INTRODUCTION

In diplomatic history, the Eastern question was the issue of the political and economic instability in the
Ottoman Empire from the late 18th to early 20th centuries and the subsequent strategic competition
and political considerations of the European great powers in light of this. Characterized as the "sick man
of Europe", the relative weakening of the empire's military strength in the second half of the eighteenth
century threatened to undermine the fragile balance of power system largely shaped by the Concert of
Europe. The Eastern question encompassed myriad interrelated elements: Ottoman military defeats,
Ottoman institutional insolvency, the ongoing Ottoman political and economic modernization
programme, the rise of ethno-religious nationalism in its provinces, and Great Power rivalries.

While there is no specific date on which the Eastern question began, the Russo-Turkish War (1828–29)
brought the issue to the attention of the European powers, Russia and Britain in particular. As the
dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was believed to be imminent, the European powers engaged in a
power struggle to safeguard their military, strategic and commercial interests in the Ottoman domains.
Imperial Russia stood to benefit from the decline of the Ottoman Empire; on the other hand, Austria-
Hungary and Great Britain deemed the preservation of the Empire to be in their best interests. The
Eastern question was put to rest after the First World War, one of the outcomes of which was the
collapse and division of the Ottoman holdings.
BACKGROUND TO THE EASTERN QUESTION OF EUROPE (1815-1878).

The term eastern question generally referred to the conflicts or wars that characterized the European
continent over the Balkan areas (Eastern Europe) that were under the Sultan of Turkey of the ancient
Ottoman Empire. The European great powers of the time namely Britain, Russia, Austria, and France had
diverging views over the states of the Turkish (Ottoman Empire) which called for the Global concern
hence the term Eastern question. Specifically the term Eastern question has been correctly used to refer
to the decline of the Turkish/ Ottoman Empire and the consequences of its decline on the European
continent.

The Turkish Empire was an extensive Empire that had initially swallowed many strategic places in
Eastern Europe such as Greece and Syria, northern Africa and Asia Minor especially between 1456 and
1800. It was intact, strong and feared by many European powers up to the nineteenth century when it
started crumbling. The Turks were Muslims of Asiatic origin who had entered Europe in 1356 and
consequently conquered Constantinople the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire in 1853. They were
aggressive and in the course of their expansion, they conquered the peoples of the Balkan peninsular i.e.
the Serbs, the Rumanians, the Greeks, the Bulgarians, and the Albanians. They even extended their
influence to Africa i.e. Egypt, Tripoli (Libya), Tunis (Tunisia), Algeria, as well as the island of the Ionian
isles, Cyprus and Crete even large stretches of south Russia including Crimea came under Turkish rule.

However, the Turkish power began declining towards the end of the eighteenth century because of
internal and external factors. It had been evidently clear that turkey could not satisfactorily solve all her
internal problems by herself minus the intervention of other powers. It up on this background that the
Czar of Russia referred to the Ottoman Empire or Turkey as “the sick man of Europe”.From the
beginning of the nineteenth century, the empire was characterized by civil strife, nationalistic and
religious movements among others. Such unfortunate matters in the nineteenth century made the czar
to refer to the Ottoman Empire as “a sick man of Europe” this called for international intervention into
the affairs of the Ottoman Empire that affected international relations leading to the famous Eastern
question.

The Eastern Question comprises of the following elements.

1. The decline of the Ottoman Empire.

2. The rise of the Balkans.

3. Increase in Independent States.

THE DECLINE OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE.

By the 15th and 16th centuries, the Turks had been an aggressive and an expansionist power and had
created an extensive and heterogeneous empire in Europe which was very strong and indeed the
strongest Empire in Europe at the time if not the whole world but it could only survive on a strong
political, social, Economic and Military power. However, by the beginning of the nineteenth century, the
Empire was on a steady decline, which prompted Czar Nicholas I to describe her as “a sick man of
Europe” and in 1833, he suggested the sharing of its spoils to Prince Metternich of Austria and Lord
Palmerstone of Great Britain.

Actually at the beginning of the twentieth century, the empire was no more. The Ottoman Empire that
once had its headquarters at Constantinople and captured many territories by dwarfing many powers
was declining tremendously and had developed a lot of weaknesses that justified her as ‘a sick man of
Europe” and account for its disintegration in the nineteenth century. They were either from within
(internal) the Empire itself or outside (external) it and they include the following; The Empire failed to
effectively administer its large size. The extensive nature of the Ottoman Empire that covered up to
Crimea in Asia, Austria in Europe and Algeria in north Africa made it cumbersome to control and
administer the Empire effectively which was worsened by the corrupt and inefficient government
officials who exposed the Ottoman empire to attacks by her subjects in the three continents of Europe,
Asia and Africa where its influence was felt. Consequently, the tributary state rulers like the Egyptians
and the Greeks started rebelling against government of the Ottoman Empire and acting independently
e. g the war of Greece independence of 1821 to 1833. This was a symptom of sickness within the empire
that had once been administratively strong and intact before the nineteenth century. This opened way
for the death of the empire in the nineteenth century.

The growth of nationalism within the empire; in the nineteenth century the Ottoman empire became
characterized by many nationalistic struggles where by many subordinate states struggled for
independence which disorganized the empire e. g the Serbs revolted in 1804 and 1815, the Egyptians
under Mohammed Ali threatened to secede by 1805, the Greeks revolted between 1821 and 1833 and
the Balkan states revolted from 1879 and 1889 among others. All these revolts weakened the empire
and inspired the vassal states to break away e. g Greece in 1833; Albania, Serbia, Wallachia, and
Moldavia were almost independent by 1830. The result was that the Empire was dragged into many
fronts to suppress many rebellions, which had not been the case before the nineteenth century. Such
political unrest that characterized the empire due to the increased forces of nationalism is a justification
that the empire was sick and had to collapse.

The increasing economic problems within the empire; by the end of the eighteenth and nineteenth
century the Ottoman empire became characterized with economic difficulties especially the financial
crisis arising out of the corrupt officials and the exploitation of her subjects especially in taxation system.
The administrators imposed heavy taxes on the subjects and the methods of collection were so much
brutal yet the tax collectors took up most of the Revenue. The sultan lacked an effective / efficient hand
in taxation system and due to the economic difficulties that characterized the empire to the extent of
negatively affecting the infrastructural and military development of the empire that attracted resistance
against the administration that led to the imperial decay of the Ottoman Empire thus being referred to
as the “sick man of Europe”. The loss of trade monopoly: From 1456 when the empire was formed,
Turkey was the greatest commercial nation that dominated trade across the Mediterranean and Black
sea in the far and near east of the European continent. However, in the nineteenth century, the empire
lost her monopoly in trade as her foreign trade in the Far East and Mediterranean Sea steadily declined
which deprived her of theneeded wealth to sustain the military and political organization capable of
sustaining an extensive area. This was worsened by the fact that European powers such as Britain,
Russia, and France became interested in the Balkan region and aggressively took over the trade rights,
which further worsened the economic difficulties and undermined the military strength of the empire
leading to the decay of the Ottoman Empire hence being referred to as the “sick man of Europe”.

The loss of military strength: By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Ottoman Empire could no
longer hold and maintain the very many nationalities together because of the increasing military
weakness. She failed to rival the ever- increasing military power of the other continental European
powers especially Russia and Austria and on many occasions, she could no longer register any foreign
military glory like it used to. She was defeated on two occasions in an attempt to capture Vienna from
Austria and above all most of the provincial states like Egypt were creating more powerful armies than
the Ottoman sultan and were even taking over some territories from the Empire e. g Mohammed Ali of
Egypt forcefully occupied Syria in 1831. The military weakness of the Ottoman Empire was amplified by
the fact that the Ottoman Sultan’s army had been recruited from different nationalities and could not be
relied up on since in most cases it Fraternized or compromised with its brothers to rebel against Turkey.
Such military decay justifies that Turkey or the Ottoman Empire was indeed “a sick man of Europe” in
the nineteenth century and was bound to collapse. The social and religious discriminations by the
Moslem Turkish rulers who persecuted the Christian subjects. Socially, the Ottoman Empire lived in
religious divisions with the Orthodox Christians as subjects and the Muslim Turks as rulers. However, it is
sad to note in the nineteenth century the Christians were discriminated against in terms of participation
in the general administration of the empire, the Orthodox Christians catered for their own education
and other social services yet they paid very high taxes that were harshly collected. This was worsened by
the fact that the Muslim rulers on religious grounds became hostile to the Christians, which sparked off
revolts by the Christian subjects against the Turkish rulers’ e. g in Greece between 1821 and 1833. This
gave an excuse for the intervention of western European powers like Russia, France, and Britain in the
empire in guise of being sympathetic to her. Such a situation had not been common before the
nineteenth century and its occurrence in the nineteenth century is a justification of the sickness of the
empire that was bound to collapse.

The emergence of the educated elites: these were mostly youths who did not agree with the
conservative and oppressive Turkish administration. They demanded forsocial, political, and economic
reforms and even prayed for nationalistic movements whose activities they were ready to finance. The
educated elites offered the leadership and fueled criticisms against the Turkish rule, which incited
rebellions against the empire in demand for independence and western democracy. It is important to
note that this had not been familiar in the empire before the nineteenth century and it is sad to note
that the government of the sultan refused to listen to the demands of the educated elites and fueled
criticisms that increased nationalism within the empire rendering it sick and bound to collapse. The
continuous interests and interventions of the great western European powers into the affairs of the
Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century. Before the nineteenth century, it was not common to see
any intervention of European powers into the Turkish Empire because they feared and respected her
especially in the military field. However, in the nineteenth century, the major European powers of the
time of Britain, France, Russia, and Austria having different interests in Turkey they started to penetrate
into the Empire. These powers expanded at the expense of the Turkish Empire e. g Austria expanded
and took over Hungary, Russia took over Bessarabia by 1820 and was desperately in need of taking over
the whole of Turkey, Britain ambitiously wanted the monopolization of the far Eastern trade, and France
nursed economic desires in the Middle East. Such divergent expansionist interests drew turkey into
conflicts with one of the powers at a time or even the great powers themselves conflicted within the
Turkish empire e. g in the Crimean war of 1854-1856 which worked down the Empire in the nineteenth
century leading to its decay and disintegration and justifying that she was indeed” a sick man of
Europe”. While addressing the Turkish Empire as a sick man of Europe, there is need for considerations
to be put forward though to a smaller extent to show that she was not very sick but they also helped to
disintegrate the Ottoman Empire and these include the following: The extensive nature of the Turkish
Empire itself; the Ottoman Empire had extended to Asia eastern Europe and Northern Africa such that it
was being felt in three Continents. There was no way such a large Empire could exist without revolts and
it was not surprising for such nationalistic revolts to come up since they were being felt elsewhere in
Europe e. g in France and the Austrian Empire. This also worked down the Empire when they attracted
the interests of other European powers in the pretext of controlling and curing the Empire’s sickness
before she died. What is important to note is that they ended up fueling the sickness and disintegrating
the Empire.The strategic location of the Empire; The Ottoman Empire was located in an economically
viable area which should have attracted (and actually did) the interests of European powers in order to
cultivate the economic gains e. g Britain merely feared to lose her Mediterranean and far east trade to
rival European powers such as Russia and France. Such strategic location merely attracted the interests
and conflicts of other powers with in the empire to disintegrate her while in actual sense her sickness
was an exaggerated one.

The increasing interests of the European powers in the empire; all the European powers had divergent
interests within the Turkish Empire because they were rival powers e. g Russia wanted to spread her
influence over the Balkans hence supported rebellions to weaken and fasten its collapse. In addition,
Austria expanded and took over Hungary at the expense of the Ottoman Empire while Britain nursed
economic interests in the area. This rivalry drew Turkey into conflicts with other European powers one
at a time, which aggravated her sickness and further led to its disintegration. The spread of western
ideologies into the Ottoman Empire; the ideas of western democracy especially emphasized by the
French revolution of 1789 continuously filtered into the Empire and increased nationalistic sentiments
amongst the subjects within the Ottoman Empire which increased the struggles against the Empire e. g
the Greek war of independence thus the sickness and disintegration of the empire in the nineteenth
century. All said and done, the nineteenth century Ottoman Empire to a larger extent was ” a sick man
of Europe” characterized by social, political and economic problems from within and outside despite a
few excuses and it actually disintegrate leaving various consequences on Europe in the nineteenth and
twentieth Century’s.

POLICIES OR INTERESTS OF RUSSIA TOWARDS THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE.

The weakness and disintegration of the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century became an
international question that attracted international attention. Therefore Russia pursued different policies
towards the Ottoman Empire as follows;

RUSSIA (CZAR NICHOLAS 1)

 Russia pursued an expansionist policy towards the Balkans. She claimed that the Turkish empire
was sick because of her imperialism and called for international attention which eventually
worsened international relations between the major European powers that generated conflicts
such as the Crimean war of 1854- 1856.
 Russia also had economic ambitions that made her expand into the Balkans. She wanted control
over Constantinople the most strategic city and the straits of bosphprous and the Dardanelles
thus interrupting the British trade over the Mediterranean sea. She went to the extent of closing
the straits of Bosphorous to all war ships, which annoyed Britain, and the result was the
outbreak of conflicts such as the Crimean war of 1854-1856. It is important to note that because
of Russia’s intentions to undermine Britain, she showed no diplomacy towards the British
ambassador at Constantinople, which also worsened the relations between the major European
powers.
 Russia also had a strong desire of protecting the Balkan people who were mostly Orthodox
Christians and Slavs in race. She regarded Constantinople as the headquarters of the Orthodox
faith, which she had to protect. This also drew her into the internal affairs of the Ottoman
Empire thus putting her into conflicts with other major European powers.
 Russia’s expansionist policy made her develop claims over the holy places of Jerusalem and
Bethlehem, which she claimed that she was the rightful guardian thus drawing her into the
Ottoman Empire and making her conflict with France.
 Her expansionist policy led her into signing the treaty of unkiar skellessi with turkey in 1833. This
gave her greater influence in the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire that threatened the
interests of other greater powers especially Britain and France that worked hard to ensure that
 Russian influence was reduced in the region and the end result was the outbreak of the Crimean
war.
 Her expansionist policy led to her occupation of Wallachia and Moldavia. She refused to
withdraw from the territories and thus attracted the attention of greater European powers
especially Britain and France resulting into the outbreak of the Crimean war of 1854-1856.
 Russia’s expansionist policy led her into destroying the Turkish fleet at Sinope in 1854, which
was meant to weaken turkey’s naval power to have greater influence in the region. This also
attracted the attention of the greater European powers such as France, Britain and turkey
against her resulting into the outbreak of the Crimean war of 1854-1856.
 Russia's interest was also to occupy the Black Sea.

The Crimean War

Crimean War, (October 1853–February 1856), war fought mainly on the Crimean Peninsula between the
Russians and the British, French, and Ottoman Turkish, with support from January 1855 by the army of
Sardinia-Piedmont. The war arose from the conflict of great powers in the Middle East and was more
directly caused by Russian demands to exercise protection over the Orthodox subjects of the Ottoman
sultan. Another major factor was the dispute between Russia and France over the privileges of the
Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches in the holy places in Palestine. Supported by Britain, the
Turks took a firm stand against the Russians, who occupied the Danubian principalities (modern
Romania) on the Russo-Turkish border in July 1853. The British fleet was ordered to Constantinople
(Istanbul) on September 23. On October 4 the Turks declared war on Russia and in the same month
opened an offensive against the Russians in the Danubian principalities. After the Russian Black Sea fleet
destroyed a Turkish squadron at Sinope, on the Turkish side of the Black Sea, the British and French
fleets entered the Black Sea on January 3, 1854, to protect Turkish transports. On March 28 Britain and
France declared war on Russia. To satisfy Austria and avoid having that country also enter the war,
Russia evacuated the Danubian principalities. Austria occupied them in August 1854.

In September 1854 the allies landed troops in Russian Crimea, on the north shore of the Black Sea, and
began a yearlong siege of the Russian fortress of Sevastopol. Major engagements were fought at the
Alma River on September 20, at Balaklava on October 25 (commemorated in “The Charge of the Light
Brigade” by English poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson), and at Inkerman on November 5. On January 26, 1855,
Sardinia-Piedmont entered the war and sent 10,000 troops. Finally, on September 11, 1855, three days
after a successful French assault on the Malakhov, a major strongpoint in the Russian defenses, the
Russians blew up the forts, sank the ships, and evacuated Sevastopol. Secondary operations of the war
were conducted in the Caucasus and in the Baltic Sea. After Austria threatened to join the allies, Russia
accepted preliminary peace terms on February 1, 1856. The Congress of Paris worked out the final
settlement from February 25 to March 30. The resulting Treaty of Paris, signed on March 30, 1856,
guaranteed the integrity of Ottoman Turkey and obliged Russia to surrender southern Bessarabia, at the
mouth of the Danube. The Black Sea was neutralized, and the Danube River was opened to the shipping
of all nations.

THE RISE OF THE BALKANS

The rise of Nationalism under the Ottoman Empire caused the breakdown of millet concept. With the
rise of national states and their histories, it is very hard to find reliable sources on the Ottoman concept
of a nation and the centuries of the relations between House of Osman and the provinces, which turned
into states. Unquestionably, understanding the Ottoman conception of nationhood helps us to
understand what happened in the Balkans in the late Ottoman period.

 Bulgarian National Revival and National awakening of Bulgaria (18-19th century)

 Serbian Revolution (1804–1815/1817/1833)
 Greek War of Independence (1821–1832)
 Albanian National Awakening (1830-1912)
 Bosnian uprising (1831–1832)
 Serbian revolt in Herzegovina in 1875, which led to Serbian-Turkish Wars (1876-1878), and the
bloody suppression of the April Uprising in Bulgaria, became occasion of the outbreak of the
Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878) and the Liberation of Bulgaria and Serbia in 1878.

The Congress of Berlin (13 June – 13 July 1878) was a meeting of the leading statesmen of Europe's
Great Powers and the Ottoman Empire. In the wake of the Russia's decisive victory in a war with Turkey,
1877–78, the urgent need was to stabilize and reorganize the Balkans, and set up new nations. German
Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who led the Congress, undertook to adjust boundaries to minimize the
risks of major war, while recognizing the reduced power of the Ottoman Empire, and balance the
distinct interests of the great powers.

As a result, Ottoman holdings in Europe declined sharply; Bulgaria was established as an independent
principality inside the Ottoman Empire, but was not allowed to keep all its previous territory. Bulgaria
lost Eastern Rumelia, which was restored to the Turks under a special administration. Macedonia, and
East and Western Thrace were returned outright to the Turks, who promised reform and Northern
Dobrudja became part of Romania, which achieved full independence but had to turn over part of
Bessarabia to Russia. Serbia and Montenegro finally gained complete independence, but with smaller
territories. Austria took over Bosnia and Herzegovina, and effectively took control of the Sanjak of Novi
Pazar, in order to separate Serbia and Montenegro. Britain took over Cyprus. The results were at first
hailed as a great achievement in peacemaking and stabilization. However, most of the participants were
not fully satisfied, and grievances regarding the results festered until they exploded into World War in
1914. Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece made gains, but far less than they thought they deserved. The
Ottoman Empire, called at the time the "sick man of Europe," was humiliated and significantly
weakened, rendering it more liable to domestic unrest and more vulnerable to attack. Although Russia
had been victorious in the war that caused the conference, it was humiliated at Berlin, and resented its
treatment. Austria-Hungary gained a great deal of territory, which angered the South Slavs, and led to
decades of tensions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bismarck became the target of hatred of Russian
nationalists and Pan-Slavists, and found that he had tied Germany too closely to Austria in the Balkans.

In the long-run, tensions between Russia and Austria-Hungary intensified, as did the nationality question
in the Balkans. The congress was aimed at the revision of the Treaty of San Stefano and at keeping
Constantinople in Ottoman hands. It effectively disavowed Russia's victory over the decaying Ottoman
Empire in the Russo-Turkish War. The Congress of Berlin returned to the Ottoman Empire territories that
the previous treaty had given to the Principality of Bulgaria, most notably Macedonia, thus setting up a
strong revanchist demand in Bulgaria that in 1912 was one of many causes of the First Balkan War.

The Russio-Turkish War

The Russo-Turkish War was a conflict between the Ottoman Empire and a coalition led by the Russian
Empire, and including Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro.[21] Fought in the Balkans and in the
Caucasus, it originated in emerging 19th-century Balkan nationalism. Additional factors included the
Russian goals of recovering territorial losses endured during the Crimean War of 1853–56, re-
establishing itself in the Black Sea and supporting the political movement attempting to free Balkan
nations from the Ottoman Empire.

The Russian-led coalition won the war, pushing the Ottomans back all the way to the gates of
Constantinople, leading to the intervention of the western European great powers. As a result, Russia
succeeded in claiming provinces in the Caucasus, namely Kars and Batum, and also annexed the Budjak
region. The principalities of Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro, each of which had had de facto
sovereignty for some years, formally proclaimed independence from the Ottoman Empire. After almost
five centuries of Ottoman domination (1396–1878), the Principality of Bulgaria emerged as an
autonomous Bulgarian state with support and military intervention from Russia.

THE GREEK WAR OF INDEPENDENCE (1821-1833)

Greece was one of the states under the over Lordship of the Turkish or Ottoman Empire. Turkey
acquired her as early as the fourteenth century when turkey had overwhelming appetite for colonies.
The Greeks belonged to the orthodox religion which was closely related to the Russian faith and on the
onset the Greeks were considered a privileged community in the Ottoman empire for they enjoyed
freedom of worship with their own leadership in church, had access to their own education, participated
actively in trade and commerce thereby becoming a wealthy community in the empire and in fact the
government of the Sultan had an official position preserved for the Greeks. Nevertheless at the closure
of the eighteenth century and at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Turkish administration
that was crumbling had become corrupt and inefficient and in spite of the privileges the Greeks had
enjoyed, they came out to demand for separation and national independence at the beginning of the
nineteenth century in the famous Greek war of independence of 1821-1833.The Greeks were by no
means the worst treated of the Sultan’s subjects (fairly treated). The Greeks enjoyed certain privileges,
which made their lot more tolerable than had been expected. They were allowed complete educational
and religious freedom. The head of their church( the Patriarch) having a recognized government
position, they were exempted from military service, an exemption which was theoretically a great
disorder and in practice a considerable advantage as they thus monopolized commerce and became
wealthy. Nevertheless, they had certain misgivings that prompted them to revolt thus, the Greek war of
independence.

Causes of the Greek War of Independence

The desire for independence and self-rule by the Greeks. The Turks seized sovereignty of various states
including Greece. Nevertheless, in the nineteenth century the Greeks were an enslaved community
subject to the arbitrary rule of the local governors in the Ottoman Empire who were corrupt, oppressive,
and repressive. This made the Greeks to come up in the struggle against the Turkish over lordship to
regain their sovereignty in various aspects of their lives such as:

1. Politically, any attempt or protest by the Greeks against the Turkish leadership was suppressed with
a lot of brutality and force. This was because the Turks considered themselves conquering heroes
and never wished to give the Greeks a breathing space to have their political sovereignty.
2. Economically the Greeks were denied participation in commerce leading to the emergence of a
powerful wealthy middle class amongst the Greeks who advocated for economic reforms and
economic independence.
3. Socially the Greeks were denied freedom of worship. They were looked at as inferiors and hence
pagans who could not fit in the Muslim community hence they wished to have independence in
religious affairs.d) The Turks never attempted to absorb the Greeks in their own administration,
which also influenced the Greeks to demand for self rule. It was out of such need for independence
that the Greeks began a struggle in 1821, which was partially aided by the major powers, and finally
their independence recognized by 1833.

The religious differences between the Greek Orthodox Christians and the Muslim Turks. The Greeks
were uncomfortable because they were being ruled by nonChristians i.e. the Muslim Turks who were
discriminative and ignored the religion of the Greeks. Because of these religious differences, various
aspects of life of the Greeks were affected leading to the war in the following ways:

1. The Greeks were denied freedom of worship by the Muslim Turks and the desire for freedom of
worship occasioned the Greek war of independence e.g. the people of Morea were specifically
revolving in order to attain religious freedom.
2. On religious grounds, the Greeks were still discriminated against by the office barriers who did not
respect the Greek Christians whom they regarded as infidels or pagans and second hand citizens,
servants and people of low status. Apart from the major leaders of the Orthodox Church, many
Greek Christians were not given respect as office barriers on religious grounds.
3. The Greeks were not allowed to attend Muslim schools and gain high ranks in the army on religious
grounds. To make matters worse, the Turkish Muslim used the Turkish army to suppress and
oppress the Greeks whom they considered immoral because of their faith leading to the outbreak of
the Greek war of independence of 1821-1833.

The social mistreatment of the Greeks by the Turks. The Greeks were socially mistreated by the Turkish
Muslims who inflicted a lot of social injustices against the Greeks through continuous arrests,
imprisonment and persecution or excitement based on religious differences. The Greeks working in the
civil service were always under the Turkish Muslims and had little say in the affairs of social life. They did
not attend Muslim schools and were therefore not promoted. Many who were socially discriminated
took exile in countries like Britain, France and Russia and played a big role to occasion the Greek war of
independence of 1821-1833 against the Turks.
INCREASE IN INDEPENDENCE STATES

The growth of nationalism with in the empire; in the nineteenth century the Ottoman empire became
characterized by many nationalistic struggles where by many subordinate states struggled for
independence which disorganized the empire e. g the Serbs revolted in 1804 and 1815, the Egyptians
under Mohammed Ali threatened to secede by 1805, the Greeks revolted between 1821 and 1833 and
the Balkan states revolted from 1879 and 1889 among others. All these revolts weakened the empire
and inspired the vassal states to break away e. g Greece in 1833; Albania, Serbia, Wallachia, and
Moldavia were almost independent by 1830.Turkish nationalism, Arab nationalism, and Armenian
nationalism were among the most prominent Nationalism Movement that contributed to states
Independence in the Ottoman Empire. The result was that the Empire was dragged into many fronts to
suppress many rebellions, which had not been the case before the nineteenth century. Such political
unrest that characterized the empire due to the increased forces of nationalism is a justification that the
empire was sick and had to collapse.
CONCLUSION

Dated conventionally from tsarist expansion toward the Black Sea in the reign of Catherine the Great
(1762-1796) to the demise of the Ottoman Empire in 1923, the Eastern Question revolved around
certain major intersecting issues: the decline of the once-mighty Ottoman Empire, precipitated by
military defeat and breakdown of administrative and financial institutions; the ultimate failure of
Ottoman modernizing reform to rejuvenate the "sick man of Europe," as the Ottoman Empire came to
be known in the nineteenth century; the rise of nationalism among Ottoman subjects, especially Balkan
Orthodox Christians, Arab Christians and Muslims, Armenians, and Turks; and the rivalries of the Great
Powers (Britain, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Italy) for commercial, diplomatic, political,
and strategic leverage in the Ottoman Near East.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, M.S. The Eastern Question, 1774–1923: A Study in International Relations, 1966.

Bitis, Alexander. Russia and the Eastern Question: Army, Government and Society, (1815–1833), 2007

Bolsover, George H. "Nicholas I and the Partition of Turkey." Slavonic and East European Review,1948.

Frary, Lucien J. and Mara Kozelsky, eds. Russian-Ottoman Borderlands: The Eastern Question
Reconsidered, University of Wisconsin, 2014

Gallagher, Tom. Outcast Europe: The Balkans, 1789-1989: From the Ottomans to Milosevic, 2013.

Gavrilis, George. "The Greek—Ottoman Boundary as Institution, Locality, and Process, 1832–1882."
American Behavioral Scientist, 2008.

Gingeras, Ryan. Fall of the Sultanate: The Great War and the End of the Ottoman Empire, 1908-1922
Oxford UP, 2016.

Hale, William. Turkish Foreign Policy, (1774–2000),2000.

Hall, Richard C. The Balkan Wars, 1912–1913: Prelude to the First World War, 2000.

Hayes, Paul. Modern British Foreign Policy: The Nineteenth Century (1814-80,)1975.

Hupchick, Dennis P. The Balkans: from Constantinople to communism, 2004.

Taylor, A.J.P. The Struggle for Mastery in Europe: (1848–1918),1954.

Blum, Jerome L.et al. The European World: A History, 1970