According to historians such as Victor Berard, Sinobs and Albert Sorel 17, the Ottoman Empire was doomed to division between the Russian and the Austrian empires, and it was only the advent of the French Revolution which saved it from complete destruction; just as the Russian revolution of 1917 preserved the remains of the Ottoman Empire and allowed the Turks to keep the Straits of Bosporus and the major part of Armenia.
The revolutionary wars and the expanding French Empire forced the sights of the Russian and Austrian armies away from Turkey and back towards Europe, granting the Turks a valuable interval of 25 years (1790-1815) to recuperate.
Even after this lull, the Ottoman Empire was saved from inevitable decay and disintegration by finding a valuable ally in Great Britain. The British, having strengthened their position in India, were intent on eliminating every other major power from the path which led to the jewel in the crown.
In order to protect the road to India, Great Britain defended a weakened Ottoman Empire, arguing that the latter was a suitable guard and strong enough to hold its post, but at the same time weak enough to not pose any threat to trade.
Gradually, the eastern Mediterranean became the main military district of Great Britain, a critical military area which occupied the minds of the English politicians as much as the military area of the Rhine occupied the French politicians. 18
According to the English, the defence of the road to India against the threat from the Russians should be concentrated in three places: the Straits of Bosporus, the Gulf of Eskanderun and the Persian Gulf. 19 Since occupation of the Armenian highland would give the Russians the possibility of threatening all three locations, England did its utmost, during the 19th century, to prevent, or at the very least delay, the Russian advancement in Asia Minor.
Hence the defence of the Ottoman Empire became the chief concern of Great Britain. This policy was advanced at the end of the 18th century by the politician Pitt, despite of the protests by Burke, Fox and Grey and was then continued by politicians such as Palmerston and Disraeli. 26
This policy was in direct contradiction to the sermon England preached during the 19th century to the rest of the world, advocating the protection of independence movements (for instance in South America, Italy and Poland) and taking the side of libertarian ideas. In this case, England closed its eyes to the wicked deeds perpetrated by the government in Constantinople and the misery which they caused.
Above all, it was control of the Bosporus Straits, which England at any cost did not wish to fall into Russian hands, and which was equally important for Russia to capture. 27
The Russian eye was drawn to the Bosporus and the Black Sea coast for historical reasons. Russia, regarding herself as the heir to Byzantine, believed herself destined to liberate celebrated Byzantine places from Turkish rule. (One could imagine a parallel reaction amongst Catholic countries if Rome and its sacred edifices had fallen into the hands of the Turks.) Russia was the heir of the Orthodox realm and, throughout the renaissance period, held onto the idea of liberating Constantinople, just as the Medieval Christian world constantly nurtured the thought of liberating Jerusalem. In fact, over the preceding centuries, it was the Balkan countries that had become the "Holy grounds" of Christianity.
|
