The Eastern Question: From the Treaty of Paris to the Treaty of Berlin (1856–1878)

History Optional Notes {PDF}

Complete Notes Package (Paper I & II) | 4500+ Pages | Instant Download

The period between the Treaty of Paris (1856) and the Treaty of Berlin (1878) marks a critical phase in the Eastern Question — the 19th-century diplomatic struggle over the fate of the declining Ottoman Empire in Europe. Although the Treaty of Paris had guaranteed the territorial integrity of Turkey, the two decades that followed saw this guarantee repeatedly violated, as nationalism and Pan-Slavism swept through the Balkan Peninsula and Russia steadily recovered from the humiliation of the Crimean War. This culminated in the Russo-Turkish War (1877–78), the punishing Treaty of San Stefano, and its subsequent revision at the Congress of Berlin under Bismarck’s presidency. This article traces this diplomatic arc — from the futile European attempts to prop up a crumbling Ottoman Empire, through the Balkan uprisings and Great Power rivalries of the 1870s, to the flawed settlement of the Treaty of Berlin, whose disregard for Balkan national aspirations sowed the seeds of future conflict, including the First World War. This forms an essential companion piece to the study of 19th-century European nationalism and diplomatic history for UPSC aspirants.

Futile Attempts to Bolster Up Turkey

At the Treaty of Paris, European statesmanship had failed to recognise that the Turkish Empire in Europe was fundamentally doomed.
The Powers, especially England, sought to prop up an empire that was evidently on the road to destruction, and their efforts were consequently reduced to a succession of barren, short-term expedients.
The 19th-century ideal of nationality had reached the Balkan Peninsula, and the Christian nations under Turkish rule grew increasingly restive under its inspiration. Despite the ostensible protection of the European concert, the Ottoman Empire steadily began to break up.
Europe’s official Eastern policy had no real alternative but to grudgingly recognise a growing series of accomplished facts on the ground.

Violation of the Treaty of Paris

During the period from 1856 to 1878, a series of glaring infractions of the Treaty of Paris occurred, which the signatory powers were forced to overlook.

Union of Wallachia and Moldavia into Rumania

The first such infraction was the union of Wallachia and Moldavia into a single kingdom — Rumania.
- Both principalities were inhabited by peoples of the same stock, speaking the same language, who identified themselves collectively as Rumanians.
- Animated by the prevailing impulse toward national unity, the people demanded union of the two provinces under a single national government.
Under the Peace of Paris, the two principalities were declared autonomous but were required to remain separate.
- This separation was directly challenged in 1859, when each principality elected the same individual, Alexander Couza, as their prince.
- England, Austria, and Turkey opposed this union as a clear breach of the Treaty of Paris, though Napoleon III showed himself sympathetic to Rumanian nationalist aspirations.
- By 1861, the Powers were compelled to recognise the union as an accomplished fact, and the nation of Rumania came into existence.
Second, in 1867, Serbia, aided by Austria and England, secured the evacuation of her fortresses by Turkish garrisons, thereby becoming practically independent of Turkey.

Renewal of Russian Interference in the Balkans

Finally, Russia, as soon as she had recovered from the blow of the Crimean War, resumed interference in the affairs of the Ottoman Empire.
- In 1865, she encouraged the Cretan rebellion, and in 1870 she helped the Bulgars secure ecclesiastical independence.
In 1870, amid the Franco-German War, came a startling further infraction of the Peace of Paris: Russia, encouraged by Bismarck, repudiated the Black Sea clauses of the Treaty of Paris.
- This allowed her to recover the right to re-fortify Sevastopol and maintain a fleet on the Black Sea.
- England protested, but in vain. Ultimately, in 1877, Russia resolved to go further still and declared war upon Turkey.

The Russo-Turkish War (1877–78)

Situation in the Balkans

By 1875, the Eastern Question had once again entered an acute phase.

Nationalism and Pan-Slavism:

The subject states of Turkey grew increasingly restless, driven by their growing nationalist aspirations and racial consciousness.
- The spectacle of the Serbs, Greeks, and Rumanians winning partial or complete freedom inevitably inspired other non-Turkish Balkan peoples to attempt similar movements toward independence.
This feeling ran especially strong among the various Slav peoples of the Balkans, who had grown increasingly conscious of their racial kinship with the Slavs of Russia, Poland, and the Austrian dominions.
- This Pan-Slavic sentiment was actively encouraged by Russia, whose agents carried on unceasing propaganda among the southern Balkan Slavs to stir up racial consciousness and hostility toward Turkish rule.
- Nationalism, in this way, was becoming increasingly tinged with racialism.
Leadership of the South Slav agitation appeared set to fall to Serbia, which began to dream of uniting all the Serbs, and their close kin the Croats, under her own rule.

Immediate Cause of the War:

Beyond Pan-Slavism and rising national feeling, another crucial factor precipitated the crisis: the complete disappointment of all hopes for Turkish revival and reform.
- The Sultan had failed to deliver on his promised reforms for his Christian subjects; his incompetence and extravagance had instead imposed a burden upon them that was almost past endurance.

Revolts in Bosnia and Herzegovina Against Turkish Misrule:

In protest against the rapacity and grinding extortion of Turkish tax-collectors, the peasants of Bosnia and Herzegovina rose in revolt in 1875.
- Their fellow Serbs in Montenegro and Serbia sympathised with their plight and offered support, and the movement threatened to spread widely.
To localise the conflict, the Powers presented Turkey with the Andrássy Note (named after the Austrian Chancellor, Count Andrássy), protesting Turkish misgovernment.
- The Sultan accepted the protest and promised reforms, but the insurgents demanded more substantial guarantees than elusive promises.
As unrest spread to Bulgaria as well, the Powers, seeking to prevent a general conflagration, issued a further note — the Berlin Memorandum — calling on Turkey to make concessions, and threatening armed intervention should she refuse.
- Since Great Britain refused to join any measure of coercion against Turkey, the Sultan was emboldened to ignore Europe’s protests.

Bulgarian Atrocities:

As the Bulgarian rising threatened Turkish rule closer to Constantinople, it was suppressed with horrific cruelty.
The atrocities committed by Turkish irregulars during this suppression thrilled all of Europe with horror.

England’s Attitude:

In England, Gladstone thundered against the Turks, demanding they be cleared out “bag and baggage from the province they have desolated and profaned.”
However, it was Disraeli, not the devoutly Christian Gladstone, who was then Prime Minister — and Disraeli’s concern lay far more with checking Russian ambitions in the Balkans than with the fate of Bulgaria’s oppressed Christians.

Russia Takes Up the Cause of the Oppressed Christians

With Disraeli’s attitude making any joint European action impossible, Russia resolved on independent action and declared war on Turkey in 1877, unable to ignore the suffering of her co-religionists and fellow Slavs.
The Russian army crossed the Danube and invaded Turkish territories in both Europe and Asia.

Treaty of San Stefano

The Sultan, seeking peace, agreed to the harsh terms of the Treaty of San Stefano, which Russia effectively forced upon him.
- The treaty practically decreed the dissolution of the Turkish Empire: the Sultan was to recognise the independence of Serbia and Montenegro, along with increased territories for both.
- Reforms were to be introduced in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
- Russia was to acquire Batum and Kars in Asia, and Bessarabia in Europe.
- Rumania was to be recognised as independent, receiving Dobruja in compensation for the loss of Bessarabia.
- Most strikingly, the treaty created a “Big Bulgaria” — an autonomous state, tributary to Turkey, extending from the Danube to the Aegean and from the Black Sea to Albania.
The Treaty of San Stefano represented a great triumph for Russia: it erased the humiliation of the Crimean War and once again promised her predominance in the Balkans, especially through her expected control over Bulgaria, effectively her own creation.

England Demanded Revision of the Treaty

The extension of Russian influence across the Balkan states directly threatened England’s interests, prompting her to demand a revision of the Treaty of San Stefano through a Congress of the European Powers.
Austria likewise cherished her own ambitions of Balkan expansion, and disliked both the creation of a strong Balkan state like Bulgaria and the extension of Russian influence in the peninsula.
- She therefore joined England in insisting that the Eastern Question be referred to the collective decision of the Powers, since it affected them all.
England’s firm, warlike stance ultimately compelled Russia to agree to submit the Turkish settlement to a Congress of European Powers.

The Congress of Berlin and the Treaty of Berlin (1878)

The Congress met at Berlin in 1878, under Bismarck’s presidency, and drew up the Treaty of Berlin, which made the following key arrangements:
- Montenegro, Serbia, and Romania were declared fully independent of Turkey.
- The “Big Bulgaria” of the Treaty of San Stefano was divided into two parts: one became a self-governing principality, subject to an annual tribute to the Sultan, while the other (southern) part was constituted as the province of East Roumelia, with an independent administration under a Christian governor but remaining under Turkish suzerainty.
- A considerable portion of the Macedonian territories, formerly included within “Big Bulgaria,” was restored to Turkey.
- Austria was permitted to “occupy” and administer Bosnia and Herzegovina, which nominally remained dependent on Turkey.
- Russia received Bessarabia and several territories in Asia Minor.
- England, through a separate treaty with Turkey, secured control of Cyprus.
Dominated by the German Chancellor Bismarck, the Congress resolved the international crisis triggered by the San Stefano treaty by revising the peace settlement to satisfy Britain’s interests (denying Russia the means to extend her naval power, while maintaining the nominal integrity of the Ottoman Empire) and Austria-Hungary’s interests (permitting her to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina, thereby extending her Balkan influence).
Where the Treaty of Paris had guaranteed the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire, the Treaty of Berlin, by contrast, effectively decreed its dismemberment.
- Serbia, Rumania, and Montenegro were declared entirely independent of Turkey, while a new state, Bulgaria, was created and made only nominally subject to Turkish suzerainty.

The Congress of Berlin Ignored the Interests of the Balkan Peoples in Favour of the Powers

The Treaty of Berlin ultimately failed to remove the underlying grievances of the Balkan nationalities.
Although no single solution could have equally satisfied every Balkan nationality, given their frequently conflicting claims, the main defect of the Berlin settlement was that it completely sacrificed Balkan interests in order to satisfy the ambitions of powers such as Austria and Great Britain.
The diplomats at Berlin essentially sought to harmonise the competing interests of England, Austria, and Russia through a policy of balance and compromise:
- As a counterweight to Russian territorial gains, Austria was permitted to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina, while England secured Cyprus.
This arrangement, resting on essentially selfish principles, completely disregarded the national sentiments of the Balkan peoples:
- Rumania, for instance, was deeply offended by the Russian acquisition of Bessarabia, a territory populated by Rumanians rather than Russians.
- The same disregard for national sentiment was evident when the Slavs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who desired union with their fellow Slavs in Serbia, were instead handed over to Austrian rule — a development that both alarmed and irritated Serbia, becoming a lasting bone of contention between the two and, ultimately, an indirect cause of the First World War.
The division of the “Big Bulgaria” of the San Stefano treaty dealt a cruel blow to Bulgarian national aspirations, and was undertaken chiefly to placate Austria, who feared that a large, Russia-friendly Bulgaria might obstruct future Austrian expansion toward the Aegean Sea.
The Christians of Macedonia were left under Turkish Sultan’s authority even after the Bulgarian atrocities had demonstrated exactly what kind of treatment they might expect — an arrangement made purely to bolster a Turkish empire already mutilated beyond genuine revival.
- This merely prolonged the process and multiplied the pains of Ottoman extinction, and the Macedonian question would go on to become a constant source of unrest and friction in the years ahead.
Greece, too, remained discontented, since Macedonia was handed back to the Ottoman Empire.
Meanwhile, two of the very guarantors of Turkish integrity — Great Britain and Austria — helped themselves to substantial portions of the Turkish spoils.
- An arrangement that exploited Turkey’s extremity to tear away Cyprus, Bosnia, and Herzegovina looked very much like outright robbery, particularly when carried out by powers that professed commitment to the principle of Ottoman territorial integrity.

The Treaty Could Not Bring Lasting Peace to Europe

Disraeli returned from Berlin claiming to have secured “peace with honour.” For a time, this appeared true — there was no major war in Europe for nearly three decades after the Treaty of Berlin — but the treaty in fact contained the seeds of many future conflicts.
A settlement that took so little account of the Balkan peoples, and even less of Turkey itself, could not offer a genuinely satisfactory solution to the Eastern Question; the subsequent history of the Balkan states and of Turkey reflects poorly on the statesmanship of those who designed the Treaty of Berlin.
The treaty carried within itself the seeds of dangerous future developments:
- In holding back one power, Russia, from the Balkans, the settlement effectively let loose another — Austria.
  - Austria was permitted to commit herself to a policy of Balkan territorial acquisition, directly opposed to both Russian and Serbian national feeling.
  - Her occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina embittered relations with both Serbia and Russia, and in the long run gave rise to the complications that directly led to the First World War.
- Bismarck, though he presented himself as an “honest broker,” was ultimately compelled to take sides between Austria and Russia during the crisis.
  - He chose Austria, thereby alienating Russia, which was consequently thrown into the arms of France.
  - This marked the remote origin of the estrangement between Russia and Germany, which before long divided Europe into two rival camps — the Dual Alliance between Russia and France, and Bismarck’s Triple Alliance.
  - Thus, the political configuration of Europe began to take the very shape that would eventually produce the Great War of 1914.
- Finally, the unresolved Macedonian problem directly led to the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913.
Rather than pacifying the Balkans, the Treaty of Berlin instead deepened the unrest and friction among the Balkan peoples — friction that would produce future local conflicts and, ultimately, a world-wide conflagration.

Lord Beaconsfield’s Claim and the Reality

Lord Beaconsfield (Disraeli), upon his return from the Congress of Berlin (1878), boasted: “I have brought peace with honour.”

The Claim by Lord Beaconsfield — and the Reality

Disraeli, also known as Lord Beaconsfield, claimed to have secured “peace with honour” on the following grounds:
- He had negated Russia’s claimed right of individual intervention, compelling her to accept the collective authority of the Powers instead.
- A firm check had been placed on Russia, in the interests of both England and Austria.
- Turkey was allowed to recover a portion of the territory she had lost under the Treaty of San Stefano.
- Peace did prevail in the near future — for roughly three decades.
Despite this claim, a closer analysis of the Treaty of Berlin’s actual impact reveals a rather different picture — the apparent triumph was, in several important respects, only superficial.

The Treaty of Berlin Did Not Truly Weaken Russia:

Russia, though checked in the Balkans, had by then practically recovered from all the losses of the Crimean War.
If Russia’s ambitions were checked in the Balkans, she simply redirected her expansion toward Central Asia, advancing toward the North-West Frontier of India and thereby threatening British India. The Russian menace to British interests was thus never truly removed — merely transferred from Europe to Asia.
The treaty, in short, failed to achieve its intended effect of weakening Russia while strengthening Turkey.

“British Robbery”:

To regard the treaty as genuinely honourable to England, as Disraeli claimed, requires a considerable revision of one’s idea of honour.
An arrangement that exploited Turkey’s extreme vulnerability to tear away Cyprus, Bosnia, and Herzegovina looked very much like outright robbery on Britain’s part — especially given her own professed commitment to Ottoman territorial integrity.

The Treaty of Berlin Contained the Seeds of Future Wars:

Though the treaty delivered peace for roughly three decades, it simultaneously contained within itself the seeds of future conflict.
- Holding back Russia while emboldening Austria in the Balkans created lasting bitterness, which ultimately led to the formation of rival alliance camps across Europe.
- The treaty’s provisions, and the bitterness they generated, directly contributed to the circumstances that produced the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913, and subsequently the First World War of 1914.

Conclusion

The trajectory from the Treaty of Paris (1856) to the Treaty of Berlin (1878) illustrates the fundamental unsustainability of Europe’s attempts to prop up a declining Ottoman Empire against the rising tide of Balkan nationalism. While the Congress of Berlin succeeded in averting an immediate great-power war and delivered nearly three decades of relative peace, its settlement — driven almost entirely by the competing interests of Britain, Austria, and Russia — systematically disregarded the national aspirations of the Balkan peoples themselves. The division of “Big Bulgaria,” the transfer of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Austrian occupation, and the unresolved Macedonian question together embedded deep and lasting resentments into the fabric of European diplomacy. These unresolved tensions, compounded by Bismarck’s tilt toward Austria and Russia’s consequent estrangement from Germany, set Europe on the long road toward the alliance systems, the Balkan Wars, and ultimately the First World War — making the Treaty of Berlin a defining case study in how short-term diplomatic compromise can generate long-term strategic instability.