Page:Decisive Battles Since Waterloo.djvu/79

Rh Turkey, including those of Bucharest and Ackerman, and further accused it of giving aid to all malcontents throughout the Ottoman dominions. Russia accused the Porte of fomenting insurrections in the Caucasus and urging the mountaineers of that region to embrace the religion of Mohammed, of the violation of all the treaties it had signed with Russia, and notably with violating the treaty of Ackerman, and furthermore alleged that on several occasions the Porte had summarily closed the Bosphorus to Russian ships, to the great injury of the commerce of the southern provinces of the empire. The balance of grievances was decidedly in favor of Russia, but there can be no doubt that the complaints of Turkey had good foundation in fact. Turkey had increased the garrison of her fortresses on and near the Danube at the same time that Russia had massed her armies on the frontier. General Diebitsch was appointed to the command of the army on the Danube, while General Paskievitch conducted the operations against Asiatic Turkey. At the beginning of April, the Russian army on the Danube mustered on paper something more than 108,000 men; it never contained more than 100,000 effectives, and did not at any time bring more than 80,000 men into the field. About 50,000 troops were added to this number during the summer and later in the year another 50,000 was sent to join the main body. The passage of the Pruth, then the boundary between the empires, was made on the 7th of May. The Turks had only some cavalry videttes to watch the movements, and these retired, in accordance with their orders, as soon as the Russian advance began. In a few weeks the Russians had possession of Jassy, Bucharest, and Galatz, and were in position in front of Brailov and Widin; in fact the entire left bank of the Danube was in their control.