Home
  By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon


We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Wars & Treaties, 1815-1914
Author: Ponsonby, Arthur
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Wars & Treaties, 1815-1914" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.



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:

By the treaty of October 24, 1860, the Chinese paid an indemnity of
eight million taels. The right of Europeans to travel in the interior
was granted, and freedom guaranteed to the preaching of Christianity.
By the customs tariff agreed upon the import of opium was legalized.
In the course of 1861 British, French, and Russian legations were
permanently established at Peking, and in the following years the same
right was conceded to other European nations. By treaties with Russia
in the same year China ceded all its territory north of the Amur to
Russia, and in this territory Vladivostock was founded.

Good relations having been established, the Chinese Government, with
the assistance of Gordon, carried out a successful campaign against the
Taipings, and the Manchu dynasty was restored.


Remarks:

This was the opening of the door into China, and from henceforth the
Western Powers began to compete for commercial and territorial prizes
in the Chinese Empire.



AMERICAN CIVIL WAR

1861–1865


Belligerents:

      The Northern states of North America.
      The Southern states of North America.


Cause:

The cultivation of cotton progressed under very different conditions
in the North and South. In the North the white man had to work
vigorously to overcome the disadvantages of the soil. In the South
the negro labourer could be used with profit to his owner, and was
held as a slave. By 1860 the thirteen original states were enlarged to
thirty-three. The territories of the North-east found their prosperity
in free labour, the South throve on the cotton crop and continued to
exploit negro labour. The Southern states gradually combined together,
and between 1830 and 1850 gained a predominant voice in the control
of Federal affairs. The North also became consolidated, and a strong
movement against slavery grew up, chiefly owing to the efforts of
W. Lloyd Garrison. A new Republican party gained strength in its
opposition to the dominating differences of the South, and sectional
political differences were intensified. The prospect of the abolition
of slavery was not the only issue. The South resented the idea that
coercive measures might be used to keep the lower South in the Union.
They believed this to be an attack on the doctrine of the sovereignty
of states. A widespread feeling in favour of secession grew up.


Occasion:

The Republican party triumphed at the election, and Abraham Lincoln
became President in November, 1860. South Carolina seceded, ten other
states followed, and the Confederate States were established under
the Presidency of Jefferson Davis. The attack on Fort Sumter by the
Confederates on April 4, 1861, made war inevitable.


Course of the War:

The North was defeated at Bull Run in July 1861, but captured forts
Henry and Donelson in 1862, and gained a victory at Shiloh. At
Richmond, and later at Fredericksburg, the North was defeated. Lincoln
issued his proclamation of Emancipation on January 1, 1863. The
South, under Lee, were defeated in the greatest battle of the war at
Gettysburg, on July 4th. In 1864 there were further victories for the
North under Grant at Spottsylvania and Coldharbour; and Atlanta and
Savanah were captured. In 1865 Petersburg and Richmond were evacuated
by the Confederates and Lee surrendered. On May 26th the war came to an
end, after a desperate struggle of nearly four years.


Political Result:

The Union was restored and slavery abolished. Lincoln was assassinated
on April 14, 1865, and his wise counsel was lost therefore for the
difficult work of reconstruction which followed the war.


Remarks:

Great Britain declared neutrality at the outset, and thereby
implicitly, though not explicitly, recognized the Southern Confederacy
as a belligerent Power. There was much sympathy with the South among
the governing class, but the people were on the side of the North. The
Trent affair brought Great Britain and America very near to war. (See
_Treaty of Washington_, p. 94.)



FRENCH EXPEDITION IN MEXICO

1862–1867


Belligerents:

      France.
      Mexican Republicans.


Cause:

From 1789, the date of the first conspiracy against Spain, down to
1857, when a Constitution was promulgated, Mexico was in a state of
permanent warfare. In 1861 France, Spain, and Great Britain adopted
joint measures against the republic in order to get better protection
for their subjects and their property. In 1862 Great Britain and Spain
withdrew. But Napoleon III conceived the project of establishing a
monarchy in Mexico under his patronage, and so increasing French
ascendancy beyond the Atlantic.


Occasion:

The financial misdemeanours of the Mexican Government were made the
pretext for the advance of French troops into Mexico in 1862.


Course of the War:

The French force was checked in May 1862, and further reinforcements
were sent out. They advanced again in February 1863, and entered Mexico
City in June. A Provisional Government was established, and the crown
was offered to Maximilian of Austria, who accepted it and reached
Mexico City in June 1864. Juarez, the republican leader, was driven
into the extreme north of the country. But his resistance was by no
means overcome. Napoleon III bound himself to keep a force in Mexico
for the protection of Maximilian. In 1865, on the restoration of peace
after the Civil War in the United States, the Government of Washington
refused to acknowledge any authority in Mexico but that of Juarez. The
French were obliged to withdraw in 1867, and Maximilian was left to his
fate. The Juarists got the upper hand, and Maximilian was executed.


Political Result:

Juarez, as President of Mexico, was succeeded by Diaz in 1877; and
order was maintained for a generation.


Remarks:

This foolish enterprise damaged the reputation of Napoleon III. He was
regarded as a political adventurer, and became increasingly unpopular
in his own country.



BRAZILIAN WAR

1864–1870


Belligerents:

      Brazil, Uruguay, Argentine Republic.
      Paraguay.


Cause:

Brazil was part of the Portuguese possessions until 1822, when it
declared its independence. The Emperors Pedro I and II had frequent
trouble not only with the republican movement in Brazil itself, but
with the neighbouring states, with whom they were constantly at war. In
1855 Pedro II sent a squadron up the Parana to adjust several questions
outstanding with the republic of Paraguay. Although certain rights were
granted to Brazil the Government of Paraguay threw every obstacle in
the way to prevent a settlement.


Occasion:

In 1864 Lopez, the ambitious dictator of Paraguay, without declaring
war, captured a Brazilian vessel, and invaded Brazil and the Argentine.
Uruguay joined them in a triple alliance of defence against Paraguay.


Course of the War:

Owing to the strong natural position of Paraguay, and the obstinacy of
Lopez, the war was drawn out with constant fighting and great sacrifice
of life in addition to vast expenditure, until 1870, when it was
terminated by the capture and death of Lopez.


Political Result:

External troubles ceased, but the republican movement gained in
strength until 1889, when Pedro was deposed and a republic declared in
Brazil.


Remarks:

The slaughter in this war was so terrific that the population of
Paraguay was reduced from 1,337,439 to 221,079.

This is only one example of the very frequent disturbances, both
internal and external, in the South American continent during the
course of the century.



THE DANISH WAR

1864


Belligerents:

      Denmark.
      Prussia and Austria.


Cause:

The strong revival of nationalism in Germany after the Napoleonic Wars
spread to the German inhabitants of the Duchies of Schleswig Holstein,
who desired in 1848 to be incorporated as a single constitutional
state in the German Federation. The Danish crown could be inherited by
female heirs, but in the Duchies the Salic law had never been repealed.
This made complications with regard to the succession. Frederick VII
of Denmark endeavoured to preserve the Duchy as an integral part of
Denmark. An insurrection broke out, and Prussia intervened by marching
troops into Holstein. Under pressure from other Powers the King of
Prussia signed a convention at Malmoe practically yielding all the
Danish demands, and in 1850, by the _Treaty of Berlin_, peace was
restored between Prussia and Denmark, but without any settlement of
the vexed question. In 1852 Great Britain intervened with a proposal
without success. In 1854 the King of Denmark promulgated special
Constitutions for the Duchies as well as a common Constitution for the
whole Monarchy. The German Confederation rejected this as the Diets of
the Duchies had not been consulted. The question became of European
interest: its complexity prevented any settlement being reached.
Bismarck alone was quite determined on eventual annexation, and Denmark
was equally determined not to yield.


Occasion:

After further diplomatic disputes Austrian and Prussian troops entered
Schleswig in February 1864.


Course of the War:

The allied troops broke through the frontier fortifications and
occupied the greater part of the Danish mainland. The Danes were
overthrown in the island of Alsen, and the German flag carried to the
northern extremity of Denmark. A conference was opened in London, April
1864, but the negotiations broke down and the war continued.


Political Result:

Eventually, by the _Treaty of Vienna_, October 30, 1864, the King of
Denmark ceded the rights in the whole of Schleswig Holstein to the
Sovereigns of Austria and Prussia jointly.


Remarks:

This was more a diplomatic war than a military war. The conflict was
between retention and annexation, and little regard was paid on any
side to the desires of the inhabitants of the disputed territory.
Although by the _Treaty of London_ of 1852 the Powers, including Great
Britain, had acknowledged as permanent the principle of the integrity
of the Danish Monarchy no steps were taken by them to maintain that
principle. The settlement did nothing to prevent the outbreak of war
between Prussia and Austria two years later, when Schleswig Holstein
was again one of the bones of contention.



THE AUSTRO-PRUSSIAN WAR

1866


Belligerents:

      Prussia and some of the smaller North German States and Italy.
      Austria and the other German States.


Cause:

From 1848 onwards in all the projects for a united Germany there was
keen rivalry between Prussia and Austria. Each resisted the domination
of the other in any new Empire, and the South German states were
inclined to side with Austria against Prussian supremacy. This state of
affairs prevented any final scheme from being agreed to. At the same
time there were serious differences between Austria and Italy, who was
Prussia’s ally. Bismarck made up his mind that Austria must be expelled
by force of arms from the German Federation. He was an ardent supporter
of the House of Hohenzollern.


Occasion:

Austria supported Schleswig Holstein in their struggle for independence
against Prussia after the conclusion of the Danish War. An attempted
congress of neutrals failed. Austria called on the Diet of Frankfort
to take the affairs of Schleswig Holstein into its own hands, and
demanded and obtained the mobilization of the whole Federal armies.
Prussia declared that this action made an end of the Federal Union,
and submitted a new plan for the organization of Germany, which was
refused. Diplomatic relations were broken off June 12, 1866.


Course of the War:

Hanover and Hesse Cassel were conquered by Prussia, the Austrians were
defeated at Königgrätz, July 3, 1866, and the Prussians pushed forward
in sight of Vienna. The Austrians defeated the Italians on land at
Custozza, and by sea at Lissa.


Political Result:

Napoleon III offered mediation, which was accepted. The _Treaty of
Prague_, August 23, 1866. Prussia annexed Hanover, Nassau, Hesse
Cassel, and Frankfort: Germany north of the Main together with Saxony
was included in a Federation under Prussia: the Southern states were
left independent. Prussian sovereignty over Schleswig Holstein was
recognized. Austria withdrew completely from German affairs.


Remarks:

Napoleon III had attempted, by dividing Germany in two, to put an
obstacle in the way of German unity. His clumsy diplomacy was greatly
disapproved of in France. By preventing a final settlement he made the
recurrence of war inevitable.



BRITISH EXPEDITION IN ABYSSINIA

1867–1868


Belligerents:

      Great Britain.
      Abyssinia.


Cause:

From 1855 Abyssinia came under the powerful rule of the Emperor
Theodore. He subdued the neighbouring kingdoms of Tigré and Shoa, and
took Menelek, son of the ruler of Tigré, to be trained in his service.
He ravaged the surrounding country, and oppressed his own people. In
1864 there was an interchange of letters between Theodore and the
British Government, out of which difficulties arose.


Occasion:

The British Consul and his staff, and subsequently a British emissary,
were imprisoned in Magdala and put in chains. Their release was
demanded, but the Emperor paid no attention, and the British Government
decided they must have recourse to arms.


Course of the War:

A British force under Sir Robert Napier landed in January 1868, a
march of three hundred miles was undertaken through the mountainous
districts, and, after a fierce engagement, Magdala was stormed and
taken on April 13, 1868. The Emperor committed suicide, and his son was
taken to England, where he died. The British troops left the country in
May 1868.


Political Result:

The ruler of Tigré succeeded Theodore under the title of King John, and
on his death, in 1889, Menelek became Emperor.


Remarks:

After this the Italians came on to the scene with ambitions in this
part of Africa (see p. 74), but Abyssinia remained an independent
kingdom. In the various expeditions against the Mullah in Somaliland
(1902–4) the Abyssinians co-operated with Great Britain.



THE FRANCO-GERMAN WAR

1870–1871


Belligerents:

      France.
      Prussia and ten other German States.


Cause:

For some years previously there had been increasing friction between
France and Prussia, owing chiefly to Louis Napoleon’s apprehensions
as to the possibility of closer union between Prussia and the South
German states, his repeated endeavours to extend the Eastern frontier
of France, and Bismarck’s counter-moves to frustrate his designs. The
desire also for a united Germany was growing stronger, and Bismarck
believed it could not be completed without a conflict with France.


Occasion:

The candidature of Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern Sigmaringen for
the throne of Spain in 1870 was resented by France as calculated to
bring Spain under the influence of Prussia. King William of Prussia,
on representations from France, persuaded Prince Leopold to withdraw,
but refused firmly but politely a guarantee against the renewal of the
candidature. Bismarck published a telegram conveying the impression
that the French Ambassador, Benedetti, had been insulted by the King at
Ems on the occasion of the refusal. This infuriated public opinion in
France, the Empress Eugénie actively used her influence, and Napoleon
agreed to a declaration of war on July 14, 1870.


Course of the War:

In the war, which lasted from July 1870 to February 1871, the
ill-organized and badly led French troops could make no stand against
the well-prepared armies of Germany. The French were defeated at Wörth,
August 6th; Metz, August 7th; Marsla Tour, August 17th; Gravelotte,
August 18th. Paris was besieged: Louis Napoleon capitulated at Sedan,
September 2nd; Strasburg fell, September 28th; Bazaine capitulated at
Metz, October 27th; and the Germans entered Paris on January 28, 1871.


Political Result:

By the _Treaty of Frankfort_, May 10, 1871, Alsace and half Lorraine
(with Metz) were ceded to Germany, and an indemnity of 200 millions was
exacted from France. The King of Prussia was proclaimed at Versailles
German Emperor. France was declared a republic, and Napoleon eventually
retired into exile in England.


Remarks:

The dictation of terms and the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine entirely
prevented friendly relations from being established between the two
countries in the succeeding years. France, by getting rid of the
corrupt and incompetent government of Napoleon III, began to recuperate
from this time onward. Germany, having reached the ideal of unity,
proceeded gradually to join in the competition for commercial expansion
and Imperial aggrandizement.



THE ASHANTI WAR

1873–1874


Belligerents:

      Great Britain.
      The Ashantis.


Cause:

The Ashantis, a very fierce and warlike tribe on the Gold Coast of
Africa had repeatedly caused trouble owing to their treatment of the
Fantis, a tribe on the coast under British protection. In 1824 they
defeated a British force and carried off to Kumasi the skull of the
Governor, Sir Charles M’Carthy, which was used as a royal drinking cup.
They were afterwards defeated in 1826. In 1863 an expedition against
them had to be abandoned owing to the ravages done by sickness among
the troops. In 1867 a warlike king, Kofi Karikari succeeded as ruler
and proceeded to make hostile preparations against the Fantis.


Occasion:

In 1872 some Dutch possessions on the Gold Coast were transferred to
Great Britain. The King of Ashanti claimed a tribute formerly allowed
to him by the Dutch and refused to evacuate the territory ceded
to Britain. He also held four Europeans in captivity. The British
Government determined to take up the matter seriously, and when in
January 1873 an Ashanti force invaded the British Protectorate an
expedition under Sir Garnet Wolseley was immediately despatched.


Course of the War:

Owing to difficulties of climate it was necessary that the whole
campaign should be rapidly carried out. The Ashantis were defeated at
all points. Kumasi was reached and King Kofi surrendered. The European
troops suffered severely from fever but the objects were successfully
accomplished. Wolseley sailed from England on September 12, 1873, and
returned to Portsmouth on March 21, 1874.


Political Result:

The King renounced his claim to supremacy over any part of the former
Dutch protectorate, paid an indemnity in gold, and agreed to prohibit
human sacrifices. Further trouble arose, however, after the death of
the King, his successors disregarding the treaty. In 1895 an expedition
was sent out under Colonel Sir F. Scott. Kumasi was occupied and King
Prempeh deported. Still the Ashanti tribes refused to submit, and
continued in rebellion. The Governor of the Gold Coast and a small
force were surrounded in Kumasi. He managed to escape and Kumasi was
finally relieved by an expedition under Colonel Wilcocks who gradually
suppressed the rebellion. By an Order in Council of September 26, 1901,
Ashanti was formally annexed to the British dominions and given a
separate administration under the control of the Governor of the Gold
Coast.


Remarks:

Imperial responsibilities entail the protection of friendly tribes
against hostile attack in the outlying parts of the Empire. Punitive
expeditions become necessary and annexation is found to be the best
method of securing law and order.



RUSSO-TURKISH WAR

1877–1878


Belligerents:

      Russia.
      Turkey.


Cause:

The persecution and oppression of Christians in the Ottoman Empire
led to a revolt in Herzegovina in 1875. Andrassy, on behalf of
Austria, presented a Note to the Turkish Government demanding reforms,
and this was followed by the Berlin Memorandum, signed by Germany,
France, Austria, Russia, and Italy. Great Britain alone stood out. The
Bulgarian massacres in June 1876 caused a great sensation in England,
and were followed by a declaration of war by Servia and Montenegro
against Turkey. Great Britain, always mistrusting Russian designs,
called a Conference. The demands of the Conference were rejected by
Turkey in January 1877. The Sultan protested against the encroachment
of the Powers on his inviolable rights.


Occasion:

The London Protocol of March 1877, signed by Great Britain and Russia
and agreed to by the other Powers, called for reforms and expressed the
intention of the Powers to safeguard the Christian population. This was
also rejected by the Turks, and Russia declared war on April 24, 1877.


Course of the War:

The Russian army crossed the Danube. Plevna fell in December 1877.
The Russians entered Adrianople, January 1878. The advance of the
Russian army towards Gallipoli was followed by the dispatch of the
British fleet to Constantinople and brought Russia and Great Britain
within a hair’s-breadth of war. This, however, was avoided and peace
negotiations began.


Political Result:

_Treaty of San Stefano_, March 3, 1878. The independence of Servia,
Montenegro, and Roumania was recognized. Bulgaria was made an
autonomous principality with frontiers including the greater part of
European Turkey; the Dobrudja and certain districts in Asia Minor were
ceded to Russia.

Great Britain objected strongly to this treaty, and proposed a Congress
at Berlin. While the chances of the Congress hung in the balance, Great
Britain made warlike preparations, but the Congress was finally agreed
to.

_Treaty of Berlin_, July 13, 1878. Bulgaria’s frontier was confined to
the country north of the Balkans. Bosnia and Herzegovina were handed
over to Austria: the territory given to Serbia and Montenegro was
further restricted: Thessaly and part of Epirus were ceded to Greece.

By a secret convention Great Britain engaged to protect Turkey against
further aggression of Russia in Asia. In return the Porte assigned
Cyprus to be occupied and administered by England.

Lord Beaconsfield was the British Plenipotentiary at the Peace Congress
and returned declaring he had secured “peace with honour.”


Remarks:

This was a patched-up peace. It settled none of the problems in the
Balkans, which continued to be the danger zone in Europe for the rest
of the century.



THE SECOND AFGHAN WAR

1878–1881


Belligerents:

      Great Britain and Indian Troops.
      Afghanistan.


Cause:

In 1868 the expanding power of Russia in Asia resulted in Bokhara
becoming a Russian dependency. In 1873 Russia conquered Khiva. Shere
Ali, now ruler of Afghanistan, became alarmed, but failing to come
to an understanding with the British Government, he began to make
overtures to Russia. In 1877 an offer of alliance was made by the
Viceroy of India, but Shere Ali refused to admit a British Agent into
Afghanistan.


Occasion:

In 1878 the Russian Government sent an envoy to Kabul to make a treaty
with the Amir. A British army was also sent, but was turned back on the
frontier, and hostilities were proclaimed by the Viceroy.


Course of the War:

Two British forces marched into the interior of Afghanistan, and
occupied important positions. Shere Ali fled from his capital, and
died in February 1879. By the _Treaty of Gandamuk_, May 1879, Yakub
Khan was recognized as Amir, and he agreed that a British envoy should
reside at his Court. In September 1879, the envoy, his staff, and
his escort were massacred. A fresh expedition was sent under Sir F.
Roberts, who entered Kabul. In 1880, Abdur Rahman, nephew of Shere Ali,
returned from exile in Russia and established himself in the northern
provinces. The British Government came to an agreement with him, and he
was recognized as Amir. In July 1880 Ayub Khan, another son of Shere
Ali, defeated a British force at Maiwand. Roberts reached Kandahar
from Kabul by a rapid march, and defeated Ayub Khan on September 1,
1880. Again, in July 1881, Ayub Khan returned and took possession of
Kandahar, but was finally routed by Abdur Rahman in September.


Political Result:

The frontiers of Afghanistan were delimited in agreement with Russia.
Abdur Rahman’s rulership over Afghanistan was established. He extended
and consolidated his dominion over the whole country, and was
peacefully succeeded by his son Habibullah in 1901.


Remarks:

By the Anglo-Russia Convention of 1907, Great Britain engaged not to
alter the political status of Afghanistan, and Russia recognized it as
outside her sphere of influence.



THE ZULU WAR

1879


Belligerents:

      Great Britain.
      The Zulus.


Cause:

The warlike and threatening attitude of the Zulus under Cetywayo
constituted a perpetual menace to the safety of the British possessions
in South Africa. The policy of Sir Bartle Frere, Governor of the Cape
and High Commissioner, was the eventual Federation of all South African
states under British rule, and it was essential, therefore, in his
opinion, that the white inhabitants should be secured against native
raids. There was a strong opinion that this could be effected without
force of arms.


Occasion:

The cruelties and excesses practised by Cetywayo culminated in a raid
into Natal, where women were carried off and murdered. Frere issued an
ultimatum demanding the break-up of the military system of Zululand,
and further that a British Resident was to be received and missionaries
were not to be molested. No reply was received, and British troops
entered Zululand on January 10, 1879.


Course of the War:

Frere’s application for reinforcements was refused by the British
Government. But after a British defeat at Isandhlwana, January 22,
1879, which was only prevented from being a disaster by the gallant
defence of Rorke’s Drift, Sir Garnet Wolseley was sent out with more
troops. The Zulus were defeated at Ulundi, July 5th, and Cetywayo was
taken prisoner.


Political Result:

Zululand was divided into thirteen districts, each with a separate
chief, and was placed under a British Resident. It was finally annexed
in 1887.


Remarks:

This war is only an episode in the extension and consolidation of the
British Empire in South Africa. But it is an instance of the grave
responsibilities which are involved in Imperial expansion.

In the course of the war the Prince Imperial, only son of Napoleon III,
was killed, and with him died the last hopes of a restoration of the
Napoleonic dynasty in France.



THE CHILE-PERUVIAN WAR

1879–1882


Belligerents:

      Chile.
      Peru. Bolivia.


Cause:

After the blockade and bombardment of their ports by a Spanish squadron
in 1865, on account of their sympathy with Peru in a quarrel with
Spain, the Chileans were impressed with the necessity of possessing an
adequate fleet to defend their long coast line. Ships were obtained and
officers trained, so that Chile became well equipped for any future
encounter.

The authorities of Bolivia seized the effects of the Chilean Nitrate
Company at Antofogasta.


Occasion:

Five hundred soldiers were despatched to protect Chilean interests. The
force landed and marched inland. Bolivia declared war on March 1st,
Peru on April 5, 1879.


Course of the War:

The Chileans occupied every port on the Bolivian coast, and engaged the
Peruvian fleet. The _Huascar_, a Peruvian ironclad, after other ships
had been destroyed, did great damage under four successive commanders,
but after severe fighting was forced to surrender off Angamos, and the
Peruvian navy ceased to exist. After several engagements on land the
Chileans succeeded in taking possession of the Bolivian seaboard and
the Peruvian province of Tarapaca.

Fighting continued in 1880 when, in spite of daring resistance, the
Peruvians were defeated at all points. Lima was occupied on January 17,
1881, and Callao surrendered on January 18th. The last engagement took
place in September 1882, and a small army of occupation was left in
Peru.


Political Result:

The Treaty of Peace was not ratified till April 1884. Peru ceded to
Chile the province of Tarapaca. The provinces of Tacna and Arica were
placed under Chilean authority for ten years, after which they were to
decide their own future government. Chile, however, eventually evaded
compliance with this agreement and retained forcible possession of the
provinces. Chile retained possession of the Bolivian seaboard, thus
cutting off Bolivia from access to the Pacific.


Remarks:

The aggressive attitude of Chile was a cause of complaint with the
neighbouring states, and nearly led on more than one occasion to
further conflict. By a Treaty signed in 1905, however, Bolivia at last
ceded all claims to a seaport and strip of coast. Chile, except for a
civil war in 1891, is distinguished among the South American States by
its freedom from revolution and serious political unrest.



THE FRENCH EXPEDITION IN TUNIS

1881


Belligerents:

      France.
      The Arabs of Tunis.


Cause:

Tunis under the government of the Beys formed part of the Ottoman
Empire. In 1862 Italy began to take an interest in Tunis. A triple
British, French, and Italian control over Tunisian finances was
established in 1869. In 1878, at the Congress of Berlin, Great Britain
came to a secret understanding to allow France a free hand in Tunis in
return for French acquiescence in the British lease of Cyprus.


Occasion:

In 1880 the Italians bought the British railway from Tunis to Golitta.
France, under the pretext of chastising independent tribes in the
north-east, determined to take action.


Course of the War:

A French force marched on the capital. The conquest of the country was
not effected without serious resistance, specially at Sjax, but finally
the whole country was brought completely under French jurisdiction, and
the Bey was compelled to accept a French protectorate.


Political Result:

By the _Treaty of Bardo_, May 12, 1881, and a further _Treaty of La
Marsa_, June 8, 1883, the French protectorate was established. Italy
did not recognize the full consequences of the French protectorate
till 1896. Protests by Turkey were ignored by France, and in 1892 the
Ottoman Government was prepared to delimit the Tunis-Tripoli frontier.
But there were various frontier incidents, and Turkey maintained the
claim that the Tunisians were Ottoman subjects.


Remarks:

The occupation of Tunis led to an estrangement between France and
Italy.



THE EGYPTIAN WAR

1882


Belligerents:

      Great Britain.
      Egypt.


Cause:

Since 1840, while Egypt had been virtually independent, Great Britain
had been regarded as the special champion of Turkish suzerainty;
France as the protector of the Viceroys of Egypt. The construction of
the Suez Canal, chiefly engineered by France and Great Britain, made
Egypt of new importance, as the direct route to India now lay through
the Red Sea. An Anglo-French financial control was established to
secure payment of interest on the enormous sums lent to the Khedive
Ismail. British influence became paramount, and the British Government
gradually assumed the responsibility for good government in Egypt.


Occasion:

An anti-Turkish revolt under Arabi Pasha broke out, and there was a
massacre of Christians in Alexandria in June 1882. The Khedive was
powerless. The Powers met in conference at Constantinople, but before
any decision was arrived at the British Government resolved to act.


Course of the War:

The bombardment of Alexandria took place on July 11, 1882, and the
Egyptian troops set fire to the town. The Sultan was willing to enter
into a military convention with Great Britain, but before it was signed
the Egyptians were defeated at Tel-el Kebir by the British under Sir
Garnet Wolseley, on September 13, 1882, and Arabi surrendered.


Political Result:

Arabi and other Pashas were banished to Ceylon.

The military occupation of Egypt by Great Britain, in spite of
declarations to the effect that the troops would shortly be withdrawn,
and in spite of protests from France, became permanent.


Remarks:

Till the Anglo-French agreement of 1904 France adopted a more or
less hostile attitude with regard to Egypt. Many administrative and
financial reforms were introduced by Sir Evelyn Baring, afterwards Lord
Cromer. The government was practically taken out of the hands of the
Egyptians, and from time to time there was trouble with a nationalist
movement.



FRANCO-CHINESE WAR

1884–1885


Belligerents:

      France.
      China.


Cause:

France, after 1870, turned its attention more and more to colonial
expansion in Africa, and also in Asia, where for some time efforts had
been made by the French to indemnify themselves in Indo-China for the
loss of Hindustan. In 1875 a vague treaty with the Emperor of Annam
gave France the protectorate. The importance was realized of finding a
path of penetration towards China.


Occasion:

In 1883–1884 an attempt was made to force the Emperor of Annam to
acknowledge the protectorate and to secure the delta of Tonkin. The
Chinese Government, unwilling to have France as a neighbour, took the
offensive.


Course of the War:

The French fleet destroyed the arsenal of Foochow, took possession of
Formosa, Kelung, and the Pescadores Islands, and blockaded Southern
China. A French brigade was put to flight near Langsen. Incorrect
information as to the extent of the reverse caused the overthrow of
Jules Ferry’s ministry. But the victories and blockade of the French
fleet induced China to accept peace.


Political Result:

By the _Treaty of Tientsin_, June 9, 1885, China recognized the French
protectorate in Tonkin and Annam, and promised to open the southern
provinces to French traders.

By treaties with Siam in 1893, and Great Britain in 1892–1896, Cambodia
came also under French protection, and the Empire in Indo-China was
consolidated.


Remarks:

France definitely joined in the competition for Imperial expansion.



THE BURMESE WARS

1823–1826, 1851, 1885


Belligerents:

      Great Britain.
      Burma.


Cause:

The expansion of the British Empire in India involved the subjection of
neighbouring states. In addition to this there was fear of the rivalry
of France in Burma.


Occasions:

(1) The conquest of Assam, which was under British protection, by the
King of Ava in 1823, and the attack by him on a British fort at Shapur,
led to the declaration of war against Burma.

(2) The insults offered to the British flag at Rangoon by the King of
Ava, led to the fresh outbreak of war in 1851.

(3) King Thibaw’s despotic rule and his design to enter into an
agreement with France, led to the last Ultimatum in 1885.


Course of the Wars:

(I) A British force was defeated at Ramu, and the first two attempts to
reach Ava failed. Martaban and Tennasserin were taken by the British,
and the Burmese were expelled from Rangoon in December 1824. Prome
was reached in April 1825. Myede was entered in December. In 1826 Sir
Archibald Campbell pushed on to Yandabu, forty-five miles from Ava. By
the treaty of peace February 24, 1826, the British gained the provinces
of Assam, Arakan, and the coast of Tenasserim.

(II) In April, 1852, as the King of Ava refused to come to terms,
Rangoon, Martaban, and Bassein were taken by Dalhousie. Prome was
taken in October, and Pegu in November 1852. No treaty was signed but
the King was prepared to accept an accomplished fact.

(III) In 1885 the British Ultimatum took King Thibaw by surprise, and
within a fortnight he surrendered unconditionally when the British
force approached his capital. Guerilla warfare continued for nearly two
years.


Political Result:

By the proclamation of January 1, 1886, the whole of Burma was annexed,
and Thibaw was deported to India.


Remarks:

The conquest of Burma was affected, not so much because of the misrule
of the Kings of Ava as from a motive of Imperial expansion and the
desire to forestall the designs of France.



THE SERBO-BULGARIAN WAR

1885


Belligerents:

      Bulgaria.
      Serbia.


Cause:

The Treaty of Berlin of 1878 left abundant material for future conflict
in European Turkey. Bulgaria was confined to the north of the Balkan
mountains, and Eastern Roumelia was still under the Sultan. Prince
Alexander of Battenberg, the ruler of Bulgaria, in September 1885,
marched south and occupied Philippopolis. The Sultan protested, the
Czar was indignant, but Great Britain approved the Union of Roumelia
with Bulgaria, and the danger of war passed away. The success of
Bulgaria whetted the appetite of Milan, who had become King of Serbia
in 1882. With a view to strengthening the prestige of his dynasty he
adopted a spirited foreign policy and awaited an opportunity.


Occasion:

Frontier troubles and tariff disputes between the two countries had
embittered relations, and the King of Serbia declared war, thinking
he would have a triumphal march to Sofia, the Russian officers having
withdrawn from the Bulgarian army.


Course of the War:

The Bulgarians gained a decisive victory at Slivnitsa on November 16,
1885, and occupied Pirot, and the road to Belgrade lay open before
them. But Austria intervened on behalf of Serbia, and after fourteen
days’ fighting an armistice was signed.


Political Result:

By the _Treaty of Buckarest_, March 3, 1886, the _status quo_ was
restored; Bulgaria gained nothing, but established her right to Eastern
Roumelia. Owing to Russian intrigue Alexander was forced to abdicate
and was succeeded by Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg as Prince of Bulgaria.


Remarks:

Bulgaria became gradually the most advanced and formidable state in the
Balkans. In 1908, at the time of the revolutionary crisis in Turkey and
the annexation of Bosnia and Herzogovina by Austria, Ferdinand declared
himself Czar of a completely independent Bulgaria.

Milan abdicated in 1889, and his son Alexander became King of Serbia.
He and his wife were murdered in 1903 and Peter Karageorgevich accepted
the crown.



THE CHINO-JAPANESE WAR

1894–1895


Belligerents:

      Japan.
      China and Korea.


Cause:

Japan adopting Western ideas developed into a powerful state with
surprising rapidity during the last fifty years of the nineteenth
century. The growth of her armaments and an ambition for expansion
necessarily followed. China, on the other hand, did not welcome
the influence of the West, which rapid transit and communication
had brought into Asia. The weakness and misgovernment of Korea was
a perpetual temptation to her neighbours. Japan invited China to
co-operate in demanding reforms in Korea, but China refused and Japan
acted alone.


Occasion:

In July 1894 Japan issued an Ultimatum calling on Korea to accept
a Japanese programme of reforms. Korea temporized, and Seoul, the
capital, was taken without difficulty, the Emperor being made a
prisoner. China immediately intervened.


Course of the War:

By land and sea the Japanese, who had been trained by European
officers, were easily victorious. Asan was occupied, a victory was
gained off the Yalu River, and the Japanese marched on Yingkow. Port
Arthur, on the Liao-Tung peninsula, was captured, finally Wei-hai-Wei
fell, and Li Hung Chang, the Chinese Minister, sued for peace.


Political Result:

By the _Treaty of Shimonoseki_, China ceded to Japan the Liao Tung
peninsula, the island of Formosa and the Pescadores Islands, and the
indemnity was fixed at 200 million taels. But Russia, France, and
Germany intervened, and ordered Japan to surrender the Liao Tung
Peninsula on the ground that Port Arthur threatened the independence of
Peking. But the insincerity of the intervention of the Western Powers
was revealed in 1897, when China was compelled to lease Kiao Chow to
Germany, Port Arthur to Russia, Wei-hai-Wei to Great Britain, while
France obtained a concession near Tonkin. Only the Italian claim for
the port of Sanmen was refused by China.


Remarks:

The encroachments of the Western Powers evoked intense indignation in
China. The rivalry in the exploitation of the Far East by the West had
begun in real earnest.



THE ITALO-ABYSSINIAN WAR

1895–1896


Belligerents:

      Italy.
      Abyssinia.


Cause:

Having become a united nation, Italy soon developed Imperialistic
ambitions. She looked towards Tunis, but was forestalled there by
France in 1881. In 1884, being secure from an attack by land, by an
alliance with Austria concluded in 1882, and being assured by Great
Britain that the occupation by a friendly Power of certain positions on
the Red Sea littoral would not be regarded unfavourably, the Italian
Government decided on a forward policy in Africa.


Occasion:

After a preliminary expedition in 1887, which was unsuccessful and had
to be recalled, a treaty was made with Menelek, after the death of King
John of Abyssinia, which was interpreted in Italy as involving Italian
suzerainty over Abyssinia. Italy supported Menelek against his rival
Ras Mangascia.


Course of the War:

Italian victories over the Dervishes at Agordat (1893) and Cassala
(1894) encouraged the ambition of Italy for a vast African Empire.
On a further Italian advance in 1895 the Abyssinians united in their
resistance. Menelek repudiated all idea of a protectorate, and General
Baratieri suffered a disastrous defeat at Adowah, March 1, 1896.


Political Result:

The Italian suzerainty over Abyssinia was abandoned, and by the Treaty
of Peace signed in September 1900, the frontiers of the Italian colony
were reduced.


Remarks:

The attempt on the part of Italy to hunt with the lions in colonial
aggrandizement ended in humiliation. Italy was now able to devote its
attention to much-needed internal reforms. But the Imperialist policy
only died down to be revived later.



THE WAR IN THE SOUDAN

1896–1898


Belligerents:

      Great Britain--Egypt.
      Arabs and Dervishes.


Cause:

The Soudan had fallen into the hands of rebellious tribes under the
Mahdi. In 1883 on Egyptian force under General Hicks had been defeated
at El Obeid, and General Baker was also defeated in his attempt to
relieve the Tokar garrison. The successes of a British force near
Suakin were rendered useless by the refusal of the British Government
to advance further. Early in 1884 it was decided to despatch General
Gordon, who had an intimate knowledge of the country, to bring away
Europeans from the Soudan. On arriving at Khartoum he was cut off from
all communication with Egypt, Berber and the Bahr-el-Gazal province
having fallen into the hands of the Mahdi. The relief expedition was
sent out too late to save him. Khartoum fell, and Gordon was killed
on January 25, 1885. The whole of the Soudan remained under the rule
of the Mahdi for thirteen years. The British Government came to the
conclusion that Egypt could never be considered permanently secure so
long as a hostile Power was in occupation of Khartoum.


Occasion:

After the Italian defeat at Adowah it was decided to create a diversion
in Italian interests, and orders were given to occupy the province
of Dongola. Rumours of the crumbling power of the Khalifa, who had
succeeded the Mahdi, strengthened the idea that it was a favourable
opportunity to advance into the Soudan.


Course of the War:

British and Egyptian troops under Kitchener occupied Dongola September
23, 1896. In 1897 desert railways were constructed, and Abu Hamed
and Berber were wrested from the dervishes. In 1898 reinforcements
of British troops were sent from Cairo. Omdurman, the stronghold of
Mahdism, was captured on September 2, 1898, and two days later Khartoum
was occupied.


Political Result:

By an agreement between the British and Egyptian Governments in
January 1899, the Soudan was placed under their joint control,
the Governor-General to be appointed by the Khedive on British
recommendation.


Remarks:

The arrival of Major Marchand at Fashoda, in September 1898, where
he hoisted the French flag, created a momentary excitement and talk
of war, but the British Government adopted a firm attitude, and he
received orders to withdraw.

No opposition to the Anglo-Egyptian agreement was encountered in
Europe. The economic and agricultural development of the Soudan has
since progressed rapidly.

Nearly a million square miles were added to the territory under British
rule.



THE TURKO-GREEK WAR

1897


Belligerents:

      Turkey.
      Greece.


Cause:

Crete, which formed part of the Ottoman Dominion, had been granted
a Constitution in 1868. A revolt in 1889 caused the Sultan to limit
the powers of the assembly and supersede the Christian governor by a
Mussulman. Disturbances broke out between Christians and Mohammedans
in the succeeding years. In February 1897 the Christians proclaimed
union with Greece, and Colonel Vassos was sent with a force to occupy
the island in the King’s name. The Powers intervened, and the Admirals
occupied Canea. Neither the Sultan nor the King wanted war. The King
was under the impression that the Powers would prevent it.


Occasion:

Enthusiasm for war which was not accompanied by any sort of military
organization or preparation grew up in Greece. When armed bands crossed
the frontier into Macedonia, Turkey immediately declared war (April 17,
1897).


Course of the War:

The Greek fleet, on which great hopes had been placed, effected
nothing. The Turkish forces occupied Larissa, advanced across Thessaly,
defeated the Greeks all along the line, and on May 17, 1897, the
victory of Domokos opened to the Turks the pass which leads down to
Lamia. The Powers intervened, and a armistice was signed.


Political Result:

By the treaty of peace signed at Constantinople, December 4, 1897,
the Turks evacuated Thessaly, and certain strategic alterations were
made in the frontier. Greece paid an indemnity of four millions, and
accepted the European control of her finances. Crete continued to be
the arena of periodic conflict. Prince George of Greece was appointed
High Commissioner of the Powers under a new Constitution, but he
resigned in 1906. While virtually Greek the island remained under the
suzerainty of the Sultan.


Remarks:

This was only one of the many Balkan conflicts. The intervention of
the Powers was invoked in order to check any increase in the dominion
of the Sultan. But owing to their own conflicting ambitions and the
inherent racial complications in the Balkans, they never at any time
reached a solution of the problems involved.



THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR

1897–1898


Belligerents:

      Spain.
      The United States of America.


Cause:

The decline of the Spanish Colonial Empire (which had reached its
highest point under Philip II at the end of the sixteenth century)
continued throughout the seventeenth, eighteenth, and early nineteenth
century, and was hastened by the misgovernment, corruption, and
incessant outbreaks of revolution in Spain itself. One by one by
means of revolution, the Spanish-American colonies had gained their
independence. The policy of the Holy Alliance and of Metternich was
to check the growth of Constitutional government in Europe. King
Ferdinand of Spain was in conflict with the constitutional movement,
and civil war prevailed. In 1823 France intervened in Spain on behalf
of Ferdinand, and French troops entered Madrid. Canning, on behalf of
Great Britain, prohibited the conquest by France or her allies of the
Spanish colonies, and formally recognized their independence in 1824.
Cuba and other islands were the last of the Spanish possessions. During
the remainder of the nineteenth century Spain continued periodically to
be torn and weakened by internal disturbances.


Occasion:

In order to quell the revolts in Cuba more effectually the milder
policy of Martinez Campos was exchanged in 1897 for the ruthless and
brutal rule of General Weyler. The United States were deeply stirred
by the torture and starvation of their neighbours. General Weyler was
recalled. But when the American cruiser _Maine_ was blown up in the
port of Havana, the United States demanded the evacuation of Cuba by
Spain. Spain refused.


Course of the War:

Two Spanish fleets were destroyed in May and July 1898, and American
land forces in Cuba, the Philippines, and Porto Rico won those islands
with comparatively little struggle.


Political Result:

By the treaty of peace signed at Paris, December 1898, Spain
surrendered practically all her colonies. The Caroline Islands in the
Pacific were sold to Germany in 1899.


Remarks:

This was the last chapter in the extinction of a vast colonial Empire,
which was dissolved owing to the spirit of independence in its various
states and the bad government in the Mother Country.



THE BOER WAR

1881, 1899–1902


Belligerents:

      Great Britain.
      The Transvaal and Orange Free State.


Cause:

The premature annexation of the Transvaal in 1877 was resented by the
majority of the Boers. In 1880 a formidable rebellion broke out, a
small British force was sent out which met with determined opposition
at Laing’s Nek and Ingogo, and on February 27, 1881, was defeated at
Majuba Hill. The Boers regained their independence under the suzerainty
of Great Britain.

Cecil Rhodes, with vast ideas of Imperial expansion, became the
dominating influence in South Africa. In 1884 Bechuanaland was
annexed. In 1889 Rhodes founded the British South Africa Company. In
1896, after a successful conflict with the Matabeles, Buluwayo was
captured and Matabeleland added to the territory of Rhodesia. In 1886
gold had been discovered in the Transvaal, and a great cosmopolitan
city arose at Johannesburg. This resulted in an enormous influx of
Europeans and the decision of the Boers to exclude them from any share
in the political life of the country. Behind Rhodes, who became Prime
Minister of Cape Colony in 1895, great financial interests grew up and
exerted considerable influence. Under the presidency of Kruger the
Boers adopted a more and more hostile attitude towards the Outlanders.
In 1895 the Jameson Raid, which was connived at by the authorities,
revived Kruger’s power, which had been waning, and made the Boers arm
in preparation for a further surprise.


Occasion:

A promise of intervention was sent by the British Government in
reply to a petition from the Outlanders in 1899. Attempts to reach a
compromise with Kruger failed. Both sides were preparing for war, and
the mining interests exerted great pressure. On October 9, 1899, the
Transvaal issued an Ultimatum.


Course of the War:

The Boers invaded Natal and Cape Colony; Ladysmith, Mafeking, and
Kimberley were invested. British defeats at Magersfontein, Stormberg,
and Colenso (December 1899) led to Lord Roberts being sent out to
supersede General Buller. Kimberley and Ladysmith were relieved,
Bloemfontein fell. In May 1900 Mafeking was relieved, and in June
Johannesburg and Pretoria were occupied. The attempt to insist on
unconditional surrender prolonged the war for two more years.


Political Result:

By the _Treaty of Vereeniging_, May 1902, the Transvaal lost its
independence. The Orange Free State had been annexed in 1900. Under
pressure from the financial interests Chinese were introduced to work
the gold-mines. This was one of the chief reasons for the fall of the
Conservative Government in 1906. Campbell-Bannerman, who became Prime
Minister, solved the problem of the future of the Transvaal by granting
them full self-government, and the importation of Chinese was stopped.


Remarks:

The origin of the war can be directly traced to far less worthy
causes than that of redressing the grievances of the Outlanders. The
war was unnecessarily prolonged by an underestimate of the strength
of the Boers and the desire to humiliate them. But the grant of
self-government was the act that saved the war from being barren in
results and from being the precursor of further trouble. The Union of
South Africa was established in 1909.

The Powers of Europe, with the exception of Italy, adopted an
unfriendly attitude towards Great Britain during the war.



THE BOXER RISING IN CHINA

1899–1900


Belligerents:

      Great Britain, Russia, Germany, France, and Japan.
      China.


Cause:

The humiliating results of the war of 1894–5 (p. 72) killed the reform
movement in China and brought the reactionary party, headed by the
Dowager-Empress, back to power. A society called the Boxers spread
very rapidly through the provinces, preaching death to foreigners and
receiving official support.


Occasion:

Attacks on Europeans began in 1899, and became very frequent in
the early months of 1900. In May the Ministers at Peking asked for
additional guards. The Boxers surrounded the city, and Admiral
Seymour’s attempt to reach the capital was frustrated. The destruction
of the Taku Fort by the Allies was treated as a declaration of war, and
Chinese Imperial troops joined the Boxers.


Course of the War:

The settlements at Tientsin were rescued by a Russian force. An
allied force made its way through from Taku, and forced an entry into
Pekin. In August a relief column of 18,000 allied troops defeated the
Chinese in several engagements and marched on Pekin. The legations
had for eight weeks withstood a siege. The Chinese Government gave
foreigners twenty-four hours to leave the capital. The German Minister
was murdered in the street. The British Legation formed the refuge of
all those who were driven out of their places of retreat. When the
relieving force arrived the Chinese only made a faint-hearted defence.
The Empress fled, the legations were relieved, and Pekin was occupied.


Political Result:

By the peace protocol, which was signed on September 7, 1901, the
punishment of the ringleaders was demanded: the forts between Pekin
and the sea were dismantled, permanent guards for the legations were
established, and a large indemnity was fixed.


Remarks:

Official intercourse with the Chinese Government was established on
a more satisfactory basis. But serious trouble in the Far East and
internal disturbances in China itself continued.



THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR

1904–1905


Belligerents:

      Russia.
      Japan.


Cause:

When Port Arthur, which Japan had been forced to surrender in 1895, was
seized by Russia there was deep indignation in Japan. In 1902 a treaty
of alliance was concluded between Great Britain and Japan. Russia
undertook to evacuate Manchuria, and although the withdrawal of troops
began in 1903, instead of continuing the evacuation Russia demanded
new concessions. In Korea Russian speculators obtained concessions,
and influential members of the Russian Court were interested in the
enterprise. Japan protested.


Occasion:

A treaty regulating the position in Manchuria and Korea was suggested
by Japan, but Russia refused to recognize Japan’s paramount influence
in Korea, and after several months of fruitless negotiation Japan
issued an Ultimatum in February 1904.


Course of the War:

After successful initial encounters on the part of Japan, Port Arthur
was surrendered on January 1, 1905. After a Japanese victory at Mukden,
the Russians retreated. In October 1904 the Russian fleet, coming
round from the Baltic, opened fire on a group of Hull fishing smacks
in crossing the Dogger Bank, mistaking them for torpedo boats. The
incident roused considerable indignation in Britain, but the Czar
expressed his regrets. The matter was referred to a commission of
admirals in Paris, and compensation was awarded for the damage done.
On May 27, 1905 the Russian fleet was annihilated by Admiral Togo at
Tsushima. The Japanese landed a force in Sakhalin, but, both sides
being exhausted and anxious for peace, negotiations were opened in
August 1905.


Political Result:

By the _Treaty of Portsmouth_, August 1905, the claims of Japan in
Korea were recognized; Russia agreed to evacuate Manchuria and ceded
the Liao-Tung peninsula (including Port Arthur) and the southern half
of Sakhalin to Japan. The payment of an indemnity, which had been the
chief obstacle to the conclusion of peace, was waived by Japan. The
moderation of the Japanese demands made a good impression in the world,
but was resented in Japan itself.


Remarks:

This was a war of pure aggression, backed by high financial speculation
on the part of Russia. The easy triumph of Japan was a surprise. But
she was fighting for definite national objects, while the Russian
people knew nothing of the cause and aims of the war. Russia spent much
money in subsequent years in restoring her lost armaments. From this
time on the reform movements and revolutionary spirit in Russia grew
rapidly.



TURKO-ITALIAN WAR

1911–1912


Belligerents:

      Italy.
      Turkey.


Cause:

After the agreements with regard to North Africa between Great Britain
and France, Italy made up her mind that the time was favourable for a
decisive move with a view to expansion, and proceeded to make careful
preparations for military action early in 1911. The position in Tripoli
was made the subject of heated discussion in the Press, and the Turks
were charged with showing gross unfairness to Italian residents. The
possible designs of Germany in North Africa also induced the Italian
Government to take advantage of the first opportunity for an offensive
step.


Occasion:

The Turks, foreseeing danger, sent war stores and munitions to Tripoli,
and on September 29, 1911, the Italians, with their fleet ready and
their troops embarked, declared war.


Course of the War:

On September 30th, Tripoli was blockaded and occupied by the Italians
on October 5th; Benghazi fell on October 20th. In spite of the
publication of a decree annexing Tripoli as a province of Italy, the
advance of the invaders was kept in check. Austria refused to allow
operations in the Adriatic. Russia would not permit the blockade of the
Dardanelles. Fighting continued with indeterminate results and in a
desultory manner until a treaty of peace was finally signed at Ouchy on
October 15, 1912.


Result:

By the _Treaty of Lausanne_, October 15, 1912, Turkish forces were
withdrawn from Tripoli and Cyrenaica, the Italians promised to withdraw
from the occupied islands of the Ægean, and a commercial agreement was
concluded between the two countries. There was no recognition by the
Turkish Government of Italian sovereignty in Tripoli. It was enough for
Italy that her sovereignty was recognized by the Powers. This was done,
France delaying her assent until Italy surrendered certain privileges
in Morocco.


Remarks:

Italy’s aggressive action was prompted by a desire not to be left
behind in the competition for territorial acquisitions in Africa.



FIRST BALKAN WAR

1912–1913


Belligerents:

      Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro.
      Turkey.


Cause:

Even after the deposition of the Sultan, Abdul Hamid, and the triumph
of the Young Turks in the revolution of 1908 the misgovernment of
Turkey did not cease, more especially in Macedonia, where the European
Powers had entirely failed to secure any reforms, but produced an
intolerable situation in the Balkan Peninsula. Despairing of the
successful intervention of the Powers the Balkan States determined
to take matters into their own hands. For the first time an alliance
was formed between Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia for the purpose of
destroying the Turkish Empire in Europe.


Occasion:

In September 1912 the Powers, through Austria, Hungary, and Russia
strongly deprecated the outbreak of war. The Allies simultaneously
handed in to the Turkish Government an Ultimatum demanding certain
specified reforms. No reply was sent. The Turks underestimated the
strength of their opponents, and hoped to detach Greece. War broke out
October 17th.


Course of the War:

The Turkish forces were completely overwhelmed. They were defeated by
the Serbians at Kumanovo, October 24, 1912, and Uskub was occupied: the
Greeks drove the enemy north and occupied Salonika: and the Bulgarians
defeated the Ottoman army at Lule Burgas, October 31st, and advanced to
Chatalja. After an armistice and an abortive attempt of the Powers to
secure peace, the war broke out again. Adrianople fell March 26, 1913,
and the Turks submitted.


Political Result:

By the _Treaty of London_ Bulgaria was given a frontier from Enos on
the Mediterranean to Midia on the Black Sea. The future of Albania was
to be decided by the Allies and Turkey ceded the island of Crete to
Greece.


Remarks:

Serious disputes as to the disposal of the spoils won from Turkey led
immediately to the outbreak of war among the Allies.



SECOND BALKAN WAR

1913


Belligerents:

      Serbia, Greece, Montenegro, Roumania.
      Bulgaria.
      Turkey.


Cause:

In February 1912 a treaty was concluded between Bulgaria and Serbia,
whereby it was agreed that North-west Macedonia should go to Serbia,
another part to Bulgaria, and the zone lying between these two should
be submitted to the arbitration of the Czar. In December 1912, in the
First Balkan War, Austria protested against the occupation by Serbia of
Durazzo on the Adriatic, and of Scutari by Montenegro. Serbia declared
that Bulgaria did not adequately support her in resisting the Austrian
demand, felt impelled to claim more territory in Macedonia, and refused
to carry out the provisions of the treaty with Bulgaria. Serbia was
ready to arbitrate. Russia was inclined to support the Serbian claim.
Bulgaria hesitated.


Occasion:

While the dispute was still in the balance the aggressive party in
Bulgaria got the upper hand, and war was declared against Serbia and
Greece in June 24, 1913, only a few months after the cessation of
hostilities in the First Balkan War.


Course of the War:

The Bulgarians found themselves invaded on four frontiers. While they
were being driven back by Serbia and Greece, the Turks repudiated the
Treaty of London and retook Adrianople, and Roumania advanced from the
north and without striking a blow annexed a large slice of territory in
the Dobrudja. Bulgaria was obliged to yield.


Political Result:

By the _Treaty of Bukarest_, August 10, 1913, Serbia acquired a large
district of South-east Macedonia, Greece obtained Kavalla, and Roumania
was given possession of the territory her troops had occupied.

By the _Treaty of Constantinople_, August 1913, Bulgaria ceded back
to Turkey more than half of the territory won in the previous war,
including Adrianople.


Remarks:

Bulgaria being again restricted in territory felt she had been betrayed
by the Powers, who did nothing to enforce the engagements of the Treaty
of London. Her rivals, Serbia and Greece, gained at her expense. On the
other hand, Bulgarian responsibility for the outbreak of the second war
was undoubted.

The European Powers, by acting together, prevented the Balkan conflict
from spreading into a European War. But the Treaty of Bukarest was no
settlement, and was a signal exposure of their inability to solve the
Balkan problem, which was destined to be the spark for a world-wide
conflagration.



IMPORTANT TREATIES

(OTHER THAN THOSE ALREADY MENTIONED)


  The _Treaty of Vienna_, June 9, 1815.

  _Second Treaty of Paris_, November 20, 1815, Signed by Great Britain,
      Austria, Prussia, Russia, France at the conclusion of the
      Napoleonic Wars.

      France gave up certain fortresses on the frontier but retained
      Alsace-Lorraine. Payment of 700 million francs was exacted from
      France. The greater part of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw fell
      to Russia, Posen to Prussia, and Cracow became a republic.
      Prussia got back nearly all her old possessions, and there was a
      reconstruction of German States under a Confederation. Holland,
      Belgium, and Luxemburg were established as an independent
      kingdom under the House of Orange: Switzerland was extended and
      her integrity guaranteed: Sardinia obtained Genoa and other
      territory: Austria received an extension of territory in North
      Italy and on the coast of the Adriatic, and became the dominant
      state in the German Confederation. The Pope and the King of the
      Two Sicilies regained their former possessions.

      [The foregoing record of wars serves to show to what a small
      extent this treaty secured the settlement of European territorial
      problems.]

  _The Rushe-Bagot Treaty_, April 1817, between Great Britain and
      the United States. The two powers agreed to withdraw their
      battleships from the Great Lakes.

      It may be noted that the absence of armaments on the whole
      Canadian frontier cannot be said to have endangered the relations
      between the two countries in view of the fact that the
      Anglo-American peace centenary was celebrated in 1915.

  _The Treaty of Washington_, May 8, 1871, between Great Britain and
      the United States. The north-western boundary was finally
      delimited: an attempt was made to settle the Canadian Fishery
      dispute, and it was agreed to refer the Alabama Claims to a
      tribunal of arbitration, which subsequently fixed the sum to be
      paid over by Great Britain as indemnity.

  _The Triple Alliance_ in 1882 was the result of Italy joining the
      alliance between Germany and Austria, which had grown out of the
      support given to Austria as against Russia at the Congress of
      Berlin in 1878, Italy having become estranged from France after
      the occupation of Tunis in 1881. The Triple Alliance was renewed
      for five years in 1887 and in 1891, and again in 1902 it was
      extended for a term of twelve years.

  _The Berlin Act._ The outcome of the Conference of Berlin, 1884–5, at
      which fourteen Powers were represented. The respective spheres
      of influence of the European Powers in Africa were delimited.
      The neutrality of the Congo Free State was recognized, and it
      was established as an independent State under the sovereignty of
      the King of the Belgians. An area was marked out in which there
      should be free trade, which should be excluded from effects of
      disputes between the signatory Powers, and be placed under the
      rule of neutrality.

      The latter stipulation has, however, not been carried out.

  _The Suez Canal Convention_ signed by nine Powers at Constantinople,
      October 29, 1888. Lesseps obtained the preliminary concession
      for the construction of the Canal in 1856. The Canal was opened
      in 1869. Disraeli bought four million pounds’ worth of shares
      from the Khedive on behalf of the British Government in 1875.
      The Convention ensured that the Canal should always be open to
      vessels of commerce and war without distinction of flag. Great
      Britain signed with a reservation, but in the Anglo-French
      agreement of 1904 declared her adherence to the Convention and
      agreed to its being put into force.

  _The Hay-Pauncefote Treaty_, November 18, 1901, between Great Britain
      and the United States, gave the United States right of control
      in time of war of the Panama Canal. The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of
      1850, which established a joint Anglo-American protectorate over
      the Canal was thereby abrogated.

  _The Anglo-Japanese Alliance._ Treaties signed in London January 30,
      1902, and August 12, 1905. The integrity and independence of
      China was recognized. If either Great Britain or Japan should
      be attacked and involved in a war with two Powers, they engaged
      mutually to assist one another. The aim of the alliance was
      officially defined as “the consolidation and maintenance of
      general peace in the regions of Eastern Asia and of India.” In
      1911 the treaty was revised, a clause stipulating that there
      was no obligation to go to war with a Power with whom a treaty
      of arbitration was in force. This removed the danger of Great
      Britain being involved in a war between Japan and the United
      States.

  _The Argentine-Chile Treaty_, 1902. From 1840 to 1900 constant
      boundary disputes arose between the two countries, which
      invariably led to war. At last the people themselves in both
      countries decided by large majorities to negotiate a peaceful
      settlement of the dispute. The delimitation of the frontier was
      carried out by a mixed commission, and to commemorate the treaty
      an immense statue of Christ was erected on a high pass in the
      Andes on the boundary line.

  _The Anglo-French Convention_, April 8, 1904.

      This removed outstanding causes of friction between the two
      countries, and was the foundation of the Entente.

      Newfoundland fisheries and West African boundary problems were
      settled: the Siamese, New Hebrides, and Madagascar disputes were
      settled: Egypt was declared exclusively under British protection,
      and Morocco was left to France. A Franco-Spanish Convention was
      concluded in October of the same year with regard to Morocco. To
      both these treaties secret clauses were attached which amounted
      virtually to the prospective partition of Morocco by France and
      Spain.

  _The Agreement of Karlstadt_, September 23, 1905.

      The Union between Sweden and Norway was dissolved, and Norway
      recognized as an independent kingdom.

      The movement in favour of separation had grown rapidly from 1899.
      It was resisted by the King of Sweden. A plebiscite in Norway
      declared in favour of it, and agreement was reached without any
      armed conflict.

  _The Algeciras Act_, April 7, 1906, agreed to by thirteen Powers, was
      based on the sovereignty, independence, integrity, and economic
      liberty of Morocco. The provisions concerned the organization
      of police, regulation of taxation, customs, etc. This Act was
      disregarded by France in 1911, when a French force was sent to
      Fez and occupied the country.

  _The Anglo-Russian Convention_, September 23, 1907.

      Persia was divided so as to give Great Britain and Russia spheres
      of influence with a neutral zone between. (Persia was not a party
      to the treaty.) An agreement was come to with regard to
      Afghanistan and Thibet, settling all points where dispute might
      arise.

  _The Anglo-American Arbitration Treaty_, April 4, 1908.

      By this Treaty differences between Great Britain and the United
      States which do not affect the vital interests, independence,
      or honour of either country, or which do not concern the
      interests of third parties are referred to the Permanent Court
      of Arbitration at the Hague.



INDEX OF TREATIES


                                                    PAGE
  Adrianople, Treaty of                           15, 17

  Akerman, Treaty of                                  16

  Algeciras Act                                      101

  Anglo-French Convention                            100

  Anglo-Japanese Alliance                            100

  Anglo-American Arbitration                         101

  Anglo-Russian Convention                           101

  Argentine-Chile Treaty                             100


  Bardo, Treaty of                                    66

  Berlin, Treaty of (1850)                            48

  Berlin, Treaty of (1878)                            59

  Berlin Act                                          99

  Bukarest, Treaty of (1886)                          75

  Bukarest, Treaty of (1913)                          97


  Constantinople, Treaty of (1897)                    83

  Constantinople, Treaty of (1913)                    97


  Frankfort, Treaty of                                55


  Gandamuk, Treaty of                                 58

  Guadalupe-Hidalgo, Treaty of                        30


  Hay-Pauncefote Treaty                              100


  Karlstadt, Agreement of                            101


  La Marsa, Treaty of                                 66

  Lausanne, Treaty of                                 93

  London, Treaty of (1834)                            21

  London, Treaty of (1839)                            19

  London, Treaty of (1852)                            49

  London, Treaty of (1913)                            95


  Nanking, Treaty of                                  28


  Paris, Treaty of (1815)                             98

  Paris, Treaty of (1856)                             37

  Paris, Treaty of (1898)                             85

  Portsmouth, Treaty of                               91

  Prague, Treaty of                                   51


  Rushe-Bagot Treaty                                  98


  San Stefano, Treaty of                              59

  Shimonoseki, Treaty of                              77

  Suez Canal Convention                               99


  Tientsin, Treaty of                                 66

  Triple Alliance                                     99


  Unkiar Skelessi, Treaty of                          24


  Vereenigen, Treaty of                               87

  Vienna, Treaty of (1815)                            98

  Vienna, Treaty of (1866)                            35

  Villa Franca, Treaty of                             35


  Washington, Treaty of                           43, 98


  Zurich, Treaty of                                   35



BIBLIOGRAPHY

(_Each war has its own literature. Only a few leading authorities and
books easily accessible to students are given here._)


  The Cambridge Modern History, vols. xi, xii.

  Modern Europe. C. A. Fyffe.

  A Political History of Contemporary Europe. Seignobos.

  History of our own Times. Justin McCarthy.

  A Century of British Foreign Policy. Gooch and Masterman.

  History of our Time (1885–1911). G. P. Gooch.

  Wars of the Nineties. Atteridge.

  The Map of Europe by Treaty. Hertslet.

  International Law. C. E. Hall.

  The Termination of War and Treaties of Peace. Coleman Philipson.

  Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace. Sir W. Philimore.

  Turkey in Europe. Sir C. Eliot.

  Nationality and War in the Near East. A Diplomatist.

  The New Map of Europe. H. A. Gibbons.

  Historical Atlas of Modern Europe. Robertson and Bartholomew.

  The Balkan War. Lieut.-Col. Rankine.

  History of the Greek Revolution. G. Finlay.

  History of Italian Unity. Bolton King.

  The Far Eastern Question. M. V. Chirol.

  The History of South America. Akers.

  The American Civil War. F. L. Paxon.

  The Downfall of Spain. Wilson.

  The Invasion of the Crimea. A. W. Kinglake.

  Modern Egypt. Lord Cromer.

  The War in South Africa. Hobson.

  The War of Steel and Gold. H. N. Brailsford.

  Nationalism, War, and Society. E. Krehbiel.

  Ten Years of Secret Diplomacy. E. D. Morel.

  Imperialism. J. A. Hobson.

  International Tribunals. Evans Darby.


_Printed in Great Britain by_

UNWIN BROTHERS, LIMITED, THE GRESHAM PRESS, WOKING AND LONDON



Transcriber’s Notes


Italic text is encloseed in _underscores_.

Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a
predominant preference was found in the original book; otherwise they
were not changed.

Simple typographical errors were corrected; unbalanced quotation
marks were remedied when the change was obvious, and otherwise left
unbalanced.

Text sometimes uses colons where current convention is to use
semi-colons.

The index was not checked for proper alphabetization or correct page
references.

Page 9: The Austro-Prussian War began in 1866, not in 1860. The error
has not been corrected here.

Page 43: “Savanah” was printed that way.

Page 86: “Buluwayo” was printed that way.





*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Wars & Treaties, 1815-1914" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.



Home