Chapter CDXXXIX: Act 8: Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7 (36)

"The war which cost the republic of Venice the island of Crete
owed its origin to the incessant irritation caused by the
Western corsairs in the Archipelago. Some strong measures
adopted by the Venetians to suppress the piracies committed by
Turkish and Barbary corsairs in the Adriatic, created much
dissatisfaction on the part of the Othoman government, which
looked chiefly to the Mohammedan corsairs as a protection
against the Christian corsairs in the Levant, and considered
it the duty of the Venetians to suppress the piracies of these
Christians. The Porte at last resolved to seek a profitable
revenge, and a pretext soon presented itself. In 1644 some
Maltese galleys made a prize which offended the personal
feelings of the reigning sultan, Ibrahim. … As he feared to
attack Malta, he resolved to make the Venetians responsible
for the shelter which Crete had afforded to the corsairs. The
Porte affected to consider Venice as a tributary State, which
was bound to keep the Archipelago free from Christian
corsairs, in return for the great commercial privileges it
enjoyed in the Othoman empire. Immediate preparations were
made for attacking Crete, but the project was concealed from
the Venetian senate, under the pretence of directing the
expedition against Malta. … In the month of June 1645, the
Othoman army landed before Canea, which capitulated on the
17th of August. This treacherous commencement of the war
authorised the Christian powers to dispense with all the
formalities of international law in lending assistance to the
Venetians during the celebrated War of Candia, which lasted
nearly 25 years. During this long struggle the Venetians
generally maintained the superiority at sea, but they were
unable to prevent the Othoman navy, whenever it exerted its
full force, from throwing in supplies of fresh troops and
ample stores, by which the Othoman army was enabled to command
the whole island, and kept Candia, and the other fortresses in
the hands of the republic, either blockaded or besieged. The
Greeks generally favoured the Turks, who encouraged them to
cultivate their lands by purchasing the produce at a liberal
price, for the use of the army. … The squadrons of the
republic often ravaged the coasts of the Othoman empire, and
on one occasion they carried off about 5,000 slaves from the
coast of the Morea, between Patras and Coron. In the year
1656, after Mocenigo's great victory at the Dardanelles, they
took possession of the islands of Tenedos and Lemnos, but they
were driven from these conquests by the Othoman fleet in the
following year. At the end of the year 1666, the grand vizier,
Achmet Kueprily, one of the greatest ministers of the Othoman
empire, took the command of the siege of Candia. The whole
naval force of Venice, and numerous bands of French and
Italian volunteers, attempted to force the grand vizier to
raise the siege; but the skill of the Italian engineers, the
valour of the French nobles, and the determined perseverance
of Morosini, were vain against the strict discipline and
steady valour of the Othoman troops. The works of the
besiegers were pushed forward by the labours of a numerous
body of Greek pioneers, and the fire of the powerful batteries
at last rendered the place untenable. At this crisis Morosini
proved himself a daring statesman and a sincere patriot. When
he found that he must surrender the city, he resolved to make
his capitulation the means of purchasing peace for the
republic. … On the 27th September 1669, Achmet Kueprily
received the keys of Candia, and the republic of Venice
resigned all right to the island of Crete, but retained
possession of the three insular fortresses of Karabusa, Suda,
and Spinalonga, with their valuable ports. No fortress is said
to have cost so much blood and treasure, both to the besiegers
and the defenders, as Candia; yet the Greeks, in whose
territory it was situated, and who could have furnished an
army from the inhabitants of Crete sufficiently numerous to
have decided the issue of the contest, were the people on the
shores of the Mediterranean who took least part in this
memorable war. So utterly destitute of all national feeling
was the Hellenic race at this period."

_G. Finlay,
History of Greece under Othoman and Venetian Domination,
chapter 2._

TURKS: A. D. 1649.
Accession of Mohammed IV.

TURKS: A. D. 1660-1664.
Renewed war with Austria.
Defeat at St. Gothard.
A twenty years truce.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

TURKS: A. D. 1664-1665.
Alliance with France broken.
War of the French with Tunis and Algiers.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.

TURKS: A. D. 1670-1676.
Wars with the Poles.

See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1606.

TURKS: A. D. 1681-1684.
Rupture with France.
French attack on Scio and war with the Barbary States.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.

TURKS: A. D. 1683.
Great invasion of Austria.
Siege of Vienna.
Overwhelming defeat by Sobieski and the Imperialists.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.

TURKS: A. D. 1683-1699.
Expulsion from Hungary.
The Peace of Carlowitz.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
War with the Holy League.
Expulsion from Hungary.
Venetian conquests in Greece.
Revolution at Constantinople.
Accession of Solyman II.
Czar Peter's capture of Azov.
The first Russian acquisition on the Black Sea.

In 1684, "a league against the Turks, under the protection of
the Pope, and thence called the Holy League, was formed by the
Emperor, the King of Poland, and the Republic of Venice; and
it was resolved to procure, if possible, the accession to it
of the Czar of Muscovy. The Venetians were induced to join the
league by the hope of recovering their former possessions, and
declared war against the Sultan, Mahomet IV., July 15th. The
war which ensued, now called the Holy War, lasted till the
Peace of Carlowicz in 1609. Venice in this war put forth a
strength that was little expected from that declining state.
Many thousand Germans were enrolled in her army, commanded by
Morosini, and by Count Königsmark, a Swede. The Austrians
pursued the campaign in Hungary with success [steadily
expelling the Turks—see HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1609]. … While the
war in Hungary had been conducted by the Emperor with such
eminent success, the King of Poland had made only some
fruitless attempts upon Moldavia. The Czar of Muscovy, Ivan
Alexiowitsch, who, after settling some disputes about
boundaries with the King of Poland, had joined the Holy League
in 1686, did not fare much better. All the attempts of the
Russians to penetrate into the Crimea were frustrated by the
Tartars.
{3144}
The Venetians, on the other hand, had made some splendid
conquests. St. Maura, Koron, the mountain tract of Maina,
Navarino, Modon, Argos, Napoli di Romania, fell successively
into their hands. The year 1687 especially was almost as fatal
to the Turks in their war with Venice as in that with Hungary.
In this year the Venetians took Patras, the castles at the
entrance of the bay of Lepanto, Lepanto itself, all the
northern coast of the Morea, Corinth, and Athens. Athens had
been abandoned with the exception of the acropolis or citadel;
and it was in this siege that one of the Venetian bombs fell
into the Parthenon, which had been converted by the Turks into
a powder magazine, and destroyed the greater part of those
magnificent remains of classical antiquity. The acropolis
surrendered September 29th. The fall of Athens, added to the
disastrous news from Hungary, excited the greatest
consternation and discontent at Constantinople," and brought
about a revolution which deposed the sultan, raising his
brother Solyman to the throne (1687) in his place. "By the
capture of Malvasia in 1690, the Venetians completed the
conquest of the Morea. The Isle of Chios, taken in 1694, was
again lost the following year; but in Dalmatia and Albania the
Venetian Republic made many permanent conquests, from the
mountains of Montenegro to the borders of Croatia and the
banks of the Unna. The operations of the Poles in the Turkish
war were insignificant; but in July 1696, the Russians, under
the Czar Peter, after many long and fruitless attempts, at
length succeeded in taking Azov, at the mouth of the Don; a
most important conquest as securing for them the entry into
the Black Sea. It was the fall of this place, combined with
the defeat at Zenta [in Hungary], that chiefly induced the
Porte to enter into negociation for a peace."

_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 5, chapter 4 (volume 3)._

TURKS: A. D. 1691.
Accession of Achmet II.

TURKS: A. D. 1695.
Accession of Mustapha II.

TURKS: A. D. 1703.
Accession of Achmet III.

TURKS: A. D. 1709-1714.
Refuge given to Charles XII. of Sweden.
His intrigues.
Unlucky invasion of Moldavia by Peter the Great.
The Treaty of the Pruth.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.
War with Venice and Austria.
Recovery of the Morea and disasters in Hungary.
The Peace of Passarowitz.

"By the treaty of the Pruth the Russian conquest of Azof had
been recovered. This success encouraged the hope of repairing
the other losses that had been incurred in the former war.
There were two states which had aggrandised themselves at
Turkish expense, Austria and Venice. Of these the republic was
far the less formidable and was naturally chosen as the first
object of attack. A pretext was found in the protection which
Venice had given to some Montenegrin fugitives, and in
December, 1714, the Porte declared war. Venice was entirely
unprepared, and moreover had failed to acquire popularity
amongst her Greek subjects. In 1715, the grand vizier, Ali
Cumurgi, landed in the Morea, and by the end of the year was
master of the whole peninsula. Sailing thence he captured Suda
and Spinalonga, the two last fortresses that Venice had been
allowed to retain in Crete. The republic naturally appealed to
her old ally, Austria, which had guaranteed her possessions by
the treaty of Carlowitz. … As the Turk refused to give any
satisfaction, war was inevitable. The intervention of Austria
saved Venice from ruin. The grand vizier and the main body of
the Turkish army had to be employed in Hungary. Still a
considerable army and fleet was sent to attack Corfu. The
Venetian troops were commanded by count Schulenburg, who had
won a great reputation in the northern war, and whose services
had been procured for the republic by Eugene. A heroic defence
ended successfully, and in August, 1716, the Turks were
compelled to raise the siege. 'It was the last glorious
military exploit in the annals of the republic, and it was
achieved by a German mercenary soldier.' Meanwhile the vizier,
with an army of 150,000 men, had laid siege to Peterwardein,
the most important of the Austrian border-fortresses in
Hungary," and suffered death there, in a great defeat which
prince Eugene inflicted upon his army, August 5, 1716. The
same year, Eugene took Temesvar, and in August, 1717, he
annihilated the Turkish army before Belgrad, capturing the
town.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

The result was the Treaty of Passarowitz, signed in July,
1718. "Austria retained all its conquests, thus completing its
possession of Hungary by acquiring the Banat of Temesvar, and
adding to it Belgrad and a strip of Servia. The Turks, on
their side, kept the Morea, while Venice was confirmed in its
possession of Corfu and Santa Maura, together with the
conquests which it had made in 1717 in Albania and Dalmatia."

_R. Lodge,
History of Modern Europe,
chapter 16._

TURKS: A. D. 1730.
Accession of Mahmoud I.

TURKS: A. D. 1735-1739.
War with Russia and Austria.
Favourable Treaty of Belgrade.
Important acquisitions of Territory from Austria.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

TURKS: A. D. 1754.
Accession of Othman III.

TURKS: A. D. 1757.
Accession of Mustapha III.

TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.
War with Russia on behalf of Poland.
Concession of independence to the Crim Tartars.

The Poles, in their struggle with Catherine II. of Russia
found a strange champion in the Turk.

See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.

"The Sultan, Mustafa III., was opposed to intervention in
Poland; but his hand was forced by a rising in Constantinople,
and he declared war against Russia in October, 1768.
Hostilities were not commenced till the next year, and they
never assumed considerable proportions. The Turkish army was
in the last stage of inefficiency, and the Russians, who were
wholly unprepared for war, were little better. Galitzin, an
incompetent commander, defeated the grand vizier, and took
Khoczim after his first attack had been repulsed. His
successor, Romanzow, 'the Russian Turenne,' acted with greater
energy. He drove the Turks from Moldavia, and in 1770 he
occupied Wallachia, won a great victory over vastly superior
numbers at Kaghul [August 1, 1770], and advanced into the
Crimea. At the same time a Russian fleet appeared in the
Mediterranean with the avowed intention of restoring Greece to
independence. But the admiral, Alexis Orloff, mismanaged the
expedition. After encouraging the Greeks to rebel, he left
them to the horrors of a Turkish revenge, and sailed towards
Constantinople.
{3145}
A victory over the Turkish fleet gave him possession of Chios
and other islands of the Archipelago, but he refused, in spite
of his English officers, to attempt the passage of the
Dardanelles." In May, 1772, a truce was arranged and a
congress assembled to settle the terms of peace. "But the
Russian demands were too excessive for the Porte to accept,
and the Turks resumed hostilities in 1773. They attempted to
recover Moldavia and Wallachia, and for a time they succeeded
in forcing the Russians to retreat. Mustafa III. died in
December, and was succeeded by his brother Abdul Hamid. In the
next year Romanzow won a complete victory, and compelled the
grand vizier to accept the terms dictated to him at Kutschuk
Kainardji [July 16, 1774]. The Russians restored the conquered
provinces except Azof and Kinburn, only stipulating for
toleration for the Christian population. The Tartars of the
Crimea and Kuban were declared independent of the Porte, and
authorised to elect their own Khan. Russian ships were allowed
free passage through the Dardanelles, and the right of sailing
in the Turkish seas and on the Danube. Poland, for which the
Turks had undertaken the war, was not even mentioned in the
treaty."

_R. Lodge,
History of Modern Europe,
chapter 20, sections 11-12._

ALSO IN:
_F. C. Schlosser,
History of the 18th Century,
volume 4, pages 405-441._

See, also, RUSSIA: A. D. 1762-1796.

TURKS: A. D. 1774.
Accession of Abdul Hamid.

TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
Acquisition of the Crimea by the Russians.
War with Russia and Austria.
The Treaties of Sistova and Jassy.
Territorial concessions.

"A peace of some years followed the treaty of Kainarji, if,
indeed, that can be called peace where the most solemn
engagements are perpetually evaded. On that treaty Catherine
put what interpretation she pleased. … She offered her
protection to the voivods of Wallachia and Moldavia, who, in
consequence, were her vassals rather than those of the Porte.
The Christians on the opposite bank of the Danube were in
correspondence with Russia; they were encouraged to revolt, to
claim her protection, to oppose the Turkish government in
every way. … Though the Crimea had been declared independent,
she proved that the word had reference merely to the authority
of the sultan, and not to hers. … More than once … the Russian
troops appeared in that peninsula. In 1776 they deposed the
reigning khan, and elected in his stead another, who was
easily induced to solicit the protection of the empress.
Turkey threatened to resume the war. … At length … a new
treaty, or rather a modification of the former, was signed at
Constantinople in 1779. In it Russia promised to desist from
some of her obnoxious pretensions in regard both to the two
principalities and the Crimea; but promises cost little. …
Almost every year brought new complaints and evasions. The
foundation of the city of Cherson, about ten leagues from
Otzakof, gave peculiar umbrage to the Porte. This place had
now a population of 40,000; and the number of warlike vessels
constructed in its arsenal were evidently intended to overawe
Constantinople. In 1783 another insulting message was sent to
the Turkish ministers,—that, let the conduct of the empress in
regard to the Crimea be whatever it might, they should not
interfere. At the same time she prevailed on the khan whom she
had supported, Sahim Gherei, to make the most outrageous
demands from the Porte. The khan's envoy was beheaded. Under
the pretext of punishing the Turks for this insult to their
'good ally,' the Russians requested permission to march
through his territory. It was immediately granted; but no
sooner were they in the peninsula than, instead of proceeding
against the Turkish fortifications on the island of Taman,
they seized the towns, forced the Mahometan authorities, in
the khan's presence, to take the oath of allegiance to the
empress, and seized on the revenues of the country. … The khan
was now forced to resign his authority, and transfer it to
Catherine; in return, he received some estates in Russia. A
manifesto declared that the Crimea, Kuban, and Taman, were for
ever incorporated with the empire. In a document of some
length, and of great force, the Turkish ministry exposed to
the world the unprincipled encroachments of their neighbours."
But Russia responded to it by marshalling three great armies
on the frontiers, with an exhibition of formidable fleets in
the Euxine and the Baltic. "The Porte, terrified at this
menacing display, listened to the advice of France and
Austria; and, by another treaty (signed at Constantinople
early in 1784) recognised the sovereignty of the empress over
the Crimea, Taman, and a great part of Kuban. To the first and
last of these places she restored their ancient classical
names, Taurida and Caucasus." The treaty of Constantinople did
not put an end to Russian aggressions, and in August, 1787,
the Sultan declared war. "The campaign was opened with ardour.
Knowing that Otzakof would be the earliest object of
hostility, the Sultan sent a considerable force to cover it.
Another army marched to the Danube, and the vizier in person
took the field. … On the other hand, Potemkin, the
commander-in-chief, having under his orders some of the best
generals in the service, hastened to the frontiers, which were
soon covered by Russian troops. At the same time the emperor
Joseph [according to a prior agreement with Catherine] sent
80,000 Austrians into Moldavia; while a powerful fleet in the
Euxine prepared to co-operate with the allies, and another in
the Baltic was ready to sail for the Mediterranean. It seemed,
indeed, as if Catherine's favourite dream, the elevation of
her grandson Constantine to the throne of the Greek empire,
was about to be realised. Yet these mighty preparations had no
commensurate effect. An attack on Kinburn by 5,000 Turks from
the garrison of Otzakof was repulsed [by Suwarof] with heavy
loss. But this advantage was counterbalanced by the dispersion
of the Euxine fleet in a storm, with the loss of some vessels.
These were the chief events of the first campaign. The second,
of 1788, was more decisive. Otzakof was taken by assault, and
the garrison [with nearly all the inhabitants] put to the
sword. At the same time Joseph took Sobach; and his generals
captured Soubitza [Dubitza?]. On the deep, too, fortune was
equally adverse to the Turks. Their fleet was defeated in the
Euxine. … In the following campaigns the superiority of the
Russians was maintained. It would have been still more signal
but for the jealousy of Potemkin, who could not tolerate
success in any of his generals. … The death of Abdul Hamet,
and the accession of Selim III., made no difference in the
character of the war; it was still adverse to the Turks.
{3146}
Fortress after fortress [including Belgrade, taken by General
Loudon for the Austrians] was reduced by the enemy; and,
though no general engagement was risked, the loss of men was
not the less felt. Suwarof saved the Austrians [in Moldavia,
defeating the Turks, who had nearly overwhelmed them, at
Fockshani, July 30, and again at Rimnik, September 16, 1789];
Repnin forced the Seraskier, Hussein Pasha, to seek refuge in
Ismail; Komenski reduced Galatza; Ackerman fell into the power
of the Christians; Bender was forced to capitulate. In the
following campaign, the important fortress of Ismail was
assailed: the siege was conducted by Suwarof, the most dreaded
of all the Russian generals. … It was taken … though the loss
was most severe; and, in revenge, the garrison, with the
greater part of the population [nearly 40,000 in all], was put
to the sword. Other successes followed, both on the banks of
the Caspian, and on those of the Danube. Bohada was stormed;
at Kotzim 100,000 Turks were defeated by Repnin; Varna was
menaced; and the road to Adrianople lay open. The grand vizier
now sued for peace, which Catherine was ready to grant, on
conditions much less onerous than might have been expected."
Austria had already made peace with the sultan and withdrawn
from the war. By the treaty of Sistova, which the new emperor,
Leopold, signed on the 4th of August, 1791, the Austrians
relinquished all their conquests except the town of Old Orsova
and a small district in Croatia along the left bank of the
river Unna. With these slight variations the same boundary
between Austria and Turkey was reconstituted in 1791 that had
been defined by the treaty of Belgrade in 1739. The treaty of
the Turks with Russia was signed at Jassy on the 9th of
January 1792. "By that treaty, Catherine retained the whole
country between the Bog and the Dniester, but restored all the
other conquests which she had made since 1787. This was the
last of the hostilities between Russia and the Porte during
the reign of this empress; and the peace of Jassy enabled her
to carry into effect her designs on Poland."

_R. Bell,
History of Russia,
volume 2, chapter 11._

ALSO IN:
_Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 21._

_F. C. Schlosser,
History of the 18th Century,
period 5, division 1, chapter 2 (volume 6)._

_G. B. Malleson,
Loudon,
chapter 15._

TURKS: A. D. 1789-1812.
Attempted reforms of Sultan Selim III.
Their fate and his.
Palace revolutions.
Reign of Mahmud II.
War with Russia.

"Abd-ul-Hamid died on the 7th April, 1789, and was succeeded
by his nephew, Selim III (1789-1807). Although Selim had been
confined in the Seraglio by his uncle, he had been in other
respects well treated. His love of information and his natural
talents had induced him to carry on an active correspondence
with several servants of his father and his uncle. Their
information had, however, in no way satisfied him, and he had
commenced a correspondence with Choiseuil, the French envoy at
Constantinople in 1786, and had also sent his intimate friend
Isaac Bey to France, to enquire into the state measures and
administrative organization of that country. Selim had also
entered into correspondence with Louis XVI, and this lasted
till 1789, when the French Revolution broke out simultaneously
with Selim's ascension of the throne. All this throws a clear
light upon Selim's eventual exertions to cause reforms which
at last cost him both his throne and his life. His thirst for
knowledge leads us to presume that he was not deficient in
natural and sound talent. … But it was a mistake, that in his
pursuit of knowledge, and desire to improve the institutions
of Turkey—and the habits and character of its
inhabitants—Selim should have applied to France, and to
Frenchmen. That country was then on the eve of her great
revolution. Theories of all kinds were afloat. … Selim would
certainly have acted more wisely had he sought help from his
own sensible mind; he would have easily perceived the palpable
fact, that things which were suited for Christian nations were
utterly inapplicable to the rude, uncivilized Turks. …
Unfortunately ke set about the task with very different ideas,
and listened to the suggestions of the sciolists who
surrounded him. The first thing to which they drew his
attention was the formation of a council of state, which not
only restricted the power of the Grand Vizier, but that of the
Sultan, very materially. The Reis Effendi, Raschid, was the
soul of the council, and the boldest of these sciolists; and
he had perfect liberty to carry on the work of reform. He set
the printing presses again in activity which had been
introduced in a preceding reign, sent for French officers, who
founded an engineer academy, built arsenals and foundries, and
openly stated that he took science under his protection. But
his chief care was to form an army after the European fashion,
in order by their assistance to gain the mastery over the
Janissaries, in whom old customs and traditions found their
most zealous guardians. He took several steps, therefore, to
call into life the new military organization, called the Nizam
Djedid; and as money was required for the purpose, he laid a
tax on articles of consumption. This was quite sufficient to
cause the popular discontent to burst into a flame. The Ulema
declared themselves hostile to the Nizam Djedid, and Pashwan
Oglu, Pacha of Widdin, who placed himself at the head of the
Janissaries, openly rebelled against the Porte, which could
not effect anything to check him, but acquiesced in all that
was demanded. The extraordinary conquests of Napoleon diverted
attention from Turkey, and instead of seeking to divide the
dominions of a weak neighbour, the Great Powers of the
Continent were trembling for their own safety. Egypt became
the battle field between England and France [see FRANCE: A. D.
1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST), and 1801-1802], and its invasion by
Napoleon obliged the Turks to unite with the Allied Powers
against France. When the French were expelled from Egypt, that
province was restored to Turkey, and peace concluded between
the two Powers. Selim, under the influence of General
Sebastiani who was then French ambassador at Constantinople,
signed [seized?] what was considered by him a favourable
opportunity for renewing the war with Russia [see below], in
which, however, the Turks were defeated both by land and sea.
These misfortunes the Janissaries attributed to the new troops
or Seymens. … At the end of May, 1807, the chiefs of the
Janissaries and the Ulema had already formed their plans for
the overthrow of the Sultan, when Selim accelerated the
outbreak by going to the mosque on Friday, accompanied by a
body of Seymens and the French ambassador, Sebastiani.
{3147}
The Janissaries, aroused by this, broke out in open revolt,
which soon grew of such a menacing nature by the co-operation
of the Mufti, that Selim was compelled to promise the
abolition of the Nizam, and the heads of those of his advisers
who had promoted the measure. But the insurgents were not
satisfied with this: they demanded the abdication of the
Sultan, whom the Mufti declared unworthy to be a successor of
Muhammad, through his partiality for foreigners, and marched
to the Seraglio, to carry their designs into effect. But when
the Mufti and the Ulema entered it, they found a new Sultan.
Selim, under the conviction that he could not resist the storm
his attempts at reform had created, had retired to the Harem,
where his nephew, Mustapha, was confined, and led him to the
throne: he had then attempted to destroy his own life by a cup
of poisoned sherbet, but had been prevented by Mustapha, and
was led into the apartments of the Royal Princes, with a
promise that he should ever be treated as a friend and an
uncle. On the same afternoon, Sultan Mustapha III [IV] (who
reigned from 31st May, 1807, to 28th July, 1808) rode in
solemn procession for the first time to the great mosque, was
invested in the traditional manner with the sabre of Muhammad,
then immediately did away with the Nizam Djedid, and restored
the old customs. But among the Pachas in the provinces, there
were several devoted partisans of reform. The most influential
of these was Mustapha Bairaktar, Pacha of Rustchuk, who set
out in July 1808, at the head of 18,000 men, to restore Selim
to the throne. He succeeded in taking possession of the
capital, and keeping the Sultan so long in ignorance of his
designs, until he sent him orders to resign the throne in
favour of Selim. As the Sultan had only one hour allowed him
for consideration, he was so helpless that he followed the
advice of the Mufti and had Selim cruelly murdered. As the
gates of the Seraglio were not opened at the appointed time,
and Bairaktar hurried up to enforce his authority, Selim's
lifeless body was thrown over the wall. Upon this the Pacha
ordered the Seraglio to be stormed, seized the Sultan,
destroyed all those who had advised the abolition of the plans
of reform, and placed Mustapha's younger brother on the
throne. Mahmud II, the second son of Abd-ul-Hamid, was born on
the 2nd July, 1785, and was consequently twenty-three years of
age when he ascended the throne. … Mahmud appointed Mustapha
Bairaktar his Grand Vizier, and, regardless of the fate of his
predecessor, restored all the measures of reform which Selim
had undertaken. Within three months the Janissaries were again
in open rebellion, and on the night of the 14th November,
1808, attacked the Seymens, destroyed a great number of them,
and, after storming the new barracks, forced their way into
the Grand Vizier's palace. He fled and appealed to the people
for help, but the greater portion abused him as a renegade and
joined the rebels. Bairaktar recognised his impending fate,
but still ordered the execution of Mustapha, for fear he might
reascend the throne. After this he retired with a body of
Seymens into a stone tower, where he had before collected a
quantity of gunpowder. He defended himself here for some time,
but, at last, when the Janissaries rushed up in larger masses
to the attack, he blew up the tower. The Janissaries then
attacked the Seraglio, and, but for the fact that Mahmud was
the last legitimate descendant of the race of Osman, they
would have taken his life. But even this, probably, would not
have saved him, had he not sent a deputation to the insurgents
and given an unconditional assent to their demands. … As an
additional guarantee for his own safety on the throne,
ensanguined with the blood of his uncle and his brother,
Mahmud ordered his brother's son, a child of three months old,
to be strangled, and four of the Sultanas to be thrown into
the Bosphorus. The reign of Mahmud is one of the longest and
most important in the whole of Turkish history. It commenced
with war. The Emperor Alexander menaced him on the Danube: the
Hospodar of Servia, Czerny George, had rebelled against him.
The campaign of the Turks in 1809, was, consequently, not a
prosperous one. The contest lasted till 1812, when it was
ended by the treaty of Bucharest, which surrendered the whole
of Bessarabia, as far as the Pruth, to Russia. At the same
time the Russian protectorate of the Greek Christian subjects
of the Porte, which had been stipulated in the treaty of
Kudjuk Kainardji, was again confirmed."

_Sir J. Porter,
Turkey,
volume 1, pages 194-204._

ALSO IN:
_Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapters 21-24._

TURKS: A. D. 1798.
In the Coalition against France.
War declared.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL.).

TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.
Alliance with Napoleon, and hostilities with Russia and England.
British fleet before Constantinople.
Its humiliating retreat.
The English again in Egypt.
Disastrous failure of their expedition.

"Before the end of 1806, Russia had driven Selim into the arms
of France; and war was declared at the Porte just after
Napoleon's victories in Prussia had filled Alexander with
alarm. His troops had overrun some Turkish territory before
war was declared; but just at this juncture he wanted all his
forces for the defence of his own frontier. He dreaded the
effects of withdrawing them from the Turkish provinces, which
would immediately fight for France; but he must do it. He
besought the British to undertake another of those
'diversions' which began to sound so disagreeably to the ears
of Englishmen. … The Grenville Cabinet … gave orders to Sir
John Duckworth, then cruising off Ferrol, to join Admiral
Louis at the mouth of the Dardanelles. … Neither the efforts
of Sebastiani [French representative at Constantinople] … nor
any other warning that the English were coming, had roused the
Turks to make the slightest preparation. The ships sailed
proudly up the strait [February, 1807], undelayed by the fire
of the forts at the narrowest part of the channel, and
belching out flames and cannonballs as they went. They took
and burned some Turkish ships, and appeared before
Constantinople, to the horror of the whole population, who
were absolutely without means of defence. The Divan would have
yielded at once; but Sebastiani prevented it, and instigated a
negotiation which proved a fatal snare to Sir John Duckworth,
notwithstanding express warnings and instructions, strong and
clear, from Lord Collingwood.
{3148}
He was unwilling to destroy the city, and shoot down the
defenceless inhabitants; and he allowed himself to be drawn
on, from day to day, exchanging notes and receiving promises.
… Meantime, not a moment was lost by Sebastiani and the Turks,
whom he was instructing in Napoleon's methods of warfare.
Women and children, Christians and Mohammedans, worked day and
night at the defences; and in a few days the whole coast was
bristling with artillery, and the chance was over. … There was
nothing to be done but to get away as safely as they yet
might. … For thirty miles (reckoning the windings of the
channel) the ships ran the gauntlet of an incessant fire—and
such a fire as was never seen before. Stone balls, weighing
700 or 800 lbs., broke down the masts, crushed in the decks,
snapped the rigging, and amazed the hearts of the sailors. The
hills smoked from end to end, and the roar of the artillery
rolled from side to side. In another week, Sir J. Duckworth
declared in his dispatch, any return would have been
impossible. The news of this singular affair spread fast over
Europe. Every body thought the expedition gallantly conceived,
and miserably weak in its failure. … So ended the second of
the 'diversions' proposed under the Grenville Ministry. The
third legacy of this kind that they left was a diversion on
the side of Egypt. For some time, a notion had been gaining
ground, in the minds of English politicians, that the Sultan
would, some day soon, be giving Egypt to Napoleon, in return
for the aid afforded to Constantinople, on the Danube, and
elsewhere. Egypt was in an unhappy state. Mohammed Alee, the
Viceroy, was at feud with the Memlooks; and the Arab
inhabitants were made a prey of by both. The Grenville
Ministry thought that a diversion in that direction would be
of great service to Russia, and great injury to Napoleon; and
they confidently reckoned on being enthusiastically received
by the Arab inhabitants, and probably by the Memlooks also. In
laying their plans, however, they strangely underrated the
forces and the ability of Mohammed Alee; and they sent only
between 4,000 and 5,000 men to the mouth of the Nile, instead
of an army large enough to cope with the able and warlike
Pasha of Egypt, and his Albanian troops. The small British
force was drafted from the troops in Sicily. It landed without
opposition on the 17th of March, supposing that Sir John
Duckworth must by this time have conquered the Sultan, and
that his province of Egypt would come very easily into our
hands. No opposition was made to the landing of the troops,
and Alexandria capitulated immediately. Only seven lives were
lost on the British side. Within the city, however, no
provisions were found." A detachment of 1,200 men sent to
Rosetta for supplies were trapped in the city by Mohammed
Alee's Albanians, and 400 of them, with their general, were
shot down in the streets. Then Rosetta was besieged, with
results of disastrous failure and the loss of 1,000 or 1,200
more men. General Fraser, the Commander, "was discouraged from
home, and hourly harassed by the enemy. … More and more of the
enemy came up as his little force dwindled away; and at last,
on the appearance of a column which he was unable to
encounter, he sent out a flag of truce, with an offer to
evacuate Egypt on the restoration of the prisoners taken since
the invasion. This was in August, 1807; and in September the
last English soldier left the mouth of the Nile. By this time,
the Sultan had declared war against England, and had caused a
seizure of all the British property in his dominions."

_H. Martineau,
History of England, 1800-1815,
book 2, chapter 1._

TURKS: A. D. 1807.
Accession of Mustapha IV.

TURKS: A. D. 1807.
Schemes of Napoleon and Alexander I. at Tilsit
for the partition of Turkey.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

TURKS: A. D. 1808.
Accession of Mahmud II.

TURKS: A. D. 1821-1829.
Revolt and recovery of independence by the Greeks.
Battle of Navarino.
Treaty of Adrianople.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

TURKS: A. D. 1822-1823.
The Congress of Verona.

See VERONA, CONGRESS OF.

TURKS: A. D. 1826.
Reforms of Mahmud II.
Insurrection of the Janissaries.
Their subjugation and destruction.

"While the struggle in Greece was proceeding, Mahmud had been
busily engaged with his internal reforms, many of which were
of a nature to offend the prejudices of his subjects. His
great object was to give a European character to the
institutions and the manners of his country. He introduced the
western style of dress into Turkey; abandoned the use of the
turban, which Mohammedans generally regard with much
veneration; and gave musical and theatrical entertainments
within the sacred enclosure of the Seraglio. He resolved also
to recommence the military reforms of his uncle Selim, and
again to establish the Nizam Jedid, or body of troops
organized after European models. This last design roused once
more the savage fanaticism of the Janizaries. On the 15th of
June, 1826, when the Sultan and the Grand Vizier were in the
country, the dissatisfied troops rose in insurrection, and
committed great excesses. The Grand Vizier, hastily recalled
to the metropolis, took measures for vindicating his master's
authority, and at once found himself supported, not only by
the new troops, but by the Ulemas and Students. Mahmud arrived
shortly afterwards at the Seraglio, and by his orders the
Mufti unfolded the standard of the Prophet, and summoned all
faithful Mohammedans to rally round that holy symbol. The city
was soon divided into two hostile factions. The Janizaries
concentrated their forces in one of the great squares, and
threw up entrenchments. The supporters of the Sultan gathered
in their front, and an attack was made by ordnance, before
which the Janizaries retired into their fortified barracks,
where they continued to fight with the resolution of despair.
… The building was presently on fire from one end to the
other. The frightful struggle was continued in the midst of
the flames; all who endeavoured to escape were at once shot
down; and before the day was over 6,000 Janizaries had
perished at the hands of their fellow-troops. Fifteen thousand
who had not taken part in the movement were exiled to
different places in Asia Minor, and on the following day a
Hatti-Sherif pronounced the abolition of a corps which had
contributed so much to the military predominance of Turkey,
but which had at length become a source of internal danger too
great to be suffered."

_E. Ollier,
Cassell's Illustrated History of the Russo-Turkish War,
volume 1, chapter 23._

{3149}

TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.
Convention of Ackerman.
War with Russia.
Surrender of Varna and Silistria.
Disastrous battle of Koulevscha.
Treaty of Hadrianople.
Cessions of territory.