History of Romania in Ottoman Times

Between the 14th and 18th centuries the Romanian principalities of Moldavia and Walachia evolved as part of the Eastern Orthodox religious and cultural world: their ecclesiastical allegiance was to the Patriarchate of Constantinople; their princes emulated the Byzantine emperors and drew their written law from Byzantine codes; their economy was agrarian and their society rural; and their art and literature followed Eastern religious and didactic patterns in Romanian History. Yet the Romanians also possessed qualities that set them apart from their neighbours and drew them westward: they spoke a language derived from Latin, and they recognized the Romans as their ancestors.

      Nearly four centuries of Ottoman Turkish domination between the 15th and 19th centuries reinforced the Romanians' attachment to the East in Romanian History. Hardly had the principalities achieved independence than they were forced to confront the relentless advance of Ottoman armies into southeastern Europe. By recognizing the suzerainty of the sultan and by paying him annual tribute, the Romanians avoided direct incorporation into the Ottoman Empire. In Romanian History , The Romanians thus preserved their political institutions, laws, and social structure, and they avoided a massive settlement of Muslims onto the land.     

The autonomy of the principalities was not seriously compromised until the beginning of the 18th century in Romanian History. The princes carried on their own foreign policy (although such action violated their formal vassal status), and they even joined anti-Turkish coalitions in order to throw off Ottoman domination throughout 18th century in Romanian History. The reign of Michael the Brave of Walachia (1593-1601) marked the high point of Romanian autonomy in Romanian History. In order to help drive the Ottomans out of Europe, Michael adhered to the Holy League of European powers and the papacy; he thus regained full independence and even united Moldavia and Transylvania under his rule. But the breakup of the coalition ended his brief success, for the Romanians were too outnumbered to stand alone against the Ottomans throughout the Romanian History.      

The heaviest burden of Ottoman suzerainty was not political but economic. The tribute rose steadily, and demands for goods of all kinds-grain, sheep, and lumber, supplied at less than market value-knew no bounds in Romanian History.The Ottomans prized wheat especially, and by the end of the 16th century Constantinople had become dependent on supplies from the principalities.      

Ottoman domination reached its height in the 18th century during what is generally known as the Phanariot regime. The Romanian principalities were now vital military bulwarks of the empire, as Russia and the Habsburg monarchy pressed relentlessly against its frontiers, and Ottoman officials decided to replace native princes with members of Greek or Hellenized families from the Phanar district of Constantinople who had amply demonstrated their loyalty to the sultan. As a consequence, the autonomy of the principalities was drastically curtailed, and the payment of tribute and the delivery of supplies rose precipitously which has been only frequent times in Romanian History. Greek influence in the church and in cultural life expanded, despite opposition from native boyars (nobles) and churchmen. Yet many of the Phanariot princes were capable and farsighted rulers: as prince of Walachia in 1746 and of Moldavia in 1749, Constantin Mavrocordat abolished serfdom, and Alexandru Ipsilanti of Walachia (reigned 1774-82) initiated extensive administrative and legal reforms in Romanian History. Alexandru's enlightened reign, moreover, coincided with subtle shifts in economic and social life and with the emergence of new spiritual and intellectual aspirations that pointed to the West and to reform in Romanian History.

Society in Walachia and Moldavia in Romanian History
The political system in the principalities resembled an oligarchy rather than an absolute monarchy in Romanian History. The prince was indeed the central figure and exercised broad executive, legislative, and judicial powers. Yet his authority was not unlimited, for he depended on the boyars and the clergy for crucial material and moral support. The boyars sat in the highest councils of state and assisted the prince in governing and dispensing justice. The higher clergy shared these civil responsibilities, since a separation of church and state was still an alien idea. Nevertheless, despite the involvement of boyars and clergy in political life, representative institutions failed to develop-perhaps primarily because of the lack of cohesiveness among the boyars. Although they were able to impose a so-called boyar regime on the princes in the 17th century, they were unable to secure their predominance by a strong institutional base in Romanian History.      

Society in the two principalities was rural. It was highly stratified, and social mobility was strictly limited. The great boyars, few in number, monopolized political and economic power, but the lesser boyars and myriad other groups enjoyed numerous privileges, especially exemptions from taxation. The mass of peasants bore the main burdens of society and received little from it in return throughout the Romanian History. Merchants and artisans, organized in guilds in order to restrict competition and ensure profits, lent urban life its particular air, but they found no place in the prince's councils. Nor did they exercise self-government, because cities were the property of the crown in Romanian History.      

The economies of the principalities rested upon agriculture. The estates of boyars and monasteries formed the superstructure of agricultural production, but the peasants, who worked the land in traditional ways, supplied the draft animals and tools and made fundamental decisions about what to raise and how. By the beginning of the 18th century the majority of peasants had sunk to the level of serfs in Romanian History.

Between the end of the 18th century and World War I, the Romanians turned away from the East and toward the West. Commercial exchanges and foreign investment expanded, and the penetration of Western ideas and institutions obliged Romanian politicians and intellectuals to consider new models of development in Romanian History.

The growing role of Russia
The immediate objective of Romanian boyars-the traditional leaders of society-was independence. In the last quarter of the 18th century, success seemed near, as Russia, in the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca of 1774, gained the right to protect the Orthodox Christians of the Ottoman Empire. As a result, Russian influence in the principalities increased; but the boyars were reluctant simply to exchange Ottoman for Russian domination, and they were dismayed by Russia's annexation of the Moldavian region of Bessarabia in 1812.      

The international crisis caused by the War of Greek Independence had important repercussions in Moldavia and Walachia. Because all Greeks were now suspect, the Ottomans abolished the Phanariot regime and restored the native Romanian princes. Another consequence was Russian dominance in the principalities. The Treaty of Adrianople of 1829, which ended another Russo-Turkish war, established a virtual Russian protectorate over the principalities and reduced Ottoman suzerainty to a few legal formalities. Paradoxically, the treaty also raised a challenge to Russian hegemony by abolishing the Ottomans' commercial monopoly and opening the principalities to the international market during that period in Romanian History.      

The Russian protectorate, despite a promising beginning-notably the promulgation of constitutions, which brought unaccustomed order to government administration-increased Romanian resentment of Russia. Liberal, Western-educated boyars demanded political reform and an end to foreign domination, which kept authoritarian princes in power during late Romanian History. Many of these boyars and other intellectuals formed the vanguard of the revolutionaries of 1848. Responding enthusiastically to the overthrow of conservative regimes in Paris and Vienna, they drafted liberal constitutions and proclaimed their intention to form governments that would be responsive to the economic and social needs of the common people. But they lacked a mass following and an organization, and they relied too heavily on the power of ideas to bring about social change. In Moldavia the prince quickly put down their agitation for reform, but in Walachia more radical "forty-eighters" established a provisional government to carry out reform and prevent foreign intervention. Despite desperate efforts, they failed to gain support from France and Great Britain, and in September 1848 a Russian army occupied Bucharest and dispersed the provisional government during the period of 1848 in Romanian History.

Independence
In the 1850s, forty-eighters led the struggle for the union of Moldavia and Walachia, which they regarded as an essential preliminary to independence. This time they had the support of the western European Great Powers. The victory of the European Allies over Russia in the Crimean War brought an end to that country's domination of the principalities and placed them under the collective tutelage of the West. The powers stopped short of recognizing the union of the principalities or their independence, but the Romanians themselves settled the matter of union by electing the same man, Alexandru Cuza, as prince in both Moldavia and Walachia in 1859 which is an important step in Romanian History.      

The reign of Cuza, a forty-eighter, was a crucial stage in the achievement of independent statehood. He brought about the administrative union of the principalities in 1861 and initiated an ambitious program of political and social reform, which culminated in 1864 in an extension of the franchise, land reform, and the promulgation of a new constitution that assured the prince's predominance in government. He also promulgated legislation that diminished the role of the Orthodox clergy in civil affairs, thereby contributing to the secularization of Romanian society. By initiating these changes on his own authority before seeking permission from his nominal suzerain, the Ottoman sultan, Cuza asserted the de facto independence of Romania, as the united principalities were now known. But his authoritarian methods made many enemies, and these foes united in 1866 in Romanian History to force his abdication.      

The reign of Cuza's successor, Charles of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (prince, 1866-81; King Carol I, 1881-1914), coincided with new achievements in nation building: a constitution, based in large part on Western models, was promulgated in 1866; political groupings coalesced into two major political parties, the Liberal and Conservative, which were the primary engines of political life until World War I; and formal independence was achieved through participation in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78. In order to enhance his country's and his own prestige, Carol obtained formal recognition by the Great Powers of Romania as a kingdom in 1881 in Romanian History.
During Carol's reign the main features of the Romanian parliamentary system were defined. The king himself was the key figure in both domestic and foreign policy. A relatively small political class shared power with him, and a narrow franchise excluded the mass of the population from direct participation in political life. Yet freedom of the press and of association were generally respected, and this allowed the opposition ample scope to air its views in Romanian History.
Carol's main objective in foreign policy (shared by the majority of Liberal and Conservative leaders) was to make Romania a regional power and an indispensable ally of the Great Powers in maintaining international stability, thereby guaranteeing his kingdom's security and vital interests. To this end Carol and a small number of ministers made Romania a member of the Triple Alliance in 1883 in Romanian History. The primary attraction was Germany, whose military and economic power they admired and hoped to use as protection against Russia. But the majority of Romanians were sympathetic to France, and for this reason the treaty was kept secret. Also, Romania's adherence to the Triple Alliance was under constant strain because of friction with Germany's partner, Austria-Hungary.

By 1900 the primary issue in dispute between Romania and Austria-Hungary had become the Hungarian government's policy of assimilating the Romanians of Transylvania. To achieve this goal, Budapest restricted the use of the Romanian language in education and public affairs and diminished the autonomy of the Orthodox and Uniate churches-the principal Romanian cultural bulwarks. The Hungarians also rejected Romanian demands for collective political rights as a nationality, while the Romanians resisted integration into a Hungarian national state. Compromise proved impossible, for both sides were convinced that ethnic survival itself was at stake.