Reviews for Seminar Studies in History The Eastern Question

The average rating for Seminar Studies in History The Eastern Question based on 2 reviews is 2 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2012-09-04 00:00:00 Jerome Etherton The Eastern Question is the term used to describe what the Great Powers of Europe should do about the decline, and impending break-up of the Ottoman Empire. It involves the goals of each Great Powers; Great Britain, France, Germany (Prussia prior to 1871), and Russia, as well as how they sought to implement their goals in the context of the declining Ottoman state. The difference with Macfie is that he presents the claim that the overall “question” encompassed multiple eastern questions to answer depending on the geostrategic relation of each power, but that as a whole, was defined by each Great Power coming to terms with the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Macfie begins with the account of the Russo-Turkish War of 1768-1774 to open his discussion of the Eastern Question, and ends his account with the Treaty of Lausanne, in 1923. He breaks down the establishment of the Question as having three key components: the expansion of the Russian Empire in the eighteenth century along the shorts of the Black Sea, the struggle for national autonomy of Ottoman subjects in the nineteenth century, and then then finally the outcome of World War I, and its subsequent reordering of the Question. This approach simplifies what is an otherwise complex international drama. The Treaty of Kutchuk Kainardji concluded the Russo-Turkish War that had raged for six years, and provided Russia with a strong position over not only the Ottomans, but also the Dardanelles. Another war in 1792 both Great Britain and Prussia warned Russia any further advances along the Black Sea would trigger European conflict as the significance of Russian gains had not been lost on the Great Powers of Europe. In spite of identifying the Russian imperial project as the opening aspectof the question, taking advantage of the clear decline of the Ottoman Empire, Macfie spends very little time in mentioning it. Instead, he prefers to focus on the Napoleonic Wars as the context for the nationalist movements in the Balkans. On the other hand, the focus on this aspect of the Eastern Question helps to demonstrate, from a level of diplomacy, the diverse goals and opinions as they changed in response to the crises that erupted. Following the Napoleonic Wars, each country had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, despite entertaining proposals for the partitioning the Ottoman Empire. Moreover, the nuances of each goal from each Great Power are seen in a contrasting light. On such instance is where the Russian’s goal was to secure the borders of the northern Black Sea and maintain influence in Constantinople as well as easy travel through the Bosphorus and Dardenelles. Austria wished to maintain a buffer zone in the Balkans while using the realities of the nationalist movements to secure material interests along with coast. As well, Pan-Slavism, Orthodoxy, and geography often oriented the Orthodox Slavic countries to Russia. Great Britain wanted to maintain control of its Mediterranean route to India, while the French looked to find influence in Egypt in order to maintain commercial interests, but with a goal of developing areas of influence in Africa and the Middle East, notably Lebanon and Syria. The nationalist movements in the nineteenth century eventually led to an explosion of conflict in the 1870s that threatened to destabilize the present order, and the Powers reacted accordingly. The Treat of Berlin in 1878 left the Austrian-Hungarian Empire with the right to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina. Macfie outlines all of the various motives involved; the Austrian goal to hold more land to the east, the Russian desire to secure a land bridge to Constantinople through the Treaty of San Stefano, the British aim of stopping Russia defined their approach to preserving the Ottoman Empire. Germany eventually clashed with Great Britain on the issue of the Bagdad-Berlin railroad as Germany created close ties with the Ottoman government in the closing years of the century. What Macfie is portraying, when he speaks of these varieties of questions, is that these conflicting geopolitical nuances, from each Power, are in fact different questions each Great Power had to ask about the deteriorating Ottoman power. One thread of commonality that Macfie highlights is the conservative nature of the maneuvering. The arch of the goals was to achieve balance, yet each power would undermine the stability that they ultimately tried to keep. One notable incident was the Crimean War, which was the only European conflict sparked by the entire question of the East where the potential for the collapse of the Ottomans was increased by trying to maintain the status quo. The French postured in the Dardenelles and Russian troops marched to the Principalities in the Balkans in the attempt to enforce “rights” they said to have a claim to in regards of their respective religious brethren under Ottoman rule. Each side thought it was enforcing the status quo, but this illustrates one of the more drastic moments where, by attempting to maintain the status quo, the Powers nearly undermined the stability of the Ottoman Empire as war broke out between Russia and the European Powers. More obviously, was the way the Great Powers sought to manage the various consequences of nationalist revolts with the integrity of the Ottoman Empire in mind, but only succeeded in breaking off pieces of the Ottoman Empire as autonomous regions and independent states under Russian or European protection emerged. This clear contradiction is what led to the First World War. Macfie utilizes documents that can be found at the end of the book, which include important clauses of treaties, such as the Kutchuk-Kainardji treaty in 1774, between Russia and Ottoman Turks, and the Treaty of Paris in 1856, which ended the Crimean War. There are also military orders like the one ordering Napoleon to invade Egypt in 1789; as well as a number of decrees by government ministries and committees on the reactions of the Great Powers to many situations. Lastly, he relies on various reports by diplomatic officials on the viability of the Ottoman Empire. The work is a designed to be an introductory book in a series the “Seminar Studies in History”. It does an excellent job of highlighting the many problems and the distinct motivations, goals, and manipulations of each Great Power in a succinct manner. The chronological order helps the reader to understand how the diplomatic issues ebbed and flowed around the issue of the weakening of the Ottoman state. The author presents a neutral perspective on the events that happened, despite the overarching goal was to keep the Ottoman state alive. There are a number of issues from each perspective an author could side with, but Macfie does a great job of not doing this. By not taking any sides Macfie is able keep the short introduction free of any excessive material that would undermine the goal of the book as an introduction. The only critiques that are noticeable is that the chronological order sacrifices the role of each interest the Great Powers had, for example, in chapter nine Macfie declares Russia’s "historic mission" and "age-old dream" to possess Constantinople, "the source and inspiration of their [Russia's] Orthodox faith and culture." Knowing about such motivations earlier in the book would be helpful, especially in regards to the religious issues surrounding the Crimean War. Another area the book is lacking in is the domestic issues that drove each Great Power’s goals, in addition to some larger geostrategic concerns. There is some illusion to Philhellenism in the Greek War for Independence, and Macfie accounts for moderate, forward positions in Great Britain in response to the Bosnian and Bulgarian revolts in the 1870s, but beyond that there is not much to be found. In addition, the last part of the Eastern Question that Macfie sets out in the introduction, the creation of successor states in the former Ottoman Empire, is almost as sparse as the account of the first phase of the Question; the issues of the Great Game for economic influence in Central Asia. How this conflict influenced the geopolitical goals and motivations to each Power in regards to the sick man of Europe. On the whole, the book serves as a quality short introduction to the diplomatic history of the Eastern Question.

Review # 2 was written on 2019-01-17 00:00:00 Frank Schuncke I gave a one star, which is plenty for this book. And it is not due to the book's content. The book does not have any page numbers! The author must have lost his mind to work with a publishing house like that. Unbelievable. A book without any page numbers. In f.ing 21st century.