The aim of the article is to reveal so far unknown information regarding the participation of the population from Chiprovtsi (Northwestern Bulgaria) in the Ottoman War against the Holy League (1683–1699), and to put new issues into the debate about the participation of the subjects of the Sultan in military activities.
The main story has been described by Bakkaloğlu Sarı Hadji Mehmed pasha Defterdar (?–1717) in his story: “Zübde-i Vekayiat” - “Important events”. The information from the narrative will be compared to other sources from the epoch and some assumptions will be made about the course of events and the chronological frameworks of participation of the reaya from Chiprovtsi region on the front line. Special attention will be paid to military leaders that took part in the war and were involved in the development of the events known as the Chiprovtsi uprising.
The peace mediated at Carlowitz in 1699 was comprehensive only because it was not a single agreement but a series of treaties. It was an honour for the Dutch to be accepted as mediators at Carlowitz, but it was also an opportunity. The wars in Europe had harmed Dutch trade with the Ottoman Empire, so the Dutch had a direct commercial interest in securing peace. Moreover, they tried to convert the added prestige of a successful mediation into more extensive trade privileges for Dutch merchants. In the end the direct benefits – apart from diplomatic glory – for the Dutch remained limited.
The article analyses the grand embassy of the Habsburg imperial diplomat Count Wolfgang iv of Oettingen-Wallerstein to Constantinople, which took place after the Peace of Karlowitz 1699 to 1701. The focus is on the symbolism of the mission. Key events analysed in this context are the exit from Vienna, the border crossing near Slankamen (Serbia), the entry into Constantinople and the initial audience with the Sultan at the Topkapı Serail. Special attention is paid to gift-giving, comunal meals and the ceremonial of the border change that took place near Slankamen (Serbia). Count Wolfgang and the corresponding Ottoman ambassador, Ibrahim Pascha, who was on his way to the imperial court in Vienna, performed a series of symbolic actions that provide a deep insight into Habsburg-Ottoman conflict management and peacekeeping mechanisms. Fundamental principles such as parity, hospitality, community and friendship can be recognized. Last but not least the mission also increased the symbolic capital of Count Wolfgang, who was publicly represented as a bringer of peace, which was supported by the extensive dissemination through different media.
The paper examines in detail the later stages (1697–8) of English mediating diplomacy undertaken at the Porte by William, Lord Paget, William iii’s envoy to the Ottoman court, through negotiations in person or by correspondence with Ottoman and Austrian ministers. An attempt is made to ‘globalise’ the negotiations within the context of both the so-called ‘Glorious Revolution’ in England in 1688 and the ensuing Nine Years War, and the Sacra Lega conflict between the Ottoman and Habsburg empires. Particular attention is paid to Paget’s difficult and complicated diplomatic negotiations with the Ottoman grand vizier Amûja-zâde Hüseyn Pasha and Chief Dragoman Alexander Mavrocordato, and with Ulrich, Graf Kinsky, the Austrian Chancellor, between the ending of the Nine Years War and Ottoman defeat on the battlefield of Zenta in the summer of 1697, and the opening of the Congress of Carlowitz in the autumn of 1698. Considerable use is made of Lord Paget’s diplomatic correspondence from these years, now preserved in the Library of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
The Congress of Carlowitz (1698–1699) was the first international congress attended by the diplomats of Peter the Great. For the first time, the Russian diplomats confronted with the practice of mediation in peace negotiations. Unlike other powers of the anti-Turkish coalition, Russia agreed to sign with the Ottoman Empire just a truce for two years. The Russian-Turkish treaty lost its power after the Peace of Constantinople (1700). However, contacts established by Russian diplomats with representatives of Sublime Porte at the congress strengthened during the stay of the Russian ambassadors in Istanbul. It had an important role at the beginning of the stay in Istanbul of Peter Tolstoy, the first Russian ambassador who was sent as a permanent resident at the Sublime Porte.
In the future, the Treaty of Carlowitz has been considered by the Russians and the Ottomans as proper practice. The copies of all bilateral treaties signed by the powers participating in the Congress were delivered to Ambassadorial Prikaz (Posolsky Prikaz). They were translated into Russian and copied in Moscow. During negotiations with the Sublime Porte, Russian diplomats appealed regularly to the texts of these treaties in different cases. Peter Tolstoy was primarily interested in how the issues of trade relations and land delimitation had been earlier resolved. In his turn, Peter Shafirov considered the possibility of using of the article from the Polish-Turkish treaty on the expulsion of fugitives as a basis for the expulsion of Karl xii from the Ottoman Empire.
The experience of negotiations through intermediaries was moved forward on the Russian-Turkish negotiations after the Treaty of Pruth (1711). In December 1711, the Turkish side insisted on the participation of English and Dutch ambassadors as mediators during the negotiations with the Russian side. The success of the negotiations in Carlowitz, achieved with the English-Dutch intermediation, became an additional confirmation that the conditions of the new Russian-Turkish treaty would also be respected.
The chapter raises the question why the Treaty of Carlowitz has been largely relegated to oblivion from the European memory. One reason is that almost nobody in present-day Europe is interested in its celebration. Even its real winners, the Austrians, can hardly celebrate today their past conquest of Hungary and triumph over ‘the Turk’ that was linked with harsh persecutions of Protestants, Jews and Muslims. Moreover, in most cases the treaty had proved short-lived: the Ottoman peace with Russia was broken as early as 1710, that with Venice in 1714 and that with Vienna in 1716. The case of Poland was quite different. Although at the beginning it was regarded as a failure since Poland did not acquire any new lands but only regained those lost to the Ottomans in 1672, precisely for that reason the peace proved highly stable and remained in force until Poland’s partitions in 1795. The author draws a somewhat paradox conclusion that the treaty remained stable precisely because both sides had been disappointed over its conclusion – a real proof that the peace was the result of a hard bargain and genuine compromise.
Based on archival sources from Venice the author demonstrates how a victory at Carlowitz can be gradually transformed into a political and partly economical withdraw of the Serenissima from the southern parts of the Balkans. The loss of Morea in 1718, which of course was not met with joy by the Venetians, doesn’t make the Ottoman policy of the Republic of San Marco a revanchist one. The idea was rather by keeping peace with the Sublime Porte and without joining any coalition against the Turks to develop trade and economic relations with Ottoman territories all over the Mediterranean. This was especially the case during the second half of the 18th century. Even though there was some success in strengthening the Levantine trade, Venice couldn’t develop a more efficient economic “prescription” for stand up against British, French and Dutch trade competition in the Ottoman empire, which eventually led to the political end of the Republic in 1797.
The Treaty of Carlowitz represents one of the most important turning points in the history of Hungary. After more than one hundred and fifty years almost the entire territory of Hungary was liberated from Ottoman rule and united under one sceptre.
Period of time from 1521 to 1718 was extremely hard for the population of Hungary: there were fourteen wars waged against the Ottoman Empire and, with the aim of preserving Hungarian state sovereignty and guaranteeing the free exercise of the Protestant religion, Estates of Hungary and Transylvania had to wage an additional seven wars against the Habsburg Monarchy. Altogether in the examined period there were twenty-one wars that lasted for a total of approximately ninety-three years.
One of the long-lasting consequences of those wars were deep changes in demographic movements. Huge losses due to prolonged war conditions caused stagnation in the population for over 180 years, even with the large-scale immigration from adjoining countries. A direct consequence of the military actions along with massive immigration, was a thorough change in the ethnic composition of the population of Hungary during which the proportion of Hungarians was reduced from 75–80 per cent to only 50 per cent, with a tendency towards further decline due to continuing immigration. Because of these developments there was a change in the character of the state. It became a highly multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-cultural society with all the problems that, as a result of the aforementioned change, emanated from it in the age of emerging nationalism from the first half of nineteenth century onwards.