History of the Macedonian People from Ancient times to the Present Part 21 - Wake of the 19th Century Balkans and the Negush Uprising By Risto Stefov The Negush (Naussa) Uprising is a well kept secret even though it was the first Macedonian popular uprising of the19th century. Macedonia’s neighbour to the south does not want this known because it happened in what is now considered its territory. For the oppressed peoples of the Balkans, the dawn of the nineteenth century marked the beginning of national struggles for liberation from the centuries-long domination of the Ottoman Empire. The first was the Serbian uprising of 1804 followed by the Phanariot uprising of 1821. Macedonians, in an effort to liberate their Christian brothers from the oppressive Muslim Turk, took part in both uprisings. In the first Serbian uprising a Macedonian named Volche was instrumental in building the Deligrad fortifications and distinguished himself as a great fighter in battle. Petar Chardaklija was another Macedonian who also distinguished himself as a great fighter in the Serbian resistance. Petar Ichko, another Macedonian, led a delegation that concluded the well-known Ichko Peace Treaty of 1806 with the Ottoman government. When news of the Serbian uprising reached Macedonia the Macedonian people were stirred to action. Unfortunately the Ottoman authorities were ready and concentrated large numbers of troops in Macedonia, quelling the rebellion even before it had a chance to start. Macedonians also participated in the Phanariot uprising of 1821. Immediately after the outbreak of the Morea revolt Macedonians formed their own bands, particularly in the Voden district and joined up with the Morean rebels. Among the band leaders who fought side by side with the Moreans were the brothers Ramadanovi, Dimche Minov, Dincho Drzhilovich and Demir Trajko. Strongly influenced by the ideals of the Phanariot freedom fighters who were calling on the entire Balkan population to take up arms against the Ottoman yoke, many Macedonians, particularly those in the Voden and Negush districts, did take up arms. In early March 1822, under the leadership of Atanas Karatase and Angel Gacho, a revolt broke out in the town of Negush. In no time the rebels put down the Turks and declared Negush liberated. The revolt quickly spread towards Voden engulfing a large number of villages. Unfortunately, effort and determination alone were not enough to stop the numerically superior Ottoman army. Isolated and besieged from all sides the rebels were suppressed and dispersed. After a fierce battle, the town of Negush was recaptured by the Turks and persecutions and pillaging followed. To avoid further problems, the population of Negush was either enslaved or resettled in other parts of Macedonia. The following is part of a letter written by Gacho that reveals the existence of the Negush uprising. “No sooner had I heard the sound of Ares's bugle and the weeping call of my beloved fatherland for the protection of its rights than I scorned my tranquility, wealth and glory, took arms against the tyrants and managed to stay near Negush during the whole war. There I fought long and blood-shedding battles until the destruction of Negush, where my beloved children and my wife were taken, prisoner, but, thank God, they are now alive, although in a hostile country (exposed) to the will of the barbarians. Patriot, Angel Gaco, 16th September 1824” (Page 183, The University of “Cyril and Methodius”, Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State, Volume One, Skopje, 1985.) This next letter is from the Sultan to the Kapicibasi, the Solun Mutesellim Jusuff Beg, concerning the uprising in Negush “...We have heard that the disloyal villains from Negush and the surrounding villages, who rose to arms and for whose destruction we undertook a campaign with a great number of soldiers starting from Solun, built up at the end of the town real and strong redoubts defending the town under the leadership of the repulsive and false captains Zafiraki, Iliamandi, Karataso and others. Although there were a few traveling representatives sent to them from our side who advised them to hand over their arms, promising that they would be pardoned, and that in case they did not do it, they should expect an inglorious end, thus showing them the way to their salvation, they unrepentantly replied with the following curses: ‘We do not believe the words of Moslems and shall continue our disobedience and uprising.’ Therefore, putting into effect the orders of the declared fetva against them, it was decided that in future their greasy bodies should be erased from the face of the earth. But as for the success of the aforementioned full pressure and complete surrounding of the neighbouring mountains is necessary, you are being ordered to mobilize from among the Moslems in the town (of Ber) 200 young men and distinguished fighters as soldiers, who, having been put under the command of the carrier of his order, our lord privy seal, Abdul Baki-Aga, should form a detachment which should leave for the Negush camp at once. That is why this order is being issued by the Solun divan and the Nengus camp. See that this order will be carried out as soon as possible and avoid any action contrary to it. Tsari Grad, 3rd recep 1217 (26th March 1822)” (Page 185, The University of “Cyril and Methodius”, Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State, Volume One, Skopje, 1985.) This next letter is from Naum Ichko to prince Milos Obrenovic. “To the noble Master Milos Obrenovic, greeting him most kindly, I have received your noble letter of the 17th instant and understood what you are writing to me concerning the horse I bought from your servant and which was put up for sale. The Turks wanted to buy it, and it was good I bought it so that it did not come into their hands. I am most yours and the horse is yours too. I am driving it to pasture in Savamala, in a field; in three days the pasture will be finished. I shall be sending it saddled with the first boy who leaves for your palace. Since you already know about the sufferings in Negush, now I am informing you about my misfortune. A cousin of mine with his whole family happened to be there, fleeing from Katranica to Negush for safety; almost at the time Negush was taken they were taken as slaves: his wife, four girls and three sons. Nobody knows if my cousin is alive or dead. The family was imprisoned there by a bolukbasi from Debar and driven to Bitola in order to sell them to the Christians, because the merchants and craftsmen there bought out many slaves; the bishop only bought 30 slaves. When nobody could buy any slaves any more, the woman said to the merchants that she had a relative in Belgrade; the merchants said this to the bolukbasi asking him not to take them to the Arnautluk, but to wait 25 days until they informed me. The bolukbasi consented but said that he will not sell them for less than 4,000 coins. Then the merchants wrote me to send the money as ransom for those 8 souls. We must, my dear Master, not only redeem our relatives but also every Christian soul should be saved from Turkish hands. But it is difficult for me to find 4,000 coins, since the eparchy is weak; therefore I could only spare 1,500 coins and for the rest to 4,000 I beseech you, kneeling before you, kissing your hands and feet, to help me to save those 8 souls for the souls of your parents and the health of noble Milan. It would be good, my dear Master, if you could intercede in favour and ask some of the voivodes or pig merchants whom God has given wealth to help with 100 or 200 coins, to raise small funds, so that the Christians here can also redeem a few Christian souls from Turkish hands. Do you remember how many Serbian slaves were redeemed from Turkish hands by the Christians down there during the first years? The time has now come for us to pay the debt back. Two or three years ago you made it possible for various people to go on a pilgrimage to the Holy City of Jerusalem; now the time has come for your face to see that holy place. It is Jerusalem to save the slaves; this letter almost comes to you through commissioner Magus. Please answer me so that Isaija can bring the answer to me by Friday evening, since the commissioner from Bitola is leaving on Saturday, and I may know what to write to the merchants in Bitola concerning those 8 souls. I remain your obedient servant. Naum Ichko Belgrade, 23rd May 1822” (Pages 185, 186 and 187, The University of “Cyril and Methodius”, Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State, Volume One, Skopje, 1985.) The above letters are proof of the Negush uprising which took place in early March 1822. This is another Macedonian historical event that can no longer be hidden to protect the interests of Macedonia’s southern neighbour. The Kuchuk Kainarji Treaty bolstered Russian expansionism in the Balkans, which alarmed the western Powers and initiated the “Eastern Question”; “What will happen to the Balkans when the Ottoman Empire disappears?” The Eastern Question of the 1800’s later became the Macedonian Question of the 1900’s. At about the same time as Russia was making her way into the Balkans, the west was experiencing changes of its own. The industrial revolution was in full swing, coming out of England and progressing towards the rest of the world. France was the economic superpower but was quickly losing ground to England. The French Revolution (1789) gave birth not only to new ideas and nationalism, but also to Napoleon Bonaparte. As Napoleon waged war in Europe and the Middle East, French shipping in the Mediterranean subsided only to be replaced by the Phanariot and British traders. French trade inside Ottoman territory also declined and never fully recovered. By land, due to the long border, Austria dominated trade with the Ottoman Empire exercising its own brand of influence on the Balkans, especially on the Serbian people. As the turn of the 19th century brought economic change to Europe, the Balkans became the last frontier for capitalist expansion. By the 1800’s Europe’s political, economic and military institutions were rapidly changing. Western governments and exporters were aggressively pursuing Balkan markets on behalf of their western manufacturers. This aggressive pursuit smothered Balkan industries before they had a chance to develop and compete. As a result, Balkan economies began to decline causing civil unrest and nationalist uprisings. While western countries were left undisturbed to develop economically and socially, external forces prevented Balkan societies from achieving similar progress. Mostly regulated by guilds, Balkan trades could not compete with western mechanization and went out of business. Without jobs, most city folk became a burden on the already economically strained rural peasants. The economic situation in the Balkans deteriorated to intolerable levels and people began to rebel. From the modern Balkan states Serbia was the first to rebel. The first revolt took place in Belgrade in 1804, the same year that Napoleon became Emperor. The immediate causes of the armed uprising were oppression and a further deterioration of the Ottoman system. When Napoleon invaded Egypt in 1798 the Sultan took troops from the Balkans and sent them to fight the French in Egypt. Leaving the region unguarded, in 1801 Belgrade became a sanctuary for bandits and unruly Janissaries. Robbery and murder became commonplace. Then in February of 1804 a band of bandits murdered seventy prominent Serbian village leaders and priests. They did this to frighten the population and to stop their Serb leaders from complaining to the Sultan. To save themselves, some of the Serb leaders fled to the forests and organized the villagers into armed units. They attacked the Janissary in the countryside and fought them until they were pushed back to Belgrade. The war ended in a stalemate. The stalemate was broken in 1806 when the Serbs decided to no longer expect help from the Sultan and took matters into their own hands. At about the same time the French and Turks became allies. Since France was already an enemy of Russia this alliance made Turkey an enemy also. Now being enemies of the Turks, the Russians intervened on behalf of the Serbs and in 1807 helped them take back Belgrade. The Sultan offered the Serbs full autonomy but the Russians advised against it. They insisted on negotiating for full independence instead. Unfortunately, when the war between Russia and France ended, Russia in 1807 made peace with Napoleon and became allied with both France and Turkey. For selfish interests on Russia’s part, the Serbs were left on their own. The Serbs lost Belgrade to a Turkish army attack in 1808 and many Serbs fled into exile while the rest continued their guerilla warfare from the forests. The revolt began again in 1809 when Russia renewed its campaign with Turkey, and ended in 1813 with a Serb defeat. The Serbs failed to win because Russia was unsure about its commitment to Serbia. Russia had a lot more to gain by appeasing Turkey, especially when war with France became imminent. When Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812, the Russians abandoned the Serbs and in 1813 an Ottoman army invaded Serbia, forcing many of her people to flee as refugees into the Austrian Empire. Relations between the Serbs and Turks turned from bad to worse when the Turks extorted provisions from the Serbs by force, tortured villagers while searching for hidden weapons and started raising taxes. A riot broke out at a Turkish estate in 1814 and the Turks massacred the local population and publicly impaled two hundred prisoners inside Belgrade. The Serbian leaders decided to revolt again and fighting resumed on Easter in 1815. This time Serb leaders made sure captured Turk soldiers were not killed and civilians were released unharmed. To ease Turkish fears, the Serbs also announced that this was a revolt to end abuses, not to gain independence. After the Russians defeated Napoleon in 1815, the Turkish feared that Russia would again intervene on Serbia’s behalf. To avoid this, the Sultan gave Serbia autonomy. After the Russian-Turkish War of 1829-30, a new treaty was signed which put an end to most abuses in Serbia. All Muslims, except for a small garrison, left Serbian territory. Serbs took control of the internal administration, postal system and courts. Individual taxes and dues paid directly to the Sultan were replaced by a single annual tribute payment from the Serbian State to the Sultan. Serbia remained autonomous until 1878 when she was granted independence. Second to rebel against Ottoman rule were the Phanariots. The Phanariot uprising was not a true rebellion like the one in Serbia. Unlike the Serbs, most Phanariots were wealthy and already enjoyed substantial privileges in Ottoman society. To revolt was a poor choice for them because they had a lot to lose and little to gain. When the Ottomans imposed the millet system the Phanariots began to gain economic and other advantages over the rest of the Balkan Christians. In time the Patriarch appointed his own clergy and took control of administering the entire Christian millet. Patriarch appointed clergy had religious, educational, administrative and legal power in the Ottoman Balkans. In other words, Phanariots were more or less running all political, civil and religious affairs in the Christian Millet. The Phanariots were the upper class, or the blue blood of the Christian world. Even though they belonged to many nationalities they were distinguished for their position, material wealth and the power they wielded within the Ottoman administration. Also they were the speakers of the administrative Koine language, a long upheld tradition since the time of the Pravoslavs. By the 1700s, Phanariot ship owners in the islands dominated Balkan commerce. As Christians, Phanariot traders were exempt from Muslim ethical and legal restraints (especially when dealing with money) and were permitted to make commercial contacts with non-Muslims. Westerners who did business in the region used local Jews, Armenians and Phanariots as agents. Different branches of the same Phanariot family often operated in different cities. Ties of kinship reduced the risks of trade. Between 1529 and 1774 only Ottoman ships were allowed to navigate the isolated waters of the Black Sea. Phanariot trade grew without competition from the Venetians or other western traders. As mentioned earlier, the 1774 Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji opened the Turkish straits to Russian commerce. There were not enough Russian ships to meet all shipping demands so Ottoman Phanariots filled the void. Also, the Napoleonic conflicts between England and France created new opportunities for the neutral Phanariot ships and by 1810 there were 600 Phanariot trading vessels conducting commerce. For the Phanariots, especially the well to do, Ottoman rule provided many advantages in comparison to other Balkan groups. Rich ship owners, agents, prosperous merchants, high officials in the Christian Church, tax collectors, gospodars in Romania, primates in Morea and members of the interpreters' service all had much to lose and little to gain by rebelling. How then can one explain the movement that led to the revolution in 1821? Poor peasants, poor village priests, poor sailors, etc. who lived in Morea had no investment in the Ottoman status quo. Without ideas or leadership these people lived miserable lives and preyed on each other to survive. Outside interference started the rebellion. The original instigators were members of the "Filiki Eteria" a secret society founded in 1814 in the Russian port of Odessa. The Filiki Eteria sent representatives into Morea to recruit fighters. A number of important klefts and district notables answered their call by organizing peasants and forming armed bands. Because Morea was poor most of the countryside had no Turkish presence and Christian primates or "kodjabashii" virtually ruled themselves. Christian militia or "armatoli" kept the peace, while "klefts" or bandits roamed the hillsides, robbing and pillaging their neighbours. The 1821 revolution began as a planned conspiracy involving only selected elements of the population. At that time the idea of “nationality” remained very elusive, even for the most enlightened revolutionaries. The intent of the uprising was to liberate all of the Balkan people from Turkish tyranny and unite them in one Christian State. The Filiki Eteria planned to start the uprising in three places. The first was Morea where a core group of klefts and primates supported the idea. Second was Tsari Grad where the Phanariot community was expected to riot. Third, Phanariot forces were expected to cross the Russian border from Odessa to invade Moldavia and Romania. However, plans did not go as expected. When 4500 men of the "Sacred Battalion" entered Moldavia in March 1821 the Romanian peasants ignored the Turks and instead attacked the Phanariots. The Phanariot invasion of Romania was a complete failure. At the same time, “class divisions” in Phanariot society hampered the uprising in Tsari Grad. The Turks reacted by hanging the reigning Patriarch. The only success was in Morea and only because the primates feared the Turkish Pasha’s retribution. Fearing arrest or even execution, the primates joined the klefts and massacred the Turkish population of Morea. Turkey was unable to quell the uprising and the conflict remained a stalemate until 1825. The stalemate, in part, was due to internal problems among the Phanariots, reflecting pre-existing class differences i.e. the armed peasants and klefts in Morea were loyal to Theodoros Kolokotronis, a kleft. Opposing them were the civilian leaders in the National Assembly which was made up mostly of primates and well-connected Phanariots. By 1823 the two sides were locked in a civil war. The stalemate was also due, in part, to interventions from Britain, France and Russia. Each of these states had strategic political and economic interests in Turkey and each wanted to make sure that the results of the war in Morea would be in their best interest. The British were sympathetic to the Phanariot cause but at the same time they wanted a strong Turkey to counter Russia. Initially, the British were prepared to support Turkey to prevent Russia from gaining control of the Turkish Straits and threatening the Mediterranean trade routes. Later as Britain gained control of Cyprus her plans changed. The Russian Czars, in turn, had sympathy for the Christians but feared the possibility of a Morean state becoming a British ally. French investors held large numbers of Turkish State bonds, which would be worthless if Turkey fell apart. France was also anxious to re-enter world politics after her defeat by Russia in 1815. The Great Powers, from the stalemate, could see that the Morean revolution would not go away and were prepared to intervene and make sure the final result was acceptable to their own interests. Foreign interference ran from 1825 until 1827. It began with the intervention to block the Egyptian navy from invading Morea in 1825 (Mehmet Ali’s capture of the port of Navarino) and ended in 1827 when the British, French and Russians sank the Egyptian navy. The European Powers sent a combined fleet of 27 ships to Navarino Bay to observe the Egyptian navy but things got out of hand when musket shots were fired and the observation escalated into a battle. When it was over the European fleet had sunk 60 of the 89 Egyptian ships. The loss of the Egyptian navy left the Sultan without armed forces and the inability to reclaim Morea or resist the Great Powers. Turkey was squeezed into providing concessions for Morea but the Ottomans kept stalling. To end the stalling the Russians invaded Turkey in 1828 (Russian-Turkish War of 1828-1830) and almost reached Tsari Grad by 1829. The Sultan gave in to Russian demands. Russia too gave in to Western Power demands and agreed to British and French participation in the peace settlement of the London Protocol of 1830, which gave birth to a small, independent Greek kingdom. Prince Otto of Bavaria, a German prince, and a German administration were chosen by the Great Powers to rule the new Greek Kingdom. The choice was a compromise but acceptable to all three powers. Two overwhelming “forces” came into being in the 19th century, which transformed the Balkans. The first was the 1848 “Western economic revolution” which thrust the Balkans into social and economic upheaval. The second was “increased intervention” from non-Balkan political forces. As the century advanced these developments merged, working not for the interests of the Balkan people but for the benefit of Europe's Great Powers. Before continuing with internal Balkan developments I want to digress a little and explore the “external forces” and their “political desires” in Balkan affairs. Besides Turkey, there were six Great Powers during the nineteenth century. They were Russia, Great Britain, France, Austria-Hungary, Italy and Germany. From time to time the Great Powers expressed interest in the Balkan population but, in crisis situations, each followed their own interests. When the Great Powers made compromises, they did so to avoid war with each other and often failed to address the real issues that caused the crisis in the first place. This is similar to what the Great Powers are doing in the Balkans today. Russia tended to be the most aggressive and was usually the cause of each new Turkish defeat. The 1774 Kuchuk Kainarji Treaty allowed Russia access to the north shore of the Black Sea, gave her “power to act” on behalf of the Orthodox millet and to conduct commerce within the Ottoman Empire. Russia’s goals in the Balkans were (1) to gain exclusive navigation rights from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea for both merchant and military ships and (2) to annex Tsari Grad and Endrene (the Dardanelles) for herself, both of which were unacceptable to the Western Powers. After the end of the Crimean war in 1856, by the Treaty of Paris, the Western Powers made sure Russia’s desires for expansion were curbed. First, all Russian warships were barred from the Black Sea and second, the Black Sea was opened to merchant ships from all the states. After that, all the Great Powers, not just Russia, became the guarantors of the Balkan states. From 1815 to 1878 Great Britain was Russia's strongest rival for Balkan influence. British interests led her to intervene against the Turks in the Morean revolution of the 1820s but went to war against Russia in 1853 (Crimean war) on Turkey's behalf. The British goals in the Balkans were to maintain access to the eastern Mediterranean and to secure shipping lanes to India. Most of the trade routes passed through Turkish controlled waters. Turkey was too weak to be a threat, so Britain was inclined to oppose France, Russia and Germany when they became a threat to Turkey. To bolster her claim to the Eastern waterways, in 1878 Britain took control of the island of Cyprus and in 1883 occupied Egypt and the Suez Canal. After that Britain kept a close watch on Morea and Russian access to the Straits, interfering less in Ottoman affairs. Britain also had important commercial interests inside the Ottoman Empire, and later in the successor states. Investors in railroads and state bonds took as much profit as they could, as soon as they could, which in the long term contributed to the Ottoman Empire’s instability. France, like Britain, had both political and economic interests in the Balkans. During the Napoleonic wars, France was a direct threat to Ottoman rule (Napoleon invaded Egypt in 1798) but after her 1815 defeat she lost military and political clout. France had commercial rights in Turkey dating back to the Capitulation Treaties of the 1600s and relied heavily on trade with the Ottoman Empire. In the 1820s France joined British and Russian intervention on behalf of the Moreans. France did this mostly to protect her commercial interests but also to counter-balance Russian-British domination in the region. More so than the British, French investors played a key role in Balkan policy. During the Eastern Crisis and the war of 1875-78, the Turkish State went bankrupt and French bondholders were the biggest potential losers in case of default. So when the Ottoman Public Debt Administration was created to monitor Turkish State finances, French directors were right in the middle of managing Ottoman State finances. Like the British investors, French investors forced Turkey to maximize their returns and ignored the needs of the Ottoman people. Austria had been the main threat to Ottoman rule at one time, but after 1699 Russia replaced her in that department. Austria retained a major interest in the Ottoman Empire mainly because it was neighbouring Hungary. In other words, Vienna had no desire to replace a weak Ottoman neighbour with a strong Russia or Russian allies like Serbia or today’s Bulgaria. Austria’s goals were aimed at creating a western Balkan economic resource and a potential market. Control of the Adriatic coast was key to Austria's foreign trade through the Adriatic Sea. Austria made sure she exerted enough influence to keep the hostile Great Powers away and to prevent the growing new Balkan nations from annexing it. Austria had no desire to annex the western Balkans for herself. The ruling German Austrians, or the Hungarians had no ethnic or religious ties to the Slavs in the region. After 1866 Germany (not Austria) became the leader in central Europe. Austria now had only southeastern Europe where she could exert influence. Austria was too weak to absorb the Balkans by herself so she preferred to sustain a weak Ottoman Empire instead of “Russian controlled” states. This explains why Vienna took an anti-Russian position during the Crimean War and why she became allied with Germany later. Germany was an ally of both Russia and Austria, but Austria turned on Russia so Germany had to abandon the Russian-German alliance to please Austria. Serbia and Romania created problems for Vienna, which she unsuccessfully tried to manage through political alliances and economic treaties. Romania feared Russian occupation and Bucharest generally accepted alliances with Austria. Serbia, however, had fewer enemies and less incentive to bend to Austrian wishes. The two states (Austria and Serbia) found themselves on a collision course that resulted in the war of 1914 (World War I). Italy became a state in 1859 after fighting a successful war against Austria. In 1866 the Kingdom of Piedmont united the Italian peninsula and took its position as a new Great Power. Italy lacked economic and military might in comparison to the other Powers but made up for it in influence at the expense of the weaker Ottoman Empire. Italy viewed the western Balkans, especially Albania, as her “natural zone of influence” and her leaders watched for opportunities to take the area away from the Turks. Italy's Balkan goals were not only a threat to Turkey but also to Serbia and Greece who both had aims at seizing the Adriatic. Italy was too weak to seize Balkan territory so she followed a policy of “lay and wait” until 1911 and 1912 when she took the Dodecanese Islands and Tripoli (Libya) from the Ottomans. Germany, like Italy, became a Great Power at a later time after the German State unification of 1862 to 1870. Due to her strong military and economic might, Germany had more influence in Europe than Italy, but no direct interest in Balkan affairs. For the new German Empire the Balkans were only economic outlets. After defeating Austria in 1866, Germany made Austria-Hungary an ally and to retain loyalty, Germany had to support Austria in Balkan matters. After 1878 Germany could no longer reconcile Russian and Austrian differences over the Balkans and by 1890 Germany and Austria strengthened their alliance and pushed Tsarist Russia into a conflicting partnership with republican France. After that, German policies in the Balkans supported economic and military investments in Turkey. This made Germany a rival not only of Russia but also of Britain. The Great Power alignments of 1890-1914 established a pattern that dominated the two world wars. Germany had no stake in the development of any of the successor states which left her free to support the Sultan (and later the Young Turk regime). German officers trained Turkish troops and German Marks built Turkish railways. The Ottoman Empire of the 19th century was the weakest of the Great Powers, especially after the Crimean war. At the 1856 Treaty of Paris, Britain and France granted Turkey “legal status” in the Balkans that was far beyond her ability to control. The Western Powers desperately wanted the Ottoman Empire stable and intact. The Ottomans, on the other hand, mistrusted the other Powers, partly because they were infidels and partly because of bad past experiences. Russia was clearly Turkey's greatest enemy, bent on dismantling her empire. To keep Russia at bay, Turkey cooperated with the other Powers but was always wary of falling under the influence of any single Power. From the 1820’s to the 1870s, Britain was Turkey's guardian. After 1878 Germany replaced Britain as economic and military sponsor. Turkish relations with the new Balkan states were poor at best. Any gains for them usually meant losses for Turkey. The western Great Powers believed that if corruption, crime and poverty could be eliminated, Balkan unrest would end and the Ottoman Empire could remain intact. After all, they didn’t want anything to happen to their goose that laid golden eggs. So instead of kicking the “sick man” out of Europe, they pushed for reforms. However, it was one thing to draw up reforms and another to make them work. By examining Ottoman efforts in Macedonia it was obvious that the Turks lacked the resources and the will to carry out reforms. Also, Europeans failed to grasp that suggestions and wishes alone could not replace five hundred years of Ottoman rule. The Ottomans believed their way of life was justified. In 1865 a group of educated Turks formed the secret Young Ottoman Society. Their aim was to revitalize old Islamic concepts and unite all the ethnic groups under Islamic law. Threatened with arrest, the Young Ottoman leaders went into exile in Paris. In 1889 a group of four medical students formed another secret Young Turk Society. They rejected the “old Islamic aims” and embraced a new idea, “Turkish nationalism”. Turkish nationalism became the foundation for a secular Turkey in 1908 after the Young Turks came to power and again in 1920 after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in Turkey proper. The next important event in Balkan history was the Crimean War of 1853 to 1856, which pitted Russia against Turkey, England and France. The crisis ignited over the issue of who was in control of Christian Holy Places in Turkish-ruled Jerusalem. Orthodox and Catholic monks quarreled over insignificant issues, like who should possess the keys to locked shrines. By old treaties Russia and France were the international guarantors of Orthodox and Catholic rights respectively, but in 1852 Napoleon III tried to undo that. He needed to distract French Catholic public opinion away from his authoritarian government so he instigated the problem. Because the issues of dispute involved the highest levels of the Turkish government, to the nations involved it became a symbolic struggle for influence. The Russians badly misjudged the other Powers and failed to see that Britain could not accept a Russian victory. Tensions rose as all sides prepared for conflict. A Russian army occupied two Romanian Principalities failing to see that this threatened Austria's Balkan interests. Russia expected gratitude from Vienna for her help against Hungary in 1849 but Austria refused her. With support from the western Powers, the Turks refused to negotiate and in 1853 declared war on Russia. The Crimean War pulled in the Great Powers even though none of them wanted to go to war. In 1854 Austria forced the Russians to evacuate the Principalities and Austria took Russia’s place as a neutral power. In 1856 the allied western Powers took Sevastopol, the chief Russian port on the Black Sea, by force. After that Russia agreed to their terms at the Treaty of Paris. As a result of the Treaty of Paris, the Danube River was opened to shipping for all nations. Russia lost southern Bessarabia to Moldavia. She also lost her unilateral status as protector of Romanian rights. The two Romanian principalities remained under nominal Ottoman rule. However, a European commission was appointed and, together with elected assembly representatives from each province, was responsible for determining “the basis for administration” of the two Principalities. Also, all the European powers now shared responsibility as guarantors of the treaty. On the surface it appears that Turkey won and Russia lost the Crimean war. In reality however, both Russia and Turkey lost immensely. The Crimean War financially bankrupted Turkey. As for Russia, she lost her shipping monopoly on the Black Sea and allowed capitalism to enter into eastern Europe. Russia not only lost influence in Romania and Moldavia but she was also humiliated in front of the entire world. This set the stage for future conflicts including the most recent “cold war”. As mentioned earlier, Turkey’s financial collapse opened the door for western governments to manipulate internal Ottoman policies as well as divert needed revenues to pay foreign debts. On top of that the Ottoman Empire was forced into becoming a consumer of western European commodities. While western Europe prospered from these ventures, Ottoman trades and guilds paid the ultimate price of bankruptcy. Lack of work in the cities bore more pressure on the village peasants, who were now being taxed to starvation to feed unemployed city dwellers, as well as maintaining the status quo for the rich. The Ottoman Empire became totally dependent on European capital for survival, which put the state past the financial halfway point of no return and marked the beginning of the end of Ottoman rule in Europe. By 1875 the Ottomans entered a crisis situation owing 200 million pounds sterling to foreign investors with an annual interest payment of 12 million pounds a year. The interest payments alone amounted to approximately half the state’s annual revenues. In 1874, due to some agricultural failures, military expenses and worldwide economic depression, the Turkish government could not even pay the interest due on the loans. On the brink of bankruptcy, to preserve Ottoman stability and to make sure Turkey paid up western European debts, the Great Powers in 1875 took over the management of Turkish revenues. This was done through an international agency, called the Ottoman Public Debt Administration (OPDA). To continue to receive credit, the Sultan had to grant the OPDA control over state income. Therefore, control of the state budget and internal policies fell into foreign hands. The agents in control were representatives of the rich capitalists and were only interested in profit, and very little else. This was definitely not to the advantage of the local people. The End THIS IS THE LAST ARTICLE in the series “History of the Macedonian People from Ancient times to the Present”. You can read about the 19th and 20th century in parts II through IX of the series “Macedonia: What Went Wrong in the Last 200 Years”. All the articles of both series can be found at http://www.maknews.com/html/articles.html#stefov. And now I leave you with this… There is a grave historical misconception on the part of mainstream historians who have led us to believe that the Phanariots were Greek and that they exclusively dedicated their energies to create a Greek state. Let me assure you that the Phanariots were neither Greek nor did they have any desire for creating a Greek state. The Phanariots were a wealthy class of Christians of all nationalities who were educated in the Koine language and served in the Ottoman administration. The Koine language remained active throughout the Ottoman occupation and was used exclusively for administration by the Pravoslav Church in Tsari Grad and by the Phanariots. The 1821 Phanariot uprising was not about creating a Greek state. It was about ejecting the Ottomans from power and taking control of their empire. The Phanariot plan was to re-create the Pravoslav state but with a Patriarch (not an emperor) as its head. Unfortunately, the Great Powers did not agree with that plan. First, none of the Great Powers wanted another large country (which would have included today’s Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia, Albania and Greece) in Europe, especially in the Balkans. Second, none of the western Powers wanted another Slavic state in Europe. With Slavs as the majority, surely the new Balkan state would have been a Slavic state. Third, the Great Power plan was to break up the European part of the Ottoman Empire into small, equal sized and diametrically opposed states. This way no single state would have the capability of swallowing up the others or the cooperation to join them. Greece was modeled after the ancient city states and was created where such a state never existed before. Modern Greece, a Christian state, had nothing in common with the ancient pagan world. Greece was diametrically opposed to Bulgaria, even though both states shared a common heritage for over a millennium. If we are to include the Macedonian territories, Bulgaria and Greece had more in common than they had differences. By the turn of the 19th century Slavs were a majority in both states. Yes, both Greece and Bulgaria had a large Slav population living in their territories. Unfortunately, the Great Powers made sure that these two states would forever remain diametrically opposed.
References: Donald Quataert, The Ottoman Empire, 1700-1922, Binghamton University, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650 The Structure of Power, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. The University of “Cyril and Methodius”, Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State, Volume One, Skopje, 1985. John Shea, Macedonia and Greece The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation, North Carolina: McFarland, 1997. Alexandar Donski, The Descendants of Alexander the Great of Macedon The Arguments and Evidence that Today’s Macedonians are Descendants of the Ancient Macedonians (Part One – Folklore Elements), Shtip/Sydney – 2004. A History of the Macedonian People, Institute of National History, Macedonian Review, 1979, Skopje. Apostolos Papagiannopoulos, Monuments of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki: John Rekos & Co., 1980. A. Michael Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question, Skopje: Kultura, 1993. The World Book Encyclopedia Vasil Bogov, Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology, Western Australia, 1998. H. N. Brailsford, Macedonia Its Races and their Future, New York: Arno Press, 1971. David Holden, Greece Without Columns, The Making of Modern Greeks, New York: J. B. Lippincott. Douglas Dakin, M.A., Ph.D., The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897 – 1913, Institute for Balkan Studies, Salonika 1966. Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History, Oxford 1975 David Thomson. Europe Since Napoleon, Pelican George Macaulay Trevelyan, British History in the Nineteenth Century (1782 – 1901), Longmans 1927 Richard Clogg, The Struggle for Greek Independance Essays to mark 150th anniversary of the Greek War of Independence, Archon 1973 |