WARS AND TREATIES
1815 to 1914
DEMOCRACY AND DIPLOMACY
(3s. 6d. net)
BY
ARTHUR PONSONBY
“It is the completest statement of the case for the democratic control
of foreign affairs which has been published, and contains a mass of
facts whose value cannot be exaggerated. We owe Mr. Ponsonby a great
debt for this work.”--_Labour Leader._
“... Mr. Ponsonby’s main contention is one which may and should receive
the hearty assent of many who disagree with him in detail. He strongly
urges the necessity in dealing with foreign affairs of ensuring the
co-operation and approval of the great mass of the people. He is
manifestly quite right.”--The late LORD CROMER in The _Spectator_.
REBELS AND REFORMERS
(6s. net)
BY
ARTHUR & DOROTHEA PONSONBY
Savonarola--William the Silent--Tycho Brahe--Cervantes--Giordano
Bruno--Grotius--Voltaire--Hans Andersen--Mazzini--W. Lloyd
Garrison--Thoreau--Tolstoy
“Mr. and Mrs. Ponsonby’s book is intended for children or for those
who are too busy to read books in many volumes. But the interest of
it lies not in the necessarily short and simple narratives giving the
story rather than the ideas, although these are done clearly and with
spirit, but in the reflections which lie about those stories and lodge
here and there in the reader’s mind. Like all books worth reading this
one is the outcome of a mass of judgments and beliefs which may be
very briefly expressed in the work itself, but lend it the gift which
in the case of human beings we call personality.”--_The Times Literary
Supplement._
“The story of these twelve lives is told in these pages--and told with
a most enticing simplicity and the happiest taste--in the hope of
redressing the balance between men of action and men of thought, and of
showing that this type of character and achievement can be made just as
interesting to the young as the more conventional hero of the history
book.... This book is more especially for the young, but it will be a
delight also to grown-up readers.”--_The Nation._
“The biographies are always well simplified and written in a clear
and pointed way. They are accompanied by portraits, which add not a
little to the work’s attractiveness as a book unusually well fitted to
the needs of young readers who are beginning to take an interest in
history.”--_The Scotsman._
WARS & TREATIES
1815 to 1914
BY
ARTHUR PONSONBY
[Illustration]
LONDON: GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN LTD.
RUSKIN HOUSE 40 MUSEUM STREET, W.C. 1
NEW YORK THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
_First published_ _April 1918_
_Reprinted_ _June 1918_
_Third Edition, revised and enlarged_ _January 1919_
(_All rights reserved_)
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 7
YEAR
1821–1828 GREEK WAR 14
1828–1829 RUSSO-TURKISH WAR 16
1830–1839 WAR BETWEEN HOLLAND AND BELGIUM 18
1830–1839 WAR IN PORTUGAL AND SPAIN 20
1831 RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN IN POLAND 22
1832–1841 TURKO-EGYPTIAN WAR 24
1838–1842 FIRST AFGHAN WAR 26
1840–1842 OPIUM WAR IN CHINA 28
1846–1848 AMERICAN WAR WITH MEXICO 30
1848–1849 AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN WAR 32
1831 }
}
1848–1849 }
} ITALIAN WAR OF LIBERATION 34
1859 }
}
1866–1867 }
1854–1856 CRIMEAN WAR 36
1857–1858 INDIAN MUTINY 38
1857–1860 CHINESE WAR 40
1861–1865 AMERICAN CIVIL WAR 42
1862–1867 FRENCH EXPEDITION IN MEXICO 44
1864–1870 BRAZILIAN WAR 46
1864 DANISH WAR 48
1866 AUSTRO-PRUSSIAN WAR 50
1867–1868 BRITISH EXPEDITION IN ABYSSINIA 52
1870–1871 FRANCO-GERMAN WAR 54
1873–1874 THE ASHANTI WAR 56
1877–1878 RUSSO-TURKISH WAR 58
1878–1881 SECOND AFGHAN WAR 60
1879 ZULU WAR 62
1879–1882 THE CHILE-PERUVIAN WAR 64
1881 FRENCH EXPEDITION IN TUNIS 66
1882 EGYPTIAN WAR 68
1884–1885 FRANCO-CHINESE WAR 70
1823–1826 }
}
1851 } BURMESE WARS 72
}
1885 }
1885 SERBO-BULGARIAN WAR 74
1894–1895 CHINO-JAPANESE WAR 76
1895–1896 ITALO-ABYSSINIAN WAR 78
1896–1898 WAR IN THE SOUDAN 80
1897 TURKO-GREEK WAR 82
1897–1898 SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR 84
1881 }
} THE BOER WARS 86
1899–1902 }
1899–1900 BOXER RISING IN CHINA 88
1904–1905 RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR 90
1911–1912 TURKO-ITALIAN WAR 92
1912–1913 FIRST BALKAN WAR 94
1913 SECOND BALKAN WAR 96
IMPORTANT TREATIES 98
INDEX OF TREATIES 102
BIBLIOGRAPHY 104
WARS AND TREATIES
1815–1914
INTRODUCTION
A growing number of people are devoting their attention to a closer
study of foreign affairs. Many of them may not have the opportunity to
read the larger volumes of histories; and, indeed, even if they had,
they would find their choice of books very much restricted when they
came to the more recent period of European and world history, although
in the last year or so the gap has to some extent been filled up by
several interesting studies of international politics in the nineteenth
century. Some knowledge of this period is essential if we are to
understand the full significance of the events of to-day, and if we are
to form any helpful opinion of the course to be pursued in future.
Historians often take for granted that their readers already have some
general knowledge of the groundwork of events and they build up their
structure of criticism, their delineation of policy and tendencies,
and their survey of international problems on the assumption that the
scaffolding has been erected. But often it has not, and then history,
more especially the complex tangle of international history, becomes
difficult to grasp. It may therefore serve some useful purpose if a few
poles of scaffolding representing the dates and outline of conflicts
and agreements between nations can be supplied in a very brief and
easily intelligible form, a presentment of the bare record of facts
which may be useful for reference.
During the last hundred years war has been a more common occurrence
in international intercourse than most people realize. The forty-two
records of wars tabled in these pages do not cover the whole ground.
They are the chief conflicts, or the conflicts fraught with the most
serious consequences, but they are by no means the only occasions on
which there was fighting in the world. Revolutions, unless they led
to international war, are not mentioned, neither are expeditions such
as the advance on Llassa, the Chitral expedition, the Indian frontier
wars, the Kaffir wars, the Somaliland expeditions, the revolt of the
Herreroes in German West Africa or the French expeditions in Morocco:
the wars between the states of South America, with two exceptions, have
also been omitted. But the list as it stands, is striking enough and
may suffice to make the student inquire further into the circumstances
which produced this almost unceasing strife.
The causes are epitomized in the fewest possible words and the occasion
is separated from the cause. Causes of wars are very seldom remembered
and are not very easily discovered in the perusal of histories. The
occasion is sometimes mistaken for the cause, whereas it may often be
merely a pretext. The occasion of a war has not infrequently been a
comparatively trivial incident, whereas the cause can be traced to the
gradual development of friction for which divergence of policies or
conflict of ambitions may have been responsible. The trivial incident,
or even an incident of a more serious nature, may pass off without
fatal consequences if no friction exists between the nations and there
is a general atmosphere of amicable understanding. Where, on the
contrary, relations are strained it requires but a very small spark
to light up a conflagration. It is important therefore to detach the
occasion from the cause.
Causes of war in the nineteenth century differ to some extent from
those of previous centuries. The elemental combative passion of man
expressing itself in fierce racial animosities is far less noticeable.
Religious differences do not figure so positively as a reason for
conflict. Dynastic ambitions linger on and still play a formidable
part, even after 1815, but not with the same unashamed and aggressive
arrogance as in bygone centuries. Nationalist aspirations begin
to assert themselves, and the waves of revolutionary exasperation
with outworn systems of despotic government have made those very
governments combat that spirit by force of arms. As the century
proceeds, and the wonderful inventions for rapid transit and
communication develop, the most noticeable element in war-making is
the commercial or colonial ambition of governments fostered largely
by the pressure of financial interests and declaring itself under the
name of Empire. This policy of competitive imperial expansion in the
newly accessible regions of the globe will be found to constitute the
most frequent cause of dispute, of jealousy, and of suspicion between
nations. The pretext will vary, the excuse will be presented under
plausible guises for popular consumption, but the ultimate cause, the
fundamental origin will be the same. Imperialism economic in its origin
is fostered largely by an exaggerated spirit of nationalism.
The remarkable extent of Empire expansion in the latter part of the
nineteenth century is best illustrated by the following figures:--
_Acquisitions of Territory_
To the British Empire 1870–1900: 4,754,000 square miles;
88,000,000 population.
To France 1884–1900: 3,583,580 square miles; 36,553,000
population.
To Germany 1884–1900: 1,026,220 square miles; 16,687,100
population.
But perhaps the chief and most frequent cause of war is war itself. In
the Balkan Peninsula--where, whenever the fighting has ceased, nothing
approaching a satisfactory settlement has ever been concluded--this is
specially true. Eight or nine of the wars recorded concern the Balkans.
Or take the Crimean War. Sir Spencer Walpole says:
“From 1856 to 1878 the Continent of Europe was afflicted with five
great wars--the Franco-Austrian War of 1859; the Danish of 1864;
the Austro-Prussian of 1860; the Franco-German of 1870 and the
Russo-Turkish of 1878: all of which can be lineally traced to the war
of 1854,” and one at least of those wars, as we know, sowed the seeds
of future war. The war that is concluded by a dictated peace, the war
that leaves a sense of grievance and unsatisfied though legitimate
claims, the war that inspires a lasting desire for revenge inevitably
leads to future war. Wars are never aggressive but always defensive on
the part of those who are responsible for waging them. Wars are never
defensive but always aggressive on the part of those against whom they
are waged. The Ministers and monarchs do the quarrelling, the people
believe the version they are told and obey. The people do the fighting
and make the sacrifice, the Ministers and monarchs do the treaty-making
without consulting them. The people’s part is one of valiance,
endurance, and suffering; the part of the Ministers and monarchs is one
too often marred by failure and frequently disfigured by intrigue and
deception.
Cast your eye through these forty-two very brief records of wars. Think
of the valour, the determination, and the heroism of the people, be
they soldiers or civilians. Consider the noble part played by those
who without question obeyed what they were led to believe was their
country’s call. And then look on the other side at the results--the
ineptitude of the statesmen, the patched-up treaties, the worthless
agreements, the wars that led to further wars, the failure to secure
a settlement after the soldier had done his part, and the unnecessary
prolongation of conflicts when agreement might have been reached by the
exercise of a little wisdom and foresight. The contrast is remarkable
between the actions on the battlefield and the intrigue in the council
chamber. Blood has been spilt, lives lost, and victories won often
without any positive advantage being gained in the final result.
The wars are arranged according to date. Some were long-drawn-out
struggles, others sharp conflicts of a few months. The number of men
engaged in any battle and the casualties if they could be tabulated
would no doubt seem comparatively small to our modern eyes. The total
loss of life in the Crimean War amounted to about 600,000 men.[1] An
estimate of the loss in killed and wounded in some of the other great
battles may be given as follows: Solferino (1859), 31,500; Chickamauga
(1863), 35,100; Gettysburg (1863), 37,000; Königrätz (1866), 26,894;
Vionville (1870), 32,800; Gravelotte (1870), 30,000; Plevna (1877),
19,000;[2] The Boer War (1899–1902): British losses, 28,603; Boers
killed, 4,000, prisoners 40,000;[3] Mukden (1905), 131,000.
[1] _The Cambridge Modern History_, vol. xii
[2] An article in _Current History_, by General Duryee, of the
U.S.A. Army.
[3] _Encyclopædia Britannica._
Wars to the generation that experiences them are unmixed evils
engendering hatred and evil passions and bringing in their train loss,
suffering, destruction, and impoverishment, all of which are acutely
felt. The succeeding generation inherit their consequences in the
shape of high taxation and the attempts to mend and reconstruct the
dislocated national life. The horror has gone but the memory remains.
To the succeeding generation they become episodes read of in the cold
pages of history, and then at last they fade into mere names--a battle
with a vaguely remembered date.
Each war is terminated by a treaty. The main provisions of a few
additional treaties which were not concluded after wars are also given.
In but few instances have war treaties been observed, and in several
cases they were not worth the paper they were written on. Treaties are
signed and ratified by statesmen without the sanction or approval,
and sometimes without the knowledge, of their people. The statesmen
enter the council chamber as individuals bent on securing advantages
at other people’s expense, and ready by bargain and intrigue to attain
their ends. These instruments therefore are expressions of temporary
expediency sometimes exacted after defeat, sometimes the result of
compromise and generally inconclusive. If treaties are to become sacred
obligations founded on international justice and respected not merely
by changing governments but by whole nations, the spirit in which
they are drawn up and the method by which they are concluded must be
radically altered. The existence of secret treaties and engagements has
proved to be one of the gravest dangers to European peace.
There are a large number of conventions which have been concluded
between nations, by which social intercourse with regard to such
matters as post and telegraph is facilitated, and of late years
arbitration treaties between one Power and another have multiplied very
rapidly. This is the one advance in which the efforts of diplomacy have
borne fruit. The important treaty of Arbitration between Great Britain
and the United States is the only one of these treaties mentioned
in the list. Agreements with regard to the conduct of war have been
made, such as the Geneva Convention of 1864 and 1906, and the Hague
Declarations of 1899 and 1907, but they have proved to a large extent
futile.
Treaties are generally concluded for an undefined period, and lapse
owing to deliberate breach or altered circumstances. But no people, and
it may safely be said no government, was precisely aware which of the
innumerable treaties were still in force, and what actually in given
circumstances its obligations were.
There may be many instances in which a nation may look back with pride
at the victory of its arms and the achievements of its generals. There
are but few instances in which a nation can look back with pride at
the advantages gained by treaties of peace and at the achievements
of its diplomatists. From the Treaty of Vienna, 1815, to the Treaty
of Bukarest, 1913, the record of so-called settlements is not one to
inspire confidence in the efficacy of warfare or in the methods of
diplomacy.
After the termination of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 there were great
hopes of an era of peace. But two antagonistic elements existed in
Europe which were bound sooner or later to come into open conflict.
On the one hand the French Revolution had engendered in the peoples
a spirit of unrest, of discontent, of impatience with the unfettered
monarchical system, and at the same time confidence in their power and
hope of success in the destruction of tyranny and arbitrary government.
It was in fact the rise of democracy. On the other side the despotic
governments were ready to co-operate, and, under the guidance of
Metternich, endeavour to repress and exterminate the movement for the
establishment of constitutional government, and for the expression of
nationalist and democratic aspirations. Two waves of revolution passed
over Europe in 1830 and 1848, and by the middle of the century the
reactionaries could no longer hold their own, and many states had been
freed from despotism and oppression.
In the latter part of the century, however, as has already been
pointed out, fresh causes for war arose in the competitive ambition
of governments for imperial expansion. Wars became more frequent
and extended into remote regions of the world which had become
accessible. There are forty-seven wars mentioned in these records; of
these thirteen took place before the Crimean War, which is about the
middle of the period, and thirty-three after. In twenty-one out of
the forty-five wars Great Britain was either directly or indirectly
concerned as a belligerent. There were only two wars in which Christian
nations were not primarily involved.
It must be remembered that in no country had the peoples any voice
in the determination of policy so far as international affairs were
concerned. While for brevity’s sake the usual phraseology is adopted,
and such expressions used as “France decided,” “Russia refused,” “Italy
intended,” etc., etc., in no case does the name of the country mean
the people or indeed anything more than a monarch and a few statesmen.
Although constitutional monarchy became established during the period
in many countries, and with it, parliamentary government, the idea of
diplomacy, foreign policy, international engagements, and treaties
being under parliamentary supervision and control, had not yet been
suggested.
The solution of the vast problem of the avoidance of war in the future,
if it rests alone on the wisdom of sovereigns and statesmen, is not
likely, judging by the experience of the past, to be reached very
rapidly. In the meanwhile a careful examination of the events of recent
history is a necessary preparation for all who want to dispel the
strange but prevalent delusion that force of arms settles international
disputes, and this record may be useful as a manual for reference.
THE GREEK WAR
1821–1828
Belligerents:
Greece and later Russia, France and Great Britain.
Turkey.
Cause:
Nationalist aspirations had been growing in Greece ever since the
French Revolution. These were encouraged by an intellectual revival and
commercial development. The tyranny and cruel oppression of Turkish
misgovernment under Sultan Mahmud gradually inflamed public opinion.
Occasion:
The Hetæria Philike, a secret society, inaugurated the rebellion. The
first move was made in Moldavia, where it completely failed. This was
followed by a revolt in the Morea and the islands of the Ægean and
subsequently in Central Greece.
Course of the War:
There were wholesale massacres on both sides, notably the destruction
by the Turks of the inhabitants of Chios. The Turks were unable to
suppress the revolt. The Greeks under Kolokotrones exhausted the
Turkish army, and assistance was sought by the Sultan from Mehemet Ali,
of Egypt, who in 1823 conquered Crete and defeated the Greeks at Psara.
The Egyptians and Turks entered Morea. Missolonghi fell after a year’s
siege, and the garrison in the Acropolis at Athens surrendered in June
1827. By a treaty signed at London in July 1827 Great Britain, France,
and Russia decided to intervene as mediators. The Turks rejected
mediation. The victory of the allied fleets at Navarino took place on
October 20 1827.
Political Result:
By the _Treaty of Adrianople_, September 1829 (see also p. 17) Greece
became autonomous under the supreme sovereignty of the Sultan. Shortly
afterwards the Powers agreed that Greece should be established as an
absolutely independent kingdom, but without Crete or Samos, and with
a frontier line drawn from the mouth of the River Achelous to a spot
near Thermopylæ. Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg accepted the crown, but
renounced it after a few months. Prince Otho of Bavaria accepted it in
February 1833. After a revolution in 1862 he was succeeded by Prince
George of Denmark in 1863, the father of King Constantine who was
deposed in 1917.
Remarks:
Greece was confined within far too narrow limits, with which she could
not rest contented. The enmity between Russia and Turkey was in no way
mitigated, and Russian ambitions remained unsatisfied.
RUSSO-TURKISH WAR
1828–1829
Belligerents:
Russia.
Turkey.
Cause:
By the Treaty of London, July 1827, Great Britain, Russia, and France
undertook to put an end to the conflict in the East, which had arisen
out of the Greek struggle for independence. After the victory of
Navarino, Canning died and Great Britain was inactive. By the _Treaty
of Akerman_, October 1826, the points of contention between Russia and
Turkey had been settled in Russia’s favour. But the Russian Government
ardently desired a contest with Turkey.
Occasion:
The Sultan Mahmud issued a proclamation which was a direct challenge
to Russia, and followed it by a levy of troops and the expulsion of
Christians from Constantinople. On April 26, 1828, Russia replied by
declaring war.
Course of the War:
The Russians occupied the Roumanian principalities and crossed the
Danube. At first the Turks had considerable successes in the Dobrudja,
and the Russians, who suffered enormous losses, were only able to
capture Varna. Reserves were brought up during the winter. After fierce
resistance the Turks were routed near Shumla. In July 1829 the Russians
crossed the Balkans, the fleet co-operated in the Black Sea, and the
army began to march on Constantinople. In Asia, Kars and Erzeroum
having fallen into the Russian hands, the Sultan yielded.
Political Result:
By the _Treaty of Adrianople_, September 14, 1829, Russian ascendancy
in the principalities of the Danube was permanently assured, and the
whole of the Caucasus was converted into Russian territory. The Straits
were declared free and open to merchant ships of all Powers. The
Turkish Government gave its adhesion to the Treaty of London regulating
the Greek frontier.
Remarks:
Russia’s hold over Turkey was greatly strengthened, but the
establishment of an absolutely independent kingdom in Greece was
finally secured.
WAR BETWEEN HOLLAND AND BELGIUM
1830–1839
Belligerents:
Holland.
Belgium, France, Great Britain.
Cause:
The Kingdom of the Netherlands was set up by the Congress of Vienna in
1815, but from the first there was discord between the two states of
the kingdom. King William was a Dutchman and a Protestant. Holland,
although the smaller of the two states, had a permanent majority in the
Chamber. Public offices and appointments were filled by Dutchmen. The
hatred of Dutch rule grew, and with it a desire for separation.
Occasion:
The success of the French Revolution of 1830 led to an outbreak in
Brussels, and Belgian insurgents fought against the Dutch soldiers.
The Powers met in London, and Belgium was declared a separate kingdom.
Leopold of Saxe-Coburg was offered the crown and entered Brussels as
King of the Belgians on June 21, 1831; at the same time the Dutch
prepared for an invasion.
Course of the War:
On August 9, 1831, the Belgians were routed in an encounter with
the Dutch, but on the intervention of the French army King William
withdrew. The Conference in London drew up a treaty, but King William
refused to come to terms and retained possession of Antwerp. In
November a combined British and French fleet sailed for the coast of
Holland, and a French army laid siege to Antwerp. The Dutch garrison
capitulated on December 23, 1831, and the town was handed over to the
Belgians and the French troops withdrew. Still the Dutch refused to
yield and held two forts which enabled them to command the navigation
of the Scheldt. Not till March 1838 did Holland signify her readiness
to accept the treaty.
Political Result:
The Conference throughout had endeavoured to come to an agreement;
Austria, Prussia, and Russia sympathized with Holland; but eventually
the final _Treaty of London_ was signed on April 19, 1839. Luxemburg
was divided, and also the district of Maestricht. The Scheldt was
declared open to the commerce of both countries. The national debt was
divided, and the five Powers guaranteed the independence and neutrality
of Belgium.
Remarks:
As independent states the two countries lived side by side amicably.
The neutrality of Belgium was reaffirmed in 1870 on the outbreak of the
Franco-German War.
Leopold was succeeded in 1865 by his son Leopold II, under whose
sovereignty the Congo Free State was placed in 1885. King Albert
succeeded his uncle in 1909.
WAR IN PORTUGAL AND SPAIN
1830–1839
Belligerents:
Followers of Don Miguel.
Portuguese Constitutionalists.
Spaniards.
Carlists.
and for a period France and Great Britain.
Cause:
Don Miguel, the head of the reactionary party, was betrothed to
Donna Maria, daughter of Pedro of Brazil. In 1828, disregarding his
professions of loyalty to the Constitution, he declared himself King of
Portugal. The Constitutionalists, who were adherents of Donna Maria,
were crushed. She received no assistance from outside to deal with the
usurper.
In Spain Don Carlos, the King’s brother, was the representative of
the reactionary party. King Ferdinand, before his death, issued the
Pragmatic Sanction, which enabled his daughter to succeed to the
throne. The King was weak and unpopular, and Don Carlos had a great
following in Spain.
Occasion:
In 1830 Great Britain and France demanded satisfaction for the attacks
on their subjects in Lisbon, and their squadrons appeared in the Tagus.
Great Britain obtained an indemnity and an apology: the French admiral
carried off the best ships of Don Miguel’s navy. In 1831 Pedro came
over from Brazil and raised troops for the reconquest of Portugal,
which began in the following year. Don Carlos was making common cause
with Don Miguel when the King of Spain died in 1833, and his child
Isabella was declared Queen, with Christina, his wife, as Regent.
Rebellion broke out, and Don Carlos was proclaimed King in several
provinces.
Course of the War:
Don Pedro captured Oporto, but was besieged there for nearly a year.
With assistance from outside he overcame the resistance of the enemy
and entered Lisbon in July, 1833. A quadruple treaty was signed at
London in April 1834, by which Spain and Portugal, assisted by Great
Britain and France, engaged to drive both Miguel and Carlos from the
Peninsula. A Spanish army marched against Miguel and the British fleet
arrived. Miguel renounced the crown, and quitted the Peninsula. Don
Carlos was conducted to London, but he escaped and appeared again in
Spain at the head of his insurgents in July 1834. He gained several
victories, and prepared to march on Madrid. Christina appealed to
France for assistance, but Louis Philippe was reluctant to embark on
the enterprise and refused. The war continued till at last General
Espatero forced back the insurgents, the Carlists turned their arms
against one another, and Don Carlos surrendered and crossed the French
frontier.
Political Result:
Absolutism was crushed and a more constitutional form of government
was established. But the throne of Spain was the subject of further
disputes in the future.
Remarks:
This prolonged and barbaric conflict disgraced the Spanish nation. The
three Eastern Powers favoured the cause of Don Carlos and reaction.
It was the fear of possibly provoking a general war that made France
refuse to intervene.
RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN IN POLAND
1831
Belligerents:
Russia.
Poland.
Cause:
By the three partitions of 1772, 1793, and 1795 Poland ceased to exist
as an independent state, and Polish territory was divided up between
Russia, Prussia, and Austria. But in 1814 the Grand Duchy of Warsaw
was established as a separate kingdom subject to the Czar of Russia.
The economic and political life was revived and with it antagonism to
Russia. In 1828 plans were made for an outbreak, but the opportunity
was neglected. The French Revolution of 1830 rekindled the flames.
Occasion:
A revolt broke out in November 1830. An attempt was made to negotiate
with the Czar Nicholas, who let it be understood that Poland had but
two alternatives, unconditional submission or annihilation. The Polish
Government, in January 1831, replied by proclaiming his dethronement.
War was unavoidable, and Russian troops crossed the Polish frontier in
February.
Course of the War:
The losses sustained by the Russian armies were considerable, but the
Poles had to fall back on Warsaw and were defeated at Ostrolenka.
Russian reinforcements came up, and on September 8, 1831, the Russian
army made its entrance into Warsaw, and the revolt was suppressed.
Political Result:
The Constitution of Poland was abolished: it ceased to be a separate
kingdom and became a province of the Russian Empire. The Polish leaders
were exiled.
Remarks:
The Poles might have won a gradual development of constitutional
liberty without a break with the powerful sovereignty of the Czar;
the revolt no doubt was rash and unwise. But, on the other hand, the
governments of Western Europe, including Great Britain, who, by the
Treaty of Vienna, guaranteed the autonomy of Poland, never lifted a
hand on behalf of Polish independence, and acquiesced in its complete
absorption by Russia.
THE TURKO-EGYPTIAN WAR
1832–1841
Belligerents:
Turkey and later Prussia, Austria, Russia, and Great Britain.
Egypt.
Cause:
The ambition for extension of power on the part of Mehemet Ali, Viceroy
of Egypt.
Occasion:
Unsatisfied with the Island of Crete given to him for his services
to the Ottoman Empire, Mehemet Ali sent his son Ibrahim with a force
and laid siege to Acre. He was declared a rebel, and the Turkish army
entered Syria.
Course of the War:
Syria and Asia Minor were conquered by Ibrahim. Russia offered aid, but
on the intervention of France the Sultan was persuaded to make peace,
making over to Mehemet Ali Syria and the province of Adena. At the
same time, in July 1833, a treaty of defensive alliance was signed at
_Unkiar Skelessi_ between Russia and Turkey, by which Russia obtained
very nearly complete ascendancy at Constantinople. Great Britain
desired to maintain the Sultan’s power: France befriended Mehemet Ali:
both were agreed in checking Russian influence in the Levant. War broke
out again. Ibrahim gained a victory at Nissibim in June 1839, and the
Turkish fleet surrendered to Mehemet Ali at Alexandria. A quadruple
treaty was signed by Great Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia,
by which it was proposed that Mehemet should have the hereditary
government of Egypt, should withdraw from Syria and hold Palestine as a
governor under the Porte. The exclusion of France from this agreement
roused great public indignation. By the aid of the Allies Mehemet Ali
was driven from Syria. Acre was captured by Sir Charles Napier, and
Mehemet submitted.
Political Result:
By the final settlement, to which France also agreed, Mehemet Ali
abandoned all claim to provinces outside Egypt, undertook to restore
the Turkish fleet, and was assured the hereditary possession of Egypt.
The Straits were closed to the warships of all nations. This prevented
Russia from becoming a Mediterranean Power.
Remarks:
Turkey now became dependent on the protection of Europe. Hopes of
internal reform, however, never fructified. The conflicting ambitions
of European Powers with regard to the continually shrinking dominions
of the Sultan became henceforth an increasing source of friction.
FIRST AFGHAN WAR
1838–1842
Belligerents:
Great Britain and Indian Troops.
Afghanistan.
Cause:
The close proximity of Afghanistan to India necessitated the British
Government watching jealously the affairs of that country, and
preparing for the possibility of its being brought under the domination
of any other Power. Russian intrigues had been throughout a source of
suspicion and uneasiness. The British policy was declared to be the
maintenance of the integrity and independence of Afghanistan.
Occasion:
The British Government decided to reinstate Shah Shuja, who was a
refugee in British territory, Dost Mahommed being in power at Kabul.
Course of the War:
A British Indian force advanced in March 1838, and entered Kandahar.
Shah Shuja was crowned. Dost Mahommed withdrew, and Kabul was
entered. The war was brought to an end, but in November 1841 a revolt
broke out in Kabul and there were serious massacres. The British
garrison in withdrawing was overwhelmed between Kabul and Jalalabad.
Reinforcements, in 1842, forced the Kyber Pass, relieved Jalalabad and
occupied Kabul. The army finally evacuated Afghanistan in December 1842.
Political Result:
A ruler imposed on a free people by foreign arms is always unpopular.
The Afghans considered that Shah Shuja’s rule under the protection of
British troops might be fatal to their national independence.
Remarks:
This war has been described as a rash, ill-planned, and hazardous
enterprise, and was the immediate cause of further trouble. (See p.
58.)
THE OPIUM WAR IN CHINA
1840–1842
Belligerents:
Great Britain.
China.
Cause:
The Chinese still held the doctrine that no political relations
or dealings should be held with any foreign country. The British
Government under Palmerston decided to place trade relations with China
on a more satisfactory basis, confusion and annoyance having arisen
owing to the expiry of the East India Company’s charter. They also
resolved to protect the opium traffic in spite of the protests of the
Chinese Government. This latter reason overshadowed the others, and
the war, which was known as the Opium War, was the subject of heated
controversy in England.
Occasion:
The Chinese Government refused to recognize the British Commission or
to come to terms on the opium question. Reports in 1839 from Captain
Elliot, the British Trade Commissioner, led to the decision of the
British Government to send an expedition, and war was declared in 1840.
Course of the War:
The fleet captured Chusan, and in the following year Amoy. Ningpo fell,
and in 1842 Chapu, Woosung, and Shanghai shared the same fate. Before
Nanking could be captured the Chinese Government proposed terms of
peace.
Political Result:
By the _Treaty of Nanking_, August 21, 1842, Hong-kong was formally
ceded to the British Crown; Canton, Amoy, Fuchow, Ningpo, and Shanghai
were declared open to foreign trade. A war indemnity of twelve million
dollars was paid to Great Britain, and subsequent treaties were signed
for the regulation of trade.
Remarks:
This was the beginning of the exploitation of China by the Western
Powers. It led to further wars, and the opium question continued
to agitate public opinion in Great Britain and cause disputes with
China for the rest of the century, until the opium trade was finally
abolished in 1913.
AMERICAN WAR WITH MEXICO
1846–1848
Belligerents:
The United States of America.
Mexico.
Cause:
Texas seceded from Mexico in 1836. The independence of Texas was
recognized by the United States, but the proposal that the new state
should be admitted into the Union was declined. A strong support for
the annexation of Texas in the interests of slavery grew up, more
especially in the Southern states, and in December 1844 resolutions
were passed in both Houses, and it was formally enrolled as a new state.
Occasion:
The Mexican Government still claimed Texas as a province, and its
annexation by the United States was considered an act of hostility.
The Americans had suffered long under continued acts of insult and
spoliation on the part of the Mexicans, and were therefore prepared to
fight.
Course of the War:
The Americans under Taylor invaded Mexico, won battles at Palo Alto
and Resaca and captured Monterey. In 1847 there were more victories,
the Mexicans under Santa Anna being everywhere defeated. The Americans
entered Mexico City on September 14th. After further fighting peace was
proclaimed at Washington in July 1848.
Political Result:
By the _Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo_, February 2, 1848, Mexico ceded
the whole of Texas, New Mexico, and Upper California. The United States
surrendered their other conquests.
Remarks:
So far as Texas was concerned, the political opinion in the United
States was divided, and that division was to become more serious as
time went on. On the other hand, Mexico was a troublesome neighbour,
and has continued ever since to be the cause of disturbance and
dispute.
AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN WAR
1848–1849
Belligerents:
Hungary.
Austria, the Southern Slavs and Russia.
Cause:
The fall of Metternich, who had been the champion of despotism and
reaction throughout Europe, and the revolutionary spirit which ran
through Europe in 1848, created great unrest in the Austro-Hungarian
Empire. The Emperor Ferdinand was weak and worthless, and the Magyars
were determined not to submit to the domination of autocratic rule in
Austria. Jellacic, the Croatian leader, hoped to create a Southern Slav
state: he co-operated with the Austrians in opposition to Hungary, and
was supported by the Czechs of Bohemia.
Occasion:
Finding it impossible to come to terms with the Emperor Ferdinand,
Kossuth, the Hungarian leader, took up an uncompromisingly hostile
attitude. Jellacic marched to Pesth. A revolutionary movement of
sympathy with Hungary broke out in Vienna. The Emperor fled to Olmutz.
Windischgrätz, the Austrian general, marched on Vienna and took
possession in November 1848. Ferdinand abdicated, and Francis Joseph,
his nephew, became Emperor December 2nd. The Hungarians refused to
acknowledge him. There was a rising of Roumanians in Transylvania, and
the whole Hungarian nation was called to arms.
Course of the War:
The Austrians occupied Pesth on January 5, 1849; the Hungarians
withdrew to Debreczin and were defeated at Kapolona on February 26th.
In April the Magyar troops recovered and the Austrians were driven
out of Hungary. On April 19th Hungary was proclaimed an independent
state. Russia intervened to assist Austria, and marched an army across
Galicia. The Hungarians were now confronted with a force three times
the size of their own, and the main army capitulated at Vilagos on
August 13, 1849.
Political Result:
Hungary was completely crushed and subjected to savage punishment by
its conquerors. Every vestige of its old constitutional rights was
extinguished.
Remarks:
In 1860 the old Constitution was restored. In 1867 the Emperor Francis
Joseph was crowned King of Hungary. A responsible ministry was
appointed, and a financial agreement (Ausgleich) made between Austria
and Hungary.
Nationality asserted itself in spite of all attempts at repression. But
the Hungarians, in their turn, held the Slav and Roumanian populations
within their borders with an iron grasp and failed to gain their
affection.
THE ITALIAN WAR OF LIBERATION
1831, 1848–1849, 1859 and 1866–1867
Belligerents:
The States of Italy.
Austria.
France.
Cause:
Italy, after the fall of Napoleon, was divided into separate
ill-governed small states, with Venice and Lombardy in the hands of
Austria. The idea of uniting Italy under one Government grew as the
century advanced, and received fresh impetus from the revolutionary
movements in Europe in 1830 and 1848. The society, “Young Italy,” under
the guidance of Mazzini, kept the spirit of revolution alive, although
several insurrections instigated by them failed. The expulsion of
Austria became the central idea of the movement.
Occasion:
The quarrels between the smaller states: the hatred of the presence
of Austria, who, under Metternich’s guidance, desired throughout to
suppress the movement: the decline of Austrian power on the rise of
Prussia: the intervention of France to prevent Austrian aggrandizement
and to protect the Pope.
Course of the Wars:
The revolt in the Papal States in 1831 was suppressed by Austrian
intervention. France also intervened, and the Austrian troops withdrew.
In 1848 Sardinian troops advanced against Austria, but after much
fighting round Verona were defeated at Santa Lucia.
Civil war broke out between Naples and Sicily. Sardinia and Piedmont,
under Victor Emmanuel and his Minister, Cavour, now took the lead.
France became their ally in 1859. In spite of attempts at mediation by
Great Britain, Austria presented an ultimatum, April 23, 1859. Napoleon
III and the Allies won victories at Magenta and Solferino. By the
_Peace of Villa Franca_ in July, followed by the _Treaty of Zurich_,
November 10, 1859, Austria ceded Lombardy but not Venice. Tuscany,
Parma Modena, and Romagna were united to Piedmont by their own vote.
Savoy and Nice were ceded to France.
In 1860 Garibaldi conquered Sicily and Naples. Piedmontese troops
entered the Papal States. By 1861 all Italy, with the exception of
Rome and Venice, was under Victor Emmanuel. In the North war broke
out again. The Italians were defeated by Austria at Custozza, but
after Königgrätz (see p. 50) the Austrians ceded Venice to France, and
Napoleon III handed it over to Italy. This arrangement was confirmed
by the _Treaty of Vienna_, October 3, 1866, between Austria and Italy.
In 1867 France defended the Papal States against Garibaldi’s invasion,
and he was defeated at Mentana. Finally, in 1870, Napoleon III withdrew
his troops from Papal territory, and on September 20th Victor Emmanuel
entered Rome.
Political Result:
All Italy became united under one monarch with its capital at Rome.
Victor Emmanuel was succeeded in 1878 by Humbert, the father of King
Victor Emmanuel III.
Remarks:
The rivalry between Austria and Italy did not die down, and there were
still certain territories--_Italia irredenta_ (such as Trentino)--which
remained in Austrian hands.
THE CRIMEAN WAR
1854–1856
Belligerents:
Great Britain, France, Turkey and Sardinia.
Russia.
Cause:
From 1830 onwards there was a growing estrangement between Great
Britain and Russia. The Czar Nicholas believed that the dominion of the
Turk in Europe was nearing its end, and cherished the ambition that
Russia should acquire provinces of the Ottoman dominions. On the other
hand, there was keen opposition in Great Britain to Russia’s expansion,
and to the idea of Constantinople falling into her hands. Louis
Napoleon had only two years previously become Emperor of the French.
His dynastic ambitions made him eager for military glory. Sardinia
joined the Allies for tactical reasons.
Occasion:
The French claimed the custody of the Holy Places in Palestine: the
Russians made a counter-claim to the custody of the Holy Places and
to a Protectorate over the Greek Christians in the Ottoman Empire.
The Turkish Government, on the advice of the British Ambassador, Lord
Stratford de Redcliffe, refused to accept the Russian claims. Russian
troops crossed the Pruth in June 1853, and a Turkish squadron was
destroyed at Sinope in November. On the refusal of Russia to make
her ships re-enter port in the Black Sea and evacuate the Danubian
principalities, war was declared by France and England on March 27,
1854.
Course of the War:
The Crimea was invaded, and fighting continued there for two years. The
Austrian attempt at mediation in May 1855, failed. The Russians were
defeated at Alma and Inkerman, and Sevastopol, after a long siege, fell
on September 9, 1855. The Russians captured Kars in November.
Political Results:
By the _Treaty of Paris_, March 30, 1856, the Black Sea was
neutralized. An engagement was made by all the Powers to respect the
independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire: the Sultan promised
to give equality of treatment to his Christian subjects. The Danubian
provinces were granted independence under the sovereignty of the Sultan.
Remarks:
This treaty was absolutely barren. The Sultan’s promise was never acted
on: the neutrality of the Black Sea was maintained only till 1870: and
when the integrity of the Ottoman Empire was assailed in later years
none of the signatory Powers intervened in its defence. But at the
Congress of Berlin in 1878 the Powers partitioned parts of the Ottoman
Empire. So far from settling any disputes this war caused dissensions
which led to other wars.
THE INDIAN MUTINY
1857–1858
Belligerents:
Great Britain.
Native Indians.
Cause:
The East India Company had engaged in constant wars and employed an
army in which native troops outnumbered the British by eight to one.
The Sepoys especially became aware of their strength and importance. In
many ways religious sensibilities were offended, dissatisfaction with
the Company’s rule spread and unrest was abroad.
Occasion:
The spirit of revolt grew, and a trivial incident was sufficient to
make the spark burst into a flame. Cartridges used for the new Enfield
rifle smeared with the fat of sacred cows and the lard of polluted pigs
were to be bitten by Hindu and Mohammedan alike. The ferment caused by
the rumour spread and the mutiny broke out.
Course of the War:
Native troops mutinied at Mirat, and proceeded to Delhi, Cawnpore, and
Lucknow. Many British men and women were murdered. A British force in
June and July 1857 marched on Delhi. Engagements were fought, in which
there were heavy losses. Disease and cholera also carried off many
victims. After a great struggle Lahore was captured in September, and
Agra was relieved, also Cawnpore, where, under Nana Sahib, the most
hideous massacres and cruelty had taken place. At Lucknow a heroic
resistance was made against an overwhelming force of rebels. It was
relieved on November 22, 1857. In March 1858, the whole province of
Oudh was recovered by Outram and Colin Campbell. Not till the beginning
of 1859 did organized resistance come to an end in all parts of India.
Political Result:
By the Queen’s proclamation of November 1858 the government of India
was taken over by the British Government. The Queen declared that
all her Indian subjects should be protected in the exercise of their
religious observances. Excessive measures of repression which had been
resorted to were stopped.
Remarks:
Queen Victoria was styled Empress of India at the instance of Disraeli
in 1876. Various reforms have been instituted in Indian administration
tentatively allowing Indians some share in the government of the
country. But the problem of British rule in India is not one which is
capable of final solution.
THE CHINESE WAR
1857–1860
Belligerents:
Great Britain, France.
China.
Cause:
The increasing commercial ambitions of Western Powers in the East led
Great Britain and France to insist on the establishment of fair and
equitable terms of trade. The Chinese Government was in the hands of
the Tatars known as the Taipings, who, by their successful rebellion,
had overthrown the Manchu dynasty.
Occasion:
The refusal of the Chinese Government to redress long-standing
grievances or to allow the diplomatic representatives of the Western
Powers to reside in Peking; the seizure of the crew of the British
ship _Arrow_ off Canton, and the refusal of the Chinese Governor to
apologize or surrender the men, and the murder of a French missionary
in Kwangsi brought things to a head.
Course of the War:
Canton was taken by the British in December 1857. The Taku Forts fell
in May 1858 and Tientsin was occupied. Negotiations were attempted but
failed. An allied force of British and French landed in 1860, marched
on Peking, and the Chinese yielded.
Political Result: