The Treaty of Bucharest of 1812: Borders and Arrangements for Autonomy

Before the Russo-Ottoman War began in 1806, the two powers had clashed over appointments and removals of rulers in Moldavia and Wallachia and Russian intervention. As fighting continued into 1812, Russia faced the pressure of war with Napoleon, while the Ottoman government also sought peace to avoid wider European conflict.

The treaty was signed in Bucharest on May 28, 1812, recorded as May 16 in the Russian text's Julian calendar. Kutuzov and Grand Vizier Ahmed Pasha directed Russian and Ottoman treaty-making respectively. Plenipotentiaries named in the preamble included Russia's Andrei Italinsky, Ivan Sabaneev, and Joseph Fonton, and Ottoman representatives including Galib Efendi.

References: [1] [2]

Article Four defined the European boundary through the stretch of the Prut from its entry into Moldavia to its confluence with the Danube, and the area extending along the Danube's left bank toward the Kilia mouth. The Ottoman government ceded lands, towns, fortresses, and villages on the Prut's left bank to Russia, with the river's mid-channel forming the boundary.

The settlement also addressed navigation. Merchant vessels of both powers could enter the Kilia mouth and navigate the Danube, while Russian warships were restricted to the stretch between that mouth and the Prut confluence. Some small uninhabited islands near the left bank could have neither fortifications nor houses, though inhabitants of both countries could fish and cut wood there. Territorial division thus also regulated river use and limited local militarization.

Article Five required Russia to return Moldavia on the Prut's right bank and Greater and Lesser Wallachia, restoring their existing privileges. Article Six prescribed in principle a return to the prewar Asian frontier and restitution of fortresses and lands conquered by force within that area. European cession and Asian restitution followed different approaches.

References: [1]

Article Two granted amnesty to subjects who had taken hostile action or acted against their own state's interests during the war, protecting returning residents' property under law. Article Five also prohibited collection of old arrears and wartime taxes in the two principalities and granted two years' tax exemption from the exchange of ratifications, addressing the fiscal burdens of prolonged war.

Article Seven provided for migration and property disposal by residents of ceded territory. Muslims wishing to move into Ottoman territory could depart with families and possessions, sell immovable property, and remit proceeds; Christians wishing to enter Russia's acquired areas had corresponding rights of migration and sale. The period for these arrangements was eighteen months from the exchange of ratifications.

Article Nine required the return of prisoners without ransom and provision of supplies needed to reach the border, with exceptions for voluntary converts. Article Ten restored the handling of private claims and debts interrupted by war, extending the settlement into social relations beyond the armies.

References: [1]

Article Eight granted amnesty to Serbs, allowed them to manage internal affairs, and provided for their own payment of agreed taxes, with details negotiated between the Ottoman government and the Serbs. It referred to treatment enjoyed by inhabitants of some Aegean islands, rather than directly establishing the constitution of an independent state.

At the same time, defenses newly built during the uprising were to be demolished, existing fortresses with their guns and stores restored to the Ottoman government, and Ottoman garrisons admitted. The government was also to agree on security measures with the Serbs to prevent oppression by those garrisons. Expectations of autonomy and military control thus appeared together in one article, leaving difficult implementation questions.

References: [1]

Two further procedural levels followed signature. Article Fifteen required confirmation by Russia's chief plenipotentiary and the Ottoman grand vizier, with the relevant documents exchanged within ten days. Article Sixteen separately required formal instruments of ratification signed by the sovereigns and exchanged in Bucharest within four weeks, completing the formal procedures.

Article Fourteen required immediate orders after that exchange to land and naval forces to cease hostilities; occupations between signature and exchange could not alter the settlement. Article Eleven allowed three months for Russian troops and ships to evacuate Ottoman territories due for return, likewise counted from ratification exchange rather than the May signing.

Ratification became contentious over secret clauses and Serbia. The sultan opposed a secret arrangement giving Russia a transport corridor along the eastern Black Sea coast and demanded amendments to Article Eight. F. Ismail's study notes that ratifications of the public treaty were not exchanged until July, while the Ottoman side did not ratify the secret clauses.

References: [1] [2]

Serbs found the return of Ottoman troops to their towns particularly unacceptable. Negotiations in 1812–1813 failed to resolve the disagreement; early in 1813, the insurgents proposed military assistance in place of Ottoman garrisons. Talks ultimately failed, and Ottoman forces reconquered Serbia by war.

Radomir Popović notes that the treaty nevertheless later remained a basis for seeking autonomy, through interrupted negotiations, another uprising, and renewed diplomacy. Imperial edicts in 1830 and 1833 and a document on hereditary princely status in 1830 further confirmed autonomy. The institutional promises written into the 1812 treaty cannot be equated with an autonomous system already established and operating securely that year.

References: [3]