nMnMMmKMMM PROFUSELY i aMMMMM ■ in 1 m OP SO <:* READING WAR PLACARDS AT CONSTANTINOPLE HISTORICAL NARRATIVE TURKO RUSSIAN WAR. A HISTORY OF THE WAR COMMENCED IN APRIL, 1877, BETWEEN RUSSIA AND TURKEY ; PRECEDED BY A SUMMARY OP THE EVENTS WHICH LED UP TO THE OUTBREAK OF HOSTILITIES, INCLUDING THE SERVIAN AND MONTENEGRIN CAMPAIGNS OF 18T6. WITH CHAPTERS UPON THE CONSTITUTION AND EESODRCES OF THE TWO EMPIRES, THEIR NATIONAL HABITS AND CUSTOMS, AND THEIR RELATIONS WITH THE REMAINING STATES OF EUROPE. •V o Xj xj ivd: E3 I, X^ O 1ST TD CD 1ST z ADAM & CO., 14, IVY LANE, AND NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE. i > o 8e»^ Chap. Page Introduction ... ^ ^, ... „, .., ... 1 I. The Empire op Tueket .„ ... ... ... ... ... 3 Sect. 1. Turkey in Europe ... ... ... ... ... ... 3 " 2. Turkey in Asia and Africa ... ... ... ... ... 5 " 3. The Races of European Turkey ... ... ... ... ... 5 " 4. Turkish Conquests ... ... ... ... ... g " 6. The Character of Turkish Conquests .,, ... ... ... 23 II. Reliqion, Government, and Manners of the Turks ... ... ... 24 Sect. 1. Religion .,, ... ... ... ... ... ... 24 " 2. Government ... ... ... ... ... ... 29 III. The Russian Empire ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 40 IV. Former TuRKO-RussiAN Wars ... ... ... ... ... 55 V, The Christian Insurrections (1875-6) ... ... ... ... ... 70 VI. Bulgaria ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 77 VII. English Policy ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 88 VIII. The Servian War ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 94 IX. Montenegro ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 103 X. The Outbreak OP Wak ... ... ... .. ... ... lOG XI. On the Danube ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 113 XII. British Interests ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ]2G XIII. The First Advance in Armenia ... ... ... ... ... ... 134 XIV. The Caucasian Revolt ... ... ... ... ... ... 140 XV. The Crossing op the Danube .. ... ... ... ... ... 144 XVI. The War IN Montenegro ... ... ... ... ... ... 153 XVII. More Negotiations ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ici CONTENTS. Chap. Page XVIII. The Advance into Buloaria ... ... ... ... ... ... 173 XIX. Rdssian Reverses in Asia ... ... ... ... ... ... 182 XX. GouRKO Across the Balkans ... ... ... ... ... 139 XXI. OsMAN Pacha at Plevna ... ... ... ... ... ... 2O8 XXII. The Depknob op the Schipka Pass ... ... ... ... ... 219 XXin. Mehemet Ail's Advance ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 230 XXIV. Public Opinion m Turkey ... ... ... ... ... ... 237 XXV. Public Opinion in Russia ... ... ... ... ... ... 248 XXVI. Opinion in England ... ... ... ... ... ... 266 XXVII. Thr Roumanian Advance ... ... ... ... ... ... 275 XXVIII. The Third Attack on Plevna ... ... ... ... ... 283 XXIX. Turkey and Greece ... ... ... ... .. ... ... 306 XXX. Montenegrin Successes ... ... ... ... ... ... 330 XXXI. The Second Siege op Ears ... ... ... ... ... ... 342 XXXIT. The Last Lull IN Bulgaria ... ... ... ... ... ... 370 XXXIII. The Investment of Plkvna ... ... ... ... ... ... 378 XXXrV. The Army of Relief ... ... ... ... ... ... 385 XXXV. The Fall of Plevna ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 403 ^XXVI. The Horrors of War ... ... ... ... .. ... 414 XXXVII. The Results op Plevna ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 428 XXXVIII. The Advance on the Balkans ... ... ... ... ... 441 XXXIX. End of the Asian Campaign ... ... ... ... ... ... 460 HISTORY OF THE TURKO-RUSSIAN WAR. INTRODUCTION. A FEW words will be sufficient to show why this " History of the Turko-Russian War " is undertaken — what it will attempt to do, and on what grounds it has appeared that a popu- lar account of the Eastern question would be welcome to English readers. The interest aroused in this country by the struggle between Turkey and Russia is complex in its nature. It arises, in part, from the fact that the condition of the Turkish empire is sup- posed to have an important bearing upon the safety of our great Indian dependency; partly from the fact that Russia is believed by some to have aggressive designs upon British India ; and partly, again, from the unalterable belief of many Englishmen that Russia will never rest until she secures the possession of Constanti- nople. Whatever force there may be in these arguments — and it is not the aim of the present work to enter into any controversy of a political character, or to advocate the special views of any political party — there can be no doubt that they have commended themselves to a vast num- ber of persons, and that they have been main- tained with great tenacity, not only by Conser- vatives, but also by a considerable body of Liberals. On the other hand, there are many who beheve that the danger to England of Rus- sian aggression has been greatly exaggerated; that Russia cannot contemplate anytlaing so wild as an attack upon our Indian empire ; that she does not even desire to possess Constantinople ; that, at all events, the other great powers of i 1 Europe are as much concerned as England in preventing her from establishing herself on the Bosphorus ; that, in the present war, she has not been guided by aggressive motives ; that, however unworthy by her past history to be considered as the champion of humanity and civilisation, she does, in fact, occupy that proud position; that, on this account, she deserves our sympathy up to a certain point, and aU the more so because, in the opinion of many, our attack upon her in the Crimean war was an act of folly, if not of injustice. Add to this, that the crimes of Turkey against her Christian subjects in Europe, culminating in the terrible massacres in Bulgaria in the spring of 1876, aroused the indignation of Englishmen to fever-heat, and it will readily be admitted that the interest felt in the last phase of the Eastern question by those who sympathise with Russia must be as great as the interest of those who have steadily re- fused to give Russia credit for any but the most selfish designs. The divergence of opinions amongst English- men in these respects has been as remarkable as anything of the kind recorded in the annals of our history. We have always prided ourselves on the manner in which we have stood together in the presence of any actual danger from the enemies of our country, and sho'wn a firm and united front to any foreign nation from whom there might be reason to anticipate a hostile movement. In this case, however, from the moment when the Christian dependencies of Turkey were seen to be thoroughly aroused against their rulers, and more especially from mSTORY OF THE TURKO-EUSSIAX WAR. the moment -when the irregular troops of the Porte had suppressed the insurrection i)i Bul- garia ^nth such desperate cruelty, a strong feel- ing -was manifested throughout the country, not onl)- in condemnation of Turkish misgovernment, but also emphatically demanding that England should never take another step in the defence of Turkey against her enemies. The agitation of the public mind during the autumn of 1876, ag- gravated as it was by the fact of its proceeding chiefly from the Liberal party, naturally did much to embarrass the Conservative government. This government was too much attached to the long- recognised Eastern poHcy of England, which deemed the maintenance of Turkish integrity and independence necessary to the imperial in- terests of the country, to yield without reluctance to the abaudomneut of that policy. Lord Bea- consfield, and one or two of his colleagues, made the mistake of holding public opinion too light- ly ; whilst some of the Liberal leaders, on their part, made the opposite mistake of thinking that a policy could be thrown aside as easily as a bill in Parliament. The controversy became very bitter, and much was said and done on both sides which the sayers and doers have no doubt, in their calmer moments, regretted. Nevertheless, the upshot of the agitation Avas that the former policy of England in Eastern Europe, in accordance -with which we had spent so much blood and money dimng the Crimean war, was seen to be no longer tenable. The vast majority of Englishmen, and a considerable ma- jority in the two houses of Parliament, recognised the fact that this countr)' could never make it- self the ally of the Porte for the mere purpose of propping up the corrupt Turkish empii-e. In so far as our interests abroad — that is to say, chiefly, in India — had been supposed to be iden- tified with the interests of Turkey, it was acknow- ledged that we were precluded by the higher interests of civilisation and morality from de- fending them. The great question for England then became a question as to where our interest in Turkey must for the future be considered to begin and end. The steps which have been taken towards the solution of this question — whether by the eflForts of English statesmen, or by the force of circumstances — Avill be found recorded in the follo'n'ing pages. Meanwliile, the controversy to which refer- ence has been made did not cease to rage in England. It was maintained by the bulk of the Liberal party, in and out of Parliament, with Mr. Gladstone for their principal expon- ent; and they justified what their opponents declai-ed to be a partisan or an unpatriotic course by declaring their belief that the govern- ment were still unduly inclined to encourage Turkey, both directly and by the display of suspicion and jealousy against Eussia. They further asserted that the attempt of the great powers to bring Turkey to reason without a war had been frustrated in great measure by the fact that the English government had re- fused to enter heartily into any scheme proposed by Eussia for the settlement of the difficulty. Turkey, they said, would not have resisted all Europe, and would not have ventured upon a war -R-ith Eussia, if she had not been convinced that England would sooner or later come to her assistance ; and the English government had made itself in part responsible for the war, by failing to make the Porte understand that our alliance "svith it was absolutely impossible. It is, of course, not to be supposed that Eng- lish opinion on the Eastern question is fully or accurately described as a heated controversy — a contest between opposing ideas, and a constant appeal to the judgment or passions of the masses. There is a higher view than this — a view which does more credit to our heads and hearts, and which is at the same time more thoroughly true. The wisest and most candid men of both political parties, as well as those who belong to no party, began to see distinctly — in 1S76, if not years before — that the great problem con- nected with the rule of Turkey in Europe, which had been a souixe of trouble to every European power in almost every generation, was at length ripe for solution. They saw that the men of to- day had inherited the Eastern question from TBE EMPIRE OF TURKEY. their forefathers — that the difficulties so long shirked must be fiurly faced at last, and that the evils so long borne could be endured no longer. They saw that the Ottoman power had been put to the test and found wanting ; it had had every opportunity of conciliating its subjects and its neighbours, and of creating a moral right over the countiy which it had wrested by physical force, and it had failed. They saw, in short, that the time had come when the utter hopelessness of Turkish rule had been made apparent ; and they consequently rose above the clamour and distractions of party, and waited with calmness for the issue of events. Such, in outline, is the course of public opi- nion in England during the recent crisis, and the strength with which this opinion has been urged or entertained is sufficiently accounted for by the fact that England has at least as much concern in the Eastern question as any power in Europe. The interest naturally attaching to such a war as that between Eussia and Turkey is magnified in no small degree by the heated controversy which has been carried on in this country; and there can be no doubt that a " History of the Turko- Russian War" will command a closer attention from Englishmen than the account of any strug- gle between foreign powers in which they have no direct concern. The following narrative will deal not only with the war itself, of which it will be to some ex- tent a contemporary record, but also with tlie Eastern question in its earlier and later phases. It will also treat, with a certain amount of detail, of the nations and races which play the leading parts in the momentary conflict. Of Eussia and Turkey, their geographical features, their customs and governments, their subject populations, and the leading points of then- his- tory, so much may with advantage be said as Anil serve to throw a stronger light on their hereditary enmities and their constantly-re- newed struggles. A mere account of battles and sieges, with more or less military detail, and more or less disquisition on the Ansdom or folly of the generals, might possibly be of greater value a7id interest to a few. The pre- sent A\ork aims simply at being a comprehensive and popular sketch of the whole question. Its object -svill be achieved if it succeeds in being readable, entertaining, and at the same time accurate in the statement of facts. The compiler desires to acknowledge at the outset the obligations Avhich he must necessarily incur towards the authors of a number of re- cent books dealing with various sections of the subject. The titles of these books will be found quoted from time to time as the work proceeds. CHAPTER I. THE E5IPIRE OF TURKEY. The Ottoman dynasty holds sway over a vast extent of territory, occupying adjacent portions of Europe, Asia and Africa, and having outlets upon the eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea, and the Persian Gulf. The whole population is esti- mated at over forty millions, which includes both the direct subjects of the Porte and the inhabit- ants of the countries only nominally dependent upon the Sultan. The total area of the empire is about thirty thousand geographical square miles.* Sect. 1. Turlcey in Europe. The Turks themselves give the name of Rou- melia to their European possessions as a whole ; the word being derived from the Greek-speaking Roumans (Eomam) conquered by the Ma- homedans on their first incursion from Asia. To this day the followers of the Prophet through- out Southern and Western Asia speak of the Sultan of Turkey as the Sultan of Roum. The country directly subject to the Porte is divided into ten vilayets, in addition to the separate metropolitan district of Constantinople. These vilayets comprise (1.) The vilayet of the DaJiube, * For the preliminary details concemiug the Turkish em- pire, I am indebted in part to the Introduction of 3Ir Zilaccoll's " Eastern Question." HISTORY OF TEE TURKO-RUSSIAN WAR. or Bulgaria, bounded by the River Danub.e, the Black Sea, the Balkans, and Servia; (2.) Adri- anople, south of the Balkans, stretching from the Black Sea and the district of Constantinople to Selanik; (3.) Selanik, or Salonica, corres- ponding partly to the ancient Macedonia; (4.) Monastir, west of Selanik, and extending to Scutari and Yanina; (5, 6.) Scutari and Yanina, corresponding Avith Albania and Epirus, sloping down to the Adriatic, and extending from Mon- tenegro on the north to Greece on the south ; (7.) Bosnia, including Turkish Croatia; (8.) Herzegovina, bounded by Bosnia, Dalmatia and Montenegro; (9.) The islands of the eastern Archipelago, excepting Samos; and (10.) The island of Crete. The population of these several districts, -with the respective proportions of Mussulman and •non-Mussulman inhabitants, has been estimated as follows* (though it is right to say that, ac- cording to other accounts, the proportion of Mussulmans to non-Mussulmans in Eui'ope is reckoned as low as one in seven) : — Total. 1,594,186 2,591,116 1,232,458 497,970 1,436;700 1,407,596 400,000 1,200,000 212,000 420,000 4,828,416 6,163,610 10,992,026 Taking this estimate as approximating to the truth, it appears that the subjects of Turkey in Europe professing the Mahomedan faith are con- siderably less numerous than those of other creeds — who, Avith the exception of about a quar- ter of a million Jews and gypsies, may be set * In " The Pi-esent State of the Ottoman Empire," by Ubicini and de Courteille ; published in France. Vilavets. Mussulmans. Non- Mussulmans. Adrianople ... 603,110 . 991,076 Danube 1,055,650 1,535,466 Bosnia and "i Herzegovina/ 619,044 613,414 Salonica . ... 249,656 248,314 Yanina 501,498 935,202 Monastir. 795,986 611,610 Scutari 176,000 224,000 Constantinople 620,000 580,000 Crete 93,112 118,888 Islands 114,360 305,640 down as Christians. The majority of the Chris- tiaias belong to the Greek Church ; whilst those who are described as Mahomedans include a large number of '*' converts " from Christianity, who have frequently adopted the creed of their conquerors in order to be left secure in the pos- session of their property. Of the vassal states of Roumania and Servia, and of Montenegro, more will have to be said hereafter. They are included in the following estimate of the entire population of European Turkey, as given by Mr. Lewis Farley.* Ottomans ... Slavs Greeks Albanians Roumanians Armenians . Jews Tartars ... Gypsies 1,150,000 7,200,000 1,450,000 1,500,000 4,000,000 400,000 70,000 16,000 , 214,000 16,000,000 The religious creeds are distributed, according to the same authority, as under : — Mussulmans Greek Church and Armenians Roman Catholics Jews, &c 3,200,000 11,600,000 890,000 240,000 15,930,000 This is evidently an estimate in round num- bers ; and it may be said with respect to the population of Turkey in general, that nothing like certainty can be obtained. It is worth Avliile, however, to observe, before we pass on, how large a stake the Slav race possesses in the coun- tries under the direct rule or the suzerainty of the Sultan. This important race overlaps the frontiers of Austria ; a fact, as Ave shall see fur- ther on, which forms one of the chief disturbing elements in the Eastern question. * " Tiu-ks and Christians." THE EMPIRE OF TURKEY. Sect. 2. Turkey in Asia and Africa. Asiatic Turkey consists of Asia Minor, Arme- nia, Kurdistan, Syria and Araljia. It is bounded on the north and west by the Black Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea, and on the east by Transcaucasian Eussia, Persia, and the Persian Gulf. African Turkey consists of the viceroyalty of Egypt and the States of Tripoli and Tunis. The mode and degree of Turkish rule in its widely extended dominions is very various. The vila- yets of Europe and the whole of the Asiatic pro- vinces are reckoned as the direct possessions of the Porte ; the three African States are independ- ent in every respect except the payment of an annual tribute, and the supply of a contingent of troops in time of war ; whilst Servia and Roumania are held liable for the tribute, but not for the contingent. The Turkish government has estimated the entire population of its empire as follows : — Europe Asia Africa 18,487,000 16,463,000 6,050,000 41,000,000 According to the French work already quoted, the distribution of races, excluding the tributary States, is as follows : — 1. The Turkish group (Ottomans, Turkomans and Tartars) ... 14,020,000 2. The Greek-Latin 3,520,000 3. The Slavs (Croats, Serbs, Bul- garians, Cossacks) 4,550,000 4. The Georgians (Circassians, &c.) 1,020,000 5. The Hindus, or Gypsies 212,000 6. The Persians (Armenians, Kurds, Druses, &c.) 3,620,000 7. The Semitic group (Jews, Arabs, Syrians, &c.) 1,611,000 28,553,000 Of these twenty-eight and a half millions, about eighteen and a half are reckoned as Mussulmans, and nine and a half as Christians. The latter are thus divided:— Greek Church, 3,225,000; Bulga- rian Christians, 2,920,000 ; Armenians, 2,450,000; Roman Catholics, 670; Protestant, 5,000 ; and the remainder belong to other Christian sects. Sect. 3. The Races of Eiiropean Turkey. One principal reason for the weakness of the Turkish empire is the fact that its populations are, to a large extent, distinct from each other in race, language, religion, and manners. If the rule of Turkey had been a firm, judicious and benevolent rule, these various populations might have become welded together by common inte- rests. If the government of Turkey had been well-defined, equal and just — if there had been any religious tolerance, any open career for the industry and talent of her subjects, any en- couragement or security for trade, any sure guarantee for property and life — the whole peo- ple would have grown together into a united nation, as the people of other states, in Western Europe especially, have done. But, instead of a strong and just rule, these wretched popu- lations on the south-east of Europe have been tormented and harassed for five centuries by the most oppressive and obscene tyranny which was ever exercised, during so long a period, in any country in the world. The Turkish conquerors have looked upon and employed their victims as so many beasts of burden. They have never made a serious attempt to govern them for any other purpose than to drain them of their pro- perty as fast as they could accumulate it. The Sultan and his ministers have perpetually ex- acted tributes and taxes, entirely indifferent as to whether the unhappy people were prosperous or the reverse; and the officials throughout the country have fully comprehended that the great, if not the only important object of their appointment Avas to force as much as possible from every one, and from the despised Christian rayahs in particular. But this is not by any means the worst form of oppression to which the Turks have subjected their victims. Neither MISTORY OF TSE TURKO-RTTSSIAN WAR. life nor liberty has been respj^cted by the bar- barous conquerors, from the date of their first successes in the fourteenth century down to the present day. For a long five hundred years the honour of no man, and the chastity of no woman, has been safe against the rage and lust of Ma- homedan hordes. Further on, we shall have oc- casion to go more deeply into this subject ; but for the present we have merely to consider what the people of South-eastern Europe originally were, before the Asiatic invaders imposed upon them their baneful tyranny. To go back to the twelfth century, we find the map of Europe presenting a marked contrast to its present configuration. The later Greek em- pire, which was called the Byzantine empire, from the ancient name of Constantinople (By- zantium), included the whole promontory of modern Turkey and Greece, having for its northern boundary the line of the Balkan Mountains, continued to the Adriatic Sea at a point adjacent to Scodra, the present Scutari. This empire extended into Asia Minor, in eluding the coast from Khodes to Sinope, and stretching inland to the borders of the kingdom of Koum — or, as it was sometimes called from the name of its most numerous inhabitants, the Seljucian empire. On the north of the By- zantine empire in Europe, two kingdoms occu- pied the belt of territory between the Balkans and the Danube, from the Black Sea to the Adriatic. The kingdom of Bulgaria stretched from the mouths of the Danube westward about as far as the Timok; whilst Servia, in addition to its present limits, ran south as far as Sophia, and included the shores of the Adriatic between Eagusa and Scutari. Centuries and centuries before this time we find the districts occupied by races whose names are familiar to us in the history of ancient Greece. The Tliracians held the country south of the Balkans, as far west as the modern Kara Su Eiver, and the Despoto-Dagh Mountains, wliich formerly went by the name of Ehodope. The Macedonians dwelt west of the Tliracians, ex- tending south to Mount Olympus, and westward nearly as far as Lake Ochrida; the twenty-first meridian separating them from the lUyrians, who held a long strip of territory on the coast of the Adriatic, corresponding approximately to the modern Dalmatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, and Albania. The modern Servia and Bulgaria roughly answer to what was known as upper and lower Moesia; whilst, north of these, the Dacians peopled the left banks of the Danube, extending far into modern Hungary. Now, between the two periods to which these two configurations of South-eastern Europe refer, the Byzantine empii'e was founded. The later Eoman emperors turned their attention to Byzan- tium more than once. Severus laid it in ruins in the year 196 A. C. Constantine rebuilt it be- tween 324 and 330, and called it after his own name. Sixty-five years later, Theodosius divided his wide empire amongst liis sons; from which time forward the Eastern Eoman Empire was separated from the Western, preserving its inde- pendence until the year 1453, when the last emperor gave place to Sultan Mahomet II. Of the Eoman conquests in what is now the Turkish empire, Mr. E. A. Freeman gives us a concise account in his recently published work on the "Ottoman Power in Europe." "In East- ern Europe the Eomans found a nation more civilised than themselves, a nation which they conquered politically, but to which in everything else they were as ready to look up as the nations of the west were ready to look up to them. This was the Greek nation. When the Eomans conquered the south-eastern lands they found there three great races — the Greek, the lUyrian, and the Thracian, Those three races are all there still. The Greeks speak for themselves. The Ulyrians are represented by the modem Albanians. The Tliracians are represented, there seems to be every reason to believe, by the modern Eoumans. Now, had the whole of the south-eastern lands been inhabited by IDy- rians and Thracians, those lands would doubt- less have become as thoroughly Eoman as the western lands became. There would be in the East Eomance and Slavonic nations, as there TSE EMPIRE OF TURKEY. are in the West Romance and Teutonic nations, with perhaps some fragments and survivals of Illyrian and Thracian lingering on, as Basque and Breton have lingered in the west. But the position of the Greek nation, its long history and high civilisation, hindered this. The Greeks could not become Romans in any but the most purely poKtical sense. Like other subjects of the Roman empire, they gi'adually took the Roman name ; but they kept their own language, literature, and civilisation. In short, we may say that the Roman empire in the East became Greek, and that the Greek nation became Roman. The Eastern empire and the Greek-speaking lands became nearly co-extensive. Greek became the one language of the Eastern Roman empire, while those that spoke it still called themselves Romans. Till quite lately — that is, till the modern ideas of nationality began to spread, the Greek-speaking subjects of the Turk called themselves by no name but that of Romans. This people, who might be called either Greek or Roman, but who have now again taken up the Greek name, has lived on as a distinct nation to our own time. It is a nation which has largely assimi- lated its neighbours, but which has not been assimilated by them. " While the Greeks thus took the Roman name without adopting the Latin language, another people in the eastern peninsula adopted both name and language, exactly as the nations of the West did. If, as there is good reason to believe, the modern Roumans represent the old Thracians, that nation came under the general law, exactly like the Western nations. The Thracians became thoroughly Roman in speech, as they have ever since kept the Roman name. They form, in part, one of the Romance nations just as much as the people of Gaul or Spain. They are a Romance nation on the eastern side of the Hadriatic instead of on the western. The third nation — that of the Illyrians, Skipetar, or Albanians — have been largely assimilated by the Greeks. Though they may be truly said to exist as a nation, still their existence as a na- tion has been n?ainly owing to their being a mild people, living in a mild country. They hold a position between that of a nation like the Greeks and that of a mere survival of a nation Hke the Basques. The Roumans too, though they learned the Roman language and have kept the Roman name, can never have so fully adopted the Roman civilisation as the Gauls and Spaniards did. In short, the exist- ence of a highly civilised people like the Greeks hindered in every way the influence of Rome from being so thorough in the East as it was in the West. The Greek nation lived on, and, alongside of itself, it preserved the other two ancient nations of the peninsula. Thus all three have lived on to the present as distinct nations. Two of them, the Greeks and Illyrians, still keep their own languages, while the third, the old Thracians, speak a Romance language, and call themselvs Romans." The Greek-Latin city of Constantinople, Avhich held its own against every enemy for nearly a thousand years,* became the centre of a high form of civilisation. It was there that Justinian collected and promulgated his "Institutes." It was there that Theodosius II. encouraged edu- cation, and brought about a revival of learning. It was there that successive emperors, bishops, and councils, fostered religion, and strove, ac- cording to their lights, for the purity of worship. It was there that the Byzantine art flourished for many centuries, leaving its indelible traces on the human mind. But if the city of Con- stantinople itself enjoyed a comparative immu- nity from external enemies, it was continually disturbed by internal dissensions, religious and other. Justinian's great general, Belisarius, who won so many glorious victories for his ungrate- ful master in Europe, Asia, and Africa, was called upon, in the year 420, to suppress the faction-fights which for more than twenty years had held Constantinople in terror. We may * Nevertheless the leaders of the Fourth Crusade took the city in 1203 and 1204, in the interest of the Emperor Isaac. Isaac had heen deposed and blinded by his brother Alexis, who met with a punislmaeut in kind. HISTORY OF TEE TURKO-RUSSIAN WAR. form some idea of the exterit of these circus faction fights between the "Blues" 'and the " Greens," when A\e read that their final sup- pression cost the death of thirty thousand of the latter party, and the burning of the city. Sed, 4. Turkish Conquests. The enemies of the empire were constantly closing in upon her. At the beginning of the fifth century the Goths, under Alaric, pressed northward and westward, ravaging and destroy- ing as they went. They were destined for a great future in Western Europe ; but even in the south-eastern plains they made a partial settlement. To this day a portion of a Moeso- Gotliic Bible, translated by Bishop Ulphilas, bears witness to the extent of the Gothic occu- pation of what we now call by the name of Bul- garia. In the seventh century the Saracens won many of the Asian possessions of the East- ern empire, and came no less than seven times to the siege of Constantinople ; but each time in vain. Shortly after, the Bulgarians — amongst them, no doubt, the descendants of the Goths above mentioned — laid waste the country, from the Balkans to Constantinople ; but they also were checked by the strong ramparts and natu- ral defences of the capital In the next century, ninety thousand Arabs, probably the fiirst Mo- hamedan invaders of the Byzantine empire,"' were defeated ; and during the next few hun- dred years southern Italy and Bulgaria Avere added to the imperial dominions. But mean- while Dalmatia had been lost, and at the begin- ning of the thirteenth century an independent kingdom was set up in Epirus. The establish- ment of the Turkish empire in Asia IVIinor dates from the year 1299, when Othman I. asserted his sway over a wide tract of country. From henceforth the Ottoman armies besran to turn their attention to Europe ; and by the middle of the fourteenth century we find them establishing t\emselves on the shores of the * The Flight (Hegira) of MaLomet from Mecca to Medina, which commences the Mahomedan era, took place in the year 622. The invasion referred to was in 73U. Bosphorus and the Black Sea. In 1362, a suc- cessor of Othman, Amurath I., took Adrianople, and made it his capital ; within a dozen years he had imposed a treaty on the Greek emperor at Constantinople (John Palaeologus I.), by which he established his claim to the tenitories which he had overrun. Before the end of the century, all the Greek possessions in Asia Minor had been lost ; and meanwhile the Turks were making rapid advances in Europe. In 1396 the Sultan Bajazet had gained a decisive victory over Sigis- mund of Hungary, whom he defeated at Nicopolis. From this time we may date an era of history which can hardly be regarded as anything else than a deep disgrace to Europe at^arge. The crusades had proved clearly enough that the sol- diers of Europe, when inspired by enthusiasm and determination, were more than a match for the Mahomedans ; and whatever we may think as to the justifiable character of these expeditions to the Holy Land, the paladins of "Western Europe at least gave proof of their invincible valourj. But these attacks upon the Saracens in Pn.<.^ '-.& and elsewhere must have greatly exaspeia"fti^ the followers of the Prophet ; and a determination to be avenged upon Europe was very probably amongst the motives which in- duced these Asiatic hordes, bound together as they were by the ties of fanaticism, to extend their conquests over the Greek empire in Europe. If they had been met in the fourteenth and fif- teenth centuries ydth. as much vigour as they or their co-religionists had been met on their own ground, two or three centuries before, Europe might have been saved from untold miseries, and we should not now have to be fighting the battle wl f"H our ancestors, for generation after generation, refused to fight. The \v .