Search

Résumé : sauf quelques périodes courtes et exceptionnelles, la mer Noire est tout au long du xviiie siècle un enjeu de taille de concurrence et de conflits entre la Russie et l’Empire ottoman. Après deux siècles de domination ottomane, dès la signature du traité de paix d’Istanbul (13 juin 1700) le verrou de la porte du « harem » saute. Désormais la Russie de Pierre le Grand et de Catherine II connaitra une extension territoriale irrésistible vers le sud tout en modifiant radicalement le paysage géographique et humain pontique, créant villes, industries et flottes. Il a fallu cinq conflits armés entre les deux pays pour terminer finalement par une alliance contre-nature à cause de l’expédition d’Égypte de Napoléon Bonaparte. Mais ce n’est qu’un accident de parcours, la réalité crue reprendra ses droits. Abstract: Except for a few short and exceptional periods, the Black Sea was a major issue of competition and conflict between Russia and the Ottoman Empire throughout the 18th century. After two centuries of Ottoman domination, as soon as the Istanbul peace treaty was signed (June 13, 1700) the lock on the door of the «harem» jumped. From now on, the Russia of Peter the Great and Catherine II will know its irresistible territorial extension towards the south while radically modifying the Pontic geographical and human landscape, creating cities, industries and fleets. It took five armed conflicts between the two countries to finally end in an unnatural alliance because of Napoleon Bonaparte’s Egyptian expedition. But it is only an accident of course, the raw reality will take back its rights. Özet: Karadeniz, birkaç kısa ve istisnai dönem dışında, 18. yüzyıl boyunca Rusya ile Osmanlı İmparatorluğu arasında önemli bir rekabet ve çatışma konusudur. İki asırlık mutlak Osmanlı hakimiyetinden sonra, İstanbul Barış Antlaşması imzalanır imzalanmaz (13 Haziran 1700) «harem»in kapı kilidi yerinden fırlar. Bundan böyle, Büyük Petro ve II. Katerina’nın Rusya’sı, Pontik coğrafi ve insan manzarasını kökten değiştirir, şehirler, endüstriler ve filolar birbirini izler, güneye doğru karşı konulmaz toprak genişlemesini sağlar. İki ülke arasındaki beş silahlı büyük çatışmanın sonunda yüzyıl doğal olmayan bir ittifakla sonuçlanır. Ancak bu bir “kaza”dır ve çiğ gerçek göreceli bir çabuklukla geri döner.

La compréhension de la mobilisation patriotique des Russes en faveur de la libération des Slaves du Sud au cours de la crise balkanique et de la guerre russo-turque de 1876-1878 nécessite la prise en compte des récits de cruautés relayés par la presse et par d’autres vecteurs d’information qui aboutissent à la cristallisation d’une représentation de l’ennemi à la fois barbare et infidèle. Pendant plus de deux ans, la population russe est soumise à une véritable surenchère d'images et de récits qui ont la violence pour thème majeur. La dénonciation des atrocités débouche sur la justification d’un conflit de nature essentiellement religieux et justifié par des conceptions antagonistes du monde. La construction de l’image de l’ennemi associe des thèmes traditionnels et modernes et s’appuie sur un système de représentations déjà solidement enracinés. The author argues that the patriotic mobilization of the Russians in favor of their Slavic brethrens during the Balkan crisis and the Russian-Turkish war of 1876-1878 was to a large extent based on various stories of atrocities committed by the Turks against the Slavs propagated by the press and other medias. For over two years, the Russians were exposed to an avalanche of images and stories with gruesome violence as their main theme. The Turks were represented as “barbarians” and “uncivilized” on the one hand, and as “enemies of Christianity” on the other. The denunciation of atrocities led to the justification of an essentially religious conflict based on mutually exclusive world-views. The image of the enemy thus created associates both traditional and modern themes, and is based on the bedrock of shared representations.