instead she sided with Turkey, an action that rendered the war inevitable.
Britain can also be held responsible because she was among countries that used the straits
waters, an action that later provoked war.
Britain was accused of the role of her middle class manufacturers. The members of the
middle class in Britain constantly demanded for war, even their representatives in the
parliament pressed very much for actions which made Turkey to violet the earlier
agreement she had signed with Russia.
TURKEY’S RESPONSIBILITY (3RD POSITION)
Because she was the Centre on which all the projected interests of the powers landed.
Turkey is blamed because she mistreated the Christian subject which gave Russia an
excuse to interfere in her affairs in order to protect the orthodox Christians and thus gave
a genuine reason for Russia’s intervention in the Balkan question.
Turkey was also insufficient in controlling a large empire she had created if done and
therefore attracted the attention of the great powers Russia inclusive, controlling such an
empire could not have been a problem to Turkey had she been efficient or if she had
satisfied the interests of all small groups in the Turkish empire.
On the other hand, the ottoman empire continued to decline and her power could not
contain the situation which acted as an encouragement for some people to demand for
political independence which Turkey could not accept and this weakness of the ottoman
empire attracted the attention of the great powers which led to the outbreak of Crimean
war.

FRANCE’S RESPONSIBILITY (4TH POSITION)

Under Napoleon III as regards the responsibility, Frances’ contribution in the underlying
causes are minor and therefore it should be remembered that France, most of the time was
following Britain and she never wanted to be left behind in European politics and much
of the reasons for France’s participation were personal.
France claimed to be the guardian of the holy place, in Palestine whose responsibility
they had abandoned. This made her conflict with Russia which had also developed the
desires or ambition of being a guardian of the holy places.
Also the glory seeking ambitions of Napoleon III who was eager to secure the support at
home after fighting a war against Russia. He also wanted to avenge the Moscow
campaign of 1812 in which his uncle napoleon I had been humiliated by the Russians.
France and Napoleon III can be blamed for causing the war because of the desire for
respect. Napoleon III because Nicholas I of Russia refused to address him as “my
brother” therefore the above reasons and circumstances made Napoleon III and France
was blamed for causing the Crimean war.
Another reason for France’s accusation was her action of refusing to respect the straits
convention which was refusing warships of countries to use the straits waters. In fact,
France was moving alongside the British forces which increased Russia’s concern
 towards the war and caused a big threat to Russia that subsequently resulted into firing of
the Turkish fleet at Sinope and eventually started the war.

PIEDMONT
Little piedmont takes the least blame because she joined the war late. She did not
contribute to the causes of the war and had no quarrel with either Russia or the ottoman
empire but piedmont just wanted to get the attention of the great powers and assist her in
the unification of the Italian states. Piedmont had also wanted to give its soldiers
experience in preparation to fight against the Italian enemies. However, it was
unfortunate to train her troops on the battle field more over involving the great powers of
Europe and fighting against a powerful country like Russia.
In conclusion, historically, Russia can be seen as the aggressor due to her actions and
quick mobilization of her troops in 1853 which in history means war. Britain can be seen
as the chief engineer of the war and played about within the situation that finally resulted
into the war. France was the manipulator or controller of the war. Turkey acted as the
ground to settle scores. Small piedmont just like the decaying Austria had very little in
the war and her support was negligible.

EVENTS LEADING TO THE CONGRESS OF BERLIN OF 1878

1. Discuss the events leading to the congress of Berlin
2. Assess the impact of the Berlin congress of 1878 on Europe. (2 sided question and
a stand point)
3. To what extent did the terms of the Berlin congress of 1878 after solutions to European
problems
The congress of Berlin proceeded a series of revolts in the Balkan states. The Berlin
congress was convened in Berlin the Germany capital and was chaired by chancellor
Bismarck in an attempt to resolve the Balkan crisis and avoid an impending war that was
likely to take place between the European powers.
The Berlin congress was called because the Paris treaty of 1856 had failed to offer
permanent solutions to Balkan crisis. After the Paris peace treaty; the Russians remained
discontented because they had been cut off from the Balkan affairs and Russia did not
like this. Soon therefore, Russia was seen influencing events in the Balkan states to the
dislike of the other European powers like Britain and Austria. Therefore, the Berlin
congress was called to check Russian expansion in the Balkan problems.
Another event was the promise of good conduct by the sultan of Turkey in the treaty of
Paris which proved completely worthless i.e. the Turkish empire continued to go from
bad to worse, the administration was chaotic, government funds were misused, over
taxation continued particularly on the Christian subjects and the favoring of the Muslims
continued e.g. there was out right persecution of Christian minorities which became
increasingly common. Therefore, such problems necessitated the calling of the Berlin
congress in a bid to look for the solutions for the problems.
In 1875, a national revolution broke out in the Turkish Balkan republic of Bosnia-
Herzegovina where people were opposing serfdom, unfair taxation on the peasants and as
a result of this gross Behavior, the ottoman empire decided to use a lot of brutality in
putting down the revolts and this attracted the attention of other European powers and
these powers included countries like German, Austria and Russia which presented
proposals of reforms to the sultan of Turkey. However, the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina
were not willing to accept the sultan’s promise of reforms. Problems like those made the
European powers to call a congress in Berlin in 1878 to look for a solution.
There was also an outbreak of another rebellion which occurred around 1875 in Bulgaria
and the sultan of Turkey Abdullah Hamid (the red sultan) reacted by carrying out the
famous Bulgarian massacres in which about 5000 people were burnt Alive. This shocked
the whole world including Britain, the British prime minister Disraeli was forced to call
the congress of the great powers at Constantinople (capital of Turkey) and this congress
demanded for the equality of the Muslims and Christians in the ottoman empire and also
requested the sultan of Turkey to guarantee self-government to the people of Bosnia-
Herzegovina which was based on western lines, although later, the constitution was
abolished by the sultan.
The Russian intervention in the ottoman empire and the signing of the treaty of “Sani
Stefano” because of the misbehaviors of the sultan of Turkey, Russia decided that it was
only outright defeat of the sultan that could enforce the needed reforms and secure an end
to the political revolts in the ottoman empire. Therefore, when the sultan refused to
guarantee fair treatment of his subjects and to bring about reforms, the sultan received an
ultimatum from the great powers. However, before the ultimatum would be fulfilled by
Turkey, Russia declared war on Turkey. Russia was joined by the Balkan states of
ARMENIA, MONTENEGRO and BULGARIA against Turkey. However, this
intervention by Russia was met with mixed feelings from Britain and Austria. Britain and
Austria were scared when Russia tried to overrun Constantinople the capital of Turkey
which would have been Russia an upper hand in the affairs of the ottoman empire and
therefore undermine the interest of the other powers in the Balkans.
Note
The Berlin congress was called to check Russian intervention in the ottoman empire
against the interest of other European powers.
It was also called to prevent a likely war between Russia on one side against Britain and
Austria who were discontented about the Russian influence in the Balkans.
The treaty of SANI STEFANO which was signed between Russia and the ottoman
empire caused discontents among the European powers like Austria and Britain. In the
treaty of Sani Stefano, Russia gained some territories near Danube. According to this
treaty Bosnia-Herzegovina was to administer its own affairs but most important of all in
the treaty were the clauses concerning Bulgaria. According to this treaty, a big Bulgaria
was to be set up including the districts of Moldavia which would cut off Turkey from her
remaining position in the Balkans. A big Bulgaria was created by Russia and it was
thought that as a result of its creation, it was likely to accept Russian control. This was
opposed by Austria and Britain and they threatened to fight against Prussia. Therefore,
Bismarck called the berlin congress in 1878 to revise the treaty of Sani Stefano which
had given Russia excessive influence in the Balkan especially in big Bulgaria which was
created at the expense of tot other European countries.
Besides, it could make Russia a dominant power in the Balkans which was greatly
rejected by Britain and Austria who demanded that the whole issue and affair concerning
the treaty of Sani Stefano be decided by the European congress and be revised by the
treaty.
Britain threatened war against Russia by mobilizing her troops and yet it had been
Bismarck’s policy to avoid wars in Europe in which France could get a friend and fight a
war of revenge against Germany. After Britain’s gesture for war, eventually Russia
accepted to settle to issue in the congress of the European powers and hence the
European powers met at berlin in the capital of Germany under the chairmanship of
Bismarck to revise the treaty and avert the would be war between Russia against Austria
and Britain

TERMS OF THE CONGRESS OF BERLIN OF 1878

The congress of Berlin was chaired by Bismarck “the honest broker” and the following
are the terms or clauses of the Berlin treaty of 1878.
The big Bulgaria was divided into 3 parts i.e. the northern most parts which became
virtually independent, the central districts of eastern Rumelia were placed under a
Christian government which was under direct control and military authority of the sultan.
The southern part of the former big Bulgaria including Macedonia was handed back to
Turkey.
Britain took Cyprus form Turkey officially in order to give Britain a base to protect
Turkey in Asia minor and supervise Turkey’s treatment over the Christian subjects
Russia retained BASSERABIA and the territories of KARIAS, BATUMA and
ADOLINO.
Austria was given the administration of Bosnia Herzegovina including Serbia but this did
not mean that the above territories became part of the Austrian empire. Austria was just
answerable for the administration of those areas on behalf of the countries that signed the
Berlin treaty of 1878.
The sultan of turkey made his usual promise of reform in the treatment of his Christian
subject.
France was given Tunisia in Africa.

RESULTS OR IMPACTS OF THE BERLIN CONGRESS OF 1878

Like any other peace treaty made in Europe before the congress of Berlin, it ensured
peace in Europe by averting a would be war between Russia and Austria and hence peace
was ensured at least for 30 years and ending the hostilities between Russia and the other
powers.
The Berlin congress of 1878 strengthened Turkey that was at the verge of collapse
especially due to the Russian desire to create a big Bulgaria.
Once again, Russian aggressions in the Balkans were checked as it was done way back
during and after the Crimean war.
The congress of Berlin showed how skillful Bismarck was in handling European
problems and therefore he was given the tittle of honest broker because despite the
conflict of the powers, he never got any territory for Germany although the congress was
about distributing territories. This was part of Bismarck’s design to avoid conflicts with
Austria and Russia ie his two Drakaiserband friends.
Bismarck and Germany got international recognition whereby Bismarck was seen as a
peace maker in Europe by convincing the congress at Berlin which he chaired and
therefore berlin became a city of international diplomacy, thus increasing the glory of
Bismarck and Germany.
Like other settlements concerning the eastern question, ie treaty of berlin had few lasting
results eg within 7 years, Bulgaria gained the control of eastern Rumelia in spite of the
work of the great powers and therefore making the berlin congress give temporally
solutions to the problems in the Balkans.
Serbia never accepted the Austrian control of Bosnia –Herzegovina as it would be seen in
the future and this resulted into antagonism or conflicts between Serbia and Austria
which resulted into the murder of Arch Duke Ferdinand which finally sparked off the 1st
world war in1914.
The sultan of Turkey neglected his promise of giving reforms to the Christians in the
ottoman empire and the people of Armenia were later to suffer the barbaric behavior,
systematic massacres where thousands of people were massacred in Constantinople.
Disraeli the British prime minister and lord Salisbury who were the co-authors of the
treaty confessed that in supporting turkey, Britain had backed a wrong horse and this was
due to the growth of nationalism in the Balkans that Turkey failed to control which
finally led to the outbreak of the 1st world war.
The Turkish empire continued to decline as they lost many of their territories to the other
powers and this left Russia and Britain face to face in the nearest future. Therefore, all the
powers left the congress more bitter than even before and therefore international relations
had been greatly strained.
The treaty makers encouraged France to take over Tunisia which was part of Bismarck’s
policy of isolation of making France acquire colonies in Africa in order to divert her
attention of liberating Alsace and Lorraine.
The congress led to the collapse of the Drakaiserband because Russia felt cheated and run
away from the hands of Germany and this increased Bismarck’s fear that France might
get a friend in Europe and escape the isolation.
After the break up between Russia and Germany, Bismarck was forced to form the dual
alliance and this increased spread of conflicts between European powers which were
operating in camps or alliances.
Italy gained nothing out of the congress and later the leadership of Italy started looking
for allies in Europe in order to benefit in the future.
In conclusion, the Berlin congress of 1878, brought some peace in Europe by diverting a
would be war between the great powers of Europe, but the terms of the treaty were
unrealistic in an attempt to bring lasting peace in Europe and therefore it is not surprising
that within a few years, after signing the treaty, the terms of the treaty were violated
making the problems of Eastern question remain unanswered.