TURKEY AND THE ARMENIAN ATROCITIES
Note from the administration of ArmenianHouse.org: the page numbering is preserved, so the book can be used for quoting. Also we did our best to keep the layout as close to the original as possible.
RISE AND DECLINE OF OTTOMAN POWER.
Capture of Constantinople — Victories of Mohammed II — The Sultans Assume the Caliphate — Reign of Suleiman the Magnificent — Attack upon Venice — Constant Strife over the Danubian Principalities — Internal Disorganization — Weak Sultans and Powerful Viziers — Alliances with Foreign Powers — Repeated Disasters — Weak Rule in Asia — Revolt in Egypt and Syria — Condition at Commencement of Present Century.
For a little more than half a century after the foundation of the Ottoman dynasty, the Ottomans merely formed one of the many bands of Turks who roamed over Western Asia and Southeastern Europe, plundering the Christians where they could and fighting each other in a promiscuous contest for the supremacy; always, however, showing an upward tendency. Not only were they vigorous on the battle-field, but shrewd in their policies. The close of the Seljuk dynasty was the signal for the division of the once famous empire of Rum. One by one these divisions fell into the hands of the new Sultans; some by conquest, some by purchase, some by politics, until they were by far the most powerful element in that whole section. The weakening of the Byzantine Empire, and its practical loss of power over the Danubian provinces, tempted these Turks across the Dardanelles, and they measured swords with the Serbs, Wallachs and others. Under Amurath, the founder of the
[page 165] CAPTURE OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
Janissaries, they became a terror to all, and the flag, whose red color was established by himself as token of the blood that flowed wherever they went, was flaunted in the very face of Christian Emperors. Then, however, came a check; Timour-Lenk (Timour the Lame, Tamerlane), who had risen against his Sultan in the small canton of Trans-Oxiana, gathered to his standard the semi-barbarous tribes of Turkestan, spread through Khorassan, Persia, Georgia and Southern Russia; then south through Armenia and Mesopotamia into India. Then he turned again westward, and, influenced not a little, perhaps, by the presence in his court of some Turkish princes, deposed by the Ottoman Sultans, he captured Syria, and just as Bajazet was under the walls of Constantinople he heard that his own kingdoms were in danger. At the famous battle of Konieh (Iconium) the Ottoman power was broken; but with the death of Timour his empire went to pieces and the Ottoman line again resumed its power. For another half century advance was made even more rapidly than before, and on either side of the Bosporus and Dardanelles the arms of the Turks were victorious.
The capture of Constantinople, which followed in 1453, really marked the beginning of the Turkish Empire. The series of forays, with the occasional capture of an important city or even of a province in Asia Minor or the Balkan Peninsula, had become an organized campaign for the subjugation of the whole of Western Asia and Southeastern Europe. More than that, an entire change in form of government became necessary. Hitherto all of government that there had been was that of the army, and pertained to the immediate Moslem followers of the Sultan. The various tribes or nations who yielded to his arms, but refused to accept Islam, really had no
[page 166] NOW AN EMPEROR.
relation whatever to his rule. They paid what tribute was demanded, but there was no such thing as regular civil government. When, however, Constantinople was captured, this condition could no longer continue. It was essential that there be some definite relation arranged between the Sultan and the large class of Greeks who had come to form so important a part of the empire. He realized that the whole position was changed; that he was no longer merely a general, but an emperor, and an emperor over a very heterogeneous empire.
To begin with, there were the Greeks in Constantinople, all through Western Asia Minor and in Europe; there were the Armenians, scarcely recognized as a distinct people, with at the time no government of their own, scarcely more than a race, an ecclesiastical unit, held together by their church relations, and with a sort of tribal organization; there was the Syrian Church in its varied forms, Nestorian and Jacobite; there were the different branches of the Slav race, all combined under the Greek Church. Undoubtedly Mohammed II, would have been glad to have made them all Moslem. That, however, he could not do, and very possibly he realized that while such a course might flatter his pride, it would not be so advantageous for his treasury, for he collected taxes from Christians which Moslems would refuse to pay. Still, there must be some method arranged by which these different nationalities should not only have their existence recognized, but should be allowed a certain development with a view to the strengthening of the empire.
During the century that had elapsed since the Ottoman dynasty began, the various Sultans had come into contact with the forms of Roman government. They had taken advantage
[page 167] CHURCH AND STATE.
of it in arranging for Moslems within the territories of the Greek Emperors, and the Roman system of one law for the citizen, another for the foreigner, was perfectly familiar to them. Mohammed adopted this principle, and basing it upon the idea, which dominates the whole growth of Moslem power, of absolute union of Church and State, developed the system which has governed in all that region until the present day, and established a series of communities centering about the different ecclesiastical leaders. Although it was not till a later date that the Sultans assumed the title of Caliph, they had practically ruled as Caliphs among their Moslem subjects. The same principle Mohammed II applied to the Christians of his empire. Recognizing the Greek Patriarch at Constantinople as the centre of authority, he called to that office the head of the party, which under the last Constantine had opposed a union with the Latin Church, and thereby, as he thought, had made his own conquest easier, and confirmed him in the dignity of the double office, civil and religious, which he was to exercise over his people. He associated with him the clergy and learned men of the church, and treated them with marked indulgence. He instituted a court, giving the rank of Vizier to the Patriarch and granting to him a guard of Janissaries. He established a system of government by which all community and social rights and duties were vested in the Patriarchate, which had sole authority in cases of marriage contracts, legacies, wills, divorces, and even had absolute authority in criminal matters, except such as directly involved the Sultan’s authority. Thus there grew up a distinct community life involving a national life. The principle of the Moslem being that there could be no legitimate relations between himself
[page 168] COMMUNAL RIGHTS.
and the non-Moslem, there were accorded to these all the various community
or communal rights. They had their own quarter of the city, town or village;
their own shops, butchers, bakers, tailors; their own mills as well as their
own churches. True, there was demanded of them a heavy tax, the regular capitation
or poll tax, and the kharadj or military exemption tax, demanded of every
non-Moslem male from the age of three years. These taxes were by no means
light, and it was the general principle of the government to so administer
them as to impress it very clearly upon the unbeliever that his condition
was abject, and that even his life was a mark of the Sultan’s favor.
Still, there was a certain independence, and the Greeks gathered again to
their city, and the wiser of the Sultans that followed Mohammed II carried
out the idea of developing rather than of fiercely oppressing these communities.
With this granting of communal rights to the Greeks came in due time the recognition of the same principle in the case of the other Christians, and each was represented at the Sublime Porte by its Patriarch, with the various attendants of bishops and clergy.
One marked result of this course was to intensify the separation between these different nationalities. The communities of Greeks, Armenians and Syrians being so distinct, there arose more or less of strife between them as to which should secure the greater privileges and develop the most of community life. Hence the original hostilities arising out of the differences of creed and worship were emphasized rather than lessened, and whether intentionally or not, there grew up the custom under the Sultans of ruling in a great degree by force of jealousies between different classes of their subjects.
[page 169] DISTURBING INFLUENCES.
This general principle adopted in Constantinople was carried out in minor
detail all through the empire. In every city Christians were organized into
their communities and the ecclesiastical head, whatever he might be, whether
bishop or priest or deacon, was recognized by the local government as the
civil head of his community. Appeals could be made to his higher ecclesiastical
authorities, and the whole power of the Turkish Government was brought to
bear to enforce the decrees of these semi-civil, semi-ecclesiastical rulers.
It was not, however an easy thing to develop any system of this kind throughout the empire. Among the disturbing influences was the confiscation of the lands of the great Greek families and their transformation into fiefs’, which were conferred on distinguished warriors who held them on condition of serving the Sultan with a certain number of followers, helped to solidify the empire, but operated very heavily to repress the Christians. It left them at the mercy of these feudal chiefs, and the situation during the centuries that followed was one of increasing oppression. This was assisted by the degradation of their own priesthood. Their position as civil representatives of their people detracted more and more from their spiritual teaching, and they became addicted to all sorts of intrigues.
Two notable results followed. One was the formation of bands of freebooters in the mountain regions, who preyed upon the plain villages in proportion as the feudal lords were careless or weak; the other was the gradual dispersion of these Christian communities. This affected the Armenians more than any others. They wandered here and there over the empire in search of some place where they should be left unmolested. It was about this time that they established
[page 170] EXTENDING CONQUEST.
their quasi-kingdom at Sis in Cilicia, and spread over the plains of Northern Syria and of Central Asia Minor. Their kingdom had a short life, and the effect of their wandering from the ancestral home was to bring them still more under the oppression of the Turks, so that they even lost the ordinary use of their language.
Of the events that followed the capture of Constantinople it is impossible here to do more than to give the very briefest summary, and emphasize only such points as are most essential to the understanding of the situation as it is to-day. First came the extending of conquest, and during the thirty years that followed the capture of Constantinople, it seemed as if more had been done than at any time before. Servia yielded; then came Greece, although the famous Scanderbeg held his own in Albania. More than one historian has suggested that the effort to subdue him was only half-hearted out of regard for his bravery and for the memories of his early life with the Turks. Then Wallachia yielded and the people of Transylvania found the Moslem no severer ruler than Wlad, called by his subjects Drakul (the devil). Bosnia yielded its rule next, and war spread on southward and westward against the Albanians and Venetians. Meanwhile the princes of Karaman, who for a century and a half had held a varying rule in Central Asia Minor, were finally subdued and the Sultan’s power over what is now Asiatic Turkey was practically complete. Again he turned to Europe, crossed the Dardanelles, took Moldavia and captured the Crimea, which had for a time been under the Khans of that country, though they had in turn yielded to a Christian republic, which had maintained itself for some time with its capital, the most important town of the northern Black Sea coast. Always,
[page 171] THE SULTAN’S EXALTATION.
however, there was the outlook westward, and although Venice checked the advance of the Ottomans, they still threw themselves upon Transylvania and made incursions into Hungary and Italy, and Mohammed II closed his reign with an attack upon Rhodes, which, however, was repulsed.
From the death of Mohammed II, in 1481, to the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, in 1520, there were expeditions into Hungary and Moldavia, and war with Venice and Persia, but no great additions to the Ottoman domain. This, however, was more than made up by the conquest of Syria and Egypt. The significance of these conquests was great as mere territorial enlargement of the empire, but more important still were the attendant influences which resulted in placing the Turkish Sultans at the head of the Moslem world. The last Mameluke Sultan, of Egypt, was hanged at the gate of Cairo in 1517, and Sultan Selim passed a month longer in that capital presiding at two great Egyptian ftes — the opening of the Cairo Canal, and the departure of the annual caravan for Mecca, and received from the Sherif of Mecca the keys of the Kaaba. His army, however, became restless and he returned to Constantinople. To that city he summoned Mohammed XII, the last representative of the Abbas-side Caliphs, to whom the rulers of Egypt had always given the honorary title. Selim required of him to relinquish the rights and distinctive ensigns of the Caliphate, the standard, the sword and the mantle of the prophet, and assumed the political and religious chieftainship of Islam. This conquest of Egypt and the assumption of the Caliphate attracted the alarm of European powers and resulted in treaties with Venice and Hungary. A second attack on Rhodes was
[page 172] SULEIMAN THE MAGNIFICENT.
planned, but not carried out, and in 1520 Selim gave place to his son Suleiman the Magnificent.
The reign of Suleiman from 1520 to 1566, deserves more than a passing mention. It was the golden age of the Turkish rule, when the empire reached its greatest extent and achieved its highest success; when all Europe was either dreading its advance or treating for its assistance. But it was also noticeable for its internal organization, which remained until Mahmud II, under the pressure of the altered circumstances of 250 years later, made changes which have resulted in the present system.
The relations between Turkey and the European powers, inaugurated practically during this reign, will be treated of later. Here it is the purpose to survey the general history of that reign. The first act was the suppression of a revolt along the Danube, and Belgrade was taken, its Serb population being transferred to Constantinople in pursuance of a policy inaugurated by Mohammed II for the building up of that city. Then the Sultan turned his eyes to Rhodes, and with a fleet of 300 vessels and 100,000 men undertook its capture. For five months the Grand Master of the Knights held out, but was finally forced to yield, and betook himself with his men to Malta, where they planned anew the war against the Koran. Next to Rhodes, Hungary was the great object of the Sultan’s ambition, and it was only a few years later that he made vast preparations for an invasion. At the battle of Mohacz, in 1526, the Hungarian kingdom was destroyed, and on the 10th of September Suleiman entered Budapesth.
Revolts in Asia, however, called back the Sultan, though the war continued in Hungary, and a second expedition was
[page 173] ATTACK ON VIENNA.
started three years later. It was the Turkish theory that any place in which the Sultan had slept was within the bounds of his empire, and accordingly again Budapesth was occupied; this time, however, merely as a vantage ground from which to attack Vienna itself. The history of the defense of the Austrian capital is one of the most brilliant in the military history of Central Europe during that century. Notwithstanding the overwhelming power of the Turks, with their army of 300,000 men and 300 cannon, besides a strong flotilla, the Austrians, reinforced by the Protestants — so-called since the protest at Spires in the spring of that year — resolved to defend the place. The city walls were weak and out of repair, and the Sultan apparently thought conquest easy, for he sent a message that if the garrison would surrender he would not even enter the town, but press on in search of the emperor; if they resisted he would dine in Vienna on the third day, and then he would not spare even the child in the womb. They, however, would not yield, and he never entered. The bravery of the troops who gathered from every part of Germany, assisted by the valor of the citizens, repulsed the Turks again and again, and, as the season was advancing, the Sultan returned to Constantinople. A third expedition resulted again in a most humiliating disgrace; 350,000 Turks, led by the Sultan himself, were detained more than three weeks by a garrison of about 700 men at a little town in Styria. Germany amassed all its forces, and now there came in the influence of Western Europe. France had already made advances to the Turkish Government, and Venice, seeking protection for her commerce, had entered into treaty, and both of them through their ambassadors advised the Sultan, with a weakened army, not to meet the well-organized troops of Charles
[page 174] INTERNAL HISTORY.
V. The expedition, therefore, was reluctantly withdrawn, to be renewed again later, and again given up when a general truce was arranged with the German power. Meanwhile, however, Barbarossa had come in conflict with the Venetian Doria, and the Italian shore was threatened by the Turkish troops. But no great gains were made, and at the death of Suleiman, in 1566, no positive advance had been registered. The internal history of the empire was in some respects more important than the external. Suleiman is known among the Ottomans as the Legislator. He organized the Ulemas, altered the system of fiefs, and arranged matters of finance, justice, civil and penal law, and the various departments of his empire. The general principle of land tenure was based upon the doctrine that the soil belonged to God, and thus to his representative, the Sultan. It was, however, apart from that reserved for the Sultan himself, divided into three classes; land occupied by Mussulmans after the conquest, subject only to the tithes; land let to conquered populations, especially Rayahs (non-Moslem subjects), who, aside from the tithe, paid capitation and exemption taxes; and the domains given by the Sultan as military rewards under the arrangement inaugurated by Amurath I. In general, the principle of the collection of taxes had been to make them as onerous as possible. Suleiman recognized the unwisdom of this, and introduced various modifications, which had the effect of lessening the harshness, and at the same time of increasing the revenues. He also looked very closely after the fiefs, demanding that only the smaller ones should be under the control of the governors of provinces; that the larger ones must be referred to Constantinople. This last order had special reference to the taxes levied by these governors upon the peasants. Notwith-
[page 175] PAYMENT FOR CRIME.
standing this organized system of revenue, the income was not sufficient, and additional contributions of one kind and another were laid, especially upon conquered provinces, such as Hungary and Transylvania, which resulted in the almost utter destruction of their prosperity. In the matter of crime, corporal punishment was sparingly inflicted. Almost every crime could be atoned for by the payment of a fine. Notwithstanding the brilliant success achieved, it was in this very reign that the decadence of Moslem rule commenced. The heavy expenses of the various wars, and of the organization of the empire, had a great influence in bringing about a condition of venality which rapidly sapped the strength of the government. Suleiman saw it, but allowed it to pass, only taking care that it did not interfere with his army. His power over the army, however, weakened. It had hitherto been the custom that the Janissaries should never enter war except under the personal lead of the Sultan. This privilege was withdrawn. Their numbers also were recruited by adventurers of every kind, and the general discipline was weakened by allowing them to marry, follow trades, and become stationary in the garrisons, where they were practically citizens, merchants, operators, etc. In the general conduct of the government also, the Sultan no longer presided over the Cabinet Meeting or Divan, as it was called. He confined himself more and more to his palace, and came under the effeminating influence of a luxury carried to such an extent that the surroundings of the Christian princes of Europe paled before the pomp of the Moslem Court. The formal condemnation by the Koran of such luxury was passed by entirely, the simplicity of manners to which the empire owed its advance was greatly corrupted; the use of wine became quite common,
[page 176] CHRONIC WAR.
and the use of coffee, just introduced, was carried to excess. The result was that in every department of the government there were sown the seeds of the weakness that manifested itself, with occasional exceptions, in the history of the succeeding two and one-half centuries.
The history of the following years, aside from the relations with the European Governments, must be passed over very briefly. They include expeditions to Arabia, the conquest of Cyprus in 1570, the battle of Lepanto, when the fleets of Europe — Spanish, Italian and Venetian — blotted out the Turkish marine, and freed the Mediterranean coast from the terror of their devastations. This was, however, somewhat compensated for by the capture of Tunis. There was chronic war with Hungary and Persia, that with the latter power resulting in the addition to the Ottoman Power of Georgia and a considerable portion of Northern and Southeastern Persia. The whole Balkan Peninsula was in a chronic state of revolt and subjugation. There were powerful Sultans, such as Amurath I, and great viziers, as the Kuprulis. At times the Turkish successors threatened again the peace of Europe, but they were generally used by one and another government, particularly France, as a check to the encroachments of enemies.
In 1669, “the Ottoman Empire included forty governments and four tributary countries: in Europe all Greece, Illyria, Maesia, Macedonia, Pannonia, Thrace and Dacia; the kingdoms of Pyrrhus and Perseus; the states of Treballi and the Bulgarians: in Africa the kingdom of the Ptolemies, with the territory of Carthage and Numidia: in Asia the kingdoms of Mithridates, Antiochus, Attalus, Prusias, Herod and Tigranes; those of the obscure sovereigns of Cappadocia,
[page 177] SOBIESKI’S ASSISTANCE.
Cilicia and Comagena; the territories of the Iberians and the Scythians, and a portion of the empire of the Parthians. Without reckoning the Greek Republics and the Tyrian colony, there were twenty kingdoms included in these forty governments, from the Syrtes to the Caucasus, and to the countries watered by the Hydaspes.”
To these territories was added the lower part of Russia, held by the Cossacks of the Ukraine, who voluntarily submitted to the Sultan’s rule as protection against the Russians and Poland. This occasioned the war with Poland, when the Poles were led by John Sobieski. The famous general, Kara Mustapha, in 1683, sought to rival the conquests of Suleiman, and with an army more powerful than any the Turks had ever sent from Constantinople, determined to besiege Vienna. The Austrian king called for Sobieski’s assistance, and secured it notwithstanding the intrigues of Louis XIV, who vainly sought to convince the Pole that his real enemies were in Austria, and in that power of the north whom the Dutch papers had begun to call “ His Russian Majesty.” Loyal to his religion, however, Sobieski went to the aid of Vienna. His cavalry, aided by that of the Germans, put the Turks to flight after more than 10,000 of their troops had been left on the field of battle. Then came a panic, and the Turks fled in disorder, leaving an immense booty to the victors. Of this the King of Poland received as his share 4,000,000 florins, while arms studded with precious stones, and banners and treasures to a very heavy amount, were divided among the victors.
The war with Austria developed into the war against the Holy Alliance, a league against the Turks, under the protection of the Pope, and formed by the Emperor of Austria, the
[page 178] PEACE OF CARLOWITZ.
King of Poland, and the Republic of Venice, to which also the Czar was invited. This war went on with varying fortunes until the peace of Carlowitz, in 1699. This period included the rule of the famous Kupruli Mustapha Pasha, one of the most successful and most noted of the Macedonian family, which supplied five viziers to the Ottoman throne. He was probably one of the most intelligent, courageous and humane statesmen of Turkey, and his death in battle was regretted alike by Christians and Turks, who named him Kupruli the Virtuous. The tide, however, had set against Turkey, and under the influence of William of Orange the intrigues of Louis XIV, were set aside, and Turkey signed the peace of Carlowitz. By this Hungary and Transylvania were ceded to Austria, with the exception only of a small territory. Poland recovered Ukraine and Podolia; Russia retained Azof; Venice on her part gave up her conquests to the north of the Gulf of Corinth and almost the whole of Dalmatia, and all the tributes paid by the Christian powers to the Ottoman courts were abolished.
This was the first great gap made in the Ottoman Empire, and from this time it ceased to be an object of dread in Europe. Hitherto it had been isolated and owed its greatness to that fact in considerable degree. Now it was dominated by its allies and had to submit to the influence of ambitious neighbors or interested friends. Its decline could no longer be hindered, and already there was upon its borders that power of the north, which, by gaining an entrance to the Black Sea, commenced really its European life.
The example of Kupruli the Virtuous was followed by Kupruli the Wise, who immediately set himself about improving the general condition of the empire. In the European
[page 179 - illustration]
[page 180 - illustration]
[page 181] SULTAN’S RULE NOMINAL.
provinces he favored his Christian subjects in regard to the payment of arrears of taxes, and in Syria he gave them freedom of pasturage for flocks. The Mussulmans under the general influences of the time retrograded in their devotion to their religion, and he strove by every means to recall them to the study and practice of that religion, but failed to keep a a hold even upon the Moslem leaders, and yielded his life to their intrigues. This was about the commencement of the eighteenth century, and through that century the history, so far as the immediate empire itself is concerned, is a varying one. It commenced with a time of peace, under the diminution of French influence and a general disregard of the Russian power. That, however, under Peter the Great, commenced aggressions that soon aroused Mussulman pride, which, irritated at the appearance of the infidel on the Black Sea, hitherto regarded as sacred to Islam, declared war. This resulted in the restoration of Azof to the Ottoman Government and the shutting out of Russia from the Black Sea. More and more, however, the influence of European politics (dwelt upon more in detail in another chapter) was evident in internal disturbances, which had their effect not merely upon Christians, but upon Moslems, and Russian intrigue played an increasingly powerful part in the general development of the empire.
Even throughout Asiatic Turkey the rule of the Sultan was scarcely more than nominal. The province of Bagdad was practically independent, furnished no revenues, and, although a certain suzerainty of the Sultan was acknowledged, even war with a European power brought no troops, which were held to be necessary as a defense against the Arabs. Throughout Eastern Turkey there were whole nations or tribes of
[page 182] THE MAMELUKES.
people independent of the Sultan and his pashas, and the Pasha of Trebizond was master of the whole country. Aghas, or independent lords, maintained armies even up to the borders of Smyrna, and the mountains throughout Asia Minor and the Lebanon were perfectly independent. Most of them, aside from the Armenians and Greeks, were Moslems, yet not a few sectaries, as Kurds and the Metawelis, united religious to political hostility. On the coast of Syria, only the ports were under strong Turkish rule, and caravans from Alexandretta to Aleppo dared not cross the mountains because of the Kurds. At this same time was developed the power of the Mamelukes in Egypt, under the famous Ali Bey, who joined with him an Arab chief, and dominated pretty nearly all of Syria. In 1770 the empire seemed near its dismemberment. The Russians held the Danube and Azof, Georgia was in rebellion, even Damascus was threatened, and Ali Pasha, of Janina, was laying the foundations of his power in Albania. The next step downward was the treaty of Kainardji in 1774, which gave Crimea to the Czar, accorded the navigation of the Black Sea to Russia, and ceded a portion of the Caucasus. True, some of the Danube provinces were regained, but this was of comparatively little moment. Another peace, that of Jassy, signalized an additional step in the same downward direction. Constantly there were increasing disorders in administration. The Sultans were less and less men of ability, dominated by the Janissaries or by the ecclesiastics, and Turkey became the football of the various strifes for predominance in Europe.
The present century opened with another war with Russia, when the latter invaded the Danubian principalities, taking advantage of a revolt of the Servians.
Table of Contents
| The Cover, Frontispiece, Title Page, Copyright
Introduction | Preface | Turkey in Asia (map) | Table of Contents (as in the book)
List of Illustrations | 1. The Turkish Empire | 2. Population and Languages | 3. Religions
4. The Turks | 5. The Kurds | 6. The Armenians | 7. The Greeks | 8. Other Oriental Churches
9. Rise and Decline of Ottoman Power | 10. Turkey and Europe | 11. Russia and Turkey
12. Mahmud II | 13. Reform and Progress | 14. Treaties of Paris and Berlin
15. Condition of the Christians | 16. The Turkish Government | 17. Protestant Missions in Turkey
18. The Armenian Question | 19. General Situation in 1894 | 20. The Sassun Massacre
21. Politics and Massacre at Constantinople | 22. Massacres at Trebizond and Erzrum
23. Massacres in Harput District | 24. Aintab, Marash and Urfa | 25. Character of the Massacres
26. Religious Persecution | 27. Relief Work | 28. Partition of Turkey | 29. America and Turkey
30. General Survey | Alphabetical Index
Bliss, Rev. Edwin Munsell . Turkey and the Armenian Atrocities.
Edgewood Publishing Company , 1896
J. Rendel Harris
& B. Helen Harris, Letters
from the Scenes of the Recent Massacres in Armenia