Question: Charles de La Valette was a devoted and leading member of what party?

Answer: clerical party

The immediate chain of events leading to France and the United Kingdom declaring war on Russia on 27 and 28 March 1854 came from the ambition of the French emperor Napoleon III to restore the grandeur of France. He wanted Catholic support that would come his way if he attacked Eastern Orthodoxy, as sponsored by Russia.:103 <hl> The Marquis Charles de La Valette was a zealous Catholic and a leading member of the " clerical party ," which demanded French protection of the Roman Catholic rights to the holy places in Palestine. <hl> In May 1851, Napoleon appointed La Valette as his ambassador to the Porte (the Ottoman Empire).:7–9 The appointment was made with the intent of forcing the Ottomans to recognise France as the "sovereign authority" over the Christian population.:19 Russia disputed this attempted change in authority. Pointing to two more treaties, one in 1757 and the 1774 Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, the Ottomans reversed their earlier decision, renouncing the French treaty and insisting that Russia was the protector of the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire.

The immediate chain of events leading to France and the United Kingdom declaring war on Russia on 27 and 28 March 1854 came from the ambition of the French emperor Napoleon III to restore the grandeur of France. He wanted Catholic support that would come his way if he attacked Eastern Orthodoxy, as sponsored by Russia.:103 The Marquis Charles de La Valette was a zealous Catholic and a leading member of the "<hl> clerical party <hl>," which demanded French protection of the Roman Catholic rights to the holy places in Palestine. In May 1851, Napoleon appointed La Valette as his ambassador to the Porte (the Ottoman Empire).:7–9 The appointment was made with the intent of forcing the Ottomans to recognise France as the "sovereign authority" over the Christian population.:19 Russia disputed this attempted change in authority. Pointing to two more treaties, one in 1757 and the 1774 Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, the Ottomans reversed their earlier decision, renouncing the French treaty and insisting that Russia was the protector of the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire.

The Marquis Charles de La Valette was a zealous Catholic and a leading member of the " <hl> clerical party <hl> ," which demanded French protection of the Roman Catholic rights to the holy places in Palestine.

question: Charles de La Valette was a devoted and leading member of what party?, context: The immediate chain of events leading to France and the United Kingdom declaring war on Russia on 27 and 28 March 1854 came from the ambition of the French emperor Napoleon III to restore the grandeur of France. He wanted Catholic support that would come his way if he attacked Eastern Orthodoxy, as sponsored by Russia.:103 The Marquis Charles de La Valette was a zealous Catholic and a leading member of the "clerical party," which demanded French protection of the Roman Catholic rights to the holy places in Palestine. In May 1851, Napoleon appointed La Valette as his ambassador to the Porte (the Ottoman Empire).:7–9 The appointment was made with the intent of forcing the Ottomans to recognise France as the "sovereign authority" over the Christian population.:19 Russia disputed this attempted change in authority. Pointing to two more treaties, one in 1757 and the 1774 Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, the Ottomans reversed their earlier decision, renouncing the French treaty and insisting that Russia was the protector of the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire.


Question: What position did Napoleon III appoint to La Valette?

Answer: ambassador to the Porte

The immediate chain of events leading to France and the United Kingdom declaring war on Russia on 27 and 28 March 1854 came from the ambition of the French emperor Napoleon III to restore the grandeur of France. He wanted Catholic support that would come his way if he attacked Eastern Orthodoxy, as sponsored by Russia.:103 The Marquis Charles de La Valette was a zealous Catholic and a leading member of the "clerical party," which demanded French protection of the Roman Catholic rights to the holy places in Palestine. <hl> In May 1851, Napoleon appointed La Valette as his ambassador to the Porte (the Ottoman Empire).:7–9 <hl> The appointment was made with the intent of forcing the Ottomans to recognise France as the "sovereign authority" over the Christian population.:19 Russia disputed this attempted change in authority. Pointing to two more treaties, one in 1757 and the 1774 Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, the Ottomans reversed their earlier decision, renouncing the French treaty and insisting that Russia was the protector of the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire.

The immediate chain of events leading to France and the United Kingdom declaring war on Russia on 27 and 28 March 1854 came from the ambition of the French emperor Napoleon III to restore the grandeur of France. He wanted Catholic support that would come his way if he attacked Eastern Orthodoxy, as sponsored by Russia.:103 The Marquis Charles de La Valette was a zealous Catholic and a leading member of the "clerical party," which demanded French protection of the Roman Catholic rights to the holy places in Palestine. In May 1851, Napoleon appointed La Valette as his <hl> ambassador to the Porte <hl> (the Ottoman Empire).:7–9 The appointment was made with the intent of forcing the Ottomans to recognise France as the "sovereign authority" over the Christian population.:19 Russia disputed this attempted change in authority. Pointing to two more treaties, one in 1757 and the 1774 Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, the Ottomans reversed their earlier decision, renouncing the French treaty and insisting that Russia was the protector of the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire.

question: What position did Napoleon III appoint to La Valette?, context: The immediate chain of events leading to France and the United Kingdom declaring war on Russia on 27 and 28 March 1854 came from the ambition of the French emperor Napoleon III to restore the grandeur of France. He wanted Catholic support that would come his way if he attacked Eastern Orthodoxy, as sponsored by Russia.:103 The Marquis Charles de La Valette was a zealous Catholic and a leading member of the "clerical party," which demanded French protection of the Roman Catholic rights to the holy places in Palestine. In May 1851, Napoleon appointed La Valette as his ambassador to the Porte (the Ottoman Empire).:7–9 The appointment was made with the intent of forcing the Ottomans to recognise France as the "sovereign authority" over the Christian population.:19 Russia disputed this attempted change in authority. Pointing to two more treaties, one in 1757 and the 1774 Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, the Ottomans reversed their earlier decision, renouncing the French treaty and insisting that Russia was the protector of the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire.


Question: What was the name of the ship that Napoleon sent to the Black Sea?

Answer: Charlemagne

<hl> Napoleon III responded with a show of force, sending the ship of the line Charlemagne to the Black Sea. <hl> This action was a violation of the London Straits Convention.:104:19 Thus, France's show of force presented a real threat, and when combined with aggressive diplomacy and money, induced the Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid I to accept a new treaty, confirming France and the Roman Catholic Church as the supreme Christian authority with control over the Roman Catholic holy places and possession of the keys to the Church of the Nativity, previously held by the Greek Orthodox Church.:20

Napoleon III responded with a show of force, sending the ship of the line <hl> Charlemagne <hl> to the Black Sea. This action was a violation of the London Straits Convention.:104:19 Thus, France's show of force presented a real threat, and when combined with aggressive diplomacy and money, induced the Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid I to accept a new treaty, confirming France and the Roman Catholic Church as the supreme Christian authority with control over the Roman Catholic holy places and possession of the keys to the Church of the Nativity, previously held by the Greek Orthodox Church.:20

question: What was the name of the ship that Napoleon sent to the Black Sea?, context: Napoleon III responded with a show of force, sending the ship of the line Charlemagne to the Black Sea. This action was a violation of the London Straits Convention.:104:19 Thus, France's show of force presented a real threat, and when combined with aggressive diplomacy and money, induced the Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid I to accept a new treaty, confirming France and the Roman Catholic Church as the supreme Christian authority with control over the Roman Catholic holy places and possession of the keys to the Church of the Nativity, previously held by the Greek Orthodox Church.:20


Question: Sending a ship to the Black Sea violated the terms made during what agreement?

Answer: London Straits Convention

Napoleon III responded with a show of force, sending the ship of the line Charlemagne to the Black Sea. <hl> This action was a violation of the London Straits Convention .:104:19 <hl> Thus, France's show of force presented a real threat, and when combined with aggressive diplomacy and money, induced the Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid I to accept a new treaty, confirming France and the Roman Catholic Church as the supreme Christian authority with control over the Roman Catholic holy places and possession of the keys to the Church of the Nativity, previously held by the Greek Orthodox Church.:20

Napoleon III responded with a show of force, sending the ship of the line Charlemagne to the Black Sea. This action was a violation of the <hl> London Straits Convention <hl>.:104:19 Thus, France's show of force presented a real threat, and when combined with aggressive diplomacy and money, induced the Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid I to accept a new treaty, confirming France and the Roman Catholic Church as the supreme Christian authority with control over the Roman Catholic holy places and possession of the keys to the Church of the Nativity, previously held by the Greek Orthodox Church.:20

This action was a violation of the <hl> London Straits Convention <hl> .:104:19

question: Sending a ship to the Black Sea violated the terms made during what agreement?, context: Napoleon III responded with a show of force, sending the ship of the line Charlemagne to the Black Sea. This action was a violation of the London Straits Convention.:104:19 Thus, France's show of force presented a real threat, and when combined with aggressive diplomacy and money, induced the Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid I to accept a new treaty, confirming France and the Roman Catholic Church as the supreme Christian authority with control over the Roman Catholic holy places and possession of the keys to the Church of the Nativity, previously held by the Greek Orthodox Church.:20


Question: Who felt threaten by France's force and ended up signing a new treaty?

Answer: Sultan Abdülmecid I

Napoleon III responded with a show of force, sending the ship of the line Charlemagne to the Black Sea. <hl> This action was a violation of the London Straits Convention.:104:19 Thus, France's show of force presented a real threat, and when combined with aggressive diplomacy and money, induced the Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid I to accept a new treaty, confirming France and the Roman Catholic Church as the supreme Christian authority with control over the Roman Catholic holy places and possession of the keys to the Church of the Nativity, previously held by the Greek Orthodox Church.:20 <hl>

Napoleon III responded with a show of force, sending the ship of the line Charlemagne to the Black Sea. This action was a violation of the London Straits Convention.:104:19 Thus, France's show of force presented a real threat, and when combined with aggressive diplomacy and money, induced the Ottoman <hl> Sultan Abdülmecid I <hl> to accept a new treaty, confirming France and the Roman Catholic Church as the supreme Christian authority with control over the Roman Catholic holy places and possession of the keys to the Church of the Nativity, previously held by the Greek Orthodox Church.:20

question: Who felt threaten by France's force and ended up signing a new treaty?, context: Napoleon III responded with a show of force, sending the ship of the line Charlemagne to the Black Sea. This action was a violation of the London Straits Convention.:104:19 Thus, France's show of force presented a real threat, and when combined with aggressive diplomacy and money, induced the Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid I to accept a new treaty, confirming France and the Roman Catholic Church as the supreme Christian authority with control over the Roman Catholic holy places and possession of the keys to the Church of the Nativity, previously held by the Greek Orthodox Church.:20


Question: Who previously held the keys to the Church of the Nativity?

Answer: Greek Orthodox Church

Napoleon III responded with a show of force, sending the ship of the line Charlemagne to the Black Sea. <hl> This action was a violation of the London Straits Convention.:104:19 Thus, France's show of force presented a real threat, and when combined with aggressive diplomacy and money, induced the Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid I to accept a new treaty, confirming France and the Roman Catholic Church as the supreme Christian authority with control over the Roman Catholic holy places and possession of the keys to the Church of the Nativity, previously held by the Greek Orthodox Church .:20 <hl>

Napoleon III responded with a show of force, sending the ship of the line Charlemagne to the Black Sea. This action was a violation of the London Straits Convention.:104:19 Thus, France's show of force presented a real threat, and when combined with aggressive diplomacy and money, induced the Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid I to accept a new treaty, confirming France and the Roman Catholic Church as the supreme Christian authority with control over the Roman Catholic holy places and possession of the keys to the Church of the Nativity, previously held by the <hl> Greek Orthodox Church <hl>.:20

This action was a violation of the London Straits Convention.:104:19 Thus, France's show of force presented a real threat, and when combined with aggressive diplomacy and money, induced the Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid I to accept a new treaty, confirming France and the Roman Catholic Church as the supreme Christian authority with control over the Roman Catholic holy places and possession of the keys to the Church of the Nativity, previously held by the <hl> Greek Orthodox Church <hl> .:20

question: Who previously held the keys to the Church of the Nativity?, context: Napoleon III responded with a show of force, sending the ship of the line Charlemagne to the Black Sea. This action was a violation of the London Straits Convention.:104:19 Thus, France's show of force presented a real threat, and when combined with aggressive diplomacy and money, induced the Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid I to accept a new treaty, confirming France and the Roman Catholic Church as the supreme Christian authority with control over the Roman Catholic holy places and possession of the keys to the Church of the Nativity, previously held by the Greek Orthodox Church.:20


Question: Who held authority over Roman Catholic holy places after Sultan Abdülmecid I agreed to the new treaty?

Answer: France and the Roman Catholic Church

Napoleon III responded with a show of force, sending the ship of the line Charlemagne to the Black Sea. <hl> This action was a violation of the London Straits Convention.:104:19 Thus, France's show of force presented a real threat, and when combined with aggressive diplomacy and money, induced the Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid I to accept a new treaty, confirming France and the Roman Catholic Church as the supreme Christian authority with control over the Roman Catholic holy places and possession of the keys to the Church of the Nativity, previously held by the Greek Orthodox Church.:20 <hl>

Napoleon III responded with a show of force, sending the ship of the line Charlemagne to the Black Sea. This action was a violation of the London Straits Convention.:104:19 Thus, France's show of force presented a real threat, and when combined with aggressive diplomacy and money, induced the Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid I to accept a new treaty, confirming <hl> France and the Roman Catholic Church <hl> as the supreme Christian authority with control over the Roman Catholic holy places and possession of the keys to the Church of the Nativity, previously held by the Greek Orthodox Church.:20

question: Who held authority over Roman Catholic holy places after Sultan Abdülmecid I agreed to the new treaty?, context: Napoleon III responded with a show of force, sending the ship of the line Charlemagne to the Black Sea. This action was a violation of the London Straits Convention.:104:19 Thus, France's show of force presented a real threat, and when combined with aggressive diplomacy and money, induced the Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid I to accept a new treaty, confirming France and the Roman Catholic Church as the supreme Christian authority with control over the Roman Catholic holy places and possession of the keys to the Church of the Nativity, previously held by the Greek Orthodox Church.:20


Question: Who was the British ambassador in 1853?

Answer: George Hamilton Seymour

<hl> Nicholas began courting Britain by means of conversations with the British ambassador, George Hamilton Seymour , in January and February 1853.:105 Nicholas insisted that he no longer wished to expand Imperial Russia:105 but that he had an obligation to the Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire.:105 <hl> The Tsar next dispatched a highly abrasive diplomat, Prince Menshikov, on a special mission to the Ottoman Sublime Porte in February 1853. By previous treaties, the sultan was committed "to protect the (Eastern Orthodox) Christian religion and its churches." Menshikov demanded a Russian protectorate over all 12 million Orthodox Christians in the Empire, with control of the Orthodox Church's hierarchy. A compromise was reached regarding Orthodox access to the Holy Land, but the Sultan, strongly supported by the British ambassador, rejected the more sweeping demands.

Nicholas began courting Britain by means of conversations with the British ambassador, <hl> George Hamilton Seymour <hl>, in January and February 1853.:105 Nicholas insisted that he no longer wished to expand Imperial Russia:105 but that he had an obligation to the Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire.:105 The Tsar next dispatched a highly abrasive diplomat, Prince Menshikov, on a special mission to the Ottoman Sublime Porte in February 1853. By previous treaties, the sultan was committed "to protect the (Eastern Orthodox) Christian religion and its churches." Menshikov demanded a Russian protectorate over all 12 million Orthodox Christians in the Empire, with control of the Orthodox Church's hierarchy. A compromise was reached regarding Orthodox access to the Holy Land, but the Sultan, strongly supported by the British ambassador, rejected the more sweeping demands.

Nicholas began courting Britain by means of conversations with the British ambassador, <hl> George Hamilton Seymour <hl> , in January and February 1853.:105 Nicholas insisted that he no longer wished to expand Imperial Russia:105 but that he had an obligation to the Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire.:105

question: Who was the British ambassador in 1853?, context: Nicholas began courting Britain by means of conversations with the British ambassador, George Hamilton Seymour, in January and February 1853.:105 Nicholas insisted that he no longer wished to expand Imperial Russia:105 but that he had an obligation to the Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire.:105 The Tsar next dispatched a highly abrasive diplomat, Prince Menshikov, on a special mission to the Ottoman Sublime Porte in February 1853. By previous treaties, the sultan was committed "to protect the (Eastern Orthodox) Christian religion and its churches." Menshikov demanded a Russian protectorate over all 12 million Orthodox Christians in the Empire, with control of the Orthodox Church's hierarchy. A compromise was reached regarding Orthodox access to the Holy Land, but the Sultan, strongly supported by the British ambassador, rejected the more sweeping demands.


Question: Who declared they no longer wanted to spread Imperial Russian?

Answer: Nicholas

<hl> Nicholas began courting Britain by means of conversations with the British ambassador, George Hamilton Seymour, in January and February 1853.:105 Nicholas insisted that he no longer wished to expand Imperial Russia:105 but that he had an obligation to the Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire.:105 <hl> The Tsar next dispatched a highly abrasive diplomat, Prince Menshikov, on a special mission to the Ottoman Sublime Porte in February 1853. By previous treaties, the sultan was committed "to protect the (Eastern Orthodox) Christian religion and its churches." Menshikov demanded a Russian protectorate over all 12 million Orthodox Christians in the Empire, with control of the Orthodox Church's hierarchy. A compromise was reached regarding Orthodox access to the Holy Land, but the Sultan, strongly supported by the British ambassador, rejected the more sweeping demands.

<hl> Nicholas <hl> began courting Britain by means of conversations with the British ambassador, George Hamilton Seymour, in January and February 1853.:105 Nicholas insisted that he no longer wished to expand Imperial Russia:105 but that he had an obligation to the Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire.:105 The Tsar next dispatched a highly abrasive diplomat, Prince Menshikov, on a special mission to the Ottoman Sublime Porte in February 1853. By previous treaties, the sultan was committed "to protect the (Eastern Orthodox) Christian religion and its churches." Menshikov demanded a Russian protectorate over all 12 million Orthodox Christians in the Empire, with control of the Orthodox Church's hierarchy. A compromise was reached regarding Orthodox access to the Holy Land, but the Sultan, strongly supported by the British ambassador, rejected the more sweeping demands.

question: Who declared they no longer wanted to spread Imperial Russian?, context: Nicholas began courting Britain by means of conversations with the British ambassador, George Hamilton Seymour, in January and February 1853.:105 Nicholas insisted that he no longer wished to expand Imperial Russia:105 but that he had an obligation to the Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire.:105 The Tsar next dispatched a highly abrasive diplomat, Prince Menshikov, on a special mission to the Ottoman Sublime Porte in February 1853. By previous treaties, the sultan was committed "to protect the (Eastern Orthodox) Christian religion and its churches." Menshikov demanded a Russian protectorate over all 12 million Orthodox Christians in the Empire, with control of the Orthodox Church's hierarchy. A compromise was reached regarding Orthodox access to the Holy Land, but the Sultan, strongly supported by the British ambassador, rejected the more sweeping demands.


Question: Who did the Tsar send on a mission to Ottoman Sublime Porte?

Answer: Prince Menshikov

Nicholas began courting Britain by means of conversations with the British ambassador, George Hamilton Seymour, in January and February 1853.:105 Nicholas insisted that he no longer wished to expand Imperial Russia:105 but that he had an obligation to the Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire.:105 <hl> The Tsar next dispatched a highly abrasive diplomat, Prince Menshikov , on a special mission to the Ottoman Sublime Porte in February 1853. <hl> By previous treaties, the sultan was committed "to protect the (Eastern Orthodox) Christian religion and its churches." Menshikov demanded a Russian protectorate over all 12 million Orthodox Christians in the Empire, with control of the Orthodox Church's hierarchy. A compromise was reached regarding Orthodox access to the Holy Land, but the Sultan, strongly supported by the British ambassador, rejected the more sweeping demands.

Nicholas began courting Britain by means of conversations with the British ambassador, George Hamilton Seymour, in January and February 1853.:105 Nicholas insisted that he no longer wished to expand Imperial Russia:105 but that he had an obligation to the Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire.:105 The Tsar next dispatched a highly abrasive diplomat, <hl> Prince Menshikov <hl>, on a special mission to the Ottoman Sublime Porte in February 1853. By previous treaties, the sultan was committed "to protect the (Eastern Orthodox) Christian religion and its churches." Menshikov demanded a Russian protectorate over all 12 million Orthodox Christians in the Empire, with control of the Orthodox Church's hierarchy. A compromise was reached regarding Orthodox access to the Holy Land, but the Sultan, strongly supported by the British ambassador, rejected the more sweeping demands.

The Tsar next dispatched a highly abrasive diplomat, <hl> Prince Menshikov <hl> , on a special mission to the Ottoman Sublime Porte in February 1853.

question: Who did the Tsar send on a mission to Ottoman Sublime Porte?, context: Nicholas began courting Britain by means of conversations with the British ambassador, George Hamilton Seymour, in January and February 1853.:105 Nicholas insisted that he no longer wished to expand Imperial Russia:105 but that he had an obligation to the Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire.:105 The Tsar next dispatched a highly abrasive diplomat, Prince Menshikov, on a special mission to the Ottoman Sublime Porte in February 1853. By previous treaties, the sultan was committed "to protect the (Eastern Orthodox) Christian religion and its churches." Menshikov demanded a Russian protectorate over all 12 million Orthodox Christians in the Empire, with control of the Orthodox Church's hierarchy. A compromise was reached regarding Orthodox access to the Holy Land, but the Sultan, strongly supported by the British ambassador, rejected the more sweeping demands.


Question: In what year was Prince Menshikov sent to the Ottoman Sublime Porte?

Answer: 1853

<hl> Nicholas began courting Britain by means of conversations with the British ambassador, George Hamilton Seymour, in January and February 1853 .:105 <hl> Nicholas insisted that he no longer wished to expand Imperial Russia:105 but that he had an obligation to the Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire.:105 The Tsar next dispatched a highly abrasive diplomat, Prince Menshikov, on a special mission to the Ottoman Sublime Porte in February 1853. By previous treaties, the sultan was committed "to protect the (Eastern Orthodox) Christian religion and its churches." Menshikov demanded a Russian protectorate over all 12 million Orthodox Christians in the Empire, with control of the Orthodox Church's hierarchy. A compromise was reached regarding Orthodox access to the Holy Land, but the Sultan, strongly supported by the British ambassador, rejected the more sweeping demands.

Nicholas began courting Britain by means of conversations with the British ambassador, George Hamilton Seymour, in January and February <hl> 1853 <hl>.:105 Nicholas insisted that he no longer wished to expand Imperial Russia:105 but that he had an obligation to the Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire.:105 The Tsar next dispatched a highly abrasive diplomat, Prince Menshikov, on a special mission to the Ottoman Sublime Porte in February 1853. By previous treaties, the sultan was committed "to protect the (Eastern Orthodox) Christian religion and its churches." Menshikov demanded a Russian protectorate over all 12 million Orthodox Christians in the Empire, with control of the Orthodox Church's hierarchy. A compromise was reached regarding Orthodox access to the Holy Land, but the Sultan, strongly supported by the British ambassador, rejected the more sweeping demands.

Nicholas began courting Britain by means of conversations with the British ambassador, George Hamilton Seymour, in January and February <hl> 1853 <hl> .:105

question: In what year was Prince Menshikov sent to the Ottoman Sublime Porte?, context: Nicholas began courting Britain by means of conversations with the British ambassador, George Hamilton Seymour, in January and February 1853.:105 Nicholas insisted that he no longer wished to expand Imperial Russia:105 but that he had an obligation to the Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire.:105 The Tsar next dispatched a highly abrasive diplomat, Prince Menshikov, on a special mission to the Ottoman Sublime Porte in February 1853. By previous treaties, the sultan was committed "to protect the (Eastern Orthodox) Christian religion and its churches." Menshikov demanded a Russian protectorate over all 12 million Orthodox Christians in the Empire, with control of the Orthodox Church's hierarchy. A compromise was reached regarding Orthodox access to the Holy Land, but the Sultan, strongly supported by the British ambassador, rejected the more sweeping demands.


Question: Who wanted to ruled over the 12 million Orthodox Christians in the Empire?

Answer: Menshikov

Nicholas began courting Britain by means of conversations with the British ambassador, George Hamilton Seymour, in January and February 1853.:105 Nicholas insisted that he no longer wished to expand Imperial Russia:105 but that he had an obligation to the Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire.:105 <hl> The Tsar next dispatched a highly abrasive diplomat, Prince Menshikov , on a special mission to the Ottoman Sublime Porte in February 1853. <hl> By previous treaties, the sultan was committed "to protect the (Eastern Orthodox) Christian religion and its churches." Menshikov demanded a Russian protectorate over all 12 million Orthodox Christians in the Empire, with control of the Orthodox Church's hierarchy. A compromise was reached regarding Orthodox access to the Holy Land, but the Sultan, strongly supported by the British ambassador, rejected the more sweeping demands.

Nicholas began courting Britain by means of conversations with the British ambassador, George Hamilton Seymour, in January and February 1853.:105 Nicholas insisted that he no longer wished to expand Imperial Russia:105 but that he had an obligation to the Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire.:105 The Tsar next dispatched a highly abrasive diplomat, Prince <hl> Menshikov <hl>, on a special mission to the Ottoman Sublime Porte in February 1853. By previous treaties, the sultan was committed "to protect the (Eastern Orthodox) Christian religion and its churches." Menshikov demanded a Russian protectorate over all 12 million Orthodox Christians in the Empire, with control of the Orthodox Church's hierarchy. A compromise was reached regarding Orthodox access to the Holy Land, but the Sultan, strongly supported by the British ambassador, rejected the more sweeping demands.

The Tsar next dispatched a highly abrasive diplomat, Prince <hl> Menshikov <hl> , on a special mission to the Ottoman Sublime Porte in February 1853.

question: Who wanted to ruled over the 12 million Orthodox Christians in the Empire?, context: Nicholas began courting Britain by means of conversations with the British ambassador, George Hamilton Seymour, in January and February 1853.:105 Nicholas insisted that he no longer wished to expand Imperial Russia:105 but that he had an obligation to the Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire.:105 The Tsar next dispatched a highly abrasive diplomat, Prince Menshikov, on a special mission to the Ottoman Sublime Porte in February 1853. By previous treaties, the sultan was committed "to protect the (Eastern Orthodox) Christian religion and its churches." Menshikov demanded a Russian protectorate over all 12 million Orthodox Christians in the Empire, with control of the Orthodox Church's hierarchy. A compromise was reached regarding Orthodox access to the Holy Land, but the Sultan, strongly supported by the British ambassador, rejected the more sweeping demands.


Question: Who was the Prime Minister of the British Government in 1853?

Answer: Lord Aberdeen

<hl> In February 1853, the British government of Lord Aberdeen , the prime minister, re-appointed Stratford Canning as British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.:110 Having resigned the ambassadorship in January, he had been replaced by Colonel Rose as chargé d'affaires. <hl> Lord Stratford then turned around and sailed back to Constantinople, arriving there on 5 April 1853. There he convinced the Sultan to reject the Russian treaty proposal, as compromising the independence of the Turks. The Leader of the Opposition in the British House of Commons, Benjamin Disraeli, blamed Aberdeen and Stratford's actions for making war inevitable, thus starting the process which would eventually force the Aberdeen government to resign in January 1855, over the war.

In February 1853, the British government of <hl> Lord Aberdeen <hl>, the prime minister, re-appointed Stratford Canning as British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.:110 Having resigned the ambassadorship in January, he had been replaced by Colonel Rose as chargé d'affaires. Lord Stratford then turned around and sailed back to Constantinople, arriving there on 5 April 1853. There he convinced the Sultan to reject the Russian treaty proposal, as compromising the independence of the Turks. The Leader of the Opposition in the British House of Commons, Benjamin Disraeli, blamed Aberdeen and Stratford's actions for making war inevitable, thus starting the process which would eventually force the Aberdeen government to resign in January 1855, over the war.

In February 1853, the British government of <hl> Lord Aberdeen <hl> , the prime minister, re-appointed Stratford Canning as British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.:110 Having resigned the ambassadorship in January, he had been replaced by Colonel Rose as chargé d'affaires.

question: Who was the Prime Minister of the British Government in 1853?, context: In February 1853, the British government of Lord Aberdeen, the prime minister, re-appointed Stratford Canning as British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.:110 Having resigned the ambassadorship in January, he had been replaced by Colonel Rose as chargé d'affaires. Lord Stratford then turned around and sailed back to Constantinople, arriving there on 5 April 1853. There he convinced the Sultan to reject the Russian treaty proposal, as compromising the independence of the Turks. The Leader of the Opposition in the British House of Commons, Benjamin Disraeli, blamed Aberdeen and Stratford's actions for making war inevitable, thus starting the process which would eventually force the Aberdeen government to resign in January 1855, over the war.


Question: Who did Aberdeen appoint the position of British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire to?

Answer: Stratford Canning

<hl> In February 1853, the British government of Lord Aberdeen, the prime minister, re-appointed Stratford Canning as British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.:110 <hl> Having resigned the ambassadorship in January, he had been replaced by Colonel Rose as chargé d'affaires. Lord Stratford then turned around and sailed back to Constantinople, arriving there on 5 April 1853. There he convinced the Sultan to reject the Russian treaty proposal, as compromising the independence of the Turks. The Leader of the Opposition in the British House of Commons, Benjamin Disraeli, blamed Aberdeen and Stratford's actions for making war inevitable, thus starting the process which would eventually force the Aberdeen government to resign in January 1855, over the war.

In February 1853, the British government of Lord Aberdeen, the prime minister, re-appointed <hl> Stratford Canning <hl> as British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.:110 Having resigned the ambassadorship in January, he had been replaced by Colonel Rose as chargé d'affaires. Lord Stratford then turned around and sailed back to Constantinople, arriving there on 5 April 1853. There he convinced the Sultan to reject the Russian treaty proposal, as compromising the independence of the Turks. The Leader of the Opposition in the British House of Commons, Benjamin Disraeli, blamed Aberdeen and Stratford's actions for making war inevitable, thus starting the process which would eventually force the Aberdeen government to resign in January 1855, over the war.

question: Who did Aberdeen appoint the position of British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire to?, context: In February 1853, the British government of Lord Aberdeen, the prime minister, re-appointed Stratford Canning as British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.:110 Having resigned the ambassadorship in January, he had been replaced by Colonel Rose as chargé d'affaires. Lord Stratford then turned around and sailed back to Constantinople, arriving there on 5 April 1853. There he convinced the Sultan to reject the Russian treaty proposal, as compromising the independence of the Turks. The Leader of the Opposition in the British House of Commons, Benjamin Disraeli, blamed Aberdeen and Stratford's actions for making war inevitable, thus starting the process which would eventually force the Aberdeen government to resign in January 1855, over the war.


Question: Who replaced Stratford Canning after he first resigned as British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire ?

Answer: Colonel Rose

<hl> In February 1853, the British government of Lord Aberdeen, the prime minister, re-appointed Stratford Canning as British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.:110 Having resigned the ambassadorship in January, he had been replaced by Colonel Rose as chargé d'affaires. <hl> Lord Stratford then turned around and sailed back to Constantinople, arriving there on 5 April 1853. There he convinced the Sultan to reject the Russian treaty proposal, as compromising the independence of the Turks. The Leader of the Opposition in the British House of Commons, Benjamin Disraeli, blamed Aberdeen and Stratford's actions for making war inevitable, thus starting the process which would eventually force the Aberdeen government to resign in January 1855, over the war.

In February 1853, the British government of Lord Aberdeen, the prime minister, re-appointed Stratford Canning as British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.:110 Having resigned the ambassadorship in January, he had been replaced by <hl> Colonel Rose <hl> as chargé d'affaires. Lord Stratford then turned around and sailed back to Constantinople, arriving there on 5 April 1853. There he convinced the Sultan to reject the Russian treaty proposal, as compromising the independence of the Turks. The Leader of the Opposition in the British House of Commons, Benjamin Disraeli, blamed Aberdeen and Stratford's actions for making war inevitable, thus starting the process which would eventually force the Aberdeen government to resign in January 1855, over the war.

question: Who replaced Stratford Canning after he first resigned as British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire ?, context: In February 1853, the British government of Lord Aberdeen, the prime minister, re-appointed Stratford Canning as British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.:110 Having resigned the ambassadorship in January, he had been replaced by Colonel Rose as chargé d'affaires. Lord Stratford then turned around and sailed back to Constantinople, arriving there on 5 April 1853. There he convinced the Sultan to reject the Russian treaty proposal, as compromising the independence of the Turks. The Leader of the Opposition in the British House of Commons, Benjamin Disraeli, blamed Aberdeen and Stratford's actions for making war inevitable, thus starting the process which would eventually force the Aberdeen government to resign in January 1855, over the war.


Question: After resigning where did Stratford Canning sail off to?

Answer: Constantinople

In February 1853, the British government of Lord Aberdeen, the prime minister, re-appointed Stratford Canning as British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.:110 Having resigned the ambassadorship in January, he had been replaced by Colonel Rose as chargé d'affaires. <hl> Lord Stratford then turned around and sailed back to Constantinople , arriving there on 5 April 1853. <hl> There he convinced the Sultan to reject the Russian treaty proposal, as compromising the independence of the Turks. The Leader of the Opposition in the British House of Commons, Benjamin Disraeli, blamed Aberdeen and Stratford's actions for making war inevitable, thus starting the process which would eventually force the Aberdeen government to resign in January 1855, over the war.

In February 1853, the British government of Lord Aberdeen, the prime minister, re-appointed Stratford Canning as British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.:110 Having resigned the ambassadorship in January, he had been replaced by Colonel Rose as chargé d'affaires. Lord Stratford then turned around and sailed back to <hl> Constantinople <hl>, arriving there on 5 April 1853. There he convinced the Sultan to reject the Russian treaty proposal, as compromising the independence of the Turks. The Leader of the Opposition in the British House of Commons, Benjamin Disraeli, blamed Aberdeen and Stratford's actions for making war inevitable, thus starting the process which would eventually force the Aberdeen government to resign in January 1855, over the war.

Lord Stratford then turned around and sailed back to <hl> Constantinople <hl> , arriving there on 5 April 1853.

question: After resigning where did Stratford Canning sail off to?, context: In February 1853, the British government of Lord Aberdeen, the prime minister, re-appointed Stratford Canning as British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.:110 Having resigned the ambassadorship in January, he had been replaced by Colonel Rose as chargé d'affaires. Lord Stratford then turned around and sailed back to Constantinople, arriving there on 5 April 1853. There he convinced the Sultan to reject the Russian treaty proposal, as compromising the independence of the Turks. The Leader of the Opposition in the British House of Commons, Benjamin Disraeli, blamed Aberdeen and Stratford's actions for making war inevitable, thus starting the process which would eventually force the Aberdeen government to resign in January 1855, over the war.


Question: Who did Stratford Canning convince to turn down the treaty proposal?

Answer: Sultan

In February 1853, the British government of Lord Aberdeen, the prime minister, re-appointed Stratford Canning as British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.:110 Having resigned the ambassadorship in January, he had been replaced by Colonel Rose as chargé d'affaires. Lord Stratford then turned around and sailed back to Constantinople, arriving there on 5 April 1853. <hl> There he convinced the Sultan to reject the Russian treaty proposal, as compromising the independence of the Turks. <hl> The Leader of the Opposition in the British House of Commons, Benjamin Disraeli, blamed Aberdeen and Stratford's actions for making war inevitable, thus starting the process which would eventually force the Aberdeen government to resign in January 1855, over the war.

In February 1853, the British government of Lord Aberdeen, the prime minister, re-appointed Stratford Canning as British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.:110 Having resigned the ambassadorship in January, he had been replaced by Colonel Rose as chargé d'affaires. Lord Stratford then turned around and sailed back to Constantinople, arriving there on 5 April 1853. There he convinced the <hl> Sultan <hl> to reject the Russian treaty proposal, as compromising the independence of the Turks. The Leader of the Opposition in the British House of Commons, Benjamin Disraeli, blamed Aberdeen and Stratford's actions for making war inevitable, thus starting the process which would eventually force the Aberdeen government to resign in January 1855, over the war.

question: Who did Stratford Canning convince to turn down the treaty proposal?, context: In February 1853, the British government of Lord Aberdeen, the prime minister, re-appointed Stratford Canning as British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.:110 Having resigned the ambassadorship in January, he had been replaced by Colonel Rose as chargé d'affaires. Lord Stratford then turned around and sailed back to Constantinople, arriving there on 5 April 1853. There he convinced the Sultan to reject the Russian treaty proposal, as compromising the independence of the Turks. The Leader of the Opposition in the British House of Commons, Benjamin Disraeli, blamed Aberdeen and Stratford's actions for making war inevitable, thus starting the process which would eventually force the Aberdeen government to resign in January 1855, over the war.


Question: Who sent armies across the Pruth River?

Answer: the Tsar

<hl> Shortly after he learned of the failure of Menshikov's diplomacy toward the end of June 1853, the Tsar sent armies under the commands of Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich and General Mikhail Gorchakov across the Pruth River into the Ottoman-controlled Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. <hl> Fewer than half of the 80,000 Russian soldiers who crossed the Pruth in 1853 survived. By far, most of the deaths would result from sickness rather than combat,:118–119 for the Russian army still suffered from medical services that ranged from bad to none.

Shortly after he learned of the failure of Menshikov's diplomacy toward the end of June 1853, <hl> the Tsar <hl> sent armies under the commands of Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich and General Mikhail Gorchakov across the Pruth River into the Ottoman-controlled Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. Fewer than half of the 80,000 Russian soldiers who crossed the Pruth in 1853 survived. By far, most of the deaths would result from sickness rather than combat,:118–119 for the Russian army still suffered from medical services that ranged from bad to none.

question: Who sent armies across the Pruth River?, context: Shortly after he learned of the failure of Menshikov's diplomacy toward the end of June 1853, the Tsar sent armies under the commands of Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich and General Mikhail Gorchakov across the Pruth River into the Ottoman-controlled Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. Fewer than half of the 80,000 Russian soldiers who crossed the Pruth in 1853 survived. By far, most of the deaths would result from sickness rather than combat,:118–119 for the Russian army still suffered from medical services that ranged from bad to none.


Question: Who commanded the armies across the Pruth River?

Answer: Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich and General Mikhail Gorchakov

<hl> Shortly after he learned of the failure of Menshikov's diplomacy toward the end of June 1853, the Tsar sent armies under the commands of Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich and General Mikhail Gorchakov across the Pruth River into the Ottoman-controlled Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. <hl> Fewer than half of the 80,000 Russian soldiers who crossed the Pruth in 1853 survived. By far, most of the deaths would result from sickness rather than combat,:118–119 for the Russian army still suffered from medical services that ranged from bad to none.

Shortly after he learned of the failure of Menshikov's diplomacy toward the end of June 1853, the Tsar sent armies under the commands of <hl> Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich and General Mikhail Gorchakov <hl> across the Pruth River into the Ottoman-controlled Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. Fewer than half of the 80,000 Russian soldiers who crossed the Pruth in 1853 survived. By far, most of the deaths would result from sickness rather than combat,:118–119 for the Russian army still suffered from medical services that ranged from bad to none.

question: Who commanded the armies across the Pruth River?, context: Shortly after he learned of the failure of Menshikov's diplomacy toward the end of June 1853, the Tsar sent armies under the commands of Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich and General Mikhail Gorchakov across the Pruth River into the Ottoman-controlled Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. Fewer than half of the 80,000 Russian soldiers who crossed the Pruth in 1853 survived. By far, most of the deaths would result from sickness rather than combat,:118–119 for the Russian army still suffered from medical services that ranged from bad to none.


Question: Who was in control of the Danubian Principalities?

Answer: Ottoman

<hl> Shortly after he learned of the failure of Menshikov's diplomacy toward the end of June 1853, the Tsar sent armies under the commands of Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich and General Mikhail Gorchakov across the Pruth River into the Ottoman -controlled Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. <hl> Fewer than half of the 80,000 Russian soldiers who crossed the Pruth in 1853 survived. By far, most of the deaths would result from sickness rather than combat,:118–119 for the Russian army still suffered from medical services that ranged from bad to none.

Shortly after he learned of the failure of Menshikov's diplomacy toward the end of June 1853, the Tsar sent armies under the commands of Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich and General Mikhail Gorchakov across the Pruth River into the <hl> Ottoman <hl>-controlled Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. Fewer than half of the 80,000 Russian soldiers who crossed the Pruth in 1853 survived. By far, most of the deaths would result from sickness rather than combat,:118–119 for the Russian army still suffered from medical services that ranged from bad to none.

Shortly after he learned of the failure of Menshikov's diplomacy toward the end of June 1853, the Tsar sent armies under the commands of Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich and General Mikhail Gorchakov across the Pruth River into the <hl> Ottoman <hl> -controlled Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia.

question: Who was in control of the Danubian Principalities?, context: Shortly after he learned of the failure of Menshikov's diplomacy toward the end of June 1853, the Tsar sent armies under the commands of Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich and General Mikhail Gorchakov across the Pruth River into the Ottoman-controlled Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. Fewer than half of the 80,000 Russian soldiers who crossed the Pruth in 1853 survived. By far, most of the deaths would result from sickness rather than combat,:118–119 for the Russian army still suffered from medical services that ranged from bad to none.


Question: In what year did Russian soldiers cross the Pruth River?

Answer: 1853

<hl> Shortly after he learned of the failure of Menshikov's diplomacy toward the end of June 1853 , the Tsar sent armies under the commands of Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich and General Mikhail Gorchakov across the Pruth River into the Ottoman-controlled Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. <hl> Fewer than half of the 80,000 Russian soldiers who crossed the Pruth in 1853 survived. By far, most of the deaths would result from sickness rather than combat,:118–119 for the Russian army still suffered from medical services that ranged from bad to none.

Shortly after he learned of the failure of Menshikov's diplomacy toward the end of June <hl> 1853 <hl>, the Tsar sent armies under the commands of Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich and General Mikhail Gorchakov across the Pruth River into the Ottoman-controlled Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. Fewer than half of the 80,000 Russian soldiers who crossed the Pruth in 1853 survived. By far, most of the deaths would result from sickness rather than combat,:118–119 for the Russian army still suffered from medical services that ranged from bad to none.

Shortly after he learned of the failure of Menshikov's diplomacy toward the end of June <hl> 1853 <hl> , the Tsar sent armies under the commands of Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich and General Mikhail Gorchakov across the Pruth River into the Ottoman-controlled Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia.

question: In what year did Russian soldiers cross the Pruth River?, context: Shortly after he learned of the failure of Menshikov's diplomacy toward the end of June 1853, the Tsar sent armies under the commands of Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich and General Mikhail Gorchakov across the Pruth River into the Ottoman-controlled Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. Fewer than half of the 80,000 Russian soldiers who crossed the Pruth in 1853 survived. By far, most of the deaths would result from sickness rather than combat,:118–119 for the Russian army still suffered from medical services that ranged from bad to none.


Question: How did most Russians die when crossing the Pruth River?

Answer: sickness

Shortly after he learned of the failure of Menshikov's diplomacy toward the end of June 1853, the Tsar sent armies under the commands of Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich and General Mikhail Gorchakov across the Pruth River into the Ottoman-controlled Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. Fewer than half of the 80,000 Russian soldiers who crossed the Pruth in 1853 survived. <hl> By far, most of the deaths would result from sickness rather than combat,:118–119 for the Russian army still suffered from medical services that ranged from bad to none. <hl>

Shortly after he learned of the failure of Menshikov's diplomacy toward the end of June 1853, the Tsar sent armies under the commands of Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich and General Mikhail Gorchakov across the Pruth River into the Ottoman-controlled Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. Fewer than half of the 80,000 Russian soldiers who crossed the Pruth in 1853 survived. By far, most of the deaths would result from <hl> sickness <hl> rather than combat,:118–119 for the Russian army still suffered from medical services that ranged from bad to none.

question: How did most Russians die when crossing the Pruth River?, context: Shortly after he learned of the failure of Menshikov's diplomacy toward the end of June 1853, the Tsar sent armies under the commands of Field Marshal Ivan Paskevich and General Mikhail Gorchakov across the Pruth River into the Ottoman-controlled Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. Fewer than half of the 80,000 Russian soldiers who crossed the Pruth in 1853 survived. By far, most of the deaths would result from sickness rather than combat,:118–119 for the Russian army still suffered from medical services that ranged from bad to none.


Question: Who was given the special role of guardian over the Orthodox Christians in Moldavia and Wallachia?

Answer: Russia

<hl> Russia had previously obtained recognition from the Ottoman Empire of the Tsar's role as special guardian of the Orthodox Christians in Moldavia and Wallachia. <hl> Now Russia used the Sultan's failure to resolve the issue of the protection of the Christian sites in the Holy Land as a pretext for Russian occupation of these Danubian provinces. Nicholas believed that the European powers, especially Austria, would not object strongly to the annexation of a few neighbouring Ottoman provinces, especially considering that Russia had assisted Austria's efforts in suppressing the Hungarian Revolution in 1849.

<hl> Russia <hl> had previously obtained recognition from the Ottoman Empire of the Tsar's role as special guardian of the Orthodox Christians in Moldavia and Wallachia. Now Russia used the Sultan's failure to resolve the issue of the protection of the Christian sites in the Holy Land as a pretext for Russian occupation of these Danubian provinces. Nicholas believed that the European powers, especially Austria, would not object strongly to the annexation of a few neighbouring Ottoman provinces, especially considering that Russia had assisted Austria's efforts in suppressing the Hungarian Revolution in 1849.

question: Who was given the special role of guardian over the Orthodox Christians in Moldavia and Wallachia?, context: Russia had previously obtained recognition from the Ottoman Empire of the Tsar's role as special guardian of the Orthodox Christians in Moldavia and Wallachia. Now Russia used the Sultan's failure to resolve the issue of the protection of the Christian sites in the Holy Land as a pretext for Russian occupation of these Danubian provinces. Nicholas believed that the European powers, especially Austria, would not object strongly to the annexation of a few neighbouring Ottoman provinces, especially considering that Russia had assisted Austria's efforts in suppressing the Hungarian Revolution in 1849.


Question: Who recognized and gave Russia the special guardian role?

Answer: Ottoman Empire of the Tsar's

<hl> Russia had previously obtained recognition from the Ottoman Empire of the Tsar's role as special guardian of the Orthodox Christians in Moldavia and Wallachia. <hl> Now Russia used the Sultan's failure to resolve the issue of the protection of the Christian sites in the Holy Land as a pretext for Russian occupation of these Danubian provinces. Nicholas believed that the European powers, especially Austria, would not object strongly to the annexation of a few neighbouring Ottoman provinces, especially considering that Russia had assisted Austria's efforts in suppressing the Hungarian Revolution in 1849.

Russia had previously obtained recognition from the <hl> Ottoman Empire of the Tsar's <hl> role as special guardian of the Orthodox Christians in Moldavia and Wallachia. Now Russia used the Sultan's failure to resolve the issue of the protection of the Christian sites in the Holy Land as a pretext for Russian occupation of these Danubian provinces. Nicholas believed that the European powers, especially Austria, would not object strongly to the annexation of a few neighbouring Ottoman provinces, especially considering that Russia had assisted Austria's efforts in suppressing the Hungarian Revolution in 1849.

question: Who recognized and gave Russia the special guardian role?, context: Russia had previously obtained recognition from the Ottoman Empire of the Tsar's role as special guardian of the Orthodox Christians in Moldavia and Wallachia. Now Russia used the Sultan's failure to resolve the issue of the protection of the Christian sites in the Holy Land as a pretext for Russian occupation of these Danubian provinces. Nicholas believed that the European powers, especially Austria, would not object strongly to the annexation of a few neighbouring Ottoman provinces, especially considering that Russia had assisted Austria's efforts in suppressing the Hungarian Revolution in 1849.


Question: Who felt Europe would not object to the joining of neighboring Ottoman provinces?

Answer: Nicholas

Russia had previously obtained recognition from the Ottoman Empire of the Tsar's role as special guardian of the Orthodox Christians in Moldavia and Wallachia. Now Russia used the Sultan's failure to resolve the issue of the protection of the Christian sites in the Holy Land as a pretext for Russian occupation of these Danubian provinces. <hl> Nicholas believed that the European powers, especially Austria, would not object strongly to the annexation of a few neighbouring Ottoman provinces, especially considering that Russia had assisted Austria's efforts in suppressing the Hungarian Revolution in 1849. <hl>

Russia had previously obtained recognition from the Ottoman Empire of the Tsar's role as special guardian of the Orthodox Christians in Moldavia and Wallachia. Now Russia used the Sultan's failure to resolve the issue of the protection of the Christian sites in the Holy Land as a pretext for Russian occupation of these Danubian provinces. <hl> Nicholas <hl> believed that the European powers, especially Austria, would not object strongly to the annexation of a few neighbouring Ottoman provinces, especially considering that Russia had assisted Austria's efforts in suppressing the Hungarian Revolution in 1849.

question: Who felt Europe would not object to the joining of neighboring Ottoman provinces?, context: Russia had previously obtained recognition from the Ottoman Empire of the Tsar's role as special guardian of the Orthodox Christians in Moldavia and Wallachia. Now Russia used the Sultan's failure to resolve the issue of the protection of the Christian sites in the Holy Land as a pretext for Russian occupation of these Danubian provinces. Nicholas believed that the European powers, especially Austria, would not object strongly to the annexation of a few neighbouring Ottoman provinces, especially considering that Russia had assisted Austria's efforts in suppressing the Hungarian Revolution in 1849.


Question: What European powers met in Vienna for a conference?

Answer: United Kingdom, France, Austria and Prussia

The European powers continued to pursue diplomatic avenues. <hl> The representatives of the four neutral Great Powers—the United Kingdom, France, Austria and Prussia —met in Vienna, where they drafted a note that they hoped would be acceptable to both the Russians and the Ottomans. <hl> The peace terms arrived at by the four powers at the Vienna Conference were delivered to the Russians by the Austrian Foreign Minister Count Karl von Buol on 5 December 1853. The note met with the approval of Nicholas I; however, Abdülmecid I rejected the proposal, feeling that the document's poor phrasing left it open to many different interpretations. The United Kingdom, France, and Austria united in proposing amendments to mollify the Sultan, but the court of St. Petersburg ignored their suggestions.:143 The UK and France then set aside the idea of continuing negotiations, but Austria and Prussia did not believe that the rejection of the proposed amendments justified the abandonment of the diplomatic process.

The European powers continued to pursue diplomatic avenues. The representatives of the four neutral Great Powers—the <hl> United Kingdom, France, Austria and Prussia <hl>—met in Vienna, where they drafted a note that they hoped would be acceptable to both the Russians and the Ottomans. The peace terms arrived at by the four powers at the Vienna Conference were delivered to the Russians by the Austrian Foreign Minister Count Karl von Buol on 5 December 1853. The note met with the approval of Nicholas I; however, Abdülmecid I rejected the proposal, feeling that the document's poor phrasing left it open to many different interpretations. The United Kingdom, France, and Austria united in proposing amendments to mollify the Sultan, but the court of St. Petersburg ignored their suggestions.:143 The UK and France then set aside the idea of continuing negotiations, but Austria and Prussia did not believe that the rejection of the proposed amendments justified the abandonment of the diplomatic process.

The representatives of the four neutral Great Powers—the <hl> United Kingdom, France, Austria and Prussia <hl> —met in Vienna, where they drafted a note that they hoped would be acceptable to both the Russians and the Ottomans.

question: What European powers met in Vienna for a conference?, context: The European powers continued to pursue diplomatic avenues. The representatives of the four neutral Great Powers—the United Kingdom, France, Austria and Prussia—met in Vienna, where they drafted a note that they hoped would be acceptable to both the Russians and the Ottomans. The peace terms arrived at by the four powers at the Vienna Conference were delivered to the Russians by the Austrian Foreign Minister Count Karl von Buol on 5 December 1853. The note met with the approval of Nicholas I; however, Abdülmecid I rejected the proposal, feeling that the document's poor phrasing left it open to many different interpretations. The United Kingdom, France, and Austria united in proposing amendments to mollify the Sultan, but the court of St. Petersburg ignored their suggestions.:143 The UK and France then set aside the idea of continuing negotiations, but Austria and Prussia did not believe that the rejection of the proposed amendments justified the abandonment of the diplomatic process.


Question: Who delivered the peace terms of the Vienna Conference to the Russians?

Answer: Count Karl von Buol

The European powers continued to pursue diplomatic avenues. The representatives of the four neutral Great Powers—the United Kingdom, France, Austria and Prussia—met in Vienna, where they drafted a note that they hoped would be acceptable to both the Russians and the Ottomans. <hl> The peace terms arrived at by the four powers at the Vienna Conference were delivered to the Russians by the Austrian Foreign Minister Count Karl von Buol on 5 December 1853. <hl> The note met with the approval of Nicholas I; however, Abdülmecid I rejected the proposal, feeling that the document's poor phrasing left it open to many different interpretations. The United Kingdom, France, and Austria united in proposing amendments to mollify the Sultan, but the court of St. Petersburg ignored their suggestions.:143 The UK and France then set aside the idea of continuing negotiations, but Austria and Prussia did not believe that the rejection of the proposed amendments justified the abandonment of the diplomatic process.

The European powers continued to pursue diplomatic avenues. The representatives of the four neutral Great Powers—the United Kingdom, France, Austria and Prussia—met in Vienna, where they drafted a note that they hoped would be acceptable to both the Russians and the Ottomans. The peace terms arrived at by the four powers at the Vienna Conference were delivered to the Russians by the Austrian Foreign Minister <hl> Count Karl von Buol <hl> on 5 December 1853. The note met with the approval of Nicholas I; however, Abdülmecid I rejected the proposal, feeling that the document's poor phrasing left it open to many different interpretations. The United Kingdom, France, and Austria united in proposing amendments to mollify the Sultan, but the court of St. Petersburg ignored their suggestions.:143 The UK and France then set aside the idea of continuing negotiations, but Austria and Prussia did not believe that the rejection of the proposed amendments justified the abandonment of the diplomatic process.

question: Who delivered the peace terms of the Vienna Conference to the Russians?, context: The European powers continued to pursue diplomatic avenues. The representatives of the four neutral Great Powers—the United Kingdom, France, Austria and Prussia—met in Vienna, where they drafted a note that they hoped would be acceptable to both the Russians and the Ottomans. The peace terms arrived at by the four powers at the Vienna Conference were delivered to the Russians by the Austrian Foreign Minister Count Karl von Buol on 5 December 1853. The note met with the approval of Nicholas I; however, Abdülmecid I rejected the proposal, feeling that the document's poor phrasing left it open to many different interpretations. The United Kingdom, France, and Austria united in proposing amendments to mollify the Sultan, but the court of St. Petersburg ignored their suggestions.:143 The UK and France then set aside the idea of continuing negotiations, but Austria and Prussia did not believe that the rejection of the proposed amendments justified the abandonment of the diplomatic process.


Question: In what year did Count Karl von Buol deliver the Vienna Conference news to the Russians?

Answer: 1853

The European powers continued to pursue diplomatic avenues. The representatives of the four neutral Great Powers—the United Kingdom, France, Austria and Prussia—met in Vienna, where they drafted a note that they hoped would be acceptable to both the Russians and the Ottomans. <hl> The peace terms arrived at by the four powers at the Vienna Conference were delivered to the Russians by the Austrian Foreign Minister Count Karl von Buol on 5 December 1853 . <hl> The note met with the approval of Nicholas I; however, Abdülmecid I rejected the proposal, feeling that the document's poor phrasing left it open to many different interpretations. The United Kingdom, France, and Austria united in proposing amendments to mollify the Sultan, but the court of St. Petersburg ignored their suggestions.:143 The UK and France then set aside the idea of continuing negotiations, but Austria and Prussia did not believe that the rejection of the proposed amendments justified the abandonment of the diplomatic process.

The European powers continued to pursue diplomatic avenues. The representatives of the four neutral Great Powers—the United Kingdom, France, Austria and Prussia—met in Vienna, where they drafted a note that they hoped would be acceptable to both the Russians and the Ottomans. The peace terms arrived at by the four powers at the Vienna Conference were delivered to the Russians by the Austrian Foreign Minister Count Karl von Buol on 5 December <hl> 1853 <hl>. The note met with the approval of Nicholas I; however, Abdülmecid I rejected the proposal, feeling that the document's poor phrasing left it open to many different interpretations. The United Kingdom, France, and Austria united in proposing amendments to mollify the Sultan, but the court of St. Petersburg ignored their suggestions.:143 The UK and France then set aside the idea of continuing negotiations, but Austria and Prussia did not believe that the rejection of the proposed amendments justified the abandonment of the diplomatic process.

The peace terms arrived at by the four powers at the Vienna Conference were delivered to the Russians by the Austrian Foreign Minister Count Karl von Buol on 5 December <hl> 1853 <hl> .

question: In what year did Count Karl von Buol deliver the Vienna Conference news to the Russians?, context: The European powers continued to pursue diplomatic avenues. The representatives of the four neutral Great Powers—the United Kingdom, France, Austria and Prussia—met in Vienna, where they drafted a note that they hoped would be acceptable to both the Russians and the Ottomans. The peace terms arrived at by the four powers at the Vienna Conference were delivered to the Russians by the Austrian Foreign Minister Count Karl von Buol on 5 December 1853. The note met with the approval of Nicholas I; however, Abdülmecid I rejected the proposal, feeling that the document's poor phrasing left it open to many different interpretations. The United Kingdom, France, and Austria united in proposing amendments to mollify the Sultan, but the court of St. Petersburg ignored their suggestions.:143 The UK and France then set aside the idea of continuing negotiations, but Austria and Prussia did not believe that the rejection of the proposed amendments justified the abandonment of the diplomatic process.


Question: Who rejected the proposal due to poor word phrasing?

Answer: Abdülmecid I

The European powers continued to pursue diplomatic avenues. The representatives of the four neutral Great Powers—the United Kingdom, France, Austria and Prussia—met in Vienna, where they drafted a note that they hoped would be acceptable to both the Russians and the Ottomans. The peace terms arrived at by the four powers at the Vienna Conference were delivered to the Russians by the Austrian Foreign Minister Count Karl von Buol on 5 December 1853. <hl> The note met with the approval of Nicholas I; however, Abdülmecid I rejected the proposal, feeling that the document's poor phrasing left it open to many different interpretations. <hl> The United Kingdom, France, and Austria united in proposing amendments to mollify the Sultan, but the court of St. Petersburg ignored their suggestions.:143 The UK and France then set aside the idea of continuing negotiations, but Austria and Prussia did not believe that the rejection of the proposed amendments justified the abandonment of the diplomatic process.

The European powers continued to pursue diplomatic avenues. The representatives of the four neutral Great Powers—the United Kingdom, France, Austria and Prussia—met in Vienna, where they drafted a note that they hoped would be acceptable to both the Russians and the Ottomans. The peace terms arrived at by the four powers at the Vienna Conference were delivered to the Russians by the Austrian Foreign Minister Count Karl von Buol on 5 December 1853. The note met with the approval of Nicholas I; however, <hl> Abdülmecid I <hl> rejected the proposal, feeling that the document's poor phrasing left it open to many different interpretations. The United Kingdom, France, and Austria united in proposing amendments to mollify the Sultan, but the court of St. Petersburg ignored their suggestions.:143 The UK and France then set aside the idea of continuing negotiations, but Austria and Prussia did not believe that the rejection of the proposed amendments justified the abandonment of the diplomatic process.

question: Who rejected the proposal due to poor word phrasing?, context: The European powers continued to pursue diplomatic avenues. The representatives of the four neutral Great Powers—the United Kingdom, France, Austria and Prussia—met in Vienna, where they drafted a note that they hoped would be acceptable to both the Russians and the Ottomans. The peace terms arrived at by the four powers at the Vienna Conference were delivered to the Russians by the Austrian Foreign Minister Count Karl von Buol on 5 December 1853. The note met with the approval of Nicholas I; however, Abdülmecid I rejected the proposal, feeling that the document's poor phrasing left it open to many different interpretations. The United Kingdom, France, and Austria united in proposing amendments to mollify the Sultan, but the court of St. Petersburg ignored their suggestions.:143 The UK and France then set aside the idea of continuing negotiations, but Austria and Prussia did not believe that the rejection of the proposed amendments justified the abandonment of the diplomatic process.


Question: Who approved the proposal given by Count Karl von Buol ?

Answer: Nicholas I

The European powers continued to pursue diplomatic avenues. The representatives of the four neutral Great Powers—the United Kingdom, France, Austria and Prussia—met in Vienna, where they drafted a note that they hoped would be acceptable to both the Russians and the Ottomans. The peace terms arrived at by the four powers at the Vienna Conference were delivered to the Russians by the Austrian Foreign Minister Count Karl von Buol on 5 December 1853. <hl> The note met with the approval of Nicholas I ; however, Abdülmecid I rejected the proposal, feeling that the document's poor phrasing left it open to many different interpretations. <hl> The United Kingdom, France, and Austria united in proposing amendments to mollify the Sultan, but the court of St. Petersburg ignored their suggestions.:143 The UK and France then set aside the idea of continuing negotiations, but Austria and Prussia did not believe that the rejection of the proposed amendments justified the abandonment of the diplomatic process.

The European powers continued to pursue diplomatic avenues. The representatives of the four neutral Great Powers—the United Kingdom, France, Austria and Prussia—met in Vienna, where they drafted a note that they hoped would be acceptable to both the Russians and the Ottomans. The peace terms arrived at by the four powers at the Vienna Conference were delivered to the Russians by the Austrian Foreign Minister Count Karl von Buol on 5 December 1853. The note met with the approval of <hl> Nicholas I <hl>; however, Abdülmecid I rejected the proposal, feeling that the document's poor phrasing left it open to many different interpretations. The United Kingdom, France, and Austria united in proposing amendments to mollify the Sultan, but the court of St. Petersburg ignored their suggestions.:143 The UK and France then set aside the idea of continuing negotiations, but Austria and Prussia did not believe that the rejection of the proposed amendments justified the abandonment of the diplomatic process.

The note met with the approval of <hl> Nicholas I <hl> ; however, Abdülmecid I rejected the proposal, feeling that the document's poor phrasing left it open to many different interpretations.

question: Who approved the proposal given by Count Karl von Buol ?, context: The European powers continued to pursue diplomatic avenues. The representatives of the four neutral Great Powers—the United Kingdom, France, Austria and Prussia—met in Vienna, where they drafted a note that they hoped would be acceptable to both the Russians and the Ottomans. The peace terms arrived at by the four powers at the Vienna Conference were delivered to the Russians by the Austrian Foreign Minister Count Karl von Buol on 5 December 1853. The note met with the approval of Nicholas I; however, Abdülmecid I rejected the proposal, feeling that the document's poor phrasing left it open to many different interpretations. The United Kingdom, France, and Austria united in proposing amendments to mollify the Sultan, but the court of St. Petersburg ignored their suggestions.:143 The UK and France then set aside the idea of continuing negotiations, but Austria and Prussia did not believe that the rejection of the proposed amendments justified the abandonment of the diplomatic process.


Question: What battle took place on November 30, 1853?

Answer: Battle of Sinop

The Russians sent a fleet to Sinop in northern Anatolia. <hl> In the Battle of Sinop on 30 November 1853 they destroyed a patrol squadron of Ottoman frigates and corvettes while they were anchored in port. <hl> Public opinion in the UK and France was outraged and demanded war. Sinop provided the United Kingdom and France with the casus belli ("cause for war") for declaring war against Russia. On 28 March 1854, after Russia ignored an Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw from the Danubian Principalities, the UK and France formally declared war.

The Russians sent a fleet to Sinop in northern Anatolia. In the <hl> Battle of Sinop <hl> on 30 November 1853 they destroyed a patrol squadron of Ottoman frigates and corvettes while they were anchored in port. Public opinion in the UK and France was outraged and demanded war. Sinop provided the United Kingdom and France with the casus belli ("cause for war") for declaring war against Russia. On 28 March 1854, after Russia ignored an Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw from the Danubian Principalities, the UK and France formally declared war.

question: What battle took place on November 30, 1853?, context: The Russians sent a fleet to Sinop in northern Anatolia. In the Battle of Sinop on 30 November 1853 they destroyed a patrol squadron of Ottoman frigates and corvettes while they were anchored in port. Public opinion in the UK and France was outraged and demanded war. Sinop provided the United Kingdom and France with the casus belli ("cause for war") for declaring war against Russia. On 28 March 1854, after Russia ignored an Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw from the Danubian Principalities, the UK and France formally declared war.


Question: What did the Russian send to Sinop?

Answer: a fleet

<hl> The Russians sent a fleet to Sinop in northern Anatolia. <hl> In the Battle of Sinop on 30 November 1853 they destroyed a patrol squadron of Ottoman frigates and corvettes while they were anchored in port. Public opinion in the UK and France was outraged and demanded war. Sinop provided the United Kingdom and France with the casus belli ("cause for war") for declaring war against Russia. On 28 March 1854, after Russia ignored an Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw from the Danubian Principalities, the UK and France formally declared war.

The Russians sent <hl> a fleet <hl> to Sinop in northern Anatolia. In the Battle of Sinop on 30 November 1853 they destroyed a patrol squadron of Ottoman frigates and corvettes while they were anchored in port. Public opinion in the UK and France was outraged and demanded war. Sinop provided the United Kingdom and France with the casus belli ("cause for war") for declaring war against Russia. On 28 March 1854, after Russia ignored an Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw from the Danubian Principalities, the UK and France formally declared war.

question: What did the Russian send to Sinop?, context: The Russians sent a fleet to Sinop in northern Anatolia. In the Battle of Sinop on 30 November 1853 they destroyed a patrol squadron of Ottoman frigates and corvettes while they were anchored in port. Public opinion in the UK and France was outraged and demanded war. Sinop provided the United Kingdom and France with the casus belli ("cause for war") for declaring war against Russia. On 28 March 1854, after Russia ignored an Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw from the Danubian Principalities, the UK and France formally declared war.


Question: While anchored in the port, what did the Russians destroy?

Answer: a patrol squadron of Ottoman frigates and corvettes

The Russians sent a fleet to Sinop in northern Anatolia. <hl> In the Battle of Sinop on 30 November 1853 they destroyed a patrol squadron of Ottoman frigates and corvettes while they were anchored in port. <hl> Public opinion in the UK and France was outraged and demanded war. Sinop provided the United Kingdom and France with the casus belli ("cause for war") for declaring war against Russia. On 28 March 1854, after Russia ignored an Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw from the Danubian Principalities, the UK and France formally declared war.

The Russians sent a fleet to Sinop in northern Anatolia. In the Battle of Sinop on 30 November 1853 they destroyed <hl> a patrol squadron of Ottoman frigates and corvettes <hl> while they were anchored in port. Public opinion in the UK and France was outraged and demanded war. Sinop provided the United Kingdom and France with the casus belli ("cause for war") for declaring war against Russia. On 28 March 1854, after Russia ignored an Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw from the Danubian Principalities, the UK and France formally declared war.

question: While anchored in the port, what did the Russians destroy?, context: The Russians sent a fleet to Sinop in northern Anatolia. In the Battle of Sinop on 30 November 1853 they destroyed a patrol squadron of Ottoman frigates and corvettes while they were anchored in port. Public opinion in the UK and France was outraged and demanded war. Sinop provided the United Kingdom and France with the casus belli ("cause for war") for declaring war against Russia. On 28 March 1854, after Russia ignored an Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw from the Danubian Principalities, the UK and France formally declared war.


Question: What did Battle of Sinop provide for France and the U.K?

Answer: cause for war

The Russians sent a fleet to Sinop in northern Anatolia. In the Battle of Sinop on 30 November 1853 they destroyed a patrol squadron of Ottoman frigates and corvettes while they were anchored in port. Public opinion in the UK and France was outraged and demanded war. <hl> Sinop provided the United Kingdom and France with the casus belli (" cause for war ") for declaring war against Russia. <hl> On 28 March 1854, after Russia ignored an Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw from the Danubian Principalities, the UK and France formally declared war.

The Russians sent a fleet to Sinop in northern Anatolia. In the Battle of Sinop on 30 November 1853 they destroyed a patrol squadron of Ottoman frigates and corvettes while they were anchored in port. Public opinion in the UK and France was outraged and demanded war. Sinop provided the United Kingdom and France with the casus belli ("<hl> cause for war <hl>") for declaring war against Russia. On 28 March 1854, after Russia ignored an Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw from the Danubian Principalities, the UK and France formally declared war.

Sinop provided the United Kingdom and France with the casus belli (" <hl> cause for war <hl> ") for declaring war against Russia.

question: What did Battle of Sinop provide for France and the U.K?, context: The Russians sent a fleet to Sinop in northern Anatolia. In the Battle of Sinop on 30 November 1853 they destroyed a patrol squadron of Ottoman frigates and corvettes while they were anchored in port. Public opinion in the UK and France was outraged and demanded war. Sinop provided the United Kingdom and France with the casus belli ("cause for war") for declaring war against Russia. On 28 March 1854, after Russia ignored an Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw from the Danubian Principalities, the UK and France formally declared war.


Question: When did the Russia disregard the ultimatum to leave the Danubian Principalities?

Answer: 28 March 1854

The Russians sent a fleet to Sinop in northern Anatolia. In the Battle of Sinop on 30 November 1853 they destroyed a patrol squadron of Ottoman frigates and corvettes while they were anchored in port. Public opinion in the UK and France was outraged and demanded war. Sinop provided the United Kingdom and France with the casus belli ("cause for war") for declaring war against Russia. <hl> On 28 March 1854 , after Russia ignored an Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw from the Danubian Principalities, the UK and France formally declared war. <hl>

The Russians sent a fleet to Sinop in northern Anatolia. In the Battle of Sinop on 30 November 1853 they destroyed a patrol squadron of Ottoman frigates and corvettes while they were anchored in port. Public opinion in the UK and France was outraged and demanded war. Sinop provided the United Kingdom and France with the casus belli ("cause for war") for declaring war against Russia. On <hl> 28 March 1854 <hl>, after Russia ignored an Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw from the Danubian Principalities, the UK and France formally declared war.

On <hl> 28 March 1854 <hl> , after Russia ignored an Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw from the Danubian Principalities, the UK and France formally declared war.

question: When did the Russia disregard the ultimatum to leave the Danubian Principalities?, context: The Russians sent a fleet to Sinop in northern Anatolia. In the Battle of Sinop on 30 November 1853 they destroyed a patrol squadron of Ottoman frigates and corvettes while they were anchored in port. Public opinion in the UK and France was outraged and demanded war. Sinop provided the United Kingdom and France with the casus belli ("cause for war") for declaring war against Russia. On 28 March 1854, after Russia ignored an Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw from the Danubian Principalities, the UK and France formally declared war.


Question: Who was concerned with Russia capturing Constantinople?

Answer: Britain

<hl> Britain was concerned about Russian activity and Sir John Burgoyne senior advisor to Lord Aberdeen urged that the Dardanelles should be occupied and throw up works of sufficient strength to block any Russian move to capture Constantinople and gain access to the Mediterranean Sea. <hl> The Corps of Royal Engineers sent men to the Dardanelles while Burgoyne went to Paris, meeting the British Ambassador and the French Emperor. The Lord Cowley wrote on 8 February to Burgoyne "Your visit to Paris has produced a visible change in the Emperor's views, and he is making every preparation for a land expedition in case the last attempt at negotiation should break down.":411

<hl> Britain <hl> was concerned about Russian activity and Sir John Burgoyne senior advisor to Lord Aberdeen urged that the Dardanelles should be occupied and throw up works of sufficient strength to block any Russian move to capture Constantinople and gain access to the Mediterranean Sea. The Corps of Royal Engineers sent men to the Dardanelles while Burgoyne went to Paris, meeting the British Ambassador and the French Emperor. The Lord Cowley wrote on 8 February to Burgoyne "Your visit to Paris has produced a visible change in the Emperor's views, and he is making every preparation for a land expedition in case the last attempt at negotiation should break down.":411

question: Who was concerned with Russia capturing Constantinople?, context: Britain was concerned about Russian activity and Sir John Burgoyne senior advisor to Lord Aberdeen urged that the Dardanelles should be occupied and throw up works of sufficient strength to block any Russian move to capture Constantinople and gain access to the Mediterranean Sea. The Corps of Royal Engineers sent men to the Dardanelles while Burgoyne went to Paris, meeting the British Ambassador and the French Emperor. The Lord Cowley wrote on 8 February to Burgoyne "Your visit to Paris has produced a visible change in the Emperor's views, and he is making every preparation for a land expedition in case the last attempt at negotiation should break down.":411


Question: Who sent men to the Dardanelles?

Answer: The Corps of Royal Engineers

Britain was concerned about Russian activity and Sir John Burgoyne senior advisor to Lord Aberdeen urged that the Dardanelles should be occupied and throw up works of sufficient strength to block any Russian move to capture Constantinople and gain access to the Mediterranean Sea. <hl> The Corps of Royal Engineers sent men to the Dardanelles while Burgoyne went to Paris, meeting the British Ambassador and the French Emperor. <hl> The Lord Cowley wrote on 8 February to Burgoyne "Your visit to Paris has produced a visible change in the Emperor's views, and he is making every preparation for a land expedition in case the last attempt at negotiation should break down.":411

Britain was concerned about Russian activity and Sir John Burgoyne senior advisor to Lord Aberdeen urged that the Dardanelles should be occupied and throw up works of sufficient strength to block any Russian move to capture Constantinople and gain access to the Mediterranean Sea. <hl> The Corps of Royal Engineers <hl> sent men to the Dardanelles while Burgoyne went to Paris, meeting the British Ambassador and the French Emperor. The Lord Cowley wrote on 8 February to Burgoyne "Your visit to Paris has produced a visible change in the Emperor's views, and he is making every preparation for a land expedition in case the last attempt at negotiation should break down.":411

question: Who sent men to the Dardanelles?, context: Britain was concerned about Russian activity and Sir John Burgoyne senior advisor to Lord Aberdeen urged that the Dardanelles should be occupied and throw up works of sufficient strength to block any Russian move to capture Constantinople and gain access to the Mediterranean Sea. The Corps of Royal Engineers sent men to the Dardanelles while Burgoyne went to Paris, meeting the British Ambassador and the French Emperor. The Lord Cowley wrote on 8 February to Burgoyne "Your visit to Paris has produced a visible change in the Emperor's views, and he is making every preparation for a land expedition in case the last attempt at negotiation should break down.":411


Question: As men were sent to the Dardanelles, where did Burgoyne go?

Answer: Paris

Britain was concerned about Russian activity and Sir John Burgoyne senior advisor to Lord Aberdeen urged that the Dardanelles should be occupied and throw up works of sufficient strength to block any Russian move to capture Constantinople and gain access to the Mediterranean Sea. <hl> The Corps of Royal Engineers sent men to the Dardanelles while Burgoyne went to Paris , meeting the British Ambassador and the French Emperor. <hl> The Lord Cowley wrote on 8 February to Burgoyne "Your visit to Paris has produced a visible change in the Emperor's views, and he is making every preparation for a land expedition in case the last attempt at negotiation should break down.":411

Britain was concerned about Russian activity and Sir John Burgoyne senior advisor to Lord Aberdeen urged that the Dardanelles should be occupied and throw up works of sufficient strength to block any Russian move to capture Constantinople and gain access to the Mediterranean Sea. The Corps of Royal Engineers sent men to the Dardanelles while Burgoyne went to <hl> Paris <hl>, meeting the British Ambassador and the French Emperor. The Lord Cowley wrote on 8 February to Burgoyne "Your visit to Paris has produced a visible change in the Emperor's views, and he is making every preparation for a land expedition in case the last attempt at negotiation should break down.":411

The Corps of Royal Engineers sent men to the Dardanelles while Burgoyne went to <hl> Paris <hl> , meeting the British Ambassador and the French Emperor.

question: As men were sent to the Dardanelles, where did Burgoyne go?, context: Britain was concerned about Russian activity and Sir John Burgoyne senior advisor to Lord Aberdeen urged that the Dardanelles should be occupied and throw up works of sufficient strength to block any Russian move to capture Constantinople and gain access to the Mediterranean Sea. The Corps of Royal Engineers sent men to the Dardanelles while Burgoyne went to Paris, meeting the British Ambassador and the French Emperor. The Lord Cowley wrote on 8 February to Burgoyne "Your visit to Paris has produced a visible change in the Emperor's views, and he is making every preparation for a land expedition in case the last attempt at negotiation should break down.":411


Question: Who was Burgoyne visiting in Paris?

Answer: British Ambassador and the French Emperor

Britain was concerned about Russian activity and Sir John Burgoyne senior advisor to Lord Aberdeen urged that the Dardanelles should be occupied and throw up works of sufficient strength to block any Russian move to capture Constantinople and gain access to the Mediterranean Sea. <hl> The Corps of Royal Engineers sent men to the Dardanelles while Burgoyne went to Paris, meeting the British Ambassador and the French Emperor . <hl> The Lord Cowley wrote on 8 February to Burgoyne "Your visit to Paris has produced a visible change in the Emperor's views, and he is making every preparation for a land expedition in case the last attempt at negotiation should break down.":411

Britain was concerned about Russian activity and Sir John Burgoyne senior advisor to Lord Aberdeen urged that the Dardanelles should be occupied and throw up works of sufficient strength to block any Russian move to capture Constantinople and gain access to the Mediterranean Sea. The Corps of Royal Engineers sent men to the Dardanelles while Burgoyne went to Paris, meeting the <hl> British Ambassador and the French Emperor <hl>. The Lord Cowley wrote on 8 February to Burgoyne "Your visit to Paris has produced a visible change in the Emperor's views, and he is making every preparation for a land expedition in case the last attempt at negotiation should break down.":411

The Corps of Royal Engineers sent men to the Dardanelles while Burgoyne went to Paris, meeting the <hl> British Ambassador and the French Emperor <hl> .

question: Who was Burgoyne visiting in Paris?, context: Britain was concerned about Russian activity and Sir John Burgoyne senior advisor to Lord Aberdeen urged that the Dardanelles should be occupied and throw up works of sufficient strength to block any Russian move to capture Constantinople and gain access to the Mediterranean Sea. The Corps of Royal Engineers sent men to the Dardanelles while Burgoyne went to Paris, meeting the British Ambassador and the French Emperor. The Lord Cowley wrote on 8 February to Burgoyne "Your visit to Paris has produced a visible change in the Emperor's views, and he is making every preparation for a land expedition in case the last attempt at negotiation should break down.":411


Question: Who wrote to Burgoyne on February 8th?

Answer: Lord Cowley

Britain was concerned about Russian activity and Sir John Burgoyne senior advisor to Lord Aberdeen urged that the Dardanelles should be occupied and throw up works of sufficient strength to block any Russian move to capture Constantinople and gain access to the Mediterranean Sea. The Corps of Royal Engineers sent men to the Dardanelles while Burgoyne went to Paris, meeting the British Ambassador and the French Emperor. <hl> The Lord Cowley wrote on 8 February to Burgoyne "Your visit to Paris has produced a visible change in the Emperor's views, and he is making every preparation for a land expedition in case the last attempt at negotiation should break down.":411 <hl>

Britain was concerned about Russian activity and Sir John Burgoyne senior advisor to Lord Aberdeen urged that the Dardanelles should be occupied and throw up works of sufficient strength to block any Russian move to capture Constantinople and gain access to the Mediterranean Sea. The Corps of Royal Engineers sent men to the Dardanelles while Burgoyne went to Paris, meeting the British Ambassador and the French Emperor. The <hl> Lord Cowley <hl> wrote on 8 February to Burgoyne "Your visit to Paris has produced a visible change in the Emperor's views, and he is making every preparation for a land expedition in case the last attempt at negotiation should break down.":411

question: Who wrote to Burgoyne on February 8th?, context: Britain was concerned about Russian activity and Sir John Burgoyne senior advisor to Lord Aberdeen urged that the Dardanelles should be occupied and throw up works of sufficient strength to block any Russian move to capture Constantinople and gain access to the Mediterranean Sea. The Corps of Royal Engineers sent men to the Dardanelles while Burgoyne went to Paris, meeting the British Ambassador and the French Emperor. The Lord Cowley wrote on 8 February to Burgoyne "Your visit to Paris has produced a visible change in the Emperor's views, and he is making every preparation for a land expedition in case the last attempt at negotiation should break down.":411