Illustrated books

A unusual street name
leads us on an historical journey

© David Kidd 2006

Seventh Edition: 2012


13 Plevna Terrace, Bingley, West Yorkshire
England BD16 4BX

The Plevna Mystery

I grew up in Plevna Terrace in Bingley, England and, as children do, never thought about what Plevna meant, until by accident I came across it in an historical atlas. There it was on the map, in Bulgaria, near the Danube River. And it said there had been a battle there in 1877 in which the town was taken from the Turks by the Russians after a siege of 143 days. Since our house in Bingley was built in the Victorian period it seems our street was named after that battle. However, since it was a battle that did not involve Britain at all why was it so named?


Once I thought I'd found the answer in a television program about Catherine the Great. As ruler of Russia she was very into making a good impression on Europe, and thought it would be estimable to conquer Constantinople from the Moslems and restore it as Byzantium, the capital of the Orthodox Church. Catherine thought Europe would join her with great enthusiasm -- like a Christian crusade.
So I deduced our street was named Plevna Terrace: in honor of that Russian Crusade.


But with very little study I found that was not the case; I was quite a few generations off. Indeed Catherine did propose a war with Turkey, but the battle of Plevna was not until 81 years after her death.
The line of succession goes: Catherine II 1729-1796; Paul 1796-1801; Alexander I 1801-1825; Nicholas I 1825-1855; Alexander II 1855-8.
And by contrast the Columbia Encyclopedia says "The city is famous for its defense by the Turks against Russian and Romanian troops in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78."
But then why would a British street would be named after a failed Turkish defense?


FIrst I found a Turkish description of the battle:

"a handful of soldiers of a bedraggled army of Turks stopped cold the enormous forces of the Czar of Russia.... Pinned-down by a huge infantry surrounding them, being bombarded day and night by heavy artillery positions from all sides. They were cut off from all civilization.

"The first Russian-Romanian attack failed.... Europe was electrified by the news of Russian defeat at Plevna. People could hardly believe that the mighty hordes had been defeated by a handful of Turks. The name of Osman Pasha rang throughout the world.... The Czar gave orders for Plevna to be starved into submission. Thousands and thousands of fresh troops were brought to the scene for the purpose of encircling and blockading the little town. Days followed into weeks, weeks, into months. The siege continued. Food and fuel supplies quickly ran out in Plevna.... The living were forced to eat the soles of their shoes to stay alive."

Outnumbering the Turks almost 5 to 1, the Russian-Romanian forces the Turks back across the Vid and wounded Osman in the process. Osman Pasha surrendered his sword to the Romanian General Mihai Cerchez.

"On December 10 the last battle of Plevna occurred. Believing that Osman was dead and not just wounded, the grief-stricken Turkish soldiers were in disarray.... surrendered to the Russians. All Europe was entranced by the heroism of Osman Pasha and his men. All over the continent of Europe, especially in England, hundreds upon hundreds of newborn babes were named after the Turkish general: Osman Pasha the "Turkish Tiger, who tamed the Russian bear." <>

A Turkish version would obviously favor the Turkish side of the story, but I am sure that hundreds of English babies being named after Osman Pasha is a wild exaggeration?

One of our readers has, however, found a baby being named after Plevna: "My grandmother's cousin was named Plevna Mary Davies. She was born in Newcastle Emlyn, Carmarthenshire, Wales in the last quarter of 1883.


So I can understand that the Russians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Finns and Turks would honor their parts in the battle, but why did England commemorate it? For the Western powers contributed nothing but significantly benefited from this war.

So why was my home was named in honour of the Turks? Had the Russians had fallen out of favour since the passing of Catherine. Or was it partly named in favour of the Russians? I can hardly believe it was named with a double meaning. Can I sort this out: who was being honoured in the naming of Plevna Terrace in England? What quality of the battle was being commemorated by the naming of my home after it? Was it heroism?



For full Russian accounts of the Seige of Plevna see

In 1913 A. Hilliard Atteridge wrote in his book "Famous Modern Battles" that "Osman Pasha's defence of Plevna showed in the most striking way the value of improvised earthworks held by determined men armed with the new rifle ... It is strange how this confidence in bombardment lives on after a century of failures".

The map shows there were 3 Romanian divisions and only 2 Russian divisions. The battle started with 40,000 Russian troops, but they could not take the city and reinforcements were called in Romania brought 43,000 troups, More Russian reinforcements were brought in at later stages.

Romania entered the war only to gain its independence from the Ottoman Empire, until then Romania had been under Ottoman Empire suzerainty for over 200 years.

That the independence was not a gift to Romania out of the goodwill of the Western powers who contributed with nothing but significantly benefited from this war.

The independence was recognised due to the victories on the battle fields to which Romania significantly contributed.




July 20-December 10 1877

Turkish 45,000 troops killed, wounded or captured
Russian and Romanian 38,000 killed, wounded or captured

The siege had held up the main Russian advance into Bulgaria and captured the world's admiration.
Osman Pasha was tied down to Plevna by orders from the Sublime Porte in Constantinople.
Turkey recognised Romania's independence

Some of the 1200 power looms in Plevna cotton weaving mills, Finland


It seems as if both sides are proud of this massacre. I came across two places named after Plevna in honor of the Russian side

"Plevna Chapel on St Elijah's Square in Moscow, opened in 1882, commemorates the Russian soldiers who died in the Battle of Pleven."

"A large new factory building, completed in 1877, of the Finlayson & Co cotton mill in Tampere, Finland was named Plevna commemorating the battle and the Guard of Finland that took part on the Russian side."


Funny Street Names

I found that Bingley is not alone. In the rest of Britain I have so far found 18

Plevna Terrace, Great Yarmouth
Plevna Terrace, Sunderland, Durham
Plevna Terrace, Tywyn Wales
Pleva Terrace, Leeds,Yorkshire
Plevna Street, Poplar, London E14
Plevna Street, Hartlepool
Plevna Sreet, Leeds, Yorkhire
Plevna Street, Bolton, Lancs BL2 2BY
Plevna Road, Hampton Village, Middlesex
Plevna Road, Enfield, London
Plevna Road, Edmonton, London N9 0BU
Plevna Road, Richmond, London TW12
Plevna Road. Stoke Newington, Middlesex
Plevna Place, Alton, GU34 2DS
Plevna Park, Edmonton, London
Plevna Park, Falls, Belfast, N. Ireland
Plevna Crescent, S.Tottenham, London N15
Plevna Crescent, Stoke-Newington
Plevna Crescent, Haringey

In Romania there are so many "Strada Plevna" that you get 60 definite Google hits and 80 thousand possibles.

"There was a Plevna Terrace in Haworth, England, built in 1887 by a local quarryman. It seems to have always had the alternative name Stone Street but it was not until the 1960s that the Post Office decided on Stone Street. It is at the bottom of Cold Street just off Sun Street. The Plevna Terrace name is now largely forgotten but is preserved on this original date stone." ~ Steven Wood


I have found five Plevnas in the USA: Plevna Montana MT59344 population 138, Plevna Kansas KS67568 population 99, Plevna North Madison County AL, and Plevna in Missouri MO67568 population 0. In Canada there is a Plevna in Ontario KOH 2MO, population well over 200. In Australia a Plevna Court in Parkwood, Perth,

Why were they so named? It is possible some Plevnas were named by Bulgarians immigrants but all the explanations I've received tell otherwise:

The residents of Plevna, Reno County, Kansas, say their Plevna's founders were Germans and the town was first mentioned in 1879, so they leans towards the named-for-the-battle theory. Read more

In Canada in 1877 the town of Buckshot had to change its name but there was so much argument about it that a resident said this reminded him of the conflict in Plevna -- hence the name: Plevna Ontario

Some of the people of Plevna, North Madison County, Alabama have celebated leaving it with a tune. Listen here to SlipJig playing "Leaving Plevna" available at or iTtunes


Still my question remains unanswered: why this commemoration of a foreign war? Must we go further back in history to understand the circumstances? For the circumstances that brought about the situation in Plevna we must look back a long way.


How did the Turks get there? In 1300 The Turks were fleeing from the advance of the Mongols when they settled in Asia Minor. And when the Byzantine Empire fell they took Constantinople in 1453. By 1541 they had conquered Hungary and by 1683 had conquered nearly all the land surrounding the Black Sea. The Russo-Turkish border then lay by the Dnieper river in the Ukraine. However the Ottoman Empire then began to decline. Here we go back to Catherine the Great when in 1770 with the aid of English officers her fleet defeated the Turks to conquer the Black Sea, determining Turkey's decline as "the sick man of the Bosphorus". In 1783 Russia annexed the Crimea and Potemkin developed the "New Russia" there, and soon took the entire Northern coast of the Black Sea as Russian, and so it remains to this day.


26,000 British
90,000 French
35,000 Turkish
2,050 Sardinian
killed, wounded and died of disease
100,000 Russian


In 1853 Russia wanted to push further South but by this time England had switched sides. In the 1840s Palmerston and other British leaders expressed fears of Russian encroachment upon its Empire in India and Afghanistan, and advocated finding an opportunity to weaken this threat.

Britain had opposed Russia occupying Constantinople as it feared this would lead to Russia dominating the Near East.

When the Tsar sent his troops into the "Danubian Principalities" the United Kingdom, seeking to maintain the security of the Ottoman Empire, sent a fleet to the Dardanelles, where it was joined by another fleet sent by France. At the same time, however, the European powers hoped for a diplomatic compromise. The representatives of the four neutral Great Powers - United Kingdom, France, Austria and Prussia - met in Vienna, where they drafted a note which they hoped would be acceptable to Russia and Turkey.. [but they did not agree]. The United Kingdom and France set aside the idea of continuing negotiations, but Austria and Prussia wanted to continue the diplomatic process. [Although Austria did not declare war it refused to guarantee its neutrality. Russia feared that Austria would enter the war] The Sultan declared war, his armies attacking the Russian army near the Danube. Russia responded with warships, destroyed the entire Ottoman fleet, thereby making it possible for Russia to land and supply its forces on the Turkish shores fairly easily. The destruction of the Turkish fleet and the threat of Russian expansion alarmed both the United Kingdom and France, who stepped forth in defence of the Ottoman Empire. In 1854, after Russia ignored an Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw from the Danubian principalities, the United Kingdom and France declared war.<>

Austria occupied the Danubian principalities. In 1854 British and French Solders landed in the Crimea: siege of Sebastapol [home of the Tsar's Black Sea fleet]. An Allied victory but losses of 150,000 men owing to cholera and the winter cold. 1856 Peace of Paris: Russia lost the Danube Delta, the Black Sea was neutralized, and a European protectorate of Turkish Christians with a guarantee of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire and Danubian Principalities. <The Anchor Atlas of World History p.69>


Crimea showed that Britain lacked an experienced land army. .... During the war, over 26,000 British troops were estimated to have been killed. The result was inconclusive, and... the only major result of the war was to forestall the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire for several decades more. The Crimean War revealed Britain to be an economic and social power, but a rather weak military power...... Thus, after the Crimean debacle, Britain avoided major military engagements with the major powers, relying instead on the strategies of balance of power and spheres of influence to exert her global geopolitical power and influence.... The period that resulted was termed the era of "splendid isolation" wherein Britain avoided major conflicts.


Russia lost prestige as a result of defeat in the 1854-56 Crimean War.... and resented restrictions on movements in the Black Sea, which were part of the 1856 treaty... Russia wanted to send warships through the Bosphorus.... Russia regarded itself as leader of the Pan-Slav movement and thought it had a mission to liberate Balkan Christians from Ottoman oppression.


Finally I stumbled across the historical connection with England:

About 1875 he party "Young Turkey" was formed desirous of reforming the empire on the European model. Two sultans, Abdul-Aziz and Murad, were successively deposed. A new sultan, Abdul-Hamid, proclaimed a constitution resembling the European with a parliament and responsible ministers on 23 Dec 1876; but the reforming grand vizier Midhat Pasha was strangled, and the opening of parliament was no more than a comedy. Europe decided to act, and in 1877 Russia took the lead and sent an army across the Balkans, after the difficult siege of Plevna, and would have entered Constantinople had it not been for the intervention of the English fleet.

So there we have British participation at last, it was the British Navy not the Army who makes our link with Plevna.


The siege had held up the main Russian advance into Bulgaria and captured the world's admiration. The fall of Pleven freed up Russian reinforcements... who decisively defeated the Turks in the fourth battle of Shipka Pass....began to move southeast towards Constantinople. Blocking the route was the Turkish fortress at Plovdiv under Suleiman Pasha. On January 17, 1878 Gourko stormed the city. The defenses of Plovdiv were strong but superior Russian numbers overwhelmed the defenses and the Turks retreated almost to Constantinople. At this time foreign powers intervened and Russia agreed to the Treaty of San Stefano. <>


Founded 660 BC as Byzantium [Gk Byzantion]. Renamed Constantinople in 330AD after Emperor Constantine. He had named it Nova Roma, as the new capital of the Roman Empire, but that never came into common use. Sacked by 4th Crusaders in 1204. Re-captured by Nicaean forces 1261. Taken by Turks in 1453. The Ottoman Turks in common usage called the city Stamboul or Istanbul (Turkish: stanbul; contraction of the city's previous Greek name Constantinople, or from the Greek "eis tin poli" (to the city), but still officially used "Constantinople". In 1923 the capital of Turkey was moved East to Ankara. In 1930 Constantinople was officially renamed Istanbul.


Today Plevna is spelled Pleven by the Bulgarians. Plevna was the Russian spelling. It was only a village at the time of the siege but it now has a population of 138,000.
I wonder do they have any funny street names there? Bingley Terrace perhaps.

Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke was an English Liberal Member of Parliament [Chelsea] and reformist politician. Despite being imperialist he was a radical within the party, accomplishing franchise for women, legalizing labour unions, improving working conditions, and pushing for universal schooling.

The Situation in England


Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke, Liberal, was notably a Phil-Hellene, who "dreamed of a new Greece"--a "force of the future instead of a force of the past; a force of trade instead of a force of war; European instead of Asiatic; intensely independent, democratic, maritime." Here, and not in any Slavonic State, did he see the rightful successors to the Ottoman dominion.

" May, 1876, after disturbances in Bulgaria had been repressed with appalling [Turkish] ferocity, Mr. Disraeli's Cabinet positively refused to join in a demand for certain reforms to be carried out by Turkey under European supervision... Our Government had refused to sign the Berlin Memorandum on account of a reference in it to the possible need of taking "efficacious measures" to secure good government in Turkey... Meanwhile Servia and Montenegro, feudatory States of the Porte, had gone to war with their overlord; and in order to induce the Turks to grant an armistice, Russia and Austria proposed to England a joint naval demonstration, carried out in the name of Europe, by England and France... Further, at the same moment England again separated herself from the other powers by sending an Ambassador - Mr. Layard - to Constantinople... The effect was to encourage Turkey to count on English support, and Russia, unable to secure concerted action, declared war single-handed. CW Dilke.

Sir Charles himself was in a great difficulty, being as he says, "anti- Russian without being for that pro-Turk." Sharing to the full the general detestation of these massacres, of which the earliest complete exposure had been made public by him, he held that there ought to be armed intervention. But he knew too much of Russia's action in conquered provinces to feel that the matter could be settled satisfactorily by allowing Russian influence to replace Turkish control. "The world could not afford to see 120,000,000 of Slavs united under the sceptre of an absolute despot, holding at Constantinople the strongest position in all Europe, stretching from the Adriatic to Kamskatka and the Behring Straits, and holding in Corea the strongest position in the Pacific." Then he recalled the record of "that Power with which the Liberals of England were to strike alliance--an absolute autocracy of the purest type, the Power which crushed Poland, the Power which crushed Hungary for Austria." And by what methods! The long story of violation "both of the public and the moral law".
"the House regretted the failure of the policy of the Government either to improve the position of Christian subjects of the Porte or to avert war." CW Dilke.
<The Life of the Rt. Hon. Sir Charles W Dilke VI by Stephen Gwynn chapter XIV>



The British Prime Minister 1874-1880 was Benjamin Disraeli, a Conservative. Unlike William Gladstone, Disraeli got on very well with Queen Victoria and she made him a Lord. She approved of Disraeli's imperialist views and his desire to make Britain the most powerful nation in the world. At the Congress of Berlin in 1878 Disraeli gained great acclaim for his success in limiting Russia's power in the Balkans. <>

A diary about Queen Victoria mentions that "In September, when the war between Russia and Turkey was raging, her Majesty, Princess Beatrice, the Duchess of Roxburgh, &c., spent a week at Loch Maree Hotel, enjoying the fine Ross-shire scenery, making daily peaceful excursions, to which such a telegram as told of the bombardment of Plevna must have been a curious accompaniment." Life of Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen, (Victoria) Vol II
by Sarah Tytler

Reports reached London that ... the road to Constantinople was wide open. Disraeli again fumed and stormed while Queen Victoria swamped him with a deluge of almost hysterical letters demanding immediate action. "There is not a moment to be lost or the whole of our policy of centuries, of our honour as a great European Power, will have received an irreparable blow! . . . Oh, if the Queen were a man, she would like to go and give those Russians, whose word one cannot believe, such a beating! We shall never be friends again till we have it out This the Queen feels sure of." Even Disraeli was moved to remark, "It is something to serve such a sovereign."


"The very phrase 'foreign affairs' makes an Englishman convinced that I am about to treat of subjects with which he has no concern." Benjamin Disraeli

"You all seem to me to be living in Drowsy Hollow, while Dizzy is consulting his imagination, and Hartington politely bowing" CW Dilke.
"Disraeli was his own Foreign Secretary" CW Dilke.



Early in September, 1876, public indignation was set ablaze by Mr. Gladstone's famous pamphlet, which demanded that the Turk should clear out of Bulgaria, "bag and baggage." Dilke wrote that "Foreign affairs had suddenly risen out of complete obscurity into a position in which they overshadowed all other things, and left home politics in stagnation.... These complications were destined to bring Mr. Gladstone back into an activity not merely unimpaired, but redoubled, and to shake the power of Mr. Disraeli to its fall... In 1878, William Ewart Gladstone [born in Liverpool] came out of retirement to reclaim the leadership of the Liberal party and unleash a lethal rhetorical assault against his archrival, Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. In a series of marathon speeches to crowds numbering in the tens of thousands, Gladstone eviscerated Disraelian foreign policy as a disastrous mixture of vainglorious imperialism, cynical realpolitik and fiscal improvidence. His speech of Nov. 27, 1879, in which he set out his principles of foreign policy, reads amazingly well today [2006, in opposition to George W Bush in Iraq] "The first thing," he argued, "is to foster the strength of the empire by just legislation and economy at home."



Early in May 1876, a revolt against Turkish rule began in Panagyurishte in Bulgaria. The Turks responded with vicious reprisals in which many Bulgarian men, women and children died...between 10,000 and 25,000. When news of these events arrived in London, the Conservative Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, reacted by casting doubt on the accuracy of the reports, contemptuously describing them as 'coffee-house babble'... As the Eastern Question Association organised hundreds of meetings, condemning both the atrocities themselves and the government's refusal to condemn them, Disraeli remained unmoved. 'Our duty at this critical moment,' he said in August, 'is to maintain the Empire of England.'

In contrast, the Liberal Leader W.E. Gladstone's sense of moral indignation went into overdrive. Infuriated as much by Disraeli's failure to take the issue seriously as by the Turks' atrocities, the Grand Old Man emerged from the semi-retirement into which he had withdrawn .

Disraeli and Gladstone were both politicians of extraordinary ability - but their personalities clashed and they heartily loathed each other.

"The difference between a misfortune and a calamity is this: If Gladstone fell into the Thames, that would be a misfortune; and if anybody pulled him out, that I suppose would be a calamity" Benjamin Disraeli



January 5 Battle of Shipka Pass IV.
January 17 Battle of Plovdiv.
January 23 Disraeli orders British fleet to the Dardanelles. The foreign minister, Lord Derby resigned in protest. Then, in anticlimactic fashion, the order was recalled upon the receipt of reassuring reports, which later proved to be completely erroneous.
January 31 - Turkey agrees to armistice at Adrianople agreeing to let Russia occupy Turkish territory almost to the outskirts of Constantinople. The British were not informed of this provision, so that war fever mounted once more as the Russians drew closer to the capital.

On February 12 Disraeli again ordered the fleet to steam to Constantinople. This time the orders were carried out, though, on the request of the sultan, the ships anchored on the Asiatic side of the Sea of Marmora; Thus Russian soldiers were quartered at San Stefano, ten miles from Constantinople, while British warships rode at anchor across the Straits less than fifty miles away. Peace hung in the balance in this precarious manner until finally the Turks and the Russians signed the Treaty of San Stefano on March 3, 1878.

Schouvalof, the Russian Ambassador, had on March 4th summed up the
situation in an epigram:
"England has challenged Russia to a duel, and has chosen for her weapon swords at fifteen paces" (l'epee a quinze pas).




sheet music

The full score can also be viewed online






This map showing the shrinking borders of the Ottoman Empire is available on the Web through the generosity of the Perry-Castaneda Library Map Collection, at the University of Texas in Austin. The source page has a URL of


The attitude of some of the British people of this period cannot better be expressed than by the "Macdermott's War Song" written and composed by GW Hunt in 1878 and performed by "The Great" GH Macdermott at the London Pavillion. Listen here to the tune of the chorus:


The "Dogs of War" are loose and the rugged Russian Bear,
All bent on blood and robbery has crawled out of his lair.
It seems a thrashing now and then, will never help to tame
That brute, and so he's out upon the "same old game"
The Lion did his best... to find him some excuse.
To crawl back to his den again. All efforts were no use.
He hunger'd for his victim. He's pleased when blood is shed.
But let us hope his crimes may all recoil on his own head.

     We don't want to fight but by jingo if we do.
     We've got the ships, we've got the men, and got the money too!
     We've fought the Bear before... and while we're Britons true,
     The Russians shall not have Constantinople.

The Turk has got his faults, of crime he bears the taint,
The Russian like sly Reynard, pretends to be a saint,
'Tis all for Christianity the heathen Turk he'll fight,
Altho' when told, and pretty plain, two wrongs don't make a right;
As peacemaker Old England her very utmost tried,
The Russians said they wanted peace, but then those Russians lied,
Of carnage and trickery they'll have sufficient feast
Ere they dare to think of coming near our Road unto the East.

     We don't want to fight but by jingo if we do.
     We've got the ships, we've got the men, and got the money too!
     We've fought the Bear before... and while we're Britons true,
     The Russians shall not have Constantinople.

The misdeeds of the Turks have been "spouted" through all lands,
But how about the Russians, can they show spotless hands?
They slaughtered well at Khiva, in Siberia icy cold.
How many subjects done to death we'll ne'er perhaps be told.
They butchered the Circassians, man, woman yes and child.
With cruelties their Generals their murderous hours beguiled,
And poor unhappy Poland their cruel yoke must bear,
While prayers for "Freedom and Revenge" go up into the air.

     We don't want to fight but by jingo if we do.
     We've got the ships, we've got the men, and got the money too!
     We've fought the Bear before... and while we're Britons true,
     The Russians shall not have Constantinople.

May he who 'gan the quarrel soon have to bite the dust.
The Turk should be thrice armed for "he hath his quarrel just."
'Tis said that countless thousands should die through cruel war,
But let us hope most fervently ere long it shall be o'er.
Let them be warned: Old England is brave Old England still.
We've proved our might, we've claimed our right, and ever, ever will.
Should we have to draw the sword our way to victory we'll forge,
With the Battle cry of Britons, "Old England and St George!"

     We don't want to fight but by jingo if we do.
     We've got the ships, we've got the men, and got the money too!
     We've fought the Bear before... and while we're Britons true,
     The Russians shall not have Constantinople.

Verse 1 3 and 4 from Aline Waites and Robin Hunter, The Illustrated Victorian Songbook, Michael Joseph Ltd., London, 1984; pp. 180-184. The second verse is from Forbes Stuart's Stries of Britain in Song (Longman Young Books, 1972, pp. 198-201.

The full score is online at <>

Music-hall singer GH "the Great" Macdermott found this piece immensely popular at the London Pavilion. It became a rallying-cry among those who supported British military action against Russia in 1878. It was said thet the song was inspired by the sending of the British fleet to Turkish waters to block Russia's advance.

George J. Holyoake


The term Jingoes was coined by G. J. Holyoake : "One Sunday afternoon [March 10, 1878] a meeting was held in Hyde Park in support of Mr. Gladstone's [Liberal] policy on the Eastern Question.... and a conflict ensued.... Afterwards a portion of the assembly set out to Harley Street, and broke Mr. Gladstone's windows....I entitled my letter to the Daily News "The Jingoes in the Park."... I had certainly intended to mark, by a convenient name, a new species of patriots who... had begun to infest public meetings.... Their characteristic was a war-urging pretentiousness which discredited the silent, resolute, self-defensiveness of the British people.... The Irish World (March 30, 1878), of New York, gave a cartoon, in which the British Lion, with a knife and pistol in his belt, a revolver in one hand, and a waving Union Jack in the other, is calling upon the Jingoes in the park to follow him to demolish Mr. Gladstone's house....The Jingoes are mainly the habitués of the turf, the tap-room, and the low music halls, whose inspiration is beer, whose politics are swagger, and whose policy is insult to foreign nations." G. J. Holyoake. <>


The earliest written instances of "jingo" (around 1670) report it as a exclamation routinely used by conjurors who shouted "Hey jingo!" when making an object appear (as opposed to "Hey presto!" when they made something vanish). "Jingo" probably arose as a euphemism for "Jesus," [or St. Gingoulph]... The expression "By jingo!" was very popular from the 17th through the 19th centuries. <>



Another critic of the Jingoes was W. T. Stead, Editor of the Darlington Northern Echo and the Pall Mall Gazette, and founder of The Review of Reviews, who had a pro-Russian stance. "It was during the war, while Plevna was still standing... I had been urging my countrymen daily for a year past to do, in concert with Russia, what her countrymen, at infinite sacrifice of blood and treasure, were now doing alone.... We had one object-the liberation of the Slavs, and one formula by which it was to be obtained-the establishment of good relations between Russia and England. In the face of a public already in the full fierce flush of the Jingo delirium we raised together the banner of the Anglo-Russian alliance, and under that flag we have fought together as comrades wherever and whenever a blow could be struck in the good cause.... I remember as late as Christmas, 1877, being assured... that all fear of English intervention, even to save Constantinople, was entirely out of the question.... Alas, less than two months after that conversation... Lord Derby resigned as a protest against the burlesque Chinoiserie of bringing the Sepoys to Malta, all but the most persistent optimists despaired of peace." <>

Bismarck and Disraeli
at the Congress of Berlin


"... At the beginning of 1878 Parliament was summoned a month earlier than usual to tranquilize public feeling--a result not thereby attained, for the Russians, now completely victorious, were but a short distance from Constantinople."CW Dilke.
"Were the choice between Russia at Constantinople and Turkey at Constantinople, I should prefer the latter. The Turkish is in ordinary times a less stifling despotism than the Russian.... The Turks let any man go to any church and read any book, the Russians do not, and in such a position of power as Constantinople I should prefer the Turk if, as I do not think, the choice lay only there.' CW Dilke.
"The Queen's Speech was neither of war nor of peace, but of perplexity and division, and gravely informed us that poor Turkey had not interfered with British interests. The discourses of the Ministers were peaceful in the Lower House, and warlike in the Upper.


British preparations for war pressed on until:
March 3 - The Treaty of San Stefano concludes the Russo-Turkish War
March 25 - Russia rejects British proposal to lay San Stefano treaty before European congress.
March 27 - In anticipation with war with Russia, Disraeli mobilizes the reserves and calls up Indian troops to Malta.
The question of employing the Indian troops was debated on May 20th, 1878


But 'At the end of the month (May) the secret agreement was signed with Russia, and revealed to us by the Globe. May 31st... it then appeared that the military preparations of the country must have been intended to keep up the spirits of the Jingoes while their cherished principles were being sacrificed behind their backs. The Daily Telegraph, which was the Jingo organ, said: "If such a compact has been concluded, this country has fatally descended from the lofty position occupied by the Salisbury despatch." What the Government had done was to give up all the points for which they had made their enthusiastic followers believe that they would fight, and at the same time in the Anglo-Turkish Convention to declare that their successors should fight for what was left. This may have been a prudent policy, but it was not a policy which carried with it the necessity for bringing Indian troops to Europe or spending eight or nine millions sterling upon apparent preparations for immediate war.' CW Dilke. < The Life of the Rt. Hon. Sir Charles W Dilke VI, by Stephen Gwynn chapter XVI>

Due to British pressure and a British threat of war against Russia, the Congress of Berlin was convened:
July 13 - The Treaty of Berlin makes Serbia, Montenegro and Romania completely independent.

Plevna March was written ca.1910 to commemorate Osman Pasha, who led Ottoman troops in the Siege of Plevna.


Sir C. W. Dilke wrote "Those who supported Mr. Gladstone identified themselves unreservedly with the Slav as against the Turk. But by others the demand for ejection of the Turk, "bag and baggage," from Bulgaria was construed as an invitation for Russia to seize Constantinople, and thus as a direct infringement of British interests in Egypt and the Mediterranean. Lord Beaconsfield skillfully played upon this feeling, and there ensued a condition of affairs in which Mr. Gladstone made triumphal progresses through the north of England, and was hooted weekly in the streets of London".

But was the public attitude ambiguous in the North of England where my Plevna Terrace was named? Was it named by anti-Turkish Liberals, or anti-Russian Liberals, or was it named by anti-Russian Conservatives? Or was it named by Jingoes who just wanted to go to war, in "the old facing-both-ways style"?

Or should we look at it a better way? Did the battle not conclude in favour of the Bulgarians, Rumanians and Greeks? For in retrospect it seems the British Government did not really want to give aid to either of the warring sides.

"The real cry for the country is not sympathy with Russia, still less with Turkey, but complete freedom for the Slav and Hellenic nationalities." Randolph Churchill, Feb 7th 1878.


Imagine building something as big as an ocean liner and deciding what to name it. That's not something taken lightly. Not a casual affair. It's just like that with a street, and a street name may last for many hundreds of years.


In conclusion the multiple meanings of the Plevna incident are so contradictory that I can't see why anyone would want to name another place after it. But they did so in at least twenty-two locations, so we may think of it as if there are enough Plevnas around the world to memorialize all aspects of that crisis in history.

Of these places called Plevna it seems to me that they may have been named pro-Russia in 1877 before opinion turned against Russia in 1888. They were named in praise of Russia liberating Bulgarian Christians oppressed by the Turks. And it is recorded that this pro-Russian attitude persisted in many Liberal followers of Gladstone although Sir CW Dilke was for Turkey ruling Constantinople.

However when popular opinion became unhappy about the idea of Russia taking Constantinope it may be that some pro-Russian namers were embarassed and regreted their choice. Or perhaps they stuck fast to their selection to express that their approval of Russian action went as far as Plevna but not as far as Constantinople.

But look at another way, if they were named after 1878, then the Plevna sentiment must have been pro-Turkish, for England had virtually declared war on Russia. So should we just go with Disraeli and Queen Victoria and the Jingoes and go for pro-Turkish Plevna Terrace despite the Turkish attrocities?


No, I'm sorry, I still don't get it. I can't figure it out which side my Plevna Terrace was celebrating in its name. Perhaps it was left ambivalent, so that whether the homeowners were Liberal or Conservative they could memorialize whichever they wanted.



My conclusion is that Plevna was just famous: the newspapers were full of it because it was such a bloody siege. Hence Plevna became a nick-name for any place where there was a protracted jingoistic confllct.

The Danube is the key to Britain's involvement. Russia's goal was obviously to annex Istanbul and control the Black Sea. All of Europe opposed that. Particularly Austria because the Danube's Estury is in the Black Sea, therefore Austria's only access to international trade via the Atlantic is to sail through Istanbul. Britain was involved for wasn't Queen Victoria related to the King of Austria, the Hapsburgs?
Also Hungary's ocean access could be blocked by Istanbul. Russia could then in effect lay siege to Austria and Hungary and conquer them. Because "Britania Rules the Waves" they took action the year after Plevna, in 1878, "The Russian shall not have Constantinople" jingoistic period. "England has challenged Russia to a duel" The naming of town and streets may not have happened until after the Brits stopped the war, but the war was famous for Plevna. Lucky my street wasn't named Constantinople Terrace!

These two maps are from Ordnance Survey Get-a-map service <> and <> and reproduced with permission of aOrdnance Survey <>

This 1852 map of Bingley, Yorkshire shows an un-named road where Plevna Terrace was later built.




I'd really appreciate hearing your comments:
please Email to:

I read with interest your webpage about the battle of Plevna. It definitely rang a bell with me. I was born in Romania, the war is a history subject in the secondary school curriculum and the Plevna battle is learned by every school kid in Romania. The war and its battles are present in poems and other works of art by some of the most important Romanian artists from the last quarter of the 19 century.
I urge you to modify your story to include that the Romanian contribution to this war was comparable with the Russian contribution .... Romania entered the war only to gain its independence from the Ottoman Empire and its contribution. This battle in Romania is called the "War for Independence (1877-1878)" for Romania had been under Ottoman Empire suzerainty for over 200 years.
... you make it sound that the attackers were somehow backward and incompetent, and this is why the Turks could resist the siege so long, but you don't mention the terrain around Plevna and all the other powerful fortifications and redoubts around Plevna that had to be taken one by one in order to completely encircle the city. ... The importance of the Romanian contribution cannot be better expressed but by the fact that Osman Pasha himself surrendered his sword to a Romanian General (Mihai Cerchez), not to a Russian.
~ Sorin, Adelaide, May 201
"Thanks Sorin,I appreciate your care in sending this informantion, I hope I have fixed my webpage now." ~ David

"I have just come across your website The Plevna mystery. I was born and grew up in Leeds and I was reminiscing about those times and I remembered an area near the school I attended called the "Plevnas". I was curious about the name, Googled it and came across your article. I left Leeds in the 60's but as far as I know there are still two Plevnas, Plevna Street and Plevna Terrace. I enjoyed your article. Thank you.
- Keith Walker
"I found your page on Plevna interesting. I grew up in Plevna Ontario. My understanding of the name is that at the time a name was being chosen for my village, there was a great deal of conflict. A comment was made that it was similar to the conflict in Plevna which was headline news at that time. Hence the name.
- Judy Whitefield


"I have just read your piece on Plevna. There is a village a couple of miles from here called Middlecliffe but the locals have always called it Plevna. Last night in the pub one of the wise old men said it was "something to do with the Crimean War" ... The same old sage says it is actually called Plevna on older maps.
- Tom Valentine
  "Thank you for such a great web page. I too was looking for why my great-grandfather's house was named 'Plevna'. Thomas Gosling lived at 'Plevna', 8 Victoria Road, Colchester, Essex from about the 1920's. I have yet to find out when the house was built.
- Jennifer
  "Just wanted you to know there is a Plevna in north Madison County, Alabama USA, near where we live. My husband is in a local Celtic band, and a bandmember has written a tune he entitled "Leaving Plevna". This prompted me to research the origins of the name and the existence of other Plevnas. So thank you for your diligent inquiry and thoughts on the subject.

Osman Nuri Pasha, 1832 –1900

"I was delighted to read your page. Only a couple of weeks ago I spent a week in Bulgaria, especially in Pleven, as it is called today. We Finns celebrated the 130th anniversary of battle of Gorni Dubnik where a Finnish battallion, including my grandfather, fought. I ran into your homepage via the Crimean War Society's discussion group ...
- In Tampere there is a restaurant called Plevna. It is possible that Finlaysons building was called so - another thought is that many of the workers joined the Finnish battallion.
- Our national hero, Fieldmarshall Mannerheim was approx 8 yr old when Plevna surrended. He was, as many Finns, a great admirer of Osman Pasha. Mannerheim ran out into a park, threw himself onto the ground and cried bitterly.
- The support of the Russians was not so great here in Finland in the 1800-hundreds (not even now) and every opportunity was taken to show it.
- Pehr-Erik Nyman

You can find a pretty full account of the siege of Plevna in A. Hilliard Atteridge's book "Famous Modern Battles", published 1913 ... "Osman Pasha's defence of Plevna showed in the most striking way the value of improvised earthworks held by determined men armed with the new rifle". The chapter remarks on the ineffectiveness of artillery against such positions: "It is strange how this confidence in bombardment lives on after a century of failures". In other words, this was a first preview of The Western Front in World War I, and it shows how generals should have been a lot more prepared for such warfare.
- Richard Jerram


My grandmother's cousin was named Plevna Mary Davies. She was born in Carmarthenshire, Wales in the last quarter of 1883. [General Register Office Births: Newcastle Emlyn 11b 18]. The family migrated to the US five years later and settled near Pittsburgh, PA. Interestingly, although I remember my grandmother and her siblings always referring to "Plevna", all the US records have her name as "Plevinah" ! Was she named after the battle? Why would you give that name to a girl? Another mystery that may never be solved!
-Clive Ball.

General Skobelev 1843-1882

My name is Borislav and I am from the town of Pleven in Bulgaria where the famous battle took place many ears ago. I read your article and was fascinated to hear the story "from the other point of view" . I have always been listeningabout the four great battles that were led to conquer my hometown, but from the "Russian" point of view.

About the very loved General Skobelev, known also as "the white general", who was always in white clothes and riding a white horse in front of the battle and who never gets hit by bullets! But who also lost 12814 in the third battle for Pleven, while the opposite side lost about 3000.

You must know, though, that even though Suleiman Pasha was a very heroic general (according to my opinion that's totally true, even though nobody mentions that around) he was not helpless in Pleven! He was only helpless for several days in the beginning. The Russians decided to surprise the Turks and attack Pleven, because their spies told them that there is nobody there! But until the Russian armies moved, Osman Pasha was already there and succeeded to stop the Russians for several days. So the surprise didn't happen. But after those several days, both armies got huge reinforcements! So the task was not anymore "conquer a small town". Three major battles, unsuccessful for the Russians, for five months, prove that.

Then in October came General Eduard Totleben who was an engineer! And decided to stop the water supplies of the town . And also conquered the area which was used as a canal for army supplies in a village near Pleven. But no water, also means no bread in this area (we don't have windmills as the Dutch). Watermills don't work without water and food preparation became much more difficult ... so slowly, but surely, the Turkish army became doomed in this place. So ... this is how the story sounds "from the other point of view". Thank you for going so deep in this story.

And as a final thing ... you very well made the connection "fight for Pleven slowed down the Russian forces until the British Navy comes around and stops them from taking Constantinopol, this is why Pleven was famous and important for Britain"! But I wanted to also add a little spice to this finish. What does it really mean "to slow down the army"? Until when was it slowed down? The month of December ... Usually you start war in Spring ... it was the middle of the Summer when the Russians were in Pleven. They knew, that after Pleven, you must go through the Balkan Mountains ... That is why they were kinda in a hurry ... It is not a very high mountain ... but it is a complete one with all of its attributes! So ... you can go through it in the Summer, but during December ... ? A lot of casualties were given during the winter passing of the mountain! There is a picture in the Pleven Panorama with soldiers, pushing horses and huge steel cannons up the mountain, being in snow up to their chests, which can help you imagine better the situation. So when the Russian army reached the Bosphorus it was already very weakened! Who knows ... maybe if they weren't slowed down so much in Pleven and didn't lose so many soldiers in the winter passing, they could probably oppose even Britain at the time? So in short - slowing down at Pleven has two benefits for the Turks - first the British Navy came and second the Russians lost a lot of resources in the "winter passing of the mountain" :

Thank you again for your wonderful article and hope not to bore you with my additional explanations,
Greetings, Borislav,
February 2016.

General Eduard Totlebe

Detail of the Panorama "Pleven Epopee 1877"

Goldenaer A village's history:
Exley Head
The family name
Kidd in Craven
A tune's history
''Captain Kidd''

The Siege of
Plevna 1877-78
Goldenaer Productions

Copyright © Goldenaer Productions and ©