Inter-Regionalism in the 18th Century: Central

Inter-Regionalism in the 18th Century:
Central Europe, the Mediterranean, and
the Black Sea region
2015
Claudiu-Nicolae Sonda
www.geopoliticalreview.org
© Geopolitical Review
Pensiero Storia e Attualità Geopolitica
Roma, maggio 2015
Autore
Claudiu-Nicolae Sonda
Claudiu Nicolae Sonda è Dottore in Scienze Politiche e Relazioni Internazionali presso l'Università degli Studi di
Salerno con focus sulla regione del Mar Nero. Nel 2014 ha frequentato la Summer Schhol 'Navigating Europe's
Future: A New Odysey' presso The Insitute for Social and European Studies a Koszeg, Ungheria. Ha pubblicato
su diversi siti come geopolitics.ro, theworldreporter.com, e RIEAS.gr. Al momento, sta per laurearsi presso
l'Università di Linkoping (Svezia) nel Master di Relazioni Internazionali ed Europee, con una tesi sulla Strategia
regionale della Romania per la sicurezza nel Mar Nero.
La presente pubblicazione può essere scaricata da: www.geopoliticalreview.org
È consentita la riproduzione di parte della presente utilizzando i seguenti riferimenti:
C. Sonda, Inter-Regionalism in the 18th Century: Central Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea region,
Geopolitical Review (www.geopoliticalreview.org), Roma, maggio 2015
1
Inter-Regionalism in the 18th Century:
Central Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea region
Inter-Regionalism in the 18th Century:
Central Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea region
Claudiu-Nicolae Sonda
Introduction
Whenever it comes to the study of international affairs, a practical fragmentation of the
subject matter is most of the time required for gaining thorough knowledge. One example of
such a division is between regions such as the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, the Baltic area,
the post-Soviet space, the EU, or Eurasia. The list can hardly ever be exhausted because
regionalism is a dynamic process, not a static definition. A break-up of the world in these
terms is as we said useful for analytical purposes, but in real life the global relations are deep
and strong. At times, it can be revealing and interesting to look at the bigger picture for a
better understanding of what goes around us.
In this short paper we will try to do precisely this by going back in time to the 18th century.
Our case under observation will be the intertwinement of Central Europe, the Black Sea
region, and the Mediterranean. This will be exemplified by the conflictual rapport between the
Austrian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, and the Republic of Venice.
The point of departure, and paradoxically the end point of our discussion is the Austro-Turkish
War of 1716-18. The paradox is a consequence of the method of studying history. In order to
understand the central episode of our investigation, it is necessary to roll-back the events that
led to it. Thus, we will take it backwards to 1714, and then to 1710. Aside from allowing for a
better understanding of the Austro-Turkish war, following back the traces that led to this event
enables us to introduce the other actors into the story. This way, our example becomes
emblematic for the argument that international politics can at times be better comprehended
2
Inter-Regionalism in the 18th Century:
Central Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea region
by taking an inter-regional stance.
The Inter-Regional Affairs of Austria, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, and Venice
In 1718, the Treaty of Passarowitz turned more Ottoman possessions into the Austrian
Empire’s backyard. More specifically, the central part of present-day Serbia (Syrmia), along
with two western and southern parts of present-day Romania (Banat and Oltenia) went under
Austrian dominion. The same Treaty took the Peloponnese peninsula from Venice and put in
the Turks’ hands1. Such a situation concluded the so-called Austro-Turkish war of 1716-18,
conflict initiated but the Ottomans’ declaration of war against Austria. For the sake of fairness,
it must be mentioned that the Turks had been previously threatened by the Austrians who
were considering themselves the guarantors of the Karlowitz Peace Treaty that had put an
end to yet another earlier war between the two powers 2.
The balance of power which had been established between the two at Karlowitz 3 was
shattered with the Turkish war against Russia in 1710-11, and against Venice in 1714-18 4.
Regarding the Russo-Turkish conflict, the Ottomans responded with a declaration of war to
Peter the Great’s demands for handing back Charles XII of Sweden, who was the Swedish
monarch that had sought refuge in the Court of Sultan Ahmed III after being wounded in the
Battle of Poltava5 (the decisive victory of Russia over Sweden in the Great Northern War that
had begun in 17006). The fight between the Turks and the Russians was won by the former,
and the Treaty of the Pruth of 1711 stipulated the return of Azov to the Ottoman Empire, the
1 Treaty of Passarowitz, self.gutenberg.org: http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Treaty_of_Passarowitz
2 Austro-Turkish War of 1716-18, self.gutenberg.org: http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/austroturkish_war_of_1716-18
3 More about the Great Turkish War that concluded with the Treaty of Karlowitz, here: Great Turkish War,
self.gutenberg.org: http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Great_Turkish_War
4 Ibid.
5 Russo-Turkish War (1710-1711), self.gutenberg.org: http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Russo
%E2%80%93Turkish_War_%281710%E2%80%931711%29
6 More on this here: Great Northern War, self.gutenberg.org:
http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Great_Northern_War#1710.E2.80.931721:_Finland
3
Inter-Regionalism in the 18th Century:
Central Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea region
demolition of several Russian fortresses, and the promise of latter’s non-involvement in the
internal affairs of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 7.
The casus belli for the Turkish-Venetian war was twofold. First, there was the confiscation of
the former Grand Vizier Damad Hasan Pasha’s treasure ship by the Venetians. Second, the
granting of sanctuary to the Prince-Bishop of Montenegro Danilo I after his revolt against the
Turks, by the same Venetians 8. In strategic and political terms, these two events can be
interpreted as instances of Venetian obstruction of Turkish access to the Mediterranean Sea,
and of Venetian intervention in Turkish domestic affairs. However, the element of Ottoman
revisionism also plays an essential part as we can see from the development of the war.
Thus, the Ottomans captured the Morea (Peloponnese) in 1715 9, territory that had been lost
20 years earlier to the Venetians after the Treaty of Karlowitz 10. When the pasha of Bosnia
marched towards Dalmatia, another possession of Venice, but closely-located to the Holy
Roman Empire, the Austrian Habsburgs entered the war against the Ottomans 11. It was the
beginning of the Austro-Turkish war that we discussed above.
Brief Geopolitical Considerations
In relation to the Austro-Turkish war of 1716-18, the fundamental zone of interest of this
particular conflict can be defined as Central Europe. The war itself had direct repercussions
for Southeastern Europe, but ultimately the goal was keeping the Ottoman Empire furthest
possible from the ‘headquarters’ of the Habsburgs. All three wars discussed in this essay
point to the strategic importance of having foreign territorial possessions, or of at least
7 Russo-Turkish War (1710-1711), self.gutenberg.org: http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Russo
%E2%80%93Turkish_War_%281710%E2%80%931711%29
8 Turkish-Venetian War (1714-1718), self.gutenberg.org: http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Turkish
%E2%80%93Venetian_War_%281714%E2%80%931718%29
9 Ibid.
10 Treaty of Karlowitz, self.gutenberg.org: http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Treaty_of_Karlowitz
11 Turkish-Venetian War (1714-1718), self.gutenberg.org: http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Turkish
%E2%80%93Venetian_War_%281714%E2%80%931718%29
4
Inter-Regionalism in the 18th Century:
Central Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea region
exerting influence over vassal forms of political organization. For instance, in the case of
Austria and Turkey, one of the most important battles had taken place in Petrovaradin
(present-day Novi Sad, Serbia), which at the time was part of the Military Frontier, a Habsburg
borderland acting as cordon sanitaire against Turkish incursions 12. Despite forming an
administrative unit of Austria, the foreign regions belonging to this borderland (parts of today’s
Croatia, Serbia, Hungary, and Romania 13) had merely instrumental buffer-zone functions
meant to keep Vienna safe.
Regarding the Russo-Turkish conflict of 1710-11, the competition for influence over the areas
that constitute present-day Moldova, Eastern Romania, and present-day Ukraine’s Black Sea
shores are clear. We could pinpoint the zone of interest of this war within the Black Sea
region. This particular case is not in the slightest different from the Austro-Turkish war when it
comes to the relevance of buffer-zones. The decisive battle between Russia and Turkey was
planned to take place along the Pruth River, in Moldavia, with the consent of the local ruler
Dimitrie Cantemir. The campaign failed as the Turks had surrounded and defeated the
Russian troops at Stanilesti, same Moldavia 14. Again, the destructiveness of the war was
being handled on another people’s soil. The strategic significance of the Moldavian land (also
called Bessarabia) was properly understood by the Russian Empire who annexed it after the
Russian-Turkish war of 1806-181215.
Finally, as for the Turkish-Venetian War of 1714-18, the dispute for dominion over the
Mediterranean can be conceived of as the crucial motivator. Regardless of the fact that the
ultimate strategy was access to the sea, the tactical moves demanded possession of land,
namely of island in the Aegean Sea. Thus, the Ottoman Fleet captured the islands of Tinos
12 Military Frontier, self.gutenberg.org: http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Military_Frontier
13 Ibid.
14 Russo-Turkish War (1710-1711), self.gutenberg.org: http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Russo
%E2%80%93Turkish_War_%281710%E2%80%931711%29
15 (tr.) Florin Constatiniu (2011), An Honest History of the Romanian People (O istorie Sincera a Poporului
Roman), Univers Enciclopedic, p.186
5
Inter-Regionalism in the 18th Century:
Central Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea region
and Aigina, then the entire Peloponnese, and even attempted to conquer the island of Corfu 16.
Moreover, the reaction of the local Greek population was decisive in the Turkish-Venetian
affairs since they disliked the latter and preferred the former 17. In this example as well, the
events took place on the land and seas of what is current-day Greece, with Constantinople
1000 km away from the battlefield.
Conclusion
All these three wars can be interpreted as taking place within clearly defined zones: Central
Europe, the Black Sea region, and the Mediterranean. Nonetheless, all these episodes are
interconnected because of the intertwined interests and hostilities between the time’s major
powers: Austria, Venice, the Ottoman Empire, and Russia. The need for buffer-zones was a
response to the threat posed by the other actors. Inter-regional competition and alliancemaking was additional to the same patterns in terms of the intra-regional. In Central Europe,
Austria and the Turks were enemies. The same however in the Mediterranean, because the
Austrians were allies of the Venetians who were fighting the Ottomans. The latter
nevertheless, were backed by the Greeks. Around the Black Sea, the Russians were fighting
the Turks alongside the Moldavians, but ended up promising not to interfere in the affairs of
the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and annexing Moldavia itself a century later. This maze
of temporary and interest-driven partnerships are an illustrative example of 18th century interregionalism.
In conclusion, the political and military landscape of the beginning the 18th century in Europe
cannot truly be presented and analysed through a fragmentation of the subject in terms of
regions or zones. Sure, such an attempt would have its benefits, in particular the access to
unique historic details. But such details lose significance if we make abstraction of the bigger
16 Turkish-Venetian War (1714-1718), self.gutenberg.org: http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Turkish
%E2%80%93Venetian_War_%281714%E2%80%931718%29
17 Ibid.
6
Inter-Regionalism in the 18th Century:
Central Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea region
picture. It is only a broad perspective that can shed light on the inter-regional affairs occurring
at the time. And only by putting these affairs in the geopolitical context can we extract lessons
from the past. Otherwise, too much of a rigid partition of the episodes presented above, even
if regionally contextualized, leads precisely to that: a series of episodes that hold no
historical/political value.
2015
A cura di:
Geopolitical Review.
Pensiero Storia e Attualità Geopolitica
Quest'opera è distribuita con Licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 3.0 Italia.
www.geopoliticalreview.org