has kept himself apart. He has made the infidel pay tribute or become Mohammedan, but he has never insisted on the latter alternative and comparatively few of the conquered peoples have accepted Islamism. Moreover, the Turk has so carefully cultivated the antagonisms of religions and nationalities, that the Balkan peninsula has continued to be a hotbed of religious, racial, and national dissensions. The Turk has indolently and placidly collected his revenues and retained his military superiority with little effort since the conquered peoples were hopelessly divided among themselves. These characteristics of the Turks have aided wonderfully their conquests in Europe and Asia Minor. Their administration during the period of their growth in strength was good and under Suleiman the Magnificent in the sixteenth century "there was no kingdom in Europe better administered." The Janissaries. During this period of organization and conquest there was one other feature which bespoke success. In the organization of the army the corps of the Janissaries stands out as unique. This body which was probably organized in the fourteenth century, was made up of Christian boys who were taken from their parents in early life, and trained as warrior monks. Once in four years agents passed through the country to choose one boy in five, the strongest and healthiest, to become a Mohammedan warrior monk knowing no relatives or family, a warrior slave of the Sultan. This force, at first one thousand strong and eventually reaching twenty thousand in number, was the backbone of the Turkish control until in the sixteenth century it began to deteriorate, because of the introduction of marriage and an edict making the order hereditary. In 1826 the Sultan found it necessary to abolish the order, and razed the quarter of Constantinople which it had appropriated. The Waning of Turkish The sixteenth century in reality marks the waning of the authority of the Turks. Then their conquests ended, and since their peculiar strength was centered in conquest, as it Authority. was military in character, their subsequent history is that of a decadent nation. The early and unchangeable traits of Turkey resulted in efficiency as long as she was a conquering and expanding power. The seeds of evil were hardly manifest until they had grown into strong plants. Two series of facts account for the gradual weakening of Turkey. First of all, throughout her history Turkey has shown herself incapable of change. Warlike methods of conquest, the despoiling of peoples, wholesale murders for the sake of striking terror into enemies' hearts, the carelessness with which administration has been handled, are only a few of the acts which have made the Turk hated by all the civilized world. On the other hand, the military program of forbidding the intermingling of peoples in religion, language or race, has enabled the subject peoples to maintain their bases for revolt against the conqueror. With this sharp differentiation of peoples, the Balkan groups have found no difficulty in keeping alive the spirit of revolt and in making it stronger and stronger until the time was ripe for independence. The second series of facts cluster around the interest of the Great Powers in the Balkan Peninsula. Russia, with her overwhelming desire to reach a warm water outlet, was the first to declare her interest in the Turkish territory. England, with her great Indian empire to defend, has always been interested in Turkey. Austria has long hoped to reach the Aegean through Serbia. And last of all, Germany entered the field to exploit the Asiatic dominions of the Turk. Each of these nations in turn or together have supported rebellions against the Sultan or supported him against the intrigues of other powers. Each has used the peoples of the Balkans as pawns to secure their own, usually selfish, ends. The result has been the building up of a group of strong national states independent of one another, and as strongly antagonistic to one another as to the Turk. For the character of this growth the governments of the Great Powers of Europe, as well as the Turk himself, must be blamed. International Relations, 19th Century. The nineteenth century has made one point in international relations fairly clear. The moral sense of peoples, if not altogether of nations, will no longer condone the seizure of territories of a well organized and well administered state, if such seizure is made merely for purposes of aggrandizement. Gradually the unorganized portions of the world's territory have been seized. Little by little these seizures have narrowed the question of expansion. African territory has long been at a premium and has been so definitely held or controlled as to offer little opportunity for seizure or for quarrel. More and more, therefore, as this has come to be true, the attention of all the Powers has centered upon Turkey in Europe and in Asia. Characteristics of the Turk. Here in the Near East, then, has been a problem of control that has baffled statesmen of all the Great Powers since the opening of the century. The Turk in Europe has some characteristics of the North African princes. He has been unable to organize an efficient government, or to maintain a system of administration which was either effective or satisfactory. Throughout the century, therefore, the civilized nations of Europe have stood about like vultures waiting for the death of the Turk. Moreover, his supineness and helplessness have so often been taken for death that one or another has from time to time either attempted to seize a portion of his supposed carcass or has actually done so and has taken care of it before the other hungry waiting ones could interfere. What the In a sense, this figure is the statement of the Near Eastern question, for it is just as simple as that. In another and more vital sense, however, this figure does not give the idea of the Question Was. question. It is perfectly true that had Turkey been as ably administered as was Belgium there would have been no Near Eastern question, for the moral sense of the nations would not have permitted interference. It is also perfectly true that were these territories to add simply acres to the Power receiving them, the question would early have been robbed of its great significance. But one must remember that the Near East is far more important to Russia, Germany and Austria than any African territory can possibly be to any of the Powers controlling them, save perhaps Egypt to England. Not only is Constantinople a great commercial center, but the Dardanelles seem absolutely necessary to Russia if she is to guard and control her own commercial relations. The recent war made clear how seriously Russia is crippled by the closing of the Straits to her commerce. The same is also true of Austria; her attempts upon the Adriatic have gone far to make Italy jealous of any settlement of the great war which does not leave her in control of the sea upon her eastern coast. The Near Eastern question is, therefore, from the point of view of the Great Powers, an economic one. It is not only a question of securing control of territory that will enable the nation which secures it to strengthen the economic situation of the national state; but for two of the states it is a question of securing a warm water outlet for the commerce of the state itself. In the case of Russia, it should be added that the Slavic elements of the Balkan peninsula and the Greek Catholic religion make a strong appeal. But Russia could afford to ignore both these appeals. She cannot however, ignore the appeal of the economic factor. It is, therefore, not too much to say that the recent war found a great deal of its vital cause in this peninsula, that in this region the events of recent years have had a significance which to the American casual reader has never appeared. The paralysis of the sick man of Europe has forced into action those Powers which are vitally affected by the settlements made, even though those settlements may be made in the interests of the peoples of the peninsula themselves. SUGGESTED READINGS Gibbons, The New Map of Europe, pp. 131-219, 263-367. Hayes, A Political and Social History of Modern Europe, Vol. II, Chapter XXVI. Hazen, Europe Since 1815, pp. 601-604. Hazen, Modern European History, Chapter XXXIII. Robinson and Beard, Development of Modern Europe, Vol. II, pp. 303-317. TOPICS FOR SPECIAL STUDY 1. The Geography of the Turkish Empire. 2. The Greek War for Independence. 3. Russia's Wars to Reach the Black Sea and the Aegean Sea. CHAPTER II THE GREAT POWERS AND THE NEAR EAST Importance of Turkish THERE is no great Power in Europe that has not found a vital interest in the territories of Turkey since that country began its decline. Since Napoleon began his conquest Question. of Egypt and dreamed of the conquest of Europe by an eastern attack, the Balkan roadway to the East has remained a great diplomatic problem. Why has Turkey been so important a consideration in European politics and why have the Great Powers been unable to find a solution of the problem? For one reason, no method of treatment for this people has ever been discovered except that of driving them from Europe. They have set their faces like flint against improvement and have refused to be reformed or to be assimilated. In the second place, there has never been a time when the nations of Europe could agree upon a method of extinction or upon using force to carry out reforms. Great Britain's Inter est in Turkey. What, then, are the European interests which have made the settlement of this question impossible in the past? To answer this question it will be necessary briefly to survey the interests of each of the Great Powers in turn. The earliest Power interested was, naturally, Great Britain. India, with its great wealth, with its difficulties of administration and control, has been a serious problem to the British Empire. When the Turk seized Western Asia and European Turkey and organized it into an Empire, he quickly reopened the commercial highways to the East. Thus Eastern commerce again. became an important asset to Europe. By her great commercial growth and her dominance of the seas, Great Britain inherited this desire for eastern wealth. The conquest of India and organization of an Indian Empire gave wings to this desire and India became for Great Britain an important asset, where from the first she was safe because of her control of the seas. When commerce was reopened through the Near Eastern highways, Great Britain was still able to control it by her ownership of the source of wealth and by her Mediterranean shipping. Later when the Suez Canal was opened by Frenchmen, in the interests of commerce and to guard her |