a term denoting those that arose in the XVIII - early. XX centuries international contradictions associated with the beginning of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the growth of the national liberation movement of the peoples inhabiting it and the struggle of European countries for the division of the empire's possessions. Tsarism wanted to resolve this issue in its own interests: to dominate the Black Sea, the Bosphorus and Dardanelles and the Balkan Peninsula.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

EASTERN QUESTION

conditional, accepted in diplomacy and East. liter-re, designation of international. controversy con. 18 - beg. 20 centuries, associated with the emerging collapse of the Ottoman Empire (Sultan Turkey) and the struggle of the great powers (Austria (since 1867 - Austria-Hungary), Great Britain, Prussia (since 1871 - Germany), Russia and France) for the division of its possessions, first turn - European. V. in. was generated, on the one hand, by the crisis of the Ottoman Empire, one of the manifestations of which was nat. the movement of the Balkan and other non-Turkish peoples of the empire, on the other hand, by strengthening in Bl. East colonial expansion of Europe. state-in in connection with the development of capitalism in them. The very term "V. in." was first used at the Verona Congress (1822) of the Holy Alliance during a discussion of the situation that arose in the Balkans as a result of the Greek national liberation uprising of 1821-29 against Turkey. The first period of V. century. covers a period of time from con. 18th century before the Crimean War of 1853-56. It is characterized by the the predominant role of Russia in Bl. East. Thanks to the victorious wars with Turkey 1768-74, 1787-91 (92), 1806-12, 1828-29, Russia secured the South. Ukraine, Crimea, Bessarabia and the Caucasus, and firmly established itself on the banks of the Black m. At the same time, Russia achieved bargaining. fleet of the right of passage through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles (see Kyuchuk-Kaynardzhysky world 1774), as well as for their military. ships (see Russo-Turkish Union Treaties of 1799 and 1805). The autonomy of Serbia (1829), the limitation of the Sultan's power over Moldavia and Wallachia (1829), the independence of Greece (1830), as well as the closing of the Dardanelles to the military. courts of foreign state-in (except Russia; see Unkyar-Iskelesi Treaty of 1833) in means. least were the results of the successes of the Rus. weapons. Despite the aggressive goals pursued by tsarism in relation to the Ottoman Empire and the territories departing from it, the formation of independent states on the Balkan Peninsula was a historically progressive consequence of the victories of the Russian army over Sultan's Turkey. The expansionist interests of Russia clashed at Bl. East with the expansion of other European. powers. At the turn of the 18-19 centuries. ch. role here tried to play post-revolutionary. France. In order to conquer the East. markets and the crushing of the colonial predominance of Great Britain Directory, and then Napoleon I sought terr. conquests at the expense of the Ottoman Empire and the acquisition of land approaches to India. The presence of this threat (and, in particular, the invasion of French troops into Egypt (see Egyptian Expedition 1798-1801)) explains the conclusion of an alliance by Turkey with Russia in 1799 and 1805 and with Great Britain in 1799. Strengthening Russian-French. contradictions in Europe and, in particular, in V. century. led in 1807-08 to the failure of negotiations between Napoleon I and Alexander I on the partition of the Ottoman Empire. New aggravation of V. century. was caused by the uprising of the Greeks in 1821 against the tour. dominance and the growth of disagreements between Russia and Great Britain, as well as contradictions within the Holy Alliance. Tur.-Egypt. the conflicts of 1831-33, 1839-40, which threatened the preservation of the Sultan's power over the Ottoman Empire, were accompanied by the intervention of the great powers (Egypt was supported by France). The Unkar-Iskelesi Treaty of 1833 on an alliance between Russia and Turkey was the apogee of the political and diplomatic. successes of tsarism in V. century. However, pressure from Great Britain and Austria, seeking to eliminate the predominant influence of Russia in the Ottoman Empire, and especially the desire of Nicholas I for political. The isolation of France resulted in the rapprochement between Russia and Great Britain on the basis of the Great Britain. and the conclusion of the London Conventions of 1840 and 1841, which actually meant diplomatic. British victory. The tsarist administration agreed to cancel the Unkar-Iskelesi Treaty of 1833 and, together with other powers, agreed to "monitor the maintenance of the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire," and also proclaimed the principle of closing the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles to foreigners. military courts, including Russian ones. The second period of V. century. opens with the Crimean War of 1853-56 and ends in the end. 19th century At this time, the interest of Great Britain, France and Austria in the Ottoman Empire increased even more, as a source of colonial raw materials and a market for prom. goods. Expansionist policy of Western Europe. state-in, under convenient circumstances, tearing off its outlying territories from Turkey (the capture of Cyprus in 1878 by Great Britain and Egypt in 1882, the occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary in 1878 and Tunisia by France in 1881), was masked by the principles of maintaining the "status quo", " integrity" of the Ottoman Empire and the "balance of power" in Europe. This policy was aimed at achieving the English. and French capital of monopoly domination over Turkey, the elimination of Russian influence in the Balkan Peninsula and the closure of the Black Sea straits for Russian. military courts. At the same time, the ongoing West-Europe. by the powers, the course delayed the liquidation of the historically obsolete domination of the aurochs. feudal lords over the peoples subject to them. The Crimean War of 1853-56 and the Paris Peace Treaty of 1856 helped to strengthen the position of the English. and French capital in the Ottoman Empire and its transformation to the con. 19th century to a semi-colonial country. At the same time, the revealed weakness of Russia in comparison with the capitalist. state-you Zap. Europe determined the decline of the influence of tsarism in the international. affairs, including in V. century. This was clearly manifested in the decisions of the Berlin Congress of 1878, when, after the war won with Turkey, the tsarist government was forced to revise the San Stefano peace treaty of 1878. Nevertheless, the creation of a single Romanian state (1859-61) and the proclamation of the independence of Romania ( 1877) were achieved thanks to the help of Russia, and the liberation of the Bolg. people from tour. oppression (1878) was the result of Russia's victory in the war with Turkey 1877-73. The desire of Austria-Hungary to economical. and political hegemony in the Balkan Peninsula, where the paths of expansion of the Habsburg monarchy and Tsarist Russia crossed, caused from the 70s. 19th century the growth of the Austro-Russian. antagonism in V. century. Advance in con. 19th century The era of imperialism opens the third period of the V. century. In connection with the completion of the division of the world, new vast markets appeared for the export of capital and goods, new sources of colonial raw materials, and new hotbeds of world conflicts arose - in the Far East, in Lat. America, in the Center. and Sev. Africa and in other regions of the globe, which led to a decrease in the proportion of V. century. in the system of contradictions in Europe. powers. Nevertheless, the inherent unevenness and spasmodic development of otd. capitalist countries and the struggle for the redistribution of the already divided world led to an intensification of rivalry between them in the semi-colonies, including in Turkey, which also manifested itself in the V. century. Especially rapid expansion was developed by Germany, which managed to oust Great Britain, Russia, France and Austria-Hungary in the Ottoman Empire. The construction of the Baghdad railway and the subordination of the ruling tour. the tops, headed by Sultan Abdul-Hamid II, and somewhat later, the Young Turks military-political. German influence. imperialists ensured Kaiser's Germany predominance in the Ottoman Empire. Germ. expansion contributed to the strengthening of Russian-German. and especially Anglo-German. antagonism. In addition, the activation of the aggressive policy of Austria-Hungary in the Balkan Peninsula (the desire to annex the territories inhabited by the South-Slavic peoples, and to gain access to the Aegean), based on the support of Germany (see the Bosnian crisis of 1908- 09), led to extreme tension in the Austro-Rus. relationships. However, the royal pr-in, postponing in the con. 19th century implementation of their captors. plans in V. century, adhered to a waiting and cautious course. This was due to the diversion of Russia's forces and attention to the Far East, and then the weakening of tsarism as a result of the defeat in the war with Japan, and especially thanks to the first Russian. revolutions of 1905-07. The growth of contradictions in V. century. in the era of imperialism and the expansion of its territories. the framework contributed to the further process of decomposition of the Ottoman Empire, accompanied, on the one hand, by the further development and expansion of the national liberation. movements of peoples subject to the sultan - Armenians, Macedonians, Albanians, the population of Crete, Arabs and, on the other hand, the intervention of Europe. powers in ext. affairs of Turkey. The Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, the progressive result of which was the liberation of Macedonia, Albania and Greek. islands of the Aegean m. from the tour. oppression, at the same time testified to the extreme exacerbation of V. century. Turkey's participation in the 1st World War on the side of the German-Austrian. block determined the onset of critical. phases of V. century. As a result of defeats on the fronts, the Ottoman Empire lost b. h. of its territory. At the same time, during the war, the German the imperialists turned the Ottoman Empire "... into their financial and military vassal" (V. I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 23, p. 172). Secret agreements concluded during the war between the members of the Entente (the Anglo-Russian-French agreement of 1915, the Sykes-Picot Treaty of 1916, etc.) provided for the transfer of Constantinople and the Black Sea straits to Russia and the division of Asia. parts of Turkey between the allies. The plans and calculations of the imperialists in the Great Britain. destroyed the victory in Russia Vel. Oct. socialist. revolution. Owls. pr-in resolutely broke with the policy of tsarism and canceled the secret treaties signed by the tsar and the Time. pr-you, including treaties and agreements relating to the Ottoman Empire. Oct. the revolution gave a powerful impetus to the national liberation. struggle of the peoples of the East and among them - the struggle of the tour. people. The victory of the national-liberate. movements in Turkey in 1919-22 and the collapse of the anti-Turks. imperialist Entente interventions were achieved with moral and political. and material support from the Soviets. Russia. On the ruins of the former multinational The Ottoman Empire formed a national bourgeoisie. tour. state-in. So, the new ist. era opened Oct. revolution, forever removed V. century. from the arena of world politics. Lit.ra about V. v. very large. There is not a single summary work on the history of diplomacy and international affairs. relations of modern times, and especially in the history of Turkey, Russia, and the Balkan states, in which V. v. would not have been affected to a greater or lesser extent. In addition, there is an extensive scientific and journalistic literature, dedicated to various aspects and periods of V. century. or covering certain events related to V. c. (preferably about the problem of the straits and about the Russian-Turkish wars of the 18-19th centuries). However, generalizing studies about V. v. extremely little, which to a certain extent is explained by the complexity and vastness of the issue itself, the interpretation of which requires the study of a large number of documents and extensive literature. Deep characteristic V. century. given by K. Marx and F. Engels in articles and letters, publ. on the eve and during the Crimean War and the Bosnian (Eastern) crisis of 1875-78 and dedicated to the state of the Ottoman Empire and the intensified struggle of Europe. powers on Bl. East (see Soch., 2nd ed., vols. 9, 10, 11; 1st ed., vols. 15, 24). Marx and Engels acted in them with consistently internationalist. positions dictated by the interests of development in Europe and, in particular, in Russia, revolutionary-democratic. and the proletarian movement. They angrily exposed the invaders. goals pursued in V. century. tsarism. Marx and Engels stigmatized politics in the century with particular force. English bourgeois-aristocratic. oligarchy headed by G. J. T. Palmerston, determined by aggressive aspirations in Bl. East. The best resolution of V. in. Marx and Engels considered the real and complete liberation of the Balkan peoples from the Turks. yoke. But, in their opinion, such a radical elimination of V. century. could be carried out only as a result of the victory of Europe. revolution (see Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 9, pp. 33, 35, 219). Marxist understanding of V. century. as applied to the period of imperialism, it was developed by V. I. Lenin. In various studies (for example, "Imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism") and in numerous. articles ("Combustible material in world politics", "Events in the Balkans and Persia", "A new chapter in world history", "The social significance of Serbian-Bulgarian victories", "Balk. war and bourgeois chauvinism", "Awakening of Asia" , "Under a false flag", "On the right of nations to self-determination", etc.) Lenin characterized the process of turning the Ottoman Empire into an imperialist semi-colony. powers and their predatory policy in Bl. East. At the same time, Lenin claimed for all the peoples of the Ottoman Empire, including for the tour. people, the inalienable right to liberation from the imperialist. bondage and feud. dependencies and independence. Existence. In the owls ist. science V. c. widely interpreted in many studies of M. H. Pokrovsky about external. politics of Russia and international relations of the new time ("Imperialist War", Collection of Articles, 1931; "Diplomacy and Wars of Tsarist Russia in the 19th Century", Collection of Articles, 1923; article "Eastern Question", TSB, 1st ed., vol. 13) . Pokrovsky is credited with exposing and criticizing the aggressive designs and actions of tsarism in the Second Century. But attributing bargaining. capital a decisive role in external. and ext. policy of Russia, Pokrovsky reduced the policy of tsarism in the V. century. to the desire of the Russian landowners and the bourgeoisie to achieve the possession of bargaining. through the Black Sea Straits. However, he exaggerated the value of V. century. in ext. Russian politics and diplomacy. In a number of his works, Pokrovsky characterizes the Russian-German. antagonism in V. century. as the main the cause of the 1st World War of 1914-18, and considers the tsarist government to be the main culprit in unleashing it. This implies the erroneous statement of Pokrovsky that in August-October. 1914 Russia allegedly sought to draw the Ottoman Empire into the world war on the side of the Central European. powers. Represent scientific. value based on unpubl. doc-tah of the work of E. A. Adamov "The Question of the Straits and Constantinople in International Politics in 1908-1917." (in the collection of documents: "Constantinople and the straits according to the secret docks of the former Ministry of Foreign Affairs", (vol.) 1, 1925, p. 7 - 151); Ya. M. Zakhera ("On the history of Russian politics on the issue of the straits in the period between the Russian-Japanese and Tripolitan wars", in the book: From the distant and near past, collection in honor of N. I. Kareev, 1923 ; "Constantinople and the Straits", "KA", vol. 6, pp. 48-76, vol. 7, pp. 32-54; "Russian policy on the question of Constantinople and the straits during the Tripolitan War", "Izvestiya Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute named after A. I. Herzen", 1928, v. 1, pp. 41-53); M. A. Petrov "Preparation of Russia for a world war at sea" (1926) and V. M. Khvostov "Problems of capturing the Bosphorus in the 90s of the XIX century." ("Historian-Marxist", 1930, vol. 20, pp. 100-129), devoted to ch. arr. development in governments. circles of Russia of various projects for the occupation of the Bosphorus and the preparation of the Navy for the implementation of this operation, as well as the policy of Europe. powers in V. century. before and during World War I. A concise overview of the history of V. V., based on a document. sources, is contained in the articles of E. A. Adamov ("On the question of the historical prospects for the development of the Eastern Question", in the book: "Colonial East", edited by A. Sultan-Zade, 1924, pp. 15-37; " Section of Asian. Turkey", in collection of documents: "Section of Asian. Turkey. According to the secret documents of the former Ministry of Foreign Affairs", edited by E. A. Adamov, 1924, p. 5-101 ). Deep analysis of the struggle of the imperialist. powers in V. century. in con. 19th century is contained in the article by V. M. Khvostov "The Middle East Crisis of 1895-1897." ("Historian-Marxist", 1929, v. 13), in the monographs of A. S. Yerusalimsky "Foreign policy and diplomacy of German imperialism in the late 19th century." (2nd ed., 1951) and G. L. Bondarevsky "The Baghdad road and the penetration of German imperialism into the Middle East. 1888-1903" (1955). Capitalist politics. state-in in V. century. in the 19th century and at the beginning 20th century studied in the works of A. D. Novichev ("Essays on the Turkish Economy before the World War", 1937; "The Turkish Economy during the World War", 1935). Based on the involvement of extensive materials, including archival documents, the predatory goals and methods of penetration into the Ottoman Empire by foreigners are revealed. capital, the conflicting interests of the monopoly. groups of various countries, characterized by the enslavement of Turkey German-Austrian. imperialists during World War I. European politics. powers in V. century. in the 20s 19th century The monograph "Russia and the Eastern Crisis of the 1920s" by A. V. Fadeev, based on archival materials, is devoted to this. (1958), articles by I. G. Gutkina "The Greek Question and Diplomatic Relations of the European Powers in 1821-1822." ("Uch. Zap. Leningrad State University", Ser. Historical Sciences, 1951, v. 18, No. 130): N. S. Kinyapina "Russian-Austrian contradictions on the eve and during the Russian-Turkish war of 1828-29. " ("Uch. zap. MGU", works of the Department of History of the USSR, 1952, v. 156); O. Shparo "Canning's Foreign Policy and the Greek Question 1822-1827" ("VI", 1947, No 12) and "The Role of Russia in the Greek Struggle for Independence" ("VI", 1949, No 8). In the aforementioned study by A. V. Fadeev and in another work by the same author (“Russia and the Caucasus in the first third of the 19th century,” 1960), an attempt was made to interpret the V. century broadly, as also including political. and economic problems cf. East and Caucasus. The policy of Russia and France in the V. century. in the beginning. 19th century and international the position of the Ottoman Empire during this period of time is covered in the monograph by A.F. Miller "Mustafa Pasha Bayraktar. The Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the 19th century." (1947). Systematic diplomatic presentation. V.'s sides of century. can be found in the corresponding sections of the "History of Diplomacy", vol. 1, 2nd ed., 1959, vol. 2, 1945. Sharpness and political. the topicality of V. in internat. relations of the new time left a strong imprint on the studies of the bourgeoisie. scientists. In their works, the interests of the ruling classes of the country to which this or that historian belongs are clearly visible. Specialist. the study "The Eastern Question" was written by S. M. Solovyov (collected works, St. Petersburg, 1901, pp. 903-48). Considering the most important factor geographic development. environment, Solovyov formulates V. c. as a manifestation of the primordial struggle of Europe, to which he also refers Russia, with Asia, the sea coast and forests with the steppe. Hence his justification of the aggressive policy of tsarism in the V. century, which, in his opinion, is based on the process of colonization of the South Russian. districts, "fight against the Asians", "offensive movement in Asia". In the apologetic spirit illuminated the policy of tsarism in V. v. in the monograph by S. M. Goryainov "The Bosphorus and the Dardanelles" (1907), covering the period from the end. 18th century by 1878 and retaining its scientific. value due to the extensive use of archival documents. The unfinished publication of R. P. Martens "Collection of treatises and conventions concluded by Russia with foreign powers" (vols. 1-15, 1874-1909), although it does not contain treaties between Russia and Turkey, does include a number of international agreements. agreements directly related to V. century. Of scientific interest are also ist. introductions, preceded by most of the published documents. Some of these introductions, based on archival sources, contain valuable material on the history of V. century. in con. 18th century and in the 1st floor. 19th century Aggressive and anti-Russian. course in V. v. brit. English diplomacy. historians (J. Marriott, A. Toynbee, W. Miller) justify their bargaining by the needs of Great Britain. routes (especially communications linking it with India, and land approaches to this colony) and the importance from this point of view of the Black Sea straits, Istanbul, Egypt and Mesopotamia. So considers V. century. J. A. R. Marriot, "The Eastern question", 4 ed., 1940), trying to present the policy of Great Britain as invariably defensive. and pro-Turkish. For the French bourgeois historiography is characterized by the substantiation of the "civilizing" and "cultural" mission of France in Bl. East, to-roy she seeks to cover up the expansionist goals pursued in V. century. French capital. Attaching great importance to the right of religion acquired by France. protectorate over the Catholic Sultan's subjects, French historians (E. Drio. J. Ansel. G. Anoto, L. Lamouche) in every possible way extol the activities of Catholic missionaries in the Ottoman Empire, preim. in Syria and Palestine. This trend is visible in the repeatedly reprinted work of E. Driault (E. Driault, "La Question d'Orient depuis ses origines jusgu'a nos jours", 8 ?d., 1926) and in the book. J. Ancel (1923), "Manuel historique de la question d´Orient. 1792-1923". Austrian historians (G. Ibersberger, E. Wertheimer, T. Sosnosky, A. Pribram), exaggerating the significance of the aggressive policy of the tsarist government in the V. century. and portraying it as a creation of the pan-Slavists allegedly dominating Russia, at the same time they are trying to whitewash the annexationist actions and the invaders. plans on the Balkan Peninsula of the Habsburg monarchy. In this regard, the work of b. Rector of the University of Vienna G. Ubersberger. Wide involvement of Russian. literature and sources, including owls. publications of documents, is used by him for one-sided coverage of Russia's policy in V. v. and a frank justification of antislav. and antirus. policy of Austria (in the later period of Austria-Hungary) (N. Uebersberger, "Russlands Orientpolitik in den letzten zwei Jahrhunderten", 1913; his own, "Das Dardanellenproblem als russische Schicksalsfrage", 1930; his own, "?sterreich zwischen Russland und Serbien ", 1958). A similar point of view is shared by most Germans. bourgeois scientists (G. Franz, G. Herzfeld, H. Holborn, O. Brandenburg), who assert that it was precisely the policy of Russia in the V. century. caused World War I. So, G. Franz believes that Ch. the cause of this war was the desire of tsarism to possess the Black Sea straits. It ignores the value of germ support. imperialism of the Balkan policy of Austria-Hungary, denies that Kaiser Germany had independence. invader goals in V. century. (G. Frantz, "Die Meerengenfrage in der Vorkriegspolitik Russlands", "Deutsche Rundschau", 1927, Bd 210, Februar, S. 142-60). Typ. bourgeois historiography considers V. v. exclude. from the angle of vnesh.-political. provisions of Turkey 18-20 centuries. Guided by his extremely chauvinistic. the concept of historical process, tour. historians deny the existence of a nat in the Ottoman Empire. oppression. Fight netur. peoples for their independence, they explain the inspiration of Europe. powers. Falsifying history. facts, tour. historians (Yu. X. Bayur, I. X. Uzuncharshyly, E. Urash, A. B. Kuran, and others) argue that the conquest of the Balkan Peninsula by the Turks and its inclusion in the Ottoman Empire was progressive, because it allegedly contributed to the socio-economic. and cultural development of the Balkan peoples. Based on this falsification, tour. official historiography makes false, anti-historical. the conclusion that the wars waged by Sultan Turkey in the 18th-20th centuries were allegedly purely defensive. character for the Ottoman Empire and aggressive for Europe. Powers. Publ.: Yuzefovich T., Treaties of Russia with the East, St. Petersburg, 1869; Sat. treaties of Russia with other states (1856-1917), M., 1952; Constantinople and the Straits. According to secret documents b. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ed. E. A. Adamova, vol. 1-2, M., 1925-26; Section of Asiatic Turkey. According to secret documents b. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ed. Edited by E. A. Adamova. Moscow, 1924. Three meetings, foreword. M. Pokrovsky, "Herald of the NKID", 1919, No 1, p. 12-44; From an archivist's notebook. Note by A. I. Nelidov in 1882 on the occupation of the straits, foreword. V. Khvostova, "KA", 1931, v. 3 (46), p. 179-87; The project of capturing the Bosphorus in 1896, foreword. V. M. Khvostov, "KA", 1931, vol. 4-5 (47-48), p. 50-70; The project of capturing the Bosphorus in 1897, "KA", 1922, v. 1, p. 152-62; The tsarist government on the problem of the straits in 1898-1911, foreword. V. Khvostova, "KA", 1933, v. 6(61), p. 135-40; Noradounghian G., Recueil d'actes internationaux de l'Empire Ottoman, v. 1-3, P., 1897-1903; Strupp K., Ausgew?hlte diplomatische Aktenst?cke zur orientalischen Frage, (Gotha, 1916); A documentary record, 1535-1914, ed. by J. C. Hurewitz, N. Y. - L. - Toronto. 1956. Lit. (except for the one indicated in the article): Girs A.A., Russia and Bl. Vostok, St. Petersburg, 1906; Dranov B. A., Black Sea Straits, M., 1948; Miller A. P., A Brief History of Turkey, M., 1948; Druzhinina E.I., Kyuchuk-Kainarji world of 1774 (its preparation and conclusion), M., 1955; Ulyanitsky V.A., Dardanelles, Bosphorus and Black Sea in the 18th century. Essays on diplomacy. East history. question, M., 1883; Cahuet A., La question d´Orient dans l´histoire contemporaine (1821-1905), P., 1905; Choublier M., La question d´Orient depuis le Trait? de Berlin, P., 1897; Djuvara T. G., Cent projets de partage de la Turquie (1281-1913), P., 1914; Martens F., Etude historique sur la politique russe dans la question d´Orient. Gand-B.-P., 1877; Sorel A., La Question d´Orient au XVIII si?cle (Les origines de la triple alliance), P., 1878; Roepell R., Die orientalische Frage in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung 1774-1830, Breslau, 1854; Wurm C. F., Diplomatische Ceschichte der Orientalischen Frage, Lpz., 1858; Bayur Y. H., T?rk inkil?bi tarihi, cilt 1-3, Ist., 1940-55. (See also literature at the station of the Black Sea Straits). A. S. Silin. Leningrad.

The Eastern question is the so-called oral designation of a number of international contradictions that arose in the late 18th and early 20th centuries. It was directly...

By Masterweb

03.04.2018 16:01

The Eastern question is the so-called oral designation of a number of international contradictions that arose in the late 18th and early 20th centuries. It was directly connected with the attempts of the Balkan peoples to free themselves from the Ottoman yoke. The situation was aggravated in connection with the impending collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Many great powers, including Russia, Great Britain, Prussia, Austria-Hungary, sought to fight for the division of Turkish possessions.

background

The Eastern question initially arose due to the fact that the Ottoman Turks, who settled in Europe, formed a fairly powerful European state. As a result, the situation on the Balkan Peninsula has changed dramatically, between Christians and Muslims there has been a confrontation.

As a result, it was the Ottoman state that became one of the key factors in international European political life. On the one hand, they were afraid of her, on the other hand, they were looking for an ally in her face.

France was one of the first to establish diplomatic relations with the Ottoman Empire.

In 1528, the first alliance between France and the Ottoman Empire was concluded, which was based on mutual hostility to the Austrian Empire, which at that time was personified by Charles V.

Over time, religious components were added to the political ones. King Francis I of France wanted one of the churches in Jerusalem to be returned to Christians. The Sultan was against it, but promised to support all Christian churches that would be founded in Turkey.

Since 1535, the French and all other foreigners have been allowed to freely visit the Holy Places under the auspices of France. Thus, for a long time, France remained the only Western European country in the Turkish world.

Decline of the Ottoman Empire

The decline in the Ottoman Empire began in the 17th century. The Turkish army was defeated by the Poles and Austrians near Vienna in 1683. Thus, the advance of the Turks into Europe was stopped.

The leaders of the national liberation movement in the Balkans took advantage of the weakened empire. These were Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbs, Montenegrins, Vlachs, mostly Orthodox.

At the same time, in the 17th century, the economic and political positions of Great Britain and France were increasingly strengthening in the Ottoman Empire, which dreamed of maintaining their own influence, while trying to interfere with the territorial claims of other powers. First of all, Russia and Austria-Hungary.

The main enemy of the Ottoman Empire

In the middle of the 18th century, the main enemy of the Ottoman Empire changed. Russia replaces Austria-Hungary. The situation in the Black Sea region changed radically after the victory in the war of 1768-1774.

Based on its results, the Kuchuk-Kaynardzhi Treaty was concluded, which formalized the first Russian intervention in the affairs of Turkey.

At that time, Catherine II had a plan for the final expulsion of all Turks from Europe and the restoration of the Greek Empire, on the throne of which she predicted her grandson Konstantin Pavlovich. At the same time, the Ottoman government expected to take revenge for the defeat in the Russian-Turkish war. Great Britain and France continued to play an important role in the Eastern Question, and the Turks counted on their support.

As a result, in 1787 Turkey launched another war against Russia. In 1788, the British and French, through diplomatic tricks, forced Sweden to enter the war on their side, which attacked Russia. But within the coalition, everything ended in failure. First, Sweden withdrew from the war, and then Turkey agreed to another peace treaty, which pushed its border to the Dniester. The government of the Ottoman Empire renounced its claims to Georgia.

Aggravation of the situation

As a result, it was decided that the existence of the Turkish Empire would ultimately prove more beneficial to Russia. At the same time, Russia's sole protectorate over Turkish Christians was not supported by other European states. For example, in 1815, at a congress in Vienna, Emperor Alexander I believed that the Eastern Question deserved the attention of all world powers. Soon after this, a Greek uprising broke out, followed by the terrible barbarism of the Turks, all this forced Russia, along with other powers, to intervene in this war.

After that, relations between Russia and Turkey remained tense. Noting what are the reasons for the aggravation of the Eastern Question, it is necessary to emphasize that the Russian rulers regularly examined the possibility of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. So, in 1829, Nicholas I ordered to study the position of Turkey in the event of collapse.

In particular, it was proposed to justify five minor states instead of Turkey. The Kingdom of Macedonia, Serbia, Epirus, the Kingdom of Greece and the Principality of Dacia. Now it should be clear to you what are the reasons for the aggravation of the Eastern Question.

Expulsion of the Turks from Europe

The plan for the expulsion of the Turks from Europe, conceived by Catherine II, was also tried by Nicholas I. But as a result, he abandoned this idea, deciding, on the contrary, to support and protect its existence.

For example, after the successful uprising of the Egyptian pasha Megmet Ali, after which Turkey was almost completely crushed, Russia in 1833 entered into a defensive alliance, sending its fleet to the aid of the Sultan.

Enmity in the East

The enmity continued not only with the Ottoman Empire, but also between the Christians themselves. In the east, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches competed. They competed for various privileges, advantages for visiting Holy places.

By 1740, France had succeeded in securing certain privileges for the Latin Church at the expense of the Orthodox. The followers of the Greek religion obtained from the Sultan the restoration of ancient rights.

Understanding the causes of the Eastern Question, one must turn to 1850, when French envoys sought the return of individual Holy places located in Jerusalem to the French government. Russia was categorically against it. As a result, a whole coalition of European states came out against Russia in the Eastern Question.

Crimean War

Turkey was in no hurry to accept a favorable decree for Russia. As a result, in 1853 relations worsened again, the solution of the Eastern Question was again postponed. Soon after, relations with European states went wrong, all this led to the Crimean War, which ended only in 1856.

The essence of the Eastern Question was the struggle for influence in the Middle East and the Balkan Peninsula. For several decades, he remained one of the key in Russia's foreign policy, she confirmed this over and over again. Russia's policy in the Eastern Question was the need to establish its influence in this region, which was opposed by many European powers. All this resulted in the Crimean War, in which each of the participants pursued their own selfish interests. Now you have figured out what the Eastern question was.

Massacre in Syria

In 1860, the European powers again had to intervene in the situation in the Ottoman Empire, after a terrible massacre against Christians in Syria. The French army went east.

Regular uprisings soon began. First in Herzegovina in 1875, and then in Serbia in 1876. Russia in Herzegovina immediately declared the need to alleviate the suffering of Christians and finally put an end to the bloodshed.

In 1877, a new war broke out, Russian troops reached Constantinople, Romania, Montenegro, Serbia and Bulgaria gained independence. At the same time, the Turkish government insisted on observing the principles of religious freedom. At the same time, the Russian military-political leadership continued to develop plans for a landing on the Bosphorus at the end of the 19th century.

The situation at the beginning of the 20th century

By the beginning of the 20th century, the expansion of Turkey continued to progress. In many ways, this was facilitated by the rule of the reactionary Abdul-Hamid. Italy, Austria and the Balkan states took advantage of the crisis in Turkey to wrest their territories from her.

As a result, in 1908 Bosnia and Herzegovina was ceded to Austria, the Tripoli region was annexed to Italy, in 1912 four minor Balkan countries started a war with Turkey.

The situation was aggravated due to the genocide of the Greek and Armenian people in 1915-1917. At the same time, the Entente allies made it clear to Russia that in the event of a triumph, the Black Sea straits and Constantinople could go to Russia. In 1918, Turkey capitulated in the First World War. But the situation in the region has changed dramatically once again, which was facilitated by the fall of the monarchy in Russia, the national-bourgeois revolution in Turkey.

In the war of 1919-1922, the Kemalists led by Ataturk won, and the new borders of Turkey, as well as the countries of the former Entente, were approved at the Lausanne Conference. Ataturk himself became the first president of the Turkish Republic, the founder of the modern Turkish state in the form we know.

The results of the Eastern Question was the establishment of borders in Europe close to modern ones. It was also possible to resolve many issues related, for example, to the exchange of population. Ultimately, this led to the final legal elimination of the very concept of the Eastern Question in modern international relations.

Kievyan street, 16 0016 Armenia, Yerevan +374 11 233 255

The first military clashes of the XIX century. within the framework of the Eastern question took place during the Russian-Iranian war of 1804-1813. for dominance in the Transcaucasus and the Caspian. The cause of the conflict was the aggression of feudal Iran against Georgia and other lands of Transcaucasia, which were part of Russia at the beginning of the century. Iran and Turkey, incited by Great Britain and France, sought to subjugate the entire Transcaucasus, dividing the spheres of influence. Despite the fact that from 1801 to 1804 certain Georgian principalities voluntarily joined Russia, on May 23, 1804, Iran presented Russia with an ultimatum on the withdrawal of Russian troops from the entire Transcaucasus. Russia refused. Iran in June 1804 launched hostilities to capture Tiflis (Georgia). Russian troops (12 thousand people) moved towards the Iranian army (30 thousand people). Russian troops fought decisive battles near Gumry (now Gyumri, Armenia) and Erivan (now Yerevan, Armenia). The battles have been won. Then the fighting moved to the territory of Azerbaijan. The war went on with long interruptions and was complicated for Russia by parallel participation in other hostilities. However, in the war with Iran, Russian troops won. As a result, Russia expanded its territory in the Transcaucasus, adding Northern Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Dagestan.

The reason for the start of the Russian-Turkish war of 1806-1812, which Turkey unleashed with the support of Napoleon, was the violation by the Turks of the agreement on the free passage of Russian ships through the Bosporus and Dardanelles. In response, Russia sent troops to the Danubian principalities - Moldavia and Wallachia, which were under the control of Turkey. Great Britain supported Russia in this war. The main battles were the combat operations of the squadron of Vice Admiral D.N. Senyavin. He won victories in the Dardanelles naval and Athos battles in 1807. Russia provided assistance to the insurgent Serbia. In the Balkan and Caucasian theaters of operations, Russian troops inflicted a number of defeats on the Turks. Before the war with Napoleon, M.I. became the head of the Russian army. Kutuzov (since March 1811). In the Ruschuk battle and in the battle of Slobodzeya in 1811 on the territory of Bulgaria, he forced the Turkish troops to capitulate. The war has been won. The result of the war was the annexation of Bessarabia, Abkhazia and part of Georgia to Russia and the recognition by Turkey of the right of self-government for Serbia. In Turkey, Napoleon lost an ally just before the start of the French invasion of Russia.

In 1817, Russia entered the protracted Caucasian War with the aim of conquering Chechnya, Mountainous Dagestan and the North-Western Caucasus. The main hostilities unfolded in the second quarter of the 19th century. during the reign of Nicholas I.

The Eastern question is the question of the fate of Turkey, the fate of the peoples in the Balkans, Africa and Asia that were enslaved by it and fought for their national independence, as well as the attitude of the European powers towards these fates and the international contradictions that arose in this.

By the end of the 16th century, the Turkish Empire had reached its greatest power, based on territorial conquests and feudal robbery of enslaved peoples. However, already at the beginning of the 17th century, the process of losing the conquered lands by Turkey and the fall of its power began.

The reasons for this process lay in the growth of the economic influence of large feudal landowners in connection with the development of commodity-money relations in Turkey; this led to a weakening of the military power of the Turkish state, to feudal fragmentation and to intensified exploitation of the working masses of the enslaved peoples.

The emergence of capitalism in Turkey in the middle of the 18th century only accelerated this process. The peoples enslaved by Turkey began to form into nations and began to struggle for their national liberation; the unbearable exploitation of the working masses of the Turkish Empire retarded the capitalist development of the peoples subject to Turkey and strengthened their desire for national liberation.

Economic stagnation and degradation, the inability to overcome feudal fragmentation and create a centralized state, the national liberation struggle of the peoples subject to Turkey, the aggravation of internal social contradictions led the Turkish empire to disintegration and weakening of its international positions.

The ever-increasing weakening of Turkey fanned the predatory appetites of the major European powers. Turkey was a profitable market and source of raw materials; in addition, it was of great strategic importance, being located at the junction of routes between Europe, Asia and Africa. Therefore, each of the "great" European powers sought to grab more for itself from the legacy of the "sick man" (this is how Turkey began to be called from 1839).

The struggle of the Western European powers for economic and political dominance in the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire began in the 17th century and continued into the 18th and 19th centuries.

By the end of the third quarter of the 19th century, a new struggle began between the European powers, which was called the "Eastern Crisis".

The Eastern crisis arose as a result of the armed uprising of the Slavic population of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1875-1876) against the Turkish oppressors. This uprising, which had an anti-feudal character, was a progressive national liberation struggle of the Slavic people against the backward and wild Turkish feudalism.

What was the position of the main European powers during the Eastern crisis?

Germany hoped to use the Eastern crisis to weaken Russia and gain freedom of action against France. Defeated in 1871 by Prussia, it quickly recovered and revanchist sentiments grew in it. Bourgeois-Junker Germany looked anxiously at the revival of the might of France and made plans for her new defeat. For Germany, this was possible only on the condition that no European power would intervene in a new Franco-German war on the side of France; in this respect, it could fear most of all the unfavorable intervention of Russia. The German Chancellor Bismarck hoped to weaken Russia by drawing her into a war with Turkey; at the same time, Bismarck sought to push Russia in the Balkans against Austria-Hungary and thereby finally bind Russia, deprive her of the opportunity to support France.

In Austria-Hungary, the military-clerical German party, headed by Emperor Franz Joseph, hoped to use the Bosno-Herzegovina uprising to seize Bosnia and Herzegovina, to which it was secretly urged by Germany. The capture was conceived as an amicable deal with the Russian tsar, since at that time Austria-Hungary did not consider it possible for itself to fight with Russia. At the beginning of the Eastern crisis, the Austro-Hungarian government circles even believed that it was necessary to put out the uprising and thereby eliminate the crisis.

Russia, weakened by the Crimean War and not yet fully recovered from its consequences, at the beginning of the Eastern crisis was forced to limit itself, caring only about maintaining its positions in the Balkans and maintaining its prestige among the Balkan Slavs. The tsarist government tried to help the rebels, but did not want to get involved in any actions that could involve Russia in the war. This led to the fact that the Russian government was ready to take the initiative to help the rebels, but only in agreement with other powers.

The British government, headed by Prime Minister Disraeli, sought to take advantage of Russia's difficult situation in order to further weaken it. Disraeli understood that only weakness forced the Russian government to limit itself in its predatory goals in relation to Turkey and that the tsarist government considered such a restriction as a temporary measure.

To deprive Russia of the opportunity to pursue an active policy in the Balkans, Disraeli adopted a plan to push Russia into a war with Turkey, and, if possible, with Austria-Hungary. According to Disraeli, such a war would weaken all its participants, which would give England freedom of action to carry out aggressive plans in Turkey, would eliminate any threat to England from Russia in Central Asia, where Russia was already approaching the borders of India, and in the Balkans, where England feared the seizure of the Black Sea straits by Russia. Disraeli began to unleash a war between Russia and Turkey under the hypocritical slogan of non-interference in Balkan affairs.

Such was the international alignment of forces of the European powers at the beginning of the Eastern crisis.

The first steps of the European powers still gave hope for a peaceful settlement of the Eastern crisis. On December 30, 1875, the Austro-Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrássy, on the initiative of Russia and according to a project agreed with her, handed over a note to all major European powers. Its essence was to eliminate the uprising with the help of modest administrative reforms for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The powers agreed with the proposals of the note and, through their ambassadors, began to seek from Turkey the implementation of the demands proposed by the note. In February 1876, Sultan Abdulaziz agreed to the demands of the note. It would seem that the Eastern crisis, having barely begun, ends.

But then English diplomacy entered the scene. The peaceful resolution of the Eastern crisis did not suit her.

The closest obstacle to deepening the crisis was Sultan Abdulaziz himself and his Russophile cabinet headed by Mahmud Nedim Pasha. As a result of a palace coup organized by the English ambassador to Turkey, Elliot, Murad V was elevated to the Sultan's throne.

In the meantime, the heroic struggle of the Bosnians and Herzegovinians hastened the open action of Serbia and Montenegro. At the end of June 1876, Serbia declared war on Turkey. The successful struggle of 13-14 thousand Bosno-Herzegovina rebels against the 35 thousand Turkish troops gave hope for a successful outcome of the Serbo-Turkish war. In order to be ready to meet any outcome of this war and not be drawn into it itself, the Russian government decided in advance to agree with Austria-Hungary on all possible occasions.

On this basis, the Reichstadt Agreement was born, concluded on July 8, 1876 between Alexander II and the Russian Chancellor Gorchakov, on the one hand, Franz Joseph and Andrassy, ​​on the other.

The first option, calculated on the defeat of Serbia, provided only for the implementation in Bosnia and Herzegovina of the reforms outlined by Andrássy's note. The second option, calculated on the victory of Serbia, provided for the increase in the territory of Serbia and Montenegro and some annexations for Austria-Hungary at the expense of Bosnia and Herzegovina; According to this option, Russia received Batumi; the part of Bessarabia that was torn away after the Crimean War was returned to it. The third version of the agreement, designed for the complete collapse of Turkey and ousting it from Europe, provided, in addition to measures under the second version, also the creation of an autonomous or independent Bulgaria, some strengthening of Greece and, presumably, the declaration of Constantinople as a free city.

Meanwhile, hopes for a successful outcome of the war for Serbia did not come true. The Serbian army suffered a number of setbacks, and already on August 26, the Serbian prince Milan asked the powers for mediation in order to end the war. The Powers agreed and turned to Turkey with a request to inform them under what conditions peace could be granted to Serbia; Officially, England also took part in this, while unofficially it prompted Turkey to present conditions to Serbia that were completely unacceptable for the latter.

In response, the powers instructed England to obtain a month-long truce from Turkey. Disraeli could not openly refuse to carry out this order. Gladstone, who led the opposition in England against Disraeli's policy, developed a hypocritical campaign in England against the arbitrariness prevailing in Turkey and wild Turkish atrocities, and managed to amass political capital on this basis - to set public opinion in England against Disraeli. In order to calm the minds and reconcile the British public with Turkey, Disraeli came up with a new move: he decided to make Turkey at least fictitiously constitutional.

At the behest of the English ambassador, a new palace coup was organized, Murad V was overthrown and a new sultan Abdul-Hamid, who was a supporter of England and formally did not object to the proclamation of the constitution, was installed in his place.

Following this, Disraeli, who had already received the title of Lord and was called Beaconsfield, fulfilling the order of the powers, officially proposed to Turkey to conclude peace with Serbia on the basis of the situation that existed before the war; at the same time, British diplomats conveyed to the new sultan a secret "friendly advice" to do away with Serbia.

Abdul-Hamid followed this advice. Under Dyunish, the ill-prepared Serbian army was defeated. She was threatened with death.

In this situation, the tsarist government could not but speak out in favor of Serbia, without risking forever losing its influence in the Balkans. On October 31, Russia issued an ultimatum to Turkey to declare a truce with Serbia within 48 hours. The Sultan was not prepared by his English prompters for such a move, he was confused and on November 2 accepted the demand for an ultimatum.

Beaconsfield rattled his weapons, delivered a warlike speech. All this sounded menacing, but in essence England was not ready for a land war. The Russian government understood this and did not back down. Moreover, Alexander II, incited by the militant court party, headed by his brother Nikolai Nikolaevich and son Alexander Alexandrovich, on November 13 ordered the mobilization of twenty infantry and seven cavalry divisions. After that, Russia, without loss of prestige, could no longer abandon its demands on Turkey, even if even the latter did not fulfill them.

In order to surely drag Russia into a war with Turkey, Beaconsfield proposed to convene the ambassadors of the six powers in Constantinople and once again try to agree on a "peaceful" settlement of the Eastern crisis, on peace between Serbia and Turkey, and on reforms for the Balkan Slavs.

The conference of ambassadors worked out the conditions for ending the eastern crisis and on December 23 had to present these conditions to the sultan.

However, on December 23, a representative of the Sultan's government, to the thunder of cannon salutes, announced at the conference that the Sultan had granted a constitution to all his citizens and that in connection with this all the conditions worked out by the conference were becoming redundant.

This statement of the Sultan's minister, inspired by British diplomats, clearly provoked Russia to go to war with Turkey. For the majority in the Russian government, it became increasingly clear that war was inevitable. By that time, a new agreement had been concluded with Austria-Hungary in Budapest, now in case of a war between Russia and Turkey. This agreement was less beneficial for Russia than the Reichstadt. Russia was forced to agree to the occupation by Austria-Hungary of almost all of Bosnia and Herzegovina and promised not to create a strong Slavic state in the Balkans. In return for this, tsarism received only the "friendly" and unreliable neutrality of Austria-Hungary.

Although on February 28, 1877, Turkey made peace with Serbia, the war with Montenegro continued. The threat of defeat hung over her. This circumstance, together with the failure of the Constantinople Conference, pushed tsarist Russia to war with Turkey; however, the disadvantage of the Budapest Convention was so obvious that there were fluctuations in the tsarist government; there were even opinions about the need to make concessions to Turkey and demobilize the army.

In the end, a decision was made: not to demobilize the army and make another attempt to negotiate with the Western European powers for a joint impact on Turkey.

As a result of this attempt, the so-called "London" proposals were born, demanding from Turkey even more curtailed reforms for the Slavic peoples than before.

On April 11, these proposals, at the instigation of Beaconsfield, were rejected, and on April 24, 1877, Russia declared war on Turkey.

Thus, the British government succeeded in achieving its immediate goal in exploiting the Eastern crisis: to drag Russia into a war with Turkey. Germany also achieved its immediate goal by forcing Austria-Hungary to take a direct part in resolving the Eastern Question; in the future, there was a possible clash between Austria-Hungary and Russia in the Balkans.

It would be completely wrong to attribute the entire success of the British and German foreign policy in fomenting the Eastern crisis only to Beaconsfield and Bismarck. Of course, they played an important role, but the main reason for the success of England and Germany was the economic and political backwardness of tsarist Russia.

Essence of the Eastern Question

The Eastern question, which consisted in the struggle of European countries for control over Asia, for Russia included the struggle for the Black Sea area and the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits. In addition, Russia, as the only Orthodox state in Europe, considered protecting the interests of fellow believers - the southern Slavs, subjects of Turkey - its sacred task.

The first military clashes of the XIX century. within the framework of the Eastern question took place during the Russian-Iranian war of 1804-1813. for dominance in the Transcaucasus and the Caspian. The cause of the conflict was the aggression of feudal Iran against Georgia and other lands of Transcaucasia, which were part of Russia at the beginning of the century. Iran and Turkey, incited by Great Britain and France, sought to subjugate the entire Transcaucasus, dividing the spheres of influence. Despite the fact that from 1801 to 1804 certain Georgian principalities voluntarily joined Russia, on May 23, 1804, Iran presented Russia with an ultimatum on the withdrawal of Russian troops from the entire Transcaucasus. Russia refused. Iran in June 1804 launched hostilities to capture Tiflis (Georgia). Russian troops (12 thousand people) moved towards the Iranian army (30 thousand people). Decisive battles were fought by Russian troops near Gumry (now Gyumri, Armenia) and Erivan (now Yerevan, Armenia). The battles have been won. Then the fighting moved to the territory of Azerbaijan. The war went on with long interruptions and was complicated for Russia by parallel participation in other hostilities. However, in the war with Iran, Russian troops won. As a result, Russia expanded its territory in the Transcaucasus, adding Northern Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Dagestan.

The reason for the start of the Russian-Turkish war of 1806-1812, which Turkey unleashed with the support of Napoleon, was the violation by the Turks of the agreement on the free passage of Russian ships through the Bosporus and Dardanelles. In response, Russia sent troops to the Danubian principalities - Moldavia and Wallachia, which were under the control of Turkey. Great Britain supported Russia in this war. The main battles were the combat operations of the squadron of Vice Admiral D.N. Senyavin. He won victories in the Dardanelles naval and Athos battles in 1807. Russia provided assistance to the insurgent Serbia. In the Balkan and Caucasian theaters of operations, Russian troops inflicted a number of defeats on the Turks. Before the war with Napoleon, M.I. became the head of the Russian army. Kutuzov (since March 1811). In the Ruschuk battle and in the battle of Slobodzeya in 1811 on the territory of Bulgaria, he forced the Turkish troops to capitulate. The war has been won. The result of the war was the annexation of Bessarabia, Abkhazia and part of Georgia to Russia and the recognition by Turkey of the right of self-government for Serbia. In Turkey, Napoleon lost an ally just before the start of the French invasion of Russia.

In 1817, Russia entered the protracted Caucasian War with the aim of conquering Chechnya, Mountainous Dagestan and the North-Western Caucasus. The main hostilities unfolded in the second quarter of the 19th century. during the reign of Nicholas I.

The center of Russian foreign policy in the second half of the XIX century. was the eastern question - the question of the regime of the Black Sea straits and the fate of the Balkan peoples under Turkish rule ...

first years of government. After the murder of his father in the spring of 336 BC. e. became the Macedonian king with the support of the army; destroyed potential contenders for the throne - his half-brother Karan and cousin Aminta. Having learned...

Eastern campaign of Alexander the Great

The world power of Alexander the Great disintegrated after his death, but disintegrated into rather large parts, each of which was a policy and not a union of policies, but a vast monarchical association ...

Greek colonization of Cimmerian Bosporus

When the Greeks began to establish colonies, they met with the native population: the Scythian - in the European part of the Cimmerian Bosporus, the Meotian - in the Asian; it lived there before the arrival of the Greeks and had the opportunity to get acquainted with the latter at that time ...

The formation and collapse of the empire of Tamerlane

As soon as Timur created the kingdom of Maverannahr, which was almost entirely Turkic, but conditionally considered a Genghisid khanate, he resumed the struggle of the Turkic-Mongols against the "Tajiks" in Iran. In the spring of 1381, Timur moved towards Herat ...

The formation and collapse of Timur's empire

As soon as Timur created the kingdom of Maverannahr, which was almost completely Turkic, but conditionally considered a Genghis Khanid khanate...

Ottoman Empire in the middle of the 17th-first half of the 19th centuries

The most progressive way in which the development of the peoples of the Ottoman Empire could go was its liquidation as a result of the liberation struggle of all the peoples of the empire and the formation of independent independent states ...

The abolition of serfdom in Russia

A feature of the land distribution of the volost was a sharp difference between the amount of land offered to the peasants and the amount of land in demand. Let's take the Inzhevskaya volost as an example. So...

In the spring of 334, Alexander went on a campaign. His army consisted of only 30 thousand infantry and 5 thousand horsemen. In addition to the soldiers themselves, the army included a large number of service personnel ...

Campaigns of Alexander the Great. The problem of Hellenism

As a result of the Eastern campaign of Alexander the Great, a huge power was formed, which surpassed Persia in size. It was impossible to keep power over it by the forces of the Macedonians alone...

Origin of the Etruscans

The author of the first generalizing work on Etruscan history, F. Dempster, set out to present everything that ancient authors knew about the Etruscans. In his Seven Books on Royal Etruria, the opinion about the Etruscans as people from Lydia dominates ...

Russia and Russians in world history

The question of one's own national identity arises in Russian history from the very beginning, because the awareness of one's "self", that is, national identity, is already present in the earliest sources...

Essence of the Eastern Question

The appearance of the Turks in Europe and the formation of a powerful Muslim state on the Balkan Peninsula seriously changed the relationship between Christians and Islam: the Turkish state became one of the factors of international...

Economy, life and religion of the Eastern Slavs

There are two main concepts of the origin of the Slavs. According to one concept, the Proto-Slavic community originated right on the Danube ...

Jacobin dictatorship (internal political aspect)

The Jacobins were in a hurry with the adoption and publication of the constitution, as they hoped to rally the majority of the people around it, to reconcile the departments that fought among themselves on its basis. As a result, she was met by the majority with full approval ...