Constantinople Conference
Native name | Tersane Konferansı |
---|---|
Date | 23 December 1876 – 20 January 1877 |
Venue | Tersane Sarayı (Shipyard Palace) |
Location | Constantinople (now Istanbul) |
Type | Conference |
Theme | Bosnia and the Ottoman territories with a majority Bulgarian population |
Cause | The Herzegovinian Uprising in 1875 and the Bulgarian April Uprising in 1876 |
Participants | |
Outcome | Agreed on a project for political reforms |
The 1876–77 Constantinople Conference (
Participants
The Great Powers were represented at the conference respectively by:[3]
- Lord Salisbury and Sir Henry Elliot;
- Count Nikolay Ignatyev (historical spelling Nicolai Ignatieff);
- Count Jean-Baptiste de Chaudordy and Count François de Bourgoing;
- Baron Karl von Werther;
- Austro-Hungarian Empire:
- Baron Heinrich von Calice and Count Ferenc Zichy;
- Count Luigi (Lodovico) Corti.
Of these, Lord Salisbury, Count de Chaudordy and Baron von Calice were Ambassadors Plenipotentiary to the conference, while Count Ignatyev, Sir Henry Elliot, Count de Bourgoing, Baron von Werther, Count Zichy and Count Corti were the resident Ambassadors of their countries in Constantinople.
The US Consul General in Constantinople, Eugene Schuyler also took an active part in drafting the conference decisions.[4][5]
The Ottoman Empire was represented at the conference by:
Midhat
Lord Salisbury and Count Ignatyev played a leading role in the process.
Gallery
-
Lord Salisbury
Decisions
Bosnia
The conference envisaged the creation of an autonomous province including Bosnia and most of Herzegovina, while a southern part of the latter was to be ceded to the Principality of Montenegro.[8]
Bulgaria
The Great Powers agreed on a substantial Bulgarian autonomy to take the form of two new Ottoman provinces (vilayets) established for the purpose: Eastern, with capital Tarnovo, and Western, with capital Sofia.[9][10]
The conference determined that, as of the late 19th century, the Bulgarian ethnic territories within the Ottoman Empire extended to
in the northwest. These territories were to be incorporated into the two Bulgarian autonomous provinces as follows:- Eastern Bulgarian autonomous province, including the Ottoman kazas – third level administrative divisions – of Sultaneri and Ahıçelebi), and part of the Edirne sandjak including the kazas of Kırkkilise, Mustafapaşa and Kızılağaç.[10][11]
- Western Bulgarian autonomous province, including the sandjaks of
The Great Powers elaborated in detail the constitutional,
Conclusion
The agreed decisions of the six Great Powers were formally handed over to the
Legacy
The rejection by the Ottoman Government of the decisions of the Constantinople Conference triggered the 1877–1878 Russo-Turkish War, depriving at the same time the Ottoman Empire – in contrast to the preceding 1853–1856 Crimean War – of Western support.[9]
Bulgarian historiography treats the conference as the most reliable international evidence for the Bulgarian character of the local Slavic population of Macedonia due to the fact that the Ottoman Empire and the 6 European Great Powers, regardless of the differences in their geopolitical interests, recognized the majority of the area as such with a predominantly Bulgarian population, although the April Uprising, which drew international attention to the Bulgarian national question, hardly broke out in Macedonia.[16]
Maps
- Bulgaria in the borders after the Treaties of Constantinople, San-Stephano, Berlin, London, Bucharest and Neuilly. Scale 1:1600000 map. (in German)
See also
Notes
- ^ Finkel, Caroline, Osman's Dream, (Basic Books, 2005), 57; "Istanbul was only adopted as the city's official name in 1930.".
- ^ Correspondence respecting the Conference at Constantinople and the affairs of Turkey: 1876–1877. Parliamentary Papers No 2 (1877). p. 340.
- ^ H. Sutherland Edwards. Sir William White K.C.B., K.C.M.G., For Six Years Ambassador at Constantinople. London: John Murray, 1902.
- ^ The Eastern Question. The Constantinople Conference. What May Be Expected from the Meeting. The Foreign Representatives and How They Are Treated. The Report of the American Consul General. Various Items of Interest. New York Times, 31 December 1876.
- JSTOR 25118547
- ^ Buckle G.E., W.F. Monypenny, The Constantinople Conference, in: The Life of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield. Vol. VI, p. 84.
- ^ Sneh Mahajan. British Foreign Policy, 1874–1914: The role of India. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. p. 40.
- ^ Van Duesen, Glyndon (1926). The Constantinople Conference, 1876-1877. Amherst College. pp. 350–355.
- ^ a b c d N. Ivanova. 1876 Constantinople Conference: Positions of the Great Powers on the Bulgarian political question during the Conference. Sofia University, 2007. (in Bulgarian)
- ^ a b c d Conference de Constantinople. Reunions Préliminaires. Compte rendu No. 8. Scéance du 21 décembre 1876. Annexe III Bulgare. Règlement organique. (in French)
- ^ a b Further Correspondence respecting the affairs of Turkey. (With Maps of proposed Bulgarian Vilayets). Parliamentary Papers No 13 (1877).
- ^ Correspondence respecting the Conference at Constantinople and the affairs of Turkey: 1876–1877. Parliamentary Papers No 2 (1877). p. 140.
- ^ L.S. Stavrianos. Constantinople Conference, in: The Balkans Since 1453. Austin: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.
- ^ Turkey and the Great Powers. The Constantinople Conference. The Commissioners' Last Proposals to the Porte. An Ultimatum Presented the Great Dignitaries of State to Decide Upon an Answer. New York Times, 16 January 1877.
- ^ Tsarigrad Peak. SCAR Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica.
- ^ Quo vadis, Македонио!
References
- R.W. Seton-Watson. Disraeli, Gladstone and the Eastern Question: A Study in Diplomacy and Party Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1972. p. 108. ISBN 978-0-393-00594-3
- Washburn, George (1909). Fifty Years in Constantinople and Recollections of Robert College (1 ed.). Boston & New York: Houghton Mufflin Company. pp. 115–119 – via Internet Archive..