L’organisation militaire en Valachie durant l’époque des Princes Phanariotes (1716-1821)

On 2/14 September 1829, the Peace Treaty of Adrianople between the Tsarist Empire and the Ottoman Empire was concluded with important effects for the two Romanian countries, Moldavia and Wallachia. Their political development was regulated by a separate document, an integral part of the text of the Treaty. The separate Act confirmed the agreements made by the Tsarist Empire and the Ottoman Empire in the text of the Akkerman (White Citadel) Convention on 25 September/7 October 1826, on the election of the Romanian ruler, following the wish and consent expressed by the Sublime Porte. In addition to these political issues, important for the topic covered in this article were the provisions related to the protection of the borders, especially the right bank of the Danube and the islands close to the left bank of the great river that were in proximity to the Ottoman Empire. According to the Adrianople Treaty of 1829, the thalweg along the Danube was considered the border between Moldova and Wallachia on the entire common sector up to the confluence with the Prut River, agreement protected by the Sublime Porte. In 1830, after the Treaty of Adrianople, a commission composed of the delegates of Wallachia, Moldavia, the Tsarist Empire and the Ottoman Empire proceeded to delimiting the river border between the Ottoman Empire and the Romanian Countries by fixing the existing thalweg at that time. Obviously, natural phenomena contributed over time to its modification, so that, after the Congress of Berlin in 1878, when it was decided to trace the land border between the countries bordering the Danube, a series of incidents at the Romanian-Bulgarian river border occurred. In this context, it is highlighted the strategic and economic importance of the Danube.

On 2/14 September 1829, the Peace Treaty of Adrianople between the Tsarist Empire and the Ottoman Empire was concluded with important effects for the two Romanian countries, Moldavia and Wallachia. Their political development was regulated by a separate document, an integral part of the text of the Treaty. The separate Act confirmed the agreements made by the Tsarist Empire and the Ottoman Empire in the text of the Akkerman (White Citadel) Convention on 25 September/7 October 1826, on the election of the Romanian ruler, following the wish and consent expressed by the Sublime Porte. In addition to these political issues, important for the topic covered in this article were the provisions related to the protection of the borders, especially the right bank of the Danube and the islands close to the left bank of the great river that were in proximity to the Ottoman Empire. According to the Adrianople Treaty of 1829, the thalweg along the Danube was considered the border between Moldova and Wallachia on the entire common sector up to the confluence with the Prut River, agreement protected by the Sublime Porte. In 1830, after the Treaty of Adrianople, a commission composed of the delegates of Wallachia, Moldavia, the Tsarist Empire and the Ottoman Empire proceeded to delimiting the river border between the Ottoman Empire and the Romanian Countries by fixing the existing thalweg at that time. Obviously, natural phenomena contributed over time to its modification, so that, after the Congress of Berlin in 1878, when it was decided to trace the land border between the countries bordering the Danube, a series of incidents at the Romanian-Bulgarian river border occurred. In this context, it is highlighted the strategic and economic importance of the Danube.

On 2/14 September 1829, the Peace Treaty of Adrianople between the Tsarist Empire and the Ottoman Empire was concluded with important effects for the two Romanian countries, Moldavia and Wallachia. Their political development was regulated by a separate document, an integral part of the text of the Treaty. The separate Act confirmed the agreements made by the Tsarist Empire and the Ottoman Empire in the text of the Akkerman (White Citadel) Convention on 25 September/7 October 1826, on the election of the Romanian ruler, following the wish and consent expressed by the Sublime Porte. In addition to these political issues, important for the topic covered in this article were the provisions related to the protection of the borders, especially the right bank of the Danube and the islands close to the left bank of the great river that were in proximity to the Ottoman Empire. According to the Adrianople Treaty of 1829, the thalweg along the Danube was considered the border between Moldova and Wallachia on the entire common sector up to the confluence with the Prut River, agreement protected by the Sublime Porte. In 1830, after the Treaty of Adrianople, a commission composed of the delegates of Wallachia, Moldavia, the Tsarist Empire and the Ottoman Empire proceeded to delimiting the river border between the Ottoman Empire and the Romanian Countries by fixing the existing thalweg at that time. Obviously, natural phenomena contributed over time to its modification, so that, after the Congress of Berlin in 1878, when it was decided to trace the land border between the countries bordering the Danube, a series of incidents at the Romanian-Bulgarian river border occurred. In this context, it is highlighted the strategic and economic importance of the Danube.

A Translation and Critical Review of Yu Kil-Chun's On Neutrality In Kwan Hwang I. The Translation* In general there are two kinds ofneutrality practiced in international relations: simple neutrality, in time of war, and perpetual (or permanent) neutrality. Simple neutrality is the condition of a state which, in time of war, takes no part in the hostilities. In time of war between two states, the neighboring states can declare a neutral zone beyond which the belligerents cannot cross, and let the two belligerents settle the war between themselves, within their own territorial boundaries. If a neutral state cannot maintain its neutrality, due to its weakness, its neighboring states may offer joint defense for its neutrality. This practice of offering joint defense under extraordinary circumstances is sanctioned by customary international law. Perpetual (or permanent) neutrality, on the other hand, is the status of institutionalized neutrality for a small, weak state whose strategicgeopolitical location may become a security threat to its neighboring states, ifit is not able to maintain its own independence, due to rivalries among the greater powers. Thus, perpetual neutrality is a special international status which is usually brought about by international agreements or conventions between the state-to-be neutralized and a group of other states, in order to collectively protect and guarantee the independence of the neutral state (permanently), both in time ofwar and in time ofpeace. Ifthe neutrality of a state is violated, it is expected that the guarantor states would apply a collective sanction against the violator, in order to preserve the neutrality. At present Belgium and Bulgaria, in Europe, are examples of such neutrality, and several islands in the Black Sea region are designated as neutral zones. As a rule international law recognizes only a sovereign, independent state as eligible to acquire the neutral status. For example, I HWANG Belgium is such a country. However, Bulgaria has established a status of neutrality (autonomy) under the suzerainty of Turkey (the Ottoman Empire), to which it still sends tribute. Several islands in the Black Sea region, which are under the control of other states, also enjoy the status of neutrality. Such practice of informal neutrality is protected by international law. Today, geopolitically speaking, our country (Korea) is situated in the most strategic area in Asia, as Belgium is in Europe. Politically Korea is much like Bulgaria, under Turkey's suzerainty, as it sends tribute to China. But unlike Bulgaria, Korea has established numerous diplomatic and trade relations with other countries as an independent and equal state. However, our country is not similar to Belgium in that it is still under suzerain-vassal relationship with China. In any case, the international political status of our country is similar to that of Belgium and Bulgaria put together. While the perpetual neutrality of Belgium was established by the greater European powers to create a state of equilibrium in Europe as a policy of mutual security, the Bulgarian neutrality (autonomy) came into being as a result ofthe European policy to halt the southward expansionism of the Russian Empire. Viewed in this context, the neutrality of our country of Asia would also serve as a deterrent to the Russian southward movement, and as an instrument for guaranteeing the security ofall the great powers involved in Asia. Russia has vast territory and a large army; she never ceases to expand her domain by swallowing up small countries in Central Asia and enslaving their people on the pretext ofprotecting them. Although it is a well-known fact that, in general, the great powers have a penchant for dominating and absorbing the lesser powers, Russia is most notorious for its flagrant violations of the international code of behavior, for its barbarism, and for its never-ending pursuit of territorial expansion and Russification. Using the religious conflicts among the believers as a pretext, Russia went to war with Turkey and occupied Moldavia and Walachia, expanding its territory into the European sphere of influence. At this juncture the major European powers, namely Great Britain and France, together with other countries, offered joint assistance to Turkey, in order to stop the Russian aggression. Unable to resist the European pressure, and realizing the difficulties of fighting in...

A Land of Aching Hearts: The Middle East in the Great War

A Land of Aching Hearts: The Middle East in the Great War

The works of Professor Bogdan Murgescu cover more than five centuries of economic, political and cultural history, of a wide geographical area, from the Atlantic to the Eastern borders of the former Ottoman Empire. .....

Sea Change: Ottoman Textiles between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean

In the Senate House of Brussels late on the afternoon of 8 October 1915, the English nurse Edith Cavell and four Belgian and French civilians were sentenced to death by firing squad by a military tribunal of the German General Government of occupied Belgium. Their charge was ‘treason in time of war’ under Paragraph 58 of the German Military Code, which prohibited ‘conducting soldiers to the enemy’. Under a decree of June 1915 issued by General Moritz Freiherr von Bissing, Governor General of Belgium, civilians were tried under military law for activities seen as acting against the German state or the German army. On 10 October, Traugott von Sauberzweig, the Military Governor of Brussels, confirmed Cavell’s sentence with ‘immediate effect’. Diplomatic personnel then spent frantic nocturnal hours seeking to stay the sentence, led by Brand Whitlock, head of the American legation in Belgium, and the Spanish Marquis de Villalobar. Baron Oscar von der Lancken, the German civilian Governor-General, appealed in vain to von Sauberzweig. In the early morning of the 11 October, Cavell and the clandestine Belgian journalist Philippe Baucq were shot and buried at the Tir National firing range in northeast Brussels. The good offices of Whitlock, plus representations from the Pope, King Alfonso of Spain and other European royalty, secured the commutation of the other sentences to life imprisonment. Most of these were released at the war’s end.1

The Ala I Asturum is in itself one of the first instances showing the contribution of Northern Peninsular native population to the Roman Imperial army, these being soldiers recruited round about the change of era and most probably trained in the camp of the legio X Gemina. Their first outpost was Dacia, from where they would subsequently march to Britannia; later returned to the front of the Danube, where the soldiers remained until they were permanently allocated in the British province. Among the military ranks in this auxiliary troops some prefects are to be found whose names appear in epigraphic documents; its final days seem to correspond to the last decades of the third century.

The paper analyses the influence of the military reforms on the battle effectiveness of the Ottoman army on the Balkan front during the Russo-Turkish wars of 1828—1829, 1877—1878 and the Crimean war of 1853—1856. The paper scrutinizes the performance of the Ottoman military along with the key factors that contributed to the outcome of the Russo-Turkish wars. A diverse array of hitherto understudied Ottoman sources, encompassing the works of military leaders and historians, together with the writings of the Russian officers, affords the opportunity to include the course of events of wars between the Ottoman and Russian empires into a wider context of the transformation of the Ottoman military and draw several conclusions concerning its results. Throughout the century, the Ottoman sultans were actively transforming the army, implementing changes that affected all aspects of its life, from the organizational structure to the basics of the military education. However, a multifaceted analysis of conflicts with Russia revealed that the pace of transformation was insufficient, leading to several military defeats of the Ottoman empire. The primary reasons for these outcomes lay in the Ottoman military command’s approach to operational planning. In the absence of a well-developed strategy the Ottoman empire was only able to conduct passive defense. The wars of 1828—1829 and 1877—1878 clearly demonstrated that the Russian army cleared this defense within a short time. Au contraire, the active defense carried out by the Sublime Porte during the Crimean war, resulted in a number of tactical successes on the Balkans. At the same time, technological superiority and military strength have not played a decisive role in the outcome of these wars.

Mehterhane represents the most important musical formation found in the royal courts of Moldova and the Wallachia, because it is the one that makes the connection – from an artistic and political point of view – between these countries and the Ottoman Empire. The context in which this musical formation comes into the possession of the Romanian rulers is related to the geopolitical context of the Romanian Countries related to the Ottoman Empire. Due to the increasing influence of the Ottomans on the Romanian Countries, they become an integral part of the empire from the Ottoman perspective. As a result, the Romanian rulers received the sultan’s reign, in exchange for a sum of money, and they invested them according to Ottoman practice, by conferring a badge, as a representation of the sultan’s political power, among which elements were the mehterhane. This formation was the one that accompanied the ruler not only in all the official public events, but also in the private ones, assuring him the necessary grandeur, being as well regarded as a bey in the political hierarchy of the Gate from this point of view. From an artistic point of view, in Moldova and the Wallachia, the mehterhane had to be heard daily at dusk (chindie) and to make the parade, called “nöbet”. The music of mehterhane was both instrumental and vocal-instrumental, while the main repertoire consisted of military marches and prayers (gülbank), sung during war, while he performed octaves, bestels and semais following the structure of “fasıl” concerts, specific to Ottoman music in general during peacetime. Due to the psychological effect exerted on the enemies on the battlefield and the moralizing effect on the Ottoman soldiers, the mehterhane was also adopted by some European armies, without reaching the expected effect, due to the mismatch with the foreign environment where it was active. The more, it starts to become well known by Western influence and its musical influences are taken over by famous composers such as Mozart.

Printing and Old Romanian Books (1508-1830) gained a well-established position in the European Cultural Heritage by the beginning of the 16th century, with the introduction of imprints in Cyrillic typeface, ahead of many European states. The first printing press was introduced in Wallachia in 1508, when hieromonk Macarie issued several religious books in Slavonic at Târgoviște, for Romanian Orthodox Christians and Slavonic people of Europe. Prints in Romanian would enter the cultural circuit as early as the fifth decennium of the 16th century. Transylvanian typographies started their activity by printing books in Latin and German. In 1535 Johan Honterus of Brașov (1498–1549) set a typography, thus establishing the city as one of the centres for the Lutheran believe in Transylvania. In 1544, the Romanian Catechism was published at Sibiu, a text that aimed to promote the Lutheran theology amongst Romanians. Between 1535 and 1557 over 50 works were published in Latin, Greek and German in the typography of Brașov, which then spread across many European countries. After deacon Coresi came to Brașov in the second half of the 16th century, several books were published with Cyrillic typeface in Slavonic, Romanian and bilingual editions for Orthodox Christians. The Romanian printing activity came to a standstill that lasted from the last decennium of the 16th century until the fourth decennium of the 17th century. The activity restarted during the reign of Matei Basarab in Wallachia (1632-1654) and Vasile Lupu in Moldavia (1634-1653). Printing was introduced in Moldavia in 1642 and, in comparison with Wallachia and Transylvania, Romanian was used as main language. Books in Greek, intended for the Orthodox faithful within the Ottoman Empire, were also printed. After 1812, the eastern part of Moldavia was annexed by Tsarist Russia. In 1814, a printing house that provided literature for the churches of the eparchy was set up in Chișinău, the capital city of the province. Some of the books would reach countries of Central and Western Europe or even cultural centres in Ukraine and Russia. In conclusion, books printed within the Romanian countries were mainly for religious purposes. Sets were issued in Romanian, Slavonic, Latin, German and Greek, for the use of Christians throughout both Western and Eastern Europe.

The Last Ottoman Generation and the Making of the Modern Middle East

The paper discusses the development of the aircraft industry and the military organization in Russia, France, Great Britain, the USA, Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire with the primary attention to the Caucasus’s army, the Black Sea Fleet and to the Southern-Western front. It is proved that the Turkish aviation took the active part in the genocide of Armenians, that the Turks made secret test-flights of the newest German aircraft’s types before their starting up in the serial production. It is established, when and in which place in the Asia Minor the Turks used the chemical weapon. The comparative analysis of the development of the foreign and of the Russian aircraft firms is made with the primary attention to the fates of the organizers of the Russian aircraft industry – Major-General M.V. Shidlovsky and S.S. Schetinin. Firstly, with the help of the government of Paraguay, the date of Schetinin’s birth and death is established. The Guerra del Chaco (1932–1935) is studied as the direct continuation of the WWI. Its analysis is based on the works of W. Churchill, Marshal F. Foch, Infantry’s General Yu.N. Danilov, military historian A.A. Kersnovsky. The making of the aircraft’s technological structure in the WWI is considered according to theory of the social clasterism of V.L. Makarov and to the theory of long waves of V.E. Dementiev.