1812 - Bicentenary

Also: 1812 - Treaty: how and why the new state was created. Treaty script: reader-friendly English translation.

Regional context

In 1818, Tsar Alexander 1 crossed the Dniester (Nistru) to visit Russia’s newly won province of Bessarabia, acquired at the 1812, Treaty of Bucharest.

Passing seemingly randomly placed huts, and mosques instead of churches, the Tsar and his retinue were amazed by what greeted their eyes. One of his aide's noted:

“One had only to look at the faces and vestments of the people to realise that this is a land which although subject to Russia has nothing in common with her or any other European country.”

Bessarabia was the latest addition to New Russia (Novorossiya); a region colloquially known as “The Wild Fields”.

In 1812, this new territory had no unifying name or common label. Its future name – Bessarabia – then only applied to the southern steppe region: about one-third of its total area: largely comprising the Budjak territory.

The Moldavian view was that this territory comprised most of Moldova de jos: the hills and plains of Moldavia. The mountainous area, remaining in Moldavia itself, was Moldova de sus. The separation was in the mind, and did not equate with the new border as set by the Prut (Pruth).

In the nearby newly created Russian port of Odessa, most of Tsar Alexander’s subjects were Moldavian. They had helped build much of Odessa and occupied the important Moldavanka district. On their small plots of land, they built houses, established vineyards and grew vegetables. About sixty Moldavian families were engaged in silk production. Generally, Moldovans way of life in Odessa was like nothing which could be found in Bessarabia until decades later.

Russians saw Moldavians and Bessarabia as quite exotic; a view which was to persist in their minds for a long time. One visiting Russian loyalist,Von Campenhausen, published in 1808 this unique view:

“Moldavians…dress is that of the 13^th and 14^th centuries, and is a mixture of Jewish, Chinese and Turkish costumes.”

The dress sense, apart from similarities to that of Roman times, often defied comparisons. When smartly presented, Moldavian dress often appeared as a series of intricately created, complex styles usually with an oriental flavour.

Many of the contemporary descriptions we have come from British visitors to the area. They had an open-minded approach. The main authors included: Pinkerton 1817, Neale 1818, MacMichael 1819, Wilkinson 1820, Quin 1836, Spencer 1836 and Elliott 1838. Highly educated, they included: three doctors, two Fellows of the Royal Society, and an Oxford Don. Understandably, all looking for differences to separately identify and describe the people they found in the different places they visited.

These unconnected British and other foreign travellers saw no differences between the peoples in the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. Likewise, Bessarabia was seen as part of Moldavia, separated in the latest political arrangement between the Ottoman and Russian empires. Peasants in Bessarabia were just simple Moldavians.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

My description of events covers:

How and why Moldavia was divided – a smaller Moldavia and new Russian controlled Bessarabia.

Character and developing history of the area and its people within an evolving social, political and economic context.

Descriptions by travelling visitors at that time.

The following is a comprehensive introduction to the subject which focuses mainly on the formation of Bessarabia,

the state which would ultimately metamorphose into the current Republic of Moldova.

I am indebted to the sources (named at the base) and others where the interested reader will find much more information.

All italics used are mine – for emphasis.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Russian take-over

In 1812 the Russian army took full control of eastern Moldavia, and part of the population fled across the Prut. Ravaged by years of war, banditry and heavily depopulated, local people now also feared the introduction of serfdom.

"The inhabitants fled out of Bessarabia, preferring the Turkish regime, hard though it was, to ours."

So said General Kiselev, aide-de-camp to the Tsar, then influential adviser from Bessarabia in its early years (and beyond).

In 1812, Major-General Berg complained about the difficulties in billeting his men because as he explained: the villages in Bessarabia ‘very often changed’: leaving their previous location.

Up to a tenth of the remaining population had departed before the military authorities sealed the river crossings. To further discourage potential escapees the Russian authorities spread word that the plague was raging in the other (mainly Ottoman controlled) part of Moldavia.

In Budjak, the southern district of this new Russian territory, the Nogai / Crimean Tartars there also fled in terror before the Russian army arrived. Expelled after over four centuries of occupation as faithful servants to the Ottoman empire. Their expulsion a requirement under the 1812 Treaty of Bucharest between the Ottoman and Russian empires.

Coupled with the departures during the 1806 – 12 war, the total emigration represented the largest population movement in the province to be's history. But if this was an aberration, persuading the local Moldavian population to return proved near impossible. While what they were immediately escaping to - Moldavia - was shockingly badly administered under a clumsy, unstable arrangement between the Ottoman and Russian empires.

Years later, many of those remaining in Bessarabia still wanted to follow family members and former neighbours over the Prut. For even if not enserfed, young men expected to be conscripted for military service and Moldavians generally forced to pay tax (after the expiry of three year exemption clauses instituted by Admiral Chichagov). Instead the peasants preferred to submit to the exorbitant taxes imposed by Scarlat Callimachi in Moldavia soon after the start of his rule in September 1812. Monies needed to repay the moneylenders who had financed his colossal fee (or bribe) paid to the Sultan to become hospodar.

The war of 1806 - 12 had completely devastated the region (again). Von Campenhausen publishing in 1808 describes Chişinău (Kishinev):

“Kischenau, on the Bug, is built on three hills, and must have been very populous formerly, as the ruins of more than a thousand houses, with large vaulted cellars, are still visible on the right bank of the river.”

In mid May 1812, newly appointed and newly arrived Governor General of Moldavia and Wallachia, Admiral Chichagov (Rom. Ciceagov, Fr. Tchitchagoff) was appalled by the destruction in the region. The admiral who was half English and half Russian was unfamiliar with the worst excesses of the Russian army.

In 1809, Moldavia’s income was about 2.6 million lei, of which about 1.6 million was spent on the army. It was a similar story in Wallachia. By 1811, the proportion of Moldavia’s wealth taken by the Russian army had increased even more. The authoritarian means used to obtain these resources was unsurprisingly deeply unpleasant. The lasting resentment created meant that Moldavians of all ranks distrusted, passively resisted and where they could, rejected Russian state power.

The aftermath of the war meant that this new territory had now lost its traditional markets in the Ottoman Empire leading to even more severe economic problems. Most boyars there were mainly resident in “western Moldavia” and decided to "relocate". But some were forced to maintain a presence in the new state as article VII in the 1812 treaty set an eighteen month deadline from its ratification for the sale of properties prior to people relocating. Many landowners couldn’t sell their properties in time. Boyar landowners (involved in Moldavia’s state management) were now thrust reluctantly into participating in this new province’s governance.

Four weeks after the Treaty of Bucharest was signed, Napoleon invaded Russia (June 24^th). All Russians were far more concerned with saving mother Russia and themselves.

Admiral Chichagov had been given the task of taking over control of the Danubian army from the highly respected General Kutuzov in May/June 1812. The admiral arrived to find to his disappointment that Kutuzov had already negotiated the terms of the Treaty of Bucharest. Were these the best terms that could be achieved? Kutuzov had been very keen to conclude the treaty, so as to withdraw the army to face Napoleon; he was to be its commander-in-chief. Aged 66 and needing to travel by coach (rather than horseback), he was quickly on his way.

Kutuzov’s understandable, even sensible haste was an important factor in creating Bessarabia. A state which would ultimately metamorphose into Moldova.

In the forthcoming campaign, Kutuzov’s great talent would be a major factor in the speed of Russia’s victory over Napoleon. Yet as that campaign developed, it became apparent that this prime Russian mover behind the 1812 treaty (plus smart statesman and diplomat) didn’t share Tsar Alexander’s vision of remaking Europe... As part of that perspective, Kutuzov appeared to have a more limited view as to what was achievable and where Russia’s borders should (finally) be drawn… Interestingly, one of Kutuzov’s successful predecessors in the principalities, General Pyotr Bagration had resigned in March 1810 due to a disagreement with the emperor on the overall strategy. (See Part 2 for a more in-depth focus on Kutuzov’s character, outlook, and significant influence on 1811 - 1812 events).

There was another serious problem: the Treaty of Bucharest had been signed in May, but not ratified. It was now up to Admiral Chichagov to bring it to a conclusion. Chicagov’s thinking was closer to the Tsar’s and concessions were being demanded on both sides. From Chichagov’s mémoires:

“[Sultan] Mahmoud, dissatisfied with the ever increasing demands from the Russian side, humiliating for his empire, and hurt moreover by the refusal to return the troops captured in Slobozee [Battle of Slobozia], had reached the point of yielding to the demands of hardline elements in his regime, wanting action taken against the Russians.”

Withdrawing troops to face Napoleon was to leave the new territory vulnerable. As it turned out, from August remaining Russian forces consisted of only twelve regular and eight reserve battalions. There to predominantly protect Bessarabia, but additionally all the rest of the New Russia territory too (substantially the Ukraine). Amounting to about 10,000 troops to defend the entire Novorossiya region, although there were larger reserves available in Poland (primarily to counter a potential Napoleon attack there)... Putting this into perspective, for the 1806 – 1812 war, about 60,000 troops had been set against Ottoman Empire forces.

Summer 1812 and the march to save Russia, Count Langeron, general commanding 1^st Corps of the Army of the Danube recounts:

“We left Bucharest at the end of July. Travelling very peacefully across Wallachia and Moldavia, we crossed the Sereth [Siret/Sireth river] on the 26^th August… and on the following day, the Dniester.”

Some of the 38,000 troops withdrawn from Bucharest to face Napoleon’s army in Russia, carried the plague with them. The 1812 / 1813 plague was one of the worst for many years. Tens of thousands died in the principalities and Bessarabia. (See also Caragea’s plague - Wikipedia).

As Admiral Chichagov, head of the Danubian Army prepared to leave, he was also tasked with organising the civil administration in this new carved-out territory. For this task, there was a near meeting of minds between the admiral, the Tsar and Russia’s foreign minister, Capodistria (Kapodistrias). In the short-term, the province was to be governed according to Moldavian customs and traditions. The admiral offered his advice:

“I believe this country will flourish provided Your Majesty avoids the use of too many powers and authorities. There is nothing to be done here, unless absolutely necessary, particularly if the local circumstances do not allow it”.

Additionally, the admiral offered this prescient advice:

"Employing a mass of low-level employees would increase cost four times, and create endless abuses."

Admiral Chichagov with an English mother, had spent time in England, and married an English woman (died 1811). Recently described as "over-scrupulous, incorruptible" (David Saunders, Slavonic & East European Review), Pavel Chichagov was friends with the Vorontsovs (see later for Prince Vorontsov), and been exposed to British Empire thinking. The latter was compatible with his expressed views on the way forward for Bessarabia. But he was half Russian, and his mandate, and the cause he espoused, was Capodistria’s proposal to forge a Slavic militia in the Danubian territories against Napoleon in this region. The admiral had British naval training and connections. But this implausible plan, strongly endorsed by the Tsar, was contrary to British and other interests in the region.

Further negotiations took place over the treaty but little changed following its May signing. Then finally, the 1812 Treaty of Bucharest was ratified on July 5^th by the Sultan, releasing the Danube army to march towards (Russia’s destiny at) Borodino. Possibly the largest land battle that has ever taken place, with massive, near-equal armies and huge casualties on both sides. Contributing to this, Count Langeron stated that the army of the Danube made a difference – but few would return to help defend Bessarabia.

In July, before the admiral left on the 31^st, he appointed his friend Scarlat Sturdza to the post of civil governor. The two of them had travelled together to the region in May along with Scarlat’s twenty-one year old son, Alexander, who had recorded the final treaty minutes at Manuc Bey/Bei’s Inn. Alexander would accompany Chichagov as his secretary in the pursuit of Napoleon. (Young Sturdza then embarked upon a diplomatic career assisted by Capodistria).

Scarlat Sturdza aged in at least his late sixties, had been governor of Soroca province, and was a former treasurer and chief magistrate of Moldavia. He had subsequently retired to Russia. Now he was active again. Naturally good-natured, one of the first tasks Scarlat Sturdza addressed was a complaint from some constituent Moldavians on being forbidden to travel over the Prut to use a corn mill. Sturdza requested permission of his Russian hosts to allow those in this new state to conduct normal business of this kind, as before.

Scarlat Sturdza understood the Tsar wanted the province run according to local customs to preserve goodwill while the situation looked so bad. Russian officials were told that these laws and customs were handed down by word of mouth in an oral tradition. They weren’t recorded but were known by Moldavian boyars…

The new administration also needed formal governance documents: these were to be the new “Temporary Rules…” and “… [for these] in drawing up the Bessarabian documents, Chichagov was at his innovative height” (Jewsbury). Partly drafted by Alexander Sturdza with strong support from officials attached to Krasno-Milashevich, president of the principalities divans, March 1810 – May 1812, (privy councillor, ex-Governor of Kiev).

The nobles were to have an important role in operating the new “Temporary Rules…” as below. Signed off by Alexander 1 in August 1812. In September, Krasno-Milashevich and most of his staff left the region, heading for the front against Napoleon. The Russian authorities had now largely abandoned the new unnamed state to its own devices.

In October 1812, Scarlat Sturdza was sworn in. The position of governor concentrated great power and decision making capability exclusively in the office holder’s hands but still subordinated to Chichagov who retained his deemed military overlordship over the former Dacia region. In October, Sturdza wrote to Chichagov requesting a guard on the Prut to stop “fugitives from this region crossing the border into Moldavia.”.

In late November, Chichagov largely lead the series of continual full-on engagements with Napoleon at the Berezina river. Resulting in the destruction / capture of most of Napoleon’s remaining forces. But Napoleon escaped with a remnant of his army, and the admiral, (no friend of the St Petersburg military set or Kutuzov) was held responsible for this failure. In January, Chichagov was discharged from his position, with its responsibilities handed to Kutuzov. In 1814, Chichagov left Russian service and Russia for good.

In 1813 “The Temporary Rules For The Government of Bessarabia” were issued by the Russian authorities. These favoured the preservation of Moldavian customary law and practices.

Some months into 1813, Sturdza was struck down by a stroke which paralysed one side of his body, also paralysing the province’s governance. Official documents were signed in his name, by the Metropolitan Bishop G. Bănulescu-Bodoni and newly appointed military commander, Garting, who had distinguished himself in the 1806 – 12 war. Both Garting and Kutuzov had served under Field Marshal Suvorov, who never lost a battle. It’s likely they knew one another. Kutuzov assumed overall responsibility for Bessarabia from January 1813.

Major General Garting (Harting, Rom. Hartingh) of Dutch and Finnish origin was Scarlat Sturdza’s niece’s husband. His new wife, (they married in 1812) had estates around Orhei. Formerly commander of Hotin (Khotyn) fortress. Garting moved away because of the plague which Hotin just couldn’t throw off.

In the summer of 1813, Garting was formally given the powers of acting civil governor, on the basis that Scarlat would sufficiently recover. Then confirmed as Governor. On his order, governing officials in Hotin were moved west to Briceni to protect their health.

Meanwhile, the military situation remained of great concern with the Russian authorities fearful of being able to hold on to the state. General Kutuzov, who had dramatically transformed Russia’s fortunes, died in April 1813.

In the 1806 – 12 war, defeating the Ottoman empire had taken longer than before and that suggested weakness. Post 1812, the Ottoman Empire was successfully asserting itself in other regions. In 1813, in contravention of the Treaty of Bucharest, Ottoman Empire forces invading Serbia, imposed a brutal, direct rule with systematic large-scale human rights violations (See Wikipedia). Three years earlier, Kutuzov had visited Serbia with Russian forces and supplied follow-on military assistance. Now Russia, was impotent to help its fellow Slav friends and allies.

The Napoleonic War (Russians: Patriotic War) ended in June 1815, and Russia had suffered great losses. The army was anxiously looking around for recruits… Bessarabian males were initially exempt for three years, then fifty years in “The Rules” of 1813, but the population was generally very suspicious and fearful, with rumours flying around. These included serfdom which applied to all Russian territories outside of Bessarabia. Serfs (for example) can be easily conscripted.

In 1814, fear of serfdom saw 3,000 families flee from villages in Codru, Soroca and Khotin (Hotin) plus other places, emigrating to Moldavia and Bukovina. In response, the Metropolitan Gavril Bănulescu-Bodoni circulated a reassuring pamphlet which reduced the exodus.

The Russian Army was known to impose upon its recruits the most brutal style of Prussian discipline. Then sent them anywhere within the large Russian Empire. A knowledge and understanding of its modus operandi had already been gained from Moldavians who had enlisted. (Some of whom had, after good service been rewarded with loans and plots of land in Odessa). The army in Bessarabia, mainly based on the Prut would grow to over 50,000 strong – at least a tenth the size of the civilian population – who were largely expected to support it.

In the 1806 -12 occupation of the principalities, the Russian authorities had not conscripted Moldavians (or Romanians) into the army. Accepting the Moldavian Divan (boyar constitutional assembly) advice that desertion rates would be very high and counter productive. There was also an urgent need to feed the large army of occupation and a shortage of agricultural labour. Post 1812, the same logic (continued to be) applied: the Russian authorities did not conscript Bessarabians into the army.

In Bessarabia’s first year of existence, governor Scarlat Sturdza had the ear of the emperor. But from the very start, the Russian administration played a significant role which increased and developed. It reported to the Russian state council which only at its discretion would refer matters to the emperor. This system tried to operate alongside a ruling council of predominantly Moldavian boyars. In Finland (similar situation), the province’s governor was also the chairman of the boyars’ council, leading to more joined up governance there.

On Bessarabia’s ruling state council, Moldavian boyars who were in the majority, kept themselves apart from Russian boyars and acted en bloc. So there was no proper dialogue, or serious attempt by the two parties to actively engage with each other. While arguably there was a need to develop a system which could operate within the Russian administrative framework. Atmosphere and relations were not good. Aggravating the governance situation were serious problems caused by the attitude and behaviour of Russian officials. These officials operated an undeveloped, highly dysfunctional and corrupt administration. (But typical of bureaucratic systems found elsewhere in Russia then and later). They had been hastily appointed in the 1812 panic to defend Russia from Napoleon. The Tsar himself described them as: “dissatisfied civil servants, unwanted Russians, conscripted…in a rush.”

In this difficult situation, governor Garting changed the intended direction of policy. In his own country (of main origin), Finland, the authorities were successfully integrating Russian policy following its take-over in 1809. Implemented in a clever way that preserved Finnish identity in a path towards independence. Garting clearly defined the governance problems he faced (as can be seen from letters he sent officials in St Petersburg). His proposed solution was to replace Moldavian customary law and traditions with Russian law and methods. Garting recruited additional civil servants but they turned out to be similarly ineffective.

Garting quarrelled bitterly with his wife, her family and other nobles who petitioned the Tsar and others against him. After a series of long running battles, the Tsar dismissed him as civil governor in 1816, but retained him in his military position. Most of the civil servants were dismissed. Garting’s actions had largely run counter to the intentions of his master.

In 1816, the Tsar stated: “I am most sad to be informed that all my intentions have not been put into effect and that irregularities have accumulated to a peak”. In Bessarabia, governance operated on sometimes conflicting parallel tracks. Two main tracks were the drive for autonomy and the need for military defence. Represented in the Tsar’s own upbringing and education through two tutors: one taught him the ideals of the enlightenment, the other military matters. He embraced each gladly.

Into the 1816 power vacuum stepped Count Langeron and General Kiselev (Kiselyov).

Count Langeron, a Frenchman and recently appointed governor of the neighbouring Kherson province (which included Odessa) offered his advice. The count, a general who had served in Moldavia during the 1806 – 12 war advised that the existing Bessarabian administration, with its Ottoman empire basis was too irregular and too corrupt to continue unreformed. He recommended its inclusion within an empire-wide scheme of viceroyship (namestnichestvo) developed by great Russian statesman, Speransky. The viceroy would report through a locally based state council to the emperor. While devolving power, the arrangement also provided a more direct and improved form of accountability and control – from a Russian perspective. That year 1816, Bessarabia was incorporated within the new scheme.

Major General Kiselev, aide-de-camp to the Tsar had been assigned to the military General Staff in Kherson and Bessarabia and performed an inspection for the Tsar of the Bessarabian administration. His report was very critical and the main cause of Harting’s loss of office. Kiselev proposed that Lieutenant-General Bakhmetiev (Bakhmet’ev), military governor of the adjoining Podolia province be appointed viceroy.

In 1816, Bakhmetiev was appointed viceroy with phanariot Constantine Catacazi (Katakazi) as his civil governor. The Tsar wrote to Bakhmetiev in April 1816 stating that Bessarabia needs "a special administration in accordance with her ancestral laws, her customs and her usages."

Route map to autonomy within the Sphere of Influence

Tsar Alexander remained as sincere about devolving powers to Bessarabia as he was to Finland, taken over by Russia in 1809. Similar, even parallel measures were taken in each country for promoting autonomy. For example, taxes collected in each country were spent there. But Finland, mainly because of its geographical position, was perceived as being under much less of a threat.

Compared to Finland, Bessarabia and Moldavia had no strong political traditions. In 1809 in Finland, the Tsar had met and confirmed the rights and privileges of its four estates: clergy, nobility, burghers and peasants. It had Swedish laws and institutions. Moldavia lacked the formality of stable, respected institutional structures. Furthermore, scholars, officials and others coming into contact with Moldavian nobles were treated like lowly servants. Boyars had little sense of respect for others whatever their positions, status, achievements or capabilities; they respected raw power only. Their denial of the proper roles and responsibilities of office in the formalised Russian state could only result in the denial of their own power and positions.

Finland and Bessarabia were to be used as examples to other countries of the advantages of coming within the Russian sphere of influence - potential future allies in Russia’s campaign against the Ottoman Empire. An approach pursued by Capodistria, Bessarabia’s State Secretary and Russian foreign minister 1816 – 1822.

Capodistria as unofficial Russian ambassador to Switzerland in 1813 had played a leading role in helping the Swiss to regain their independence from Napoleon and develop a constitution which unified their 19 cantons. He, like the Tsar, believed that each nation should largely determine its own destiny. (The Tsar absorbed Rousseau’s humanist and enlightenment ideas from his Swiss tutor Frédéric-César de La Harpe). Capodistria said:

“We have to offer to the inhabitants of Bessarabia the advantages of a wise and paternal governance and in that way draw to the region the attention of the neighbouring peoples… Moldavians, Wallachians, Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs.”

The message delivered to Admiral Chichagov, who had passed it on to Scarlat Sturdza. In practice though, (the occupation of) Bessarabia would hardly be mentioned as a good example to others.

The Tsar decided that a new constitution should be framed for Bessarabia by boyars and Russian officials (placing it ahead of Finland in a potential path to independence). A constitutional committee of twenty-eight experts and boyars was set up. The constitution they devised was in sympathy with Moldavian customs and practices, When completed in 1818, Tsar Alexander was keen to visit Bessarabia with the intention of ratifying it promptly.

Describing the Tsar’s visit, Xavier and Adele Hommaire de Hell provide the following account in 1847:

“Alexander visited Bessarabia in 1818, and was welcomed with the most cordial gladness, and the most sumptuous rejoicings. He received from the province a national present of 5,000 horses, and was quite amazed at the prosperity and the inexhaustible resources of his new conquest".

The Statute for the establishment of the Bessarabian Oblast was enacted without the Tsar’s signature on April 29^th 1818. It was the day the next Tsar’s son, the future Alexander II was born.

But there were also some adverse consequences for Moldavian boyars. The 1818 statute abolished the special privileges of scutelnic (scutnic) who were senior servants of boyars (and monasteries). Scutelnic had been exempt from state taxes and military service. Meanwhile in Moldavia, Hospodar Scarlat Callimachi (Sept 1812 – June 1819) cut taxes for the boyars (while increasing taxes for peasants).

Some nobles had lands on both sides of the Prut and hid or disguised their holdings. The Russian authorities caught up with them forcing them to choose which state they wanted to live in. Leaving Bessarabia meant surrendering (with no compensation) all those holdings (east of the Prut). On the other side, the Sultan kept to the 1812 treaty’s eighteenth month timescale for boyars to choose their country and empire. These developments tested Bessarabian based boyars’ loyalty and commitment further. Following a petition, in 1816, the Russian authorities abandoned this requirement.

Governance at that time was described by Davide Zaffi as follows:

“The local nobility, [a] thin but omnipotent class was ready to accept the new sovereignty provided there would be no infringements on its privileges. The autonomy was thus offered as a pact between the Court and the Bessarabian boyars. As a consequence, autonomy came to mean less the self-government of the country [but more a] continuation of the oppressive ruling of the Moldavian noblemen [over] their fellow citizens especially the peasants.”

As civil governor (under viceroy Bakhmetiev), Constantine Catacazi was largely ineffectual. But on a visit by Alexander and Nicholas Ypsilanti to the governor in Chişinău (Kishinev) in 1818, Constantine’s brother Gabriel would fatefully inspire their guests to lead a major Greek rebellion in Moldavia in 1821. Part of the opening chapter of the Greek War of Independence 1821 – 26. A political casualty of this war would be in 1822 Russia’s influential (Greek) foreign minister, Capodistria. Thus Bessarabia lost one of its most powerful advocates and a strong promoter of its fullest autonomy.

The Greek dimension is important as many Moldavian boyars in Bessarabia were of Greek descent. They intermarried with other Greeks, their first language was Greek. The phanariots introduced Greek-Byzantine elements into Moldavian law, much of which then became accessible in Greek only. Post 1812, Greeks in Moldavia also resisted the replacement of the Greek language with Moldavian. (See below under “The rise of nationalism”). Meanwhile their boyar cousins in Bessarabia appealed to the Russian authorities about preserving Moldavian tradition and customs.

The ruling Greek-Moldavian elite had adapted (the governance of) Moldavia in their own image over the previous century. So they were Moldavian and they represented Moldavia. But arguably their position was a (necessarily time-limited) geo-political construct. One whose inherent dependency and artificiality, undermined any sense of institutional permanence.

The phanariots fulfilled fully accepted roles within an Ottoman Empire generated system of hierarchical patronage whose rules were their life and livelihood. These “infidel” servants were a vital and often valued part of this empire. Although the phanariots had a strong Greek (cultural) base they were also transnational in character and connections. They were international traders, businessmen and power brokers. Additionally, the sultan needed them as diplomats (an infidel role).

In 1812 Bessarabia, (phanariot) nobles found themselves largely cut off from their Ottoman Empire “family” and client based power networks. It was a largely alien political and cultural environment with values and aims they could not easily identify with.

Von Campenhausen, 1808 in Moldavia (before the split):

“Some of the Boyards are descended from Italian, Armenian and Moldavian families, but most of them are of Greek origin. The family of Millot alone was originally French. The number of princes here is almost incredible, as the moment an inhabitant of Moldavia is raised to the dignity of hospodar, all his relations take the title of prince. They are all extremely proud of their assumed dignity…”

Bessarabia’s boyars handled the state’s government with a lack of formality and protocol. For example, Russian officials were shocked to find that when left to their own devices, ruling council meetings consisted solely of the Chairman and Secretary. Seemingly though Moldavian boyars lack of engagement was less hostility and more a total inability to relate to such sophisticated, professional forms of political administration. (So argues Zaffi, quoting a contemporary account of Moldavian boyars’ indifference while attending these meetings).

Against this total lack of formality, Russian boyars and officials were sceptical about boyars’ oral tradition of maintaining Moldavian law. Russians in authority wanted these laws and customs recorded and handed over.

After a delay, in 1814 Moldavians produced a written record of their laws and customs. This included feudal consuetudinary (community) law plus Justinian’s laws, Basilica law, Armenopolus church regulations, Basil the Wolf’s laws and written charters of the Moldavian rulers. Unfortunately these didn’t amount to a legal code, and there were plenty of gaps. Peter Manega (see later) and Count Brunnow carried on with supervising and developing this exercise (as heads of committees) for many years.

Meanwhile in 1818, governor Bakhmetiev instituted a civil code based on Scarlat Callimachi’s 1817 civil code for Moldavia, itself partly based on the Austrian 1811 civil code. This had been developed on the Tsar’s direction by his adviser, Alexander Sturdza (Callimachi’s relative), along with Count Brunnow. (See also: Iulia Zup’s illuminating article – bibliography).

Under civil governor Constantine Catacazi, in 1818 the administrative regions were re-structured to standardise the size of the provinces, some of which were deemed too large to be managed effectively. Plus two district areas Jassy (Iaşi base), and Fălciu (e.g. Tigheciului / Tigheci) had in early 1812 covered both sides of the Prut. Previously, the Turks had directly controlled the sanjaks (raias) of Hotin (Khotyn), Bender, Akkerman, Kilia, Ismail and Reni. The prince of Moldavia’s remit had not run to these strategic locations. So the new territory was a patchwork of varied governance, administrations and cultures.

A major edict in April 1818 stated:

“There are six counties, namely: Khotin, Yassy, Orhei, Bender, Akkerman and Ismail. The most significant places are the cities of Khotin, Beltsy, Kishenev, Bender, Akkerman and Ismail.”

With far fewer boyars in southern Bessarabia, there was a clear north-south divide in the available apparatus for governance. The Budjak region had been occupied and controlled (rather than governed) by its Ottoman masters. With Tatars in the majority, forces of the Ottoman empire in Bender and the Budjak would raid nearby localities in eastern Moldavia itself. In 1766, the Tartars burnt down Chişinău (Taki: Euxeinos). So it was difficult for Moldavians to maintain a settled, ordered existence in southern areas. The area was depopulated and there were few boyars. In 1830 there was further regional restructuring to address these issues.

Before 1812, many Bessarabian landowners were current or former servants of the nobility. Senior employees who had personally gained by exploiting the peasants both directly and as a reward from their masters. From 1812, when much of the nobility moved to Moldavia province, these servants acquired more property in Bessarabia. Additionally new landlords arrived from outside Bessarabia seeing an opportunity to be exploited. (Including the famous Mirzaian Manuc, Turkish/Rom: Manuc Bei in whose Bucharest inn the 1812 treaty had been agreed). New owners who needed to project the status necessary to be fully recognised in their new positions.

In Bessarabia, the allocation of land and the rights over it was often chaotic; its division described by local estate names; often informal and not properly documented. Landlords operated in a social system which equated position with wealth so the display of possessions was important. They would (as usual) exploit the local peasantry in order to establish themselves. In the churn of changing faces and requirements, peasants were more likely to leave, while they felt they had the chance.

That was before proper large scale colonisation took place - it would mainly be conducted in a formal manner. In part necessary, because early experience with Bulgarian colonists had highlighted problems. In Moldavia itself, the Russian authorities had allowed settlement 1806 – 12, by Bulgarians. But Bulgarians returned home when mistreated by Moldavian officials. From 1812, Bulgarians’ occupation of land in the Budjak was often very disorderly leading to clashes with local Moldavian landlords and boyars. The Russian authorities tried to support both parties. The Bulgarians were aggressive and united in promoting their self defence; requesting the right to form militias. Although difficult to deal with, the Russian authorities could see them as a valuable ally. While in the early years, protecting the rights of (genuine) boyars was also a priority.

The man who addressed these difficult issues well was Russian Napoleonic war hero, Lieutenant-General Inzov who from 1818 was chairman of the Committee of the Southern Colonists. Foreign colonists arrived, in small numbers at first, mainly in the very north and south of Bessarabia.

The Russian state view was that Bessarabia was a state to be created out of very little. Described as a kind of “res nullius”. In 1812, a Russian general there had described it disappointingly as just “a strip of ground”. Large parts of it appeared to be deserted and lawless. It needed people who would help make the country. Settlers would have to be enticed with freedoms, privileges, concessions and a great deal of autonomy.

These new arrivals were commonly granted freedom from taxation and military service for many years. General Inzov would actively pursue his passion for promoting the interests of colonists for the rest of his life.

In the summer of 1820 Inzov became the new (Russian) governor of Bessarabia. Catacazi continued as civil governor. Catacazi became friends with famous poet Alexander Pushkin who arrived in 1820. Pushkin jokingly recording one social visit as: “what Greek rubbish! what Greek bedlam!”.

Pushkin who lodged with governor Inzov was also on good terms with senior civil servant F.F.Vigel. Filipp Vigel, famous diarist was a Russian noble of Swedish extraction heavily critical of Bessarabian nobles and the project to make Bessarabia semi-independent. Vigel drew unfavourable comparisons with Finland’s and Poland’s quests towards independence. He questioned the hereditary status of senior Moldavians whom he saw as mainly former servants whose power and position were based on rank and office, rather than birth. A style of governance which he noted was a feature of the Ottoman empire - further emphasised by phanariot reforms of recent decades. Phanariot rulers had sought to curtail the abuses of boyars by passing laws. But also to make them more directly accountable to the hospodar (or prince).

In 1780 in Wallachia, Prince Alexander Ypsilanti (Ipsilanti) had introduced his “Code of Byzantine Customary Laws”, which he would later try and implement as prince of Moldavia 1786-88. Ypsilanti, (not to be confused with his grandson of the same name) introduced a set of reforms which at face value should have had a genuinely reforming effect.

The code attempted to correct legal flaws and address administrative failings. The Wallachian model imposed a civil court in each county of Wallachia. Salaries were paid for public offices (intended to replace corrupt money raising practices). Land ownership became a much less important requirement for office holders.

In practice, the granting of offices by the hospodar took power away from the Divan, the boyar legislative assembly. The hospodars of Wallachia and Moldavia gained almost total power over the nobles. Rank and position increased further in importance compared to power bestowed by hereditary status.

On arrival, governor Inzov sought to clarify and regularise the position regarding the rights and status of individual Bessarabian boyars. In the Russian empire, the department of heraldry played a significant role in determining the all important “table of ranks”. A formal assessment of nobility operating on lines close to Western European standards.

In the Ottoman empire, status was more frequently gained through informal client networks; a style compatible with Romanian culture and thinking.

In Iaşi (Yassy), MacMichael (1818) was told a story about a Polish businessman who pawned a ring for a fortune. By a series of fortunate moves (probably gambling which was endemic there), he “amassed a large property”. The ring it transpired however was “of small value”. Since the princes and boyars of Moldavia were often themselves foreign adventurers or descended from them, it would not be difficult for this businessman to buy noble status.

Inzov’s 1820 inquiry revealed that many of the claims of nobility were fraudulent. This led to a drastic reduction in the number of Moldavian boyars. Their places were of course taken by Russian boyars who became the majority occupying seats of power in the administration. Vigel for instance became vice-governor and a permanent member of the Bessarabian supreme court, serving until 1826. One landowner-survivor was civil governor Constantine Catacazi (of phanariot stock) whose family historically owned large east Moldavia (Bessarabia) lands. (The family had emigrated to Russia in 1807 and would serve the Russian state at the highest level for decades). There were also other noble or ennobled settlers from the principalities.

From 1812, the Russian state had installed as boyars in Bessarabia pro-Russia loyalists from Wallachia and Moldavia. Often these were opportunistic ethnic Romanians. Many were mazils (mazili): noble status families dispossessed or forced down the social scale. Often a result of phanariot policies which depressed all noble status. (A consequence of ensuring the oppressive control required to meet the Ottoman empire’s ruinous demands). Therefore some mazils (along with other parties) had supported the Russian occupation in 1806 – 12, and the previous occupations under Catherine The Great. These parties were now being rewarded.

One of the most prominent pro-Russia loyalist being Matei Krupenski, from Corjeuți, Briceni (where Garting moved his Hotin administration in 1813). Matei Krupenski held a senior position under Scarlat Sturdza (Rom. sources). Became Vice-Governor (under Scarlat Sturdza according to Rebecca Haynes), other sources: Vice-Governor 1816 – 1823 under Catacazi, and Bakhmetiev / Inzov / Vorontsov.

(See Taki, “Romanian Boyar Opposition…” for more revealing insights on the issues addressed above).

At the end of 1820, Governor Inzov was advised by foreign minister, Capodistria to carry on with Dr Petr Manega's exercise of drawing up a legal code or constitution for Bessarabia. Petr (or Peter) Manega was a Moldavian scholar of Greek origin educated in Paris. The formal legal codification of Moldavian law was based on its customary laws and practices. Inzov also directed Pushkin to translate this from French into Russian. Partly for this exercise, Pushkin also learned Moldavian from one of Inzov’s servants.

In 1821 Archbishop Bănulescu-Bodoni died. He had been a successful moderating force between the boyars and the Imperial authorities. His absence weakened the boyars’ position, leaving something of a void.

In July 1822, Inzov assumed the role of temporary governor for the whole of Novorossiya or New Russia (of which Bessarabia was but a small part). Replaced in May 1823 by Count Vorontsov (Woronzow) who took over as governor of Novorossiya and viceroy of Bessarabia. Inzov and Vorontsov (each genuine war heroes), were highly professional, even colossal figures of their era. But aggravating the handover was some residual disagreement between the two men over the treatment of Pushkin (see below), whose supervision had passed between them. Inzov had applied a paternalistic style by which he now strongly recommended Peter Manega for promotion to a senior position to continue his important work. But Vorontsov rejected this proposal, while he (with his liberal style) retained Manega in his existing role.

Shortly after this (still in 1823), Inzov left to take up his new role as governor of the adjoining Kherson province (in New Russia under Vorontsov’s overlordship).

Inzov had admitted to Vorontsov that there were serious flaws with policing and the governance and administration of the province. In July and August 1823, Vorontsov toured the frontier and inspected the administration; he was appalled by what he found. The confusion and dysfunctionality was “too great to be credible” he noted. Summoning the chief boyars, Vorontsov expressed in the strongest terms the need for good governance, and the rewards and penalties for compliance or continued failure. In October 1823, Vice-Governor Matei Krupenski (mentioned above) was relieved of his position due to alleged corruption. Tightening the screw that year, local elected prefects now became appointed officials.

The 1818 constitution had given the nobles rights to elect a majority of the most senior officials including in the judiciary (e.g. see Taki: Euxeinos).

In 1823 & 1824, Inzov & Vorontsov faced the challenge of plagues of locusts devastating large parts of New Russia. The Russian orchestrated response further strengthened their authority and control over the region. (Extensive details of this in “The Last Days of Alexander…”, by Robert Lee, pub. 1854). The locust calamity devastated many new colonists establishing themselves and must have encouraged Moldavians to flee the famine conditions in Bessarabia.

Inzov’s lasting legacy is the marvellous Nativity Cathedral commissioned with Bănulescu-Bodoni and a number of other famous buildings, many still standing in Chişinău. Additionally, Inzov founded the city of Bolgrad in the Budjak region, to be interred there with great honour in a marble monument by very grateful Bulgarian colonists.

Count Vorontsov, Inzov's successor and superior was one of the most intellectually capable of all Russia’s leaders. He had been well educated in England and knew many of the most powerful and influential figures there. Contemporaries described him as an often English thinker in his style. From 1815 to 1818, the Count was commander of the Russian forces in the Duke of Wellington's allied army, stationed in France. Philipp Vigel who served Vorontsov there, described his impressive leadership in the most glowing terms. The two of them would work together in Chişinău.

Vorontsov’s rule would have a dramatic impact on Bessarabia and its future direction. His style was very hands-on. He toured hospitals and prisons, investigated the finances, making reforms and improvements wherever he went.

Count Vorontsov investigated and examined the status and work of Peter Manega, He found that Manega had gained a licentiate in Paris, but not a doctorate. Manega was at least in part a fraud. The Count who was relatively friendly and approachable disliked Manega’s conceited manner. The Count had spent time in France during the Napoleonic War and examined the three volumes produced by Manega recorded in French. (Manega knew no Russian). The proposed constitution was heavily based on the Napoleonic Code, the legal system of Russia’s recent great adversary. But how fit for purpose was this methodology, and Manega’s work itself? For example, compared to applied Moldavian law, the Napoleonic Code downgraded women’s rights (from those great gains obtained in the Revolution). Bessarabia had in 1818 already adopted Callimachi’s 1817 civil code (which upheld women’s rights).

In the principalities, hospodars Ion Caragea of Wallachia (1812 – 1818) and Scarlat Callimachi (1812 – 1819) had developed new codes of law. Based partly on the Austrian civil code of 1811. As before, these regulations mainly served to strengthen the authority of the prince. Callimachi’s successor Mihai Sutu, the last ever phanariot prince (serving until 1821) maintained the same tradition in Moldavia.

In 1825, the Russian senate addressed the customary law issue and formally requested from the Supreme Council of Bessarabia for Judiciary, information about law applied in Bessarabia. The response covering traditional Moldavian law was three different sets of law from those submitted years before. Much of this was in ancient Greek which was difficult to translate into modern Greek. The result: a myriad of contradictory interpretations prior to Russian translation.

From 1824 there was an increase in the granting of lands to favoured Russian officials and individuals by the authorities in St Petersburg. For instance, in the under-governed southern areas of Akkerman and Bender nearly sixty land grants were made. One beneficiary was the daughter of Field Marshal Kutuzov who received 15,000 acres of land in 1825.

In November 1825 Tsar Alexander 1 died. In his final years he had become less enthusiastic about decentralising power within the empire. Vorontsov too, liberal minded aristocrat (not a democrat) was becoming disillusioned with the project for Bessarabia’s autonomy. Early on he had outlined the importance of the local nobility in taking and shaping the administration in line with local laws and traditions. They were: “that class which both by our laws and the nature of things plays such an important part in internal administration.” But he had threatened them if they couldn’t deliver…

Tsar Alexander was succeeded by Tsar Nicholas 1, one of the most reactionary Tsars in Russian history. His centralising tendencies led to Poland losing its autonomy in 1830 and Bessarabia suffered a new imposed constitution in 1828 - the latter designed by Count Vorontsov.

As for Manega’s legal codification project, Vorontsov allowed the work continue until 1830, but by then the work had been superceded by his own major reforms in 1828. Manega was retained as librarian at Chişinău library. His work handed to Speransky’s codification commission in St Petersburg.

A major opportunity for progress towards national self-determination had been lost.

By comparison, Finland taken over by Russia in 1809 would eventually become and remain a nation state. But Finland was two parts united (new and old Finland); Moldavia was a province torn apart.

Bessarabia would remain a vassal state and see the increasing predominance of Russian law and administrative practice in the decades ahead.

The Russian Empire system for Bessarabia: early days and economic management

When General Bakhmetiev (Bakhmetyev) became Bessarabia’s governor in 1816, he brought with him senior Polish civil servants from Podolia (see Taki: Euxeinos). As we’ve seen, the hierarchy had assessed the administrative system under General Garting (Harting), and found it corrupt and ineffective:

“Everything there is for sale, everything has its price, with the prefects stealing more than the rest since they have paid twenty or thirty thousand rubles each for their positions.”

General Kiselev writing to Tsar Alexander 1.

“Send back at once out of Bessarabia all of General Garting’s appointees”

Russian Foreign Minister, Capodistria

Bakhmetiev and his Polish officials made little impact on the corrupt and dysfunctional administration which contemporary sources indicate was only positively impacted at all by Count Vorontsov, in action as we’ve seen above. General Kiselev again in 1833, writing to Vorontsov:

“You have been badly served by the governors who keep being changed at Kishinev, and by those officials who are the dregs of Russia and Moldavia.”

The Bessarabian administration’s weaknesses were not solved by Garting’s dismissal as civil governor. As highly respected and successful Count Kiselev later acknowledged, they endured in a similar fashion. In the case of the (mainly Phanariot) Moldavian boyars, the serious governance issues they caused, persisted. Until, (as noted above) in the early/mid 1820s, Count Vorontsov took decisive action against the Moldavian nobles. But Vorontsov had no power to reform the equally damaging fatally flawed structure of Russia’s empire-wide bureaucratic system in his own territory.

Before visiting the key issue of the immovable Russian bureaucracy, let’s dial back a few years to examine Governor Garting’s management style, thinking and approach in its real world context.

“… Garting believed that without reform, the ‘Russian promise of being able to govern on behalf of Balkan Orthodox Christians would never again be believed’.”

Recommended source: Moldova: A History by Rebecca Haynes, 2020

The Bessarabian boyar elite facing Governor Garting had a very famous and influential advocate: Manuc Bei ! (Part 2 “Treaty” page looks at his role and influence). Manuc’s permitted relocation was to his newly purchased estates in Hîncești, 21 miles south-west of Chişinău. A potentially very vulnerable position for this new Russian state counsellor if Ottoman forces invaded.

Manuc Bei reported to Capodistria, Russia’s foreign minister (to whom he had been granted privileged access), that more than 5,000 families had emigrated from Bessarabia in 1814, adding:

“[Garting] is unable to perform his position, as he doesn’t understand how his administration works, and lacks the good manners to properly deal with people.”

Manuc (who had corresponded with Capodistria for years) knew he was leaning on an open door. For the Tsar’s Bessarabia policy was significantly based upon Capodistria’s proposition that co-operation with the powerful influential Phanariot elite would be the key for Russian access to control of the principalities. (See “Constructing Bessarabia…” by Cusco & Taki). Bessarabia was just a stepping stone.

Manuc Bei recommended the continued application of Moldavia’s local customs and laws. He also recommended the elevation of two (claimed to be competent and trustworthy) Moldavian officials to heads of department.

The character, origins, behaviour and outlook of the Moldavian nobles has been covered in the previous section. In that vein, Garting’s assessment:

“There was nothing sacred to them, except their own interest”.

There were even rumours that Governor Garting (aka Harting) intended to inflict corporal punishment on uncooperative Moldavian boyars. Garting was reported to be a man of short temper. He proposed that some of the new (Russian loyalist) boyars were brought into the administration supplanting some of the less co-operative nobles. (Note details on Krupenski, previous section). Matters were further aggravated by Garting falling ill for a long period from 1814. Jewsbury attributed this to “bad climate” (!) Bakhmetiev’s comment, January 1817:

“Chisinau is situated along the shallow and smelly river Byk, surrounded by marshland, and is not fit for human habitation. There’s a rotten smell emanating from the swamp and river. People here suffer fevers in the autumn, and in general the air is unfavourable.”

Ottoman Empire invasion might appear to be a more likely possibility if local nobles (many of whom had estates and high level connections on both sides of the Prut) felt alienated, sidelined, threatened – and they did. As reported above, the 1812 Treaty had forced (some) nobles to effectively pick a side – the Ottoman Empire or the Russian Empire, with an initial 18 month property disposal deadline. A certain Armenian grain merchant was being partly held responsible for that… (See Taki: Euxeinos for extensions of the property disposal deadline).

If Manuc Bei was captured by the Turks, he would likely be executed as persona non grata for his major role in the Treaty of Bucharest. In theory, Manuc should have had the fullest protection under article 2 of the Treaty (see treaty script page). A script, he may even have had a hand in drafting… But… in typical style, the Porte severely blamed all the foreign participants who contributed to the 1812 Treaty. Greek dragoman, Marusi (phanariot interpreter, middle man, related to Scarlat Sturdza), was murdered in 1812 along with his brother.

Mirzaioan Manuc Bei, (his name has numerous spellings !), was a highly respected and warmly accepted member of the privileged Armenian community, whose merchants would certainly want a safe, secure, stable and prosperous (pan-Moldavian) trading environment. This fabulously wealthy grain merchant from Bulgaria had pre-1812 operated in a system in which there had been much leakage of goods, (especially illegal export of grain) to non-Ottoman Empire sources.

Difficulties Manuc had personally encountered could be resolved by paying (officials) for favours to lubricate the passage of trade and maintain good cordial, respectful relations. There’s evidence of him doing that. In contrast, 1814 saw Major-General Garting deporting to Russia a number of local nobles who were accused of smuggling goods across the Prut.

Perhaps however the pro-enterprise Garting (see below), and Manuc Bei were on the same page when in 1813, the Governor awarded (at no claimed cost), the Armenian community a significant plot of land in Chişinău known as the Armenian Courtyard.

The bustling trade of the Armenian community, those Jews who were fortunately successful, other successful “foreign” traders, and the privileged Moldavian nobles represented a smart and colourful picture which belied the terrible widespread poverty afflicting almost the entire (exploited) population. The economic circumstances of the principalities, including the new carved out state to be named Bessarabia, were dire from the start of the 1806 war onwards for many years.

Examining this situation years later, independent minded, French authors, professional husband and wife team, Hommaire de Hell, were provided with privileged access across the region by Count Vorontsov who tutored them. (Count Vorontsov was in charge of the occupying Russian army in France, 1815 - 18). Here’s de Hell assessment:

“The Moldavian boyars… mismanagement of their own institutions provoked the first blow against their privileges. In accordance with old customs, the government continued to sell the taxes by auction, and they were generally farmed by the great landowners of the province. This vicious system of finance, which had been practised under the Oriental regimen of the hospodars, could not fail to have fatal consequences under the new system of things… [and] rapidly degenerated into an abuse, through the improvident prodigality of the Moldavians, and the extravagant ideas of civilisation and progress which fermented in all their brains; luxury increased beyond measure among the nobles, and Kichinev, the capital, became famous through all the country for its sumptuous festivities, and the wealth of its ware-rooms.”

At this point, a brief limited look at how the “vicious system of finance” was wider than the above, with the clear implication that Russian reforms outside of tackling the Moldavian gentry would not work. From Demidov 1837, relating to Moldavia’s finances, and its boyar practices, about 1827, but still part-relevant to Bessarabia post 1812:

“A second direct impost [imposition], under the name of rassours, supplied the emoluments of the servants of the government. The inhabitants were, moreover, subject to indirect taxes under the rassoumats; these were taxes on bee-hives, sheep, pigs, tobacco and vineyards. Carriage, weights and measures and distilleries were also subject to special taxes; and besides this, as though in mockery of the groaning tax payers, several localities were subject to certain exceptional dues, confirmed if not justified by time.”

So, what have the peasants got left to support the Russian army (nobles being largely exempt)? It’s November 1816 and fulfilling this provisioning function was Major-General Garting, of Dutch and Finnish origins. Replaced as civil governor, Garting retained his full military position, now working under Bakhmetiev. But he is just as forthright. In correspondence with (the Hanoverian) Count Bennigsen, commander of the Russian 2^nd Army – discussing Prince Gorchakov’s general plan for supply of the Russian Army:

[Garting] “While I strongly desire to use local subsidies to improve supplies for the Russian army - which have become an unbearable tax for the natives, lacking even the most basic supplies for their own existence - I cannot find any possible way of delivering the plan elaborated by Prince Gorceakov”.

Admiral Chichagov had negotiated a three-year tax exemption for ordinary Moldavians in the new state. In practice, the nobles largely ignored that (as we’ve seen above). The peasants were unlikely to be aware of that concession, and were powerless anyway.

The Gorchakov plan attempted to fix food prices at a low level so that the Russian army would be able to afford to pay for them, e.g. one chetvert (quart; at least 57 kilos) of flour, price - 19 rubles / roubles. As Garting indicated, the prices were too low to be an incentive; 19 rubles would buy very little:

“… the successive bad harvests of 1816 and 1817 in Europe, caused such an increase in the demand for grain, that Russia could scarcely supply it. The price at Odessa rose to 45 roubles per chetwert; and grain was brought thither from a distance of 600 versts.[400 miles]”.

Source: Hagemeister, 1835 – see base for details (Count Vorontsov commissioned report)

Also, as we will see, there are strong indications that the Russian currency wasn’t fully accepted in Bessarabia for many years post-1812 (!). Measurements of currency value (for commodities) were often in the Turkish piastre which itself suffered confidence issues – it kept on devaluing.

Reading into Garting’s assessment - insufficient compensation (return) for the time, trouble and risk (of crop failure), while the population themselves were going hungry. Arguably, subsistence farming (for exploited peasants) made more sense (to them, for their survival). 57 kilos of processed wheat could potentially feed a family for months, especially if stored properly – including well hidden.

Gorchakov also proposed the common Russian plan of banning the export of cereals, Garting:

"The ban on the export of grain abroad is harmful for the state.”

Counter-intuitive perhaps to a simple understanding, but expressing mainstream western (European) thinking with an understanding of how to build successful, self-sustaining economic systems. From such a base, an army of occupation would then have some resources. Garting again:

“Evidence from the past shows that trade restrictions slow down the branches of industry, becoming the cause of total poverty, and income reduction of the inhabitants. As a result, the finances of the trade treasury are undermined.”

It was about this time (late 1816) that Alexsei Gorchakov (Field Marshall Suvorov’s nephew) had his reforms assessed as a failure, and Gorchakov was dismissed for corruption. Garting and Kutuzov had served under Suvorov, one of Russia’s greatest military leaders, (whose wife came from an Armenian family). Suvorov never lost a battle, and the officers he promoted must surely share much of the credit for this. The open trade assessment prevailed (Hommaire de Hell):

“… during Napoleon’s wars, its [Odessa’s] commerce, completely stationary, did not exceed five or six millions of roubles. After the events of 1815, during the horrible dearth that afflicted all western Europe, the exports rose in 1817 to more than 38,000,000.

Moving on, Russia’s civil service back-bone that made (and extensively hindered) its state operations was mainly controlled by officials of the fourteenth class – the lowest level. They were usually promoted serfs (!) in a system instituted by Peter The Great to curb the power of the nobles. A good move for that time. But so underpaid, these clerks had to operate on a corrupt basis in order to survive. To stay in post, they had to co-operate with other corrupt officials’ bad dealings. The details behind this are for instance well dealt with by Hommaire de Hell, (generally a good source).

Problems with the Russian system were historical, deeply inbred, structural, intractable, endemic and remained unaddressed until the major restructuring under Alexander II following the Crimean War disaster. For that episode, historian Dominic Lieven on Lucy Worsley’s excellent BBC series “Empire of the Tsars” described Russia as: “a pre-industrial society”. That issue lies at the root of the problem.

(The solution from the man born on the day of the launch of his namesake uncle’s liberal 1818 constitution for Bessarabia would unleash all that the Tsars and nobility legitimately feared. Alexander II, “Alexander The Liberator”, born 29^th April 1818, ended serfdom, started industrialising Russia, many good reforms – assassinated by a revolutionary group).

This “pre-industrial society” had “no capital”, as western European travellers to Odessa and Bessarabia often observed. It had no reliable home-grown industrial infrastructure of its own. It depended upon foreign capital and foreign talent – lack of the former often created serious problems in engaging with foreign expertise and attracting foreign investment. The Russian state did not understand how to properly operate a banking system. It did not properly understand about the financing of trade, insurance and how to build long-term confidence with foreign commercial partners.

So how therefore did the all important Odessa develop...? But first, re: “no capital” in Bessarabia itself. In 1829, the year Russia very successfully invaded the Ottoman Empire again, the (low value) Turkish Piastre was still being used in Bessarabia. Budjak example from The London Encyclopaedia… Volume 4, 1829:

“The Russian government has raised a considerable revenue from the fisheries, and [Akkerman] salt works, as likewise from duties on spirits, & c. the whole amounting to perhaps 3,000,000 piastres or £150,000.”

As above, the Piastre was only worth five English pennies (pence). Wikipedia: “In the Ottoman Empire successive currency reforms had reduced the value of the Ottoman piastre by the late 19th century so as to be worth about two pence (2d) sterling.”

But there was a wider (potentially threatening), lingering cultural dependence upon Ottoman Empire standards, with a failure to establish any Russian (commercial) values in Bessarabia and its new capital. Here now is MacMichael, travelling to Chisinau from Dubossary (“Transnistria”, Kherson province), January 1818:

“The rate of posting, and the method of calculating distances, were now changed; the first, on comparison with the Russian tariff, was one-half cheaper, and the Turkish way of estimating by hours began to be adopted. For the ten horses, which they compelled us to take, we were to pay thirty-three roubles from the village on the Dniester to the town of Kichénau; at the rate of five versts for every Moldavian hour the distance is called eight hours [A bit later]:

“… Turkish money… continues to be the current coin of this part of Moldavia.” [A bit later]

“Night overtook us on a wild and barren heath, a few versts [1:1.07 kms] from Kichénau, where we had some difficulty in procuring lodging, notwithstanding its increased size and present consequence… [Next day]:

“Jan. 4. The following day was Sunday, and we felt transported into an entirely new scene, during our walk in the bazaar, which was the appellation given to the narrow street occupied by the principal shops of Kichénau. Low buildings covered with shingles [wooden cladding or construction], without windows, for which were substituted wooden shutters that were lifted up and suspended from the roofs; in short, the shabby houses of a Greek or Turkish town, were filled with commodities of all descriptions. Under the projecting sheds were disposed honey, frankincense, pepper, seeds of all sorts, plums, oranges, sulphur, nitre [saltpetre] &c., on the ground lay large blocks of rock-salt from the mines of Okna, in Wallachia, the price of which was 14 paras the oke; in another part were carp, sturgeon, and other kinds of frozen fish from Bender.”

“Seated… were money-changing Jews, having small tables placed before them, on which were spread Venetian sequins, Dutch ducats, fonduchi, stambols, and other specimens of Turkish Gold, mingled with heavy copper Russian copeck pieces.”

Journey from Moscow to Constantinople: in the years 1817, 1818 by William MacMichael M.D. F.R.S, 1819

Comment on the above extracts: note the salt was obtained from Wallachia not from the Budjak, and its readily available Akkerman source. (But that would soon change, per the above and below). Saltpetre/Potassium Nitrate readily available from the “Transnistria” region used for gunpowder, (along with the sulphur above) and saltpetre could be used as a fertiliser, or meat preservative. Spices given likely to have been sourced from Ottoman Empire controlled areas. Plums readily available from the Budjak, but transport using rough carts not good. Also according to the then Bessarabian postal service (good source: The Rossica Society), postal travel times were: “To Kishinev from Bendery 10 hours, 50 verst [33 miles].” But no direct travel from the Budjak to Chishinau. Instead: “To Bendery from Akkerman, 26 hours, 130 verst.”

Overall sense is that goods have come from the “Transnistria” region and the Ottoman Empire. Money / finance / trade / travel logistics are Ottoman Empire based. Taki, (always an excellent source) provides an interesting perspective:

“…the initial idea to use Bessarabia as a conduit of Russian influence in European Turkey gave place to the vision of this province as part of Russia’s self-governing Western borderlands…”

Source: “1812 and the Emergence of the Bessarabian Region: Province Building under Russian Imperial Rule” (Euxeinos) / Rom. “1812 și crearea regiunii Basarabia…” 2015 by Victor Taki. (Above: first two of three suggested governmental phases). First is stability: preserve the status quo ante?

Turkish travel cost basis (encountered above) much cheaper than (priced-out?) “Russian Tariff”… This, latter may have been influenced by higher costs in south-west Kherson province/oblast affected by arbitrary financial controls / management in nearby Odessa.

Soon we move onto Odessa, (30 miles from the Bessarabian border), where foreign accounts of operations amplify and explain the above “pre-industrial society” deficiencies in sad and extensive detail. But first, contrast Bessarabia with the successful development of Austrian Bukovina to the north for example. Longterm local and well connected, influential Russian civil servant Nikolaĭ Giers summed up those disparities as follows:

“It is more than thirty years since we took over Bessarabia, and what have we done to contribute toward its welfare? Have we introduced new laws in the administration, in the courts? Have we done anything to civilise the region? Have we built new roads? Alas to all these questions, we must give an emphatic negative answer. My patriotic feelings suffered greatly when I compared Bessarabia with the other province also torn away from Moldavia – Bukovina, where the Austrians succeeded in introducing such exemplary order in every respect!”

Excellent source: “The Bukovina-Germans during the Habsburg Period” by Sophie Welsch

For Odessa, the surprising truth is that it could have been vastly more successful – according to its foreign merchants and visitors. There are many contemporary accounts giving a representative flavour of the kind of culture and regressive, repressive, restrictive practices also found in other parts of Russia including Bessarabia. (Examples: for real life encounter: Oliphant’s Odessa account, for detail: Webster Vol 2 & Hommaire de Hell). Odessa as a site possessed great advantages over Russia’s other locations - foreign merchants were prepared to endure a lot of grief to do business there – as opposed to other places.

For the self-defeating nature of the arbitrary trade restrictions, tariffs, regulations and their resolution, here’s an example from the late 1820s affecting Akkerman and Odessa. As we saw above in MacMichael’s example, salt which was very readily available from Akkerman was instead imported from Wallachia. Bessarabia was subject to a cordon sanitaire, but could easily import the plague from Ottoman held territory where controls were lax. Noting again the Victor Taki quote above: here’s a change, a positive moving on, Webster, 1830:

“Between Akerman and the mouth of the Danube in Bessarabia, there are immense lakes of salt, or limans, as they are termed; but the salt, at one time, could not be imported into the government of New Russia, without paying a heavy duty, so that it amounted almost to a prohibition. This duty has been greatly diminished, in consequence of the representations of the Count Woronzow [Vorontsov] at St Petersburg, and the change has been most striking. The Liman between Akerman and Ovidiopol, where formerly there was hardly a boat to be seen, is, since the reduction of the duty, almost covered with boats, transporting salt to the Custom House at Ovidiopol, from whence it is carried to Odessa, and there may be consumed without any further duty. The price at Odessa has fallen immensely, and it is preferred to the salt formerly used there, which was brought from the Crimea…. the price of wages in Bessarabia is said to have advanced in consequence of the increased demand for salt.”

Travels Through the Crimea, Turkey, and Egypt… Vol. 2 by James Webster, 1830

In Russia, ensuring that people were productive and useful contributing members of the system was seen to depend upon degrees of categorisation, containment and control. Career-wise, free choice may exist for a first choice of authorised category and then perhaps a change of role. Russians were not free to travel anywhere (unless they had a passport for an authorised, justified purpose). They were not free to travel beyond Russia’s borders for their own personal reasons. Unregistered individuals (“vagabonds”), along with dissatisfied colonists had to pay outstanding taxes before they left.

Moldavians understood these strictures, and preferred to take their chances in a more free society, and open system. Their rights and freedoms in Moldavia developed and expanded especially from the 1830s onwards. Adding value (to the state and society) was (as usual) seen as a natural consequence of personal betterment. Moldavians largely represented one ethnic group with often open-value beliefs, and in religious terms adherence to one church under the Orthodox religion.

Moldavians in the highly successful, multi-cultural Bukovina to the north were part of state with a “…multi-national character, earning it the appellation of ‘Europe in miniature’” Sophie Welsch.

Russia however needed to categorise, contain and control people of different ethnicities, cultural values and beliefs. It needed to do that for reasons of social order and control. These social and political issues are more fully examined and developed in the next section.

The management of people and communities in Bessarabia

In 1812 “Bessarabia”, (ethnic) Moldavians, Jews and gypsies made up over 95% of the resident population. Plus in early 1812, there remained about 1,900 Nogai (Nogay) Tartar families from the large number who had been expelled. These four groups were the life-blood and character of Moldavia east of the Prut, even if the Nogai had proved to be very destructive and disruptive on occasions.

The Jews and gypsies made things, and made things happen at a level beyond their small numbers. For example, when a cavalry horse needed a horseshoe who would do that – commonly a gypsy. While waiting, the horsemen may visit a Jewish run tavern. Annoyingly though, these groups would serve both sides in a war (as if they had any choice!). To limit Jews doing that (as reported in the “Nation status…” section), from 1812, Jewish people were banned from being within 50 versts (33 miles) of Russia’s border.

In the “pre-industrial” Russian empire, two decades after 1812, these two groups of people still had an important role to play. They were often deeply disliked and distrusted. In the case of the Jewish community, its role increased. Bălți is a prominent example, see “Trade, agriculture & industry…” section for this, and below a money-changing example from MacMichael’s January 1818 Chisinau visit, part of an interesting wider description of Chisinau’s diverse life:

“Amongst the curious assemblage of people, were observable, the Russian officer, passing rapidly in his light droshka; the fine, robust Moldavian peasant, contrasted with the soldier of the emperor, with his Calmuk features; a few Turks of the lowest order; and many Armenians, who are here so numerous, as to occupy an entire street. Seated in the middle of the crowd, were money-changing Jews… [Then, emerging in sight]:

The carriage of a smart, beautiful, young lady, the daughter of the Armenian bishop, was slowly moving through the narrow and wretched street; behind it stood a servant dressed in a splendid Albanian costume.”

(The Armenian bishop and his daughter would have stepped across the porch of the Armenian church in Chisinau, a foot or so underneath being the body of Manuc (Emanuel) Mirzaiant, aka the famous Manuc Bei / Manuk Bey, who some attribute as the leading actor in the creation of Bessarabia – see part 2. Manuc, aged 48 had died suddenly on June 20^th 1817).

Some lines later, Macmichael describes the gypsies:

“… we were serenaded by a band of gipsies, tall, swarthy fellows, who accompanied, very discordantly, with their voices, five violins, upon which they played various plaintive Moldavian airs.” [15 lines later, some colourful gypsy aspects observed]:

“… a fondness for red dresses, the stone anvil used in their favourite occupation of blacksmiths, the voluptuous dances of their women, and their trade of fortune-telling…”

MacMichael claimed the gypsies were equal in number to the local Moldavians! In fact, they only numbered a few thousand in Bessarabia. He added: “…this extraordinary race of people forms a very considerable part of the population of Wallachia and Moldavia.” (!) Gypsies, seen everywhere where they could accost travellers, gave the impression of a much greater presence.

Gypsy population: more realistic figures: “… in Moldavia [1840s], where they are said to be more than 100,000…” Source: Hommaire de Hell, probably influenced by Count Vorontsov. The credible 1850 population survey, source Anskjaer has them on 120,000 out of a population of 1,254,447. Suggests about 10% gypsy population in Moldavia. High, but not dominating.

Placing the genuine large disparity in gypsy numbers between the two parts of Moldavia into the question of how many people left “Bessarabia” in 1812, poses an interesting question… Both parts were shockingly badly administered in 1811 – 12.

Why would MacMichael, a highly qualified, talented, sensible professional, and the author of other major books make the mistake of thinking there were so many gypsies both in Moldavia and Bessarabia? Unless he was authoritatively told that, or perhaps read it in a seemingly credible publication?

There was (for a long time) an enduring line of Russian thinking which unkindly equated civilians who strayed from their roots as gypsies, or vagabonds (the latter especially if they were unregistered or had no citizenship). Russian citizens had to stay in their designated areas. They, (like citizens of some western countries), had to conform to a dress code, like a uniform, often a uniform: they were “typecast” within a rigid system, underpinned with set values.

Recommend (quick read): “The role of the Uniform in Tsarist Russia” by Inna Fedorova, 2014.

Moldavian peasants immediately post 1812, (like gypsies) were free to move around, and wear a variety of different, seemingly unusual garments (like gypsies). The women especially could be quite versatile and colourful in their dress sense. Often, inhabitants of the principalities had little choice but to be mobile (to save themselves), with a necessary conditionality to be flexibly minded as to where they lived, and what they did.

“In 1812, General-Major Berg complained about the difficulty of billeting his men... [as] the villages in Bessarabia ‘very often changed’ and left their previous location.”

Further expanded in good source: Russia, 1762 – 1825: Military Power, The State & The People by Janet M. Hartley & Terri Elder, 2008

This lack of rigidity had moral implications relative to the staid, contained, restricted patterns of behaviour in Russian territories. From this, it might be expected that personal judgements would be made by Russians and other Slavs; coupled with at times, envy and resentment.

Russian officials found that fellow Slavs, and Germans conformed better or more comfortably within the system, with a more reliable sense of loyalty and “buy-in” to Russian state values. There was a greater or more focussed enabling effort for these settlers in the underpopulated south, or “Bessarabia Proper”: The London Encyclopaedia… Volume 4, 1829 source below:

“Bessarabia, a territory of Russia in Europe… [8 lines later] divided into two parts: 1 The Moldavian Division… [3 lines later] 2. Bessarabia Proper, subdivided into the circles of Bender, Kausharian [Causeni], and Ismail-Tomarovian.”

We will visit and examine some of the places and issues alluded to / mentioned above in later sections. Colonists in fact found themselves mainly outside the more established southern centres, little supported and sometimes victimised in remote locations, including Bessarabia for some years after 1812. Again, from The London Encyclopaedia, 1829:

“… the country has been almost depopulated by the wars of the neighbourhood. Bulgarians, Moldavians, Armenians, Jews, Tartars and Servians (Serbians) constitute the bulk of its inhabitants; and to these may be added Gipsies.”

Bulgarians migrated to Bessarabia because their treatment was usually worse in Ottoman held territory. For example, Scottish physician Adam Neale travelling to his new position at the British embassy in Constantinople in 1812, recorded the following on reaching a village just outside Galatz (Galaţi):

“… our crew landed at a Bulgarian village called Tulese, for the purpose of purchasing goats’ milk; but the inhabitants mistaking them for Turks, fled at their approach, and abandoned their houses…”

General issues pursued in excellent source: Making Ethnicity in Southern Bessarabia… by Simon Schlegel, 2019. Note that some modern historians believe that the Bulgarian community was in fact an umbrella (term), which included a minority of other ethnic groups.

There was a relatively rigid, ethnically-defined, social, political and economic infrastructure these colonists largely conformed to, in self-contained communities.

Princes, generals, boyars, peasants, slaves and gypsies

For centuries, war and conflict had forced ethnic Romanians and their neighbours to move home every few years. Sometimes they covered long distances, sometimes they left the former Dacian province altogether. One archaeological historian has expressed frustration trying to find evidence of continued uninterrupted settlement. So in a sense the whole region was theirs. The region also contained numbers of gypsies and slaves, the latter often being former prisoners of war who would be traded and moved around.

Apart from (the cost of) war in the principalities themselves, Wallachia and Moldavia had become much more severely depopulated in the eighteenth century due to the increased economic demands of their Turkish masters. Measures which were applied through the introduction of the Greek-Phanariot regime. For example Constantine Mavrocordato, hospodar of Wallachia in the mid eighteenth century, introduced tax reforms which saw that principality’s population decline by three-quarters under his rule!

William Wilkinson, acting British Consul-General in Bucharest, 1813 opined that the peasants of Wallachia and Moldavia were possibly the most oppressed in the world.

Ledouix (Ledoux), the French Consul in Bucharest stated towards the end of the 1806-12 war that the principalities faced ruin and further depopulation if the war continued for another year. He highlighted the Danube area where many people had already fled south. Generally, Moldavians fled from the Russian regime to other countries and many returned when the Russian army had gone. Placed into the Bessarabia context of 1812, an exodus from the new state was therefore inevitable.

It was the privations inflicted on the peasants by the boyars and their officials under the Russian regime, but operating against it, which caused such grief. For they arranged matters so that it was largely the poorest peasants who would have to support the Russian army. (Explained below under “The politics of administration and reform”). As a general policy, Russian generals tried to act in favour of ordinary peasants. Another contemporary French observer credits the peasants with being impressed by this but wanting the army’s evacuation.

Statements from the 1821 revolt by its leader, Tudor Vladimirescu in Wallachia cast some light on this situation:

“Our uprising is only directed only against the boyars who have devoured our rights”.

“The reigning princes and Greek and ‘Romanian’ boyars have robbed and pillaged us until we have nothing left but our souls.”

In response, the boyars made this revealing statement in a petition to the Russian Consul in Bucharest:

“The ‘Romanian’ people’s revolt cannot be better defined than as a war from those who have nothing against those who they believe to be rich, and not as an armed protest to obtain national rights.”

Along with other factors, the 1821 rebellion spelt the end of the “Phanariot Scourge”.

In a strict legal sense, people living in the former Dacian territories were well protected by the treaties of 1460 and 1634. These carried many rights and protections governing the liberties of citizens of the principalities. But the occupying empires disregarded these laws.

Foreign observers contrasted the mainly simple, decent behaviour of the peasants with the greedy, cunning and brutal behaviour of most boyars.

Peasants gained some rights and freedom from their mobility due to the frequent wars especially in the early eighteenth century. At that time, serfs fleeing a conflict zone often became free peasants under a new landlord.

Serfdom had been abolished in Moldavia in 1749 (following Wallachia in 1746). By decree, peasants were declared personally free from landlords and their relationships were to be regulated on the basis of personal contracts. However… in return for their personal freedom, the peasants lost any title to their lands and had to labour for the landlord for a certain number of days. The amount of daily work was predetermined by the hospodar and almost impossible to complete in a day. In 1777 this requirement had been increased to a nominal 28 days in Moldavia.

Bessarabia was the only Russian province where serfdom wasn’t applied…except for gypsies from 1828.

Boyars and landlords found other ways to exploit the peasantry. One example was provided later by Prince Urusov, governor of Bessarabia in 1903 relating to an ancient Moldavian custom. This was the landlord’s right to impose duties on any goods brought onto their lands. “The tax was collected by a special guard”. The Russian senate and the prince helped to abolish this pernicious practice.

Peasants did try to resist unfair demands on them but were usually held down to subsistence levels. They were: “rural cultivators whose surpluses are transferred to a dominant group of rulers.” - Eric Wolf, anthropologist. Studies of serfs and state peasants in Russia found it hard to differentiate between those two groups. Russian state peasants had restricted freedom of movement as did other people. For example in 1862 in Dubossary, “Transnistria”, 205 “absence” passports were given to 3 merchants and 171 town-dwellers.

Moldavians valued the freedoms they had, and were well aware of and most determined to escape Russian state restrictions. Many of them liked (the ability) to travel around.This appears to be the main reason why so many left or tried to leave Bessarabia in 1812 and afterwards.

Here’s an 1836 extract from Englishman Michael Quin, travelling in Wallachia, when his party met a Moldavian poet there.

“The poet now joined the circle, and having ordered his bottle of wine, made himself as much as home amongst his new acquaintances as if he had known them a hundred years. He treated the company to a history of his travels, which extended on this occasion to Grand Cairo…[A little later] the governor shouted with excessive mirth, and ordered another bottle, which he compelled the poet to drink in addition to his own.”

In Moldavia (& Wallachia), there was an important class structure in which boyars were ranked. At the top was the hospodar. In the Ottoman Empire, this office holder was usually just seen as the governor (of a province). To everyone else, he was the prince.

For much of the eighteenth century until 1821, the office was mainly held by (Greek) phanariots. As a small group of privileged families, they had long before established their subservience to the Sultan. Most of them had been dragomen (official interpreters, translators and guides with knowledge of Turkish, Arabic and European languages). Because Ottoman court officials wouldn’t learn non-muslim languages, a dragoman would in practice become a mediator on behalf of the Porte. It was a logical next step for them to become a princely representative in the principalities.

The phanariots represented a group of powerful families whose main pursuits were power and profit. They were infinitely adaptable in negotiating around the strict religious diktats of their Ottoman masters where form was frequently elevated over substance. One example: phanariots were not allowed to acquire iltizam, or life-term tax-farming systems, so they became administrators of these instead.

The phanariots would adopt almost any policy, make almost any changes necessary in pursuit of their aims. That included changing or adapting their names to play down any merchant origins and fit in with (the latest) Orthodox Empire orthodoxy. To their thinking, that was a necessary (even expected) adaptation, entirely consistent with operating successfully within the Ottoman Empire - a mark of their loyalty and commitment. But when governor Inzov found that many Bessarabian “boyars” had forged their names and noble origins, the Russian state simply equated that with falsification and corruption. (See Taki, “Romanian Boyar Opposition…” for more angles on this).

The Byzantium-Phanariot style, methodology and thinking has arguably influenced Romanian culture and values even up to today. Even their churches were built in an Ottoman style.

These "infidel" princes however were often despised by their masters and had a short-lived existence. Also, they weren’t always loyal to the Sultan. Here’s what happened to Gregory Ghica, prince from 1774-77. Now believed to be of Romanian (rather than Albanian descent). He opposed Bukovina’s separation from northern Moldavia to become a new separate state within the Austrian empire. Quote from Von Campenhausen, 1808.

“The Turk soon returned and presented it [a snuff box] to Ghicca, and at the same time drew out a poignard with which he stabbed him twice in the breast. Ghicca, who was strong and active, made an effort to leap out of the window, but several Turks rushed into the room at this moment, and dispatched him. His head was cut off, sent to Constantinople, and exposed, according to custom, for three days at the gate of the seraglio. His body was given to his family, and his property was seized by the Sultan.”

In such a treacherous environment, the phanariot princes were concerned to ensure loyalty to their rule. So they introduced a system by which boyars had to demonstrate good service to the prince as office holders to keep their positions. This removed boyars’ rights as pure landowners and drew them in more closely to the double-dealing, corrupt world of Ottoman empire politics.

The boyars’ ties to their peasants were thereby weakened. From 1749, Moldavian peasants were now no longer serfs tied to the land. So each party was more like a tenant or sub tenant. They were less tied to their country and to each other. Their relationships had become more contractual, time limited and less directly personal. Loyalties were becoming more negotiable.

A strict class structure defined a person’s place in society. But it was possible in the loose systems in the principalities to change your name to a famous or well respected one, and fabricate your lineage. This happened… It was necessary however to secure the funds to achieve this. One way to do that, was to win at the gambling tables which were a common sight especially in Iasi. People had everything to play for…

These possibilities, these opportunities were not available to illiterate peasants.

In 1812, Moldavian peasants had centuries of experience of being robbed and abused. The safest strategy was to appear and perhaps be wretchedly poor. One of their greatest dangers was from invading armies. Apart from stealing all their food and anything of value, they would often blame the peasants for supporting (and benefiting from) the former enemy occupiers…as if they had any choice!

Another real risk was forced conscription into the Ottoman armed forces. Author, Ion Creangă born in 1837 in a north Moldavian village, described how pressgangs would lasso people off the street. That is how their popular school teacher was taken from them. Others just disappeared; their mothers despairing for them; as commonly they never saw or heard from their sons again.

Security, trust and stability are so valuable. Creangă’s north Moldavian village was near to Bukovina where in 1812 taxes were set at 30% and the peasants, treated better, were happier and more productive. They knew where they stood, even if sometimes treated roughly by the occupying army. That was the hallmark of the Austrian empire there. A situation described in 1855 by an English visitor:

“Previous to the year 1777 the Buckowina formed part of the principality of Moldavia, since which time it has been incorporated within the kingdom of Galicia. The inhabitants with the exception of a few hundred German colonists, are the same race as those of Moldo-Wallachia, speak a dialect of the same language, and are quite as primitive in their habits and manners. Still, even among these, the reclaiming hand of the German ruler is everywhere visible in the neatness of their villages, and the tidiness you perceive about the huts and agricultural fields.”

Turkey, Russia, The Black Sea & Circassia by Captain Edmund Spencer, 1855.

Villages were often located away from the main routes to avoid falling prey to Ottoman, Tatar or Cossack raids. In areas under Ottoman control, Tatars and some Cossack groups were allies of the Sultan. Some villages appear to have consisted of huts hidden underground.

MacMichael encountered this travelling to the Danube from Bucharest in 1818 - at a stop to change horses:

“… the houses were all constructed alike, and upon the same plan as the subterranean residence in which we had passed the night previous to our arrival in Buchorest. A square room, made of wicker or basket work, whose intersices were filled with dried mud, and having a roof of reeds, formed a sort of entrance to a hole in the earth, into which was a descent by a few steps; on the outside it was scarcely elevated above the ground, except where the chimney (made of reeds or twigs wattled together,) indicated the centre of the mound, that had much more the air of a hiding place of a mole, which, having buried itself in the earth had thrown a heap of loose soil over its back, than the residence of man.”

In such an environment, a police force was a near irrelevance and the absence of police in the Moldavian countryside resulted in much general banditry. Underlining this, MacMichael adds a note to the above:

“Father Avril, a Jesuit, who visited this country in 1688, describes the natives as living at that time in similar subterranean habitations, which they resorted to for protection and security.”

The only alternative was to be well armed, as Englishman Edmund Spencer recounts in 1836:

“Notwithstanding the unfavourable accounts given us of the insecurity of travelling in Moldavia, we arrived safely…in the Austrian Buckowina, without molestation. We had however taken good care to present a most formidable front, being every one of us armed to the teeth; and only once, on passing through the thick forest which separates Moldavia from the Buckowina, did the horizon seem even clouded with danger, as we there met with half-a-dozen most bandit looking fellows on horse-back; they passed on, however, and did not attempt to interrupt us.”

So wherever possible peasants would avoid travelling. They often preferred to be near forests or mountains where they could flee with their movable possessions ready to hand. The hills and plains to the east, Moldova de jos were more exposed, more dangerous than the mountainous area to the west: Moldova de sus.

The roads and main tracks were often so clear that foreign visitors reported travelling for many miles without seeing anyone. Mr Elliott, the vicar of Godalming noted the position was worse in Bessarabia where he travelled long distances past fertile, uncultivated fields.

Many peasants did not feel safe and secure enough to put down roots. They were shepherds in a tradition which dated back to Roman times or before.

Gypsies in Moldavia were commonly enslaved but when free were better dressed, their women often wore trinkets on their faces or headgear. Gypsies, deemed to be uncontrollable, travelled across borders freely without visas, passports or complications. Sometimes political refugees would hide amongst them.

In 1821, Pushkin hitched a ride with a gypsy caravan from Chişinău into the Budjak Steppe. A political outcast himself like the ancient Roman Ovid whose footsteps he was determined to follow into the Budjak. There Pushkin had an affair with a gypsy woman, Zemfira.

Alexander Pushkin had been exiled to Bessarabia in 1820 for attacking serfdom and censorship, with some critical words for the emperor himself. Pushkin ended up in the one Russian province where serfdom wasn’t a policy. Famously he said he hated Chişinău:

“Cursed town of Kishinev! My tongue will tire itself in abuse of you. Some day of course the sinful roofs Of your dirty houses Will be struck by heavenly thunder, And - I will not find a trace of you! There will fall and perish in flames…”

But Pushkin enjoyed a number of affairs with local women and had many friends including Filipp Vigel (above). Despite his bad behaviour, Pushkin lodged with governor Inzov and retained a state salary. In 1821, two earthquakes struck (Chişinău). The second in November caused part of Inzov’s house to collapse; it was the part where Inzov lived. Pushkin’s damaged room was barely habitable, but he decided to stay there for a few months.

In 1825, Pushkin was transferred to Odessa to stay with Count Vorontsov, one of Russia’s greatest war heroes, who from 1823 had become governor-general of new Russia and viceroy of Bessarabia. There, Pushkin conducted an affair with the count's wife and was thrown out. Nine months later, Countess Vorontsov gave birth. These events produced some of the finest poetry in the Russian language.

In 1828, Vorontsov oversaw a package of significant constitutional changes in Bessarabia. One of these was to make gypsies become serfs. In the succeeding years, further measures were enacted to fully rob gypsies of their independent roving status. Overall however, with his heavily dominating English education and background, Vorontsov appears to have disliked serfdom and been unhappy with aspects of the Russian system of military conscription and discipline.

Alexander 1, (tsar 1801 - 1825) expressed a strong, early dislike for serfdom. Heavily restricted by powerful, conservative boyar landlords, he still managed to pass a law in 1803 allowing landlords to emancipate serfs on a voluntary and redemption basis. In 1817 and 1819, Baltic serfs were “emancipated” – in practical terms just a loosening of landlord control over their lives. But it still had a significant social impact.

The land owning class wanted a stable, ordered, compliant set of people serving their interests. This depended on a degree of cultural stability and homogeneity. Communication of requirements and values (orders) to this subservient class was made much easier with a common language, and a certain ethos.

Addressing this issue, a British visitor to the region spoke to landlords, especially major landlord, the Baltic-German Count Karl Nesselrode, Russia’s foreign minister (with Capodistria) from 1816:

“…alluding to the condition of certain slaves who had effected their escape. The result was to people Bessarabia, although by no means to the full; and the population, as may easily be surmised, is of a very mixed character, and, were pedigrees traced, would be found to contain representatives of almost every department of the empire.”

Source: Europe: Russia. St Petersburg. Russians of the South by McCulloch & Hardman, 1856

For social implications, refer to final paragraphs under section: “Nation status and self government…”

There’s an implicit contradiction (of thinking) for the Bessarabian landlord who also serves the Russian state, and many did. Taken from the same source:

“Large estates in Bessarabia are in the hands of individuals high in office and honour in the Russian empire. Count Nesselrode, for example, has a fine estate there, comprising, perhaps, 50,000 deciatines, and other noblemen, whose names are well known in Europe, are among the Bessarabian landlords.”

Many of these grandees were likely to be largely absentee landlords with a more hands-off approach. Also where their positions were of civilian origin, their power to enforce landlord authority in Bessarabia was likely to be more limited to the extent that the generals in Bessarabia did favour greater support for peasants’ interests (for strategic reasons). And as we have seen, the generals were in charge:

“…there is no recognised distinction of honour in Russia, except one – distinction acquired by military service. Every man who wishes to rise to dignities must make the army his ladder. The father of his people does not know his children except in uniform…in Russia the distinctions of military rank are everything.”

The Russians of the South by Charles Brooks, 1854

This (slightly exaggerated) assertion has an obviously much wider significance for the governance direction of Bessarabia from 1812. The practical effect was positive for the humblest in society there.

There was progress towards greater freedom and rights for peasants in Moldavia and Bessarabia during the period.

The development of civil rights

Events in (western) Europe, along with the characters, backgrounds, connections and beliefs of the two most powerful men to dictate policy in the principalities and Bessarabia - advanced the cause of civil rights there.

Tsar Alexander 1 was heavily influenced by the Quakers. They were passionate anti-slavery campaigners, and their influence sped up the end of Britain’s slave trade; a very lucrative longstanding commerce of misery and suffering. In 1833 with the passing of the Slavery Abolition Act, the slave traders were on the wrong side of history. (To hide their shameful past, these individuals re-invented themselves as “merchants”, and such-like). Count Vorontsov knew well the most important and most powerful people in Britain having grown up, and been educated there. (See his own major corresponding 1834 reform below).

Count Vorontsov had a strong and exact sense of moral correctness. He was a good friend of the brilliant reforming barrister, William Garrow (whose achievements were dramatised by the BBC in three major series: “Garrow’s Law” 2010/11). The following example brings Vorontsov more to life.

It refers to an 1816 libel case brought by the count, defending his record and credibility, and (moreso) that of others. Taken from:

Posthumous Memoirs of His Own Time by Sir N. W. Wraxall, Volume 1, 1836

“Garrow, then attorney general, who was retained by Woronzow, levelled his severest censures…The court condemned me for an unintentional fault, to six months imprisonment, together with a fine of five hundred pounds.

How averse Count Woronzow was that such a judgement should be carried into execution, he demonstrated in the most unequivocal manner. On the very same day, the 16^th of May 1816, when I was sent to the King’s Bench, he applied in person to Lord Sidmouth, then secretary of state for the home department to solicit the immediate remission of my whole sentence. He repeatedly urged the same request to the Earl of Liverpool, and to Lord Castlereagh. Nor did he stop at the ministers, but twice personally addressed the regent himself on the subject… [Then] he sent his son-in-law, my friend the Earl of Pembroke, to inform me of the circumstances here related.”

From 1815, Vorontsov had spent much time in the newly conquered republic of France, with its (enduring) mantra of “freedom, equality, fraternity”. Prior to Napoleon’s surrender, Vorontsov had personally fought against highly motivated French volunteer soldiers. The French Army had consistently crushed more powerful (combined) armies from all other parts of Europe. The French soldiers’ untiring self-belief and motivation was impressive. Opposing them, one of those armies contained Russia’s brutalised conscripts...

“…among those to be given away as soldiers, though at times determined by ballot, are sure to be included all useless persons, - all individuals who have given offence, - in a word, as the Russians express it, all ‘mauvais sujets’”.

Source: Edward Morton, Travels in Russia etc… 1830 quoting “Dr Lyall… from his long residence in Russia, and his knowledge of the language…”

Such attitudes and beliefs hardly formed part of a cohesive society, and a successful system of occupation of other countries. Lessons were learned and spread amongst the liberal minded powerful Russian elite – to limited effect. At the margins, they (e.g. General Kiselev) were able to influence the policy of more autocratic rulers (such as Tsar Nicholas 1).

In the principalities, there was an earlier, slower run-up to developing freedoms for peasants. It arose absolutely out of necessity (rather than any enlightened self-interest). Ottoman Empire policy had utterly devastated the prosperous provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia in the eighteenth century. Since a large proportion of the population had simply run away, Constantine Mavrocordato felt compelled to abolish serfdom: the feudal hierarchal system had failed to deliver.

The boyars were of course held largely responsible for this. They were (seen as) ineffective, even obstructive elements to the large-scale extraction of resources from the principalities to serve the Ottoman Empire.

Increasingly, the boyars were required to act as effective facilitators and intermediaries for Ottoman state policy, but failed. This led to weakened phanariot princes drawing power closer to themselves in order to gain more effective control. Secondly the princes tried to establish a rapport or connection with the peasants directly. With Prince Mavrocordato’s reforms, peasants would now live in villages on a separate, free-standing, independent basis. The sale or transfer (of rights) of village property in which they lived was independent of them as individuals.

“Since their emancipation, the peasants have not been fixed to particular parts of the country, and they are at full liberty to change their habitations at the end of their engagements with their landholders. But those of a more respectable kind seldom quit the spots where chance has once placed them, unless they are driven by imperious circumstances.”

Source: An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, 1820 by William Wilkinson

Peasants (as individuals and families) were slowly gaining more rights, and influence over their lives. But that empowerment could not seriously extend to social status. The prince and the highest ruling elite depended upon the support of the boyars, and any concessions to the peasantry had to be largely limited to economic benefits (for both parties). The clamp-down on possible access to education for peasants under Prince Ypsilanti is one example of this. The tarani were now excluded from potentially bettering themselves at the academies of Bucharest and Iaşi – a necessary pre-cursor to access to office under his predecessor Mavrocordato’s reforms. Meanwhile in Bukovina in 1797 peasants were allowed to learn elementary reading, writing and arithmetic, but not allowed to graduate higher.

This was the application of power for a purpose. Defining the limits of what was necessary and achievable. However things were slowly moving forward; returning to Wilkinson (1820, above) to show the widening access to education including the Romanian language:

“Public schools have, since several years, been established both at Bukorest, and Yassi. They are supported at public expense, and attended by masters for the Wallachian, ancient and modern Greek languages, writing and arithmetic. The number of students at each school amounts at the present moment to about two hundred. They are the sons of inferior boyars and tradesmen”.

The early nineteenth century saw a nuanced recognition by the phanariot princes that “the writing was on the wall…” Their Ottoman Empire backers were part of a permanently weakened system in likely long-term irreversible decline. (Author Alex Drace-Francis is a generally a good source for this whole subject area).

As ordinary people in Moldavia gained more rights, status and opportunities, that had an important relative impact on their cousins in Bessarabia. The border couldn’t be completely sealed and the Russian authorities had to take note. Especially so in the first years when they were uncertain of their position in Bessarabia.

A summary found in the official 1870 British parliamentary records highlights some of the progress in the civil rights of the peasantry from the early nineteenth century:

“…in the reign of Prince Marusi [Mourousis, Moldavia, 1802 to 1806/7]… a right of demanding a lease of land in return for service was granted to the peasantry, on condition, however, that such a right should not extend to more than two-thirds of the lord’s manor…and for some years Prince Marusi’s Agrarian Law, which had been applied to that province, had been undisturbed.

In 1828 during the Russian occupation of Moldavia, Count Kisselef [Kiselev] caused an organic law to be promulgated in that country regulating, principally, the amount of work which the peasant could be called upon to do during the 12 days specified in Prince Marusi’s law.

…in 1834, Count (subsequently Prince) Woronzoff [Vorontsov] introduced a law into Bessarabia based on the principle of absolute freedom, both of land and labour, by which the settlement of the terms of tenancy was left to mutual agreement between lord and peasant.

Count Kisselef’s organic law, on the other hand, which continued to prevail in the neighbouring State of Moldavia, compelled the lord to lease and the peasant to rent land on terms specified by the law.”

Additionally civil law codes introduced in Moldavia in 1817 by Prince Callimachi (and Prince Caragea in 1818 for Wallachia) contained significant progressive measures. They contained a large import from the Austrian Civil Code of 1811. (Recommend quick read article by Iulia Zup, see bibliography).

This covered the introduction of natural rights (drituri fireşti), civil status (stare politicească) and the common good (obştescul folos) - into Moldavian law. On paper, these Austrian legal measures seriously advanced the rights of ordinary people.

However the power of the boyars and the unstoppable arbitrary impositions of the Ottoman Empire rendered them of little practical value in the short term. Also in Bukovina, where these laws were more properly applied, they hardly protected peasants day-to-day from the often brutish behaviour of Austrian soldiery in this closed military district. Also, only the children of Austrian born citizens were strictly protected by the 1811 Austrian Civil code.

In 1818, Governor Bakhmetiev adopted Callimachi’s code in Bessarabia.

Little by little over the decades, these measures improved the lot of Moldavians. They remained in force until 1866 in Moldavia and longer still in Bessarabia. Helping to lay the groundwork for other fit-for-purpose legal systems.

Moldavians were largely resigned to accept what those above them decided on their behalf. Politically, things were relatively quiet in the former Dacian territories. Its people had a mainly agrarian outlook and were naturally conservative. Socialising was mainly family based and constrained by the religious values of their conservative church.

Religious administration and reform

In 1812, the Christian faith was represented in Moldavia by the Eastern Orthodox faith. This was the Greek church based in Constantinople. Led by the Patriarch of Constantinople it was of course directly accountable to the Sultan. In the principalities, Russian influence was used to favour the preservation of this arrangement due to the greater fear of allowing an ethnically Romanian nationalistic church to be created.

Russia had important historical links with Christianity based in Byzantium (Constantinople or Istanbul). Its longterm objective was to secure control over this Orthodox Christian administration and its worldwide believers. This could entail conquering Constantinople itself. The principalities were a soft target on the way to achieving this, but there was the very likely threat of intervention by European powers to prevent this happening. Alexander 1 (unlike his grandmother, Catherine The Great) was less wary of this reaction. But the aftermath of 1812 reduced his ambitions in this direction.

Following the Treaty of 1812, the Holy Synod (in St Petersburg) could appoint an exarch to Bessarabia - the religious leader of the province (as a separate administrative entity). In 1812, Gavril (or Gabriel) Bănulescu-Bodoni became the Metropolitan of Chişinău: head of the church in Bessarabia. Originally from Transylvania from a family with roots in Bukovina, Bănulescu-Bodoni had held many senior positions including Metropolitan of Moldavia, and Kherson and the Crimea.

At the time, the Moldavian bishopric of Huşi spanned the Prut, covering part of west and east Moldavia. The southern “Turkish” region had an Ismail based “Christian” territory. All that would have to change.

In 1813, Tsar Alexander accepted Gavril's proposal to set up the new Archbishopric of Chişinău and Hotin which incorporated a large part of the southern Ukraine. This was partly to receive and manage new Christian colonists. Bănulescu-Bodoni continued in his position until his death in 1821.

In 1812, Bănulescu-Bodoni had taken charge of the surviving Moldavian churches in Bessarabia. These practised the Eastern Orthodox religion expressed through Moldavian language and culture. But the churches were very short of books of all kinds, and Gabriel was dependent on a limited capacity printing house in Iaşi. In 1813 Gabriel successfully petitioned the Holy Synod for permission to open a Romanian and Russian printing house in Chişinău. He needed to spread the word of God to his church congregations as quickly as possible. But there were further problems. Firstly, the existing Romanian books were insufficient for the task and badly translated. The other major problem, Gabriel describes later himself in 1816:

"[There is hardly anyone in the eparchy of Chişinău] who really knows Moldavian grammar and spelling, although so many people here used to both speak and write Moldavian."

So from 1813, Gabriel set about personally translating and generating various books. His output was prolific. Throughout all this, Bănulescu-Bodoni had the fullest and most active co-operation of the authorities in St Petersburg. This included Prince Golitsyn (mentioned in the next section). Additionally the Exarch had the material support of the British & Foreign Bible Society from 1816. (The society still operates today). This partnership developed after the arrival of the Reverend Robert Pinkerton who recorded the following in 1817 (his italics):

“The Exarch assured me, that he believed not fifty bibles were to be found in all the 800 churches belonging to his diocese. With a view, therefore, to relieve, in some measure, this lamentable scarcity of the word of God, I have made arrangements for printing 5000 bibles in the language of Moldavia and Wallachia, at the printing office of the Exarch, which has been but lately established. The Committee in St Petersburg will, it is hoped, furnish paper, ink, and types, for the whole edition; and his Eminence has most willingly undertaken the correction of the press. This edition, with the 5000 Testaments in the same language, now printing in St Petersburg, the sheets of which are regularly sent to the Exarch for correction, will prove a most salutary supply for the population of Moldavia and Wallachia, which is reckoned at nearly two millions. The exarch is of opinion, that the Bibles and Testaments will be received and read with great eagerness; because the language of the version is the very same that is now spoken in these countries.”

In 1813, Bănulescu-Bodoni opened a theological seminary in Chişinău. He made it clear then that Russian was the first language of choice for this task in Bessarabia, but that Romanian must be also taught as it was the predominant language of the population, followed by Latin.

But behind this routine picture lies another drama and a further divergence of religious practice in Moldavia and the new Bessarabia.

Moldavians and Wallachians had a practice of repeated (shallow) reburying of relatives close to their church with accompanying religious services. (Taki addresses this subject well). This raised important public health implications (the smell around these churches was often vile). The Russian state had gained an early understanding of the causes of disease (dealt with later). Officials in the principalities including Bănulescu-Bodoni were determined to address this practice. But aware of the strength of popular feeling, they simply proposed relocating the cemeteries behind walls outside the cities.

A normally cowed, subservient population bitterly opposed this with such inflamed religious passions that the church, army and reluctantly recruited boyars would not fully confront them over this in a sustained manner. The policy was abandoned in 1811. However Chişinău where the Russian authorities had a strong grip was a different story. From 1812 Bănulescu-Bodoni was firmly in charge and opposed to any unhealthy, outdated superstitious burial practices.

See: Between Polizeistaat and Cordon Sanitaire: Epidemics and Police Reform during Russian Occupation of Moldavia by Victor Taki, 2008

Bessarabia’s new capital developed a great ethnic and Christian religious mix. In 1817, Pinkerton recorded: “The number of inhabitants is about 15,000 of whom nearly 3000 are Jews”. Germans also made up a large proportion of Chişinău’s immigrants. An 1817 map made by the land-surveyor and architect Ozmidov detailed Christian cemeteries of “the Armenian, Catholic and Lutheran Confessions”. These are believed to have been walled cemeteries. (In 1817, Manuc Bei, in whose inn the 1812 treaty was signed, was buried in the Armenian cemetery).

In 1835 in Bessarabia, there were 853 churches, of which 134 were made of stone. Plus 16 chapels, 22 monasteries and convents. The majority fell under the Chisinau Eparchy of the Russian Orthodox Church. The others were within the new colonist settlements such as those of the Germans and Bulgarians who built their own churches.

Religious toleration, diplomacy, humanitarianism, education and the role of the Tsar

Tsar Alexander 1 initiated and supported religious toleration in Bessarabia, which was largely maintained after his death in 1825. But this new territory of Bessarabia had never been conceived as a haven for (mainly religious) refugees. The Prut boundary was seen as a temporary limit to expansion. The status, governance and political freedoms within these lands could be adjusted following the hoped for military conquests. Then Moldavia might even be reunited. Religious toleration was a necessary (medium-term) price for ensuring stability, military control, and the repopulation of this new territory.

Alexander 1 was the great victor of the patriotic war; Russia’s greatest victory to date. The war had also been a massive (if unavoidable) slaughter. Russia’s successful defence was General (later Field Marshal) Kutuzov’s latest triumph. An ugly business led by a physically ugly general who had bizarrely suffered two identical debilitating wounds above his right eye in two campaigns. He offended the Tsar’s idea of beauty: the Tsar could hardly bear to even look at him, and hated his style. The two clashed in January 1813. The Tsar insisted on prosecuting the war into Germany, and a seriously ill Kutuzov resisted: Kutuzov died three months later. In the immediacy, Kutuzov was right: the Russian army lacked the manpower and the logistics. The Tsar’s militaristic ambitions were somewhat deflated. He would have to challenge his energies elsewhere and recognise Russia’s temporary weakness in the face of old enemies.

Months later in 1814, the situation had changed dramatically and unexpectedly. The Tsar who had become increasingly sympathetic to the cause of religious tolerance had become close to the anti-war English Quakers. This was his new cause.

In June 1814, Alexander 1 made a triumphal visit to London. Here, there was a strong sense of gratitude. Tsar Alexander had ignored the (patriotic-humanitarian) wishes of Russians at all levels, sending Russian soldiers (under foreign command) deep into western Europe after Napoleon. Their sacrifice had made a valuable difference. From September 1814 the significant Congress of Vienna recognised Russia’s valuable role, reaching its conclusion in June 1815 (Treaty of Vienna). One reward was that Bessarabia’s status had been implicitly confirmed (by not being discussed).

In England, away from the celebrations, Alexander had attended Quaker meetings, and worshipped with them. On Alexander’s return to the coast, he noticed a Quaker family, and stopped to talk to them (much to their amazement). This was the start of his deep and meaningful relationship with the Quakers.

Apart from their pacifism, Quakers were both highly respectable and strong social reformers, deeply committed to the preservation of social stability and order. Their brand of humanitarian Protestantism saw each individual empowered (and expected) to make a personal connection with God through his son Jesus Christ. For they saw each person as a unique and personal reflection of their creator: the many faces of the one. True believers should carry, practise and spread his message in their daily lives. In this, they would be guided by (wise elders in) the Quaker church.

In 1816, the Tsar ordered an amalgamation of the ministry of education, the Synod and the Administration of Foreign Creeds under Golitsyn. This new combined ministry promoted evangelical Protestantism. There was much less room for bigotry or religious intolerance.

But this religious interest of the Tsar had another history. In December 1812, missionary John Paterson through Prince Golitsyn had persuaded Tsar Alexander 1 to set up a bible society. John Paterson, and Robert Pinkerton (covered previously), both Scots, were friends and collaborators in this new venture. Napoleon’s invasion caused them serious problems, but with absolute faith they worked around it.

The Reverend Robert Pinkerton who was a doctor of divinity, took the lead. The result was the St Petersburg Bible Society (later the Russian Bible Society). It held its first meeting in St Petersburg in January 2013. The British “parent” society initially funding it with £500.

Pinkerton had been in Russia from 1809, and in 1811 co-authored a work with Walckenaer – a work of geography (published in Paris!) with the principalities presented as under Russian Empire control. From a religious point of view, there was an element of truth in that.

For Bessarabia, the Reverend Robert Pinkerton recorded in November, 1817:

“It will afford you much satisfaction to hear of the final establishment of a Bible Society for Moldavia, in Kishenau, under the name of the Bessarabian Branch of the Russian Bible Society, The official accounts of this important transaction, which took place on the 27th of September, were laid before our yesterday's Committee, and listened to with delight. The speech of the Bishop of Bender, delivered on the occasion, is full of genuine evangelical sentiment and feeling. All the chief nobility and clergy of Bessarabia were present at the solemnity. The venerable Exarch Gabriel [Bănulescu-Bodoni], and the Governor General of Bessarabia, Bachmetjeff [Bakmetiev], were elected Vice-Presidents…”

“…it is matter of great satisfaction, that 5000 copies of the Moldavian New Testament are now printed off, and will immediately be sent to the Society at Kishenau, for distribution among the numerous tribes of Moldavians and Wallachians, that they may also read the word of God to fallen man, believe, and be saved.”

This non-institutional emphasis placed on the individual conflicted however with Russian state (religious) policy, and the (in practice) methods by which officials might implement it.

The state establishment was committed to expansion. Furthering this would almost certainly be by bloody war rather than solely by a peaceful crusade. There was no room for weakness and pacifism. The Tsar was the head of state, but to the boyars historically this role was primus inter pares (first amongst equals). They had murdered his father Tsar Paul and brazenly appointed Alexander in his place. Tsar Alexander would be perpetually haunted by the events which lead to his accession. Could the Tsar reconcile such fundamental contradictions between his official position (as others saw it) and his beliefs?

Meanwhile in one of Russia’s Lancastrian schools, visiting Quakers identified extracts of Voltaire, Cicero and other “heathen philosophers” in primers there. (The Lancastrian method was an English Quaker educational concept whereby the brightest trained pupils taught their juniors; it was adopted across the Russian empire). The Tsar accepted the Quakers’ challenge to his enlightenment upbringing (under Harpe). Action would be taken.

Abandoning the empire’s pluralist education approach, state power was placed in the hands of zealous, self serving religious minded officials who attacked the necessary, open-minded thinking in Russia’s universities. Recently appointed professors of philosophy were dismissed. Rational thinking (as it is known) was outlawed; religious tolerance had translated into secular intolerance. Predictably, the powerful enemies made by this approach allied themselves with the Russian Orthodox Church. In May 1824, they acted and forced the Tsar to completely abandon his religious policy. They stopped the translation of the Bible into Russian (burning all copies), and closed all the Bible societies.

It was a terrible blow to the Tsar, who deeply saddened, died a year later. A few days before his death one report provides one of the many examples of the Tsar’s deepened religious humanitarianism as he approached his end in the Crimea.

“One day he [the Tsar] was seen standing on the flat roof of a Tartar house, with upwards of one hundred of the natives in their oriental costume around him, whom he was eagerly regarding through his eye-glass, with much regard and affection, when gratified with the sight, he exclaimed, ‘what magnificent countenances, and what a fine race of men they are! They must not be expelled from the country’ alluding to what most Russians ardently desired, in order to introduce people of their own race.”

Travels Through the Crimea, Turkey, and Egypt… by James Webster, 1830. (Account based on the observations of Sir James Wylie, personal physician to the Tsar).

Tsar Alexander’s vision of beauty, decency and the peaceful co-existence of different peoples which arguably applied to (the inception of) Bessarabia was not totally shared by his nobles and subjects. These people had demonstrated they were not impotent.

Ultimately, much of the power in the Russian empire rested in its boyars, Orthodox Church leaders and generals.

The politics of administration and reform - revisited

From the time of the 1806 – 12 war, Russian generals introduced administrative reforms (across all of Moldavia, and Wallachia) aimed at a more equitable collection of resources for the Russian army.

Spurred on by the failure of the corrupt systems to properly supply the Russian army, its generals intervened. Other decisions, like the earlier choice of Chişinău as the main central town in eastern Moldavia to direct operations would have a lasting, significant impact.

Under the Ottoman empire system, in Moldavia (lesser) boyars were employed as officials called ispravniks who had both judicial and tax raising powers. Unsurprisingly there were considerable abuses. The accounts they kept were personal and destroyed when they moved on. They were responsible for reporting the number of tax payers, and their under-reporting was frequently as high as 50%. Tax payers could become exempt on payment of a fee (bribe).

Russian generals in the Principalities appointed mid-ranking officers and other Russian officials in a constantly evolving struggle to stop abuses. (Taki describes this well). Particularly galling to them was the continuing accusation that the population’s suffering was all due to the Russian army. The occupation had stopped the enormous supply of food to Istanbul (Constantinople) and the generals’ calculation was that the Russian army was taking less. Provided boyars and officials behaved appropriately the situation was deemed acceptable. However due to ispravniks corruptly exempting a whole (middle) class of taxpayers, the burden fell on the poorest and most vulnerable.

Additionally soldiers and junior officers often abused their positions with the local populace. It was perhaps this last abuse which was the most remembered and resented. (These complaints were registered and some recorded for all time). Russian generals were aware of these abuses, determined to stop them, but limited in what they could practically achieve. Set alongside these favourable intentions was a record of refusing most appeals from the population complaining about the Russian army’s arbitrary seizure and sequestration of their resources, forced labour demands, and physical abuse especially of females. Overall, a large and involved subject covered in detail by Romanian sources:

Tratatul de Pace de la Bucharesti din 1812… and Politici Imperiale în Estul și Vestul Spațiului Românesc. These sources contain contributions from many expert historians mainly in Romanian.

One area often overlooked by modern authors is a comparison of the living standards, rights and freedoms between Russian serfs and the poorest inhabitants of the principalities. To say Moldavians feared serfdom might seem academic to a peasant whose cart, livestock, and food have effectively been stolen, his house billeted upon, his wife abused, and who is forced to work for the Russian army for nothing, away from home, worried about his children. Conforming serfs, especially Russian crown serfs had acknowledged rights ! Normally, serfs were treated better than this.

Many Russian serfs lived in relatively good conditions. Before their emancipation in Russia, a minority of landlords there wanted an end to serfdom, because it contained obligations and complications affecting flexible estate management. Paying someone a small wage for a service could be simpler. Here’s a limited extract from Hommaire de Hell’s account of the subject, describing part of the picture:

“Except in years of great dearth, such as often desolate the country, the [Russian serf] peasant has his means of existence secured; his dwelling, his cattle, and his little field of buckwheat… he may be considered much better off than the free peasants of the other European states [!] With plenty of food, his dwelling well warmed in winter, his mind disencumbered with all those anxieties for the future that harass our labouring poor…”

A simplified perspective, but Russian serfdom was often complex and varied. For example, in 1832, serf Nikolai Shipov, a wealthy merchant (!), escaped with his wife from an unfair situation in Russia. They fled to Chisinau, then Briceni, Iasi, Bukovina, Odessa, and so on using false passports & IDs, attempting to trade goods and pursued by people dispatched to track them down. Shipov provides a full rich account of this journey and his personal connections. The Russian authorities took action against the family including separating his daughter from her grandmother and sending her to another landowner. Worth visiting:

“The Story of My Life and Wanderings” by Nikolai Shipov. Part of “Four Russian Serf Narratives” by John Mackay, 2009.

Returning to Bessarabia, the above cited abuses of the population, may not happen all at once, but they could all easily happen to one family, over-and-over. When would it end? When in 1828-9, war resumed with the Ottoman Empire, the above abuses intensified in Bessarabia.

Post 1812 Bessarabia saw renewed adaptations and changes to the above situations. There remained an enormous level of abuses. Count Vorontsov who became the governor in 1823 immediately threw himself into the fullest investigation and examination of all aspects of the administration. For example, the Russian authorities made greater use of police as part of the justice system. Writing to Von Campenhausen in August 1823, Vorontsov said of the Chişinău police: “their abuses have long been known about. A special commission even named names, but it took no action and the police get worse every day.” Vorontsov replaced the chief of police and placed nearly all members of the Chişinău police under investigation.

An understanding of this period comes largely from the letters and records of the Russian authorities. The highly informal, personalised Moldavian system based more on word of mouth understandings is largely lost to history.

Nation status and self-government – a new amalgamated state: its citizens’ self-identity, language, and the effect of colonisation

In 1828, Finnish officer Frederik Nyberg, writing from Hotin had recorded: “All over Bessarabia, the people speak Moldavian”.

1828 was the year that Bessarabia’s autonomous status was officially ended – after a ten year tenure (from the 1818 constitution). Although the commitment to autonomy stemmed from 1812, as follows:

“They [the Moldavians] were promised the maintenance of their laws, their language, their courts of justice, and all the administrative machinery of their country. The governors were to be chosen from the native magnates, and the province was to keep intact those commercial liberties and franchises which formed the basis of its agricultural prosperity”.

Source: The Beacon: a journal of politics and literature, 1853

Tsar Alexander 1 was sincere about the implementation of Bessarabia’s autonomy. But Russian state officials had little enthusiasm for implementing plans which entailed passing power and control to non-Russians. So how realistic were those plans?

Alexander Pushkin, one of the few supporters of the Tsar’s democratic aims (and also one of his greatest critics) “exiled” to Bessarabia in 1821 discussed and promoted democracy amongst a group who included the Decembrist plotters. This included Vladimir Rayevsky, Mikhail Orlov and Pavel Pestel. They discussed these affairs of state with Constantin Stamati, one of Bessarabia’s great Moldavian literary figures (died 1869), who often played host to Pushkin. (Webster Vol.2, 1830, covers the Decembrist plotters in detail).

The failure of the 1825 Decembrist plot marked an end to such liberal ideas and democratic hopes. Except that General Kiselev on the plot’s periphery surprisingly survived the backlash and as governor of the principalities from 1829 cleverly helped steer Romania in its path towards independence. See “The wider European context” below. (Romanians still hold him in high regard for this achievement).

The autonomy sought for Bessarabia in Tsar Alexander 1’s time depended upon self-dependence and self-reliance with an argument based (as in the above 1853 quote) on the benefits of the existing system being preserved. From the same article above the new state was: “justly reputed one of the most fertile and productive provinces of the Black Sea”. But the account acknowledges the significant loss of Eastern and other markets. What efforts would the “native magnates” make to address and overcome these problems? As we have seen above, Count Vorontsov threatened Bessarabia’s boyars in 1821 to mend their ways or else... For by then Bessarabia was heavily in debt to the Russian state. To understand Vorontsov better, it should be noted that he personally had settled the large debts of his officers in France while the Russian Army was resident there.

In contrast, we have (for example) a character assessment of the (largely phanariot) boyars in the principalities made by its former British Consul-General William Wilkinson in 1820. About the boyars’ management of property and wealth, Wilkinson’s critical evaluation (in part) runs:

“The quality of nobility protects them from the suits of the creditor; and the hope of obtaining lucrative employments, by the revenues of which they may be able to mend their affairs, sets their minds at ease, and induces them to continue in extravagance. Some bring forward their ruin as a pretext for soliciting frequent employment, and when the creditors have so often applied to the prince to oblige him to interfere, they represent that the payment of their debts depends upon him placing them in office. The office is finally obtained and the debts remain unpaid.”

A few months after Vorontsov’s threats, the state’s debt was called in. The boyars were expected to pay up and many were ruined. Their estates were distributed to prominent Russian state supporters. (See end of “Route map to autonomy…” section above).

Arguably ordinary Moldavians were never properly represented by their own kind after 1812. (It’s questionable to what extent they had been before that). Just actually using their language as the primary governance source included in official documents would have been a good step forward towards that objective. As above, in 1828, Nyberg writing to his father had said: “all over Bessarabia, the people speak Moldavian”.

In 1829, Romanian was no longer an official language in Bessarabia. Then, 1834 saw the start of a wider, escalating ban on the use of the Romanian language in Bessarabia’s institutions, churches and the media. Recent, foreign colonists such as the Germans, had more rights and less fear with the use and publication of their languages than Moldavians who for centuries had spoken their language on the same soil.

Projecting forwards seventy years later, Moldavians remained in the majority in Bessarabia speaking Moldavian (or Romanian), the dominant language of everyday speech there. Moldavians have always heavily predominated in the central country regions of eastern Moldavia / Bessarabia / Moldova.

The created state of Bessarabia had never been one homogenous whole.

Areas in the south of Bessarabia formerly under the direct control of the Turks carried a sense of “otherness”. Von Campenhausen, publishing in 1808:

“The streets in Bender are extremely gloomy, narrow, and dirty. The filthiness which is peculiar to Turkish towns is almost incredible, and forms a singular contrast with the frequent ablutions which the Mahometan religion commands. Dead horses, oxen, dogs, &c. lie and rot in the streets, and are perhaps in a great degree productive of the plague, which so often ravages these countries.”

In September 1813, a complaint was made to governor Garting (Harting) by Moldavian parties about “…improper stewardship in Bender due to its location at the edge of the region. Creating inconvenience for land stewardship in the management of a remote rural population forced to travel great distances...” The proposal, approved by Garting was to move the administrative centre to Căuşeni for those parties closer to it. Acknowledging this region’s separate history, the new Russian regime appointed a bishop of Bender and Akkerman (Demetrius, who served for many years).

The separation is expressed as a more historical north-south divide in: “The Universal Geography…”. Relating to the 1856 - 1878 period when Romania had secured most of the Budjak region. Its author Élisée Reclus says:

“The plains of Wallachia were defended formerly by an ancient line of fortifications to the north of these [Danube and Prut] locks and lagoons and known as Trajan’s Wall… This ancient barrier of defence coincided pretty nearly with the political boundary between Russian and Rumanian Bessarabia, and extended probably to the west of the Pruth, across the whole of Moldavia and Wallachia… A second wall, still traceable between Leova and Bender, defended the approaches to the valley of the Danube.”

Also from 1856, the above defined territory is similar to:

“… the genuine steppes… [which] commence in the angle [from the point at] which the Pruth and Danube form with the sea with their efflux into it, extend through Bessarabia at Kishenef, through a corner of Podolia…”

Source: The Russian Empire: Its People, Institutions and Resources by Baron Von Haxthausen, 1856

The above suggests that the southern part had a separate character, past and culture. A separation re-enforced by the failure to have a proper road / track from the Budjak, running north to for example, Chisinau. There being no direct postal service between the new capital and the Budjak. Instead mail was relayed via Bender (Tighina).

The Russian state enacted a separate policy of colonisation in the southern region.

But the northern part of Bessarabia also became the focus of colonisation. Censuses between 1815 and 1817 showed a large influx of Podolian citizens which accompanied former Podolian governor, Bakhmetiev’s appointment as viceroy in 1816 (see Taki). These immigrants may have been largely Ruthenians and Rusyns see below. But by 1842, northern Bessarabia’s countryside was still predominantly Moldavian in language and style. As Russian traveller Nikolaĭ Giers reported:

“On leaving the quarantine I went to Khotin [Hotin] by the relay horses. The part of Bessarabia that I crossed differs from Moldavia only in that the post-horse transportation and the stations are similar to the Russian style. The population is the same - Rumanian with only some admixture of Little Russian ["Ukrainian"]. Gypsy camps were everywhere along the way. The Russian language is prevalent in the cities, but the natives or ţărani [peasants] seldom understood Russian. The villages look exactly like those in Moldavia…”

So many different ethnic groups with so many different languages and beliefs settled in Bessarabia in the decades after 1812. Their ideas and descriptions adding to Bessarabians’ vocabulary (just as later, adopted Soviet technical terms would be claimed as part “proof” of “Moldovan”, the separate language). Much of the “peasant language” [Language History page] probably dates from the decades after 1812.

Many of these foreign settlers were granted special privileges setting them apart culturally, politically, legally and economically probably in many cases for generations. That would have had a significant social impact.

But this colonisation situation wasn’t new to the newly created state of Bessarabia. Under the ukase (decree) of 1763, Catherine The Great had implemented a major new pro-colonisation policy which persisted beyond 1812:

“The conditions and privileges which Catherine II granted to these settlers are the same as have been granted to all subsequent colonists… 1. Free exercise of their religion, and endowment of their churches by the State, 2. Exemption from military and civil service for ever, 3 Freedom from all taxes for a certain number of years and afterwards payment of the usual taxes of all Russian Crown peasants, 4. Self government in administration and police, under a department of the government appointed expressively for them, 5. Administration of justice among themselves in their own disputes.”

An abbreviated description from: The Russian Empire: Its People, Institutions and Resources by Baron Von Haxthausen, 1856.

The colonisation was firstly a result of the failure to properly integrate and incorporate “Ukrainians” (very proud Cossacks) into the enlarged Russian state. Secondly, the strict hierarchical system of serfdom limited the movement of serfs to their estates. The two factors were significantly interconnected, (see final section - "The wider European context"). Additionally the serfs themselves had internalised values restricting them from stepping outside social and geographical boundaries. The evolving class system which categorised groups into social estates (sosoloviia) would necessarily have to give status and rights to new settlers, (partly or fully) protecting them from landlord control. Defending Russia’s new territories required the promotion of these new loyal and capable subjects.

However in practice it was a slow start for many of the first settlers (in Bessarabia) as they struggled on often uncultivated land with inadequate shelter, building materials and food to start them off. Many died in the first year. Funds and resources were often stolen by corrupt officials. That is why General Inzov’s protective, interventionist approach won him so many friends particularly amongst the Bulgarians. After an often very difficult start, the size of these new communities started to rise sharply. They also spawned new neighbouring settlements.

The Russian authorities wanted more Slavs in Bessarabia; this is seen in their correspondence and records over the nineteenth century. They warmed especially to the Bulgarians. An early example being a letter from General Kiselev to Inzov expressing concern for the Bulgarians’ well-being and development.

Exploring the issues behind this in detail: Migration and Disease in the Black Sea Region… by Andrew Robarts, 2016

The Russian state also wanted competent (western) European settlers, especially capable farmers and farm managers. For they already had experience of their talents and abilities (including in the principalities). A revealing description from Moldavia by William Wilkinson, British Consul-General to the Principalities (1813-16), puts this in perspective. Referring especially to the 1812 – 1815 period in Moldavia province:

“A great number of Transylvanian and Hungarian gentry of the inferior rank are attracted by the advantages of renting the Boyars’ estates. According to the treaties existing between the Porte and other powers, foreign subjects are not permitted in any manner to hold, as proprietors, landed property in the Ottoman dominions; the prince of Moldavia observing how little this stipulation had been attended to in his principality, thought it necessary, in 1815, to issue a decree which ordered the expulsion of foreign farmers. The Boyars, whose best estates were under their management, and who had every reason to be satisfied with them, strongly opposed the measure; their representations finally induced the prince to give his tacit consent to their wishes…”

By contrast, the Russian state wanted to attract and retain capable and hard working farmers from other parts of Europe, with German farmers considered amongst the best. But these peoples were prepared to accept Russian citizenship. (With the initial exception of many Bulgarians who used this as a negotiating position for proper, respectful treatment). The colonisation policy was supported by western Europe, and western European officials in Russian service, and other agents. For example, Tardain, the French-Swiss promoter of the Swiss Shaba settlement met Governor Inzov (and then Pushkin in a typically colourful encounter).

In 1822, Swiss settlers were welcomed by General Inzov to Shaba / Shabo on the Budjak coast near Akkerman (Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi); there they planted Shaba’s famous vineyards. It was a few miles downstream from the Leuntea winery founded in 1817 by French Lieutenant-General Ponset (Poncet). A favourite haunt of Count Vorontsov, (Ponset’s Napoleonic War fellow officer & colleague), who visited it with Pushkin in 1824. Ponset hired French and German winemaking experts to make its highly prized wines.

German settlers had been invited into the Crimea 1805 - 1810. There they had to live alongside Tartars (to help protect the regime from them). Following this, both nationalities were settled in the Budjak on former Tartar lands.

In 1803, the Duc de Richelieu, Odessa’s new governor had invited in 116 German catholics. After kindly sheltering them in Odessa during the winter, he placed them in Josephstal, a piece of empty, deserted land, south-west of Odessa.

“In the year 1819 the [Imperial Agricultural Establishment] was formed on the Steppe southward of the town [Odessa]…It is a nursery for fruit and forest trees…M Schmitz, a German, conducts the Establishment, which is supported by an annual donation of 10,000 roubles from the Emperor, certain sums advanced by the town, and what may be derived from the sale of trees, shrubs, & c.”

Source: Travels in Russia… etc. by Edward Morton, 1830 (see bibliography section).

A large number of Germans also continued to settle near to Odessa and further north-west in the future Transnistria region (until the fateful events of 1940).

In 1835, C.B. Elliott, the vicar of Godalming passed through this region:

“A considerable part of the land near Odessa is in the hands of German colonists, who live in villages of their own erection, entirely consigned to them and called by such national names as Strasburg and Manheim. Fifteen of these German villages are between Taraspol and Odessa.”

“The villages themselves form a striking contrast to those of the native Russians. Each house is built of stone, white-washed, neatly thatched and surrounded by a low wall.”

In 1839, German villages on both sides of the Dniester were visited by American missionary, Schauffler and a Scot:

“At this time I became acquainted with Mr. Melville [in Odessa], who was laboring as a Bible agent without salary, earning his livelihood by giving lessons in the English language. We immediately became warm friends. Before leaving South Russia, Mr. Melville and myself planned a missionary tour through the German villages on either side of the Dniester.”

German and Russian involvement transformed Bender and Tiraspol. Russian traveller and author Demidov describes this in his 1837 published account:

“The citadel, which stands apart from Bender, is of considerable extent, and encloses within its modern works the ruins of the ancient Turkish fortress; it is garrisoned by six hundred artillerymen. This place has lost a great deal of its importance since it has come to be so far within the bounds of the territory. As a frontier town of the Turks, it was doubtless of great value to them in the midst of this open country, and near the river which it commands.”

Demidov then further emphasises the developing military importance of the area:

“Tiraspol with its citadel and a large encampment of artillery beneath its walls, passed rapidly before our eyes…”

Further to this, British visitor Henry Danby Seymour recorded in 1855:

“5^th Corps…headquarters are at Odessa…Its artillery station is at Tyraspol on the Dniestr, which is one of the great arsenals of Russia. It was borrowed to reinforce the army of the Caucasus in 1843…and it has been commanded since 1840 by General Luders, a German.” (There were other German generals in the Russian army at that time).

By 1828, the number of Germans, Austrians and Swiss registered in southern Bessarabia had reached about 10,000. Joined by a wide variety of other peoples: Russians, Armenians, Jews etc.; the communities they created were very mixed, peaceful and co-operative. But there was little inter-marriage between them. Partly because of each groups’ adherence to their own particular religious beliefs. But romantic inter-mixing did take place. For example Pushkin who liked all races had affairs with Jewish women in Chişinău.

Jews had been an important ethnic minority present in Moldavia for centuries, representing about 7 - 10% of the Bessarabian population in the first half of the nineteenth century. Von Campenhausen (again), 1808:

“There is a large well-built synagogue in Kischenau, in which I saw the death of the high priest Gedalia, which occurred 1500 years ago, bewailed with as much vociferous sorrow, and with as copious floods of tears, as if he had been dead but a few hours. The frogs, which are more abundant and more noisy here than in any other part of Europe, rendered the lamentations of the Jews still more impressive.”

In eighteenth century central and eastern Europe, Judaism had developed an important new branch - Hasidic Judaism – which by the 1830s had surpassed traditional practice in its support. Crucially it integrated better into local cultures, Wikipedia:

“…individual Hasidic groups often share with each other underlying philosophy, worship practices, dress (borrowed from local cultures), and songs (borrowed from local cultures).”

This had contributed to an important positive changed background situation prior to the influx of Jews into the new state of Bessarabia, some background:

The founder of the eighteenth century Hasidic movement, Baal Shem Tov (Israel ben Eliezer) was born in a village close to Hotin (Khotyn) in 1698. But located his headquarters 100 miles to the north-east in (what was then) more friendly territory (at Medzhybizh). From Wikipedia:

“…[In Poland and Podolia in the eighteenth century] an economic renaissance ensued, magnates began a massive rebuilding and repopulation effort while being generally welcoming and benevolent towards the Jews. A type of frontier environment ensued where new people and new ideas were encouraged.”

The account immediately continues: “The state of the Jews of what would later become southern Russia…” The waves of Russian conquests of Poland and Podolia from the late eighteenth century saw a broad series of adverse step changes towards the Jews. Largely due to the very unaccommodating agendas exercised by Russian officials towards them.

The new state of Bessarabia progressively became a relatively more attractive place for Jews to live in.

Jewish people settled easily in the new Bessarabia within their established sixteen colonies, of which nine were in Soroca with a further three in the north. Many Jewish immigrants came from (what is now) the Ukraine. Their main language was German (the language of business), with Russian as a common second. With German villages on both sides of the Dniester, and the clearance of obstacles in the Dniester between Dubossary and Hotin (Khotyn) by the end of the nineteenth century (see agriculture section below), the Jewish presence there increased. This was delimited (but also arguably partly encouraged) by the fact that Jews weren’t allowed to settle anywhere near Bessarabia’s external border:

“…the fifty-verst [33 mile] tract along the frontier is the only section of Bessarabia from which the Jews have been debarred by law, without a break, during the period of 1812-1904.”

Memoirs of A Russian Governor by Prince Urusov, 1908

However, as you often find with Bessarabia, the reality on the ground is often different. In Briceni, right on the border with Moldavia, Jews could be found in possibly the highest concentration anywhere in Bessarabia by the 1850s. Major Jewish settlement had begun in 1817, and by the population census of 1897, the 7,184 residents in 1897 represented 96.5% of the population. Source: John Mackay, see bibliography. Interesting to add that Matei Krupenski, who became Bessarabia’s vice-governor 1816 - 1823 came from this area where he owned a large estate.

The Briceni Jewish influx may have been as part of Bakhmetiev’s influx of Podolian citizens, many of whose Jews lived on that border. Weighing in Garting’s pro-enterprise outlook and elevation of Jewish occupied Causeni as an administration centre implies like-minded co-operation between Krupenski, Garting and Bakhmetiev in supporting Jewish occupation.

Bessarabia's 1818 Statutory Law (Aşezământul) placed Jews into a separate state (social class). This was sub-divided into merchants, tradesmen, and land-workers. Jews were allowed to store and control the sale of spirits on government and private manors, to possess "mills, velniţas, breweries, and similar holdings", but explicitly forbidden to "rule over Christians".

These were the Jews’ main business areas, which they also dominated. In 1821, a new set of regulations covering these different types of hostelries was met in 1822 by an opposing petition addressed to Matei Krupenski (although he was only the vice-governor). The regulation now controlled these hostelries’ ownership structure, defining the status and permitted trading activities of hotels, restaurants, cafes and pubs.

Rom. source: “Modernisation of Trading Establishments and Goods Distribution in Bessarabia, 1812 - 1863” by Andre Emilciuc. (Proper title in bibliography).

Unlike other social classes, Jews were forbidden from owning agricultural land, with the exception of "empty lots only from the property of the state, for cultivation and for building factories".

In 1835 (the policy changed), Jews were encouraged to become farmers as part of Russian state “regulations that, while opening to them the freedom to gain security through farming and industry, would at the same time remove possibilities for them to adopt idleness and illegal activities”. It appears to have only been properly implemented in Bessarabia. There, unlike other settlers, Jews received no grants or special assistance. They tended to settle on privately leased cultivated land.

The reign of Tsar Nicholas 1, 1825 – 1855 saw a far more interventionist policy towards Jews in the Russian empire outside of Bessarabia. That was in The Pale of Settlement (the part of the western Russian empire Jews were allowed to live in).

Tsar’s Nicholas’ evolving Jewish policies frequently had unpleasant consequences. Jews faced forced conscription often administered unfairly by their own kind. They faced more than the usual “social engineering” in being placed into different social classes. The context here is important however, with a changing complex picture well conveyed by Benjamin Nathans in his 2002 book.

By contrast, Jews in Bessarabia had far more protection, rights, status and opportunities.

Tsar Nicholas I issued an ukaz (decree) that allowed Jews to settle in Bessarabia "in as higher number", giving settled Jews two years free of (their double) taxation. At the same time, Jews from Podolia and Kherson Governorates were given five years free of taxation if they crossed the Dniester to settle in Bessarabia. Unlike most of the rest of the Russian empire, in Bessarabia, Jews were allowed to occupy fairs and cities. But (in a further contradiction), the authorities there weren’t always so welcoming…

The story of Jewish settlement in Bessarabia in the 1830s, 40s and 50s was one of struggle between Count Vorontsov and later Tsar Alexander II who acted in the Jews favour against Bessarabia’s governors and boyars. Many Jews did settle in Bessarabia. In 1844, there were about 50,000 Jews in Bessarabia: a proportion of the growing population which may have actually declined since 1812.

The 1835 agricultural policy lasted until 1866, and was then utterly reversed under the notorious May Laws of 1882.

Jews and gypsies were perhaps the most visible people in Bessarabia (and Moldavia). Giving the impression their numbers were greater than they were. Travellers would often stay at Jewish run inns. Transactions with the authorities could be arranged through Jews. The facilitation of business and finance was often through them. They helped make the system work, and represented movement and development in the economy. Their enterprising efforts could even change attitudes. Governor Feodorov who had been unhelpful in supporting Jewish settlement endorsed the (Vorontsov promoted) proposal by Austrian Jews to float and sell timber along the Dniester in 1840. They would have to overcome physical obstacles that others were not prepared to tackle (see below under Trade and Agriculture section). The governor was impressed by the results.

The Jewish influence was all pervasive. But the opportunistic Jews were often seen as strange foreigners with an unaccountable appearance, language and beliefs. Perceived as overly assertive and at times awkward, argumentative, and even blatantly exploitative. A situation complicated by divisions in Jewish society (see Nathans’ book). Shrewd observer, Annette Meakin had this to say about the Jews she saw in Chişinău in 1905:

“…English people are apt to forget that there are as many classes of society among the Jews, as many degrees in the social scale, as there are amongst ourselves in Great Britain; and they also forget that even in Russia, the Jews, though all of one race, are of many different nationalities.”

Jews were the ninth of nine categories in the 1818 “Establishment of the organisation of the province of Bessarabia” (see above). The eighth category was the gypsies who like the Jews appeared ever present. Subdivided into state owned gypsies and privately owned gypsies, their numbers were small. In 1812, Scarlat Sturdza authorised a survey which found 340 families in the state category. Another count in 1813 found 221 families suggesting that many had fled along with other Moldavians. Gypsies were divided into three tax paying classes. Under the former regime the annual tax was called dajdie. Gypsies were controlled by the provincial authorities.

In 1829, a decree forbade gypsies from working on state lands. While in that year, Count Vorontsov attempted to forcibly settle gypsies into two new Budjak settlements: Cair and Faraonovca. In his typically kindly patrician style, on offer was a cash loan, wheat for sowing and exemption from taxes for four years. In 1836 there were 752 gypsy families in those places in a miserably wretched condition. The experiment was largely a failure. The gypsies returned to their travelling lives as tinkers and musicians. Various measures against the gypsies co-incided with a continual reduction in their numbers especially from the 1830s. But their concentration in Bessarabia remained the highest in the Russian empire in line with the province’s reputation for better treatment of its inhabitants.

Most of Bessarabia’s colonists were Slavs, now simply called Ukrainians (largely thanks to Soviet policy) but containing “Little Russians”, “Ruthenians” and “Rusyns”, with their often different languages, customs and even ethnicity. This diversity is often under estimated. For example, Ruthenian national costume was commonly seen in Bukovina until the Soviet era.

Ruthenians and Rusyns spoke (what might now be regarded as) variants of Ukrainian. When Russian and Ukrainian speakers mix in similar numbers, there’s a strong tendency for cross-usage of each other’s languages. The result: a varying language melange called surzhyk. This is Ukrainian based, but obviously influences Russian speakers. There being many Bessarabians who used Russian as a second language. Even today, Moldova’s Russian speakers use words they think of as Russian, but are not. (The variability being much greater than any differences between Soviet “Moldovan” and Moldavian-Romanian…).

Inhabitants of the Ukraine, especially in the west (of their territory), deeply disliked surzhyk. The development of complex language mixes in (northern) Bessarabia and “Transnistria” marking out distinctions between these adjoining Russian dominated zones, or states. (Use of the Ukrainian language was heavily suppressed under Soviet rule). Relevant to that, a description of an 1841 journey taken by well-known Russian diarist and senior civil servant, Nicholai Giers:

“On leaving Kamenets, we raced straight for Moldavia… in the direction of Khotin… I crossed the Dniester and found myself in Bessarabia… For a distance from the Dniester, one could still hear Russian speech, Ukrainian to be more exact, but little by little it disappeared and was finally replaced by the Moldavian tongue.”

A population survey from the 1850s showed that Ruthenians were the second largest group at 13.1% with Great Russians 2.1%, Ukrainians (“Little Russians”) 0.5%. Jews 8.6%, Bulgarians 5.2%, Germans 2.6%, Gypsies 1%, Armenians, Poles and Swiss 0.3%. Romanians made up two-thirds of the population.

The Romanian state would at times identify some of these Slavs as (former) Romanians who had adopted or married into Slavic culture. (Romania now recognises Rusyns as a separate ethnic group).

On a comparison of population, in 1831, the Russian authorities carried out a population survey in the principalities revealing an unexpectedly large three million people, with Wallachia containing a greater number. Compared to an approximate expected 550,000 in Bessarabia for that time - a state roughly the size of Moldavia itself - and Bessarabia’s depopulation is made clear.

The 1831 “Romania” survey disclosed an 85% proportion of ethnic Romanians. So compare with the 1850’s survey above, and the full effect of Bessarabia’s colonisation is made clear. Also perhaps indicating a reluctance by Moldavians to “grow” in Bessarabia. Cultural reasons may have played a part in this.

In the new Romania, education in Romanian language and history became an important issue at the end of the nineteenth century, where it was strongly promoted. But in Bessarabia its teaching was (by that time) strictly forbidden. Between 1818 and 1828 Romanian (stated as Moldavian) had officially been a state language alongside Russian. Although the practice was likely to have been very different given that (as Archbishop Bănulescu-Bodoni discovered) seemingly all learned Moldavian scholars had fled by 1812.

Post 1828, recorded Romanian / Moldavian had little acceptable place in Bessarabia.

With the Romanian language progressively developing in Wallachia and Moldavia with a strong French influence and then also in Latin script, in Bessarabia, ordinary Moldavians felt left behind. They had to use Russian words to supplement a vocabulary limited to basic domestic matters, old established agricultural methods, handicraft, folklore and prayers. The church (in Bessarabia), a traditional supporter and promoter of education had its religious documents in Cyrillic. As described below, the westernisation of Romanian created transitional issues in Romania. But in Bessarabia it presented an insurmountable barrier. Moldavians in Bessarabia appear to have been largely conscious of the (increasing) language disparity between themselves and their Moldavia province neighbours (which included relatives and friends). After decades of Russian occupation,” this affected and divided Moldavians’ understanding of themselves (in Bessarabia’s ethnically diverse state).”

There was an “absence of a well defined collective identity in the ranks of the Bessarabian Moldovans” says Cusco. People there used many names to describe or identify themselves. He adds: “the name of ‘Romanian’ (român/rumân) did not, probably, bear any ethnic connotation for the Bessarabian peasants”. Instead it meant peasant or serf. An unchanged identity that people saw themselves defined by: the social class they were forcibly held down to. Cusco pursues the concept of their “reactive identity” in relation to the Russian occupation. So by the end of the nineteenth century, how Moldavian were these people?

To understand better the context behind that:

“Russia was… a corporate society with different laws for different social estates [groups of people]…. [while during the nineteenth century] a hierarchy of culturally and juridicially distinct estates was still developing… the status of social estates (sosolovie, plural sosoloviia) in Russia was particularly complex…”

Taken from: Beyond The Pale: The Jewish Encounter with Late Imperial Russia by Benjamin Nathans, 2002.

In the highly multi-ethnic cities, citizens of Bessarabia arguably saw their identities subsumed within the great Russian empire. Many were refugees, often fleeing religious persecution, sometimes even from other parts of Russia (!) For them Bessarabia was a haven which gave them hope, expression and sufficient freedom.

In the Bessarabian countryside, (Moldavians’) identity was formed in the villages. Each of which contained unique customs and language variations. (They still do). It’s these differences which underpin any sense of (Moldovan) nationalism. For they represent a right to express differences within the umbrella of a common over-arching identity.

The rise of nationalism

In the second half of the nineteenth century many east European countries were defining their nationalism for the first time. Peoples of mainly one ethnicity, along with others with compatible belief systems and cultures who sought to (form and) live in nation states within their region.

Europe was ablaze with rebellion. 1848 was The Year of Revolution. In Moldavia, the rebellion was a small scale affair led by intellectuals and easily suppressed. (Alexander Cuza was one of the chief rebels. Captured and sent to Vienna, Cuza then quickly escaped with British help).

With freedom as a driving cause, slavery was abolished in Moldavia in 1855. In Bessarabia it existed for slaves transferred from Moldavia province. In 1861 the 11,000 Roma slaves there were freed.

In 1859, Romanians in Wallachia and Moldavia were able to choose their rulers and quickly chose Alexander Cuza to reunite their provinces. Unification was the Romanians overwhelming priority. And as they all hoped for, the two principalities were united as simply as fading a line on a map. (Merging the administrations took a while to complete).

But this was just part of the territory which Romanian people occupied in large numbers. From a late nineteenth century guide:

“The ethnological boundaries of Rumania are far wider than are the political ones, for they embrace not only Wallachia and Moldavia beyond the Carpathians, but also Russian Bessarabia, a portion of the Bukovina, the greater portion of Transylvania, as well as extensive tracts in the Banat and Eastern Hungary… Rumania proper has an area of only 46,709 square miles, but the countries of the Rumanians occupy at least twice that extent, and their numbers exceed 8,000,000, most of whom dwell in a compact mass on the Lower Danube and the adjoining portions of Hungary and Russia.”

“The Universal Geography…” by Élisée Reclus.

In 1812, ethnic Romanians had a well established culture with songs, ballads and dances. For example, eight years later in Chisinau, Pushkin adapted the Moldavian song “The Black Shawl” - one of many folksy songs and popular stories of peasant life. Its popularity now enduring in Russian guise too.

In 1812, there were also songs and ballads of heroic Romanian figures. Historical figures with achievements towards the much sought after national status of the people, (while suffering hardship and loss along the way). Figures such as Mihai Viteazul who very briefly in 1600 united Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia. Although such landmark successes were short-lived, they were clearly identifiable with the timeless aspirations, hopes and beliefs of Romanian people.

For three-quarters of a century until 1812, this culture had been supported by a written form of Romanian devised by a phanariot ruler seemingly as comfortable with Romanian as with his native Greek. Wilkinson (1820) says:

“The Wallachian or Moldavian language...groundwork is Latin and Slavonic. For many centuries it had no letters, and the Slavonic characters were used in public instruments and epitaphs… In 1735, Constantine Mavrocordato…in both principalities, made a grammar…in characters which drew from the Slavonic and the Greek. He caused several copies of the Old and New Testament in the new language to be distributed, and he ordered the Gospel to be regularly read in the churches. He encouraged the inhabitants to study their language according to the rules of his grammar, and in a few years the knowledge of reading and writing became general among the higher orders.”

In the decades after 1812, (the above form of) Romanian was increasingly used for official purposes in Moldavia and Wallachia. The spur for its expanded significance starting two years after the Treaty of Bucharest.

In 1814, Gheorghe Asachi, renowned Moldavian linguist and international scholar was supported by Moldavia’s phanariot hospodar Scarlat Callimachi in his bid to promote the Romanian language. This met with great opposition from Greek teachers at the Iaşi academy where he taught. Such that by 1819, there had been a serious reversal in Romanian language teaching there lasting until after the Greek uprising in 1821. Asachi fled to Russia for a few months, returning in 1822.

The Greek-based phanariot era had finally ended (although their families would maintain power and influence for a long time). Asachi was able to promote Romanian language use (along with other languages and foreign ideas in his chosen multicultural academic environment). This he did successfully for decades. Compared to Wallachia, Moldavia was arguably more receptive to this approach; quoting Wilkinson again from 1820:

“[Compared to the Wallachians], the Moldavians are less in the habit of making use of [Greek]; and the study of French and other foreign languages is more general among them.”

From 1840, the Orthodox Church in Romania began printing using the Latin alphabet as well as the Cyrillic alphabet. (Although only by 1890 would they discontinue printing in Cyrillic).

Romania’s official 1860 - 1862 transition of Romanian to the Latin alphabet heavily emphasised the important divergence in Romanian language and cultural teaching between Moldavia and Bessarabia.

Empowered with a stronger sense of identity, years later the new Romanian state developed an increasing interest in Romanians in neighbouring states. For instance, it liked to think of Romanians in the Ukraine as belonging to Romania, presented as:

“…[a] great mass of Roumanians who live the other side of the Dniester, in the rich black earth regions of Podolia and Cherson. According to the Russian census of 1897 the number of persons speaking exclusively Roumanian in these districts was about 225,000.”

Source: Charles Upson Clark, professor of history at Columbia University invited in as a guest of the Romanian government in 1919, and strongly pro-Romania.

The Russian state obviously regarded this type of thinking as a potential threat. It sought to distinguish and separate Moldavians in its empire from their Moldavian cousins. An approach which would last over 150 years (in total).

Russian empire colonisation and “russification” (mainly of Moldavians) caused differences to lessen between the peoples of Bessarabia and the Ukraine especially after about 1830. Regions of the Ukraine bordering Bessarabia comprised the province of Kherson, running north to Dubossary, and Podolia which ran south to Rîbniţa (Rybnitsa). These were neighbouring towns within “Transnistria”.

Despite similarities between the peoples of these adjoining parts of the empire, the Russian authorities continued to accept that Bessarabia required exceptional treatment.

"Unlike the serfs in other parts of Russia, the peasants are at liberty to dwell where they please, and they are not compelled to furnish recruits.”

English visitor, C.B. Elliott, publishing in 1838.

A more enthusiastic picture can be found in the following extract from the British “Daily News” newspaper, April 1877 in Chişinău on the eve of the 1877-8 Russo-Turkish war:

“Kischeneff besides is swarming with soldiers, who have been assembled for the grand review… Kischeneff has put on its holiday attire, and a very gay attire it is. Decorations, Chinese lanterns and transparencies with the letter “A” surmounted by the Imperial crown, abound in untold quantities, flags and streamers flying from the houses by the hundred, and by the thousand. The place is adorned if not with flowers, at least with flags and ribbons that, flying in the wind and the brilliant sunshine, give this homely, ungainly ill-looking Kischeneff the appearance of a bride on her wedding day. And the people are all in a flurry of excitement and enthusiasm at the long-looked-for arrival of the Emperor, and the grand review, and the expected declaration of war – the greatest events ever known in the history of Kischeneff.

I cannot imagine how people got it into their heads, as they seem to have done, that Bessarabia was only one great marsh, in which the Russian army was encamped….

…soon nearly the whole population of Kischeneff was pouring out of the narrow, filthy muddy, streets of the Jewish quarter, across the little valley of the Briskhova, to the slopes and fields on the other side, where part of the troops were camped, and where the review was to be held.”

Ninety years after the Russian occupation of 1812, the early years of the twentieth century saw limited rebellions and hostile action by peasants against the boyars and town authorities in Bessarabia. Set of course against the dramatic backdrop of social revolution sweeping Europe.

As always, Moldavian and Bessarabian peasants just wanted to settle down and farm a decent amount of land they could call their own. To maintain their local culture, language and customs without abusive treatment and heavy taxes.

Character, appearance and lifestyle

We know Moldavians have a reputation for great hospitality especially to travellers. They have been (unwilling) travellers themselves. Moldavians, Romanians generally have a great curiosity about foreigners. In nineteenth century Bessarabia we see communities absorb foreigners well, especially those escaping persecution. Intermarriage with Slavs may also bring out that tendency to help the most needy.

Foreign observers were full of praise for simple Moldavian peasants’ trustworthiness and high standard of moral conduct in dealings with others. They were less impressed with the male work ethic but attributed this mainly to their mistreatment by boyars, and the effect of working within the ethos of the Ottoman empire. The women were hard working home-makers.

Morals in marriage and conduct between men and women were however criticised. But under the Ottoman administration, the peasants could pay officials to buy their way out of any situation e.g quickly ending a marriage. The orthodox churches governing the principalities and Russia would allow up to three marriages. There were many legitimate causes for divorce: violence, infidelity, gambling, drunkenness, misuse of bodily functions (polite description).

In a seemingly Dacian tradition, women often had more power in marriage. They had the right to protect their dowry. It was the custom to exclude dowered daughters from any inheritance. So they were expected and needed to protect their interests. For example at the end of the eighteenth century, Scarlat Sturdza’s wife owned the fortress at Soroca. Overall, these measures tended to promote women and children’s interests in the family unit. The church played a part in this as women were often its most active members; for example promoting observance of the many saints’ days and their accompanying rituals.

Real life marital situations in Bessarabia from that time with their legal and cultural issues are brought startlingly to life in:

“Reflections on Divorce in Bessarabia in 1^st half of 19^th Century…” by Alina Felea

All this in in stark contrast to how the (Nogai) Tartars treated their women. As Hommaire de Hell describes in interesting detail, from which are taken some short extracts below, starting with the status of the wife immediately after marriage:

“The young wife must remain shut up at home for a whole year, and see no men, conversing only with her husband and his relations… When a married man dies, his brothers inherit his widows, and may keep or sell them as they please. A husband may repudiate his wife whenever he chooses…”

“A handsome girl of good family costs four or five hundred rubles, besides a couple of score of cows and a few other beasts. Young widows are cheaper and old widows are to be had for nothing.”

Travels in the steppes of the Caspian Sea: the Crimea, the Caucasus by Xavier & Adèle Hommaire de Hell, 1847

The two such alien systems operated directly alongside one another, in the original Bessarabia territory, (mainly the Budjak), with their womenfolk, metres away from each other (and worlds apart). For example in the important centuries long mixed Tartar, Christian and Jewish settlement at Causeni, mentioned well below. The Ottoman authorities were uninterested and unconcerned.

The Sultan was largely indifferent to the well being of his subjects (in the principalities); he just wanted as much wealth as possible, result: economic oppression. To increase the princes’ scope to maximise income, the Porte’s supervision was largely “hands off”. So the flip side of the coin was greater social freedom. Result: often very enlightened social policy for Moldavians compared to other countries including Britain. It’s another reason why some Moldavians fled Bessarabia from 1812, after an oppressive five and a half year Russian military occupation.

But we still need a clearer visual picture of what these people were like. Firstly diet, and here’s a quote from The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, 1830 focussing on the Budjak region:

“The peasants of Bessarabia live on meal mixed with butter, fat, and milk which is sometimes rendered more palatable by a few balls of boiled millet. Their bread is made of barley, and their drink is braga, a mixture of millet-meal and water, which become acidulous by fermentation."

The account continues:

“In every cottage there is a loom on which the women weave linen, a coloured stuff for gowns, and a kind of net-work used for veils.”

As for dress, the following is how our nineteenth century English travellers described the Moldavians.

The men often wore long sleeved white shirts in a course material with trousers and a wide sash around their waists for a belt. Often in the summer they’d be bare chested. They also had sheepskin coats with the fur turned inwards. According to some sources, boyars had found it fashionable to turn the sheepskin inwards and the peasants copied them. The peasant’s hat where worn was sheepskin with the fur facing outwards. The women also wore white shirts and a skirt, or a dress often with an apron (front or front and back), sometimes with a thin sash for a belt. It was common for both sexes to walk barefoot, especially in the summer. Sandals were a common form of footwear.

Boyars would wear loosely flowing robes, and fur coats. In Moldavia province the more wealthy might wear jewels and the distinctive Moldavian cap. This was a hat in an enormous balloon shape made of pasteboard and covered with grey fur. Boyars often wore oriental clothing, especially so when Ottoman control in Moldavia was in the ascendancy. In early nineteenth century Moldavia, boyars who had held high office were allowed to wear beards, whereas in Bessarabia this was a feature of the very poorest.

The very poor especially slaves were often hardly dressed or in rags.

Foreign visitors gained a sense of these people’s Roman origins, for example in their dress styles. The origins of the Romanian language date from shepherds who spoke Latin in Roman times and retained it as a base which was added to with hundreds of Slavonic words, plus many additions from Greek, Italian, Armenian and other languages. MacMichael (1819) listed some of the many “corrupt Latin words” he and his fellow travellers overheard in Chişinău; largely the same as modern Romanian. Labelled by MacMichael as “Walak”. He continues:

“…the inhabitants of Wallachia (and with reference to their language, that term embraces not only the province of that name, but also the adjoining principality of Moldavia), consider themselves more peculiarly than the people of any other country, the descendants of ancient Roman colonists.”

Another source from 1817, The British & Foreign Bible Society states:

“…the whole population speaking the Rumanic, a language of Wallachia and Moldavia”.

Yes, many Moldavians proudly asserted their Roman heritage. As English merchant Thomas Thornton (who worked in Istanbul), similarly describes in his book, published in 1807:

“The inhabitants distinguish that part of ancient Dacia which is tributary to the Ottoman porte by the name of Zara Rumenesca, or the Roman empire.”

American agricultural expert, Louis Michael who worked with people in Bessarabia, 1910 - 1917 described how their method of ploughing was identical to that used in the Roman empire. (He described the many other simple ploughing techniques used by other cultures). Moldavian peasants were reluctant to experiment or change. These ancient customs formed part of their identity; preserving their sense of authenticity; their rightful inheritance; to farm the land of their forefathers.

There were many shepherds and an historically important cattle trade route ran north into central Europe. But shepherds (and peasants) faced regular perils on their travels. Edmund Spencer, the author mentioned above returned to Moldavia many years later. Now as Captain Spencer (1854), his travels took him back to a place where (described above) he had passed years before.

“…arriving at the vast forest that separates Buckowina from Moldavia, we were overtaken by one of those sudden snow storms so fatal to the traveller in this wild inhospitable district. Happily our postilion, prognosticating from the lowering aspect of the heavens the danger that threatened us, galloped madly forward to a ruined chalet, the usual resting place of such caravans as journey in this direction.”

He then described a desperate night-time struggle between fellow travellers including a shepherd (and his flock of sheep) with a large pack of wolves of whom eight or nine were killed.

A wolf hunt in Bessarabia in November 1856 is described by General Gordon (of later Khartoum fame). Britain’s representative following the defeat of Russia in the Crimea war, setting Bessarabia’s new boundaries in the Budjak with the other victors.

“Kichenief, Nov 10, 1856. – I just write a line to tell the result of a wolf excursion which we undertook the other day. We got together about 200 peasants, and about fifty guns, viz. Stanton, James, myself, Prince Stourdza, the second Turkish commissioner, Colonel Besson, [the French commissioner], some eight or ten Russian employés, and the remainder, peasants. The forest was about twenty-five miles from Kichenief…”

“The following day we went to another forest and surrounded a place where the peasants had seen some wolves the night before. We, the shooters, were usually placed not more than twenty-eight yards apart, so as to render it impossible for a wolf to escape. We, however, once neglected this precaution, and through it lost seven wolves, as there were nine in the forest and only two were killed.”

“The wolves are bigger than dogs and have larger jaws. They are very formidable in winter and attack men; as yet it is too early for them to do this.”

A slightly out of the routine event for these local Moldavians, whose lives and travel had changed little in thousands of years.

Two of our learned English visitors traced the Moldavians' origins to the Venedi tribes who lived by rivers and streams they could dam and turn into lakes and small islands. There they could fish and kill and eat the water-fowl which were attracted to those places. Such fertile and productive areas also grew fruit, supplied trees and plants and even mud for housebuilding. Our travellers noted a lack of formality about how these dwellings were arranged.

The geographical pattern of development of people who inhabited Moldavia was heavily concentrated in marshy areas. The same was partly true of the Ukraine and other places in eastern Europe.

The limits of empire: marshes, disease, trade, quarantine and developing a new border

The marshes around the Prut (Pruth) have a special resonance for Russians. On the Iaşi (Yassy) side of the Prut in 1711, Peter The Great, one of Russia’s greatest Tsars and brilliant military commander became “entangled amongst the marshes of the Pruth”: Neale. Completely surrounded by large Turkish and Tatar forces, he successfully repelled two large scale assaults inflicting massive Turkish and Tatar casualties. However his time was running out… Fortunately for Peter, the Grand Vizier was over fearful of Peter’s great military reputation, and peace terms were quickly agreed. These were very advantageous to the Ottoman Empire.

Marshy areas attracted malarial mosquitoes and propagated other diseases. This significant fact had an important impact on the human story of peoples living and travelling across Russia and eastern Europe. It also played a major role in the unfolding political drama of the period.

Iasi especially had regular annual plague outbreaks. There in January 1770 the Russian Army was struck by the plague. General von Stoffeln in charge coerced army doctors to conceal the outbreak. It was made public when Finnish surgeon, Gustav Orreus, appointed Russia’s first ever doctor of medicine by Catherine The Great examined the situation and enforced quarantine measures. Von Stoffeln resisted, refusing to evacuate the infected towns. His opposition ended when he fell victim to the plague himself in May 1770.

But it was too late - the devastating plague spread across eastern Europe and ultimately to Moscow where it caused a large number of deaths. There Doctor Orreus was employed to apply epidemiological control measures to eradicate that epidemic.

Chisinau itself had related problems too (in its early days), as its new governor Bakhmetiev reported to the Tsar in January 1817. Part of his case to get the capital moved to Bender:

“Chisinau is situated along the shallow and smelly river Byk, surrounded by marshland, and is not fit for human habitation. There’s a rotten smell emanating from the swamp and river. People here suffer fevers in the autumn, and in general the air is unfavourable.”

The eighteenth century dramas described above seemed to play heavily on ordinary Russian officials’ minds. Travellers to Bessarabia describe the harsh quarantine measures they were subjected to on arrival in the territory. Commonly this was a fourteen day detention. It could however often be reduced to four days on payment of a bribe.

To understand this better, see: Between Polizeistaat and Cordon Sanitaire: Epidemics and Police Reform during Russian Occupation of Moldavia by Victor Taki, 2008

In the Russian – Ottoman empire wars of preceding decades, plague outbreaks had killed tens of thousands of Russian soldiers – far more than were lost in combat. It was less serious for the Turkish side as they tended not to maintain large standing armies. In the principalities, often the only armed forces were the princes’ large bodyguards. (Heavily reduced by the early nineteenth century).

The Russian Army at full strength was much stronger and more capable than its Ottoman equivalent. But the further the Russian Army advanced, the more stretched it was. Unsanitary, cramped conditions led to thousands of soldiers dying of cholera and other diseases. Because the losses were so high, their serf replacements had to come from further and further afield. Often they travelled for months as there was no proper road or railway network. As demands on landowners for more serfs increased, they retained their best remaining farm workers and sent the weakest and most incapable. Many of those never arrived at the battle front.

By January 1813, a depleted, under supplied Russian army was pursuing the retreating French army across Poland. When its seriously ill commander, Field Marshal Kutuzov appealed in vain to the Tsar to let Russian soldiers go home; they had done enough. A major author to the treaty of 1812, Kutuzov was less inspired by remaking Europe, and more focussed on protecting his mother country. He died in April 1813.

In 1812, the Russian and Ottoman empires had fought each other to an exhausted standstill at the near limits of each other’s capabilities including the resourcing capabilities of the principalities. Faced with the brutal reality of Napoleon’s imminent invasion of Russia, those limits and capabilities were then negotiated to be at the Prut river, ceding a territory to Russia which would be named Bessarabia in its entirety.

But what area did Bessarabia cover (before 1812)?

Before addressing that question directly, consider that defining boundaries for a (far flung) area of the Ottoman Empire was often as much in the mind as any lines drawn on a map. It could be mainly a question of level of influence over an ill-defined zone. Successful control was as much a matter of obedience to the Sultan as acreage defined. Boundaries are less clear. Territorial limits only clearly defined in part by significant natural geographical or man-made features. Additionally, there are areas within areas with a cloudy relationship defined either/both by occupational control or geographical scope, and situations change over time... So to Bessarabia…

The name Bessarabia was historically applied to the southern or Budjak region possibly denoting its watery nature: rivers, lakes and marshes. One nineteenth century traveller explaining that’s where the “Bess” comes from; “Arabia” being derived from the Budjak’s arid and often barren conditions.

Or Bessarabia may mean “free of Arabs” (French source). However the name is more likely originally derived from the medieval Basarab family. Based in Wallachia, in the fourteenth century this term was applied to the coastal area north of the Danube. Especially that part which later contained Turkish towns. The association with muslims was then transferred to cover the (countryside based) Nogai Tatars in the coastal region. Areas which were simply adjoining zones in the Ottoman province of Silistria. Later the Nogai expanded further inland.

Now note the following from the British Christian Herald and Seaman's Magazine in 1817:

“The sphere of this [Christian] society’s operations is intended to include not only that part of Moldavia, now belonging to Russia under the name of Bessarabia, and peopled by about 80,000 families, but the whole population speaking the Rumanic, a language of Wallachia and Moldavia."

There is evidence however that the term “Bessarabia” was applied (loosely) pre-1812 to cover more or all of eastern Moldavia. Now follows a quote from pro-Turkish Thomas Thornton (who worked in Istanbul), publishing in 1807:

“Moldavia and Wallachia… are divided from Poland by the Dniester. The Carpathian mountains separate them from Transilvania... the Danube from Bulgaria, and [by] the Pruth from the desert of Bessarabia.”

Thornton was an influential, respected author who writes with clarity. However, he also refers to the export of thousands of horses from Moldavia (quoted below); the majority of which came from the northern Budjak for use as Austrian and German cavalry horses. (Likely to have escaped or been abandoned by the nearby Tartars. Tartar light cavalry being amongst the finest in the world).

A year after Thornton’s publication, Jacques Peuchet (1808) provides the following unusual statement:

“…Bessarabia and Boudziack, two vast countries between the Dniester and the Pruth, the Danube and the Black Sea, formerly inhabited by numerous tribes of Tartars, partly wanderers, and Moldavians, who were cultivators."

Then (for example) the Edinburgh Encyclopaedia describes part of the Budjak region as Bessarabia in its entirety: “the breadth of this province from Akerman to Gretscheny is nearly 170 versts [113 miles], and its length… is 16 versts” [11 miles]. This most likely dates from shortly after the start of the 1806 – 1812 war, rather than its 1830 publication date. (See agriculture section below).

The territorial position is probably better represented by the revealing 1783 statement from the Philological Society (given well below), and the following extracts taken from Jonathan Carver’s 1779 book:

“The province of Bessarabia is situated on the west side of the Euxine Sea [Black Sea], on the mouths of the Danube, being bounded on the south by this river, and on the north by that of the Niester [Dniester]. The chief towns are Bolgorod, situate on the Black Sea, near the mouth of the Niester… [and] Bend [Bender], which stands on the same river.”

Less clear (for the Budjak region) is:

“…Niester [river Dniester] which rises near Lemburg in Poland, and running south-east, divides Podolia on Poland from Moldavia in Turky; and afterwards separating Bessarabia from Budziac Tartary, falls into the Black Sea near Bolgorod.”

Then most usefully Captain Carver provides longitude and latitude co-ordinates:

“The province of Moldavia is situate between 25 and 29 degrees of east longitude, and between 45 and 48 degrees of north latitude. It is bounded on the east by Bessarabia; on the north-east by the river Niester [Dniester] which divides it from Poland [Podolia]...”

Singera, 28.98 degrees longitude is 8 miles south-east of Chişinău. North is Dubossary, longitude 29.17, Ribnitsa 29.00, latitude 47.77. The last two are Dniester ports either side of the Kherson / Podolia border. We see Bessarabia as defined is at least one third of what it would become.

Pre-1812, Bessarabia is the enlarged version of the Budjak, under more direct Turkish control, clearly separated from eastern Moldavia. There is a small area, (explained two sections below), north of the Budjak, under Turkish control, and also largely outside of the remit of the hospodar of Moldavia.

In one sense, the east part of Moldavia includes all of pre-1812 Bessarabia, and in another, just the part under the control of the hospodar of Moldavia. But there’s more to it than that:

“The lengthy and active entanglement of the ‘eastern marches’ of the Moldavian Principality into ‘steppe politics’ (represented here either in the guise of the Nogai Tatars or the Crimean Khanate) are often dismissed or viewed in terms of military confrontations only.”

Source: Cusco (who pursues these borderlands issues in detail).

The principalities were Christian lands de jure,and muslims were not allowed to settle there – under treaties between the Ottoman Empire and other powers (esp. Russia). The eastern part of Moldavia included all its southern steppe lands which covered territory occupied de facto by Turkish forces and tartars as part of their state of Silistria.

Commonly “possession is nine tenths of the law”, especially when established for centuries. But from the time of Catherine The Great, the tartars were progressively expelled. The (Budjak / “Bessarabia”) area had a new status in practice: a depopulated space, even a vacuum. Something had to be done. That need was a contributory driver to the 1812 settlement, and perhaps (front-ended) the emphasis on: “Bessarabia”.

From 1812 we clearly see “Bessarabia” expanding northwards (from the "Turkish" region). And the Prut became a new Russian border incorporated in a system of European borders with quarantine, customs and passport checkpoints. As well as keeping out disease, border controls were developed to restrict and control movements including the prevention of smuggling. But the Cossacks who patrolled the border with large contingents of muslims couldn’t completely seal it. So for example in 1819 a plague in Moldavia spread into Bessarabia.

Provincial governor Lieutenant-General Bakhmetiev, appointed in 1816, expressed concerns about the border force, and its use of muslims. Instead, he wanted regular Russian troops patrolling the Prut.

Dr Adam Neale, British physician to the British Embassy in Constantinople published in 1818 details of an interesting encounter on the nearby Danube (territory which would fall under Russian control in 1829).

“…we discovered that the Turk, having followed us in a canoe alone, was paddling after us. My companion and I, therefore shouted to him, and warned him off, which, as he disregarded, we presented the muzzles of two loaded rifles over the stern, a language he seem to have no difficulty in comprehending; for the old Cyclops (he had but one eye) immediately put about his canoe, and paddled back to his den, spluttering and cursing us for Christian dogs.”

In 1821, a large number of Greeks travelled to Moldavia from Bessarabia to play their part in the Greek War of Independence, part of which was fought out on Moldavian soil. Details of the departees were taken by the Russian authorities who monitored their numbers. The Moldavian military campaign was a disaster. There had been 12,000 Greeks in Chişinău. Three months later, there were 50,000. (Ultimately the Greeks secured their independence from the Ottoman Empire after the war of 1821-26). They and other Moldavians created a serious refugee problem in Bessarabia. (These events co-incided with two serious earthquakes in July and November 1821. The second of which destroyed most of governor Inzov’s house – a bad portent).

The Russian authorities did not feel they were in sufficient control of their border. This wasn’t just a question of people travelling across it freely. In the 1821 uprising, its main leader (of phanariot stock), Major-General Alexander Ypsilanti, former aide de camp to the Tsar, crossed the Prut wearing his uniform. His claim to have the support of the Tsar for this invasion meant people flocked to his cause.

The Tsar then disowned the insurrection. Eventually, the Russian military moved into Moldavia in a show of force against it. Implicated in the plot, Prince Mihail Sutu, the (last ever phanariot) governor of Moldavia fled with his family into Bessarabia.

Meanwhile, after a series of battles, in which Prince Cantacuzino played a leading role, a final heroic stand by four hundred Greeks on the Prut at Sculeni was watched by a large immobile (but cheering) Russian army on the other side. According to one account, the Greeks inflicted heavy casualties on waves of assaulting Turks by skilful use of cannon.

In the 1840s, well connected, senior local Russian civil servant Russian Nicholai Giers (and friend of the Cantacuzinos) recounted:

“…in Skuliani, on the very frontier, were our troops, and with them Generals Inzov and Kiselev, watching the Turks. [Prince] Cantacuzino’s wife arrived there. Anxious about her husband, and realising that he faced an inevitable death, she pleaded with Kiselev to order Cantacuzino to come to Skuliani for negotiations. No sooner had he arrived there than the Turks furiously attacked the unfortunate Greeks. Only a few of them had time to save themselves and swim across the Prut to our frontier… the entire river was red with blood.”

Good read: The Education of a Russian Statesman: The Memoirs of Nikolaĭ Karlovich Giers by C&B Jelavich

Only those who’d been in Russian service were punished.

Bessarabia’s Greek-phanariot civil governor, Catacazi had been a strong supporter of the rebellion. So seen from the Ottoman authorities point of view, Russian empire actions had been dangerously and treacherously contradictory. Therefore in defiance of existing treaties, 30,000 Ottoman empire troops remained behind in the principalities at the end of 1821. The border was under potential threat again. Russian and European diplomatic pressure was brought to bear.

The problem was complicated by a Russian – Turkish dispute over access to the Black Sea including a recent specific incident involving Greek ships. While there were serious issues defining land based borders, ongoing issues regarding the Black Sea required different types of agreement. Turkey owned and controlled the Dardanelles which provided access to the Black Sea.

The agreement reached involved the withdrawal of Ottoman empire troops in return for the redeployment of some Russian (military) units away from Bessarabia and especially its border. So to what extent therefore did the Russian empire fully control Bessarabia?

From the summer of 1822, Ottoman empire troops were progressively evacuated from the principalities in (what appeared to many) a worryingly slow manner.

In 1812, the idea of clearly defined and policed borders was relatively new to this part of the world. The Ottomans controlled roughly known areas by influence over nomadic warriors whose areas of control and influence shifted year by year in an indefinable manner. Causing peoples living in what is now the Ukraine to form mobile fighting communities. That is the origin of the Cossacks and their way of life. A reality which made the whole region unstable.

Post 1812, Russian state policy led to a more defined border as part of the process of stabilising the region. But the 1812 treaty contained a flaw.

In the south, the 1812 border followed the Prut down to its entry into the Kilia, the most northernmost part of the Danube. The Kilia wanders through marshes and lakes, and in flood seasons changes its course, before reaching the sea. So the border wasn’t fixed, and there was another issue from the Russian point of view:

“The [Danube’s] northernmost… Kilia branch, which became the Russian boundary by the treaty of 1812, has at its mouth only six feet of water, besides being otherwise much impeded by sands, and consequently cannot be entered by vessels larger than lighters. The other two, the Suline [Sulina] branch and the Georgevskoi [St George] branch, were both navigable by small merchantmen, and they remained to Turkey. Thus far, therefore, Russia had no control whatever over either of the navigable entrances. Her Kilia branch was even almost useless to herself…”

Austria Vol 2 by Peter Evan Turnbull, 1840

Hostile action to correct this was unlikely to be initiated in practice by Tsar Alexander 1. For as described above (Section: “Religious toleration, diplomacy, humanitarianism…”), the Tsar was heavily influenced from 1814 by the pacifist (British) Quakers.

However, when in 1817, an English hydrotechnical engineer was employed by the Porte to expand the capability of the Sulina to handle shipping better, Russia could hardly conceal its annoyance. This trading artery was seen as a serious threat to Odessa’s business (See Part 2: The Treaty). With the Sulina expansion project successfully underway, Russia appointed ambassador Strogonov to Constantinople to aggressively assert a new Russian claim to the Danube delta territory. The outcome being:

“That the Sublime Porte on recognizing the line of frontier as stipulated by art.4 of the treaty of Bucarest of the year 1812, as impracticable, has consequently ceded to Russia, in time of peace moreover, the two great islands near Ismail and Kilia, that is to say, the rest of the Delta comprised by the arms of the Kilia and of Sulina, as is stated in the protocol signed at Constantinople on the 21 August 1817 by the Sublime Porte and the Russian ambassador to the Sultan, and confirmed by art 2 of the convention of Akkerman of the year 1826.”

Source: The National Wishes of Moldavia & Wallachia…in accordance with The Treaty of Paris, 1858

Tsar Alexander 1 died in 1825, and was replaced by his younger brother, the much more aggressive, autocratic and reactionary Tsar Nicholas 1.

In 1826, there were still Ottoman empire forces in the principalities. Russian – Ottoman tensions were high. Under strong pressure from western European governments to negotiate, in September 1826 both sides met. The venue was the Budjak fortress at Akkerman (Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi).

The Akkerman Convention was the resulting agreement. Turkish forces would be withdrawn from Wallachia and Moldavia. The principalities’ divans (boyar assemblies) would appoint their own hospodars for seven year periods. (Phanariot hospodars had been appointed for seven years, and the boyars were now very hostile towards them). The Ottoman empire would cede to the Wallachian principality, the Danubian ports of Giurgiu, Brăila and Turnu. The 1817 Danube delta protocol was confirmed.

So in 1826, peace had been (temporarily) achieved with the Turks to be pushed well back from Bessarabia’s borders. But then the Sultan repudiated the agreement. This resulted in the Russo-Turkish war of 1828-9. Tsar Nicholas personally led his forces over Bessarabia’s border. But after some successes, the Russian army was forced to retreat and retire for the winter in Bessarabia.

In the summer of 1829, led by a new Field Marshal, the Russian army crushed its Turkish opponents. When Russian forces reached about forty miles from Constantinople (Istanbul), the Sultan sued for peace.

Agreement was reached at the 1829 Treaty of Adrianople. As part of this, Bessarabia’s border moved south to the main and unvarying Sulina estuary of the Danube. The Russian state now had complete control of the Danube estuary and all the trade which flowed through it. (In a new spirit of confidence, in 1830, the customs barrier on the Dniester was removed).

Now the frontiers were more clearly defined, and they became nearly impassable borders to certain movements of people, ideas, communication, loyalty and trade.

A Danubian steamship service was available from 1834 to travel all the way from Presburg (Bratislava) to Constantinople. But citing rights under the 1829 Treaty of Adrianople, its passage was blocked at the mouth of the Danube by Russia imposing an illegal toll (the view of other countries). Russia also allowed channels of the Danube to silt up and restricted access from the Black Sea. Actions designed to prefer Odessa as a port.

Travellers to Turkey had to divert across Bessarabia, but a very disappointed Mr Quin chose to abandon his journey to the Bosphorus.

Held at the Prut (in 1835), Mr Elliott, our English vicar, found great difficulty entering Bessarabia to travel to Odessa to take the steamship to Constantinople (Istanbul). Before that, he passed through Galatz (Galaţi), the Danubian port, and found a large number of British subjects stranded there:

“The population maybe about five thousand of whom one thousand are British subjects from the Ionian Isles; principally men who have fled for debt or crime, or have been left there by vessels in which they worked their passage.”

The growing use of border controls was leading to abuses of power, process, freedom of trade and movement.

The Treaty of Vienna (1815) in which Russia had played a leading part, contained clauses ensuring the freedom of navigation and commerce on the major rivers of Europe, including the Danube, from the point where they became navigable to their mouths. This was the international law which applied in this case.

However under treaty obligations (with Austria), the Russian state was able to impose a quarantine system on the Danube. Over twenty plus years, they seriously abused this position: a sorry saga of tangled, vexatious obstructiveness. It is well covered in:

The Danubian Principalities: The Frontier Lands of the Christian and the Turk, Vol 1 by James.Skene, 1854

It recounts multiple twists of Kafkyaesque perversity, and the loss of much economic value and well-being. From the quarantine policy in port, a sample of the human effects:

“In cases of sickness, no medical assistance can be obtained on board the ship, and, however ill a sailor may be, he must come on shore to the office of the captain of the port to be seen by the medical officer, or die on board without help, if he be unable to move. Should it appear necessary to separate him from the other sailors, he is taken to the lazaretto, without any of the precautions which his state may require, and, when there, he is obliged to strip naked, and get other clothes from the town. He is then kept four days in quarantine, during which time the quarantine surgeon may look at him, but not feel his pulse, and at the expiration of these four days he is moved into town, whatever may be the state of his health or of the weather; having paid about 2 shillings for his short stay in the lazaretto.

This is an evil which cannot be too speedily remedied, as it has doubtless already caused the death of many British seamen… The Protestant cemetery of Galatz is abundantly eloquent on this subject.”

Anti-trade Russian empire restrictions on the Danube lie behind the following complaint instanced by Captain Edmund Spencer writing in 1850:

“…as well as in Moldavia and Wallachia, I found a most anxious desire on the part of the inhabitants to establish a more intimate commercial connexion with Great Britain. Prince Constantine Soutzo, of Moldavia, one of the most extensive landed-proprietors of the province, frequently expressed to me his wishes to that effect, and begged me, on my return home, to open for him a negotiation with some English merchant for the disposal of his timber, corn and cattle, which seemed to lie upon his hands without the possibility of a sale.

As all commerce should be reciprocal, perhaps it may be expected that I should suggest what articles of our manufactures would be mostly likely to find a lucrative sale. Sheffield cutlery, which all admire and covet, together with Staffordshire wares, would be much prized.”

However James Skene, publishing in 1854 recounts (from the above):

“Almost all the articles imported into the provinces come from the United Kingdom…”

“The average number of British vessels coming annually to the Danube was only eight about ten years ago, and even those could not always find cargoes for the United Kingdom. The last three years show an average of 215, besides 150 foreign ships per annum also carrying grain to England. There is, moreover, every apparent prospect of a steady increase of our trade with the Danubian ports, in spite of the great disadvantages entailed upon it by Russia”.

We are now in the run up to the Crimean War. Unsurprisingly, the wider picture looked very different from the Russian state point of view:

“These [Black Sea] ports however are not only of incalculable value for the inland provinces of Russia; they are also the outlet for the Polish provinces and even for Eastern Galicia [Part of Ruthenia, largely western Ukraine today]. Formerly all these countries had no other outlet for the exportation of their produce than the circuitous routes to the ports of the Baltic; and even until within the last sixty years all the grain went to Danzig, Königsberg and Memel, which at the present time goes to Odessa.”

Source: The Russian Empire: Its People, Institutions and Resources by Baron Von Haxthausen, 1856. “A detailed German account based upon a visit undertaken at the invitation of the Tsar in 1843.”

From a British state point of view, the last statement about the grain going to the Baltic ports is significant, along with the desire to obtain cheap grain from Romania through the Danube. At that time, Britain was undergoing its massive Industrial Revolution. There was the real prospect of riots in its cities if bread was not affordably available.

The situation worsened further when in July 1853, Tsar Nicholas 1 invaded the principalities. An ultimatum from Britain and France for Russia to withdraw was ignored. The ensuing Crimean War saw British, French and Turkish forces defeat the Russian Army. Russian forces withdrew from Wallachia and Moldavia (which then suffered Austrian occupation, 1854 – 57).

The post Crimea political settlement saw Russia lose its control of the Danube region and for twenty-two years also part of the Budjak. General Gordon (mentioned above), was Britain’s representative, visiting the region and arriving at Galatz (Galaţi) in May 1856:

“The coast is pretty, but looks quite uninhabited. The mouth of the Danube (Sulina) is not a quarter of a mile broad, and there are the wrecks of twenty vessels lying there. The sand-bar has only twenty feet of water over it, although the Russians engaged to keep it clear.”

The 1856 Treaty of Paris resulted in the Danube Delta being opened up for all international shipping.

Also under the 1856 Treaty of Paris, Moldavia and Wallachia gained independent constitutions and national assemblies, to be monitored by the victorious powers. Most of the Budjak region became part of Moldavia, then part of Romania from 1859. From an historical point of view, this (1856) territorial change represented a strange role reversal of political ownership and control.

While the eastern Moldavian heartlands remained under Russian state control, the least Romanian part of former Dacia fell under Moldavian political control, until restored to Bessarabia in 1878 under the Treaty of Berlin.

Society, class roles, aspirations and life chances – Bessarabia & Moldavia: a relative view

We’ve seen above the varied, various and changing Russian involvements in the former Dacian territories from 1812 onwards. But what about direct comparisons between Bessarabia and the principalities, especially Moldavia after 1812? What were the characters of the two regimes, especially when seen at street level by Moldavians of common heritage?

Compared to Bessarabia, Moldavia was painted by foreign visitors as having a brighter, more colourful and lively ambience. Although they themselves hardly made such direct comparisons. These relative differences were seen especially in the cities and ports.

A good sense of the lifestyle and cultural differences between Moldavia and the new Bessarabia is conveyed by the following scene from Iaşi about 1818. Recounted by two unconnected authors: MacMichael, then Neale:

“In the afternoon between four and five o’clock, is the grand promenade, where a long string of calèches is to be seen moving in solemn procession along the jolting streets of Jassy. The carriages are drawn by two horses, generally covered with large shaggy blue housings, and harnessed so wide apart, as nearly to occupy the whole breadth of the street. Mingled with the solemn figures above described, are occasionally to be seen the wives and daughters of the boyars in close chariots, enjoying this their only public amusement.”

“The streets instead of being paved, are laid with massive beams of wood, resting at each extremity upon sleepers; these are elastic of course, and on the passing of horses and carriages yield a loud rumbling noise, like that of a drawbridge, while the copious floods of dark mud concealed beneath are from time to time thrown up in jets between the opening rafters, and bedaub the pedestrians in a ridiculous manner.”

Many Romanians liked a sense of public spectacle regularly conveyed! In such a divided society with extremes of wealth and poverty, this could be quite cathartic and cohesive. By contrast, parts of the Russian empire were more ordered, serious, sober and restrained. Neither state had any serious public order issues (post 1812).

For Moldavia (and some other countries), the preservation of such inequalities in a non military state depended upon a degree of “accessibility”, even if the realities of power made that closeness quite false. It was just a few years after the French revolution. The failure of the French ruling class to be seen and “available”, was arguably a primary cause of their downfall. So (for example) argues leading British historian, Simon Schama, who offers compelling comparative examples between the British and French elite’s “accessibility”. The former did not permanently hide behind high walls, for those as in the case of the Bastille could be stormed.

There was no standing army in Moldavia, and even the prince was only protected by a few guards, not necessarily armed. A picture which may well have contributed to a sense of weak governance. One in which the nobles had a sense of impunity and immunity.

The Moldavian nobles’ finely dressed presence was deliberately quite strong. MacMichael continues immediately from the above:

“When the promenade is over, the Moldavian noble retires to whist or faro, where he will lose at a sitting 500 ducats. So much addicted are they to gambling, and so lax are their notions of public morals, that the officer who has the title of Aga, and the duties of minister of police, in the city of Jassy, is frequently to be seen holding the bank at Faro. The place swarms in consequence with adventurers…”

For the individual with very little, there was little to be lost by chancing their hand. Also other opportunities might present themselves - especially attractive for those very romantically inclined or with a strong sense of social competitiveness. Free movement between classes was occasionally possible, and participating in the drama could be a welcome form of escapism from the grinding drudgery.

The last quote above also presents a picture of “The Wild West” (of Moldavia). In Bessarabia, the boyars were kept much more in their place - operating within a military styled system of control.

Relative to Moldavia, the citizens of Bessarabia were better protected in a more stable, ordered, controlled environment.

It’s a mixed picture, when you consider that the 1828/9 Russo-Turkish war saw Moldavians in Bessarabia looked after while their cousins in the west, suffered terribly due to the appalling behaviour of the Russian army. Its capital, Iasi reduced to about 12,000 souls, 1826 – 1831 according to Brockhaus, 1834, attributing this to war, plague, cholera and hunger.

Compared to the principality of Moldavia, the new Russian state in Bessarabia imposed progressively (or regressively?) arbitrarily defined social and ethnic class (grouping) systems. The control (of these) wasn’t always that tight, but clearly behind it was a dull, unvarying, authoritarian intent backed by unquestionable power: people knew their place.

So in Bessarabia, if a person had charisma, attractiveness, good fortune and great intelligence, those talents were more likely restricted to the role(s) they had been placed in. There was little room for “looseness” or flexibility; for that could equate to failings or vices (seen for example under the Ottoman Empire system).

In Bessarabia, the unvarying dullness and restricted means of expression may have been a factor in the new province seemingly losing (much of) its “Romanian” talent. For as we’ve seen, archbishop Gabriel had to do the laborious religious translation work himself – any scholars present having fled. Couldn’t he (a man of such great status and reputation) attract Moldavians to Bessarabia? Wouldn’t some want to apply for such a noble project anyway?

The “1812 population loss” is unclear and argued about in quantity terms, but the loss of quality is more certain.

The relative attractiveness of the principalities sits uneasily with previous mass emigrations caused by Ottoman empire misrule – implemented by the Sultan’s phanariot servants. Yet there was a developing complex relationship between some “middle class” Moldavians and their phanariot masters. A situation apparently at odds with the stereotypical main picture in which the mazili and other hereditary categories of public servants had been dispossessed. Marriage contracts formed an important part of these new connections. (Author, Drace-Francis is a good source for this whole subject area).

So wealth creating merchants and other practical achievers replaced some in the hereditary classes as part of the phanariot reforms of Mavrocordato, Ypsilanti and others. Post 1812, this would have implications for the status of the landowning class in the new Bessarabia. Decades later it would also be a positive contributory factor in the economic development of the new Romania.

Trade, agriculture and industry in the new Bessarabia

Pre-1812 east Moldavia / Bessarabia commercial activity was heavily agriculturally based.

According to protesting Moldavian boyars, the post-1812 annexed part of Moldavia had been the most productive part of the principalities: the complaint they made to European powers including Austria.

Post-1812, the largescale export of sheep and cattle to Ottoman Empire buyers especially in Istanbul were greatly reduced - delivering a seriously harmful economic impact.

Industry in Bessarabia developed slowly post-1812, but was largely focused on serving local needs. We’ve already explored the “no capital”, “pre-industrial society” nature of the Russian Empire and the role Jews played (where permitted) in providing goods and services to fill the gaps. For example, many taverns were run by Jews. But it’s important to understand the networked nature of Jewish enterprise. Demonstrated for example in facilitating the journey of Nicholai Shipov in John MacKay’s book, some details in section: "The politics of administration and reform – revisited."

Bălți became a (relatively) major industrial centre post-1812, dominated by Jewish enterprise. Source: Yad Vashem.

Bălți (Belts / Beltsy) was involved in leather-working including saddle manufacture, soap manufacture, carpentry and building. Jews set up flour mills, and factories manufacturing candy, food, alcohol, soap, candles, cotton wool etc, plus providing other services. Serving this need, over the eighteenth century, the size of the Jewish community in Balti increased to above half of the population.

1812 Moldavia east of the Prut had been involved with the central European cattle trade. This northern route through Bukovina was now taxed more heavily. But Wallachia, (largely dedicated to sheep herding) was supplied with some cattle which would graze there in the summer months before sale. Cattle rearing in Bessarabia was steadily expanded some years after 1812. But there was a serious interruption:

“In 1827, during the war between Russia and Turkey, the [cattle plague] disease appeared in Russia, Poland, Podolia, Hungary, Bessarabia, Moldavia, and Austria, lasting three years.”

Lancashire & Cheshire: Past and Present, Vol1… by Thomas Baines, 1868

Baines establishes a detailed connection between nineteenth century wars and the spread of cattle disease, acknowledged at the time (along with other human diseases such as typhus). War ends: much less disease; but there is an aftermath of loss… In 1830, this probably influenced the decision to lift Bessarabia’s custom barrier (see base of this section). Facilitating the bringing of large numbers of cattle over long distances to graze in Bessarabia’s fertile pasturelands.

This cattle herding was nothing new: it was a reversion to Tatar practice prior to the Russian conquests of the Ukraine and Bessarabia. Cattle rearing and herding was also a common livelihood of the favoured Bulgarian community: this had grown to over 60,000 by the early 1850s.

The export of horses continued; thousands of horses ran wild in Bessarabia, especially in the north of the Budjak.

“There are various breeds of horses: the best races, which are those of Moldavia, are bought up in great numbers for the service of the Austrian and Prussian cavalry: they are well shaped, are remarkable for the soundness of their hoofs, and possess both spirit and docility. The carriage and draft horses are small but active, and capable of resisting fatigue. They live in the open air in all seasons.”

Source: The Present State of Turkey by Thomas Thornton, former British merchant in Istanbul, published 1807.

The Austrian cavalry took delivery of 12,000 to 15,000 horses each year until the 1830s. Likewise until that time, wool from the Zigai sheep predominating in the Budjak was exported largely to the East and to England. The Thracian (Bulgarian) Zigai produces a short fine-fleece. It’s a hardy sheep, providing a lot of good meat, and which recent French research has disclosed is less prone to arthritis symptoms. In Wallachia, it was one of the three sheep types reared there: the nomadic Nogai obviously preferred the Zigai.

The clumsy (forced) replacement of Zigai with (Spanish) Merino sheep in the 1830s created a lot of changing circumstances. This included a shift in focus to supplying Russia’s own clothing industry with prized quality Merino wool.

In Bessarabia, peasants could grow wheat for their own use for the first time. In the Danubian principalities, wheat was grown for export; for the use of the Turks. Quotas were set across the Ottoman empire. Ports such as Galaţi in Moldavia had export quotas. Transport and storage was rigorously supervised by the authorities in Istanbul. It was often an offence for a Moldavian or Wallachian peasant to eat wheat (even if he grew it). From the sixteenth century, peasants could grow corn, which originated in the Americas. That is the origin of the famous mamaliga dish. Shortly after 1812, potatoes were introduced into Moldavia by its hospodar, Scarlat Callimachi, 1812 – 19.

Bessarabia’s agricultural output and facilities had to support an army of over 50,000 men. (A fact often overlooked by observers). It was a similar drain on resources to that which had driven Wallachia and Moldavia further into poverty with more heavy depopulation (for example during the 1806 – 1812 war). In that context note the following 1856 observation:

“Bessarabia… the vocation of its inhabitants is chiefly the breeding of cattle and sheep. There is a cultivation of Indian corn to a considerable extent, but it is principally used as the food for the people themselves; very little of it finds its way to the Odessa market… its pasturages are rich and extensive, and cattle from considerable distances are sent thither for grazing.”

Source: Europe: Russia. St Petersburg. Russians of the South by McCulloch & Hardman, 1856

Bessarabia was part of a trade network in the Black Sea and its contributing rivers. Its trade had a history of dominance by (the same nationalities of) foreign merchants since Roman times:

“…foreign trade is almost entirely in the hands of foreigners. Exclusively Russian towns proceed so weakly and slowly that the term progress hardly applies to them. This is often seen in towns which have the same position, where one is inhabited by Russians, and another by foreign peoples…”

Source: The Russian Empire: Its People, Institutions and Resources by Baron Von Haxthausen, 1856.

This was based upon his visit made at the invitation of the Tsar in 1843. By that time, trade had developed greatly compared to the uncertainties of the post 1812 position. Directly continuing the baron’s quote above:

“…note for example the contrast between the brisk trade in the town of Armyanski-Bazar, inhabited by Armenians, and the better situated Russian town of Dubosari on the Dniester close to it with its many privileges.”

Much of Bessarabia’s trade took place along the Dniester (Nistru). From the south:

“..considerable quantities of cottons come also from Salonica, arrive at Doubassar [Dubossary], upon the Dniester, at 150 versts distant [from Odessa], from whence they pass into the interior.”

Travels in…the Barbary States in the years 1813 – 1814 by Mordecai Manuel Noah.

Although there were customs restrictions as Edward Morton personally observed (1827 – 29) in his book, “Travels in Russia…a residence at… Odessa”:

“The towns of Mohilef and Doubossari, on the Dniester received the stuffs, raw and other silks, the cottons and wool. Since the year 1806, however, goods of this description, with the exception of raw silk, have no longer [been] allowed to pass the dry frontier.”

MacMichael from his 1817 visit to Dubossary, expands on the customs arrangements:

“[In Dubossary], huts have been constructed for the accommodation of persons and merchandise, coming from the south, and subject to the laws of quarantine; for though since the peace of 1812, the dominion of Russia has been extended to the Pruth [Prut], a second or interior line of frontier is still marked out by the course of the Dniester.

Thus a traveller entering Russia from the side of Moldavia, would have to perform two quarantines, the first on the Pruth, the other at Nov. Doubosari.”

Transported down the Dniester from the north were corn, spirits and timber passing downstream from various river ports in Podolia and Galicia. First and main stopping off point was Hotin (Khotyn), the site of the famous fortress and also an important river crossing.

Little river transport took place between Dubossary and Rîbniţa, the border between Kherson and Podolia. There were obstacles in the river from Rîbniţa northwards which extended to a major and dangerous obstruction at Cosăuţi / Yampol north of Soroca.

“The Dniester…flows with impetuosity across rocks, and forms cataracts near Iampol, so that boats cannot ascend it. But as the river descends its course becomes less violent, and it terminates in a large liman or lake united to the sea.”

“Universal Geography…” 1829 from Danish-French geographer, Conrad Malte-Brun.

There were also difficulties north of Jampol, where the river transport of goods was hindered and obstructed. From Dr Stephen Rudnitsky of Lemberg (Lviv) University in 1918:

“…the river also forms regular rapids, near Yampil [Jampol], where a layer of granite stretches clear across the river. For this reason the Dniester, though navigable along a stretch of almost 800 km, has not become an important waterway. The navigation of the Dniester, which becomes more active from Khotin on [northwards], is now on the wane.”

Despite these difficulties, in 1812 the river trade was large enough to generate a significant amount of revenue from the phanariot imposed customs duties instituted in the late eighteenth century. Much of the tax was collected in the Soroca region where Jews, (whose presence is always associated with trade and business) numbered at least ten thousand.

In 1812 in the Soroca region, it was still possible (although risky) to transport timber and firewood over the granite shelf at Cosăuţi / Yampol.

By greatly improving the river’s transport capabilities, trade, wealth and tax would significantly increase. We pick up the story from Xavier & Adèle Hommaire de Hell in 1847:

“A survey was made in 1827 and again in 1840. Unfortunately all these investigations being made by men of no capacity led to nothing. An engineer was commissioned in 1829 to make a report on the works necessary for rendering the river practicable at Jampol, where it is obstructed by a small chain of granite. He estimated the expense at 185,000 francs, whereas it was secretly ascertained that 10,000 would be more than enough. The project was then abandoned.”

Decades later, the situation would be improved as the “Engineering” publication reported in 1899:

“Since 1884 a good deal of work has been done to improve the navigation of the central portion of the river, from Mogilev to Rîbniţa, a distance of 131 miles. This is the collecting ground for the produce, which is conveyed by water.”

From the end of the nineteenth century, population surveys show large numbers of Jews spread south of Soroca district along the Dniester and on the Transnistrian side. (A Jewish settlement was established in Tiraspol under a Russian state resettlement policy which ended for Jews in 1866).

With such limitations on the Dniester in 1812, river trade was more heavily based on the Prut and Danube. They were served by the growing ports of Ismail and Reni in the Budjak, mainly for Russian empire consumption.

Historically, because of limited overland transport capabilities, many exports through these ports had been produced from the relatively less fertile surrounding Budjak region. In Turkish, Budzhac, Bugeac et al means corner or edge. From this pre-1812 edge of region, the agricultural production and resources were described:

“The soil… is in general fertile, if we except a tract of land on the banks of the Danube and the steppe of Otschakov. The soil along the Dniester is in good cultivation and supports a considerable number of orchards. Hemp and flax grow wild on extensive tracts of land, and the grass is in general seven or eight feet high. Near Tatar Bonnar are some salt water lakes, on the surface of which salt is formed by the heat of the sun.

The fruits of this province are large and of the best quality. The cucumbers grow to an immense size. The plumbs [plums] of Akerman, the apricots of Ismail, the peaches of Babahda are much superior to those in the south of Europe; melons and asparagus grow wild in the fields; and the grapes, which are of three kinds, afford a wine of superior quality.”

Source, the Edinburgh Encyclopaedia dated 1830, but more likely a description taken from about 1806-7, (see “The limits of empire…” section above). Little should have changed in that time.

Post 1812, Bessarabia exported wines, ox hides, sheepskins, wool, wax and tallow, maize, fish and salt. For the latter note the significant change to salt production near base of section: “The Russian Empire system…economic management”. Industry was slowly but progressively developed. such as for leather-making, example:

The London Encyclopaedia… Vol. 4, 1829: “manufactured… shagrin at Ismael”. (Shagreen rough texture leather for bookbinding and the hilts and scabbards of swords and daggers). Wikipedia: Turkic: sağrı / çağrı 'rump of a horse'. Thousands of horses ran wild in the Budjak.

But after 1830 those ports fell into decline as sanitary cordon restrictions were eased and the customs barrier on the Dniester was removed. Odessa took over. Odessa had become a free port in 1819.Additionally by the 1829 Treaty of Adrianople, Russia secured control of the Danube Delta and applied measures to restrict trade through it (in order to favour Odessa).

Bessarabia was developing a separate identity within the Russian state. Boyars there were who had estates in Moldavia province were ordered to disown them. Imperial Russia inherited a series of ferry crossings and rickety, dangerous bridges across the Prut. A century later, travellers were amazed to find these river crossings had hardly been improved.

Dividing Moldavia caused Romanian attitudes to the Prut to become derogatory. At times it’s “the accursed Prut”, “dirty Prut” etc. But of course it’s also the origin of much Moldavian colonisation and civilisation.

History, nature and causes of Bessarabia’s creation

Pre-1812, the Turkish view of “Bessarabia” was mainly as a foreign description for part of the ancient Ottoman empire . The long coastal Silistria Eyalet (administrative division) once extended from present day Bulgaria north to beyond Odessa. Odessa itself was captured by Russian forces in 1792. Successive Russian conquests then reduced Silistria province greatly, especially during the 1806-12 Russian-Turkish war. In 1810 the Russian Army assaulted the town of Silistria itself, (now in present-day Bulgaria).

The Treaty of Bucharest 1812, created a newly defined province.

The new Bessarabia to be, was the joining of eastern Moldavia and a district of Silistria between the Prut and the Dniester (Nistru). Most of this part of Silistria from the Black Sea was the Budjak, (Budjak Steppe). The two regions did have different, defining, distinctive characters.

The line between these two (Ottoman) administrative regions was close to an ancient set of ramparts and wall by a road (via Trajana) constructed after the Roman conquest. This ran from Leova in south-west Bessarabia (still in Moldova) to Copanca (Kopanka), just south of Bender. (Copanca is now a disputed village on the Transnistria/PMR border). From around and to the north of the administrative line, villages were mainly populated by Moldavians, where the area is more hilly. Increasingly below that it was predominantly the Nogai Tartars.

Here’s an interesting 1783 quote from the Philological Society (of Great Britain):

“Bessarabia is part of the original dominions of the Turks, lying to the east of Moldavia, and abutting north upon the country of the Crim Tartars, to which rude people the inhabitants seem nearly allied. The city of Bender in this province…”

Bender / Bendery meaning “gate” was the Turkish name of this well known fortress city, (Romanian: Tighina), just within Silistria (but outside the Budjak). From Demidov’s 1837 account: some miles from Chisinau heading for Bender:

“In the low swampy plains, we encountered numberless birds, the usual inhabitants of marshes, flights of lapwings, moor hens, and thoughtful looking cranes, stalking over the marshes with melancholy gravity. On entering the steppe, we were leaving behind us immeasurable spaces covered with fine, large plants, all in flower… At last we beheld Bender [just prior to that]…we had passed over the desert soil…”

In this border zone (between “the east of Moldavia” (?), and pre-1812 Bessarabia), it’s a complex picture. For example, twenty-three miles south of Bender, on the via Trajana is the settlement at Căuşeni, (in the county of the same name) which included a centuries long Christian community, prominent Jewish community and Nogai Tartars (!).

We saw in the section: “Nation status and self-government…”, that Governor Garting (Harting) received a complaint about the Bender governance in September 1813 and moved some local administrative functions to Căuşeni. The town itself contained a 17th century church, while a few miles south-west of it, the village of Sălcuța has a church founded in March 1813... A number of ethnic-Romanian families had left Sălcuța with the Tatars – 103 families leaving Bessarabia itself... In 1820 many ethnic-Romanians settled in Sălcuța in an arrangement with General Sabaneev, a longstanding general in the region who retired with estates in the area. In 1827, eight Ruthenian families joined them. Sălcuța is now just north of the Moldova – Ukraine border.

By 1829 things had moved on also in Căuşeni as an extract from the Bessarabian postal service (source: The Rossica Society) reveals: “Postal sending… 14 January 1829…to the Bessarabian Office of Foreign Settlers in the hamlet of Kaushany.”

Scottish doctor, John Bell travelled to Căuşeni from Bender in 1738 where he experienced Tartar hospitality:

“…we made a shift to come, in the evening, to a large rambling town, called Kaushan [Căuşeni], inhabited by Budjak Tartars. It stands south-west from Bender. Here I had good quarters; the people were friendly and hospitable. At supper I sat by an old Tartar, who seemed to be a person of distinction among them. This old gentleman asked me many questions about Europe…”. [Recommended read]

Căuşeni Jews (along with others in “Turkish Bessarabia”) lived (apparently peacefully) alongside their neighbours for centuries. In fact, seemingly avoiding the occasional anti-Jewish purges found in the principalities and Russian territories. In: “Jewish Life in Bessarabia Through the Lens of The Shtetl Kaushany”, Yefim Kogan, (whose family originated from Căuşeni) researched its Jewish heritage from the 14th century onwards, some highlights:

In 1760, there were 760 Jews recorded living in Căuşeni, reduced in 1807 to a recorded 520, then in 1817 to 53 Jewish families out of a total of 300 – 400 people: about half the population? (Reductions probably in line with the general population). By 1827, the trebled Jewish community (of 950 souls) represented just over a third of people(s) living there. They were involved in agriculture and wine-making.

Căuşeni in 1789 was the headquarters of Prince Potemkin prior to his successful assault on Bender (Bendery). Nearby, Mikhail Kutuzov’s cavalry defeated 3,000 Ottoman Empire troops.

You can see Căuşeni by looking up the 1773 illustrated image: “view of Kauschani (today Căuşeni, home to Tatars descended from Crimaea, in Moldavia).” There see the walled centre, other buildings and a kibitkas [circular tent], again: Hommaire de Hell:

“The Nogai had for their emigrations, like the Kalmucks, circular tents of felt, three or four yards in diameter, and conical at top. In winter they constructed earthern huts beside their kibitkas. Such cold and damp dwellings were very prejudicial to health, as was proved by the multitude of children that died every year.”

Adèle Hommaire de Hell was the source of the social accounts part of the original 1844: Voyage dans les steppes de la Mer Caspienne, la Crimée, le Caucase et la Russie Méridionale.

As we saw above, in 1738, Scotsman, John Bell travelled south-west across the region:

”... having got fresh horses, I left Kaushan [Căuşeni], and travelled to the westward, towards the Danube, leaving the rising grounds, and came across the plain, called the stepp of Budjak, which is flat, dry, barren, and uncultivated; yet there is some good pasture, especially for sheep, of which the Turkish army have left few remaining. At night we came to Kongly, where are about a dozen straggling cottages, inhabited by Tartars. We made our quarters that night in the corner of a large shed, along with our horses. [The next day, we] proceeded along the same barren plain, without seeing house or tree all that day.”

The barren, tree-less nature of the Budjak naturally reflects the (Bessarabian part of the) steppe, but is that the full (regional) picture? First, from the British 1811 Royal Military Chronicle:

”... The most northern part of Ukrania is cultivated and rich: the most southern is one of the most fertile countries in the world, and the most desert; the bad government destroying there all that nature produces for the good of man. The inhabitants of these cantons, in the neighbourhood of Little Tartary, neither sow nor plant, because the Tartars of Bougiac, those of Precrop, and Moldavia, all robbers, may come and destroy their plains and harvests.”

Now, what Baron Jean de Reuilly reported from his 1803 trip to the Crimea, where there were Crimean and Nogai Tartars:

“The Crimea, formerly full of timber, is threatened with a scarcity of that article: the Russians seem desirous to outdo the Tartars in the art of devastation; while the first fell beneath the axe, the finest trees for the construction of their miserable carts, the second [the Tartars] do not content themselves with cutting the youngest wood, but wantonly tear up the saplins [saplings] of five or six years growth.”

Adjoining the Budjak region on the Bessarabian side of the Prut was a thickly forested area guarded by Moldavians against plunder by the Nogai, as reported by Dimitrie Cantemir in his 1714 Descriptio Moldaviae:

“The forest…on the bank of the Prut at the border of Bessarabia is named Tigheciu and is of nearly thirty Italian miles circumference. Being Moldavia’s strongest bastion against the Scythians [Tartars], who tried to capture it on many occasions without success. The trees are so close together that the forest is only passable down given paths known to the people there.”

Cantemir goes on to explain that the Moldavians made a contract with the Tartars there to supply a certain number of tree trunks each year, but incursions lead to frequent armed conflict and substantial loss of life. (In battle, Moldavians liked to hid behind forest trees and fire arrows at their enemies – that was very effective).

The Porte didn’t noticeably intervene, and the sense of separation is underlined for example by an order sent by the Sultan to the commander of the Bender garrison in 1786:

“… if some of the Bugeac people cross into Moldavia for timber, twigs, brushwood and fuelwood [they should be taxed].”

Source: A History of the Romanian Forest by Constantin Giurescu

Now, for the Tartars’ their brief history, first from medieval times, source: Hommaire de Hell, French husband and wife’s 1840’s Russian travels:

“… after the death of Genghis Khan, the horde whence the Nogais of the Crimea are descended… [as nomads, travelled and relocated over many years]… finally settled in Bessarabia, in the country called Boudjak. There…remained more than half a century; but being continually harassed by the Turks and Moldavians… abandoned its new country… [more travelling and relocations, then]… one of these tribes fixed itself on the plains of the Crimea, and the other returned to Bessarabia.”

So let’s look next into the important pre-1812 Nogai presence. First an extract from Henry Dearborn, senior US military officer, later to be a prominent US politician (see Wikipedia). Usefully, Dearborn visited the region about the time of the Russian take-over, publishing in 1819:

“…a part of… the province of Bessarabia… called by the Turks Budziac, or Boodjac…. The greatest portion of the inhabitants are one of the numerous tribes of Tartars, of whom some have fixed habitations in villages, and others lead a kind of wandering life, subsisting on the flesh of their oxen and horses, the milk of their mares and the cheese that is made from it.”

In 1769, these Tartars as part of Ottoman empire forces of 200,000 troops in three armies, invaded “New Russia” (substantially the Ukraine). But they had met their match in the Russian army. After a series of military actions, by 1770, the Tartars, perhaps then the finest light cavalry in the world, had suffered very heavily. With some irony, their greatest losses were on the Prut, near to where Peter The Great had been fatefully surrounded in 1711. Now a spent force, the Tartars fate was sealed and the province of Silistria’s days were numbered.

In the Russian – Turkish conflicts of the 1770s, 1780s and in 1807, Catherine The Great resettled tens of thousands of Nogai / Crimean Tartars into the Caucasus. An important milestone was the Treaty of Yassy, (Iaşi) 1792 in which the Ottoman empire ceded the region between the Dniester and Dnieper rivers: east of Moldavia, north of the Budjak, and south-east of Podolia. This was to be Russia’s new Kherson province. The Turks called the region Yedistan (Yedisan). It was part of Silistria, and contained many Nogai Tartars who were then deported. (Moldavians who had been employed or detained to build a coastal fort near Odessa were happily re-employed to help build Odessa).

However, not all the Nogai were deported. Prior to 1812 (and beyond), the Russian administration operated under a more pluralistic social system, partly in consequence of the policies of western European officials in Kherson province. The Nogai were welcomed and supported. In Odessa, pre-1812, Governor Duke de Richelieu from 1803 and General Tom Cobley (of Scottish origin) were in charge. Alexander Mikaberidze’s recent work, for example, sheds light on Richelieu’s socially liberal, open-society approach to colonisation. Of 203 colonies, 30 were “Tatar-Nogais”. Houses and mosques were built for them, along with other support.

Then in 1812 due to a provision in the Treaty of Bucharest, the rest of the Nogai in Bessarabia (about 1,900 families) fled - before they were expelled. An eyewitness reported:

"Their towns perished with them. As they left, they pulled down many of their houses; while those that remained untouched, melted away through neglect, being built of mud and clay. After a month, not a trace could be seen of the multitude of villages with which they had covered the Budjak, except that the grass was thicker and of a deeper green in the courtyards of the former Tartar 'auls.' The Tartars left all their domestic animals abandoned in their villages, most of them starving to death. When you came near an abandoned house, you heard their cries and howls, and a crowd of cats, chickens, turkeys, geese and ducks rushed out to seek aid of man, their natural protector. For a long time the Cossack and Russian soldiers lived on nothing but poultry."

In 1829, the Treaty of Adrianople expanded Bessarabia in this southern region to add the entire Danube delta to Bessarabia (until 1856). This would be the largest Bessarabia would ever become. Following this, in 1830, an imperial decree recognised the boundaries of this former part of Silistria in Bessarabia as a special administrative area. Leova was upgraded to the status of a city. (Much later, the Soviets attached the Budjak region itself to the Ukraine).

From a Moldavian point of view, the part of Moldavia east of the Prut was just part of Moldavia. Moldavia was a vassal of the Ottoman Empire which by legally binding treaties (1460, 1634) was to be protected from foreign invasion and foreign interference. This was the protest Moldavian boyars made to their Turkish masters. It was a position they continued to maintain after 1812.

The Russian empire rationale for creating the new Bessarabia was arguably short-term political opportunism, administrative convenience and military defensiveness. It’s likely the new state of Bessarabia would never have come into being but for the outcomes of the power politics of 1812. General Kutuzov’s role in this was crucial to the final outcome. (See Part 2 1812 - Treaty for more detail on this).

In 1812, Russia awaited Napoleon’s expected invasion with dread and the Turkish Sultan awaited it with enthusiasm (but tempered by his own empire’s lesser French invasion threat). The Russians and the Turks were engaged in extended negotiations which as ever included the Danubian principalities and a wide range of issues outside of them. In 1810 Russia had demanded both principalities. In 1811 it reduced this demand to Moldavia.

In 1811, newly appointed General Kutuzov had invaded Bulgaria as part of a series of successful complex political and military manoeuvres including attacks with a pre-planned retreat behind the Prut. Ottoman Empire forces suffered crushing defeats and humiliations. (See: Wikipedia: Russo-Turkish War 1806-1812). Kutuzov, acting on the Tsar’s instructions demanded all of the principalities’ lands east of the Sereth (Siret/Sireth river) – a lot of territory.

November 1811 itself, saw Kutuzov inflict his heaviest one-sided defeats on the Ottoman Empire army which was now effectively surrounded and imprisoned in the Danube region. This success bizarrely coincided with the start of a series of serious peace talks in Giurgiu. Perhaps equally strangely, Kutuzov (much to the Tsar’s great annoyance), supplied the imprisoned forces with food (probably from their own large captured supplies). The talks ended in early December 1811. In those final days, the Porte made an offer which included the lands between the Prut and Dniester.

For this time, author Ana-Maria Lepăr, from her enjoyable account states:

“Unfortunately, there was not an agreement between the two parties, due to the fact that ‘the return to the initial discussion on the European side of the border (Siret and Prut) was considered contrary to Russian friendship and M Kutuzov himself, being quite surprised, remained very pained’.”

Source: Bucharest during the Peace of 1812, by Ana-Maria Lepăr, 2015

But the expected invasion by Napoleon was changing the political dynamics...

As the clock ticked into early May 1812, with French forces advancing, it became clear to the Russian side that compromise was needed. Would abandoning (for the time being) much of the territorial claims on the principalities be such a loss? To partly answer that is to weigh up why the Tsar, (in 1806), like his ill-fated brother Tsar Nicholas invaded the principalities in the first place. Many historians struggle to find any credible rationale / casus belli in either case. Excellent source for the 1812 Treaty, F.Ismail states:

“Russia’s motives for invading the principalities have never been satisfactorily explained”.

Looking outside the specifics of this territorial grab however, and weighting in the Tsars’ unremitting ambitions to conquer the Ottoman Empire: see part of a higher purpose: the continuing prosecution of a believed-in God-purposed war. Tsar Alexander’s complex aims and ambitions are at least part-revealed in Admiral Chichagov’s posthumous account: Mémoires de l'amiral Tchitchagoff (1767 – 1849). But first port-of-call should be Wikipedia: Russo-Turkish War (1806 – 1812).

The winter 1812 situation was visited in the second section: "The Russian take-over". There’s a difference of view between General Mikhail Kutuzov on the one hand and Tsar Alexander, Admiral Chichagov, and Capodistrias on the other. Kutuzov had arguably a much more realistic assessment of the situation and the immediate priorities.

In early May 1812, two things happened on the Russian side: Firstly, the Tsar substantially reduced his demands for territory back to the Prut river, along with gaining some of the Danube delta territory plus shared access to the delta’s Sulina Arm. (See the 1829 Treaty of Adrianople for an interesting comparison / perspective in section: “The limits of empire… developing a new border”).

Secondly, Kutuzov heard of his replacement’s appointment and his mandate. That appears to have prompted him, a man who was never unnecessarily rushed, to try and quickly conclude the treaty (in a sensible manner). Kutuzov still had a large part of the Ottoman army trapped, and refused to end hostilities until the basis of negotiations were fixed.

At this point for May 1812, we need to see primarily Kutuzov and the British Ambassador, Stratford Canning’s roles in the treaty negotiations.

Kutuzov demanded the territory proposed by the Porte in late November: ultimately the new Bessarabia to be, including the Budjak region which the Porte was reluctant to concede. Territorially, the new province would be militarily defensible. (See Part 2 1812 - Treaty account for a clearer perspective on this complex area).

Placing this new acquisition in a wider regional context was part of Stratford Canning’s role. European powers would not allow either (or any) empire to solely occupy and dominate the principalities. European powers as a (collective) third party had to be satisfied, or military action would follow. (Even if that action simply meant backing the other party). Thus, the balance of power (doctrine) should be maintained.

European powers in this case could not properly include the French government (a front for Napoleon’s dangerous ambitions). So their British rivals were called in to mediate, as represented by a young Stratford Canning (who would much later make his name in the run up to the Crimean War). Again, see Part 2 for a clearer picture on Canning’s role.

Canning acted as a go-between between the Russian and Ottoman empires. He had met a British commercial agent called Mair who had crossed the Russian and Ottoman lines. Mair had told Canning that Ottoman forces and defences in Bulgaria were totally inadequate for the task of keeping the Russians out of Adrianople. Events were moving fast and time was short. Mair had also said that Russian commanders aware of the imminent threat from Napoleon, expected a settlement based on limited gains. Canning supported the Russian demand for possession of the new carved out territory between the Prut and the Dniester..

Intelligence obtained by foreign embassies suggested that this latest Russian demand was negotiable. But the Sultan capitulated. The agreement being famously signed at the Bucharest inn of the fabulously wealthy and influential Armenian merchant Manuc Bei (Manuk Bey) on May 28^th 1812. He was one of the Russian empire negotiators, Count Langeron was another.

In Britain, Stratford Canning took much credit in diplomatic circles for his role leading to the Treaty of Bucharest. But it’s likely that he was just being useful rather than making a decisive intervention. The Turkish authorities were predictably scathing about his role. As for Russia, about 1822 Canning wrote to his successor ambassador Strangford:

“it should be remembered that Russia has something to reproach us for having hurried her into it [1812 Treaty of Bucharest] on terms not corresponding with the advantage which had been obtained by Russia in the course of the preceding [1806 – 12] war.”

In typical style, the Porte severely blamed all the foreign participants who contributed to the 1812 Treaty. Greek dragoman, Demetrius Marusi (phanariot interpreter, middle man related to Scarlat Sturdza) was murdered in 1812 along with his brother. British ambassador Strangford then got into severe trouble for trying to smuggle the Marusi (Moruzi / Maruzi) family out of Istanbul. (Marusi had been the assistant to Chief Interpreter, Mehmed Said Galid Effendi - also at the talks…). Scarlat Sturdza’s son, Alexander had taken the treaty minutes…

So the Treaty of Bucharest was signed on May 28^th 1812, at Manuc’s Inn. However, that was not the end of the matter, as the treaty was not ratified in May 1812. In June, Napoleon invaded Russia.

Admiral Chichagov inherited an unconfirmed, potentially dangerous situation. The ongoing diplomatic discussions centred especially around the Budjak territory, and the exchange of prisoners. Now, some translated extracts from the biography of Chichagov’s mémoires: firstly, writing to the Tsar:

“Why do we want to keep all these prisoners, whose maintenance is so costly? The Sultan asks for their return as a favour, which would be well received by his people, with reciprocated goodwill.”

“The admiral therefore proposed to Alexander that the prisoners and [50 mainly poor condition cannons, from over 200] be returned immediately.”

The Tsar’s reported response: “Alexander consented to surrender the guns, but he refused to surrender Bessarabia”. The territory of “Bessarabia”, then and for some time being only an enlarged version of the Budjak.

On July 5^th, 1812 the Treaty of Bucharest was ratified by the Sultan. On July 31^st, the Danube Army marched out to face Napoleon.

From July 1812, one of the Ottoman Empire’s worst plague pandemics struck Istanbul. Lasting until 1819, (see Wikipedia). The plague effectively neutralised the Ottoman Empire militarily. In practical terms it also restricted the possibility of further Russian military or other assertive actions into the principalities. For by 1813, it (as Caragea’s plague) had spread into Wallachia and Moldavia and into Bessarabia (reported in second chapter/section), then spread again in 1819.

When would the plague cease..? Arguably overall, this seemingly endless, catastrophic situation helped to stabilise (or paralyse) the political situation.

Imperial Russia’s southern ambitions extended well beyond the principalities but were never fulfilled. The Prut river remained one of the frontiers of the Russian empire.

The wider European context

European powers saw the principalities (Wallachia & Moldavia) as a neglected, under-developed, irreligious region misused by its Ottoman masters. European in this context included most of Russia.

Matters came to a head at the significant Treaty of Vienna 1815. This was a triumph for Russian diplomacy with Russia's victory over Napoleon an important promoting factor. Significantly the three year old status of Bessarabia was not questioned. From 1815, questions about the status and future of the principalities excluded Bessarabia from the discussion...

The principalities contained the most fertile and productive land in Europe, often set against the most beautiful landscapes. Depopulation in Moldavia and Bessarabia was assessed at being four or five times the people who now remained. In Bessarabia the population had fallen to roughly half a million during 1812, whereas on its northern border smaller Podolia had a population of 1.3 million in 1811. After the plague of 1812 and more emigration through the semi-porous border, the census of 1817 recorded Bessarabia’s population at 483,000. In 1819, another plague spread from Moldavia into Bessarabia. The departed population needed to be replaced.

The policy of colonisation in “New Russia” matched the requirement of replacing unruly elements in what made up most of this territory – today’s Ukraine. New Russia’s other name: “The Wild Fields” wasn’t really a romantic notion. The Ukraine saw continuous small scale rebellions. Mainly, hundreds of attacks on landlords. Largely the result of the imposition of serfdom by Catherine The Great on very proud, independent Cossacks.

In 1769, Cossack leaders had made a secret pact with the Sultan to allow a massive Ottoman invasion force to travel through their territory unhindered. In 1775 Catherine the Great gave the order to attack and destroy the Zaporozhian Sich. Some Cossacks escaped to form the Danubian Sich which owed its loyalty to the Sultan. It became a thorn in the Russians’ side.

1812 marked the start of the heroic Ukrainian rebel leader, Ustyma Karmelyuka’s twenty-three year epic career. Cossacks wouldn’t gladly submit to the horrible fate in store for them as serfs. So massive social upheaval resulted. In 1816 in the region of Kiev for example, there were 25,000 peasants on the run. Many of the escaping peasants headed into the more peaceable, less regulated southern Ukraine, and sometimes into Bessarabia, adding to the banditry there.

Managing this problem placed Bessarabia in an important military context, especially while fears of an Ottoman invasion persisted.

In 1828, the Cossacks of the Danubian Sich saw their positions over-run in the opening chapter of the Russo-Turkish war of 1828-9. Tsar Nicholas 1 (personally leading his army) reached an agreement with the Cossacks to disband the Sich and move it to Russia. But serious social upheaval continued (in what is now the Ukraine) until serfdom was abolished in 1861.

The law and order and governance issues raised by these threats led naturally to a desire to attract the right kind of “civilised” people to “New Russia”. Colonists who could also help defend it as well as its values in the future.

European powers agreed with this view while strongly disliking Imperial Russia’s authoritarian approach. They mainly accepted that some colonisation of former Dacia was necessary. The Austrian empire had learned lessons from applying colonisation within its own territories: some settlers were better than others. The purpose of colonisation was to develop lands agriculturally, develop industry where appropriate and increase trade. A driving aim was to increase taxation by increasing wealth creation. Capable German agricultural settlers were highly sought after. Russian state officials observed well and were great learners. And they believed that by bringing in capable colonists, local people would copy their productive methods.

“New Russia” needed to replace the Tatars it had expelled and resettled. These included the Crimean Tatars and their vassals, the Nogai Tatars in the Budjak. In centuries before, these peoples had invaded Muscovy. They represented part of the nomadic peoples who were both agents of the Ottoman empire and unruly elements who would not submit to a settled, well ordered, law abiding existence.

As slave traders, the Nogai would abduct people. With reference to this and their forced resettlement, bizarrely in the Caucasus were found in the 1920s “Romanian villages there where the peasants… talk just as they do in Bessarabia” - Charles Upson Clark. Moldavians inhabited higher ground just north of the Budjak where they probably had to defend themselves.

Russia saw itself as a European power. So much so that many of its officials were western European. That included most of its generals. Additionally until the 1830s, alongside other western powers, notably Austria, Russia afforded some foreigners its protection in the principalities from the local judiciary, and immunity from taxes. (Called suditi meaning foreign subjects). These western European officials and associates saw Russia as conducting a civilising mission. Removing the unchristian, pernicious, barbaric influence of the Ottoman empire in the Danubian principalities and elsewhere.

Russia’s control of the principalities would provide it with increased control over the Black Sea, further its trading opportunities through the Danube Delta, and provide the first steps towards access to the Mediterranean. But how would Russia manage Wallachia and Moldavia provinces?

The Russians themselves regarded the local boyars as being by nature most possibly treacherous. This was something more than their submitting to Phanariot influence and being too closely connected to the Ottoman empire. Again we have to look back to the fateful events surrounding Peter The Great’s entanglement in the Prut marshes. The great Tsar had been promised important assistance from the prince of Wallachia who then provided no support. The betrayal cost Russia dearly and they saw it as having set back the course of Russia’s civilising efforts for generations. As for ordinary Moldavians, they were just seen as being currently lazy and ineffective.

Russians usually looked more gladly on their fellow Slavs, the Bulgarians, Serbs and others. For example, in April 1812, Admiral Chichagov was appointed by the Tsar to pursue the implausible diplomatic plan of winning foreign powers’ acceptance of creating a large militia from the Slavs that lived along the Danube. They were to be part of Russia’s defence against Napoleon in that sector. But what might have followed after the war..? (Chichagov, the new Governor General of Wallachia & Moldavia arrived in the principalities a week before the 1812 Treaty was signed). With the help of the Slavs, Russians believed that ethnic Romanians could be conquered, controlled and set on the right path…

Despite this outlook, some senior Romanian figures (in the principalities) had been increasingly looking to Russia rather than Austria - the other next likely alternative – to help promote their independence. In the 1820s the Russian hierarchy were willing to promote (a nominal) autonomy like that in part of Poland (Congress Poland). The appointee who would successfully enact this autonomy was the highly capable General P.D. Kiselev, already an active longterm player in the region’s politics and governance.

General Kiselev was a liberal whose great reputation, decency (and fortunate friendships) had only just saved him from his connection with the Decembrist plot of 1825. He was appointed governor of the principalities in 1829, following a shocking period of abuses by the Russian army in the 1828-9 war. Kiselev handled well the different expectations and demands placed on him by the different parties to deliver (an acceptable) autonomy for the principalities - the Regulamentul Organic - in 1834-5. In the short-term it just mainly confirmed Russia’s power and status, but it would evolve to ultimately form the basis of the Romanian state.

As the nineteenth century progressed, western European powers became increasingly keen to curtail Russia’s ambitions as part of the well known “balance of power” political orthodoxy. In Britain and France, the Austrian empire (Austro-Hungarian empire from 1867) was already seen as powerful enough. So as part of the balance more and more, Britain and France wanted to see the Danubian principalities assert their independence.

Wallachia and Moldavia were important trading partners with western Europe, supplying grain and importing manufactured goods; a trade with much scope for development.

In western Europe there was an increasing affection for these mainly ethnic-Romanian people and a desire to see these peoples uplift themselves through their own efforts. To see them improve their economic and social conditions as they asserted their own identity and independence…

Main Recommended Sources

Nearly all content above is available in/from multiple sources.

For Romanian and French source documents used Google Translate in conjunction with my limited French and Latin knowledge: translations partly mine.

I would like to thank the people and organisations that have made such valuable information freely available. The following list of sources is not exhaustive.

Generic multiple source host / generators / facilitators used

Wikipedia

Google Books (including many of the following in different categories)

Google Translate (now surprisingly good ! + note above)

Internet Archive (including a few of the following in different categories)

Haithi Trust (including a few of the following in different categories)

Important recommended academic sources (including those where at times bias may be an issue)

1812 and the Emergence of the Bessarabian Region: Province Building under Russian Imperial Rule (Euxeinos) / Rom. 1812 și crearea regiunii Basarabia… by Victor Taki, 2015

Russia On The Danube: Imperial Expansion And Political Reform In Moldavia and Wallachia, 1812-1834 by Victor Taki

Constructing Bessarabia: Imperial and National Models of Province-Building by Andrei Cusco / Victor Taki, 2010

Estate Interest Vs State Service: The (Un)easy, Integration of the Bessarabian Nobility into the Russian Imperial System by Andrei Cusco, 2008

Romanian Boyar Opposition to the Organic Statutes: Reasons, Manifestations, Outcomes by Victor Taki

Between Nation & Empire: Russian & Romanian Competing Visions of Bessarabia in the Second Half of the 19^th and Early 20^th Century by Andrei Cusco, 2008

Attitude of local Romanian population of Bessarabia towards the Russian authorities and…“reactive identity” by Cusco, 2002

The Making of Modern Romanian Culture, Literacy and the Development of National Identity… by Drace-Francis, 2006

The Traditions of Invention: Romania Ethnic & Social Stereotypes in Historical Context by Drace-Francis, 2013

Making Ethnicity in Southern Bessarabia… by Simon Schlegel, 2019

Empire of The Tsars: Romanov Russia (DVD) by Lucy Worsley, BBC, 2016

Prince Michael Vorontsov: Viceroy to the Tsar by Anthony Laurens Hamilton Rhinelander, 1990

Bessarabia: Russia and Roumania on the Black Sea by Charles Upson Clark, 1927

Tratatul de Pace de la Bucharesti din 1812, 200 de ani de la anexarea Basarabiei de catre Imperiul Rus – multiple expert contributors for international conference in Chisinau, 2012

Politici Imperiale în Estul și Vestul Spațiului Românesc, Chisinau University source, 2010

The Repercussions of Tsarist Domination Regime on Genesis and Evolution of Commercial Bourgeoisie of Bessarabia (1812-1830) in Rom. by Valentin Tomuleţ, 2012

The Budjak Region in the Aftermath of the Treaty of Bucharest (1812) by Murat Tuğluca, 2014

Beyond The Pale: The Jewish Encounter with Late Imperial Russia by Benjamin Nathans, 2004

Multilingualism in Post-Soviet countries…2008 by Aneta Pavlenko, article by Ciscel (as below)

The Language of the Moldovans: Romania, Russia, and identity in an ex-Soviet republic, 2007 by Matthew H. Ciscel

Reconvergence of Moldavian towards Romanian by Marcu Gabinschi [1997 book article]

Folklore and Nationalism in Europe During The Long Nineteenth Century, 2012 esp. contributor: Krisztina Lajosi

Moldova, Bessarabia, Transnistria by Rebecca Haynes, 2003

Moldova: A History by Rebecca Haynes, 2020

The Russian Annexation of Bessarabia: 1774 – 1828, a study of imperial expansion by George Jewsbury, 1976

Migration and Disease in the Black Sea Region: Ottoman-Russian Relations in the late 18^th and early 19^th Centuries by Andrew Robarts, 2016

The Organisation and Work of the Postal Service in the Bessarabian Province… (1812 – 1857) by Vladimir Babici, The Rossica Society, 2000

Considerations concerning the functionality of Bessarabia’s provisional administration…1812 – 1816 by Sergiu Cornea, 2008

Moldavian – Russian Political Relations in Recent History by Davide Zaffi, 2002

The Bukovina-Germans During the Habsburg Period…by Sophie A. Welsch, 1986

Treaty of Bucharest (and recommended) – in date order

History of Europe from the Commencement of the French Revolution in 1789 to the Restoration of the Bourbons in 1815, Vol. 10 by Sir Archibald Alison, 1860

The Private Diary of Travels…During Mission and Employment with the European Armies in the Campaigns of 1812, 1813, 1814 by General Sir Robert Wilson, 1861

Mémoires de l'amiral Tchitchagoff (1767-1849) – posthumous biographical diary & document assemblage from Admiral Chichagov, en Français, 1862

The Life of The Right Honourable Stratford Canning… from his Memoires and Private and Official Papers, vol 1 by Stanley Lane-Poole, 1888

The Making of The Treaty of Bucharest 1811 – 1812 by F. Ismail, 1979

Anglo-Ottoman Encounters in the Age of Revolution…by Cunningham and Ingram, 1993

The Script of Ottoman-Russian Treaty of 1812 (Rom, Fr., Russ.) by Ionut Cojocaru, 2012

The Role of British Ambassador Stratford Canning in the Negotiations of the Treaty of Bucharest by Şeyma Dereci, publ. St. Kliment Ohridski University, Sofia 2015

Bucharest during the Peace of 1812 by Ana-Maria Lepăr, 2015

Towards the Russo-Ottoman Peace (1810 – 1812)… [re] British Ambassador Stratford Canning by Andrada Ligia Manole, 2019

Manuc Bey – Secret Character of the backstage of the Bucharest Peace of 1812 by Vlad Mischevca - Limba Romana (Chişinău), 2020 – Romanian: Google Translate startpoint.

Contemporary Accounts (in rough date order) – used direct quotes from most

Travels from St Petersburg in Russia… by John Bell, 1763

The Present State of All Nations… Vol 4 by Tobias Smollett, 1769

The New Universal Traveller… by Jonathan Carver, 1779

A Survey of the Turkish Empire… by William Eton, 1799

European Commerce… by J Jepson Oddy, 1805

The present state of Turkey…together with the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia by Thomas Thornton, 1807

Travels Through…Bessarabia, Moldavia, Wallachia… by Pierce Balthasar Campenhausen (Freiherr von), 1808

Campaigns of the armies of France, in Prussia, Saxony, and Poland, Volumes 3-4 by Jacques Peuchet, 1808

The Royal Military Chronicle, 1811

Report of the British and Foreign Bible Society…[1817] by the Reverend Robert Pinkerton

Travels Through Some Parts of Germany, Poland, Moldavia & Turkey by Adam Neale M.D., 1818

Journey from Moscow to Constantinople: in the years 1817, 1818 by William MacMichael M.D. F.R.S, 1819

A Memoir on the Commerce and Navigation of The Black Sea… by Henry Dearborn, 1819

An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia by William Wilkinson, 1820

Travels in Georgia, Persia, Armenia, Ancient Babylonia etc. during the years 1817 - 1820 by Sir Robert Ker Porter, 1821

Annual Register, Volume 65, 1823

Narrative of a Journey from Constantinople to England by Robert Walsh, 1828

The London Encyclopaedia… Volume 4, 1829

Travels Through the Crimea, Turkey, and Egypt… by James Webster, 1830

Travels in Russia…a residence at… Odessa by Edward Morton, 1830

The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, Vol 3, 1830

Penny cyclopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, Volumes 3-4, 1835

A Steam Voyage Down The Danube: with sketches of Hungary, Wallachia, Servia, Turkey by Michael J. Quin, 1836

Posthumous Memoirs of His Own Time by Sir N. W. Wraxall, Volume 1, 1836

Travels In The Western Caucasus Vol. II by Edmund Spencer, 1836

Travels In Southern Russia and the Crimea; through Hungary, Wallachia & Moldavia by Anatoly Demidov, Volumes 1 & 2, 1837

A Geographical, statistical and commercial account of the Russian ports of the Black Sea… and the Danube: also… European commerce of Russia in 1835 by Schloss, 1837

Travels In The Three Great Empires of Austria, Russia & Turkey by C.B. Elliott M.A., F.RS, 1838

Commerce of the Ports of New Russia, Moldavia, Wallachia, report to the Russian Government, 1835 by Julius Hagemeister

Autobiography of William G. Schauffler, for forty-nine years a missionary in the Orient, 1839

Austria Vol 2 by Peter Evan Turnbull, 1840

Austria, Vienna…Galicia… Bukovina and the Military Frontier by J.G. Kohl, 1844

Travels in the steppes of the Caspian Sea: the Crimea, the Caucasus by Xavier & Adèle Hommaire de Hell, 1847

The Beacon: a journal of politics and literature by George Julian Harney, 1853

The Russian Shores of The Black Sea in the Autumn of 1852 by Laurence Oliphant, 1853

The Last Days of Alexander, and the first days of Nicholas by Robert Lee, 1854

Turkey, Russia, The Black Sea by Captain Edmund Spencer, 1854

The Russians of the South by Charles Brooks, 1854

The Danubian Principalities: The Frontier Lands of the Christian and the Turk, Vol 1 by James.Skene, 1854

Travels in Albania & Other Provinces of Turkey in 1809 & 1810 by John Cam Hobhouse: Baron Broughton, 1855

The Russian Empire: Its People, Institutions and Resources by Baron Von Haxthausen, 1856, re-publ. 1968

Europe: Russia. St Petersburg. Russians of the South by McCulloch & Hardman, 1856

General Gordon's Letters from the Crimea, the Danube, and Armenia. 1854 – 1858 [1884], edited by D.C. Boulger, 2010

The National Wishes of Moldavia & Wallachia Pronounced by the Divans ad hoc assembled at Jassy & Bucarest in accordance with The Treaty of Paris, 1858

Lancashire & Cheshire: Past and Present, Vol1… by Thomas Baines, 1868

Accounts and Papers of the House of Commons, 1870, by Parliament of Great Britain

The Annual Register, Vol 117 by Edmund Burke, 1876

Russia by Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace, 1877

Memoirs of Prince Metternich 1773 – 1815, published 1880

Memories of my Boyhood (Childhood Memories) by Ion Creangă, 1888

The Education of a Russian Statesman: The Memoirs of Nikolaĭ Karlovich Giers by C&B Jelavich, 1962 (Giers died 1895)

A History of the Coldstream Guards from 1815 to 1895 by C.B. Ross-of-Bladensburg, 1896

Memoirs of A Russian Governor by Prince Urusov, 1908

The Russian Conquest of The Caucasus by John F. Baddeley, 1908

More Corn For Bessarabia: Russian Experience, 1910 – 1917 by Louis Guy Michael

British Cabinet Papers 1918 from National Archive

Other useful sources - approximate usage order or identified as helpful (some recommended in main text)

The Moldovans: Romania, Russia, and the Politics of Culture by Charles King, 2000

Preliminaries of Romanian-Finnish relations before 1914 by Silviu Miloiu

Modern Byzantine Law in the judicial practice of Bessarabia (1812 – 1917) by Anton Rudokvas & Andrej Novikov

Russia and the Formation of the Romanian National State, 1821-1878 by Barbara Jelavich

Archival Sources for Genealogy of Jewish Colonists in 19^th C. Southern Russia by Dimitry Feldman, 1999.

The Unification of The Romanian Lands, University of Washington

Prisoner of Russia: Alexander Pushkin and the political uses of nationalism by Iurii Druzhnikov, 1999

From grand duchy to modern state: a political history of Finland since 1809 by Jussila, Hentila, Nevakivi, 1999

Southeastern Europe under Ottoman rule, 1354 – 1804 by Peter F. Sugar, 1977

Odessa, A History 1794 – 1914 by Patricia Herlihy, 1991

Ukraine, the land and its people: an introduction to its geography by Stephen Rudnitsky Ph.D, 1918

A history of the gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia by David M. Crowe, 1996

Between Polizeistaat and Cordon Sanitaire: Epidemics and Police Reform during Russian Occupation of Moldavia by Victor Taki, 2008

Biosketches Of Scientists…in the Evolution of Tsarist Russia’s Anti-plague system by Center For Non Proliferation Studies

Germans in Bessarabia, around the Black Sea and the Volga Region, Die Gerufenen

Germans In Bessarabia: Historical Background and Present Day Relations by Ute Schmidt

Unofficial Website of the President of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.

Roumanian Journey by Sacheverell Sitwell, 1938

Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy…, 2006 by Richard Wortman

More about the History of Quakers in Russia by Roger Bartlett

Villages on Stage: Folklore and Nationalism in the Republic of Moldova, 2011 by J.R.Cash

The Agrarian Revolution in Roumania by Ifor Evans, 1924

The Roumanians 1774 – 1866 by Keith Hitchens, 1996

Personality and Place in Russian Culture…edited by Simon Dixon, 2010

Russia in the Nineteenth Century: Autocracy, Reform, and Social Change, 1814 – 1914 by Polunov, 2005

A Diplomatic History of Europe since the Congress of Vienna by René Albrecht-Carrié, 1958

Russia against Napoleon: The Battle For Europe, 1807 to 1814 by Dominic Lieven, 2010

Reforming The Tsar’s Army: Military Innovation in Imperial Russia…by van der Oye & Menning, 2005

The Russian Officer Corps in the Revolutionary & Napoleonic Wars, 1792–1815 by Mikaberidze, 2005

Odessa: Genius and Death in a City of Dreams by Charles King, 2012

The Establishment of the Balkan National States, 1804-1920 by Charles & Barbara Jelavich, 1977

Biography of an Empire: Governing Ottomans in an Age of Revolution by CM Philliou, 2010

Sowing the Word: The Cultural Impact of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 1804-2004, by Batalden, Cann, Dean, 2004

Homelands and Diasporas: Greeks, Jews and Their Migrations by Minna Rozen, 2008

Russia's People of Empire: Life Stories from Eurasia, 1500 to the Present by Norris & Sunderland, 2012

Taming The Wild Field by Willard Sunderland, 2004

The Commissioner’s Daughter: The Story of Elizabeth Proby and Admiral Chichagov by Joanna Woods, 2000

Yad Vashem.

JewishGen

Jewish Life in Bessarabia Through the Lens of the Shtetl Kaushany by Yefim A. Kogan, 2012

Russian agriculture in the last 150 years of Serfdom by Jerome Blum, Agricultural History Society, 1960

A History of The Romanian Forest by Constantin C. Giurescu, 1976

Women & Society in the Romanian Principalities 1750 – 1850, by Angela Jianu, 2003

Reflections on Divorce in Bessarabia in 1^st half of 19^th C.(esp.) Adultery by Alina Felea, Institute of History, State & Law of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova, 2012

Wallachia and Moldavia as seen by William Wilkinson, late British Consul resident at Bukorest (1820) by Sorina Georgescu, 2015

Balkan Federation, a History… by L.S. Stavrtanos, 1942

Entangled Histories of the Balkans by Daskalov & Marinov, Constantin Iordachi, 2013

The Origins of The Crimean War by David M. Goldfrank, 1993

Russia, 1762 – 1825: Military Power, The State & The People by Janet M. Hartley & Terri Elder, 2008

The role of the Uniform in Tsarist Russia by Inna Fedorova, 2014

Memoirs of the Revolution, the Empire and the Restoration by Louis-Victor-Leon Rochechouart, from Alexander Mikaberidze, 2019

Four Russian Serf Narratives by John MacKay, 2006 esp. Nicholai Shipov

Political Reform in the Russian and Ottoman Empires by Adrian Brisku, 2017

Modernizarea Circuitului de Distribuție a Mărfurilor in Basarabia (1812 – 1863) by Andrei Emilciuc, 2019

German & Romanian Legal Terminology in Bukovina by Iulia Elena Zup

Austria & The Danubian Principalities, 1853 – 1856 by Paul W. Schroeder, 1969