We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2022
This paper re-examines the causes of outbreak of Second Russo-Iranian War and the factors that played a role in its escalation into fully fledged war. The paper challenges the common perception that Qajar Iran played a major role in the outbreak of the war and proposes that the Qajar court took a defensive posture vis-à-vis aggressive Russian provocation originated in Tiflis and was merely reacting to it. The paper then examines policy differences between Tiflis and the court of St Petersburg as a contributing factor in the outbreak of the war. Finally, the paper examines two different and contradictory views of imperial Russia and its internal politics and military capabilities among Qajar Iran's decision makers during 1825–28. It is argued that the two perceptions eventually translated into two factions, each lobbying the shah for and against escalation of hostilities with Russia.
1 Baddeley, John F., The Russian Conquest of the Caucasus (London, 1908), 155, 176Google Scholar; for Russian government blaming Iran for breaching the arrangements of the Treaty of Golestan see a translation of the text of Russian war declaration in October 1826 in Nafisi, Sa'id, Tarikh ijtema'I va siyasi-e Iran dar dowran mo'aser [A social and political history of Iran in the modern period] (Tehran, 1344/1965), 2: 124–27.Google Scholar
2 See the accounts written by Tarikh-e Qarabagh written by Mirza Jamal Javanshir and Qarabagh Nameh, by Mirza Adigozal Beg, in Bournoutian, George, Two Chronicles on the History of Karabagh (Costa Mesa, CA, 1994).Google Scholar
3 Abdallahyev, Fathallah, Monasebat-e Iran va Russiyeh va siyasat Inglis dar Iran dar aghaz qarn-e nozdahom [Iran's relations with Russia and the policy of England at the beginning of the nineteenth century], trans. Matin, Gholam Husayn (Tehran, 1356/1977), 137.Google Scholar
4 The letter is dated 13 September 1826 and addressed to an unknown member of British mission in Tehran. See Qa'emaqami, Jahangir, ed. and comp., Nameh-haye parakandeh-ye Qa'em Maqam Farahani [The scattered letters of Qa'em Maqam Farahani] (Tehran, 2537/1978), 1: 70–75.Google Scholar Both Russian and Soviet narratives of the causes of the second war omit Russian provocations or distort such events as the Russian occupation of Gokcha, followed by further expansion into Iranian territory in 1825 and 1826.
5 al-Razzaq Donboli, Abd, Ma'aser-e Sultaniyyeh [The heritage of Sultanieh], ed. Zargari-nejad, Gholam Husayn (Tehran, 1383/2004), 505–7Google Scholar; Fasa'I, Hasan, History of Persian under Qajar Rule, trans. Busse, Heribert (New York and London, 1971), 174–76Google Scholar; al-Molk Sepehr, Muhammad Taqi Lesan, Nasekh al-tavarikh: tarikh Qajarieh [Complete history: Qajar history], ed. Kianfar, Jamshid (Tehran, 1377/1998), 356–67Google Scholar; Mirza, Jahangir, Tarikh-e no [New history], ed. Iqbal, Abbas (Tehran, 1327/1948), 7–15.Google Scholar
6 A good example in this case is Nafisi, Sa'id, Tarikh-e ejtema'I va siyasi Iran dar dowreh-ye mo'aser [Iran's political and social history in the current era] (Tehran, 1344/1965), 2: 1.Google Scholar He blames the Qajar court for preparing for war with Russia in order to retrieve territories lost in 1813.
7 Ibid., 115; Nafisi's work is valuable in that it has extensive translation of a Russian book (in French) which includes translation of documents and letters related to the conflict. See Le General Prince Stcherbatow, Le Feld Marechal Prince Paskevich (St Petersburg, 1890).Google Scholar This document is primarily the writings of Paskevich in two volumes and it includes other primary sources.
8 Nateq, Homa, Az mast keh bar mast [From us the blame comes to us] (Tehran, 1978), 13–15.Google Scholar
9 FO/60/27, Willock to Canning, 27 June 1826.
10 Ibid., in his audience with the shah at camp Sultanieh and in the presence of Ilchi Foreign Minister Willock advised the shah that in his opinion he should settle his border dispute with Russia in a definitive manner even if it meant some sacrifice on his part. He also noted that Russian treatment of Muslims under their control did not warrant war and advised the shah to stop the approach of top ulama to his court. Finally, he advised the shah that he should prepare to open negotiations with the approaching Russian envy, Prince Menshikov.
11 FO/60/27, Willock to Canning (Tehran, 13 January 1826).
12 Avery, P.W., “An Enquiry into the Outbreak of the Second Russo-Iranian War 1826–28,” in Iran and Islam, ed. Bosworth, C.E. (Edinburgh, 1971), 21.Google Scholar
13 Atkin, Muriel, Russia and Iran 1780–1820 (Minneapolis, 1980), 145.Google Scholar
14 Abdallahyev, Monasebat-e Iran va Russiyeh, 52, Baddeley, The Russian Conquest of the Caucasus, 1–23, Ishqi, Khanak, Siyasat-e nezami russiyeh dar Iran 1790–1815 [Russian military policy towards Iran 1790–1815] (Tehran, 1353/1974), 299–30.Google Scholar
15 Ishqi, Siyasat-e nezami russiyeh dar Iran, 22–23; Atkin, Russia and Iran, 10–13.
16 Atkin, Russia and Iran, 39; E'tezad Saltaneh, Ali Qoli Mirza, Eksir al-Tavarikh [The elixir of history], ed. Kianfar, Jamshid (Tehran, 1377/1998), 46–55.Google Scholar
17 Ishqi notes that both times Russia proposed the line between river Aparchay (on the Ottoman boarder) and the intersection of rivers Aras and Kur, near Caspian shore, to be the border. This would have meant that Iran had to forfeit parts of northern Iravan (namely Gomri and Shurehgol) and areas in southern Qarabagh, south of Shusha (still under its control) as well as Ganjeh, Baku, Shirvan, Shakki, Qobbeh and Darband. See Ishqi, Siyasat-e nezami russiyeh dar Iran, 52–53 and 59–60, and Fasa'I, History, 123–30.
18 Drouville, Gaspare, Safarnameh-ye Drouville 1812–1813 [Voyage en Perse 1812–1813], trans. Mohi, Javad (Tehran, 1337/1959), 181Google Scholar; Ishqi, Siyasat-e nezami russiyeh dar Iran, 124.
19 Monteith, W., Kars and Erzeroum (London, 1856), 104.Google Scholar
20 Yermolov, Alexey, The Czar's General: The Memoirs of a Russian General in the Napoleonic Wars, trans. and ed. Mikaberidze, Alexander (Welwyn Garden City, UK, 2005), 229.Google Scholar For more on Yermolov and his mission see Atkin, Russia and Iran, 152–55.
21 Monteith, Kars and Erzeroum, 105.
22 Baddeley, The Russian Conquest of the Caucasus, 101.
23 Monteith, Kars and Erzeroum, 101.
24 Baddeley, The Russian Conquest of the Caucasus, 99.
25 Ibid., 135–51.
26 As translated in Nafisi, Tarikh-e ejtema'I va siyasi Iran, 95.
27 Yermolov mentioned the rebuilding and rearming of Iranian army with the help of English instructors; see Abdallahyev, Monasebat-e Iran va Russiyeh, 109–11.
28 Fraser, James B., Travels and Adventures in the Persian Provinces on the Southern Bank of the Caspian Sea (London, 1826), 308–9.Google Scholar
29 Nafisi, Tarikh-e ejtema'I va siyasi Iran, 95.
30 Nateq, Az mast keh bar mast, 19.
31 Conversation between Prince Regent Abbas Mirza and General V. Madatov, documented in Bournoutian, Qarabaghnameh, 224.
32 Monteith, Kars and Erzeroum, 120.
33 For a Persian translation of both letters see Nafisi, Tarikh-e ejtema'I va siyasi Iran, 105–6.
34 FO/95/591/2, minutes of conversation of Sir Henry Willock's presentation to the Emperor Nicolas (October 1827, St Petersburg).
35 Monteith, Kars and Erzeroum, 120.
36 Ibid., 121–22. Atkin describes this territory as having an unpleasant climate which the Russians found lethal, see Atkin, Russia and Iran, 153.
37 Yermolov's letter to Mirza Abd al-Hasan Khan, the Ilchi, Iranian Foreign Minister, was translated and dispatched by Willock: FO 60/27, p. 71.
38 Qa'em Maqam, Nameh-haye parakandeh-ye, 72.
39 FO/60/27 Willock to Canning (dispatch #1, Tehran, 13 January 1826).
40 Nafisi, Tarikh-e ejtema'I va siyasi Iran, 73.
41 For example he reported that Yermolov was defeated in Daghestan and lost many guns, see FO 60/27 Willock to Canning (Dispatch #1, Tehran, 13 January 1826).
42 FO/60/27 Willock to Canning (Tehran, 20 May 1826).
43 Segments of a Persian translation of the letter is provided in Abdallahyev, Monasebat-e Iran va Russiyeh, 141.
44 Monteith, Kars and Erzeroum, 110.
45 Fasa'I, History, 172.
46 FO/60/27 Extracts from Mr. Willock's Journal, 3 July 1826.
47 Monteith, Kars and Erzeroum, 125.
48 FO/60/27, Willock to Canning (Dispatch #2, 17 February 1826).
49 FO/60/27 Willock copying from Colonel MacNeill's Journal, 10 July 1826, p. 177.
50 For a discussion of the immigrant khans see Mirza, Tarikh-e no, 6–7.
51 FO/60/27 Willock to Canning (Camp Sultanieh, 27 June 1826), 126.
52 There is summary of the hawks’ line of argument in Willock's Journal, FO/60/27 Extracts from Mr. Willock's Journal (23 July 1826), 164.
53 For more on Qa'em Maqam's role see Amanat, Abbas, “Russian Intrusions: Reflections of a Qajar Statesman on European Expansion,” Journal of American Oriental Society 113, no. 1 (January–March, 1993): 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54 FO/60/27 Extracts from Mr. Willock's Journal (9 July 1826), 172.
55 FO/60/27 Extracts from Mr. Willock's Journal (8 July 1826), 169.
56 FO/60/27 Extracts from Mr. Willock's Journal (dispatch #3, 25 June 1826).
57 Fath Ali Shah's letter to Abbas Mirza, FO/60/27 Extracts from Mr. Willock's Journal (9 July 1826), 171.
58 Algar, Hamid, Religion and State in Iran (1785–1906): The Role of the Ulama in the Qajar Period (Berkeley, CA, 1969), 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
59 FO/60/27, Willock from the Journal of Colonel McNeil, 10 July 1826, 177–78.
60 FO/60/27, Willock to Canning (from Camp Sultanieh, 27 June 1826), 131.
61 FO/60/25 Willock's translation of a letter by Fath Ali Shah to General Yermolov, 28 November 1825, 307–10.
62 FO/60/27 Extracts from Mr. Willock's Journal (dispatch #3, 25 June 1826), 145.
63 FO/60/27 Extracts from Mr. Willock's Journal (9 July 1826), 173.
64 Nafisi, Tarikh-e ejtema'I va siyasi Iran, 122–23.
65 FO/60/27 Extracts from Mr. Willock's Journal (8 July 1826), 167.
66 Monteith, Kars and Erzeroum, 122, Nafisi, Tarikh-e ejtema'I va siyasi Iran, 119–23.
67 Qozanlu, Jamil, Jang-e Iran va Rus [The Russo-Iranian war 1827–1828] (Tehran, 1314/1935), 4.Google Scholar
68 Throughout the rest of the nineteenth century, the Qajar ruling class would try all three paths and would eventually settle for what it could hold on to by trying to play various world powers against each other.
69 FO/60/27 Minutes of conversation at Sir Henry Willock's presentation to the Emperor Nicolas, 28 (16) October 1827, St Petersburg.
