Jelavich, History of the Balkans, Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983)

Chapter 3: Balkan people under Ottoman and Habsburg rule: a comparison
 Chief question for Ottoman and Habsburg leaders in 18 th century was power balance
between central and provincial authorities – Habsburgs sought to gain control over estates
that it had never possessed previously, whereas the Ottomans attempted to reassert an
authority that they had once held.
 For both Habsburgs and Ottomans, military defeat or the threat of it brought about reforms
– to be able to better defend against enemies. Ottomans focused on military improvements,
Habsburgs aimed to alter political structure to increase tax revenue and conscription.
Reforms were largely unsuccessful – by end of Napoleonic wars, Ottomans still faced danger
of internal dissolution and outside aggression, Habsburgs still faced problems holding
together an empire of widely different provinces.

Chapter 4: The first national revolutions (1804-1887)

 Balkans dominated by theme of national revolt and formation of new Governments during
the period 1804-1887, leading to independent Greece, Serbia, Romania and autonomous
Bulgaria. Albanian national movement also arose.
 These were influenced by contextual wider European events of the time:
o 1) Formation of national and liberal ideologies.
o 2) Changing economic conditions
o 3) Intervention of European great powers and origin of Eastern Question.

National and liberal ideologies

 Nationalism had its basis in romanticism and historicism of 19 th century, whereas liberalism’s
origins was the Enlightenment of 18th century. Liberalism believed in certain ‘natural laws’ to
which the individual was entitled and which the state should serve to provide (and should be
bound to this by written constitutions) – emphasis on freedom of individual and protection
against the tyranny of Government or society. Nationalism took emphasis off the individual
and placed it instead on the collective entity of the nation (Herder’s conception of the Volk
and Volksgeist was major influence here). Nationalism wasn’t concerned with constitutions,
rather with the submission to the collective will of the nation (subsuming shared culture,
language, arts etc. and often manifested through a charismatic leader).
 Revolutionary movements in Europe in 19th century combined liberalism and nationalism,
despite the contradictions. Focus on breakup of feudal or autocratic regimes to be replaced
by constitutions governments, while accepting national basis for the state.
 Implication for Balkans from liberal and national ideology was the popular idea that
Habsburg and Ottoman empires should be dissolved and replaced by nation states with
constitutional governments.
 Ottoman and Habsburg rule had failed to totally suppress distinct cultures and histories
among the various constituent parts of the Balkans, partly thanks to Orthodox church which
acted as transmitter and preserver of past traditions, partly thanks to tight village
communities which maintained oral literature/storytelling tradition. In addition, scholars
became increasingly interested in studying Balkan history and language.
  Greece is a good example of cultural revival (given educational facilities, respect for learning
and rich history and language).
o Scholars like Adamantios Korais looked back to classical Greek (rather than
Byzantine Greek) civilisation, publishing seventeen volumes of classical texts in a
classic Greek linguistic form. He also developed artificial literary language
(katharevousa) which was designed to be adopted by future Greek state.
o Rigas Feraios was a revolutionary writer and agitator whose works were in the
vernacular and had a nationalistic and emotional outlook (e.g., his poem “War
Hymn”).
 Selection of which dialect would form the basis of the literary language was very significant
for each of the Balkan peoples. In all the national movements, language was the most
important attribute of nationality. In addition, the study or history (and historical
associations), and religious commonalities were the other main determinants of Balkan
nationality.
 While European ideology had similarities with Balkan revolutions, the revolutions
themselves were more a cause of local conditions and local history, rather than ‘copycat’
revolutions.

Economic conditions

 Increase in trade between Ottoman Empire and Europe increased in 18 th century, leading to
improvement of general economic conditions, and favourable opportunities for Balkan
merchants and seafarers. This was partly due to Treaty of Karlowitz (signed between
Habsburgs and Ottomans in 1699), which set new territorial boundaries and mandated
trade. Rise of Russia also contributed to trade increase, particularly between Russians and
Greeks.
 Commercial agreements were generally in favour of European, essentially blocking the
Ottomans from adopting protectionist policies.
 Lack of European knowledge of local languages or methods of doing business limited direct
engagement between Europeans and Ottomans, resulting in rise of intermediaries, many
from Balkans (e.g., Orthodox Greeks). Orthodox merchants also dominated Balkan-related
commerce with Habsburg Empire, largely due to Habsburg need for Balkan raw materials,
and lack of Habsburg to Balkan exports (as Habsburg goods weren’t needed or couldn’t be
afforded in Balkans). Comparatively few Habsburg or Ottoman Muslim merchants.
 Balkan merchants exported agricultural goods and raw materials primarily and imported
manufactured goods and colonial products. Commercial transactions took place generally in
city markets or trade fairs along trading routes. Orthodox merchants also formed important
part of population of Vienna and other Habsburg cities.
 Balkan Orthodox merchants within Ottoman empire were to have significant impact on
evolution of Balkans – their experience brought them political awareness about the
conditions that they operated under, helped them develop political ideologies.
Eastern Question

 Cluster of issues surrounding decline of Ottoman Empire, revolt of subjects, European

intervention became known as the Eastern Question – single biggest source of diplomatic
controversy and resulted in Crimean and First World Wars.
 European involvement – Habsburgs became more passive in first part of 19 th century,
despite concerns about Russian influence, largely given they had enough problems trying to
keep their diverse population together without adding further ethnic groups. Great Britain
turned attention to Balkans as means of preserving trade routes to the East (for colonial
purposes) and following victory over France. Suez Canal opened in 1869, along with
development of steam transport. Britain concerned about collapse of Ottoman empire
leading to Russian domination of Balkan peninsula (and as a result supported Ottomans).
 Russia’s concern was the formation of a European coalition leading to a military defeat (its
armies, society and economy were not as strong as they may have appeared – still quite
backward compared to western Europe). As a result, Russia trod carefully around Ottoman
empire, deploying diplomatic tactics to wield influence in Constantinople.
 Despite caution of all major powers, revolutionary movements continued to gain strength,
leading to civil suppressions coordinated by Metternich. Russia, Prussia and Habsburg
 Austrian shared common interest in maintaining conservative society and suppressing
uprisings.

Revolutionary situation in the Balkans

 Immediate causes of revolts arise from internal conditions in Balkan peninsula, particularly
Ottoman failure to maintain law and order in rural areas, which resulted in alternate local
political centres of government developing which commanded loyalty from inhabitants. In
turn, this led to a prevalence of armed militias. An expectation of European intervention also
encouraged revolutionary behaviours.

First Serbian uprising (1804-1813)

 The first successful Balkan national revolution.

 Serbs had large armed force with military experience from fighting with Habsburgs in late
18th century. Some autonomous rights had already been secured from Ottoman sultan in
1790s (e.g., could collect own taxes).
 First revolt was result of three-sided conflict between Serbs, janissaries and
pasha/traditional muslim/Ottoman officials, with initial uprising in Spring 1804, during which
Serbian militia responded to aggression from janissaries (who themselves were defying the
Ottoman government as part of a broader shift towards breakdown of janissary discipline).
At this time, their goal was limited to expulsion of janissaries (along with fulfilment of other
autonomous powers already granted), though over time confidence grew, and in 1805
foreign assistance was sought (recognition of autonomy from great power) and Serbs tried
to win over fellow Balkans for their cause.
 Faced with this rising threat, Ottoman Emperor decides to suppress rather than support
Serbs and sends in military, but Serbian troops are victorious – this is first real moment of
revolution. Belgrade was captured in 1806.
 In 1807, Russia and Serbia reached agreement in which Russians committed to supporting
Serbian rebels and assured them of Russian influence into the future, signalling that Serbia
was abandoning any plan to negotiate with Ottomans and was pursuing Russian-backed full
independence, though this was subsequently undermined by Napoleon-backed peace treaty
between Russia and Ottoman empire.
 Reversal of fortunes in 1809, as Serbian leadership (Karadjordje) weakened, allowing
Ottoman army to march on Belgrade.
 Russia gets distracted in 1810 by threat of French invasion, with Serbia becoming a second-
order issue for them.
 Ottomans take advantage to recapture Belgrade in October 1813. This marks the end of the
first Serbian revolution (1804-1813).
 Second Serbian uprising (1815-1817)
 Resulted from Ottoman pasha executing a local uprising. Serbians under Milos Obrenovic
revolted, and successfully secured international backing. A peace treaty followed which
established Serbia as a semiautonomous state (albeit still closely bound to the Ottoman
Empire).
Revolution in the Danubian Principalities (1821), A.K.A. Wallachian Uprising of 1821

 Greek society was split into inhabitants of Greece proper, and wider diaspora (including
Phanariots) who enjoyed privileges of Ottoman empire. Both groups played a role in the
revolution.
 Filiki Etairia (Friendly Society) was an organisation founded in 1814 by three Greek
merchants, with the objective of organising an uprising against Ottoman Empire to establish
a Greek state with Constantinople as capital. The society had massive success, with the
leader of the group Alexander Ypsilantis asserting links into the Russian leadership (claiming
Tsar Alexander I was the secret head of the society), which helped to recruit influential
members. The Phanariots (influential Greeks who had gained social status within Ottoman
Empire) naturally supported the national movement too. Native boyars – who were largely
ambivalent towards the Ottomans but mostly concerned with local political authority - and
oppressed peasants – who had social goals (e.g., tax/landholding rights) were the other key
groups who were favourable towards the idea of national independence (though not all with
the same idea for what this should look like).
 As in Serbia, local militias had formed during late 18 th century, including the legally
supported ‘pandours’, who received salaries from the Empire and numbered 6000 men by
1811.
 The uprising led by Filiki Ekairia and Ypsilantis commenced in, partly due to local support,
partly to try to drum up fellow Balkans who could then together march south to Greece.
Belief in Russian support was widespread. Ypsilantis also claimed that a large Russian force
would be following.
  Tudor Vladimirescu, a member of the pandour militia, became principal Romanian leader in
the revolution. His own movement differed slightly from Ypsilantis and the Filiki Etairia, as it
had a larger peasant presence and was concerned more with social rather than national or
political goals; its target was Bucharest. As Ypsilantis did too, he assured his followers of
Russian approval.
 However, on 17 March 1821, Russians denounced the revolts (possibly influenced by
Metternich).
 Vladimirescu arrived in Bucharest on 2 April with 65000 men, Ypsilantis met with him on 20
April, but this only served to accentuate their disagreements (with Vladimirescu clear that he
did not wish to challenge Ottoman rule – Ypsilantis did, and without Romanian support,
risked defeat).
 Ottoman armies entered the country on 13 May as part of an organised response to the
uprisings, leading both Ypsilantis and Vladimirescu to flee to the mountains. Ypsilantis
organised the kidnap and execution of Vladimirescu on 8-9 June. As it became clear that
there was no hope of victory, many supporters (mostly peasants) simply deserted, leading to
the capture of Ypsilantis who then spent the rest of his life in an Austrian prison.
 Ottomans had total control by the end of June 1821 and commenced massive reprisals
against the population (including Orthodox authorities, e.g., the Patriach of Constantinople
was hanged). This prompted anger in Russia, which saw itself as a protectorate of Orthodoxy
(as stipulated in the treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji too), leading to breakdown of diplomatic
relations between Russia and Ottomans in August 1821.

Greek Revolution

 Although Danubian principalities uprising collapsed, similar movement was having greater
success in Greek lands. Conditions here were more favourable: particularly thanks to strong
local community government. Although, this also had its downsides, as Greeks from Rumeli,
the Peloponnesus and the islands formed separate groups with their own interests and
objectives. A fourth grouping was the Greek diaspora and the Phanariots.
 As in the Principalities, conditions were favourable for revolt: there was considerable
autonomy already, the land was largely in Greek hands, and there were local military forces
in the region already.
 Revolution began in 1821 with attacks from Greeks on Muslim residents of the
Peleponnesus. At first, no major Ottoman military response, much focus was on defeating Ali
Pasha in the western Balkans, but following his capture and execution in 1822, focus turned
to Greece. Ottomans struggled to defeat rebels though, due to inability to use sea routes
(Ottoman navy was weak, many Greek ships acted as pirates) which limited campaigns to
using overland routes, where they were easy targets for Greek guerrilla fighting.
 By 1825, there was a stalemate, so the Ottomans turned to Egypt for military support who
provided this (in return for the promise of Ottoman lands). This led to Greek defeats and the
prospect of the revolt being crushed.
 There had been attempts to draw up formal constitution since 1821 but the first truly
national government only formed in February 1828, with John Capodistrias as president (a
former Russian foreign minister, he left Russian service after the Tsar’s denunciation of the
Greek revolt and was a Greek national patriot primarily). Before he was assassinated in
1831, Capodistrias drew up plans for a centralised government and national administrative
system, including deciding that Greece should be a constitutional monarchy. It was decided
that the monarch should be a foreign prince (as there would never have been agreement on
 a native one). Leopold of Saxe-Coburg was considered but refused, instead becoming King of
Belgium.
 France, Britain, and Russia all had interests in the region, and supported military action
against Ottoman and Egyptian forces and the formation of the Greek government. Greece
differed from Serbian and Principalities for this reason (the latter two were more an
Ottoman-Habsburg-Russian trilateral concern, not a truly pan-European issue). Philhellenism
as part of the Romantic movement in western Europe played an important role in pressuring
western Governments to act, many of whom had been educated in Classics and saw Greece
not as the modern Balkan state it was but the antique Greece of myths and heroes. Lord
Byron was important in Britain in this respect (and went to Greece to fight, dying at
Misolonghi in 1824). Britain also had practical reasons to enter the conflict: its
Mediterranean trade had been disrupted and it sought stability.
 In 1827, Britain, France and Russia had set up a naval blockade to put pressure on Ottomans
and Egyptians, which triggered a naval battle at Navarino Bay. Ottomans responded with
anger and anti-Western sentiment, with most anger directed at Russia, and warring
commencing in 1828. The Treaty of Adrianople in September 1829 brought peace, as well as
recognition of an autonomous status for Greece.
  In February 1830, there followed the Treaty of London, at which Britain, France and Russia
settled the form of government and the territorial boundaries for the newly independent
Greece, with Otto of Bavaria named as the new King, and the three powers as joint

protectors. At first, it was small and relatively weak, but the formal formation of the state
formed the basis for future political development.

Conclusions

 First national revolutions had had a measure of success, though not what original organisers
had intended.
o Serbia had gained rights, but not fully autonomous status.
o In the Principalities, Greek-led revolt and peasant rebellion had failed, but Phanariot
regime was brought to an end and a native government installed.
o Greece had lost a lot of influence and was dependent on foreign protectors but had
gained formal independence.
 The uprisings showed that – without clearly defined objectives – it was hard for the Balkan
rebels to get what they wanted. They also showed the violence that revolutionaries were
prepared to use, including on innocent and defenceless people.