Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878)

Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878)
Plevna Monument near the walls of Kitai-gorod
Date 1877–1878 Location Balkans, Caucasus Result Qualified Russian victory Territorial changes Congress of Berlin
Belligerents
Russian Empire Romania Serbia Montenegro Bulgarian volunteers	Ottoman Empire
Commanders and leaders
Mikhail Skobelev Mikhail Loris-Melikov Joseph Gourko Ivan Lazarev Carol I of Romania	Ahmed Muhtar Pasha Osman Pasha Suleiman Pasha Mehmet Ali Pasha Veisel Pasha

The Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 had its origins in rise in nationalism in Balkans as well as in the Russian goal of reverting territorial losses it suffered during the Crimean War and reestablishing itself in Black Sea. As a result of the war, the principalities of Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, each of which had de facto sovereignty for some time, formally proclaimed independence from the Ottoman Empire. After almost five centuries of Ottoman domination (1396-1878), the Bulgarian state was reestablished as the Principality of Bulgaria covering the land between the Danube River and the Balkan Mountains (except Northern Dobrudja which was given to Romania) and the region of Sofia, which became the new state's capital. The Congress of Berlin also allowed Austria-Hungary to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina and Great Britain to take over Cyprus, while the Russian Empire annexed Southern Bessarabia and the Kars region.

Conflict pre-history

Article 9 of the Paris Peace Treaty, concluded at the end of the Crimean War, obliged the Ottoman Empire to grant Christians equal rights with Muslims. An edict, Hatt-ı Hümayun,was issued that proclaimed the principle of the equality of Muslims and non-Muslims, and produced some specific reforms to this end. For example, the jizya tax was abolished and non-Muslims were allowed to join the army.

However, some key aspects of Dhimmi status was retained, for example the testimony of Christians against Muslims was not accepted in courts, which granted Muslims effective immunity for offenses conducted against Christians. Although on a local level, relations between communities were often good, this practice encouraged the worst elements of Muslim society to exploit the situation. The abuses were at their worst in regions with a predominantly Christian population, mainly located in the European part of the empire, where local authorities often openly supported them as a means to keep Christians subjugated.

The financial strain on the treasury caused by the Crimean War forced the Ottoman government to take a series of foreign loans at such steep interest rates that, despite all the fiscal reforms that followed, pushed it into insolvable debts and economic difficulties. This was further aggravated by the need to accomodate about 600,000 Muslim Circassians expelled by Russians from the Caucasus, which came at a great cost in money and in civil disorder to the Ottoman authorities.

Crisis in the Lebanon, 1860

In 1858 the Maronite peasants, stirred by the clergy, revolted against their Maronite feudal overlords and established a peasant republic in Northern (Christian) Lebanon. By 1859, the revolutionary movement gained sympathy among the Maronite peasants of the Southern (Druze) Lebanon who also demanded emancipation from their feudal lords and sought the alliance of the Druze peasantry. However, the Druze peasants sided with the Druze aristocracy turning a social revolution advocated by Christians into a religious civil war.

In the Southern Lebanon, where Christians were outnumbered, the carnage that followed left about 11,000 Christians killed (of which only a few hundred died in combat) and another 4,000, made homeless, died from hunger. Druzes had lost about 1,500. In addition to this, over 300 villages, 500 churches, 40 monasteries, and 30 schools were destroyed.

Religious conflict in Lebanon stirred the Muslim population of Damascus to attack the Christian minority with between 5,000 to over 25,000 of the latter being killed, including the American and Dutch consuls, giving the event an international dimension.

Under the threat of Wuropean intervention, Ottoman foreign minister Fuat Pasha came to Syria and resored order. Nevertheless France sent a fleet, and Britain joined to prevent a unilateral intervention that could help French influence in the area (September 5, 1860). Under European pressure, the Sultan agreed to appoint a Christian governor in Lebanon, whose candidacy was to be submitted by the Sultan and approved by European powers.

The New European Concert

The concert of Europe established in 1856 was shaken in 1859 when France and Austria fought over Italy. It came apart completely as a result of Bismarck's wars to create a united Germany, with Prussia defeating Austria in 1866 and France in 1870, thus establishing itself in place of Austria-Hungary as the dominant power in Central Europe as well as the rest of the continet. Britain, worn out by its participation in the Crimean War and diverted by the Irish question and the whole complex of problems created by the Industrial Revolution, chose not to intervene again to restore the European balance. Bismarck did not wish the breakup of the Ottoman Empire to create rivalries that might lead to war. So he took up the Tsar's earlier suggestion that arrangements be made in case the Ottoman Empire fell apart, creating the Three Emperors' League with Austria and Russia to keep France isolated on the continent. France under Napolean III responded by supporting self-determination movements, particularly if they concerned the three emperors and the Sultan. Thus revolts in Poland against Russia and national aspirations in the Balkans were encouraged by France. Russia worked to regain its right to maintain a fleet on the Black Sea and vied with the French in gaining influence in the Balkans by using the new Pan-Slavic idea that all Slavs should be united under Russian leadership. This could be done only by destroying the two empires where most of the non-Russian Slavs lived, the Habsburg and the Ottoman. The ambitions and the rivalries of the Russians and French int the Balkans surfaced in Serbia, which was experiencing its own national revival and had ambitions that partly conflicted with those of the powers.

The Revolt in Crete, 1866-1869

The Cretan revolt, which was coordinated and supplied by Greece, started under the slogan of reunification with Greece. Insurgents gained control over the whole island, except for five cities where Muslims were fortified. The Greek press claimed Muslim massacres of the Greeks. The word was spread throughout Europe. Thousands of Greek volunteers were mobilized and sent to the island.

By early 1869 the insurrection was suppressed, but the Porte offered some concessions, introducing island self-rule and raising the Christian rights on the island. The siege of Moni Arkadiou monastery, when about 150 Cretan combatants accompanied by about 600 woman and children where besieged by about 23,000 strong Turkish army, became widely known in Europe after several hundred women and children who sheltered in the monastery's gunpowder room chose to blast themselves but not surrender to the Turks.

An important effect of the Cretan Insurrection, and especially the brutality with which it was suppressed by the Turks, was the growth of public attention in Europe, and in the Great Britain in particular, to the issue of the oppressed state of the Christians in the Ottoman Empire.

"Small as the amount of attention is which can be given by the people of England to the affairs of Turkey… enough was transpiring from time to time to produce a vague but a settled and general impression that the Sultans were not fulfilling the “solemn promises” they had made to Europe; that the vices of the Turkish government were ineradicable; and that whenever another crisis might arise affecting the “independence” of the Ottoman Empire, it would be wholly impossible to afford to it again the support we had afforded in the Crimean war."

The crisis came to an end, with the Ottomans more victorious than they had been or would be in almost any other diplomatic confrontation during the century.

Changing balance of power in Europe

Alexander Gorchakov

Russia ended the Crimean War with minimal territorial losses, but was forced to destroy its Black Sea Fleet and Sevastopol fortifications. Russian international prestige was damaged, and for many years revenge for the Crimean war became the main goal of Russian foreign policy.

This was not easy however — the Paris Peace Treaty included guarantees of Ottoman territorial integrity by Great Britain, France and Austria; only Prussia remained friendly to Russia.

Otto von Bismarck

It was on alliance with Prussia and her chancellor Bismark where in April 1856 a newly appointed Russian chancellor, Alexander Gorchakov, put a stake in. Russia consistently supported Prussia in her wars with Denmark (1864), Austria (1866) and France (1870). In March 1871, using crushing French defeat and support of (already) grateful Germany, Russia achieved international recognition of her earlier denouncement of Article XI of Paris Peace Treaty, thus enabling her to revive Russian Black Sea Fleet.

Other clauses of Paris Peace Treaty, however, remained in force, specifically Article 8 with guarantees of Ottoman territorial integrity by Great Britain, France and Austria. This made Russia to use extreme caution in its relations with the Ottoman empire and coordinate all its actions with other European powers. War with Turkey tête-à-tête was possible only after getting a carte blanche from other European powers, and Russian diplomacy was waiting for convenient moment.

Situation in Balkans

Balance of power in Europe reflected directly to the situation on Balkan peninsula. The state of Ottoman administration continued to deteriorate throughout the course of 19th century, with central government occasionally losing actual control over whole provinces. Reforms imposed by European powers did little to improve the conditions of Christian population, while managing to dissatisfaction of sizable Muslim population. Bosnia and Herzegovina suffered at least two waves of rebellions of local Muslim population, most recent in 1850.

Austria consolidated after turmoils of the first half of the century sought to reinvigorate its longstanding policy of expansion on account of Ottoman empire.

Nominally autonomous, de facto independent principalities of Serbia and Montenegro sought the opportunity to expand into regions inhabited by their Serbian compatriots. Situation in Serbia has been especially complicated. The principality made the expansion to neighboring Serbian inhabited areas, south Serbia, Kosovo, and Bosnia its priority. Ruling House of Obrenović enjoyed good connections with Vienna, and was at first reluctant to risk a military adventure with Ottoman empire. However the public opinion was heavily pro war, especially encouraged by diplomatic victory of 1862 and expulsion of Ottoman troops from last garrisons on territory of the principality. Presence of Russian agents was also very strong.

Montenegro ruled by ambitious Prince Nikola was in position to persuade much more adventurous policy. When an uprising of orthodox Christian population erupted in Herzegovina in 1875, Montenegrins promptly intervened to help their fellow tribesmen, declaring war on Ottoman empire. Soon an uprising of in Bulgaria erupted. Compelled by these events and by overwhelming pressure from the public, Prince Milan of Serbia declared a war on Ottoman empire in 1876.

The Balkan Crisis of 1875-76

From 1873 onward the Ottoman government was faced with a period of drought and famine in Anatolia, leading to widespread misery and discontent. Aggricultural shortages became such as to preclude the collection of necessary taxes. This reached the point at which the Imperial Treasury was left without adequate funds for the business of government. The result was a major financial collapse which forced the Ottoman government to declare bankruptcy in October, 1875.

An anti-Ottoman uprising occurred in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the summer of 1875. The main reason for this revolt was the heavy tax burden imposed by the cash-starved Ottoman administration. Both Montenegro and Serbia intervened with armed bands. Despite some relaxation of taxes, the uprising continued well over the end of 1875 and -at the instigation of the rest-eventually triggered the Bulgarian April uprising of 1876.

The Bulgarians' 1876 "April" uprising

Most middle-class Bulgarians were not anxious to overthrow the Ottomans by force. A small band of revolutionary nationalists who rose from their ranks was a minority from the start. They sought swift and complete independence won though armed rebellion and terrorist methods modeled after the uprising of the Serbs and Greeks, and they looked to Orthodox Russia and Serbia for support. The revolt of Bosnia and Hercegovina spurred the Bucharest-based Bulgarian revolutionaries into action. A Bulgarian uprising was hastily prepared to take advantage of Ottoman preoccupation, but it fizzled before it started. In the spring of 1876 another uprising erupted in the south-central Bulgarian lands. That event was even more haphazardly planned than the previous one. The ill-armed and disorganized rebels did little more than publicly rally, sing newly written patriotic songs, and butcher their mostly pacific Muslim neighbors -killing more than a thousand.

File:The Bulgarian martyresses.jpg

Konstantin Makovsky. The Bulgarian martyresses. 1877 Atrocities of bashibazouks in Bulgaria.

The Ottomans, lacking adequate regular troops because of the problems in the northwest, were compelled to use irregular başıbozuks to quell the Bulgarians. Those irregulars mostly were drawn from Muslim inhabitants of the Bulgarian regions, many of whom were Circassian or Tatar refugees expelled from the Caucasus during the Crimeans War by the Russians or had suffered at the rebels' hands. Bashi-bazouks, true to their reputation, brutally suppressed the uprising, massacring up to 12,000 people in the process.

International Reaction to the Bulgarian Attrocities

Word of the başıbozuks' atrocities filtered to the outside world by way of American-run Robert College located in Istanbul. The majority of the students were Bulgarian, and many received news of the events from thier families back home. Soon the Western diplomatic community in Istanbul was abuzz with rumours, which eventually found their way into newspapers in the West. Rumor-mongering news stories about Ottoman Muslim attrocities against Christians that ignored the sufferings of the Muslims were particularly unwelcome in Britain, where Disraeli's government was committed to supporting thwe Ottomans in a situation already tense because of the ongoing Balkan crisis. A renowned American journalist from Ohio, Januarius A. MacGahan, who happened to in London at the time, was hired by the Liberal opposition's newspaper Daily News to report on the massacre stories firsthand.

MacGahan toured the stricken regions of the Bulgarian uprising, accompanied unofficially by Eguene Schuyler, a member of the American legation in Istanbul, and officially by Walter Baring of the British legation, who was sent along by his superiors to whitewash any unpleasantness that might be uncovered. While the reports of both Americans confirmed the savagery of the Ottoman retribution, MacGahan's purple descriptive prose, splashed across the Daily News's front pages, galvanized British public opinion against Disraeli's pro-Ottoman policy. Most public support for the Ottomans melted when Gladstone published his The Bulgarian Horrors. Hands tied by public pressure, Disraeli was forced to stand aside when Russia -where MacGahan's emotionally charged yellow journalism had been circulated in translation- declared war on the Ottoman Empire in 1877 with the publicly avowed goal of winning independence for the Bulgarians.

When the details became known in Europe, the resulting shock and horror made many dignitaries, including Charles Darwin, Oscar Wilde, Victor Hugo and Giuseppe Garibaldi to publicly condemn the Ottoman abuses in Bulgaria. In the United Kingdom, the opposition leader, William Gladstone, wrote a booklet denouncing what he called "the Bulgarian Horrors," and calling upon Britain to withdraw its support for Turkey.

The strongest reaction came from Russia. Widespread sympathy to Bulgarian cause led to nationwide surge in patriotism on the scale comparable with the one during Patriotic War of 1812. From autumn 1875, a movement to support Bulgarian uprising involved all classes of Russian society, without any exceptions. This was accompanied by sharp public discussions about Russian goals in this conflict: Slavophiles, led by Dostoevsky, saw in the impending war the chance to unite all Orthodox nations under Russia's helm, thus fulfilling what they believed was the historic mission of Russia, while their opponents, westerners, led by Turgenev, denied the importance of religion and believed that Russian goals should not be defense of Orthodoxy but liberation of Bulgaria.

A number of works by Russian painters and writers were dedicated to Bulgarian uprising:

• A painting by Konstantin Makovsky, 'The Bulgarian martyresses', depicted a scene of mass rape by Bashi-bazouks of Bulgarian women, happening inside the desecrated Orthodox temple.
• In Turgenev's verse 'Cricket in Windsor' (1876) Queen Victoria was accused of tolerating Ottoman atrocities in Bulgaria;
• In Polonsky's verse Bulgarian woman (1876) was depicted a humiliation of Bulgarian woman whose whole family was killed and who was taken into harem, only to be further harassed by other concubines.

Defeat of Serbia and diplomatic maneuvering

Russia preparing to release the Balkan dogs of war, while Britain warns him to take care. Punch cartoon from June 17 1876

• on June 30, 1876, Serbia, followed by Montenegro, declared war against Ottoman empire.

• on July 8, 1876, Russia's Alexander II and Prince Gorchakov met Austria-Hungary's Franz Joseph I and Count Andrássy in the Reichstadt castle in Bohemia. No written agreement was made, but during the discussions, Russia agreed to support Austrian occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Austria-Hungary, in exchange, agreed to the return of Southern Bessarabia lost by Russia during the Crimean War, and Russian annexation of the port of Batumi on the Black Sea east coast. Bulgaria was to become autonomous (independent, according to the Russian records).

• In July-August, ill prepared Serbian army helped by Russian volunteers suffered several crushing defeats from the Turks, and on August 26, Serbia pleaded European powers for mediation in ending the war. Joint ultimatum of European powers forced the Porte to give Serbia a one month truce and start peace negotiation. Turkish peace conditions however were refused by European powers as too harsh.

• In early October, after the truce expired, Turkish army resumed offensive, and Serbian position quickly became desperate. As a result, on October 31, 1876 Russia issued an ultimatum demanding from Turkey within 48 hours to stop the hostilities and sign a new truce with Serbia. This was supported by the partial mobilization of Russian army (up to 20 divisions). The Sultan accepted the conditions of the ultimatum.

• To resolve the crisis, on December 11, 1876, a conference of the Great Powers was opened in Istanbul (to which the Turks were not invited). A compromise solution was negotiated, granting autonomy to Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina under the joint control of European powers. Turks, however, found a way to discredit the conference by announcing on December 23, the day the conference was closed, that a constitution was adopted that declared equal rights for religious minorities within the empire, based on which Turkey announced its decision to disregard the results of the conference.

• On January 15, 1877, Russia and Austria-Hungary signed a written agreement confirming the results of an earlier oral agreement reached in Reichstadt in July 1876. This ensured to Russia the benevolent neutrality of Austria-Hungary in the impending war.

These terms meant that in case of war Russia would do the fighting and Austria would derive most of the advantage. Russia therefore made a final effort for a peaceful settlement.

• On March 31, 1877, Russia persuaded the powers to sign the London Convention, which merely asked Turkey to introduce those reforms which she herself had already proposed. The powers were to watch the operation of the reforms, and if conditions remained unsatisfactory they reserved the right "to declare that such a state of things would be incompatible with their interests and those of Europe in general". But the Turks felt themselves in a strong position and rejected the proposal on the grounds that it violated the Treaty of Paris.

Finally, on April 24, 1877, after nearly two years of futile negotiations, Russia declared war upon Turkey.

Prosecution: the one-eyed and the blind

Russia declared war on the Ottomans on 24 April, 1877. Prussian Emperor Frederick II once predicted a war between the Ottoman Empire and Russia would be "a war between the one-eyed and the blind" . This, however, was all too common a problem for contemporaneous warfare, from the Crimean War to the Boer Wars.

On April 12, 1877, Romania gave permission to the Russian troops to pass through its territory to attack the Turks, resulting in Turkish bombardments of Romanian towns on the Danube. On May 10, 1877, the Principality of Romania, which was under formal Turkish rule, declared its independence.

At the beginning of the war, the outcome was far from obvious. The Russians could send into the Balkans a larger army: about 300,000 troops were within reach. The Ottomans had about 200,000 troops on the Balkan peninsula, of which about 100,000 was assigned to fortified garrisons, leaving about 100,000 for the army of operation. The Ottomans had the advantage of being fortified, complete command of the Black Sea, and patrol boats along the Danube river. They also possessed superior arms, including new British and American-made rifles and German-made artillery.

Russian crossing of the Danube, Nikolai Dmitriev-Orenburgsky, 1883

In reality, however, the Ottomans usually resorted to passive defense, leaving strategic initiative to the Russians who, after making some mistakes, found a winning strategy for the war.

The Ottoman military command in Constantinople made poor assumptions of Russian intentions. They decided that Russians would be too lazy to march along the Danube and cross it away from the delta, and would prefer the short way along the Black Sea coast. This would be ignoring the fact that the coast had the strongest, best supplied and garrisoned Turkish fortresses. There was only one well manned fortress along the inner part of the river Danube, Vidin. It was garrisoned only because the troops, led by Osman Pasha, had just taken part in crushing the Serbs in their recent war against Ottoman Empire.

The Russian campaign was better planned, but it relied heavily on Turkish passiveness; with a more aggressive counterpart, the outcome of the campaign would be very uncertain. A crucial mistake was sending too few troops initially; the Danube was crossed in June by an expeditionary force of about 185,000, which was slightly less than the combined Turkish forces in the Balkans (about 200,000). After first setbacks in July (at Pleven and Stara Zagora), Russian military command realized it did not have the reserves to keep the offensive going and switched to the defense. The Russians did not even have enough forces to blockade Plevna properly until late August, which effectively delayed the whole campaign for about two months.

Course of the war

Fighting near Ivanovo-Chiflik

Russian, Romanian and Turkish troop movements at Pleven.

At the start of the war, Russia destroyed all vessels along the Danube and mined the river, thus ensuring it could cross the Danube at any point it wanted. This did not mean anything to the Turkish command. In June, a small Russian unit passed the Danube close to the delta, at Galaţi and marched towards Ruse. This made the Ottomans even more confident that the big Russian force would come right through the middle of the Ottoman stronghold.

Then in July, the Russians, unobstructed, constructed a bridge across the Danube at Svishtov, and began crossing. There were no significant Ottoman troops in the area. The command in Constantinople ordered Osman Pasha to march in that direction and fortify the nearby fortress of Nikopol. On his way to Nikopol, Osman Pasha learned that the Russians had already secured it, and so moved to Plevna, now Pleven.

Less than 24-hours after Osman Pasha fortified Plevna, numerous Russian forces under the charismatic "White General" Mikhail Skobelev attacked the city. Osman Pasha organized a brilliant defence and repelled two Russian attacks with huge casualties on the Russian side. At that point, the sides were almost equal in numbers and the Russian Army was very discouraged. Most analysts agree that a counter-attack would have allowed the Turks to gain control and destroy the passing bridge. However, Osman Pasha had orders to stay fortified in Pleven, and so did not leave that fortress.

Turkish capitulation at Nikopol

Russia had no more troops to throw against Plevna, so they besieged it, and subsequently asked the Romanians to provide extra troops. Soon afterwards, Romanian forces crossed the Danube and joined the siege. On August 16, at Gorni-Studen, the armies around Pleven — renamed the West Armies — were placed under the command of the Romanian Prince Carol, aided by the Russian general Pavel Dmitrievich Zotov and the Romanian general Alexandru Cernat.

The Russians fought bravely to capture the Grivitza redoubts around Pleven , and kept them under their control until the very end of the siege. The siege of Pleven (July–December 1877) turned to victory only after Russian and Romanian forces cut off all supply routes to the fortified Turks. With supplies running low Osman Pasha made an attempt to break the Russian siege in the direction of Opanets. On December 9, the Turks silently emerged, at dead of night, threw bridges over and crossed the Vit River, attacked on a 2-mile front and broke through the first line of Russian trenches. Here they fought hand to hand and bayonet to bayonet, with little advantage to either side. Outnumbering the Turks almost 5 to 1, the Russians drove the Turks back across the Vit and wounded Osman in the process. Osman Pasha was wounded in the leg by a stray bullet, which killed his horse beneath him. Rumours of his own death created panic. Making a brief stand, the Turks eventually found themselves driven back into the city, losing 5,000 men to the Russians' 2,000. The next day, Osman surrendered the city, the garrison and his sword to the Romanian colonel Mihail Cerchez. He was treated honorably, but his troops perished in the snows by the thousand as they straggled off into captivity. The more seriously wounded were left behind in their camp hospitals, only to be atrociously butchered by the Bulgarians.

Taking of the Grivitsa redoubt by the Russians

Russians under Field Marshal Joseph Vladimirovich Gourko succeeded in capturing the passes at the Stara Planina mountain which were crucial for maneuvering. Next, both sides fought a series of battles for Shipka Pass. Gourko made several attacks on the Pass and eventually secured it. Ottoman troops spent much effort to recapture this important route, to use it to reinforce Osman Pasha in Pleven, but failed. Eventually Gourko led a final offensive which crushed the Ottomans around Shipka Pass. The Ottoman offensive against Shipka Pass is considered one of the major mistakes of the war, as other passes were virtually unguarded. At this time a huge number of Turkish troops stayed fortified along the Black Sea coast and engaged in very few operations.

Besides the Romanian Army (which mobilized 130.000 men, losing 10.000 of them to this war, a strong Finnish contingent and more than 12,000 volunteer Bulgarian army (Opalchenie) from the local Bulgarian population as well as many hajduk detachments fought in the war on the side of the Russians. To express his gratitude to the Finnish battalion, the Tsar elevated the regiment on their return home to the name Old Guard Battalion, which they still hold.

The Caucasus

Stationed in the Caucasus in Georgia and Armenia was a Russian force composed of approximately 75,000 men under the command of Count Mikhail Nikolayevich; his force stood against a Turkish army of 20,000 men led by General Ahmed Muhtar Pasha. While the Russian army was better prepared for the fighting in the region, it lagged behind technologically in certain areas such as heavy artillery and was bested, for example, by the superior British artillery Muhtar Pasha had in his possession.

Many of the commanders under Nikolayevich were of Armenian descent including generals Beybut Shelkovnikov, Mikhail Loris-Melikov, Ivan Lazarev and Arshak Ter-Ghukasov. It was the forces under Lieutenant-general Ter-Ghukasov, stationed near Yerevan, who began their first assault into Ottoman territory by capturing the town of Bayazid on April 27, 1877. Capitalizing on Ter-Ghukasov's victory in Bayazid, Russian forces advanced further, taking the region of Ardahan on May 17; Russian units also besieged the region of Kars in the final week of May although Turkish reinforcements lifted the siege and repulsed them.

In October 1877, the Turkish army launched a massive counteroffensive against Russian forces near Ajaria. Beginning July 19, Muhtar Pasha's forces had been holding the mountainous heights around Ajaria. In the following months, the Russian forces under General Lazarev attempted to take the region back but had failed to do so at each turn. His forces were able to stave off another Turkish offensive in October and then advance forward to take the region on October 15. Turkish casualties in the battle for Ajaria amounted to 5-6,000 dead or injured while over 8,500 became prisoners of war; the number of Russian dead was close to 15,500.

Conclusion

Intervention by the Great Powers

After the Congress of Berlin, the Russian public felt that thousands of Russian soldiers had died for nothing.

Under pressure from the British and having suffered enormous losses (by some estimates about 200,000 men) Russia accepted the truce offered by Ottoman Empire on January 31, 1878, but continued to move towards Constantinople.

The British sent a fleet of battleships to intimidate Russia from entering the city, and Russian forces stopped at San Stefano. Eventually Russia entered into a settlement under the Treaty of San Stefano on March 3, by which the Ottoman Empire would recognize the independence of Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, and autonomy of Bulgaria.

Alarmed by the extension of Russian power into the Balkans, the Great Powers later forced modifications of the treaty in the Congress of Berlin. The main change here was that Bulgaria would be split, according to earlier agreements among the Great Powers that precluded the creation of a large new Slavic state: the northern and eastern parts to become principalities as before (Principality of Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia), though with different governors; and the Macedonian region, originally part of Bulgaria under San Stefano, would return to direct Ottoman administration.

Effects on Bulgaria's Muslim Population

Few of the cities and only a small part of the countryside in Bulgaria were scenes of protracted battle, so civilian losses due to battle were relatively few. Nevertheless, 17 percent (260,000 to 262,000) of the Muslims of Bulgaria died during and immediately after the 1877-78 war. Some 515,000 surviving Muslims, almost all Turkish, were forced from Bulgaria into other areas of the Ottoman Empire, never to return home. They were victims of a combination of local Bulgarian rapacity and what later generations would call state terror. When Russian troops entered part of Bulgaria, Bulgarian revolutionaries, Russian soldiers, especially Cossacks, and Bulgarian peasants began a programme of rape, plunder and massacre. The result was the flight of the Bulgarian Muslims. Some 55 percent of the Muslims of Bulgaria, mainly Turks, were either evicted or killed.

Lasting impact

International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement

This war caused a division in the emblems of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement which continues to this very day. Both Russia and the Ottoman Empire had signed the First Geneva Convention (1864), which made the Red Cross, a color reversal of the flag of neutral Switzerland, the sole emblem of protection for military medical personnel and facilities. However, during this war the cross instead reminded the Ottomans of the Crusades; so they elected to replace the cross with the Red Crescent instead. This ultimately became the symbol of the Movement's national societies in most Muslim countries, and was ratified as an emblem of protection by later Geneva Conventions in 1929 and again in 1949 (the current version).

Iran, which neighbors both countries, considered them to be rivals, and probably considered the Red Crescent in particular to be an Ottoman symbol; except for the Red Crescent being centered and without a star, it is a color reversal of the Ottoman flag (and the modern Turkish flag). This appears to have led to their national society in the Movement being initially known as the Red Lion and Sun Society, using a red version of The Lion and Sun, a traditional Iranian symbol. After the Iranian Revolution of 1979, Iran switched to the Red Crescent, but the Geneva Conventions continue to recognize the Red Lion and Sun as an emblem of protection.

The impact of this division later led to the Magen David Adom controversy, which was resolved partly through the addition of yet another emblem of protection, the Red Crystal, by Protocol III.

See also

• Emigration of Refugees to the Ottoman Empire
• Alexander of Bulgaria
• History of the Balkans
• History of Europe
• Romanian War of Independence
• Battles of the Russo-Turkish War, 1877–78
• Congress of Berlin
• The Turkish Gambit

Further reading

• Acar, Keziban (2004). "An examination of Russian Imperialism: Russian Military and intellectual descriptions of the Caucasians during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878". Nationalities Papers. 32 (1): 7–21. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysource=, |quotes=, |laysummary=, and |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Video links

130 years Liberation of Pleven (Plevna)

• Speech at 3 March 2007 of Mayor of Pleven – Mr. Najden Zelenogorsky
• Speech at 3 March 2007 of Bulgarian Prime Minister - Sergej Stanishev
• Speech at 3 March 2007 of Mr. Potapov, Ambassador of Russia in Bulgaria

External links

• Template:En icon Online Chapter on the War, from the book "The Balkans Since 1453" by Stavrianos
• Template:En icon Virtual War, Virtual Journalism?: Russian Media Responses to ‘Balkan’ Entanglements in Historical Perspective, 1877-2001 by Steven J. Seegel, Brown University (USA)
• Template:En icon Military History: Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878)
• Template:En icon Twenty Five Lectures On Modern Balkan History by Steven W. Sowards
• Template:Ru icon Russian website on the war
• Template:En icon The Romanian Army of the Russo-Turkish War 1877-78
• Template:Ru icon Text of the book Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78 and the Exploits of Liberators
• Template:Bg icon Image gallery for the war