Research Article


DOI :10.26650/iutd.1086380   IUP :10.26650/iutd.1086380    Full Text (PDF)

Falsifications in the Letter About the First Treaty of Erzurum and the Resultant Problems in Implementing the Treaty

Eralp Yaşar Azap

The Ottoman-Persian War of 1820-1823, ended in 1823 with both parties signing the Treaty of Erzurum, known commonly in the literature as the First Treaty of Erzurum. The First Treaty of Erzurum resolved the problems between the two states and was in essence based on the terms in the Treaty of Kerden that the two states had signed and agreed upon a century prior in 1746. However, certain disagreements that emerged in the process of composing the terms of the treaty posed a serious obstacle to properly establishing the terms for peace. Both states had a different version of the treaty based on their idea of how it had been composed, and these different versions continue to warrant further discussion. Certain clauses from the Treaty of Erzurum led to even greater problems, and due to the audacity that had been derived from these different versions, the states turned these into problems in the future, problems that occupied the agenda of the Ottomans and Iranians to a great extent. Some of these problems even carried over to 20th century.

DOI :10.26650/iutd.1086380   IUP :10.26650/iutd.1086380    Full Text (PDF)

I. Erzurum Antlaşması Metninde Yapılan Tahrifat ve Antlaşmanın Uygulanmasında Yarattığı Sorunlar

Eralp Yaşar Azap

1820-1823 Osmanlı-İran Savaşı, 1823 yılında imzalanan Erzurum Antlaşması ile yahut literatürdeki yaygın adıyla I. Erzurum Antlaşması’nın imzalanması neticesinde nihayete erdi. I. Erzurum Antlaşması, mahiyeti itibarıyla devletler arasındaki sorunları, iki ülkenin bir önceki yüzyılda mutabık kaldığı ve 1746 yılında imzalanan Kerden Antlaşması’nın metnine göre çözme temelinde tesis edilmişti. Ancak metnin tesis sürecinde başlayan birtakım anlaşmazlıklar, sulh metninin doğru bir şekilde oluşturulmasına ciddi oranda engel teşkil etti. Tesis edildiği düşünülen antlaşma metninin her iki devlet elinde bulunan ve aralarında farklılıklar olan nüshaları ise, bugün halen tartışılması gereken bir konudur. Devletlerin elindeki bu farklı nüshalardan alınan cesaretle daha büyük sorunlara yol açan bir kısım antlaşma hükümleri de ilerleyen dönemlerde Osmanlı ve İran devletlerini hayli meşgul ederek soruna dönüşmüş ve bu sorunlardan bazıları, XX. yüzyıla dahi taşınmıştır.


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


The Ottoman-Persian War between 1820-1823 was the last war between the Ottoman and Persian States who had been struggling with one another in the East for centuries and concluded with the signing of the treaty known in the literature as the First Treaty of Erzurum. This Treaty was established based upon the Treaty of Kerden, which both states had signed in 1746. Negotiations over the treaty were conducted in Erzurum, and fierce disputes occurred over the articles of the treaty to be signed. As a consequence of these fierce disputes over the text of the treaty, copies of the letter that had been confirmed by the representatives both states had assigned were sent on July 28, 1823 to both Fath Ali Shah of Persia and the Ottoman Emperor Mahmud II for their confirmation. This study has been prepared with the aim of addressing the falsifications in the letters of agreement that had been sent to the rulers of both states in 1823 and that weren’t even brought up during the treaty negotiations, the consequences of these falsifications, and some of the problems that resulted from them in the Ottoman-Persian relationships that would follow.

Before carrying on with this study, some data were found in the Persian sources regarding these issues. However, these data were not compiled or interpreted by means of comparing and analyzing the Turkish and Persian sources side by side. Research regarding this subject has comprehensively addressed both Ottoman archival documents and major Persian and Turkish resources of the era in attempts to clarify the issue in detail. In this respect, the Ottoman and Iranian states are seen to have attempted to resolve the situation through the envoys they sent one another after signing the Treaty of Erzurum. The Ottoman envoy Necip Efendi was the one who brought the letter of agreement to Persia in the name of the Ottoman Empire and faced an unexpected situation there. The Iranian diplomatic delegation declared that Persia was displeased with the Treaty and had made revisions upon the letter. They infused their revised text into the one to be sent to the Ottoman Empire for acceptance. Afterwards, the Iranian envoy Qasim Khan brought the Persian version of the letter on the First Treaty of Erzurum to Istanbul in the name of Persia and presented a text contradictory to the one that had been agreed upon earlier. The envoy demanded Sultan Mahmud II approve this letter. The Foreign Ministry of the Ottoman Empire recognized that the letter regarding the First Treaty of Erzurum was not the same as the one that had been agreed upon earlier. Thereupon they declared the letter the Persian envoy Qasim Khan had brought to be unacceptable. Once Qasim Khan realized that this circumstance would create a diplomatic crisis, he requested to meet the Chief of the Scribes, the Ottoman Foreign Minister of the time. Representatives from both lands discussed this issue over protracted negotiations. The Ottoman side stated finding this behavior from Persia to be diplomatically improper and inadmissible with regard to international law and therefore they would never present that version of the letter to the Sultan unless the previously agree upon letter was brought to them. Despite the Iranian envoy Qasim Khan seeking to defend his state against these claims from the Ottoman representatives, the issue was resolved in favor of the Ottoman Empire after protracted discussions. The Ottoman Empire detained the Iranian envoy Qasim Khan in Istanbul and provided the emended letter that Persia was to have brought to Istanbul. However, the problem of which letter of agreement that emerged at the end of this process was the emended one could never be settled. The Turkish and Persian letters involving the articles of the First Treaty of Erzurum that exist in the archives, main sources, and other publications of both parties differ from one another. This indetermination that our study places along its main axis as well as the tensions that occurred between the two powers following the agreement, which we assess to have been caused by this circumstance, went on for many years. Issues such as political interventions in the Baghdad region that was under Ottoman possession, efforts at sustaining the problem regarding tribes located along the borderline and ownership of the castles located on the Eastern border that were used with military aims were the first of these problems. Iran had pressured the Ottoman Empire politically over these issues for many years, despite having no rights in terms of the agreement. Although the war had come to an end and the treaty had been signed at its conclusion, Iran continued its interventions into the Baghdad region where, according to the treaty, it had no right to be politically involved. On the other hand, the attempt was made in this regard to exploit the issue of the tribes that had caused the Ottoman-Persian War between 1820-1823. Troubles between the Ottoman Empire and Persia that resulted from the falsifications in the letters of agreement were not just limited to these mentioned issues. The matter of the ownership of Kotur Castle located on the border between Ottoman and Persian lands continued to create a problem, as did the other castles on the border. Even though this matter was brought up at the initiation of Galip Pasha, the Governor of Erzurum of the time, Iran continued to act contrary to the letter of the treaty in these negotiations. The points upon which compromises had been made during the negotiations were not fulfilled by Persia. As a result, political problems arose again between the parties. Although the Russia-Persian war that started in 1826 had cooled the temperature of this issue on the agenda, it maintained itself enough to again create a problem between both states after the Ottoman-Russian war that broke out later on. With regard to the Kotur Issue that had come down from the First Treaty of Erzurum and remained unresolvable through the Second Treaty of Erzurum signed in 1847 between the Ottoman Empire and Persia, no final solution was able to be found in the later years of the century as well. Great Britain saw the heavy results the Ottoman Empire bore from the Treaty of Berlin that was signed in 1878 as a kind of opportunity and added the article to this treaty that the Kotur area was to be included in Persian territory, even though England had not been a party to the war; this made the problem worse. This issue regarding the Kotur area, which the Ottoman Empire seized again after this process, could not be resolved even through the Istanbul Protocol that the Ottoman Empire and Persia signed in 1913, which attempted to identify the borders of both states. This issue even continued into the days of the Republic. The Kotur issue that had come to the fore after the First Treaty of Erzurum and didn’t get resolved until after the boundary treaty the Republic of Türkiye signed with Persia in 1932, which redrew Türkiye’s Eastern borders, was the product of several centuries.

This study has attempted to explain how the problems that arouse during the process of the First Treaty of Erzurum had affected the agreement and its application and drawn out the matter. All the mentioned details did not get finalized through the First Treaty of Erzurum due to the text of the First Treaty of Erzurum being composed of falsified articles and the serious problems the occurred during its application in this respect. Ultimately, today no agreement is found regarding which emended version of the letter regarding the First Treaty of Erzurum is the actual one. In addition, Persia was a party to this treaty and aware of the fact that differences existed between the two copies that were signed at the time. Persia considered this issue a lot and attempted to take advantage of it for a long time in accordance with its political aims and to provide for its self-interests. 


PDF View

References

  • Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlığı Osmanlı Arşivi (BOA) google scholar
  • Bab-ı Âsafî google scholar
  • Divan-ı Hümayun Düvel-i Ecnebiye Kalemi Defterleri (A.{DVN.DVE.d), 43/1. google scholar
  • Divan-ı Hümayun Sicilleri Name-i Hümayun Defterleri (A.{DVNS.NMH.d), 10/221, 10/222, 10/420. google scholar
  • Hatt-ı Hümayun (HAT), 457/22544, 550/27133, 672/32913, 714/34100, 768/36165-C, 770/36176, 770/37176-O, 770/36176-Ü, 772/36215, 781/36589, 781/36594, 782/36597, 782/36600, 782/36603, 782/36607, 782/36607-A, 783/36617, 783/36617-A, 783/36619, 783/36620, 784/36637, 785/36668, 786/36677, 786/36704, 788/36750, 788/36750-J, 788/36750-K, 788/36750-L, 788/36750-P, 789/36773, 789/36773-A, 789/36773-B, 789/36773-C, 789/36773-D, 793/36837-A, 794/36852, 801/37094-L, 802/37100-C, 802/37100-D, 802/37101, 802/37103, 802/37104, 802/37104-E, 802/37113-A, 802/37113-B, 802/37113-C, 802/37113-H, 802/37113-İ, 802/37113-K, 802/37113-L, 802/37113-M, 806/37178, 807/37193-B, 807/37195-H, 808/37196-G, 808/37196-I, 808/37196-K, 808/37196-L, 808/37196-O, 808/37196-Ö, 808/37198-K, 809/37202, 809/37203, 811/ 37218, 811/37216, 811/37219, 811/37224, 811/37229, 813/37262, 813/37262-C, 813/37262-D, 813/37262-F, 813/37262-I, 813/37262-J, 814/37265-A, 814/37265-H, 814/37269-J, 814/37269-K, 814/37270, 815/37281, 825/37413-A, 1091/44307-Ç, 1314/51255, 1315/51269-A. google scholar
  • İbnülemin Askeri (İE.AS), 89/8236. google scholar
  • Sazman-ı Esnad ve Kitabhane-i Milli-i Cumhuri-i İslami-i İran (İran Devlet Arşivi) 295/8038. google scholar
  • Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Millet Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi google scholar
  • Ali Emiri Belge (Aeblg.), 197. google scholar
  • Süreli Yayınlar google scholar
  • The Times. google scholar
  • Kaynak Eserler ve Araştırmalar google scholar
  • Ahmed Cevdet (Paşa), Tarih-i Cevdet, c. XII, Dersaadet 1301. google scholar
  • Arşiv Belgelerine Göre Osmanlı Kaleleri, haz. Resul Köse, Kevser Şeker, Kemal Gurulkan vd., Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı, İstanbul 2016. google scholar
  • Ateş, Sabri, Osmanlı-İran Sınır Bölgeleri: Bir Sınır Yapmak 1843-1914, Küre Yayınları, İstanbul 2020. google scholar
  • Aykun, İbrahim, Erzurum Konferansı (1843-1847) ve Osmanlı-İran Hudut Antlaşması, Erzurum Atatürk Üniversitesi, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Erzurum 1995. google scholar
  • Azap, Eralp Yaşar, 1820-1823 Osmanlı-İran Savaşı, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, İstanbul 2021. google scholar
  • Çelik, Yüksel, Şeyhü’l-Vüzera Koca Hüsrev Paşa: II. Mahmud Devrinin Perde Arkası, TTK Yayınları, Ankara 2013. google scholar
  • Çetinsaya, Gökhan, “Atatürk Dönemi Türkiye-İran İlişkileri 1926-1938”, Uluslararası İlişkiler ve Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi, V/3, 1999, s. 148-175. google scholar
  • Doğan, Mehmet, Mehmet Emin Rauf Paşa (1780-1860), Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara 2019. google scholar
  • Fener, Alpaslan, Hadd-i Hudud-ı Saltanat-ı Seniyye: Derviş Paşa’nın Tahdid-i Hudud-ı İraniye Adlı Eseri Işığında Osmanlı-İran Sınırı, İstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul 2015. google scholar
  • Gencer, Ali İhsan, “Berlin Antlaşması”, DİA, V, İstanbul 1995, s. 516-517. google scholar
  • Gencer, Fatih, Tahdid-i Hudûd-ı İraniyeye Me’mûr Derviş Paşa Lâyihası, Gece Kitaplığı, Ankara 2016. google scholar
  • Gozide-i Esnad-ı Siyasi-i İran ve Osmani Dovre-i Kacariye (1211-1270), cild-i evvel, Defter-i Motelaat-i Siyasi ve Beynolmileli, Tahran 1369. google scholar
  • Hidayet, Rıza Kulı Han, Tarih-i Ravzatü’s-Safa-yı Nasıri (Cild-i Nohom Behş-i Dovvom Donbale-i Saltanat-ı Fethali Şah), Tahran 1380. google scholar
  • Kalantari, Yahya, Feth Ali Şah Zamanında Osmanlı-İran Münasebetleri (1797-1834), İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Son Çağ Tarihi Kürsüsü, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, İstanbul 1976. google scholar
  • Kara, Polat, Türkiye-İran İlişkileri 1923-1960, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Konya 2010. google scholar
  • Kaymakamî, Cihangir, “Metn-i Diğeri ez Moahede-i Evvel-i Erzenelrum”, Berresiha-yı Tarihi, Sal-ı Heştom, Şomare 5, 1352. google scholar
  • Keçeci, Serkan, The Grand Strategy of the Russian Empire in the Caucasus againts Its Southern Rivals (1821-1833), The London School of Economics and Political Science, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, London 2016. google scholar
  • Kılıç, Remzi, XVI ve XVII. Yüzyıllarda Osmanlı-İran Siyasi Antlaşmaları, Tez Yayınları, İstanbul 2001. google scholar
  • Küreli, İbrahim, 1824-1908 Tarihli İran Ahkâm Defteri: Tüccarlar, Şehbenderler ve Ziyaretçiler, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, İstanbul 2021. google scholar
  • Memioğlu, A. Zeki, Galip Paşa ve Erzurum Valiliği, Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Erzurum 1998. google scholar
  • Muahedat Mecmuası, c. II, TTK Yayınları, Ankara 2008. google scholar
  • Sahhâflar Şeyhi-zâde Seyyid Mehmed Esad Efendi, Vak’a-nüvis Es’ad Efendi Tarihi (Bâhir Efendi’nin Zeyl ve İlâveleriyle 1237-1241 / 1821-1826), haz. Ziya Yılmazer, OSAV, İstanbul 2000. google scholar
  • Salehi, Nasrullah, “Yek Ahidname, Çend Metn-i Motafavet Berresi-i Entikad-ı Metn-i Ahidname-i Erzenelrum”, Ayine-i Miras, Şomare: 2, 1400, s. 95-120. google scholar
  • Sarıkçıoğlu, Melike, Osmanlı-İran Hudut Anlaşmazlıkları (1847-1913) ve 1913 İstanbul Protokolü, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmış Doktora Tezi, Isparta 2009. google scholar
  • ________, “Osmanlı-İran Sınırının Çiziminde İngiltere ve Rusya’nın Müdahaleleri”, Modern İran Tarihi: Kaçar Hanedanı’ndan İslam Devrimi’ne, ed. Osman Karacan, Selenge Yayınları, İstanbul 2021, s. 59-84. google scholar
  • Sepehr, Muhammed Taki, Nasihü’t-Tevarih Tarih-i Kacariye ez Agaz ta Payan-ı Saltanat-ı Feth Ali Şah, cild-i evvel, Esatir, Tahran 1377. google scholar
  • Soofizadeh, Abdolvahid, “I. ve II. Erzurum Antlaşmalarının Siyasi Açıdan Değerlendirilmesi”, Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, XXXII/54, 2013, s. 183-194. google scholar
  • ________-Türker Özgür, “Rus-İran (Kaçar) İlişkileri Adına Dehşet Verici Bir Hadise: Rusya’nın Tahran Başkonsolosluğu Baskını ve Büyükelçi Aleksandr Griboyedov ve Maiyetinin Katledilmesi (11 Şubat 1829)”, Belleten, LXXXII/294, 2018, s. 569-586. google scholar
  • Türk, İbrahim Caner-Duygu Yiğit, “Nasıreddin Şah Dönemi Osmanlı-İran İlişkileri ve Kotur Meselesi”, Avrasya Sosyal ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, IV/12, 2017, s. 392-398. google scholar
  • Uluerler, Sıtkı, “Osmanlı-İran Sınır Tespiti Tartışmalarında Kotur’un Yeri (1849-1852)”, Turkish Studies, X/5, 2015, s. 329-356. google scholar
  • Yiğit, Duygu, 93 Harbi Osmanlı-İran İlişkileri ve Kotur Meselesi, Erzincan Binali Yıldırım Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Erzincan 2019. google scholar
  • Online Kaynaklar google scholar
  • http://dl.nlai.ir/UI/a3dfbf80-88ab-43ad-8b71-0a550aa7b9c1/LRRView.aspx?History=true (Erişim Tarihi: 04.10.2021) google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Azap, E.Y. (2022). Falsifications in the Letter About the First Treaty of Erzurum and the Resultant Problems in Implementing the Treaty. Turkish Journal of History, 0(77), 213-257. https://doi.org/10.26650/iutd.1086380


AMA

Azap E Y. Falsifications in the Letter About the First Treaty of Erzurum and the Resultant Problems in Implementing the Treaty. Turkish Journal of History. 2022;0(77):213-257. https://doi.org/10.26650/iutd.1086380


ABNT

Azap, E.Y. Falsifications in the Letter About the First Treaty of Erzurum and the Resultant Problems in Implementing the Treaty. Turkish Journal of History, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 77, p. 213-257, 2022.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Azap, Eralp Yaşar,. 2022. “Falsifications in the Letter About the First Treaty of Erzurum and the Resultant Problems in Implementing the Treaty.” Turkish Journal of History 0, no. 77: 213-257. https://doi.org/10.26650/iutd.1086380


Chicago: Humanities Style

Azap, Eralp Yaşar,. Falsifications in the Letter About the First Treaty of Erzurum and the Resultant Problems in Implementing the Treaty.” Turkish Journal of History 0, no. 77 (Dec. 2022): 213-257. https://doi.org/10.26650/iutd.1086380


Harvard: Australian Style

Azap, EY 2022, 'Falsifications in the Letter About the First Treaty of Erzurum and the Resultant Problems in Implementing the Treaty', Turkish Journal of History, vol. 0, no. 77, pp. 213-257, viewed 7 Dec. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/iutd.1086380


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Azap, E.Y. (2022) ‘Falsifications in the Letter About the First Treaty of Erzurum and the Resultant Problems in Implementing the Treaty’, Turkish Journal of History, 0(77), pp. 213-257. https://doi.org/10.26650/iutd.1086380 (7 Dec. 2022).


MLA

Azap, Eralp Yaşar,. Falsifications in the Letter About the First Treaty of Erzurum and the Resultant Problems in Implementing the Treaty.” Turkish Journal of History, vol. 0, no. 77, 2022, pp. 213-257. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/iutd.1086380


Vancouver

Azap EY. Falsifications in the Letter About the First Treaty of Erzurum and the Resultant Problems in Implementing the Treaty. Turkish Journal of History [Internet]. 7 Dec. 2022 [cited 7 Dec. 2022];0(77):213-257. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/iutd.1086380 doi: 10.26650/iutd.1086380


ISNAD

Azap, EralpYaşar. Falsifications in the Letter About the First Treaty of Erzurum and the Resultant Problems in Implementing the Treaty”. Turkish Journal of History 0/77 (Dec. 2022): 213-257. https://doi.org/10.26650/iutd.1086380



TIMELINE


Submitted14.03.2022
Accepted07.06.2022
Published Online20.07.2022

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.